ALBERT R. MANN 
 LIBRARY 
 
 AT 
 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
Cornell University Library 
 BF 371.L8 
 
 Memory and the learning process, 
 
 3 1924 014 104 610 
 
«| Cornell University 
 B Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924014104610 
 
MEMORY AND THE LEARNING PROCESS 
 
MEMORY AND THE LEARNING 
 
 PROCESS 
 
 By 
 
 DARWIN OLIVER LYON 
 
 Late Fellow in Psychology , Columbia University 
 
 BALTIMORE 
 
 WARWICK & YORK, Inc. 
 
 1917 
 
Copyright. 1917 
 WARWICK & YORK. Inc. 
 
TO 
 
 D. H. M. 
 
 IN MEMORY OF BAR HARBOR DAYS 
 
COIS'TEKTS. 
 
 Preface , 
 
 Introduction . 
 
 Chapter I. 
 On the Forms of Mental Activity Included Under "Memory" ... 13 
 
 CHAPrBR II. 
 
 The Sub-Divisions of Memory in General, with Special Refer- 
 ence to Their Relations to the Learning Process 32 
 
 Chaptee III. 
 
 The Relation of Length of Material to Time Taken for Learning 
 and the Optimum Distribution of Time 47 
 
 Chapter IV. 
 The Relation of Quickness of Learning to Retentiveness 75 
 
 Chapter V. 
 
 The Educational Value of Psychological ; v'l with Special 
 
 Reference to Economy in Learning ',>'■,•■'• if^or nic Systems. . 155 
 
 Appendices '. "^i^^ 172 
 
 Plates Pocket in cover 
 
PREFACE.* 
 
 The present work is the outgrowth of experiments on mem- 
 ory that I have been conducting since the year 1906. The first 
 experiments performed were somewhat limited in character, 
 being made solely with the view of ascertaining the relation 
 existing between facility of learning and tenacity of impres- 
 sion. Whenever publishing brief abstracts of the work as it 
 progressed, the title chosen as being the most appropriate was 
 "The Relation of Quickness of Learning to Retentiveness." 
 As the experimental work progressed, the method used became 
 more elaborate, with the result that, though the relationship 
 in question was never lost sight of, the data obtained were so 
 extensive as to make the old title seem almost inappropriate. 
 In a somewhat condensed form the results of these experi- 
 ments, where they refer to the problem in question, are placed 
 in Chapter IV. In a more complete form they constitute No. 
 34 of the Columbia University Archives of Psychology, Vol. V. 
 
 In 1908 experiments were started on The Relation of Length 
 of Material to Time Taken for Learning. Two methods, or 
 distributions of time were used and thus there was added an 
 extra problem — a problem that we might call the Optimum 
 Distribution of Time. The results of these experiments have 
 been published in The Journal of Educational Psychology, 
 Vol. V, Nos. 1, 2, and 3. In a slightly more condensed form 
 they constitute Chapter III of the present volume. 
 
 The larger parts of Chapters III and IV are confined to the 
 examination of data obtained by experiment, and can be of 
 but little interest to any but the student in experimental psy- 
 chology. Chapters I and II are also somewhat technical in 
 character, so that, apart from Chapter V, this book can be 
 of but little interest to the ordinary public. 
 
 *This work was anuounced in 1914, shortly before the war, but its publica- 
 tion delayed until now because of the loss, in Germany, of the original manu- 
 script. 
 
 1 
 
2 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 Generally speaking, Education has use for Psychology only 
 in so far as the latter may be of assistance in laying down 
 rules for study. Education demands of Psychology that it 
 show us how our various mental activities may best be de- 
 veloped, how to recognize and use our dominant form of 
 imagery, what form of imagery to select under certain con- 
 ditions and depending upon the object in view, how good 
 habits of study may best be acquired, and how labor-saving 
 devices — in so far as the mind is concerned — may best be 
 disclosed and developed. 
 
 We do not presume to say that this book is an answer to 
 such questions as these. Psychology is as yet unable to formu- 
 late definite rules on problems so complex. We merely pre- 
 tend to discuss the learning process from an educational point 
 of view, and trust, at the same time, that the conclusions we 
 have drawn from the various experimental data may be of 
 some practical use to the teacher. 
 
 Acknowledgments are due to Professors Cattell, Wood- 
 worth, and Meumann for the numerous suggestions given me 
 in the treatment of the results. 
 
 Many of the experiments were performed on pathological 
 subjects for purposes of comparison with the normal. In 
 this connection I gratefully acknowledge thanks to the follow- 
 ing for permissions and privileges granted: — Joseph F. 
 Scott, Superintendent of New York State Beformatories and 
 Prisons; Hon. John J. Barry, Commissioner of Correction 
 of the City of New York ; Dr. C. Macfie Campbell of Blooming- 
 dale Hospital, White Plams; Dr. Frederick L. Wells of 
 McLean Hospital, Waverley, Mass.; Dr. August Hoch, 
 Director of the Psychiatric Institute on Wards Island. 
 
INTEODUCTION. 
 
 The ever-increasing appearance of popular articles on 
 topics supposedly relegated to the psychologist testifies prob- 
 ably more than anything elsie to the general interest taken in 
 psychological matters wherever it is thought that any prac- 
 tical advantage may result therefrom. This is especially true 
 of MEMORY, and the interest with which the layman reads 
 articles on this subject is but proof of the fact that it is still 
 felt some royal road to knowledge may still be found — some 
 mysterious method by which a thing once heard shall be for- 
 ever remembered. It might be supposed that in the field of 
 memory — a field so admirably open to experimental research 
 — the psychologist would hold full sway, but that this is far 
 from being the case is evidenced by the large following that 
 the authors of the numerous memory "systems" have been 
 able to acquire from a public that ought to know better. The 
 success that these men have gained is, however, not alone due 
 to the practical advantages that their students hoped may 
 follow the adoption of their master's rules, but also to the 
 fact, that the experimental psychologist himself has thus far 
 been unable to lay down, rules that, to an impatient public, 
 seem of any great importance. It is possible that this in- 
 ability of the psychologist to here give any positive aid is 
 due to the relatively small amount of experimental work that 
 has been done on such problems as memory-improvement, 
 economy in learning, mnemonic systems, etc., but the reason 
 more probably lies in the hard fact that — as will be explained 
 later — memory, as a faculty of the mind, is unimprovable. 
 
 Though within the past decadie the progress that has been 
 made in Experimental Psychology has completely changed 
 the general aspect of this science, and although an unprece 
 dented amount of attention has been devoted to an experi- 
 mental study of the various educational problems, relatively 
 little has been done with memory, notwithstanding its great 
 importance to psychology, pedagogy, and education in gen- 
 
 3 
 
4 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 eral. Many psychologists liave devoted the best part of their 
 life to problems less important, but with the exception of 
 Ebbinghaus, Meumann, and perhaps half a dozen others, no 
 one has devoted himself for any lengthy period to the exclu- 
 sive study of retention, recollection, and kindred problems. 
 This is the more surprising when we consider its great im- 
 portance. What can the psychologist tell us that is more im- 
 portant than how best to remember ! The experimental study 
 of memory for logical trains of thought has received but little 
 attention, while an experimental study of the various systems 
 of mnemonics seems to have received practically no attention 
 at all. No experimental psychologist has as yet told us the 
 most economical method of memorizing a passage of prose — 
 or what method will give the greatest retention. Hosts of 
 articles are found on other aspects of the memory problem, 
 but as yet no one seems to have made these problems the sub- 
 ject of serious research. 
 
 Probably the main reason that there has been but little ad- 
 vancement in this field is due to the difficulties encountered 
 when one undertakes to investigate this so-called ' ' faculty ' ' of 
 memory. The reasons for this are twofold — that is, not only 
 do the difficulties exist as a matter of fact, but they are in- 
 creased by the erroneous conceptions held concerning this men- 
 tal function. Memory is not a separate and distinct faculty of 
 the mind, as is generally considered to be the case, but a 
 gross, unanalyzable term, having no claim to represent an 
 elementary function of mental life. Having been taught to 
 consider memory as a natural, specific, and distinct property 
 of the mind by which it acts uniformly and machine-like in a 
 specific way, experimenters naturally supposed they could 
 investigate it in much the same way as they could reaction 
 time, sensation, rhythm, etc. This view is still the prevalent 
 one, even among the more educated classes, and the average 
 layman still looks upon memory as an elementary, separate, 
 and distinct function of mental life. The error is an enormous 
 one. To see this it is necessary to get rid of the wrong con- 
 notations that the word "memory" has acquired, and to use 
 instead the term intellect. Memory properly interpreted is 
 co-extensive with intellect, and in one sense of the word is part 
 
Introduction 5 
 
 and parcel of it. In reality — and as we shall endeavor to ex- 
 plain in the next_chapter — there are many hinds of memories 
 — as many kinds as there are senses and combinations of 
 senses. To the sense of sight an orange is a spherical yel- 
 lowish body, but this is, generally speaking, one of its least 
 important qualities. Sight alone gives but a- poor idea of an 
 orange. We have a better conception of one when we reniem- 
 ber its taste, its odor, its consistency, how it sounds when we 
 cut it, how it feels when we handle it, and whether it grows on 
 a tree or in the ground. All these impressions, and many 
 others, are necessary for a full and distinct conception of what 
 an orange really is, and, generally speaking, therefore, we 
 may say that the more complete our knowledge of an orange, 
 the more perfect will be our memory image. 
 
 In like manner with all conceptions. Take, for example, the 
 law that the distance traversed by a freely falling body dur- 
 ing any number of seconds is equal to 16.08 feet multiplied by 
 the square of the number of seconds. Strictly speaking, to 
 remember it we must know it ; and to know it we must under- 
 stand it. Now, for a complete understanding there must 
 exist in the mind conceptions of time, space, and matter, 
 conceptions of what "distance traversed" and "freely 
 falling" really mean; and there must exist a conception 
 of what the square of a number means. In short, every- 
 thing that is involved in this phenomenon or "law" must have 
 its internal representative in the mind. Why do we go so into 
 detail on this matter? Merely because, as we shall later en- 
 deavor to show, MEMOEY is bascd on imagery, and imageey, to 
 a certain extent, on our ' ' conception of. ' ' 
 
 In much the same way as it is difficult to express the degree 
 of perfection of an individual's imagery, so it is difficult to 
 express the degree of his retentive capacity. We might even 
 go so far as to say that it is impossible to say if a certain in- 
 dividual has or has not a ' ' good memory. ' ' Too many factors 
 are involved. One may have a very good auditory memory^ 
 but a poor visual jm&^-er-^ce versa. He may, for example,^ 
 stand high in the various memory tests as given in the psy- 
 chological laboratory and yet find it exceedingly difficult to 
 recall the names of people after introduction. It frequently 
 
6 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 happens in performing memory tests on a class of students 
 that he who stands first, and who, according to the tests, has 
 the ' ' best memory, ' ' stands low in his class and is considered 
 by his teachers as "stupid" and of "poor memory." The 
 fact of the matter is that the "memory tests" ordinarily 
 employed in the psychological laboratories are narrow in the 
 extreme and "test" but a narrow portion of this so-called 
 "faculty." The retentive capacity is far from being the only 
 factor worthy of consideration in school life. Interest, voli- 
 tion, power and rapidity of association, quickness of percep- 
 tion, acuteness of the senses — these and many others must 
 be taken into consideration. 
 
 "We are much too accustomed to look upon memory as a 
 unit, and think of it merely as a faculty of the mind that per- 
 mits us to retain and reproduce the various impressions 
 (sensations and ideas) received. But psychology, psychiatry, 
 physiology, and anatomy have shown us that such a concep- 
 tion is both too broad and too loose. The memory is an 
 ensemble of operations of which each one has its proper 
 sphere. These possess an independence to such an extent that 
 any one of them may be strengthened — or weakened, and even 
 disappear completely — without causing the slightest change 
 in the others. 
 
 Another factor that greatly complicates the determination 
 of any certain individual's retentive capacity is the problem 
 as to what extent we should consider his faculty for learning 
 mechanical habits. It is certain that the process by which we 
 memorize a "logical," "meaningful," or "connected" train 
 of thought is far different from that employed in the ''learn- 
 ing" of a mechanical habit, e. g., typewriting, or telegraphy — 
 and it is probable that the process, both from a psychological 
 as well as a physiological point of view, is also somewhat dif- 
 ferent from that employed in the memorizing of a set of 
 digits or nonsense syllables. The complexity of the problem 
 may be seen when we consider such experiments as those per- 
 formed by Bair^ on the typewriter — where the keys were cov- 
 ered with different colors — and the writing performed by 
 
 ^Bair. Psychol. Rev., Monograph Suppl. No. XIX. 1902. 
 
Introduction 7 
 
 watching a "copy" on which certain colors corresponded to 
 certain letters. After the appropriate associations had been 
 formed and "memorized" the colors on the keys were inter- 
 changed, so that a different reaction was called for to each 
 of the former ' ' color stimuli. " In a case of this sort it is diffi- 
 cult to say just how far the "memory," as we ordinarily use 
 the term, enters. It would be interesting to determine the cor- 
 relation between efficiency for work of this type and that of 
 memorizing prose. 
 
 Interest is one of the main factors to be considered in mem- 
 ory; it is the "mother of attention," and attention is the 
 ' ' mothe r jofjiem.ojy. ' ' Many a boy who can remember the 
 winning team in the baseball games for five years back, with 
 the names of the various players, the umpire included, may 
 stand at the foot of his class in school. ' ' Many a woman of a 
 generally feeble memory can remember every dress she has 
 owned since she was ten years old. ' ' - 
 T" In connection with interest we should mention general un- 
 j derstanding and intelligence. Other things being equal, the 
 j. more a man knows concerning a certain subject, the better 
 '' will be his memory for facts connected with that subject. 
 "" Thus, for example, the physician remembers a diagnosis ; the 
 merchant, prices ; the minister, sermons, and the lawyer, ver- 
 dicts. /jWith this in mind the remarkable memory of certain ' 
 scieimstsand philosophers is more easily understood, tn his 
 autobiography Herbert Spencer says he could never under- 
 stand how it was that an ordinary card player could remem- 
 ber the various hands dealt at whist. Yet he himself remem- 
 bered each and every fact that in any way related to his theory 
 of evolution. Here the various facts he read or heard that in 
 any way tended to verify his theory "clung" to him as grapes 
 to their stem, and each addition did but seemingly make his 
 inemory stronger. 
 / As before said, there can be no such thing as a general 
 ( improvement of the memory as a unitary faculty. Our desul- 
 \ tory memories are given to us once for all. We have not a 
 I faculty of memory that helps us as much for one subject as 
 
 ^E. L. Thorndike. The Elements of Psychology. I'age 2.59. 
 
8 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 another, but a "faculty," if we must use the word, that is of 
 unequal eflficiency for different subjects. "No amount of cul- 
 ture," says James, "would seem capable of modifying a 
 man's general retentiveness. " Wherever a seeming increase 
 
 (in the power of memorizing has been obtained it is generally 
 due to an improvement in one's method of work, for every 
 individual has a certain scheme of remembering according to 
 his habitual occupation, and this scheme he may change or 
 improve. The broadest statement possible on this matter is 
 that given by Lloyd Morgan:^ "Eetentiveness," says he, "is 
 in fact to a large extent a psycho-physiological datum ; some- 
 , thing given in the brain-structure and mental character of 
 each individual ; something which we can no more alter than 
 we can alter the size of our heads, or, to take what is perhaps 
 a closer analogy, "of the size of our muscles. By careful use 
 and training we may develop our muscles within the limits 
 assigned to them by nature. So, too, by careful exercise we 
 may perhaps develop our retentiveness within the limits as- 
 , signed to it by nature. ' ' 
 
 ^""^trange to say, however, there are few questions in psy- 
 chology on which the layman is so willing to give an opinion 
 as upon methods of improving the memory, — and right here 
 we have as good an example as may be given for the entrance 
 of experimental psychology on such questions. This science 
 has already overthrown many of the layman's pet theories, 
 and the further the experimental psychologist carries his work, 
 the more doubtful he becomes concerning many of the gener- 
 ally-accepted beliefs. "There are current in psychology nu- 
 merous well-appearing theories which, when looked into, are 
 found not to rest on experimental observation, but on a few 
 superficial statements of fact, eked out by a vast amount of 
 logical construction. All such are properly subject to suspi- 
 cion, and the more beautiful and self-consistent the logical 
 construction, the more suspicious they are, because they are so 
 much the less likely to owe their acceptance to agreement with 
 facL/iThe experimental psychologist holds that we shall never 
 jknow much about the mind until we take the trouble to find it 
 
 ^Llotd Morgan. Introduction to Comparative Psychology. Page 107. 
 
Introduction 9 
 
 out, and that the trouble will consist in controlling the condi- 
 tions under which observations are made and in using suffi- 
 cien tly fine methods of ' ' observation. ' ' * Only by a careful scien- 
 tific investigation can we determine the validity of the current 
 views held concerning the mind's action. The popular belief 
 is that "mental fatigue" follows very quickly upon protracted 
 "mental labor." It has even been suggested that this "men- 
 tal fatigue" is nature's safeguard to protect the muscles. 
 This belief probably had its origin in the fact so commonly 
 observed that people as a rule soon grow tired of mental 
 work.^ The results of experiments, however, would seem to^ 
 show that there is no such thing as "mental fatigue," as the 
 word is ordinarily used. Memory tests have been continued 
 without a break for five solid hours, showing, not a steady de- 
 crease, but a steady improvement. Thus experimental re- 
 search has destroyed many of these popular ideas, and in a 
 few fields has this been more true than in that of memory. 
 Take, for example, the rules laid down by "Prof. Loisette" 
 in his "Psychological Memory; or, the Instantaneous Art of 
 Never Forgetting," a memory system that some 20 years 
 ago was in vogue throughout the United States. The brazen 
 effrontery and insolent presumption of this "System" is the 
 only psychological explanation of the success it attained. 
 
 Notwithstanding that psychologists have shown the folly 
 of trusting one's mental culture to systems so artificial, these 
 have continued to advertise and thrive. The ridiculous pre- 
 tensions and absurd claims made .by "Loisette" called forth 
 numerous publications attempting to "expose" his system, 
 but for the most part they were unefficacious. The only re- 
 deemable feature of the "Loisette" system was that by advo- 
 cating the use of certain definite methods for the formation of 
 relationships it taught its followers to pay careful attention 
 to their associations and thus weave the facts they Avished to 
 remember with something already known. 
 
 The perception of relationship is the desideratum. What- 
 ever cultivation of memory that tends to the arrest of the 
 power of rational thinking is to be absolutely avoided. Apart 
 
 *R. S. WooDWOETH. Psychiatry and Experimental Psychology. Proceedings 
 of the American JMedico-Psycliological Association, 1906. Page 128. 
 
10 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 from mere names, numbers, and words in general, the mind in 
 attempting to retain facts should seek inherent and essential 
 relations, particularly those of cause and effect, reason for 
 and subordination (individual — species). • Generally speak- 
 ing, therefore, we hold that the various memory "systems" 
 and schemes of mnemonics so in vogue at present are to be 
 condemned without reservation. 
 
 Experimental psychology has proven that the best way to 
 remember a thing is to hnotv it. The only improvement that 
 \ can be made in the memory is to alter one's habitual methods 
 \t recording and recollecting. By this we mean that the most 
 rational method of improving the memory is to seek to knoiv 
 and understand the things we wish to retain. Go about the 
 matter in a logical way, think over the subject carefully, and 
 classify and tabulate the various facts as they come to mind. 
 Endeavor to file the various facts in an orderly arrangement, 
 and make this habitual if possible. This is the method used 
 by the scientist, and in the end it is the only method that is 
 of any use for logical trains of thought. 
 
 Though, as already stated, it is probable that one's native 
 capacity of retention is unchangeable, this does not mean that 
 one may not improve one's methods of study. Experi- 
 ments have been made that prove the superiority of the 
 ■'whole" method as opposed to the "piecemeal" method;" 
 that prove the superiority of short study periods as com- 
 pared with long ones," and that prove the superiority (in re- 
 tentiveness) of " stringing -out " the study periods instead of 
 finishing the work in one sitting.' 
 
 Psychologists are now quite unanimous in saying that one's 
 native retentiveness is unchangeable, and that no amount of 
 training can modify it. It is a physiological quality, and as 
 it is given us at birth, so it remains. It may fluctuate with 
 health and change with age, but this is all that can be said 
 of it. Education can alter it but slightly, if at all. To be 
 born, therefore, with a high retentive capacity is one of the 
 
 "Lottie Steffens— Zeltsclirift. Vol. XXII. 1900. [For definition of these 
 methods see Chapt. IV.] 
 
 "D. Starch. Periods of Work in Learning. Journal of Ed. Psych Vol III 
 Pase 209. 
 
 'D. O. Xyon. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. V, Jan., 1914. 
 
Introduction 11. 
 
 greatest of blessings, for retention is the sine qua non of 
 human mental activity. It is probably the most important 
 power of the mind so far as education and culture are con- 
 cerned. Without it all advancement would be impossible, 
 since it is only through the storing up of experiences, i. e., 
 "memories," that mental progress is made possible. Other 
 things being equal, the man with the best stock of ideas can 
 reason the best. His life will be fuller and more complete, 
 and he will be able to perceive relations and formulate laws 
 impossible for the man whose native retentiveness is poor. 
 One might even say that a fair degree of retentive power is 
 necessary to a proper development of the emotions. Take, for 
 example, the most typical of the altruistic emotions, sym- 
 pathy. To be a good sympathizer one must have had expe- 
 rience ; he must be a good observer ; he must be a good thinker ; 
 he must possess a good imagination, and he must have a good 
 memory. The last is really the basis of the othei- four. To be 
 a good observer one must be on the alert to perceive the cause 
 of grief. He must be able to detect pride, fear, shyness, and 
 embarrassment, and to appreciate these he must be able to 
 recall how he felt at times like these and the occurrences 
 that caused them. The more vivid a person's imagination, 
 the easier he can put himself in his friend's place. Now, as 
 is well known, imagination must have at its basis a stock of 
 ideas and images to start with, and this "stock" is part of 
 memory. Taking everything into consideration, we think we 
 are justified in saying that one of the greatest boons that can 
 be granted a man is a high retentive capacity. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 ON THE FORMS OP MENTAL ACTIVITY INCLUDED 
 UNDER "MEMORY." 
 
 The cUvisibility of memory. — Testimony of anatomy, physiology, and psy- 
 chology. Aphasia. Training along any special line does not necessarily 
 improve kindred actions. — Mental improvements not transferable, "External" 
 and "internal" forms of memory activity. Memory in its relation to Asso- 
 ciation and Reasoning. "Literal" learning and "logical" learning. — The asso- 
 ciation of words V. the association of ideas. Types of Imagery or Forms of 
 "Presentation" : — visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, motor. Verbal 
 memory. Professional and occupational memories. Effects of education, 
 environment, sex, race, etc. There are as many ways of comprehending as there 
 are forms of imagery. Visual imagery a form of "external sensitivity," 
 acoustic and motor of "internal sensitivity." Importance of the subject to 
 Pedagogy. 
 
 An idea (in the sense of complete mental image) of an 
 object is both more complex and more variable than we usually 
 imagine — complex because images of the various senses enter 
 into its make-up, variable because no two images of an object 
 are ever the same, but vary with the time, place, and circum- 
 stances. The image that arises when we shut our eyes and 
 endeavor to recall a person or object depends, as we shall 
 later explain, upon the individual's type or form of imagery — 
 this, in turn, depending upon his sex, race, education, environ- 
 ment, age, etc. 
 
 It is the same with words, spoken or heard.' The word 
 heard may recall not only a souvenir of the sensations felt 
 when pronounced, but a souvenir of the movements made 
 when writing it, as well as a visual image of the word, written 
 or printed. The question is one of interest not alone to the 
 psychologist, but to the physiologist and anatomist as well. 
 For if it be that there exist in the cerebrum certain areas or 
 fields corresponding to the various senses, it must follow that 
 when one of these "areas" is cut out or its functioning sup- 
 pressed, peculiar or irregular phenomena will occur. To the 
 
 'Here again neither is simple, but either form recalls, to a greater or less 
 extent, the other. 
 
14 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 physician and physiologist such phenomena are well known 
 and are frequently brought about experimentally. It is pos- 
 sible by a certain operation on the cerebrum of a dog to so 
 isolate the optic area that, although it in itself may function, 
 all "association" with other "areas" is prevented. Such a 
 dog is psychically blind. He sees, but no longer comprehends 
 what he sees. Through accident or disease similar condi- 
 tions may occur in man, and the physician encounters them 
 frequently in the various forms of aphasia. Sensory aphasia 
 appears clinically in three distinct forms: (1) simple loss of 
 memory for words; (2) word-deafness, or inability to under- 
 stand spoken words ; (3) ivord-hlindness, or inability to under- 
 stand written or printed words. Various forms of moTor 
 APHASIA also exist. In the so-called motor or atoxic aphasia 
 there is a loss of speech owing to an inability to execute the 
 various movements of the mouth necessary to speech. The 
 patient cannot be said to have forgotten the word, for he can 
 write it, but he is unable to pronounce it, notwithstanding 
 that there is no paralysis whatsoever of the mouth or tongue 
 muscles. The cause of all this is a lesion in a certain part of 
 Broca's convolution, though to the ordinary observer the 
 patient appears merely to have forgotten how to pronounce 
 the word. There are other forms of motor aphasia— these de- 
 pending on the site of the lesion. In agraphia there is an 
 inability to express thoughts in writing. In alexia there is 
 inability to express written language in words. 
 
 We have gone somewhat more into detail on aphasia and 
 kindred matters than may seem necessary in a book of this 
 sort. It is our object, however, in this chapter to show that 
 the memory is not a single, separate, and distinct "faculty" 
 of the mind, but a gross, unanalizable term having no claim 
 to represent the functioning of any one portion of the brain. 
 The various aphasias and kindred phenomena brought about 
 experimentally on animals that our so-called "memory" is 
 composed of a great number of primary memories, which are 
 distinct one from the other and which may be lost separately. 
 
 In like manner with the improvement of any of these various 
 memories. If the brain functioned as a whole, we might as- 
 sume that training along any special line would improve all 
 
The Forms of Mental Activity 15 
 
 kindred or allied actions, but we know that such improvement 
 does not take place. Were it that the brain functioned in sec- 
 tions or compartments corresponding to "memory,"' "judg- 
 ment," "discrimination" or other of the so-called "faculties" 
 or "phrenological organs" we might expect that the training 
 of any special performance within the scope of a faculty would 
 benefit alike all other performances included within that fac- 
 ulty. "But since the evidence points to a highly detailed locali- 
 zation of cerebral functions, and since the neural mechanism 
 employed in any performance cannot be wholly identical with 
 that required for slightly different performances, though it 
 may be partly the same, training in one performance would 
 not be expected to improve another, except in so far as the 
 neural mechanisms involved were in part identical, i. e., em- 
 ployed the same cells, fibers, and synapses. As applied to 
 psychology, this would mean that, in order for a transference 
 of skill to occur from one performance to another, there 
 should be between the two, not simply likeness in the abstract, 
 but some concrete part-performance in common, as there is 
 between fighting and boxing, or between saying 'boot' or 
 'book.' In general, since the neural process in any reaction 
 undoubtedly has more detail than appears either to intro- 
 spection or to objective observation, it will not always be pos- 
 sible to point out the common features of two reactions ; but 
 that there should be features in common if any transference 
 of training is possible from one to the other seems necessary 
 from the physiological point of view. ' ' " 
 
 Working with simple mental tests — such, for example, as 
 the cancellation of 3's and 5's in a list of mixed digits, Poffen- 
 berger* sums up his conclusions on this subject as follows : 
 
 " ( 1 ) Where there are no identical bonds between stimulus 
 and response in the two processes, the influence of one process 
 upon another will be zero, i. e., there will be neither transfer 
 nor interference. (2) Where there are identical elements in 
 the two processes, or where a given process involves one or 
 more bonds previously formed, there will be a positive trans- 
 
 "Ladd & WooDwoRTH. Elements of Physiological Psychology. Page 5(i6. 
 *"The Influence of Improvement in One Simple Mental Process Upon Other 
 Related Processes." Psch. Bull., 1915, Vol. XII, page 65. 
 
16 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 fer effect. (3) Where one test necessitates the breaking of 
 previously-formed bonds and the formation of new ones there 
 will be a negative effect or an interference." 
 
 When by introspection we examine our stream of thought 
 or analyze our various sensations and sense impressions we 
 discover that there are various forms of mental activity in- 
 cluded in that which we are accustomed to call memory. 
 There is hardly an activity of the mind that is not in some way 
 related to it or that does not come more or less under its head. 
 It matters not if it be the learning of a poem or a rule in 
 grammar, the latest song or the face of a new acquaintance, 
 how to solve a puzzle or play a new game — each and all smack 
 of "memory," and it is only because they possess certain fac- 
 tors in common that we can group them under this head. It 
 behooves us, therefore, to make clear these various forms of 
 memory activity before discussing memory in the narrower 
 sense of the word. This done, we shall then discuss the proc- 
 ess by which we learn, the various forms and types of memory, 
 and the various forms of imagery — with an attempt at classi- 
 fication. 
 
 For the present we may roughly divide all memory activi- 
 ties into two classes — (1) those of "external" origin, and in 
 which one or more of the so-called "senses" comes directly 
 into play; (2) those of "inner" origin, and in which associa- 
 tion and reasoning form a prominent part. 
 
 1. Memory activities of "external" nature, or, roughly 
 speaking, observation. — Here we include the activity of 'the 
 senses, and, generally speaking, all sense perceptions. This 
 form of memory activity is witnessed when, by observation, 
 we have "impressed" upon us the objects presented to the 
 senses. The impressions are mostly visual, but any sense per- 
 ception may enter. As already stated, this form of mental 
 activity generally passes under the name "observation," and 
 comes especially into consideration where space is entailed, 
 as, for example, in the study of a geometrical figure ; or with 
 time, as in the learning of a melody. 
 
The Forms of Mental Activity 17 
 
 2. Memory activities of "internal" nature or origin. — 
 These are more difficult of definition. We here include the 
 processes of association and reasoning. Memorizing by asso- 
 ciation is what we ordinarily term "learning" or "learning by 
 heart," and consists largely of an association of words. The 
 really active factor in this form of memory activity is not the 
 mere perception of the senses (single or repeated), but the 
 repetition and reiteration of the various ideas, images and as- 
 sociations between them. The process is largely one of fixa- 
 tion of impressions, and takes place in all true memorizing, 
 especially in the verbal form known as "learning by heart." 
 When, for example, we are committing to memory a passage 
 of prose or poetry, each word and phrase that we perceive (be 
 it by eye or ear) signifies something to us, and it is these 
 ' ' significations ' ' — ^with the associations formed — that give the 
 mind material to work on. 
 
 Another form of memory activity that we must classify 
 under this head is that which takes place when we wish to get 
 the significance (meaning) of an article, conversation, lecture 
 or description without learning it word for word. This proc- 
 ess calls in the reasoning faculty, so that here association of 
 ideas comes more into play than association of words. The 
 perception (be it visual or auditory) of the separate words 
 plays a much smaller part here than in the "learning by 
 heart" just spoken of. Nearly all that the average adult 
 learns is acquired in this manner. While reading the average 
 man does not pay any particular attention to the individual 
 words, their order or number. He endeavors merely to get 
 the significance of the various sentences and paragraphs and 
 associate their meaning with facts he already knows, impres- 
 sions he has already received, emotions he has already felt, 
 etc. The idea (meaning) is what is retained — not the words — 
 though these may be reproduced because of vivid visual 
 images, or by sheer accident. Thus it is that an educated man 
 can retain in one reading what might take an ignorant man 
 or a child many readings. The extraordinary performances 
 of the logical memory in men of science is easily explainable 
 when we consider that, while reading a book or listening to a 
 lecture, all such minor details as the meaning of each and 
 
18 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 every word, the construction of the sentences, arrangement 
 of words, etc., are easily put aside and the memory reserved 
 for the nucleus of the argument. Another reason is that, 
 though a true repetition or re-reading of the lecture may not 
 take place, the result is nauch the same as though there were, 
 for the scientist has so large a stock of ideas on his par- 
 ticular subject and is so continually occupied with them — 
 reflecting, correcting, refreshing, etc. — that he may be said to 
 be continually reviewing his material. 
 
 Between learning (memorizing) by the association of words 
 and learning by the association of ideas there is considerable 
 difference. For purposes of discussion we shall term the 
 former literal learning; the latter, logical learning. Literal 
 learning calls into play one or more of the senses. Imagery 
 of some form is invariably a factor. Logical learning, on the 
 other hand, does not necessarily employ the senses ; when it 
 does, the employment is seldom direct, but secondary, in the 
 form of imagery. The attentive faculty is more of a factor 
 with literal learning than with logical learning, and is em- 
 ployed in a more direct manner. 
 
 We frequently hear a difference of opinion concerning the 
 memory power of a certain individual — one speaks of him as 
 having "an extremely good memory"; another, as a man of 
 "relatively poor retentive capacity." Upon examination this 
 difference of opinion wUl generally be found to be' due to the 
 fact that where the one refers to his "literal" memory, the 
 other refers to his "logical." "We can all cite cases of men 
 whose powers of literal learning are remarkable, but whose 
 "logical" memory is weak, and cases of an opposite character 
 are equally common. It should not for a moment be imagined 
 that these two forms of memory are separate and distinct — 
 the one sharply marked off from the other. On the contrary, 
 each, to a certain extent, depends on the other. Association 
 is a factor in both; in "literal" learning, however, it is more 
 of a motor-auditory type, whereas with "logical" learning 
 reason and logical associations predominate. Memory, in the 
 sense of native ability to retain impressions, sounds, words, 
 etc., or "brute" memory, as it is sometimes called, is admit- 
 tedly stronger in children than adults. The logical memory. 
 
The Forms of Mental Activity 19 
 
 on the other hand, is weaker. This latter is due not merely 
 to the fact that the adult has a, larger stock of ideas and can 
 therefore reason better, but because the attentive faculty is 
 stronger in adults than in children. 
 
 Generally speaking, we may say that facts memorized by 
 literal learning do not "last" for so long a period as those 
 memorized by logical learning. The speed of light, cause of 
 the tides, distances of the planets, etc., are quickly forgotten 
 by the student who uses his "literal" memory — ^based largely 
 on motor or auditory images. The astronomer, using his log- 
 ical memory, never forgets them. This difference in length of 
 retention is due to several things, but mainly to the fact that 
 the intention or object of memorising is different in the two 
 cases. The same astronomer who uses his logical memory on 
 the matters cited above would probably use his literal memory 
 were he to attempt to recall a set of nonsense syllables just 
 read to him, or were he to desire to retain in his mind a ques- 
 tion asked him while he sought the answer. For in both of 
 these cases there is no desire or intention on the part of the 
 individual to retain the matter memorized for any length of 
 time. In one sense of the word literal memorizing is a contin- 
 ual refreshing of the primary impression — a continual revival 
 or restoring to life of something once partly or wholly mem- 
 orized. Thus it is that the work is so much more intensive 
 and demands greater concentration than logical memorizing. 
 
 TY^ES OP IMAGERY, METHODS OF LBABNING, AND POEMS OF 
 PRESENTATION. 
 
 Anyone who has performed memory experiments on a con- 
 siderable number of individuals, such, for example, as the 
 presenting of a passage of prose to a class of students with 
 directions to learn it by heart, is struck by the great individ- 
 ual differences — differences in method of study, time of learn- 
 ing, degree of application, amount retained, fidelity of reten- 
 tion, duration of retention, etc. All these are open to expe- 
 rimental investigation, and have already been dealt with to 
 a greater or less extent by the experimental psychologist. 
 To him all such problems are of interest, even though certain 
 
20 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 of them are of relatively little educational value. To the 
 pedagogue and educational psychologist the problem of chief 
 importance is the relation of the time taken for learning to 
 amount retained, or, to be more specific: 
 
 1. The relation of time taken for learning to amount di- 
 rectly retained." 
 
 2. The relation of time taken for learning to duration 
 (permanence of retention) of the material retained.^' 
 
 3. The relation of either of these to the metJiod used in the 
 memorizing." 
 
 No. 1 has been investigated by Ebbinghaus, Meumann, and 
 others. The matter is somewhat without the scope of this 
 work, though we shall touch upon the subject later on. No. 2 
 has as yet received but little attention from the experimental 
 psychologist. In a work devoted wholly to this subject the 
 author discusses it in detail under the title ' ' The Eelation of 
 Quickness of Learning to Eetentiveness. ' ' " The problems 
 that fall under No. 3 are considered in the present treatise, 
 chiefly in Chapter IV. 
 
 In investigating any of these problems it will be found that 
 they fall into two grand divisions — (1) the slow learners, (2) 
 the quick learners. "With each of these two subdivisions are 
 again necessary — (a) the good retainers, (b) the poor 
 retainers. Other things being equal, just why one individual 
 should have better native retentiveness than another is not 
 easy of answer. The problem, however, of why he is able to 
 memorize more quickly — to learn more quickly — than another 
 individual is more susceptible of experimental investigation. 
 Many factors, however, must be considered, e. g., method of 
 study, material used, rhythm, attention, association, mne- 
 monics, etc. 
 
 "This is not a question entailing individual differences. The matter is 
 exactly as stated— i.e., What Is the relation between time and amount? — e.g., 
 If it takes 5 minutes to learn 20 words, how long will it take to learn 40? 
 
 "'By this we mean the relation of quickness of learning to retentiveness— 
 i.e., Do those who learn the quickest remember the longest? 
 
 ^he question here is twofold— (1.) What method of memorizing is the 
 shortest— i.e., what method gives the greatest amount [of material directly 
 retained]. (2.) What method gives the longest duration [time]. 
 
 "D. O. Lyon. Archives of Psychology, (Columbia University). Vol. V, No. 34. 
 
The Forms of Mental Activity 21 
 
 In order to discuss intelligently the various types of learn- 
 ers {Lerntypen) it is necessary we first consider the types of 
 imagery (Vorstellungstypen), or, rather, to be more specific, 
 the various methods of learning depending upon the method 
 of imagery or mental ' ' presentation. " It is the custom of the 
 present-day psychology to divide and classify memory into 
 several classes or types, these depending upon the dominant 
 sense or dominant form of imagery employed in the mental 
 process in question. On an anatomical-physiological basis 
 such a classification might be expressed somewhat as follows : 
 
 1. Visual. 
 
 2. Auditory. 
 
 3. Olfactory. 
 
 4. Gustatory. 
 
 5. Tactile. 
 
 6. Motor. 
 
 It will be observed that the first five correspond to the class- 
 ical "five senses." The sixth corresponds to what we might 
 term the muscular, kinetic or kinesthetic sense. In the strict 
 sense of the word, there is no such sense, motor imagery 
 being more or less a combination. It is not to be understood 
 that to classify one's imagery is a simple matter, that each 
 and every individual can be thrown at ease into one of the 
 above divisions, and that these divisions are clear-cut and 
 distinct. On the contrary, it is frequently a difficult matter 
 to say just what one 's predominate form of imagery is. When 
 we speak of an individual as being of the "auditory type" 
 we mean that in the ensemble of memories retained by this 
 man auditory imagery is either predominant or more clear 
 and alive than in the average individual. In a considerable 
 number of people two or more of these forms of imagery 
 may be so high and so nearly equal that they may be said to 
 predominate at the same time. In fact, this is usually the 
 case with our great sculptors, artists, and musicians — our 
 virtuosos. Excellence in but one form of imagery, be it ever 
 so high, is seldom^* sufficient to make one a master among 
 
 "Exceptions occur only In such cases as those of some "lightning calculators," 
 chess-players, etc. — ^here a certain form of imagery — usually visual — may be 
 greatly in excess of'all others. 
 
22 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 men. To be great a sculptor must have not only his visual 
 memory developed to an extraordinary degree, but his motor 
 (kinesthenic) as well ; without it he will lack execution. 
 
 That which characterizes a person's type of memory — that 
 makes him, for example, of the visual type rather than the 
 auditory — is that he has the habit of preferring visual imagery 
 in his various mental operations. It does not follow that such 
 an individual has no auditory imagery as though he lived in 
 a world of sight. For the nature of one's imagery varies 
 with the time and the circumstances — or, to be more exact, ac- 
 cording to the sense with which he is paying attention. Thus it 
 is that a person of the visual type may, if he desires, evoke 
 auditory images — auditory images that are perfectly clear 
 and intense, and that differ in no way from those of the aver- 
 age individual. 
 
 It must not be imagined for a moment that there are six, 
 and only six, forms, or types of memory. Various groups and 
 combinations of these types exist, to say nothing of the various 
 subdivisions of each type. For example, there exist at least 
 three forms of visual memory : 
 
 1. Color — and brightness. 
 
 2. Shape — and size. 
 
 3. Place — and movement. 
 
 Some authorities hold that only the first form is truly visual, 
 the two others being called the false visuals, because in these 
 it is not the retina with its associated cortical centers that 
 plays the principal part, but the various muscles of the eye 
 which (by their various contractions and relaxations) permit 
 us to form, an idea of the object's shape, size, and place. 
 
 As a matter of fact, there are many more than three sub- 
 divisions of visual memory, and the three forms given above 
 are but general in the extreme. We now know that one can 
 push further the above classification and detail subdivisions 
 to each of the three forms. With No. 1, color — for example, 
 we may speak of shades, hues, depths, etc. ; effects and degrees 
 of light and shadow; colors that with some individuals give 
 a sensation of sound or of smell, and others that cause the 
 pulse to quicken or give rise to certain emotions. The visual 
 
The Forms of Mental Activity 2H 
 
 imagery in such a case is obviously more complex than in the 
 normal individual. 
 
 To go into a detailed discussion of the remaining types and 
 sub-types of memory and imagery would be outside the scope 
 of such a book as this. The six forms we have mentioned are 
 sufficient for our present purposes. The classification made 
 is a physiological one, and the six forms are thus more or 
 less ideal. 
 
 The chapter would be incomplete, however, and certain of 
 the experiments later to be described not well understood, 
 were we not to devote a few words to a form of memory which, 
 for want of a better term, we shall call the verbal memory. 
 Psychologically, the chief thing that differentiates man from 
 the lower animals is his ability to express himself in words. 
 A natural concomitant of this ability to express his thoughts 
 by words {language) is that of thinking and reasoning in 
 words. The larger part of the memory images as recalled by 
 an adult are in the form, of ivords, and we may say that the 
 development of memory is always more or less concomitant 
 with the development of language. The constant employment 
 of verbal imagery in the mental operations of civilized man 
 has become so habitual and so firmly rooted that we may all 
 now be said to possess what we may call an inner language — 
 a language that accompanies (or rather is part and parcel of) 
 our various acts, judgments and feelings. These at the time 
 of their occurrence are felt and expressed in words to such a 
 degree that the image retained is more or less a verbal one. 
 Thus it is that we may be said to store away and carry about 
 with us a large part of our various experiences done up in 
 "verbal packages," so to speak. Thus it is that when we 
 revive an experience or sensation we do not reproduce the 
 sensation itself (though this may occur) but only a story 
 of it — a story in words. Introspection will prove to anyone 
 that whenever he attempts to reason, especially if in a care- 
 ful and methodical manner, a voice within him arises that 
 formulates his reasoning in words. It matters not what the 
 mental action may be — be it the observation of an object, a 
 decision, a judgment or a sensation — in each and every case 
 
24 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 verbal imagery enters in. It has been experimentally proven 
 that every time one hears a word or sound the mouth, and 
 especially the tip of the tongue, make a movement — a ' ' sketch- 
 like" movement, as though there were a desire to reproduce 
 it. It is a frequent occurrence to hear one who attempts to 
 recall a certain word say, "I can almost remember it, for I 
 have it on the end of my tongue. ' ' There are people who do 
 a large part of their thinking in a loud voice, and who appear 
 to talk with themselves whenever they think. Their "inner" 
 language becomes "outer," and they say aloud that which the 
 ordinary individual says to himself. We may feel — expe- 
 rience a sensation — ^without words, but as soon as one dwells 
 on the sensation and attempts to reason about it, state its 
 cause or give its effects, words arise. Theoretically, it is 
 possible to feel a sensation, experience an emotion, see an 
 object, or even take a decision hy sensation alone and without 
 the employment of verbal imagery; but the latter nearly 
 always enters in more or less. An examination of this verbal 
 image reveals the fact that in its most habitual form it con- 
 sists of a mental repetition of a word once pronounced — 
 an auditory image of a word or group of words. It may be 
 simple or complex, sharp cut or ill-defined, lasting or evanes- 
 cent — but it is always there. 
 
 Each and every word, provided that it is understood, car- 
 ries with it a great number of reminiscences, so that in a cer- 
 tain sense we may look upon every word as a compacted 
 memory. 
 
 Verbal imagery cannot be called a native form of imagery, 
 it being both a derivative and combination of other forms. 
 It has arisen only in the process of man's mental evolution, 
 and is highest where culture and civilization are highest. In 
 children and the anthropoid apes it occurs only in' a low and 
 most undeveolped form, and can truly be said to exist only 
 where verbal language exists. As to its origin, we might 
 say that it is probably based on motor and auditory imagery, 
 visual imagery surplanting the latter in individuals of the 
 visual type. 
 
The Forms of Mental Activity 25 
 
 Space does not permit a detailed discussion of the remain- 
 ing forms of imagery/' Those that we have considered are, 
 for a work on memory, those of chief importance. Tactile 
 IMAGERY is undoubtedly the most primordial of all, and is a 
 dominant factor in the mental life of all animals. In man the 
 organs of feeling by which tactile imagery is formed may 
 be said to reside chiefly in the fingers, lips, and tip of tongue. 
 
 Olfactoey imagery. This form of imagery is used in our 
 thinking more often than we are apt to imagine, and in some 
 individuals is developed to an extremely high degree. In the 
 case of the French novelist, Zola, it was developed to such an 
 extraordinary extent that we are justified in calling him an 
 individual of the olfactory type. For Zola, every object had 
 its proper and characteristic odor. It was the same for every 
 person, city, street, or what not ; — provided he knew ihem inti- 
 mately enough, each one had its proper odor. His olfactory 
 memory extended even to the times and seasons. "L'automne, 
 par exemple, lui parait caracteristique avec son oduer de 
 champignons et de fueilles nouillees." " 
 
 Gustatory imagery. But few people have this form of 
 imagery sufficiently intense and developed to such a degree as 
 to entitle our calling them of the gustatory type." Gustatory 
 
 '"As imagery is based upon the senses, it behooves us to emphasize the fact 
 that these latter are by no means limited to the "classical five." Besides the 
 peripherally-initiated feelings of external origin (such as the auditory, visual, 
 etc.), we have the peripherally-initiated feelings of internal origin (pain, mus- 
 cular effort, hunger, nausea, etc.) Besides all these we have the emotions or 
 centrally-initiated feelings. 
 
 "Toulouse. Emile Zola une enquSte medico-psychologique. Paris; 1896. 
 Page 206. 
 
 "I know of but one case so developed as to warrant the term. This gentle- 
 man (J. R. H.) employs gustatory imagery to a large extent in his various 
 mental operations. This is especially noticable in his recollections of people 
 and places — which are frequently connected in his mind with some article of 
 diet. For example, recalling some of his old friends, he said, "Yes, Phyfe 
 always had good roast-beef, and Mr. Wing fine lima beans ; Gordon had good 
 roast-potatoes, and Mrs. GofC fine cod-fish cakes and corn-bread." In like 
 manner, speaking of milk at the hotels, he once said, "The Ritz in London has 
 very good milk ; the Ritz in New York is good, but not quite so. good ; 
 Delmonicos has poor milk. The best glass of milk I even drank was up in the 
 
 country at s. The Murray Hill Hotel has good ice-water, omlets, and 
 
 Welsh-rarebits; they have not changed their Welsh-rarebits or roast-beef in 
 the last thirty years. I remember that the last time I dined there [six months 
 ago] the bread was not so good as usual." His gustatory memory goes back 
 to boy-hood, "I remember," said he, "when a little boy, of a certain dish of 
 
26 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 images are seldom pure, and usually include a greater or 
 smaller amount of olfactory imagery, — due undoubtedly to the 
 close connection that exists between the two senses. As to its 
 relation to tactile imagery, we have only to remember that the 
 taste of an. article depends partly upon how it feels to the 
 tongue. The terminal filaments of certain branches of the 
 nerves of taste have been found to end in the area of general 
 sensibility, situated in the parietal lobe. 
 
 Besides the six primary forms of memory, with their va- 
 rious subdivisions, there are various combinations and com- 
 plex forms that are difficult of classification. We have already 
 spoken of the memory of ideas and concepts, showing its rela- 
 tion to the verbal memory ; but what shall we say for the mem- 
 ory of feelings and emotional states? And. how, apart from 
 being able to say that auditory or visual imagery may enter in, 
 shall we classify the memory of meaning of abstract terms'? 
 We have tried, but we have been unable to form a satisfactory 
 classification. One of the best and simplest might be stated 
 as follows : 
 
 1. Memory of the six senses, including motor mem- 
 
 ory. (Here also are included memory for space, 
 and, to a certain extent, that for time.) 
 
 2. Memory of the emotion and states of feeling. 
 
 .3. Memory for ideas and concepts (such memory be- 
 ing based on memory for names and abstract 
 word meanings). 
 
 Neither the memory of space (extent) or of time (duration) 
 have received from the experimental psychologist the attention 
 they deserve. Cattell and FuUerton^^ in an extensive study 
 of memory for lifted weights found that the memory image 
 would appear to last for a period of about nine seconds, "after 
 which the observer does not so much compare the sensations 
 as decide on the approximate intensity of each sensation 
 separately and compare the decisions." 
 
 roast-potatoes I eat at . / can taste them now. I remember that Barbara 
 
 Dunigan made the best currant-pie and cooked the best dish of string-beans." 
 
 He lias proven to me that he is able to reproduce a real gustatory image — 
 vivid and well defined. The subject is an extremely well educated man. Apart 
 from the gustatory part, an examination of his memory shows nothing re- 
 markable. To learn the 20 words (v. p. 172) took him 13 minutes. 
 
The Forms of Mental Activity 27 
 
 The results and conclusions drawn from the various experi- 
 ments that have been performed along these lines do not 
 always agree. Jastrow" in working on memory for space 
 found that neither the visual nor the tactful variety suffered 
 as much with the passage of time as we might expect. Both 
 forms appeared almost as faultless after a lapse of several 
 days as after a few minutes. Other experimenters, however, 
 notably Landau-" and Weber-\ found a more or less regular 
 decrease. 
 
 As to the memory for time intervals, here also there is some 
 difference of opinion. Paneth" found that the memory image 
 (for time) was as sharp and clear-cut after an interval of five 
 minutes as after an interval of but one. HoUingworth^^, from 
 a larger and more carefully-planned set of experiments, con- 
 cludes that "the curve of memory for duration follows more 
 closely the ordinary statement of the 'law of forgetting,' in 
 the case of the constant error, although the variable error 
 undergoes little change up to an interval of 30 seconds. ' ' 
 
 The various "types" of memory that we have considered 
 in the preceding pages may be considered as native or ana- 
 tomical-physiological. Each of them is to a greater or less 
 extent influenced by education and environment. AVe thus 
 have types of memory corresponding to the various profes- 
 sions and trades — types that we may designate as the physi- 
 cian's memory, mechanic's memory, chemist's memory, etc. 
 The nature and direction of the attention is, in all such cases 
 of course, an important factor, and this is especially noticeable 
 in the case of certain special trades and professions. Take, 
 for example, the professional chess player, waiter, or actor. 
 Here in each case the memory is developed along the special 
 line desired by the individual in question. Here the degree of 
 development will, of course, depend partly on the will, the 
 attention being habitually directed in one special direction. 
 
 ''Cattell and Fuixekton, "Small DifCerences," p. 147. 
 "Jastkow, Mind, Vol. XI, 1902, p. 552. 
 =°r.ANDAU, Wissensch. Rev., 1896. 
 ^Wagner's Handwdrterbuck der Phpsiologie, p. 2. 
 ''^Paneth, OentralU. fiir Physiologie, Vol. IV, 1890, p. 82. 
 ^'HoLLiNGWORTH, "The Inaccuracy of Movement." Archives of Psychology, 
 June, 1909, p. 86. 
 
28 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 Take, for example, the professional chess player ; he has, as he 
 plays, a certain number of memory images clear-cut and 
 sharply defined. To these alone he pays attention, to the 
 exclusion of all others. Long practice makes this habitual and 
 almost automatic. The process is but an example of the law 
 of the conservation of energy. There is no fatigue, and all 
 unnecessary action is eliminated. 
 
 Where, however, education and environment show their 
 greatest effect is in the case of sex. In all countries the en- 
 vironment with which the boy is surrounded is so different 
 from that of the girl, and the education received by the one 
 is so different from that received by the other, that we are 
 justified in distinguishing a masculine memory and a femi- 
 nine memory. Apart from reasons biological it is but natural 
 to suppose that the masculine mentality differs from the 
 feminine. Women thinli in a different manner from men; 
 their psychology is different; their interests are seldom the 
 same, and their attention seldom centered on the same object. 
 We usually give women credit as having a livelier imagination 
 and stronger emotions, and it is well known that these things 
 have their influence on memory. 
 
 The effect of education and environment is also observed in 
 the memory-differences seen in the various races. The psy- 
 chology of the Indian is quite different from that of the Euro- 
 pean, and the mental imagery of the Mohammedan is not the 
 same as that of the Englishman. 
 
 We could push the argument further, but the effects of 
 education and environment on imagery and memory as wit- 
 nessed in profession, sex, and race are sufficient. SufiSce it 
 to say that, generally speaking, there are as many types of 
 memory as there are individuals ivho retain. 
 
 The method by which one learns depends upon his method 
 of presentation — his type of imagery, his way of thinking. It 
 will be noticed that we differentiate between learning -types'-'' 
 and types of imagery.'''" An individual of the visual type will, 
 
 '"In German, — Lcrnmethoden. 
 
 =^In German,~TorgteUungst'!/peii, Sinesiypen, Gcdiichtnistypen, Anschau- 
 ungatijpcn, or HpracMypen. 
 
The Forms of Mental Activity 29 
 
 when given a set of digits, memorize them by visual imagery ; 
 but he may learn to memorize them in auditory manner if so 
 directed. It frequently happens that one's profession or walk 
 in life necessitates the employment of some other form of 
 imagery than his dominant one ; for example, that a bank clerk 
 of the visual type remembers numbers and words as read to 
 him. In such cases the continued practice and exercise of the 
 weaker or dormant form of imagery results invariably in a 
 great increase of its power. Pedagogically, such questions are 
 of considerable importance. To what extent, for example, 
 should a man endeavor to choose his calling and select his busi- 
 ness in the line of his dominant form of imagery? And to what 
 extent should he endeavor to improve his other forms! To 
 what extent does a man's habitual or strongest form of imagery 
 influence his life and affect his relationship with his fellow- 
 beings? As yet we do not possess very definite answers to 
 these questions. 
 
 We do, however, know that along any special line or direc- 
 tion the faculty of attention is capable of unlimited improve- 
 ment, i. e., the rapidity with which we may adapt ourselves, 
 and the intensity with which we may concentrate. We also 
 know that the attempt on the part of an individual to develop 
 his lesser or dormant types of imagery results very frequently 
 in a lessening in the power or vividness of his dominant type — 
 the type to which he seemed to be born. A phenomenon of 
 a similar nature is seen when we attempt to educate "light- 
 ning calculators" of the type of Fuller, Buxton or Colburn. 
 In the case of Colburn a repose of three months (during which 
 period he discontinued his representations before the public) 
 resulted in a very considerable loss of his powers. Experi- 
 ments have proven that the acoustically born individual suf- 
 fers a temporary diminution in his' acoustic memory when by 
 exercise he attempts to increase his powers of visual imagery. 
 
 The way in which one comprehends depends upon his form 
 of imagery at the time. Individuals differ widely as to their 
 types of imagery and combinations of these types, with the 
 result that there are many ways of comprehending and meth- 
 ods of learning. When reading a book the visualist "fixes" 
 
30 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 a considerable number of bis impressions as written or printed 
 images. He makes mental (visual) note of the words and 
 groups of words, notes tbeir arrangement on the page and 
 remembers on which side of the page occur statements or 
 sentences of particular interest or beauty. In short, the matter 
 is one largely of visual imagery. 
 
 The acoustic or motor type of individual, on the other hand, 
 sets himself to put the material that he r.eads into the form 
 of heard or spoken rvords. Unlike the visualist, he does not 
 perceive the ensemble in any one instant, but one word must 
 follow after the other. This brings us to the main difference, 
 or point of distinction, between these two forms of imagery. 
 Visual imagery entails the factor space in its make-up, whereas 
 acoustic and motor imagery entail time; and thus it is that 
 visual imagery is, as it were, a form of external sensitivity, 
 whereas acoustic and motor are forms of internal sensitivity. 
 Unlike the visualist, the acoustic and motor types are not able 
 to have, during reproduction, the various words or objects of 
 a. "series" before the "inner eye" at the same time. The 
 visualist, on the other hand, "sees" the whole thing in a 
 ' ' glance. ' ' 
 
 Another advantage possessed by visual imagery is that as 
 a whole it is both truer and more reliable than the auditory 
 or motor type. Several observers''' have proved this experi- 
 mentally. Each type, however, has its advantages and dis- 
 advantages. True though it may be that the visualist is able 
 to observe and "fix" his images more securely, he takes more 
 time to do this than does the motor or acoustically inclined 
 individual. 
 
 This subject of imagery is of capital importance to the 
 pedagogue, for it is just with children that modifications in 
 the method and manner of producing and reproducing images 
 are most easily initiated. The plastic mind of the child is 
 vastly more susceptible to changes in the form of imagery 
 than is the adult mind, but unfortunately the average edu- 
 cator pays no attention to the fact. To the kindergarten 
 
 ^'Notably Pohlmann, Meumann, Munsterberg, Kirkpatrick, Whitehead and 
 Finzi. 
 
The Forms of Mental Activity 31. 
 
 teacher also, tlie subject of imagery is of importance. It 
 enters to a greater or less degree in all systems of education 
 and training of the young, especially in such as those devised 
 by Montifiori; Frobel, and Pestalozzi. The results obtained 
 with these systems coincide with the results we ]jave obtained 
 from experiments performed in the psychological laboratory, 
 namely, that the present system of education entails a great 
 loss of time. There is a great expenditure of time and energy, 
 and relatively but little of value accomplished. 
 
CHAPTEE II. 
 
 THE SUB-DIVISIONS OF MEMOEy IN GENEEAL, 
 WITH SPECIAL EEFEEENCE TO THEIE EELA- 
 TIONS TO THE LEAENING PEOCESS. 
 
 Sub-divisions of the memory process : — retention, reproduction, representa- 
 tion, identification. 
 
 Retention an essential feature of all life^-conscious and unconscious. Re- 
 tention is influenced by: (1) Condition of the organism, (2) Strength and 
 clearness of the impression, and (3) Repetition. 
 
 Reproduction is the process by which objects that have previously been 
 known are brought back into consciousness for representation and usp ,. 
 Imagination v. study. 
 
 Identification the highest department and final stage of memory. Three 
 factors to be observed: (1) It is a form of cognition, (2) That which is 
 known is re-known. (3) It is of my past. 
 
 Methods of invfestigating the learning process: (1) Method of description, 
 (2) Method of reproduction, (3) Method of identificatioUj (4) Method of com- 
 parison. " 
 
 Memory is usually defined as the mental capacity of retain- 
 ing unconscious traces of conscious impressions or states, 
 and of recalling these traces to consciousness. But this is not 
 all. A further analysis of memory (if we use the word in its 
 more general sense) will reveal the fact that the mind must 
 be conscious that the impression, sensation or mental state in 
 question has a certain relation to the past. 
 
 In the fullest and most complete sense of the word, a com- 
 plete act of memory will be found to involve four processes : 
 (1) retention, (2) reproduction, (3) representation, and (4) 
 identification. 
 
 Retention may be defined as that capacity of the mind that 
 keeps and stores up the various facts, sensations, images and 
 ideas that may later be called on for reproduction. With re- 
 tention pure and simple .the mind is not conscious that any of 
 these knowledges exist, for as soon as consciousness enters 
 we have reproduction and recognition. 
 
 Repi'oduction is the process by which objects that have 
 previously been known (be they mental images, states of feel- 
 ing, or what not) are brought back into consciousness for 
 representation and use. 
 
 32 
 
The Subdivisions of Memory 33 
 
 _ Representation is that stage of memory process that con- 
 sists in the mind presenting to itself the objects that have 
 previously been known. It may or may not be accompanied 
 by identification. When this accompanies it the process is 
 finished, and we have a complete act of memory. When rec- 
 ognition does not accompany it. we have fantasy—a form 
 of representation in which the images brought before the 
 mind are severed from their ordinary relations. 
 
 Identification is that stage of the memory process in which 
 the object is recognized as having belonged to or been in con- 
 nection with a past experience. It includes not only the ele- 
 ment of time, but that of self. That is, not only are we assured 
 that the object in question represents some knowledge or 
 experience of the past, but that this past knowledge or expe- 
 rience was our own. 
 
 The above are but definitions. We shall now consider each 
 of these sub-faculties in detail, and endeavor to explain just 
 how we retain, how we reproduce, how we represent and how 
 we identify. 
 
 Retention. 
 
 The act of retaining or the maintenance of changes caused 
 by external stimuli is an essential feature of all life.* In fact, 
 in the broadest sense possible it is a feature of inorganic 
 things as well. It is an axiom that the quantity of movement 
 existing in the universe is invariable and constant, so that 
 when we see force being expended on a body it follows that 
 changes of some kind in that body must follow. The body is 
 altered — an alteration that exists at the expense of the change 
 in motion. For wherever there is motion there is displace- 
 ment. The displacement may be permanent or only tempo- 
 rary, affect the mass as a whole or only parts of it, but it is 
 always there. 
 
 *In much the same way that we define retention as the maintenance of 
 changes caused hy external. stimuli, so we may speak of memory in general. 
 This is the view frequently held by biologists, some of whom go so far as to say 
 that memory is nothing but an acquired character. The trouble with such a 
 definition, however, is that it includes instincts, which, resulting as they do 
 from habitual modes of action accidently acquired, have been preserved and 
 transmitted by natural selection and heredity. 
 
34 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 When a current of electricity passes through a wire the wire 
 is altered. This change, however (unless the current be very 
 strong), is but temporary, though theoretically it is doubtful 
 if the wire ever returns to exactly the same condition as be- 
 fore. Similar phenomena may be observed with other forms 
 of force. When we send a stone through the air or throw it 
 into a pool of water, the fluid medium (in the one case air, 
 in the other water) is agitated and set into motion. The 
 material is, however, altered, but for a relatively short time, 
 and though certain molecules are displaced and their places 
 taken by others, the fluid may be said to return to its original 
 condition. 
 
 In other cases, however, we may witness a permanent 
 change— this depending upon the nature of the material and 
 the nature of the force affecting it. The current of electricity 
 may be .90 strong as to cause a change of shape in the wire, 
 or the water, if frozen, so non-elastic that the portions sepa- 
 rated by the blow of the stone cannot return to their former 
 position. In short, as shown by Herbert Spencer, the matter 
 is also a physical one, and depends not alone on the nature and 
 amount of the stimulus, but also on the solidity and elasticity 
 of the body affected. 
 
 We are now in a position where we may better understand 
 the psychical process of retention — a phenomenon of a suffi- 
 ciently similar nature as to be comparable to such physical 
 phenomena as those cited above. In the psychical act of re- 
 tention there must be a molecular or atomic change of some 
 sort in the brain substance, although the exact nature of this 
 change is unknown. We are still ignorant of just what takes 
 place in the brain when we reason. We are unable to differen- 
 tiate, in terms of change in brain structure, an emotion of 
 love from one of hate, or a sensation from a judgment. We 
 only know that during the process in question movements of 
 some kind must exist, and that these leave their traces in the 
 form of a more or less lasting change in the nervous tissue. 
 
 The comparison may be carried further. It is a matter of 
 everyday observation that the object or body that has once 
 had a certain change wrought on it by an external force or 
 stimulus can be made to adopt this new form with a lesser ex- 
 
The Subdivisions of Memory 35 
 
 penditure of energy every successive time. Tlie overcoming 
 of resistance is a phenomenon of habituation. It is easier 
 to fold a piece of tin if it has already once been folded, and 
 where the water has made a channel there it flows most easily. 
 Habit is not only a mental affair — something confined to the 
 cerebrum. Any organ may show its effects. Liver, stomach, 
 and intestines may become habituated as well as the brain. 
 One may contract a strange manner of walking as easily as a 
 strange manner of thinking, and the muscles are as easily 
 deformed as the mind. 
 
 Retention is influenced by several things. For purposes 
 of discussion we shall group these under three heads : 
 
 (1) Condition of the organism. 
 
 (2) Strength and clearness of the impression. 
 
 (3) Repetition. 
 
 Condition of the organism. The results of operations per- 
 formed on animals and man, certain psychoses, and the va- 
 rious diseases of memory as witnessed by the specialist in ner- 
 vous diseases, prove that the faculty of conservation is inti- 
 mately connected with the cerebral organism. The effects of 
 cerebral disorganization are best studied in the various forms 
 of amnesias, but to a lesser extent we may also observje them in 
 old age, fatigue, and the action of such drugs as alcohol, opium 
 and cannabis indica. 
 
 Strength and clearness of the impression. Six subfactors 
 are to be noted : 
 
 (a) Strength of stimulus. Generally speaking, the 
 stronger an impression, the greater its chance of remaining 
 in consciousness. It is a matter of everyday observation that 
 feeble impressions are soon forgotten. 
 
 (b) Clearness of stimulus. A stimulus may be strong, 
 but not clear, or vice versa. By clearness of stimulus we mean 
 distinction of ideas, i. e., to what degree is the image or idea 
 clear-cut, sha;rply defined and separate from similar images 
 and ideas. 
 
 Good retention necessitates complete understanding, and 
 ideas that are vague and confused are not well understood, 
 
36 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 and hence not well remembered. It is obvious that attention 
 is an important factor in this connection. 
 
 (c) Organisation of ideas. Generally speaking, it is only 
 by organization and classifying our various knowledges that 
 they are remembered for any length of time. This is espe- 
 cially true of the pure sciences in which perfection can only 
 be retained by constant classification, the formation of sys- 
 tems, and the rational ordering of new ideas as they enter. 
 Analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction are all proc- 
 esses to be considered under this head. 
 
 (d) Independency. Facts that we have worked out for 
 ourselves or that we have learned through experience, are 
 relatively well retained. What we invent ourselves, be it in 
 the form of an idea or in the construction of a machine, is not 
 easily forgotten. In short, it is a question of origin, i. e., does 
 the knowledge in question come from within or from without ? 
 It is obvious that attention and interest have to be considered 
 under this heading. 
 
 (e) Attention. The influence of attention on the retentive 
 capacity is too well known to need any discussion. 
 
 (f) Emotion. Ideas and images that are formed during 
 periods of great emotional activity are practically never for- 
 gotten. A lively or vif emotion is retained forever. 
 
 Repetition. This subfactor is of such importance that it 
 may replace all other conditions. The effects of routine and 
 habit are too well known to require any'discussion. 
 
 Eeproduction and Representation. 
 
 We shall discuss these together for the reason that they are 
 very closely linked, and the one practically necessitates the 
 other. The memory does not merely conserve ideas — it also 
 reproduces them and makes them again "alive." 
 
 Eeproduction, as we have already said, is the process by 
 which objects that have previously been known are brought 
 back into consciousness for representation and use. 
 
 The reproduction of an idea or image may be passive and 
 arrive spontaneously, or by the active process of association. 
 In the former case the image arises without our being able to 
 
The Subdivisions of Memory 37 
 
 give the reason, as, for example, when in the middle of a piece 
 of work a certain melody forces itself into consciousness. 
 Generally, however, the reproduced idea or image arises by 
 association. This latter may be voluntary, or more or less 
 involuntary. When, for example, we behold a certain house 
 we may recall our childhood days — children with whom we 
 played and the recurrence of certain events, and a continua- 
 tion of such recall may go on for some time undisturbed. 
 But it is always in such cases under the control of the will, 
 and may be stopped any moment. 
 
 The process may be more or less automatic. If the element 
 of volition enters but slightly, we call it imagination. When, 
 however, the voluntary element predominates, we call it study, 
 as in this case the endeavor to learn and acquire is brought 
 about by means of mental application. At such times there is 
 a process of effort and exertion, and we "endeavor" and 
 ' ' try ' ' to get one idea or image to recall another. 
 
 During our waking hours the various impressions and sen- 
 sations that we receive from the world around us, especially if 
 our attention is centered on them, direct our stream of thought 
 and keeping out as they do, extraneous or unallied matter, 
 exercise a sort of repression. In imagination- the stream of 
 thought is more or less allowed free play, and there is but 
 slight repression. In sleep and reverie, however, the stream 
 of thought is let run as it will, and though one idea may follow 
 another through the activity of the process of association, 
 this process is not directed by the will — as is the case in study. 
 
 In recalling a mental state, be it an idea, sensation, or what 
 not, there is a passage of a current that affects the cerebrum 
 in a manner more or less similar to the way it was affected 
 the first time the mental state occurred. As to how far the 
 two processes are identical will be discussed later. Suffice it 
 for the moment to say that it is not probable that the brain 
 tracts excited in the recall are perfectly identical with those 
 excited by the event at the time of its original occurrence. 
 
 The reproduction and representation of an image may be 
 caused in various ways. As a rule, it arises because of a 
 visual or auditory stimulus. I happened just now to recall 
 St. Marco's Cathedral in Venice. I recalled it for the simple 
 
38 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 reason that I happened to lift my eyes and saw the photograph 
 that I once took of it. But the recall might have taken place 
 in many other ways, e. g., by a photograph of some othei- 
 cathedral, by the name ' ' St. Marco, ' ' or possibly by the mere 
 word "cathedral." The degree of perfection of the image 
 would naturally vary in the different cases. The most com- 
 plete and perfect recoUective image would be produced only 
 by again beholding the Cathedral itself. 
 
 It is evident that this department of memory is more or less 
 linked with, and may even consist of, association. The associa- 
 tion may be one of ideas, sensations, images, emotions, or 
 other form of mental activity, but in one form or another it is 
 always there. 
 
 Some psychologists hold that there are two varieties of re- 
 production, depending upon whether the object is recalled 
 from within or without, i. e., they distinguish between an 
 image that is recalled by the individual himself (from within) 
 and the image that is recalled by a stimulus from without. 
 In short, they differentiate remembering from being remem- 
 bered of. They hold in support of this classification that it 
 is impossible to recall a series of mental images or representa- 
 tions without one of them having arisen and been caused by 
 external stimulation. No reproduction, they claim, is other- 
 wise possible. This school explains reproduction by holding 
 that real bonds or connections (anatomical or physiological) 
 exist between the members of a series, and that we are able 
 to pass to another group or series only because of the fact 
 that there exists an element in common between the two. 
 Some go so far as to hold that the bond is material. The other 
 school claims that the connecting bond in association is purely 
 a mental one, intellectual and ideal. 
 
 Generally speaking, the rapidity with which a former idea 
 or state of mind can be recalled depends both upon its degree 
 of vividness and upon the frequency with which it has been 
 recalled in the past. When for the first time we recall and 
 restore before us a certain state of mind it does not ' ' arise ' ' 
 with rapidity. In order to obtain it quickly it is necessary 
 that it be a state of mind that has already frequently occurred 
 
The Subdivisions of Memory 39 
 
 in the past. [Eepetition, Practice.] To obtain the image or 
 state of mind in all its details we have to apply our attention. 
 Eecollection alone, however, is, as we have already said, not 
 memory. It may, however, be said to be the activity that 
 grows into it by the aid of the activity of introspection and 
 attention. 
 
 Indentification or Recognition. , 
 
 " Unconscious retention, whether conceived of as a 'holding 
 in store' of certain cerebral habits and dynamical associations, 
 or as a 'keeping' of ideas within a metaphysical entity called 
 the mind, might be absolutely perfect and yet no actual mem- 
 ory-consciousness develop. Reproduction might be secured 
 in perfection and might go on forever and yet no faintest 
 shadow of a true remembrance pass within the soul. Memory, 
 in the full meaning of -the word, is a lino wing of the past and 
 of my past. It is re-cognition." ^ Identification is thus the 
 highest department — the final stage — of memory, for not only 
 do we thereby assure ourselves that the object in question 
 represents some knowledge or experience of the past, but we 
 cognize that this past knowledge or experience was our own. 
 It is by this faculty that we distinguish the oldest from the 
 newest and assign the time and place of the original image, 
 emotion or idea. In short, ide'ntification includes three fac- 
 tors : (1) It is a form of cognition; (2) that which is known 
 is re-known, i. e., the affair is something of the past, and (3) 
 the "something" is of my past — something belonging to my 
 experience. 
 
 The mere reproduction of anterior states of consciousness 
 does not represent the entire process of reproduction. We 
 only really reproduce when we are conscious that it is ive 
 Avho had the experience. In this case we consider the idea 
 not as the original experience, but merely as a reproduction 
 of it. 
 
 The two main factors of identification are, therefore, the 
 following: (1) idea of time, (2) identity of me (self). 
 
 When consciousness presents an idea it is necessary in 
 order to recognize it that we be conscious of the fact that we 
 
 "IjAdd. Outlines of Descriptive Psychology. Page 238. 
 
40 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 have already had this idea (or experienced this sensation) 
 in the past. 
 
 It will be seen that there is an analogy between the process 
 of identification and that of external perception, for in order 
 to grasp and comprehend sensations they must be subjective, 
 and perception consists in precisely such a process, i. e., it 
 "projects," so to speak, these sensations into space. Our 
 word representation to a certain extent implies this, for it 
 entails an idea of space — a form of external sensitivity.^ 
 
 The mental process of identification can only be rationally 
 explained by an acceptance of the theory that in recall the 
 brain cells that were affected by the original experience are 
 reaffected in the reproduction. As an illustration, let us again 
 take the Church of St. Marco. The visual image the first time 
 I beheld this church had, we will suppose, certain factors and 
 characteristics — certain parts of it being clearer and more 
 detailed than others. We will also suppose that it was two 
 days before I again saw the Cathedral. During these forty- 
 eight hours the image became more or less reduced and 
 effaced. When, two days later, I again saw the church the 
 image thereby formed was so nearly like the first image that 
 practically the same parts of the cortex were affected. But, 
 having already once been affected, they were affected more 
 easily the second time. In short, the second image "found,'- 
 so to speak, certain brain cells already affected, — its work was 
 easier, — there was recognition. It thus resulted that the essen- 
 tial parts of the image (retained the first time) were repro- 
 duced in the formation of the second image, and in each case 
 more or less the same brain cells must have been affected. 
 Now, in view of the fact that certain parts of the brain were 
 affected or altered the first time, less remained to be affected 
 the second time. There was less work to be done — -more room 
 left for attention-to and refinement-of the image. 
 
 The reappearance or recall of a mental state, sensation, -or 
 image may or may not be recognizable. If recognizable, it is 
 because there were in the mental comparison made certain 
 factors found to be in common, or, to put it in other words, 
 
 'Time on the other hand is a form of internal sensitivity 
 
The Subdivisions of Memory 41 
 
 the same brain cells were found to be already affected. There 
 was a feeling of ' ' having seen. ' ' 
 
 Various explanations exist in psychology as to the nature 
 of the process of recognition. Notwithstanding what we have 
 said under reproduction concerning the probability of the same 
 brain paths being affected, and how under habit we gave a 
 similar explanation, e. g., that a coat falls more easily into 
 its old folds, it is not probable that the paths affected in recall 
 and recognition are exactly the same as those affected the 
 first time. On the contrary, it is probable that the brain tracts 
 excited by the event at the time of its first occurrence and 
 those excited in its recall are in part different from each other. 
 "If we could revive the past event without any associates," 
 says James,^ "we should exclude the possibility of memory, 
 and simply dream that we were undergoing the experience as 
 if for the first time. Wherever, in fact, the recalled event does 
 appear without a definite setting it is hard to distinguish it 
 from a mere creation of fancy. But in proportion as its 
 image lingers and recalls associates which gradually become 
 more definite, it grows more and more distinctly into a remem- 
 bered thing. For example, I enter a friend's room and see on 
 the wall a painting. At first I have the strange, wondering 
 consciousness, ' Surely I have seen that before, ' but when or 
 how does not become clear. There only clings to the picture 
 a sort of penumbra of familiarity, — ^when suddenly I exclaim : 
 'I have it, it is a copy of part of one of the Fra Angelicos in 
 the Florentine Academy — I recollect it there!' But the mo- 
 tive to the recall does not lie in the fact that the brain-tract 
 now excited by the painting was once before excited in a simi- 
 lar way; it lies simply and solely in the fact that with that 
 brain-tract other tracts also are excited : those which sustain 
 my friend's room with all its peculiarities, on the one hand; 
 those which sustain the mental image of the Florence Acad- 
 emy, on the other hand, with the circumstances of my visit 
 there; and finally those which make me (more dimly) think 
 of the years I have lived through between these two times. 
 The result of "this total brain-disturbance is a thought with a 
 
 •James. Principles of Psychology. Vol. I, page 658. 
 
42 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 peculiar object, namely, that I who now stand here with this 
 picture before me, stood so many years ago in the Florentine 
 Academy looking at its original." 
 
 Like perception, identification is a complex act, and neces- 
 sitates the operation of several of the so-called faculties. 
 Identification is apt to be confounded with several allied 
 affairs or mental processes, as may be seen by comparing it 
 with the dream, illusion, hallucination,* and certain acts of 
 the imagination. We refer to a fiction of the imagination, 
 such, for example, as when we are in doubt as to the occur- 
 rence of a certain action, e. g., if we have really over had such 
 an idea, seen such a place, or beheld such a scene. | The uncer- 
 tainty of the memory is notorious. How frequently do we 
 imagine ourselves to have said things that in reality we never 
 said? And hpw often do we forget having seen a certain per- 
 son or witnessed a certain event when in reality we did see 
 the person and witness the event? It has doubtless occurred 
 to everyone to ask himself: "Is that a dream of mine, or did 
 that really happen ? ' ' 
 
 This problem of identification is thus a double one — two 
 questions arising: (1) In what way do^we know if our iden- 
 tification is a true one, i. e., one of an actual former percep- 
 tion? (2) By what process do we distinguish the creation 
 of our imagination! In answer to the first question we 
 may say that there are four things to be considered, i. e., 
 there are four factors that distinguish the real perception of 
 an object from the mental image we may afterwards form 
 of it: (a) When we actually perceive an object the image as 
 it exists in the mind stands out in relief; it is alive, vif, and 
 distinct, (b) The visual perception is confirmed by other per- 
 ceptions, and is in harmony, and en rapport with it. For 
 example, when I behold my table I see not merely the table, 
 but the pencils and books lying on it, the chairs standing 
 around, the effects of light and shadow, and to a varying 
 extent the surrounding articles of furniture. To a greater 
 or lesser extent these would be lacking in the pure visual 
 
 'Strictly speaking there are two kinds of sensory deception. (1) Illusion, or 
 the false interpretation of external objects: and (2) hallucination or sub- 
 jective sensory images arising without the aid of external stimuli. 
 
The Subdivisions of Memory 43 
 
 image of the table as formed with the eyes closed, (c) Actual 
 perception forces these images into consciousness, and even 
 though we may so desire, we are unable to prevent their en- 
 trance. For example, I can^ if I wish, form a visual image of 
 my table, either with or without its books, but I cannot when 
 I actually see the table prevent myself from seeing the books 
 upon it. (d) The image formed by actual perception is not 
 really capable of being modified or changed— it is not malle- 
 able. Images of the other type, however, those, for example, 
 formed with the eyes closed, are extremely supple and docile, 
 and can be modified with ease. 
 
 The image that arises during contemplation and meditation 
 is felt instinctively to have been produced ivithin us and by 
 us. We also instinctively realize that it is modifiable at will. 
 We feel that we have created the image in question, that it 
 was not made for us or thrust upon us, and that we may 
 greatly modify it at pleasure. The image is also felt to be 
 more or less hazy and indistinct. 
 
 At times, however, the image formed may possess a clear- 
 ness and vividness and stand out in relief to such an extent 
 that it may be taken for a perception. In such cases we have 
 what is known as an hallucination. In certain forms of in- 
 sanity the image is vivid and alive to an extraordinary degree, 
 and resists all attempts of modification. 
 
 If, on the contrary, we can modify the image as we wish; 
 if its attachments to other ideas and images are not too 
 strong, if- it is not too clear, plain, and distinct, and especially 
 if it is formed during a period that we instinctively feel to be 
 one of meditation, we know that the image is one of our own 
 invention — in short, that it is an image and not a real per- 
 ception. 
 
 « # . * * -* * * 
 
 In Chapter I we considered memory in its relation to 
 imagery and endeavored to show that memory, as the word 
 is generally used, is complex in the extreme — that there are, 
 in short, as many forms of memory as there are forms of 
 imagery. 
 
 We also showed that in order thoroughly to examine and 
 investigate anyone's memory we should have to examine 
 
44 
 
 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 separately his various forms of imagery. We may, however, 
 go further than this and say that in order to completely 
 know anyone's memory we would also have to examine sepa- 
 rately his powers of retention, reproduction, representation 
 and identification. 
 
 It is difficult, nay, almost impossible, to measure these ' ' sub- 
 faculties" separately, and as yet we have no special method 
 for each individual process. 
 
 In investigating the memory we have at our disposal some 
 eight or ten methods. The four most commonly employed in 
 psychological laboratories are: 
 
 (1) The method of description. 
 
 (2) The method of reproduction. 
 
 (3) The method of identification. 
 
 (4) The method of comparison. 
 
 It will be noted that three of these correspond to three of 
 the four sub-faculties of memory that we have already de- 
 scribed. 
 
 Various materials may be employed in an investigation of 
 the memory by any one of these four methods. In the fol- 
 lowing description we shall illustrate them as they are em- 
 ployed when figures of different shapes are employed (such, 
 a g., as those shown in Fig. 1). The figures used may vary 
 
 Fifi^ 
 
The Subdivisions of Memory 45 
 
 only in size or in both size and shape. In some cases, color 
 also is added, but this brings in a factor that so complicates 
 two of the methods as to make them impracticable for the pur- 
 poses intended. 
 
 (1) Method of description. The method of description 
 consists merely in describing from memory the figure as 
 nearly as one can remember it. As a general rule, the de- 
 scription given by the subject is not very precise, and where 
 precision is required this method should be replaced by one 
 of the others. 
 
 With the method of description the subject is asked to 
 describe the figure, i. e., he is asked to state, in terms of words, 
 as to whether, for example, it is a triangle or square, and if 
 a triangle, what kind of a triangle. He is also requested to 
 state its size. This latter may be stated in terms of centi- 
 meters or inches, but it is best described by comparing it with 
 some object already known. Intrinsically there is no objec- 
 tion to the subject stating the length of the figure in centi- 
 meters or inches. If he does this, however, it is probably 
 because he has retained the size of the figure in his mind not 
 as a figure of such or such a size, but as a figure of a certain 
 number of inches in length. In other words, with this method 
 he should not use numbers in his retention. 
 
 (2) Method of reproduction. The method of reproduction 
 may be described as follows: The subject is given a pencil 
 and paper and told to draw from memory the figure that he 
 has seen. He may draw and re-draw as many times as he 
 desires, make as many figures as he wishes and correct as 
 often as he may think necessary. It will be seen that this 
 method brings in the visual memory in a different manner from 
 that employed in the preceding method. For here the subject 
 is allowed to draw, and thus he is able to behold and visually 
 perceive a figure that more or less approaches the original 
 even though it may not be an exact reproduction. 
 
 It frequently happens that, although we are able to recog- 
 nize an object when we see it, we may be incapable of repre- 
 senting it visually with the eyes closed. In such cases we 
 may be able to recall an image of it and recognize it when we 
 see a figure that nearly approaches it; in short, we may 
 
46 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 "know" it in one sense of the word and yet not be able to 
 reproduce it. 
 
 We do not mean the reader to understand that reproduc- 
 tion by hand is more difficult than reproduction by eye. But 
 it is frequently impossible to place on paper the ensemble of 
 visual images as introduced to the mind by way of the retina. 
 
 (3) The method of identificatiovp. This method consists 
 in presenting to the subject (at the time of the second ex- 
 periment) a row of figures, one of which is identical with the 
 figure originally seen. The subject is asked if he can recog- 
 nize in the group the figure observed the day previously. We 
 may here note an important difference that exists between 
 Methods 2 and 3. It is that in the method of reproduc- 
 tion the muscular sense is called into play. In order to give 
 shape and size to the figure that the subject attempts to draw 
 he must translate his visual image into an equivalent motor 
 one. 
 
 (4) The method of comparison. This method cansists in 
 presenting to the subject a figure similar to, but not exactly 
 like the one studied the previous day, and in asking him to 
 state in what way the figure he studied the day before dif- 
 fers. He is asked to state if it was larger or smaller, thinner 
 or thicker, longer or shorter, etc. — in short, he is asked to 
 make a comparison. 
 
 It will be seen that this method is in one respect similar 
 to the method of identification, in that it does not call into 
 play a sensory organ other than that which was called into 
 service at the time of the original presentation. 
 
CHAPTEE III. 
 
 THE RELATION OF LENGTH OF MATERIAL TO TIME 
 
 TAKEN FOE LEARNING 
 
 and 
 
 THE OPTIMUM DISTRIBUTION OF TIME. 
 
 (27ic various Plates referred to in this Chapter icill he found in the Pocket of 
 
 the front cover.) 
 
 Problem l^The relation of length of material to time talteu for. learning. 
 Problem 2 — The optimum distribution of time. 
 
 Complexity of Problem 1 — (a) For each and every "length" various methods 
 (both as to distribution of time and division of material) must be tried; (b) 
 various materials must be used ; (c) various methods for calculating the 
 "amount retained." 
 
 "Once-per-day" method versus "contmuous" method. Relation of length of 
 material to time taken for learning found to depend largely upon wliicli of these 
 two metliods is used. 
 
 Importance to Pedagogy of Problem 2. Length of the problem. Taking all 
 materials and methods of presentation into consideration the most economical 
 method is, generally speaking, to distribute the readings over a fairly lengthy 
 period. Advisability of reviewing lecture-notes as soon as possible after taking 
 them. Poor economy wlien once the original associations formed are lost. 
 
 The use of nonsense-syllables in memory tests. Difficulty of forming home 
 geneous sets. Kules for the formation of long sets. 
 
 In this chapter we give the results of a somewhat elabo- 
 rate series of experiments undertaken to determine the 
 relation of length of material to time taken for learning. 
 The materials used were nonsense syllables, digits, prose, 
 and poetry. In view of the fact that these materials were 
 memorized by two methods, viz., — by what we shall call 
 the " continuous " method and the "once-per-day" method, op- 
 portunity was given to compare these two methods both as to 
 economy^ and durability of impression,- and in view of the 
 fact that other distributions' of time were later used in an- 
 other set of experiments, it was felt that the sum total of the 
 results obtained on The Optimuyn Distribution of Time were 
 {sufficient to warrant putting this down as part of the title. 
 
 M. e., total time taken. 
 'i. e., retentiveness. 
 
 "e. g., twice per week, once per week, etc. 
 
 47 
 
48 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 Were one undertaking a really thorough investigation of 
 the problem of the relation of length of material to time taken 
 for learning, it is obvious that for each and every "length," 
 various distributions of the study periods should be tried— 
 i. e., not only should each prose passage, set of digits, or what 
 not, be memorized by the "continuous" method,* but it should 
 be memorized by reading twice a day, once a day, once a week, 
 etc. Such a procedure would, of course, give us what I have 
 termed above as "The Optimum Distribution of Time." By 
 also varying the methods of presentation, e. g.,— reading the 
 material" to the subject, letting him read it, etc., etc.,— we would 
 but add another contribution to the more general problem of 
 The Most Economical Method of Learning. Tho this problem 
 will be discussed more in detail later on' in this chapter, it will 
 not be amiss to say a few words on it here. 
 
 Of the many factors' that must be considered in the problena 
 of Economical Learning only three concern us at present — 
 (1) the length of practice periods, i. e., how long should we 
 study at each period? (2) Frequency of practice periods,— 
 i. e., how often should we study? (3) Method or manner of 
 practice, — i. e., how should we study ? 
 
 Supposing now, that each of these three questions be de- 
 
 'i. e., in one sitting. 
 
 'V. p. 81. 
 
 'e. g., intensity of sound, when material was presented aurally ; color, when 
 presented visually, etc., etc. These and many other such factors would have 
 to be considered in any investigation of the most economical method of learn- 
 ing, if the investigation were a thorough one. 
 
 Another factor that would have to be borne in mind is that after a certain 
 time a physiological limit is reached, beyond which further practice increases 
 neither the speed nor the accuracy. 
 
 Most important of all, however, is the fact that what is most "economical" 
 for one individual is not necessarily the most economical for another. Again, 
 certain factors count more with some individuals than with others, e. g., it has 
 been shown (Cohn. Zeit. f. Psych. Vol. XV.) that in "silent" reading, the in- 
 hibition of all articulation made a much greater difference with some indi- 
 viduals than with others. 
 
 Aside from attention it should be remembered that interest, or attitude oi 
 mind, for want of a better term, plays a considerable part. It was shown by 
 Witasek (Zeit. f. Psych. 1907, XLIV) that active recitations of the material 
 being memorized were far superior to the more passive readings of the ma- 
 terial. Witasek found that long before a list could be recited perfectly,, it was 
 possible to recite portions of it, and he found that when the sub,iect relies' upon 
 his memory in attempting the reproduction, (only being prompted when he 
 hesitated) the list was learned in fewer repetitions. 
 
Relation of Length of Material to Learning Time 49 
 
 cided for — say memorizing a passage of prose, it does not 
 .necessarily follow that the same procedure should be adopted 
 for digits. Still less does it follow that it would necessarily 
 be the best procedure for learning a language or learning to 
 typewrite. Individual experiments must be conducted for 
 each and every material. The results of many experiments 
 have now proven to us that the so called "natural" or "psy- 
 chological" method^ of learning a language is not the most 
 economical. It has been shown that such associations do not 
 develop in truly natural learning — and, that any attempt to 
 force these foreign associations into the subject's mind, re- 
 tards, rather than hastens, his progress. Here, as with learn- 
 ing to telegraph, the natural and most enocomical method is 
 to allow the "habits" to grow and develop together. 
 
 T^ ^ T> T^ ^ TP 
 
 We shall now consider, but first from an historical point of 
 view, the problem that it is the main object of this chapter to 
 present, namely, the relation hetiveen amount to he learned 
 and time taken for learning. I say "time taken" instead of 
 number of repetitions (which at first thought would seem the 
 better comparison) for the reason that we shall later compare 
 the total time taken by the "once-per-day" method with the 
 total time taken by the "continuous" method. 
 
 This problem is one that has received but little attention 
 from the experimental psychologist. The first in the field is 
 Dr. Hermann Ebbinghaus. Ebbinghaus* found that after one 
 reading he could repeat 7 syllables; 12 syllables took 16. G 
 readings ; 16 syllables, 30 readings, etc. The following table 
 expresses his results in tabulated form — with certain addi- 
 tions of my own made for purposes of comparison that will 
 be discussed later. 
 
 'We refer to the metliod of first thoroughly learnmg the various letters, then 
 combining the letters into syllables, then combining the syllables into words, 
 then combining the words into sentences, and finally combining the sentences 
 into the desired thought. 
 
 'Vher das Oeddchtnis. Translation by Ruger & Busenius, p. 47. 
 
50 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 
 
 TABLE A. 
 
 
 
 Number of 
 
 Number of 
 
 DifCereuce in 
 
 Time for one 
 
 Total 
 
 syllables 
 
 7 
 
 repetitious 
 1 
 
 repetitions" 
 
 reading" 
 3.5 sec. 
 
 time" 
 3.5 sec. 
 
 12 
 
 17 
 
 16 
 
 24. " 
 
 102. " 
 
 IG ■ 
 
 30 
 
 13 
 
 32. " 
 
 240. " 
 
 24 
 
 44 
 
 14 
 
 48. " 
 
 528. " 
 
 3G 
 
 55 
 
 11 
 
 72. " 
 
 990. " 
 
 It will be seen tliat the number of repetitions increases at 
 first with great rapidity, but that later the increase becomes 
 less and less — the increase in repetitions being relatively much 
 greater than the increase in the number of syllables. 
 
 Binet" found a similar tendency. He found that 11 digits 
 could be reproduced after 4 seconds of study; 13 took 38 
 seconds ; while 14 took 75 seconds. Binet and Henri'= working 
 together obtained the following : 
 
 
 
 TABLE 
 
 B. 
 
 
 Number of 
 
 Digits 
 
 
 
 Number of Seconds 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 135 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 
 180 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 260 
 
 50 
 
 
 
 
 420 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 1500 
 
 200 
 
 
 
 
 4520 
 
 Offner" in attempting to explain such a result as the above 
 said that it was possible that the greater the number of meni- 
 bers in a series, — the less the attention paid to each member. 
 This, however, would assume that each and every series de- 
 manded, and always received, a certain definite amount of at- 
 tention, which would mean that the greater the number of 
 digits, syllables or what-not in a series, the less attention each 
 digit or syllable would receive. Offner also suggested, as a 
 partial explanation of the relative increase in time needed for 
 
 "Figured at tbe rate of 2 syllables per second. Tbis was not Ebbinghaus's 
 actual rate but it is near enough for purposes of comparison with my own 
 rate of 2 syllables per second. 
 
 "i. e., the increase in repetitions over that that was needed for the preceding 
 set of syllables. 
 
 "Binet, PsijcJiologie cles grands calculateurs. Paris, 1894. 
 
 *=BiNET & Henei. La M&rnoire des Mots. L'Annee Psychol. I, 1895. 
 
 '=Offneb. Das Oedachtnis. Berlin, 1909. 
 
Relation of Length of Material to Learning Time 51 
 
 the longer series, the fact that in a long series the act of for- 
 getting has been in operation longer than in a short series — 
 since it takes longer to re.ad r^ hence, the greater number of 
 repetitions required. Myers sought to explain these results 
 on the grounds that the longer series fatigued more and that 
 the individual members received, therefore, relatively less at- 
 tention. This is somewhat similar to Offner's explanation and 
 contains undoubtedly a considerable element of truth. It is 
 doubtful, however, if the decrease in attention is proportion- 
 ate. Ebbinghaus sought to explain his results by the narrow- 
 ness of the span of consciousness and in retroactive inhibition. 
 Although Ebbinghaus distinctly states in his preface: "The 
 tests were all made upon myself and have prihaarily only in- 
 dividual significance'"* — yet his "curve of forgetting" that 
 developed from his experiments with nonsense syllables has 
 given us what is sometimes known as Ebbinghaus' s law. 
 Strange to say, however, no systematic inquiry has, until re- 
 cently," been made to test the validity of this "law." Not 
 only are his results quoted in nearly all the works on psychol- 
 ogy — but conclusions, supposed to be of educational signifi- 
 cance are drawn from them. It should also be borne in mind 
 that on this subject Ebbinghaus 's experiments were few in 
 number. His data for 24 syllables are based on but 3 experi- 
 ments ; those for 36 syllables on only two. 
 
 Both Eadosavljevich and Meiimann noted that the change 
 from 8 to 12, or 12 to 16 syllables, did not demand a very great 
 increase in the number of repetitions. In fact, frequently 16 
 syllables were memorized with fewer repetitions than 8 or 12 
 syllables. The following tables (C to I inclusive) give the re- 
 sults obtained by various investigators of this problem of the 
 number of repetitions required to memorize varying nmnbers 
 of nonsense syllables. Excepting Table G, each table is for 
 one, and only one, subject. As may be noted, the individual dif- 
 
 "C6er das (?edac7i*MS— translation by Ruger & Busenius. Ruger and 
 Bussenius touch on the point in question in their "translator's" introduction. 
 They say. "in spite of the fact that his experiments were performed only on 
 himself and that the numercial results obtained are consequently limited in 
 significance, Ebbinghaus has" . . . etc. 
 
 "The first serious inquiry into the matter was made by V. A. C. Henmon. 
 The results of his work were read before the American Association for the 
 Advancement of Science at the 1911 Washington meeting. 
 
52 
 
 m 
 
 El 
 t 
 
 
 n 
 P 
 
 •CO 
 ■15 
 
 M 
 
 o 
 
 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 s 
 
 >> 
 
 36_« 
 
 
 KS 
 
 no « 
 I" 
 
 dg S 
 
 b-a 5 
 
 HO 
 
 Mg « 
 g«ori 
 
 H'J, S 
 
 ng « 
 
 Eh o — 
 
 en W 
 
 Qg S 
 
 IS a ^ 
 
 
 oa 
 
 Ms (B 
 
 d ^ 
 
 CDOM'*C0Mlr- OClCrHiHO 
 (M 03 1-1 C-l 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 O 
 
 O CO 
 
 00 (M 
 
 OTtHt^t-OSeOOlfflTtllOLOt-tD 
 M CO CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 rH 1-1 O IH CO CO ^ 
 
 OM'^ttlOOOTHO 
 T-li-liHrHi-IIMOJCO 
 
 iH © iH <M CO iH 50 
 
 1-C00005iHtHC0O 
 iH iH 1-1 (N 
 
 03t-t-omcOSDTiH(Mls 
 
 -* 
 •* 
 
 lM03C0-*TtlTtlC3i-'rHr-i 
 
 in o I- r-i o 
 
 1-1 i-l IM CO 
 
 00 IM O 00 tH 
 
 QOOC-l-t<OCOO-*OlMOC>OD<M 
 r-liHrtrti-llMMCOcOCO^'*l- 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 o 
 
 o6 
 
 
 bt 
 
 
 ti 
 
 P K 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 - 0, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ a 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 o 
 
 4J o 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 W3 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 S« 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 isS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 £.S 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 Ofl 
 
 
 ■n 
 
 
 T) 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 a 
 
 >-£ 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 •S" 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 g 
 
 ss 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 ■a 
 
 £?i 
 
 
 J3 
 
 
 0) 
 
 If 
 
 
 C^ 
 
 
 •" 
 
 tis 
 
 
 
 
 
 S o 
 oS 
 
 
 eq 
 
 o 
 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 £S 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 s« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 to. 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 <4-( 
 
 |o 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 £ SJ 
 
 
 t4 
 
 3 
 
 
 fl 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 fcl) 
 
 
 
 0) 2 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 s 
 
 EQ 
 
 sa 
 
 +J 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 S 
 
 s^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 o 
 
 Is 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <H 
 
 
 
 
 if 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 ■4^ 
 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 t? 
 
 o 
 
 ■?," 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 Pi 
 
 < 
 
 ■s 
 
 2 
 
 &^ 
 
 
 § 
 
 3 
 
 
 O J. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1H a 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 g 
 
 F 
 
 S 
 
 °^ 
 
 l°a 
 2ao 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 to 
 
 ! 
 
 ma 
 
 a ^ 
 
 TnS 
 
 1 
 
 ll 
 
 
 & 
 
 X 
 
 0) 
 
 L 
 
 fS-f 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 11 
 
 il5 
 
 61) 
 
 UM 
 
 H m C3 
 
 Id 
 
 g 
 
 a 
 
 
 .!» t>o t» a 
 
 ^'^^'S 
 
 ^^ . 
 
 s^P,"^ 
 
 
Relation of Length of Material to Learning Time 53 
 
 ferenees are marked. The "difference" column is meant to 
 show the relative increase, or decrease in the number of repe- 
 titions. It will be noted that with Ebbinghaus the increase is 
 always considerable, e. g., 24 syllables take 44 repetitions, 
 whereas 36 take 55 — an increase of 11. With the same series 
 of syllables, Meumann's increase is only 3. 
 
 It will be noted that some of these results are very different 
 from those obtained by Ebbinghaus, for while with Ebbing- 
 haus there is a relative increase in the number of repetitions 
 with increase in number of syllables, with Meumann there is 
 a relative decrease in number of repetitions with an increase 
 in the number of syllables. "Meumann holds" says Hen- 
 mon" "that this is what might be expected. An increase in 
 amount of work to be done, if it is not too great, makes little 
 difference when once the initial disinclination or inertia is 
 overcome, when adaptation of attention is secured, when the 
 associative processes have been aroused, and a general ad- 
 justment to the work is once attained. All of these formal con- 
 ditions of learning should be effective for series no matter 
 what their length within the limits of fatigue. Hence, it is 
 reasonable to expect a relative decrease in energy required for 
 learning with an increase in amount to be learned." 
 
 The results of Henmon's experiments with nonsense sylla- 
 bles that concern us here are shown in tables E and F in con- 
 junction with those of Ebbinghaus and Meumann. His results 
 differ widely from those of Ebbinghaus and Binet but are in 
 fairly close accord with those of Meumann and Eadosavlje- 
 vich. There is a relative decrease in the number of repeti- 
 tions as the number of syllables increases. Particularly note- 
 worthy is the fact that the number or repetitions for the series 
 from 10 to 18 is practically constant. The results are even 
 more striking than those of Meumann in showing the relative 
 economy with the longer series. 
 
 In investigating the relation of amount to be learned to 
 repetition, Henmon also made a departure from his prede- 
 cessors by using meaningful material. His results on three 
 subjects in memorizing 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 stanzas of In Me- 
 moriam by the "whole" method are given below: 
 "Op. cit. 
 
54 
 
 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 stanzas 
 
 Words 
 
 1 
 
 28 
 
 2 
 
 56 
 
 3 
 
 84 
 
 4 
 
 112 
 
 5 
 
 140 
 
 TABLE J. 
 
 Number of Repetitions for: — 
 
 H (10) D (10) P (5)' 
 
 3 3 4 
 
 5 6 7 
 
 6 9 10 
 
 7 11 12 
 9 14 14 
 
 The results of my own experiments with poetry are given 
 in Table K. Only two subjects were used. The stanzas aver- 
 aged 25 words each and were of the same type as The Ancient 
 Mariner. Table L gives my own individual results (as taken 
 from Plate 3) and is placed here merely for purposes of com- 
 parison. 
 
 TABLE K. 
 
 inzas 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 10 
 25 
 50 
 
 Number of Repetitions for : — 
 
 Words G (6)" M (6)" 
 
 60 7 5 
 
 150 17 14 
 
 30O 19 16 
 
 750 22 16 
 
 1500 30 23 
 
 
 TABLE L. 
 
 
 Stanzas 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 10 
 25 
 50 
 
 Words Number 
 50 
 
 125 
 
 250 
 
 625 
 1250 
 
 of Repetitions" 
 6 
 16 
 22 
 19 
 25 
 
 Henmon found that the increase in the number of repeti- 
 tions with the increase in amount is relatively less than the 
 increase in the number of lines or stanzas. If the increase 
 was proportional to the amount the number of repetitions 
 would be 3.5, 7.0, 10.5, 14.0 and 17.5 instead of which the 
 series is 3.5, 6.3, 8.6, 10.0 and 12.2, which are the averages of 
 the three subjects of Table J. There is, therefore, according 
 to Henmon, a relevant economy with the larger amounts. 
 The economy in relearning after 24 hours is greater with the 
 
 "Tlie figures in parentheses indicate tlie number of experiments from wliich 
 tlie averages were made. 
 
 "Approximate only,^ — being computed (at tlie rate of 2 stanzas in 0.23 min- 
 ute) from the total time as given under "continuous method" on Plate 3. 
 
Relation of Length of Material to Learning Time 55 
 
 larger amounts and, according to Henmon, .is relatively 
 greater with poetry than with nonsense-syllables. 
 
 Henmon also made experiments nsing prose as the mate- 
 rial. This consisted of 100-word, 200-word and 300-word pas- 
 sages selected from the essays of Huxley and Matthew Arnold. 
 Sixty selections |rom Huxley were made, and 60 from 
 Arnold, — 20 passages of each length. One practiced subject 
 learned 54 of these selections, (18 from each group), and re- 
 corded the number of repetitions required for learning. The 
 results are indicated below in Table M. Table N, giving the 
 results of some of my own experiments, which will be taken 
 up in detail further on, is appended for purposes of compari- 
 son. In the paper read at Washington, Henmon stated only 
 the number of repetitions. Assuming that the reading was 
 performed at the ordinary rate (about 200 words per min- 
 ute), I have taken the liberty to figure the approximate time 
 taken for these repetitions, and have included it in Table M. 
 It will be noted that with none of the passages do any of my 
 subjects get so low a time as that obtained by Henmon. If his 
 rate of reading was faster than I have assumed, the differ- 
 ence would be even more marked. 
 
 TABLE M.. 
 
 Nuuibei" of Words 
 100 
 200 
 300 
 
 Repetitious 
 6.4 
 7.3 
 7.0 
 
 Approximate Tiine 
 
 3.2 mill. 
 
 7.3 mill. 
 10.5 lulu. 
 
 TABLE N." 
 
 Number or ' Subject, with Number of Minutes Taken ^ 
 
 Words B. B. Ed. W. El. W. E. F. E. B. H. B. A. K. A. H. E. E. F. Wl. R. W. A. Q. E. A. F. Wo. D. L. 
 
 100 8 10 12 14 13 16 19 15 21 17 18 17 35 31 10 
 
 300 25 24 19 47 40 26 29 32 37 36 51 48 78 41 28 
 
 SCO" 42 59 67 98 103 57 88 75 .. 45 133 81 * •54 
 
 As will be noted from Table M, Henmon finds an approxi- 
 mate constancy in the number of repetitions for the passages, 
 irrespective of their length. Tho with the nonsense syllables 
 some of my subjects gave results that approximate those ob- 
 
 '°It should be noted tliat Henmon used 100, 200, and 300 word passages, 
 whereas I used 100, 300, and 500. 
 
56 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 tained by Hernnon, with prose I get no such results as those 
 that he obtained, as mav be seen from Table N. 
 
 I have given the preceding brief summary of the results of 
 the various investigations on The Eelation of Length of Mate- 
 rial to Number of Eepetitions, not only as an historical re- 
 view of those who have worked along these lines, but also be- 
 cause it allowed me to bring in at the same time for purposes 
 of comparison, results obtained from certain experiments of 
 my own. These experiments will now be considered in detail. 
 
 It was stated at the beginning of this chapter that in in- 
 vestigating the relation of length of material to< time taken 
 for learning we may, in the learning, use various methods. 
 In the following experiments only two were used. I have 
 designated them as (1) the "continuous" method, and (2) the 
 "once-per-day" method. In the former the subject is allowed 
 to memorize the material en-masse, i. e., in one sitting; in the 
 latter the subject memorizes the material by reading it once 
 a day — and once only, until memorized. The curves exhibited 
 on the Plates, therefore, show not only the relation of length 
 of material to time taken for learning, but they give a com- 
 parison of the total time taken to learn any passage by the one 
 method as compared with the total time taken to learn a pas- 
 sage of the same leng-th by the other method. 
 
 tP w ^ w 4Ei ^ 4S 
 
 As may be seen from the plates, with their accompanying 
 tables, the length of time taken to learn a passage of prose or 
 a set of nonsense syllables, depends in large measure on the 
 method used in performing the learning. In one sense of the 
 word, therefore, it would be more fitting to call this experi- 
 ment The Relation of Length of Material to Time Taken for 
 Learning when said Learning is Performed in one Sitting; 
 and, The Relation of Length of Material to Time Taken for 
 Learning when said Learning is Performed by the "Once-per- 
 day" Method. 
 
 The materials first used were nonsense syllables and poetry. 
 With these the experiment was continued for I41/2 months. 
 Digits and prose were then substituted and the entire per- 
 
Relation of Length of Material to Learning Time 57 
 
 pormance repeated. The maimer of conducting the experi- 
 ment was as follows : — On May 1, 1908, I memorized 8 non- 
 sense syllables taking my time by the watch. In the evening 
 of the same day I memorized a four-line stanza of poetry of 
 twenty-four words. An interval of two days was then al- 
 lowed to elapse. On the following day (May 4th) a similar 
 set of eight nonsense syllables was read once. Eealizing that 
 this reading was not sufficient for a perfect reproduction, the 
 syllables were laid 'aside to be read the following morning. 
 On the evening of May 4th, a stanza of poetry similar to the 
 one previously memorized was read thru once. A perfect 
 reproduction of the stanza was possible after this one read- 
 ing, so this finished the two sets of eight nonsense syllables 
 and the two sets of one-stanza poetry passages, both for the 
 "continuous" method and the "once-per-day" metliod. 
 From previous work with nonsense syllables it had been found 
 that, when memorized by the "once-per-day" method they, 
 "clung" with great tenacity, and it was deemed advisable, 
 therefore, to allow an interval of one week to elapse before 
 starting on the next set. Therefore, it was not until the morn- 
 ing of May 15th that the twelve- syllable set was started. In 
 the meantime, however, i. e., on May 5th, a passage of poetry 
 consisting of tivo stanzas was memorized by the "continuous" 
 method. An interval of one day (May 6th) was then allowed 
 to elapse and on May 7th a similar passage of two stanzas was 
 read once and once only. Three readings were necessary to 
 get this two-stanza passage, i. e., it was read on the 7th, 8th 
 and 9th. An interval of one day was then allowed to elapse, 
 after which a three-stanza passage was started.'" 
 
 In this manner the experiment was continued for over four- 
 teen months. Nonsense syllables were always read in the 
 morning, — poetry, in the evening. After finishing each pas- 
 sage of poetry, whether by the "continuous" method or the 
 "once-per-day" method, an interval of one day was allowed 
 to elapse. With the nonsense syllables, however, a longer 
 interval was deemed necessary— two days being allowed to 
 elapse after each "finishing" with the "continuous" method 
 
 '"This is all shown on plates I, II, III and IV. Plates I and II are for non- 
 sense syllables ; plates III and IV, for poetry. 
 
58 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 and seven days after the " once-per-day " method. The rea- 
 sons for making the intervals longer for the nonsense syllables 
 are obvious. It should here be said that no other experi- 
 ments on memory were conducted while this experiment was 
 in progress, and neither nonsense syllables nor poetry of 
 any nature was read during the entire period. To make the 
 conditions of the experiment as scientifically accurate as possi- 
 ble, the nonsense syllables and poetry were taken at as widely 
 different times of the day as possible, — the nonsense syllables 
 being read in the morning before breakfast, and the poetry 
 in the evening after supper. It was also deemed best to ab- 
 stain from all reading for a period of at least one half hour 
 both before and after thei reading of each passage. 
 
 On June 28th, 1909, I finished with the passage of poetry 
 consisting of 100 stanzas. On July 10th I finished with the set 
 of 300 nonsense syllables. Feeling that the experiment had 
 continued long enough with these materials as subject matter, 
 I decided to repeat the experiment using this time, however, 
 digits and prose. This new series of experiments was started 
 on August 1st, 1909, and continued for three years, i. e., up to 
 May 2d, 1912.^^ 
 
 The nonsense syllables were selected and made into sets 
 after a certain definite manner.-'- A typical set is given on 
 page 73. As may be seen from Plate 3, the poetry ranged in 
 length from one to one-hundred stanzas both for the "continu- 
 ous" method and the "once-per-day" method. The poetry 
 selected was what is known as common meter, i. e., iambic 
 verses in which the first line contains four feet and the second 
 line three feet. As shown on Plate 3, however, (where the 
 "exceptional" tj-pe is printed in red) every fourth set of 
 poetry used had six instead of four lines in each stanza. A 
 typical example of the first type of poetry is given below. It 
 is a stanza from Thomas Moore's The Ring.-^ 
 
 -'This was so only for Ihe prose. The digits were diseontimied on August 10, 
 1010. 
 
 '--Described in foot-note No. 40, page 75. 
 
 ■-■=Thi.s poem consists of sixty-two stanzas. The first 50 stanzas were used as 
 the "50-stanza" set. As may be noted, tlie poem is of the same type as "The 
 Ancient Mariner." 
 
Relation of Length of Material to Learning Time 59 
 
 "The female fiend no sooner heard 
 Than, with reluctant look, 
 The very ring that Rupert lost, 
 She from her finger took." 
 
 As a typical example of the second type of poetry, I give 
 Thomas Hood's The Dream of Eugene Aram, 
 
 "He told how murderers walked the earth, 
 
 Beneath the curse of Cain,— 
 With crimson clouds before their eyes. 
 
 And flames about their brain ; 
 For blood has left upon their souls 
 
 Its everlasting stain !" 
 
 It will be seen that this poem is of the same type as that of 
 The Ballad of Reading Gaol. My reason for using these two 
 types of poetry was that I wanted to see if the addition of two 
 extra lines made any material difference with either the ' ' once- 
 per-day" method or the "continuous" method and if so, if the 
 difference was greater with one than with the other. ^* - It will 
 be seen from a glance at Plate 3 that by neither method does 
 the addition of the two extra lines malte any perceptible dif- 
 ference in the time taken for learning, — outside of the fact, 
 of course, that the stanza takes longer to read. 
 
 For prose I decided to use selections from four different 
 authors, alternating one with the other as shown on Plate 
 7. The authors chosen were Spencer, Hugo, Schopenhauer 
 and IngersoU. Due to the fact that I alternated one author 
 with the other, I at first made four separate curves, one for 
 each author. It was seen, however, that there was so little 
 difference with the different authors that one curve was 
 thought sufficient. The selections from Schopenhauer took a 
 somewhat longer time, due undoubtedly to the fact that the 
 sentences are short and that one sentence has very frequently 
 but little logical connection with what has preceded. Personal 
 interest in each author and his subject matter is here of such 
 importance that this factor must be taken into consideration. 
 This, however, was one reason for using the different authors. 
 
 Here, as in the experiment with nonsense syllables and 
 poetry, the digits were read in the morning before breakfast 
 
 -•'Stanzas of the shorter type averaged 24 to 25 words ; stanzas of the longer 
 type averaged 35 to 40. In Plate 3 in computing the total number of words I 
 used the figures 25 and 35 respectively. 
 
60 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 and the prose in the evening. No passage Avas started until 
 the one then in hand was finished.'' Not only were no other 
 memory experiments allowed, but ordinary reading was ab- 
 stained from for a period of at least one half an hour both be- 
 fore and after the reading of the passage. Since, with the 
 "once-per-day" method, only one reading was allowed each 
 day, the actual time taken per day was very short. "Where, 
 however, the passage was memorized in one sitting, the time 
 in the case of the longer passages was frequently very long, 
 e. g., that for the 1500 word passage being nearly two hours. 
 Passages longer than this were not attempted, except by the 
 divided time method, which method was continued up to a 
 passage of 15,000 words. 
 
 Space permits neither a detailed statement and explanation 
 of the facts shown in the various plates and tables nor the 
 various psychological conclusions that might be deduced there- 
 from. To a certain extent, however, these are self evident 
 upon comparing the curves of the different materials with 
 each other, — and again comparing the same materials as 
 memorized by the two different methods. Take, e. g., Plate 8 
 with its tables. It will be seen that the passage of 500 words 
 was memorized in as few days as the 250 word passage — nay, 
 it was even one day less. But now, as the passage is twice as 
 long, the total time consumed was twice as great and, there- 
 fore, the time taken varies, approximately, directly as the 
 length of the passage. The same relation holds true for the 
 digits and nonsense syllables but not to the same extent, for 
 the number of days needed for 200 nonsense syllables is con- 
 siderably greater than that needed for 20. By the ' ' one-read- 
 ing-per-day" method, however, it is evident that a long pas- 
 sage (or set of nonsense syllables) is learned in nearly as few 
 days as a short passage. Eeferring again to Plate 8. We 
 have noted that the 500-word passage was memorized in as 
 few days as the 250-word passage and that, therefore, the total 
 time varied directly as the length of the passage. Looking at 
 
 -"It should be mentlonec] that in the attempted reproductions, one error was 
 allowed for every fifty nonsense syllables or digits. In the case of the poetry 
 one "help" (but never more than one) was allowed for every three stanzas, 
 e. g., for the ten-stanza passage three "helps" were allowed. In the case of the 
 prose one mistake (of one word) was allowed for every 100 words. 
 
Relation of Length of Material to Learning Time 61. 
 
 Plate 7, however, (which shows the curve for the "continu- 
 ous" method) we observe, that, whereas the 100-word passage 
 was memorized in 9 minutes, the 500-word passage took 52 
 minutes, — in other words, multiplying the passage by five, 
 multiplies the time by six. 
 
 The red "curve" on Plates 3 and 7 show the amount of time 
 spent on the various passages by the "continuous" method. 
 The black curve shows the total time spent in reading similar 
 passages by the "once-per-day" method, — the reading having 
 been done at the rate of five minutes per 1000 words. A com- 
 parison of the two curves would show that so far as poetry and 
 prose are concerned, one method is as economical as the other, 
 i. e., economical as far as time spent is concerned for the 
 tenacity of impression is, of course, much greater by the "once- 
 per-day" method. 
 
 When we examine Plate 5, however, which shows two simi- 
 lar curves for digits we find that the "once-per-day" method 
 is considerably more economical. The same is seen in the 
 plate for nonsense syllables — material which, like digits, is 
 memorized in my own case by motor associations. 
 
 As before said, Plate 3 shows (in red) the total time taken 
 to learn by the "continuous" method the various passages of 
 poetry ranging in size from one stanza to 100 stanzas, i. e., 
 from 25 words to 2500 words. On the plate the ordinates 
 represent the number of stanzas; the abscissas, the number 
 of minutes needed. The average number of words in each 
 stanza is about 25, except those jjrinted in red, which average 
 40 words the stanza. 
 
 Plates 4 and 5 have already been touched on. It will be seen 
 that here, as in the case of nonsense syllables, the total time 
 taken by the "once-per-day" method is much less than is that 
 by the "continuous" method. 
 
 The plates show that the total time taken by the "once-per- 
 day" method is, — for the poetry and prose, nearly always as 
 long as by the "continuous" rdethod. For digits and non- 
 sense syllables, however, i. e., material in which there is but 
 little logical connection, there is a considerable saving of time 
 by the "once-per-day" method. It may be said by way of 
 objection that this is due to a more or less constant reviewing, 
 
62 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 possibly unconscious, between the various readings. This is, 
 of course, possible, but even if so does not materially alter the 
 conclusions that may be drawn from the curves. 
 
 As we have just said, the time by the " once-per-day " 
 method varies approximately as the length of the material. 
 When, however, we turn to the "continuous" method, we find 
 that this relation holds only for the shorter passages. As soon 
 as the passage becomes too long for the mind to grasp it as a 
 whole, the time mounts up rapidly, as shown, e. g., on Plate 7. 
 "This is much more strikingly shown when we examine the 
 curve obtained for the digits. Here we see that although it 
 took only 5 minutes to learn 24 digits, it took 2 hours and 34 
 minutes to learn 200 — more than 31 times as long instead of 8. 
 In short it is obvious that the " once-per-day " method is — to 
 say nothing of giving a far superior retention — far more eco- 
 nomical than the "continuous" method. This is especially so 
 for material memorized by motor associations such as non- 
 sense syllables or digits. ' ' -" 
 
 One thing, probably the most important, that may be said 
 in favor of the "once-per-day" method so far as economy is 
 concerned, is the fact that material memorized by this method 
 is retained for a much longer period than that memorized by 
 the "continuous" method. This is probably its chief, if not 
 its only advantage. 
 
 As no other subject was available who would undertake all 
 of the various tests just described, I have no complete 
 curves for comparison. I have, however, the records" of six 
 subjects on various parts of the test, e. g., one subject memor- 
 ized a 500 word passage by the ' ' continuous ' ' method and 
 then memorized it by the "once-per-day" method. Another 
 subject memorized 48 nonsense syllables by the "continuous" 
 method, 100 digits by the ' ' continuous ' ' method, a passage of 
 500 words by the " continuous "" method and 30 stanzas by the 
 "once-per-day" method. Space does not admit an entire re- 
 production of the records of these six subjects." As one would 
 
 ■"D. O. Lyon. The Relation of the Length of Material to Time Taken for 
 Learning, Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, A'^ol. 
 IX, No. 14. 
 
 -'Some of these" have already been given in Tables G, H, K, and N. 
 
Relation of Length of Material to Learning Time 6;> 
 
 expect, however, in an experiment of this kind, the various 
 subjects differed greatly. 
 
 On another set of students-^ (fourteen Normal ("'oUege girls) 
 a somewhat different test was tried, the results of which, since 
 they take but little room and are valuable for comparison 
 with some of the preceding tables, are given on the following 
 page. 
 
 Of the various individual differences in the group of six re- 
 ferred to on the preceding page, I found the greatest to occur 
 with digits and nonsense syllables when memorized by the 
 "once-per-day" method. I mean by this that the results ob- 
 tained for memorizing such material by the "once-per-day" 
 method differed more widely from the "continuous" method 
 (in my own case) than did prose or poetry. To elucidate this 
 fact, I give in Table P, the results of a certain experiment. 
 Briefly stated, this experiment was as follows : 
 
 Sixteen subjects were selected from a list of over 100 as 
 having averaged the best in a certain miscellaneous set of 
 memory experiments. Ten of the sixteen subjects"'' occurred 
 in the group of fourteen referred to on the preceding page. 
 These sixteen names were then mixed up and eight selected 
 at random for work on digits. The renlaining eight were al- 
 lotted prose. Of the eight digit-subjects, four were given a 
 set of fifty digits, the other four were given a set of 200 digits. 
 Of the eight prose-subjects, four were given a passage of 
 prose 250 words long and the remaining four were given a 
 passage of prose 1000 words long. The subjects were then 
 read the directions and rules of the experiment. Briefly 
 stated these were that the subject would be called on to read 
 the material allotted her once a day, and once only (Saturday 
 and Sunday included) until she felt confident she could write 
 the passage without error. The method of scoring these re- 
 
 '"These fourteen students were selected from the .Junior and Senior classes 
 of tbe Albanv Normal College and were selected as being the fourteen foremost 
 out of over sixty students, i. e.. they stood highest in their general avei'age in 
 class. 
 
 ""All the subjects were girls. They averaged in age from 10 to •-':!. 
 
64 
 
 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 ►J 
 
 P3 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d d 
 
 ri 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d d 
 
 1 
 
 d ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .9 .5 a a a .9 'h a .gaa** 
 
 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 T-l 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 iM 05 . . . b- , -. 10 . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fi 
 
 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 iH tH iH r-( tH in tH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 .9 . 
 
 ri 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 05 
 
 
 fi 
 
 ^ 
 
 aaaaaaaaaaaaoos 
 
 10 ■* 05 t- 1:0 05 IM t- tH op . rH 
 lNlNrH-*-*lN<MC0C0f0lO^ fci-* 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 
 a d a a a d d d d d d a d a 
 
 a 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 1-1 
 
 a a a 11 a a 3 a a a a a a 
 
 00C><M-*00a5O5lOT-ll-00t-lOT-l 
 T-(»-iT-(T-lrHTHT-tC<lT-lT-(THCOCO 
 
 3 
 00 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 id. 9 .9 
 
 .3 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 1 hr. 54 m 
 1 hr. 19mi 
 
 1 hr. 55 m 
 
 2 hr. 10 m 
 
 d 
 
 1— ( 
 
 
 
 
 a c a d d d 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 
 
 6min. 
 
 4miii. 
 
 11 mi 
 
 37 mi 
 
 8min. 
 
 17 mi 
 
 3 mi 
 
 . 22 mi 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 .16 mi 
 
 a 
 
 
 to 
 
 < 
 
 'So - 
 
 s 
 
 r-1 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 lO-^ lOti^ilOt-^K U 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 aa a^s Si 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 rH tH rH r- r- CM 
 
 T-\ 
 
 
 
 
 a).a)...a) o) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a!a'»aaa«'aaaaaa" 
 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 !3a^aaaSaaaaaa!S 
 a a a "* a 
 
 CO IN t- tH 
 
 S5 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 a d d (5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .s' .g' .s' .9 .9" .9' .s' a .9' a a s .9' * 
 
 d 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 3 
 
 § 
 
 aaaaaaaoa^grtia 
 
 00 rH 133 [- 10 00 00 . rH . .rAtr- 
 
 iMcocoeoTtiioccitHiOij^itlio 
 
 a .ajaS 
 
 r- r-i rH(M 
 
 a 
 
 00 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 oj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■5^ 
 
 
 aaaaaanagaaaaa 
 
 a a 1 a a a a a a 1 a a a a 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 eo 
 
 
 OQ 
 
 F5 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 OIMC0INO'*C005001-rH-*t:-CS 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 rHrHrHrHIMMMINrHMCUOimeO 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 "A 
 
 
 ri d d g d d d d a d d a d a 
 
 d 
 
 
 IN 
 
 
 
 
 
 aaaaaaaaaaaaaa 
 
 iO iO CO I— iH CO (M to (M CO t- CO t- CC 
 
 a 
 
 IN 
 
 rH 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 J^^^ 
 
 p: 
 
 Mti 
 
 
 E^^^C 
 
 ■• d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 MHHe 
 
 t 
 
 c;< 
 
 <; 
 
 Kfes; < 
 
 Kfa 
 
 < ' 
 
Relation of Length of Material to Learning Time 65 
 
 productions and the methods of deducting for attempted re- 
 productions that were not perfect enough to consummate the 
 experiment, was somewhat elaborate. Suffice it to say that 
 the scores given were made on a percentage basis of perfec- 
 tion = 100. It was directed that the subject read the passage 
 at her usual rate of reading, thoughtfully, i. e., understand- 
 ingly and either aloud or to herself as she preferred. 
 
 Table P gives the results of this experiment. They 
 are somewhat different from what I had been led to expect 
 and in one sense of the word, considering that the subjects 
 were all "selected," are somewhat disappointing. It will 
 be noticed that of the eight subjects assigned prose, all 
 but one finished."" The average number of days for the 
 subjects using the 200-prose passage was 29 days. The aver- 
 age time taken for those reading the 1000-word passage was 
 48 days.'^ Were the subject E. S. to be excluded the number 
 would, of course, be lower. All of the subjects using the set 
 of 50-digits finished within the' 60 day limit; their average 
 time is 41 days. With the 200-digit group of subjects the re- 
 sults were rather unsatisfactory. They were certainly (with 
 reference to the experiments on myself) most unexpected. As 
 will be seen from the table, only one of the four subjects, was 
 able to reproduce satisfactorily'' the set of 200-digits within 
 the time limit. The remaining three were requested to write 
 down as much as they were able of the material so that a 
 score of some sort could be placed on their attempted repro- 
 ductions. As shown on the table, their scores are fairly high. 
 
 ^"Force of circumstances necessitated a discontinuance of the experiment 
 after 60 days. 
 
 "'Including the subject E. S. by using her "score" in the calculation. 
 
 ""Space does not permit here giving the method of scoring the reproductions. 
 Suffice it to say that with the set of 50 digits a perfect score was 100 
 and with the 200-digit set, 400. An error of 4 points was allowed for the 50- 
 digit set and 16 points for the 200-digit set. As previously explained, it is 
 ■undesirable for many reasons to insist on a perfect reproduction. In fact in 
 general it is best in memory experiments, where a comparison between the In- 
 dividuals is to be made, to continue the experiment only until the first subject 
 has "finished,'' and then grade the others accordingly. 
 
66 
 
 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 Subject Material 
 
 E. F 50 Digits 
 
 A. K 50 Digits 
 
 E. A 50 Digits 
 
 F. Wo 50 Digits 
 
 Ed. W 200 Digits 
 
 B. B 200 Digits 
 
 El. W 200 Digits 
 
 A. H 200 Digits 
 
 E. B 200 Prose 
 
 F. Wl 200 Prose 
 
 A. Q 200 Prose 
 
 F. S 200 Prose 
 
 H. B 1000 Prose 
 
 E. E 1000 Prose 
 
 R. W 1000 Prose 
 
 E. S 1000 Prose" 
 
 TABLE P. 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 5 
 
 
 Average No. Days Score at 
 
 
 (Using Column 5 Expiration of 
 
 Days 
 
 in the calculation ) 60 clays" 
 
 40 
 
 "1 
 
 37 
 
 
 48 
 
 ( *-^ 
 
 30 
 
 . 
 
 51 
 
 G8 
 
 29 
 
 48 
 
 02 
 
 84 
 
 cr 
 
 so 
 
 The most interesting fact, however, is that at the end of 40 
 days — the scoring of an "attempted reproduction" of these 
 three subjects gave figures nearly as high. 
 
 As was stated early in this chapter, these two "methods" '' 
 of memorizing contribute but a small fragment to the much 
 larger problem of the Optimum Distribution of Time"' — a 
 problem which is but a minor contribution to the still more 
 general problem of Economy in Learning. Such a problem, 
 as we have already said, would have to consider not only the 
 various subdivisions of time, subdivisions of material. 
 
 "-At the end of CO days, those who had not completed the experiment were 
 requested to write down as much of the prose passage, or set of digits, as pos- 
 sible. These reproductions were then "scored" on a percentage basis of "Per- 
 fection =: 100." From these scores the probable number of days was then cal- 
 culated in order that this might be used in calculating the "Average Number 
 of Days" in Column 4. 
 
 "*i. e. the "continuous" method and the •'once-per-day' method. 
 
 ==It has been proven by experiment that a certain effort expended at intervals 
 over a period of several days will give better results than if this same effort 
 is expended in one "sitting." We do not. however, know the most effective 
 distribution possible. — nor do we know whether this "most effective distribu- 
 tion," — supposing it had been ascertained. — would apply to one material as 
 well as to another. It has been proven that in general it is better if, say one 
 hour is to be spent on a list of 40 nonsense syllables, to divide this hour up 
 into sections, but the most favorable distribution has never been determined. 
 
Relation of Length of Material to Learning Time 67 
 
 nature of material, time of day, etc., but would have to include 
 an investigation of such things as, — loud v. silent reading, 
 fast V. slow reading, etc., etc. 
 
 As a matter of fact, no single method can be set down as 
 being the most economical for everyone. The problem is not, 
 What is the most Economical Method?, but What is the most 
 Economical Method for Mr. Brown and hotv can he find this 
 method out? 
 
 This problem of the most favorable subdivision of the ma- 
 terial, or the most economical unit for committing to memory, 
 is not one that has received the attention of many investi- 
 gators. The various phases of this subject have been taken 
 ap by Steffens, Pentschew, Schneider, Larguier des Bancels, 
 Pyle, Snyder, Jost, and Lakenan. Steffens found that it 
 was better not only not to divide a stanza of poetry into parts, 
 but that for poems of moderate length it was better not to 
 divide the poem into stanzas. Schneider says that even for 
 poems of 12 pr 15 stanzas, the "best" (and as a rule he means 
 by this the most economical) method is to read and re-read the 
 entire poem. 
 
 A problem of even greater importance than the optimum 
 subdivision of the material is the optimum distribution of 
 TIME. Though of great practical importance, the problem has 
 received but relatively little attention. The best and most 
 recent work here is that performed by Pyle* on ten subjects 
 with the typewriter. Five subjects worked for ten half-hour 
 periods a day, with half-hour rests between the practices. 
 They worked nine successive days — putting in 90 one-half 
 hours, i. e., 45 hours in all. This group Pyle called the "Fast 
 group. ' ' 
 
 Five other subjects worked for two half -hour periods a day, 
 one in the morning and the other in the afternoon. This group 
 also put in a total of 45 hours, and was termed the "Slow 
 group. ' ' Pyle concluded that distributed practice is the best, 
 although "concentrated practice brings in good returns, and 
 if one is in a hurry to acquire a skill, the diminished returns 
 
 *"Ooncentrated Versus Distributed Practice." Jour, of Ed. Psychol. 1914. 
 Vol. V, pages 247-258. 
 
08 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 for concentrated practice need not be considered prohib- 
 itive."** 
 
 Such conclusions should not be taken to necessarily apply to 
 the learning of prose or poetry, but they may apply, as Pyle 
 very justly remarks, to kindred actions, such, e. g., as learning 
 to play the piano. 
 
 In another set of experiments, where 26 characters were 
 used — these being learned in place of the 26 letters of the 
 alphabet, Pylef arrives at similar conclusions. "In habit 
 formation," says he, "an adult can practice profitably for 
 something like 30 minutes daily. The length of time for prac- 
 tice doubtless varies with individuals and with the stage of 
 fixation of the habit. If practice is extended beyond 30, min- 
 utes, there may be some return for the extra time, but it is rela- 
 tively small. It is quite probable that in the latter stages of 
 habituation the length of the practice period could be short- 
 ened and the interval lengthened with practically as much 
 return. A second practice on the same day is not quite as 
 beneficial as the first practice. After a few practices, further 
 practice on the same day is useless. The next step in the ex- 
 perimental study of the economy of learning should be to 
 determine the relative value of practice of every length of 
 period from one minute up to one hour. ' ' 
 
 Strongtt from a series of experiments performed with pic- 
 torial advertisements concludes that "of all intervals between 
 successive repetitions, that of a day's length will give us our 
 maximum results, and those of a few minutes and of a week 
 are much superior to that of a month." The material used 
 by Strong, however,, was somewhat unique, and it is not to be 
 inferred that his conclusions must necessarily apply to such 
 materials as prose and poetry. 
 
 Although these various investigators had, as a rule, economy 
 in learning in mind, they limited their experiments to such a 
 narrow phase of the problem, or conducted them along such 
 different lines, that the results they obtained do not easily lend 
 themselves for comparison with our own. Exception might 
 
 **0p. cit., page 258. 
 
 fEconomical Learning," Jour, of Ed. Psychol. 1912. Vol. Ill, pages 148-158. 
 tt"Two Factors which Influence Economic Learning," Jour, of Philos. Psy- 
 chol, and Scientific Methods. 1914. Vol. II, page 131. 
 
Relation of Length of Material to Learning Time 69 
 
 be made in the case of Steftens and also of Jost. The work of 
 Steffens will be taken up in the next chapter. Jost's experi- 
 ments, so far as they go, are in several particulars similar 
 to our own, and a brief summary of them here may not be out 
 of place. Jost's experiments purpose to answer the follow- 
 ing questions : (1) Griven a list of syllables to learn by heart, 
 what distribution of time will give the best retention? (2) 
 Is the once-per-day method more economical in "time spent" 
 than the continuous method, and how do results compare as 
 to the "length-of-time retained!" For example, is it best to 
 read over the series of syllables thirty times on one day, or ten 
 times a day for three consecutive days, or twice a day during 
 a period of fifteen days? Unfortunately, Jost's experiments 
 were not performed on a very extensive scale. The mate- 
 rial was limited to nonsense syllables (in lists of a dozen 
 syllables each). Also the subjects were but two in num- 
 ber, and the results, therefore, are but of a limited value. 
 Unlike my own experiments, as described later on in this chap- 
 ter, Jost's experiments cannot be said to compare the con- 
 tinuous with the once-per-day method. They compare the 
 continuous method with the ten-per-day, or twenty-per day, or 
 ■x-per day method. For example, a subject was given a set of 
 syllables and allowed to read them twenty times ; the next day 
 he was presented with the same set and directed to read them 
 until he knew them, the number of readings being taken by the 
 observer. (We will suppose that five extra readings were 
 necessary.) He was then given an entirely new set of syllables, 
 and the number of readings required to memorize these was 
 compared with the number required to learn the set that had 
 been read twenty times the day previously. If, for example, 
 the new series took 50 readings, whereas the first series had 
 taken only 25 (20 -f 5) readings, Jost concluded that the first 
 method had resulted in an economy of 50 per cent. 
 
 For our present purposes with reference to economy in 
 learning, Jost's experiments on the optimum distribution of 
 readings are interesting. They undertake, for example, to 
 answer such a question as the following : Which is the most 
 economical, thirty readings made in one day or ten readings 
 a day during a period of three successive days ! With one of 
 his subjects Jost found that the number of repetitions neces- 
 
70 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 sary in order to relearn a series that had been repeated thirty 
 times in one day was on the average 6.5, while in order to re- 
 learn what had been repeated ten times a day during a period 
 of three days the subject required only five repetitions. "With 
 his other subject the figures were 11.5 for the first learning 
 and 9.7 for relearning. Jost therefore concluded that there 
 was a marked saving of time with the second method, i. e., 
 that ten readings per day for three days was more economical 
 than thirty consecutive readings. 
 
 tP 4f tF 9F ^ » * 
 
 Space does not allow publication of all my own data, but 
 sufficient have been given to illustrate the nature of the exper- 
 iments made. The conclusions drawn, however, are of 
 greater significance, and we give the more important of them 
 below. It should be understood that in their determination 
 the data included not only those obtained from the experi- 
 ments that will be discussed in the next chapter, but the writ- 
 ten introspections of over five hundred subjects : 
 
 1. For meaningful material such as prose or poetry the 
 total time consumed by the " once-jier-day " method is about 
 the same as that needed by the "continuous" method. With 
 both methods with passages of 1000 words or less the time 
 varies directly as the length of the passage. 
 
 2. With nonsense syllables, digits, and all material memor- 
 ized by motor associations the total time spent by the "once- 
 per-day" method may be roughly said to vary as the length 
 of the passage; by the "continuous" method, however, the 
 time would seem to vary approximately as the square of the 
 leng-th of the passage. 
 
 3. Visual presentation would seem to be better than au- 
 ditory presentation, but a combination of the two, e. g., when 
 the subject reads his own material aloud, would seem to be 
 more economical and to give greater retentiveness than either. 
 The superiority of visual over the auditory presentation 
 would not seem to be alone due to the fact that two senses in- 
 stead of one are called into play, but because we can read 
 more easily and more exactly than we can hear; — a third 
 reason is that visual presentation allows us to choose our own 
 rhythm and rate of reading. 
 
 4. Things that make sense, i. e., meaningful material, are 
 
Relation of Length of Material to Learning Time 71 
 
 learned in larger units than non-meaningful material. The 
 subject is able to take the material as a whole for the reason 
 that it is logical, i. e., that it means something to him. In 
 one sense of the word, one might say that with meaning- 
 ful material the subject has already (i. e., previous to the ex 
 periment) memorized a large part of it. 
 
 5. Subjects who have lately been taught mnemonic systems 
 are apt to over-do them, i. e., they endeavor to apply them 
 more often than is for their own good. Mnemonics only pay 
 when very easily formed and when easily remembered. Very 
 often the task of forming associations and the difficulty of re- 
 membering them is greater than would have been the task of 
 using, what we might term for want of a better expression, 
 "brute memory," i. e., to memorize a fact by knoiving it. 
 . 6. With nonsense syllables, not only does one have to learn 
 the constitution of the individual syllable, but the order of the 
 syllable as well. For words, order is practically the only 
 thing necessary, provided, of course, that associations be- 
 tween the words have been formed. 
 
 7. With reference to the problem of the most favorable 
 distribution of single readings, referred to several times in the 
 preceding pages, I would say that "the most general state- 
 ment that can be made, taking all materials and methods of 
 presentation into consideration, is that the most economical 
 method is to distribute the readings over a rather lengthy 
 period, — the intervals between the readings being in arith- 
 metical proportion. For example, with one individual in 
 memorizing a poem of 20 stanzas the highest retentiveness 
 was obtained by distributing the readings as follows : 2 hours, 
 8 hours, 1 day, 2 days, 4 days, 8 days, 16 days, 32 days, etc. 
 The practical bearing of the results obtained on education in 
 general"^" is- that when associations have once been formed 
 they should be recalled before an interval so long has elapsed 
 that the original associations have lost their "color" and can- 
 not be recalled in the same "shape," time, and order. In gen- 
 eral it was found "that the most economical method for keep- 
 
 ™D. O. Lyon. The Optimal Distribution of Time, and the Relation of Length 
 of Material to Time Taken for Learning. The Journal of Philosophy, Psy- 
 chology and Scientific Methods, Vol. IX, No. 14. 
 
^2 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 ing material once memorized from disappearing, was to re- 
 view the material whenever it started to 'fade.' Here also the 
 intervals were found to be, roughly speaking, in arithmetical 
 proportion. For similar reasons the student is advised to 
 review his 'lecture-notes' shortly after taking them, and if 
 possible, to review them again the evening of the same day. 
 Then the lapse of a week or two does not make nearly so much 
 difference, When once he has forgotten so much that the 
 various associations originally made have vanished, a consid- 
 erable portion of the material is irretrievably lost. ' ' " 
 
 In this connection we cannot do better than quote from Dr. 
 Garry Myers' article entitled "Recall in Relation to Eeten- 
 tion."* 
 
 "Simple recall of stimuli wholly or partially learned aids 
 in their retention. Teachers and pupils would profit greatly by 
 frequent recalls of things they have learned, while the material 
 is fresh in mind, rather than have long and arduous reviews 
 that require an extensive re-study of the material once learned. 
 There should be more frequent but shorter reviews, reviews 
 that demand little or no extra study, but a recall of materials 
 already learned. It is often the custom in our secondary 
 schools and colleges to give examinations after long intervals 
 of one, two, three or more months. The students often go 
 through cruel and torturous processes of cramming and after 
 the examination is over are happy to forget about what they 
 learned. A five or eight minute test given unannounced, de- 
 manding recall of the things recently learned, as well as those 
 more remotely learned, with a final survey-test of the whole 
 field studied, will aid the student to master a subject with 
 little or no conscious effort at re-study. In fact, this would 
 be merely an application of the laws of apperception in the 
 process of learning. 
 
 * ii= * * * *^ # 
 
 The time taken to memorize nonsense-syllables as found by 
 the various experimenters who have worked with them, is far 
 from being always the same, even when the subjects are of 
 the same age and intellectual standing. An examination of 
 
 ='Op. eit. page 386. 
 
 *Jour. of Ed. Psych. 1914. Vol. V, pages 128-129. 
 
Relation of Length of Material to Learning Time 73 
 
 the various sets of nonsense syllables used by these experi- 
 menters has proven to me that this difference in time is largely 
 due to the great differences in the difficulty of the nonsense 
 syllables used.^* Experiments of my own have confirmed this. 
 
 Were one to attempt to repeat the prose experiment, the re- 
 sults of which are given in Table 0, he would arrive at ap- 
 proximately the same results if he used bright students, say 
 the best quarter of a class of 60 or 70, even though he selected 
 his prose passage at random from any novel/" It is probable 
 that with digits also, his results would be much the same. 
 When, however, he came to nonsense syllables, his results 
 would be liable to differ widely unless the sets of syllables 
 used were equal in difficulty to those used by me. I give below 
 the set of 40 syllables used in the experiment in question and 
 woiild advise their use should anyone attempt to repeat the 
 experiment for purposes of comparison. 
 
 It is probable that with digits also, his results would be 
 much the same. When, however, he came to nonsense syl- 
 lables, his results would be liable to differ widely unless the 
 sets of syllables used were equal in difficulty to those used by 
 me. I give below the set of 40 syllables used in the experiment 
 in question and would advise their use should anyone attempt 
 to repeat the experiment for purposes of comparison. 
 
 KUV 
 
 ZID 
 
 KIF 
 
 NUZ 
 
 POZ 
 
 YAB 
 
 VEL 
 
 HEB 
 
 BOF 
 
 NIV 
 
 SEF 
 
 NAZ 
 
 YIF 
 
 JBP 
 
 DUT 
 
 BUP 
 
 .TID 
 
 KEV 
 
 VOB 
 
 KEL 
 
 KBD 
 
 r.up 
 
 NAD 
 
 FEG 
 
 VUM 
 
 TIB 
 
 JIIV 
 
 TEF 
 
 YAB 
 
 JOP 
 
 WEF 
 
 VOB 
 
 KIV 
 
 VUZ 
 
 BAV 
 
 BOL 
 
 RUZ 
 
 JED 
 
 DIB 
 
 NID 
 
 ''As an example of what I mean, I here give an example of a series of 
 .nonsense syllables as given by Watt in a footnote in his book entitled "The 
 ' Economy and Training of Memory." 
 
 "Bax, goul, fos, hiv, ped, vaub, jum, cor." 
 
 It is obvious that with such a set of nonsense syllables associations are very 
 easily formed, e. g., with one individual these 8 syllables were memorized in 1% 
 minutes by using the following words in place of the syllables which they so 
 nearly resemble : 
 
 Box, ghoul, "fossa," live, pedestal, vault, jam, body ; — 
 all these being easy of recall in their proper order by visualizing a picture of a 
 ghoul at work in a cemetery. 
 
 ™My own prose passage with the group of 14 Normal College Students was 
 taken from Dewey's School and Society. 
 
74 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 Short sets of nonsense syllables are easily made, — repeti- 
 tions of syllables being easily avoided. There are, for the 
 English language, only about 90 fairly good nonsense syllables, 
 and of these nearly 80 begin with J or N, end with B or D, or 
 have or U as their vowel. In making a series of say 40 
 nonsense syllables, from the 90 possible ones, it will be 
 found, if the rules given in the footnote helow'^" are followed, 
 that after the list has grown to 25 or 30, more than half of the 
 syllables drawn have to be thrown back. Lists of 60 or more 
 are made only with considerable difficulty, and it is frequently 
 found necessary to throw the syllables back" and start over 
 again. Sets of 90 syllables or over must contain either a cer- 
 tain number of undesirable*' syllables or a number of repeti- 
 tions. For example, the set of 104 used by me with the -"once- 
 per-day" method contains three "DUT"s, two "BOF"s, two 
 "POF"s, and two "ZIM"s;— not that these repetitions could 
 not have been avoided, but their avoidance would have necessi- 
 tated either the use of certain undersirable syllables, or a re- 
 casting of a large part of the entire set. This set of 104 sylla- 
 bles is given below : 
 
 "Rules for forming sets of nonsense syllables from the 00 nonsense syllables 
 previously selected : — 
 
 1. Syllables must be drawn by chance. 
 
 2. Initial consonants must not be the same unless separated by two or more 
 syllables. 
 
 3. End consonants must not be the same unless separated by two or more 
 syllables. 
 
 4. Vowels must not be the same unless separated by two or more syllables. 
 
 5. The initial consonant of one syllable must not be the same as the final 
 consonant of the preceding syllable. 
 
 G. Excepting sets of 72, or over, syllables may not be repeated. 
 
 "My method was to mix up the syllables in a box and draw them out at. 
 random — arranging them one under the other. Whenever a syllable was found 
 to violate any of the above rules it was thrown back. 
 
 '-By "undersirable" syllables I mean syllables that (1) are difficult of pro- 
 nunciation, e. g., YUF; or (2) that permit of quick and easy associations, e. g., 
 LUK. 
 
Relation of Length of Material to Learning Time 75 
 
 MIV 
 
 VUD 
 
 LUD 
 
 JED 
 
 NOL 
 
 NAV 
 
 ZAD 
 
 FEV 
 
 FEG 
 
 KOV 
 
 PAB 
 
 FUD 
 
 PIB 
 
 ZIB 
 
 DUT 
 
 SEB 
 
 LIR 
 
 PEM 
 
 KED 
 
 LOD 
 
 KIB 
 
 TID 
 
 JEP 
 
 BOK 
 
 LUP 
 
 JAZ 
 
 NAZ 
 
 YUP 
 
 KOV 
 
 
 TAV 
 
 POF 
 
 BOD 
 
 RUZ 
 
 TID 
 
 
 NID 
 
 DUT 
 
 JEP 
 
 KEV 
 
 BUP 
 
 
 HEB 
 
 BOV 
 
 WIB 
 
 YIM 
 
 YAB 
 
 
 VUS 
 
 ZIR 
 
 NUZ 
 
 NUV 
 
 ROZ 
 
 
 ZIM 
 
 VEL 
 
 ROV 
 
 JAD 
 
 HEB 
 
 
 KUV 
 
 PID 
 
 TID 
 
 POZ 
 
 NIV 
 
 
 JID 
 
 JUR 
 
 TEF 
 
 LEB 
 
 SBF 
 
 
 BOF 
 
 NAD 
 
 BOZ 
 
 TID 
 
 BOIi 
 
 
 YAB 
 
 VOB 
 
 PEV 
 
 FEK 
 
 ZIM 
 
 
 WEF 
 
 YIF 
 
 JUF 
 
 RUL, 
 
 VED 
 
 
 DIB 
 
 TEB 
 
 VIB 
 
 BOF 
 
 NAZ 
 
 
 JAL 
 
 JOD 
 
 NAJ 
 
 ZID 
 
 DUT 
 
 
 HUF 
 
 ZUB 
 
 FEK 
 
 YAB 
 
 POF 
 
 
 NIZ 
 
 NIV 
 
 HUZ 
 
 SEE 
 
 VUM 
 
 
 TOB 
 
 KOB 
 
 BOP 
 
 HUV 
 
 JOP 
 
 
CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 THE EELATION of QUICKNESS OF LEARNING 
 
 to 
 EETENTIVENESS 
 
 WITH SPECIAL EEFEKBNCE TO THE TREATMENT AND MANIPULATION 
 OP THE DATA AS OBTAINED BY EXPERIMENT. 
 
 Historical review of literature on the subject. 
 
 The various methods and means of determining retentiveness — the various 
 methods possible; the yarlous materials possible of use. Classes of subjects 
 tested. 
 
 Presentation, Examination, and Method of Scoring of the results obtained — 
 with — digits, nonsense syllables, words, prose, and poetry. 
 Analysis of the Results, and Inferences Drawn, as to:— 
 
 Time of Initial Learning. 
 
 Interval between presentation and reproduction. 
 
 -Method One. 
 
 Method Two. 
 
 Method Three. 
 
 Intellectual Standing (Slental Ability). 
 
 Social Standing (Occupation, Environment, and JMoral Standing). 
 
 Age. 
 
 Sex. 
 Summary and recapitulation of the main results. 
 
 The history of scientific inquiry concerning the relation of 
 quickness of learning to retentiveness, and, for that matter, 
 nearly all experimental work on memory, dates back only 
 thirty-seven years. Before 1880 experimental psychology 
 had confined itself largely to reaction times and sensations, 
 but with the publication of Ebbinghaus's "tJber das 
 Gedachtnis " ^ in 1885 experimental work on memory acquired 
 an impetus that has ever since been on the increase. Ebbing- 
 haus worked on many phases of the memory problem, and for 
 his experiments used both meaningful and meaningless mate- 
 rial. The material chosen by him for his experiments consisted 
 of about 2300 nonsense syllables, made and selected as fol- 
 lows: From the simple consonants and the eleven German 
 vowels and diphthongs he formed all the meaningless syllables 
 
 ^An excellent translation of this monograph has recently been made by 
 Ruger & Bussenius, under the title "Memory." It comprises Educational Re- 
 print No. .8 of Teachers' College, Columbia University. 
 
 76 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 77 
 
 possible by placing a vowel or a diphthong betAveen two con- 
 sonants. These lists of nonsense syllables were then shuffled 
 and drawn by lot. Ebbinghaus preferred these "nonsense 
 syllables" to words because of their relative simplicity. The 
 remark is often made, however, that nonsense syllables are 
 not simple, and that, on the ^contrary, they are in some re- 
 spects as complex as words. Ebbinghaus himself remarks 
 that something more simple would be desirable, for the rea- 
 son that the learning of nonsense syllables involves not only 
 the sense of sight and hearing, but the muscular sense of the 
 vocal organs (tongue, lips, etc.). Moreover, not only do non- 
 sense syllables not possess equivalent tendencies to set up 
 association processes, but certain lists of syllables that may 
 appear equally difficult to one individual may appear very 
 unequal to another. Even supposing that nonsense syllables 
 when carefully selected and arranged do furnish subject- 
 matter sufficiently homogeneous when presented to a single 
 sense, it does not necessarily follow that the same material 
 when presented to a different sense will continue to be homo- 
 geneous. But, with all their faults, nonsense syllables are pre- 
 ferred by many psychologists to words, prose or poetry for 
 testing the "organic memory." Words are apt to form 
 associations too easily, especially with some individuals ; and 
 prose and poetry are far from being homogeneous, in that they 
 are constantly changing in character. This is especially the 
 case with those individuals in whom "interest" is so essential 
 that material not "interesting" to them is practically impos- 
 sible of memorizing. Though it is true that many of the 
 nonsense syllables used by Ebbinghaus were such as to allow 
 numerous associations, his experiments were so conducted as 
 to preclude to a considerable extent the forming of these asso- 
 ciations—in fact, with Ebbinghaus they were seldom formed. 
 Another advantage in the use of nonsense syllables is that 
 they afford an almost unlimited number of combinations of a 
 similar character and quantity. Nevertheless, nonsense syl- 
 lables have so many objections not carried by digits that it is 
 
78 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 a question as to whether the latter would not really be better 
 for the testing of "organic" or "rote" memory. 
 
 In his monograph, "Vber das Geddchtnis," Ebbinghaua 
 groups his experiments under the five following headings: 
 (1) Rapidity of Learning Series of Syllables as a Function 
 of Their Length. (2) Eetention as a Function of the Number 
 of Repetitions. (3) Retention and Obliviscence as a Function 
 of Time. (4) Eetention as a Function of Repeated Learn- 
 ing. (5) Retention as a Function of the Order of Succession 
 of the .Members of the Series. His main experiments that 
 concern us here may be considered under two heads : (1) The 
 dependence of the rapidity of learning a list of nonsense syl- 
 lables upon the length of the same. (2) The relation of reten- 
 tion to the number of repetitions.* 
 
 Ebbinghaus gave much attention to the details of his experi- 
 mentation. His method was to repeat the syllables aloud until 
 he could voluntarily recall them. He considered that he 
 "knew" them when he was able to repeat the series correctly, 
 in a given time, after the first syllable had been supplied. A 
 series was read through once from beginning to end without 
 stopping, and then, upon the first syllable being supplied, the 
 attempt was made to repeat the entire series, stopping, how- 
 ever, at the first hesitation. At this first hesitation the re- 
 mainder of the list was read, and the entire repetition was 
 started again. The syllables were read and repeated at the 
 rate of 150 per minute and in a uniform tone. The rate was 
 secured by tuning the reading by the ticking of a watch or by 
 the strokes of a metronome. Upon a series being completely 
 memorized, Ebbinghaus made a pause of 15 seconds for noting 
 the results, after which he immediately started in on another 
 series. No attempt was made to form logical associations, 
 the speed being so great as to practically preclude this. Eb- 
 binghaus took great care that all the conditions would be such 
 as to favor attention; his environment was such as to favor 
 concentration, and in case of ill-health the experiment was 
 deferred. 
 
 Though Ebbinghaus did not specifically attack the problem 
 
 *Ebbinghaus's experiments on the relation between the amount to be 
 learned and number of repetitions have been discussed in Chapter III. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 70 
 
 of retention as related to speed of learning, some of Ms expe- 
 riments are fundamental in considering this problem. It 
 should be understood that he experimented only upon himself 
 as subject, and that his results have, therefore, in the first 
 instance, only individual validity; but it should also be re- 
 marked that he tested every point in many trials, and that he 
 was, undoubtedly, an unusually steady and trustworthy sub- 
 ject for experiment. 
 
 One of his results that is pertinent to our study concerns 
 the effect on retention of varying amounts of time devoted to 
 the original learning. He found, as we would naturally ex- 
 pect, that the greater the number of repetitions, within certain 
 limits, the better the retention. To determine the effect of 
 many repetitions upon retention he repeated a series of 16 
 syllables a definite number of times, and then noted how many 
 repetitions were required 24 hours later to complete the learn- 
 ing. He found that about one-third of the labor was saved by 
 the repetition of the day before. According to him, three 
 repetitions to-day save one tomorrow, or, in other words, for 
 every three times a person repeats such a list to-day he Avill 
 save one repetition 24 hours later. This was true, whether 
 the number of repetitions on the first day was barely sufficient, 
 more than sufficient or less than sufficient to enable the series 
 to be immediately recited. 
 
 In a general way this same result applied also to the reten- 
 tion of syllables of differing length, learned at 'first to the 
 point of correct recitation. As would be expected, it required 
 a longer time to learn a long series than a shorter one. Eb- 
 binghaus found that, as a rule, he could repeat a series of 
 seven syllables after a single reading; about seventeen read 
 ings were required for a series of twelve syllables, and nearly 
 thirty readings for a series of sixteen. But on testing twenty- 
 four hours later he found that the longer series were the bet- 
 ter retained. The additional work demanded by the long- 
 series had an enduring effect, most easily explainable on the 
 ground that part or parts of the series had been over-learned. 
 
 Ebbinghaus found that the value of each repetition for pur- 
 poses of retention was -greater when the various repetitions 
 were distributed over several days than when concentrated into 
 
80 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 a single study period. Thus, in one series of experiments he 
 learned 12-syllable series on one day and relearned them on 
 the three succeeding days. The average number of readings 
 required for an errorless recitation was 17.5 the first day, 12 
 the second day, 8.5 the third day and 5 the fourth day. In 
 another experiment he continued reading 12 syllables beyond 
 the time necessary to learn them, i. e., the number of repeti- 
 tions was greater than that needed for an errorless repetition. 
 If the syllables were repeated only 8 times on one day, they 
 were, not known the following day, nor could they even 
 be recognized as the list studied. If given 68 repetitions, 
 however, they could be recognized the next day, although the 
 series could not be given, for, on relearning the series 24 hours 
 later, 7 repetitions were required. On comparing the two 
 facts as given above it wUl be noticed that in the first case 38 
 repetitions, distributed over three days, needed on the fourth 
 day only 5 repetitions, while 68 readings on one day needed, 
 even on the very next day, 7 repetitions. 
 
 Ebbinghaus's studies on the rate of forgetting are now 
 almost classic. He found that forgetting, while relatively 
 rapid at first, later on proceeds more and more slowly, and, in 
 his judgment, nothing once learned is ever absolutely forgot- 
 ten. He found that after an interval of one hour so much had 
 been forgotten that more than half the time originally expended 
 had again to be given to the work in order to relearn it. After 
 eight hours almost two-thirds of the labor must be repeated. 
 Prom this point it would seem that the process of forgetting 
 proceeds more slowly. After twenty-four hours two-thirds 
 of the original labor must still -be performed, I. e., the "im- 
 pression of the whole ' ' retains about one-third of its original 
 strength. The change now becomes still slower, for even after 
 six days one-quarter is still retained, and after a month one- 
 fifth. "It is noteworthy," says Burnham, "that, while the 
 impression made by nonsense syllables is so evanescent that 
 a series once perfectly learned is forgotten after an interval 
 of twenty minutes, a residuum of some sort persists for a long 
 time, so that even after a month the same series can be re- 
 learned in four-fifths of the time originally required. A gen- 
 eral statement of the results is as follows : The ratio of what 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 81 
 
 is retained to what is forgotten is inversely as the logarithm 
 of the time. ' ' 
 
 Thus far we have considered only those experiments of 
 Ebbinghaus in which the material used was nonsense sylla- 
 bles. We shall now turn our attention to the experiments in 
 which he used logical trains of thought. For this work Eb- 
 binghaus used stanzas from Byron's "Don Juan." He found 
 that the time taken to learn a stanza was only one-tenth as 
 long as that needed for a list of nonsense syllables equivalent 
 in number to the number of syllables in the stanza. In 
 other words, material connected by_ the bonds of sense and 
 rhythm needed only one-tenth the number of repetitions re- 
 quired by material not so connected. Not only was the mean- 
 ingful material more speedily learned, but it was also better 
 retained. The number of readings required after 24 hours 
 for both sense and nonsense material may be seen in the table 
 given below. It is illustrative also of what Ebbinghaus termed 
 his ' ' saving method. ' ' ^ 
 
 No. Readings Re- No. Readings Re- Per Cent. 
 
 Material Used. qulied to Learn. quired to Relearn. Retained. 
 
 (Calculated.) 
 
 12-Syllable series 16.5 11 33 
 
 24-Syllable series 44 22.5 49 
 
 Se-SyHable series 55 . 23 58 
 
 Stanza of "Don Juan" 7.75 3.75 52 
 
 Meaning, i. e., amount of sense to the material, is thus seen 
 to affect both speed of learning and retention in the same 
 way, favoring quick learning and tenacity of retention. 
 
 Another factor that affects the above two factors in the same 
 way is the speed of reading. Ebbinghaus reports experiments' 
 in memorizing stanzas of Schiller's translation of the Aeneid 
 at the rate of 200, 150, 120 and 100 iambics per minute. At 
 these rates he learned the same number of lines in 138, 148, 160, 
 and 180 seconds, respectively, thus proving that the amount of 
 time required varied inversely as the speed of reading. On 
 relearning these lines twenty-four hours later he found that 
 90, 89, 96 and 99 seconds were required, thus showing, as far 
 as permanence is concerned, a slight difference in favor of 
 the more rapid rates. In performing these experiments, how- 
 
 ^Ersparnismethode, — See "Jlethod 3," page 99. 
 '"Grundzuge der Psychologie," 2d ed., 1911, pp. 072-673. 
 
82 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 ever, Ebbinghaus did not consider the degree of exhaustion 
 produced by the different rates. 
 
 It is true a greater number of repetitions is required with 
 the rapid than with the slow rates. He concluded that the 
 fastest rate of reading is the most economical as concerns the 
 speed of learning. In order to test the retention as well he 
 relearned the stanzas twenty-four later, this time at the rate 
 of 150 iambic feet per minute for all tie stanzas. He found 
 that the stanzas that had been originally read at the greatest 
 speed and learned in the least time were also, on the whole, 
 slightly better retained than those that had been read more 
 slowly. After an interval of 8 days he again repeated this 
 test with the same result. 
 
 In 1887 G. E. MuUer and F. Schumann,^ stimulated by the 
 work of Ebbinghaus, set out to repeat his experiments on a 
 more elaborate scale, making, however, certain changes in 
 method and material. Their labors extended over a period 
 of five years (1887-1892, inclusive). The only fundamental 
 difference between their experiments and those of Ebbinghaus 
 was that they did not let the subject know the purpose or re- 
 sult of the various experiments, a thing obviously impossible 
 where the experimenter uses himself as subject. The material 
 used consisted of nonsense syllables similar to those used by 
 Ebbinghaus, but selected with greater care, and instead of 
 being read directly from the sheet of paper on which they were 
 written, and where they could all be seen at once, they were 
 read from a revolving drum through a slit in a screen. The 
 drum from which the syllables were read was allowed to re- 
 volve at different rates in the various experiments. The 
 three rates used were such that the syllables appeared at in- 
 tervals of 0.731, 0.615 and 0.572 seconds, respectively, depend- 
 ing upon the rate at which the drum was revolving, and the 
 syllables were visible 0.609, 0.513 and 0.477 seconds, respect- 
 ively. The intervals were thus so short that no time was 
 given for a second perception or for the formation of mne- 
 monic aids. As we have already stated, the material used by 
 Ebbinghaus was far from being homogeneous, and had he not 
 
 • "Experimentelle Beitrage zur Untersuchung des Gedachtnisses," Zeitsch. 
 fiir Psych., 1894, Vol. 6, pp. 81, 257. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 83 
 
 read his syllables at so rapid a rate, many of them would have 
 been highly undesirable, due to the ease with which associations 
 could be formed. Miiller and Schumann invented a convenient 
 plan for constructing nonsense syllables of a more homo- 
 geneous sort than those used by Ebbinghaus. Ebbinghaus 
 left the make-up of the syllables wholly to chance, while 
 Miiller and Schumann laid down certain rules, making the 
 series of syllables ' ' normal " or " extra normal. " A " normal ' ' 
 list of syllables had all the initial consonants, all middle vow- 
 els, and all final consonants different, respectively, from the 
 syllable immediately preceding or following. The initial 
 consonant of the first, and final consonant of the second sylla- 
 ble in any one of the trochaic feet into which the series was 
 divided for the process of learning were never the same. 
 Syllables forming well known words were never allowed to 
 come together. A series of syllables was called "extra nor- 
 mal" when no two syllables used on the same day had two 
 letters the same. 
 
 The most important results of Miiller and Schumann's 
 experiments bearing on the quickness of learning may be 
 stated as follows : 
 
 1. The association between syllables of the same measure 
 is much stronger than that between adjacent members of 
 different series. The suppression of rhythm in memorizing 
 lists of nonsense syllables renders the task much more diffi- 
 cult, — nearly twice as much time being required. 
 
 2. The syllables first learned are not necessarily those 
 presented the earliest. Frequently those syllables at the end 
 of the set are the first the subject is able to reproduce. The 
 syllable first learned is that which first attracts the attention 
 strongly. This may be because certain associations arose 
 easily, or it may depend on circumstances purely accidental, 
 i. e., the syllable may have appeared just when the attention 
 was at its' "height," and thus the syllable having gained the 
 "ascendency," kept it, since the attention naturally centered 
 on it every time. 
 
 3. The first of any two successively and simultaneously 
 experienced syllables tends to call up the second. If they are 
 
84 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 associated only through intermediate syllables, the associa- 
 tion is stronger if both are accented. The second syllable of 
 a trochaic measure tends to call up the first, and this tendency 
 seems to be stronger than the tendency to call up the first 
 syllable of the next succeeding foot/ 
 
 4. Under certain conditions, syllables with associations 
 already established prove more difficult to memorize in com- 
 bination with new syllables than when such associations are 
 lacking. The previous associations press in on consciousness 
 and disturb attention in various ways. 
 
 5. The ease of memorizing seems to depend upon the 
 amount and character of the word that has immediately pre- 
 ceded, aside from the factor of fatigue, which, of course, is 
 all-important. 
 
 6. The ease with which such a series of syllables is learned 
 depends not alone on the subjective differences, but on ob- 
 jective conditions as well. These latter, however, may lead 
 to subjective differences. 
 
 Colegrove, in his book entitled ' ' Memory, ' ' briefly sums up 
 other results of Miiller and Schumann's work, as follows: 
 A syllable series can be learned more easily (1) if two or more 
 succesive syllables have like initial consonants; (2) if two 
 syllables rhyme; (3) if two successive syllables or 
 initial syllables of two successive rhythms have the same 
 vowel or diphthong; (4) if the beginning consonant of the first 
 syllable and the end consonant of the second syllable of a 
 rhythm or the end consonant of a syllable and the beginning 
 consonant of the next syllable are the same; (5) if two or 
 more syllal)les form a word. On the other hand, consonants 
 difficult to pronounce or an accumulation, of diphthongs im- 
 pede the act of memorizing. A series in the trpchaic rhythm 
 is memorized more easUy than a series in the iambic rhythm. 
 
 As regards retention, Mtiller and Schumann found that the 
 person who memorized a series of nonsense syllables in the 
 shortest time also relearned it after twenty-four hours in the 
 shortest time. This was to be expected, since what is forgot- 
 
 °We should not, however, infer from this that every presentation altvays 
 tends to call up the one preceding, but we should take it, that when any element 
 of a complex presentation is supplied it tends to call up all the others. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 85 
 
 ten will be relearned more quickly by a quick learner than 
 a slow learner will relearn an equal amount forgotten. They 
 found, however, that the slow learner saved more time, both 
 absolutely and relatively, than the fast learner when the time 
 of relearning was compared with the time of original learning. 
 
 Whitehead, in "A Study of Visual and Aural Memory 
 Processes,"' sets out to answer the following questions, 
 among others: (1) What is the relative quickness of the 
 visual and the aural senses when employed in the memorizing 
 of nonsense syllables constructed like those of Miiller and 
 Schumann! (2) What is the relative power of retention for 
 matter memorized visually compared with that memorized 
 aurally? Or, put otherwise, what is the relative rate of for- 
 getting for material memorized in the two ways ? 
 
 Whitehead answers the above questions as follows: "(1) 
 Of our thirteen subjects, ten showed themselves able to mem- 
 orize most rapidly from visual presentations and two from 
 auditory, while one gave ambiguous results. This outcome 
 is without much doubt to be correlated with the fact that so 
 much of our memorizing, whether it occurs in the verbatim 
 form or merely as the assimilation of meaning, is brought 
 about through visual processes. (2) Matter memorized aurally 
 appears to be retained slightly better than that memorized 
 visually. It requires less repetition by 32 per cent, to learn 
 anew from visual presentations matter memorized visually 
 a week previous, and less repetition by 40 per cent, for aural 
 memorizing of the same kind. The difference is insignificant, 
 in view of the total number of cases. It seems to be simply a 
 special case illustrative of the general principle already men- 
 tioned that the greater the number of original repetitions, the 
 less the number necessary for learning anew." 
 
 In regard to individual differences in retentiveness. White- 
 head considers that the slow learner both relearns in shorter 
 time and retains a larger amount than the fast learner. An 
 examination of his results, however, does not entirely sup- 
 port this conclusion. As Pyle very correctly says, "If we 
 eliminate the results from one of his subjects (the eleventh 
 
 'Pnycli. Rev., 1806. Vol. 3, p. 258. 
 
86 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 in tlie first table, p. 267) as being an error (for it shows a 
 relearning time longer than the time for original learning) 
 and add the relearning times for the fast six and the slow six, 
 respectively, we find without exception that the six who had 
 learned in the shortest time also relearned in the shortest 
 time. In fact, if we rank the two series for learning and 
 relearning for the various tables from the best to poorest, 
 we find a fairly high degree of correlation between quick 
 learning and good retention. ' ' 
 
 Jost, in his article entitled "Die Assoziationsfestigkeit in 
 ihrer Abhangigkeit von der Verteilung der Wiederholun- 
 gen, ' ' ^ considers the problem of to what extent the distribution 
 of repetitions influences the strength of association. We have 
 already given a brief summary of his work in the preceding 
 chapter (p. 69). At first he used the method of "complete 
 memorizing" ; then he used the method of "right associates," 
 and finally the two in conjunction. By the first method he 
 found that ten readings of a series of nonsense syllables on 
 each of three successive days made the memorizing of the 
 series on the fourth day easier than did thirty readings on the 
 day immediately preceding, although the difference is small. 
 By the method of right associates he found that when twenty- 
 four repetitions were distributed equally on three, six and 
 twelve days, respectively, the most extended distribution (that 
 of two repetitions a day) gave the best retention.*' Jost 
 emphasizes especially the matter of repetitions, and explains 
 the value of rests between readings by the theory that the 
 repetition of an old association has a greater value, rela- 
 tively, than the repetition of a younger one. 
 
 In her article entitled " Experimentelle Beitrage zur Lehre 
 vom okonomischen Lernen,"" Miss Lottie Steffens considers 
 the problem of the most "economical" method of learning 
 more especially for logical trains of thought. The two meth- 
 ods of study which she compares are the "piecemeal" and the 
 
 ■'Zeitsch of Psychol, 1897, Vol. 14, p. 436. 
 
 *The question naturally arises, however, as to whether some other distribu- 
 tion might not be still more favorable. This problem, viz., the optimum dis- 
 tribution of time has been considered in greater detail in Chapter III. 
 
 'Zeitsch., 1900, Vol. 22, pages 321, 465. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 87 
 
 *' entire" (or "mass") method. The former is that usually 
 adopted spontaneously by a person who has a long passage 
 to learn, and consists in dividing the passage into parts and 
 reading each part separately till it can be recited, finishing 
 up possibly by a few readings of the whole passage. The 
 "entire" method, on the other hand, consists in reading the 
 passage as a whole through and through until it is learned. 
 The "entire" method, though not appealing to the subject at 
 the outset, is shown experimentally to be the more economical 
 as well as resulting in better retention. 
 
 Steffens's experiments were repeated by Pentschew" with 
 both children and adults. He confirmed the advantage, for 
 adults, of the "entire" over the "piecemeal" method of study, 
 and also for children so far as concerns the learning and re- 
 tention of meaningful material. With nonsense syllables, 
 however, children did better by the "piecemeal" method. 
 This was probably because, with children, the learning of 
 material that carries no sense demands so much effort that 
 considerable disinclination and fatignie creep in unless the 
 syllables are studied in small groups. 
 
 Ogden, in his paper entitled "Uber den Einfluss der Ge- 
 schwindigkeit des lauten Tjesens auf das Erlernen und Behalten 
 von sinnlosen und sinnvoUen Stoffen,"" obtains results much 
 the same as those of Miiller and Schumann. He finds that 
 the fast learner usually requires less time for his relearning 
 than does the slow learner. Ogden used both logical as well 
 as nonsense material, and the results obtained were in each 
 case practically the same. He found that although the curve 
 of relearning is, as a rule, nearly parallel to the curve of initial 
 learning, it shows, as a rule, some flattening — thus tending to 
 show that individual differences in time of re-learning are not 
 as great as are the differences in time of initial learning. 
 
 Henderson" found that, in general, those who learn quickly 
 are able later to recall a greater percentage of what they have 
 
 " "Untersuehungen zur bkonomie und Technik des Lernens," Arch. f. d. ges. 
 Psychol., 1903, Vol. I, p. 417. 
 
 "Archiv. f. d. ges. Psychol., Vol. II, p. 93. 
 
 '-E. N. Hendekson. "A Study in Memory," Psych. Rev. Man. Sup., Nov. 23, 
 1903. 
 
88 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 learned than are the slow learners. In other words, he finds 
 that the power to learn readily correlates with the power to re- 
 member what has been learned. In his experiments, however, 
 he did not allow his subjects to completely learn the material 
 used and this was limited to prose. Moreover, the only mate- 
 rial he used was prose. Briefly, his method was as follows : 
 He requested his subjects to read twice a selection taken from 
 Irving 's "The Dutch Homestead." For this procedure three 
 minutes were allowed. The subjects were then requested to 
 write down as much as they could remember. Two days later 
 they were again called upon to write down as much as possible, 
 and after a lapse of four weeks a third recall was demanded. 
 His subjects varied from ten years up. Henderson found that 
 the older subjects learned somewhat better than the younger, 
 and explained this as due to their greater capacity to under- 
 stand. This capacity, however, seemed to have no influence 
 on the relative retention. As already stated, Henderson con- 
 fined himself to prose, and his results should not be held to 
 apply to nonsense syllables or other meaningless material. 
 Even with respect to prose, which was the material he used, 
 his results cannot be directly compared with those of experi- 
 ments in which complete memorizing has occurred. 
 
 Radosavljevich," conducting experiments in Meumann's 
 laboratory upon both adults and children, found, as did Eb- 
 binghaus, that meaningful material was better retained than 
 nonsense material. He also confirmed Ebbinghaus's state- 
 ment that long series of nonsense syllables were I'elatively 
 better retained than short series when each had been studied 
 to the point of correct recitation. He found practice to in- 
 crease both the speed of the first-learning and of re -learning, 
 but the former more than the latter, indicating that memoriz- 
 ing and retention were probably two distinct factors of mem- 
 ory, possessing their own peculiar laws and conditions. The 
 slower learners showed a greater "saving" in relearning, and 
 Eadosavljevich concluded from this that the slow learners 
 retain better than the rapid learners. Adults learn more 
 rapidly than children, but (according to the "saving" method 
 
 "Das Behalten und Vergessen bei Kinderu und Erwachsenen iiaoh experi- 
 mentellen Untersuchungen," Leipzig, 1907. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 89 
 
 he used) retain less of what they have learned; and the 
 younger children, similarly, learn more slowly, but retain 
 better than older children. 
 
 Extensive experiments upon "The Eelation of Facility of 
 Learning to Tenacity of Impression" have been conducted 
 by Miss Gamble since 1908, and are not yet published in full 
 at the date of this writing." Her experiments were designed 
 to answer the following questions : 
 
 1. Do the persons who learn with the greater degree of 
 facility retain fpr a given time the larger fraction of the 
 material severally mastered! 
 
 2. In the case of individual subjects, does the rate at which 
 material is presented affect the fraction of the initial learning 
 time which is saved in the relearning? 
 
 3. When the learning time is lengthened by the difficulty 
 of the material, is the relearning time relatively short or rela- 
 tively long? 
 
 4. How may retention best be gauged? 
 
 Two sets of experiments were made. The first set bore 
 only upon the first and fourth of the above questions, and 
 was made by the method of retained members^" The other 
 set, made by the method of complete memorizing (Erlernungs- 
 methode)/" bore upon all four questions. 
 
 In the first set of experiments Gamble used as subjects 350 
 college students, and as material words, letters and figures. 
 The method of presenting the material and the method of 
 ascertaining each subject's degree of retentiveness differed 
 somewhat from year to year, but the procedure may be roughly 
 outlined as follows : The material was read four or five times 
 to the subjects, and five or six weeks later was again pre- 
 sented. The subject's tenacity was gauged by the two meth- 
 ods : The first was comparable to what I have called ' ' Method 
 
 "The rather brief summary of her work here given has been made from 
 notes talten during the reading of a paper by her at the Washington meeting 
 of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Dec, lOil). 
 
 ^'This method consists in measuring how much of a list of syllables, or other 
 material can be correctly reproduced after a given number of repetitions. 
 
 '"This method will be found described on page 78. As used by Gamble, it 
 was practically the same as the method used by Ebbinghaus, except that with: 
 her the presentations were aural instead of visual. 
 
90 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 1,"" retention being gauged by the amount of material that 
 could be reproduced without a fresh presentation. The mate- 
 rial was then read once to the subjects, after which another 
 reproduction was called for. This is practically the same as 
 what I have called "Method 2,'"* The material was then 
 read several times to the subjects, after which still another 
 reproduction was called for. In some respects, as far as re- 
 sults go, this is very much the same as my "Method 3,'"" 
 although complete relearning was not allowed. On the basis 
 of the results obtained by Method 3, the subjects were ar- 
 ranged in two scales, according to their facility in learning 
 and according to their retentiveness as measured by the frac- 
 tion retained of the amount originally learned. Each scale 
 was divided into quarters. Gamble found that those who 
 fell in the first quartile as regards facility in learning fell 
 in the first quartile as regards retentiveness in sufficient num- 
 bers to show a marked correlation between quickness of learn- 
 ing and tenacity of impression."" She recognizes the fact that 
 some subjects who learn a very small amount in the first expe- 
 riment appear to have retained a relatively large amount, 
 merely because the amount learned the first time was so small 
 that almost anything retained must be a large fraction of it. 
 The results secured by what I have called "Method 2" were 
 of doubtful significance, but the results obtained by ' ' Method 
 3" showed, as might be expected, a marked correlation be- 
 tween facility in learning and relearning. 
 
 In the second set of experiments mentioned above (those 
 made upon subjects by the method of complete memorizing) 
 facility and tenacity were gauged by the time (in seconds) of 
 learning and relearning. The material consisted of nonsense 
 syllables. The time w^iich elapsed between learning and re- 
 learning was either one or two weeks, differing with different 
 subjects. In these experiments Gamble found a slight cor- 
 
 ^'See below, page 98. 
 
 ^'See below, page 99. 
 
 "See below, page 99. 
 
 ="Were there no correlation whatsoever it is obvious that, by chance alone, 
 about 2.5 per cent, of those standing in the first quartile of "primary learning" 
 would stand in the first quartile of "retentiveness." As a matter of fact, 
 however, Gamble found that the percentage was about 4."), — j. c, 20 per cent, 
 more than chance alone could account for. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 91 
 
 relation between quickness of learning and retentiveness. 
 This, however, she found by what we might term the "abso- 
 lute" method of comparison, viz., a comparison of the actual 
 time taken for relearning with the actual time taken for the 
 original learning — not dividing the one into the other, and, 
 therefore, not a comparison of percentages. Gamble thus 
 found that when facility and tenacity are measured on an 
 absolute time basis those who learn quickly are apt to relearn 
 quickly. 
 
 Gamble found that when a series of nonsense syllables was 
 learned and relearned at the same rate of presentation the 
 fraction of the learning time saved in relearning is greater if 
 the presentation rate is neither very slow nor very fast. When 
 the series are learned at different presentation rates, but re- 
 learned at the same rate, the fraction of- the learning time 
 saved is greater for the series which were originally learned 
 at the slow rate of presentation unless the absolute learning 
 time of the "slow series" is very small. Series which are 
 hard to learn are more often hard than easy to relearn. 
 
 In attempting to answer the question how retention may 
 best be gauged. Gamble admits that no single method is satis- 
 factory. She objects to a method of reproduction without 
 fresh presentation, for the reason that if a long time has 
 elapsed since the series was learned, very many of the sub- 
 jects can actually reproduce no units whatsoever, although 
 the series may have left subliminal impressions which differ 
 from subject to subject. Although she thinks the method of 
 relearning is valuable to use in conjunction with others, she 
 points out the impossibility of distinguishing the revival of 
 old impressions from a genuine new learning. In the paper 
 here summarized she reached no definite conclusions in regard 
 to the best method of testing retentiveness. 
 
 Pyle, in studying "Eetention as Eelated to Repetition,"'' 
 used for material passages from an elementary book on nature 
 study, containing 40 "ideas" each. Each passage contained 
 on an average 150 words. The subjects taking part in the 
 experiment were twelve graduate and senior college students. 
 
 "-'Jour, of Ed. Psych.. lOtl, Vol. II, page 311. 
 
92 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 Pyle's method of presenting the material to the subjects was 
 as follows ; 
 
 The experimenter read the material to the subject. After 
 the first reading the subject gave orally as many ideas as he 
 could recall. The experimenter checked up the report, record- 
 ing the number of ideas correctly reported. Then the mate- 
 rial was read a second time, and a second report was given 
 by the subject and checked up by the experimenter. The expe- 
 riment was continued in this manner until the subject re- 
 ported, in his own words, every idea. [The experimenter, hav- 
 ing before him a copy of the material divided off by vertical 
 lines into forty units, found it easy to check up the reports 
 as given orally.] 
 
 After the lapse of twenty-four hours the subjects were 
 called upon to reproduce, in writing, as much of the material 
 as possible. The written ' ' ideas ' ' were marked either ' ' right" 
 or "wrong," — "ideas" that were partially correct — that is, 
 that had a "kernel" of truth, being marked as correct if they 
 closely approximated the correct idea ; rarely, half-credit was 
 given when the variation from the correct meaning was con- 
 siderable. The material was divided into such small units — 
 each significant adjective, adverb or expression being set off 
 as a separate unit — that this point gave little trouble — a sub- 
 ject either reported the idea or he did not. 
 
 It will be noted that Pyle used only one interval of time, 
 i. e., he allowed but one interval to elapse between the time 
 of learning and the time of attempted reproduction, namely 
 twenty-four hours. That only one interval of time was used 
 is not, of course, a criticism against the experiments he per- 
 formed, but it naturally limits the extent of the generaliza- 
 tions he is entitled to deduce from the results obtained. It 
 should be said, however, that with two subjects half the mate- 
 rial was checked up thirty days later. Notwithstanding that 
 the two subjects chosen were extremes (i. e., one a fast learner 
 and one a slow learner), the amount retained at the end of 
 the thirty days ' interval was no larger with the slow learner 
 than with the fast learner. Pyle also tested the retention of 
 the members of several classes one month after the first 
 memorizing, and found the chances to be at least three out of 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 93 
 
 four that students would maintain the same rank in long 
 retention that they had in immediate reproduction. 
 
 The result of Pyle's most extensive set of experiment's are 
 shown in the table below. Only four subjects were used, 
 but each of -these memorized 21 passages (of 40 "ideas" each). 
 
 Eepetltionfs 
 
 c, . , i Necessary Retention 
 
 buDject. to Learn. Av. Dev. (No. of Ideas). Av. Dev. 
 
 *- 4.7 2.24 37.5 2.0 
 
 I*' 2.9 0.78 38.5 1.7 
 
 K 5.2 1.40 34.2 4.6 
 
 J 3.6 1.90 36.7 3.2 
 
 ■^ve 4.1 36.7 
 
 The results as given in this table show no great difference 
 in amount retained between the fast learners and the slow 
 learners. What little difference there is would seem to be 
 in favor of the fast learners. It will be noted, however, that 
 we can only say that they retain more absolutely. It is pos- 
 sible that had Pyle allowed his subjects to relearn the material 
 previously memorized — obtaining his "amount retained" by 
 dividing the time of second learning by the time of first learn- 
 ing — he might have found that the slow learners, although 
 remembering absolutely less, could relearn what they had 
 forgotten in a smaller percentage of their original learning- 
 time than would be required by the fast learners. 
 
 By the absolute method, however, Pyle is probably correct 
 in his conclusion ihat "the slow learner certainly has no 
 advantage in retention over the fast learner. " It should be 
 understood, however, that no general conclusions can be 
 drawn from so few subjects, and although in general Pyle's 
 eight other subjects bear out the same conclusion, they do not 
 do so unanimously. His later study,^^ however, of 600 
 school children shows a high correlation of learning capacity, 
 as measured by immediate memory, with retention, as deter- 
 mined by amount retained five weeks later. This extensive 
 study confirms his earlier intensive study, and his conclusions 
 may be stated as follows: A slow learner, i. e., one using 
 a relatively large amount of time, or a great number of repeti- 
 tions, does not retain more absolutely than the faster learner 
 who uses less time and fewer repetitions. 
 
 -Jour, of Ed. Psych., 1913, Vol. IV, page Gl. 
 
94 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 In 3911 Busemann, in an article entitled "Lernen und 
 Behalten,"" published results of several years* work on va- 
 rious aspects of the memory problem. Only a small portion 
 of this work, however, throws light on the relation of quick- 
 ness of learning- to retentiveness. His experiments were per- 
 formed on school children ranging in age from 12 to 18 years. 
 As material he used lists of various parts of speech (nouns, 
 adjectives, etc.) and simple syllables. From his results he 
 concludes that of two individuals, the one who takes the 
 greater amount of time in memorizing a series of words will 
 require less time, relatively, in relearning them. 
 
 In performing his experiments Busemann used two meth- 
 ods — the method of complete memorization (Ersparnisver- 
 fahren) and the method of right associates (Treffermethode). 
 He does not feel that his experiments with the first method 
 can answer the question as to whether the quick learner also 
 forgets quickly. He considers the "Treffermethode" the one 
 to use in answering this question, but does not feel that with 
 this method he performed a sufficient number of experiments 
 to warrant his making any general statement. His results, 
 however, as far as they go, would seem to point against the 
 assumption that it is the quick learners who forget quickly. 
 In summing up his work on this subject he says, "It has not 
 yet been proven that a greater ability to learn corresponds 
 to a smaller ability to retain ; on the contrary, it is probably 
 true that the good learner is at the same time a good retainer. ' ' 
 
 Miss Nor s worthy, in an article entitled "Acquisition as 
 Related to Retention,'"* presents some very interesting re- 
 sults. As subjects she used 83 students in educational psy- 
 chology. The material used, as well as the method of experi- 
 mentation, were different from any that we have thus far 
 discussed. It consisted of a German-English vocabulary 
 of 1200 words. Each student studied twenty minutes for 
 five days, memorizing as many of the English equivalents 
 of the German words as possible. Two days were then allowed 
 to elapse, when each student reviewed the list of words that 
 he had succeeded in "memorizing" during the previous five 
 
 '-''Zeit. fur angncanate Psych.. 1911, Vol. V, page. 211. 
 -\Jour. of Ed. Psych., 1912, Vol. Ill, page 214. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 95 
 
 days. Two days more were then allowed to elapse, and the 
 work was again reviewed. At the first meeting of the class 
 after the above three study periods were over they were asked 
 to write the English equivalents of a certain 50 German words 
 that were presented to them, — words which had occurred in the 
 list of German words they had succeeded in previously memor- 
 izing. From the results the percentage remembered could then 
 be ascertained. One month after this test another list of 50 
 words, chosen from those that remained, was presented to 
 the subject with the request, as before, to write down as many 
 of the English equivalents as possible. In like manner the 
 percentage remembered of these 50 German words was 
 ascertained. 
 
 Xorswortliy found that the average per cent, remembered 
 in the first test was 63, and that the average per cent, remem- 
 bered in the second test, one month later, was practically the 
 same, being 62. From these averages she found the deviation 
 (either plus or minus) for each of her 83 subjects. The average 
 deviation from the median for the six subjects learning 700 
 words or over was + 14, whereas for the 13 subjects who 
 learned only 300 words or under the average deviation from 
 the median was — 17. In other words, the quickest learners, 
 who had mastered a vocabulary of over 700 words in a fixed 
 time, retained a larger fraction than the slowest learners 
 were able to retain of their much smaller vocabulary, learned 
 in the same time. With the second test the difference was 
 even more striking. The upper half of the class, in respect 
 to size of vocabulary learned, remembered in the first test on 
 the average 70 per cent., the lower half only 52 ])er cent. The 
 Pearson coefficient for the whole class between the number 
 of words learned and the average per cent, remembered is .41 
 for the first test and .50 for the second test. In short, Nors- 
 worthy finds a high positive correlation between rate of learn- 
 ing and retention — a correlation that is considerably higher 
 than that obtained liy any of the investigators whose work we 
 have already examined. This, however, is probably due not 
 only to the method she used— the time remaining constant, 
 but the amount learned varying— but also to the nature of her 
 material. This is not meant as a criticism. In fact, it is prob- 
 
96 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 able that the use of such material as a German-English vo- 
 cabulary, especially when used in the manner chosen by Nors- 
 worthy, is far better than the use of such material as nonsense 
 syllables, if we are to mean by "memory" such memory as 
 occurs in everyday life and especially such as occurs in the 
 schoolroom. 
 
 Norsworthy's method of keeping the time constant, but 
 allowing the amount learned to vary has numerous advan- 
 tages. It frees the learner from the responsibility of having 
 to decide when he thinks that the material has been thoroughly 
 memorized — "a responsibility that brings a very varying 
 personal equation into the problem. It also frees the investi- 
 gator from the burden of making a fair allowance for imper 
 f eetly-learned material. ' ' -' 
 
 ^ TP ^ ^- ^ TP 'K- 
 
 In summing up the results of these various investigators 
 it is perhaps fair to say that they have found, in the main, 
 and other things being equal, the individuals who learn the 
 quickest to remember the longest, i. e., to be the best retainers. 
 
 Miiller and Schumann found that the quick learners forgot 
 more, but were able to relearn what they had forgotten in a 
 shorter time than the slow learners. An examination of their 
 data shows that, relatively speaking, there is not much dif- 
 ference between the quick and the slow learner. Whitehead 
 believes that the slow learner is a better retainer, but from 
 the data he gives it is difficult to see just how he arrives at 
 this conclusion. Norsworthy, on the other hand, obtains a 
 very high positive correlation. "Working with, a German- 
 English vocabulary, she finds that the last quarter of her 
 class retain only two-thirds as much as the first quarter. 
 Ogden and Henderson, working with meaningful material, 
 unite in finding that, as a rule, the quickest learner is the best 
 retainer. Pyle is somewhat more conservative, but says that 
 the fast learner is certainly at no disadvantage in retention. 
 
 With most of his subjects Busemann finds that rapid learn- 
 ing means good retention. Gamble, dividing her classes into 
 halves, quarters, etc., after much the same manner as Nors- 
 worthy, obtained also a positive correlation. 
 "Op. at. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 97 
 
 In the following pages an attempt will be made to prove 
 that on the problem in question no general law or conclusion 
 can be drawn from the use of any single material or method. 
 We shall endeavor to prove that not only do different methods 
 give different results, but we shall endeavor to show that witJi, 
 the same data it is possible to draw contrary, conclusions by 
 dealing with this data in different ways. 
 
 METHODS EMPLOYED. 
 
 THE PBOBIjEM stated. 
 
 The experiments, which, with their results and the various 
 methods of dealing with same it is the special object of this 
 chapter to discuss, may be briefly stated as consisting in the 
 learning, or "memorizing," of certain materials, allowing a 
 definite number of days to elapse, and then measuring reten- 
 tion by one or more of the methods later to be described. In 
 this way an approximate idea was obtained of each subject's 
 retentiveness, and by comparing this with his time taken for 
 the initial learning a fairly accurate idea of the relation of 
 his quickness of learning to his retentiveness was obtained. 
 
 So varied were the materials used, and so different the 
 ages, conditions, intellectual standing, etc., of the subjects 
 experimented on, that many results were obtained that have 
 been considered sufficiently valuable to warrant mention, al- 
 though they have no direct relation to the problem of relation 
 of quickness of learning to retentiveness. Besides the so 
 called "normal" subjects, State prison convicts, and asylum 
 patients were tested. The latter, over 200 in number, give 
 results so complex in character that they will be considered 
 only very briefly. 
 
 The data obtained show not only the relation between quick- 
 ness of learning and retentiveness, but also (1) the relative 
 amount of forgetting after different intervals ; (2) the relation 
 between memory for logical trains of thought and that for lists 
 of syllables and digits; (3) the effect of age, sex, and training 
 on rapidity of learning and remembering; and (4) a com 
 IJarison of the amount actually retained by each subject (after 
 an interval of one week) with that which he can reproduce 
 after one reading of the material is allowed. 
 
98 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 METHODS OF EXPEEIMENT. 
 
 The main difficulty that one encounters in investigating- 
 such a problem as the one in question is to determine which of 
 the various possible methods and possible materials shall be 
 used. To use all methods and all materials would involve too 
 great a labor for any one experimenter. Three methods were 
 used in this research. Since each method is frequently spoken 
 of and referred to, it was deemed best to give each one some 
 distinctive appellation, and I have named them ' ' Method 1, ' ' 
 "Method 2" and "Method 3." Briefly stated, these methods 
 are as follows : 
 
 Method 1. Eeproduction, as far as possible, of the 
 material originally learned without 
 fresh presentation. 
 
 Method 2. Reproduction, as far as possible, after a 
 single presentation. 
 
 [Method 3. Supplying the subject with the original 
 material and taking his time for re- 
 learning it. 
 
 "VVe shall now consider each of these methods in detail. 
 
 Method 1. — The subject was given, face downward, a sheet 
 of paper on which were typewritten 20 nonsense syllables.-" 
 He was told that he could study these in any way he saw fit, 
 but that as soon as he felt positive he could repeat them with- 
 out error he should say "now" and come to the experimenter's 
 desk. He was advised not to come up before he felt quite 
 certain that he could repeat them without error, as the time 
 consumed, if he failed to give a perfect reproduction, would 
 be counted as part of his "time for learning." To avoid 
 competition, each subject was taken separately, although where 
 the opportunity presented itself several subjects were allowed 
 to study in one room and allowed to come to the adjoining 
 room for their hearing. Instead of reciting his work, each 
 subject was allowed, if he preferred to, write out his reproduc- 
 tion at the experimenter 's desk. 
 
 The question will naturally arise: What was done when 
 
 -'In explaining these three methods we shall speak only of nonsense 
 syllables. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 99 
 
 the subject came up for examination and made numerous mis- 
 takes? To this we can only say that such was seldom the 
 case, it being thoroughly impressed on the subject's mind that 
 he must be sure he could repeat the material perfectly before 
 coming up for his recitation. Where several serious mis- 
 takes were made, the subject was sent back to continue his 
 work of memorizing; but where there were only one or two 
 minor errors, it was thought best to deduct for these in as 
 fair and scientific a way as possible rather than send the sub- 
 ject back. This may not seem strictly accurate and scientific, 
 but of two evils it was thought to be the lesser.* 
 
 The material having thus been learned, a definite time in- 
 terval" was allowed to elapse, after which each subject was 
 called upon to reproduce, in writing, as much of the material 
 as possible. It is in this reproduction, without fresh presenta- 
 tion, that we have "Method 1." No especial directions were 
 given for "Method 1," other than requesting that each sub- 
 ject write down as much of the original material as he could 
 remember, using the original words whenever he was able. 
 He was also told, when logical matter was the material used, 
 that where he could remember nothing but the "gist" of the 
 passage,^^ to "put that down as best possible." 
 
 Method 2. — Method 2 was made to follow immediately upon 
 Method 1. The directions read to the subjects for this method 
 were as follows : 
 
 "You have just tried to reproduce from memory a set of 
 20 nonsense syllables that you learned one week ago. You 
 probably have a fair idea as to the correctness of your paper. 
 I shall now read to you the original set of nonsense syllables, 
 after which you are to again write out the list so far as you 
 are able." 
 
 This method, which I have designated as "Method 2," is, to 
 my mind, one of the most satisfactory. 
 
 Method 3. — Method 3 was made to follow immediately on 
 
 *It frequently happened, for example, that a subject whose average time for 
 twelve nonsense syllables was 15 minutes, might, if sent back to correct a single 
 error or omission, study 10 or 12 minutes more before he again came up for 
 examination — thus nearly doubling his normal time. 
 
 "'This varied in the different experiments from 1 day to 10 weeks. 
 
 "^We are here supposing the material was prose or poetry. 
 
100 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 Method 2. The directions read to the subjects for this method 
 were as follows : 
 
 "You have tried to reproduce, in writing, after one hearing, 
 a set of 20 nonsense syllables that you memorized one week 
 ago, and you undoubtedly have a fair idea as to the correctness 
 of the paper you have just handed me. I shall now supply you 
 with the original set of nonsense syllables, with the request 
 that you relearn them, saying 'now' when you feel certain that 
 you can reproduce the entire set. ' ' 
 
 Due to the fact that in Method 2 the original material is 
 read to the subject, he does not enter upon Method 3 with as 
 much ignorance of the material as would be the case if 
 ' ' Method 2 ' ' were omitted. In view of this, in some of the lat- 
 ter experiments a separate series of syllables (or other mate- 
 rial) was used for "Method 3." This necessitated the mem- 
 orizing, in the first place, of two distinct sets of syllables — 
 one for Methods 1 and 2 and another for Method 3. 
 
 The writer is aware that these methods are open to criti- 
 cism. In the first place, no one of the three methods alone is 
 sufficient to answer the problem, and in averaging their results 
 it is a question which method to give the most weight to. At 
 the outset of the experiments Method 3 was ranked most 
 apropos for the problem in hand, and therefore graded as the 
 most important. Method 2 was ranked next. Later, however, 
 it was thought best to count each method as equal, for the rea- 
 son that recall without fresh presentation is the form most 
 often demanded in daily life, and retentiveness in general was 
 more the factor to be considered rather than any special form. 
 
 We shall now, taking one method at a time, consider the 
 chief criticims that may be raised against it. 
 
 Method 1 has the advantage of getting directly at the mat- 
 ter in hand, i. e., of obtaining from each subject exactly what 
 has been so well retained that it can be voluntarily reproduced 
 after a lapse of a certain period. It has, however, several dis- 
 advantages. The chief of these is that reproduction, without a 
 fresh presentation of the material originally learned, reveals 
 only the strongest of the original impressions — the so-called 
 "supraliminal associations." It can be proved that many 
 of the subjects have a considerable portion of the material 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 101 
 
 once memorized on the "borderland," so to speak— material 
 that can be entirely recalled after one further reading. Were 
 our investigation merely one dealing with the question of the 
 relation of quickness of learning to reproductiveness, we 
 would have to rank Method 1 higher than any other ; but 
 where ability to retain rather than ability to reproduce is the 
 factor in question, it is obvious that we must take into consid- 
 eration the various associations that are on the "borderland." 
 Method. 1 also has the disadvantage of giving results that 
 are difficult of measurement. Very frequently, in an at- 
 tempted reproduction of material once memorized, the subject 
 ( if he is able to recall the various ' ' topics ' ' and ' ' subtopics ' ' 
 and the "thought" of the passage in general) is apt to express 
 this "thought" in a greater number of words than existed in 
 the original passage. He is also very apt to introduce new 
 thoughts; — thoughts which he may or may not express in 
 words that occurred in the original passage. This introduces 
 several complex factors and make an accurate measurement 
 difficult. 
 
 Method 2. — Its chief merit lies in the fact that it endeavors 
 to do away with the criticisms made above against Method 1. 
 To this end it endeavors to bring back the "subliminal" asso- 
 ciations by reading the material once to the subject before 
 asking for a reproduction. This one "reading," however, 
 carries with it its own penalty. A single reading of a passage 
 of 100 words consumes about one-half minute, and it is ob- 
 vious that one-half minute to a quick learner means much 
 more than does one-half minute to a slow learner. 
 
 The second objection made to Method 1 naturally applies 
 also to Method 2, although not to so great a degree, for this 
 reproduction after hearing the passage read is less likely to 
 contain new thoughts and extra words than if the passage 
 had not been read at all; 
 
 Method 5.— In the following pages "Method 3" has received 
 more attention than either "Method 1" or "Method 2." Its 
 chief advantage lies in the fact that it supplies us with an easy 
 and accurate form of measurement. It is a question, however, 
 if it is a fair method to use in settling the problem in hand, in 
 that it introduces the factor of ' ' relearning. ' ' In utilizing the 
 
102 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 results of this method the plan of Ebbinghaus was followed, 
 the time for relearning being compared with the time of the 
 original learning. The time thus saved (especially the per- 
 cent, of the original time saved) is taken as the measure of 
 retention, while the time spent in relearning (expressed as a 
 per cent.* of the time of the original learning) gave the com- 
 plementary measure of the ' ' amount forgotten. ' ' 
 
 The chief disadvantage to this method is that, in relearning, 
 it is impossible to distinguish facility in forming fresh asso- 
 ciations from retention of subliminal associations. Another 
 disadvantage is that it does not get directly at the amount 
 and nature of the matter retained by each subject. It is thus 
 a serious question if the method is a fair one to use in settling 
 the question in hand, for with this method the subject is not 
 called upon to give exactly "ivhat he remembers" at the end 
 of three weeks, but is first given the material to relearn, and 
 then asked for a reproduction. A factor is thus introduced 
 that is difficult of measurement, for this "relearning" may 
 recall more to the mind of one subject than another, both of 
 whom might otherwise have given equal results by the first 
 method. It may, however, be justly contended that this factor 
 is desirable, since our problem is one dealing with retentive- 
 nesSf rather than ability to recall. 
 
 Another criticism that may be made against Method 3 is 
 this : It may be said that it is incorrect to rate two men as 
 having the same degree of retentiveness, one of whom takes 
 25 minutes to learn a passage and three weeks later takes 5 
 minutes, while the other takes 10 minutes and three weeics 
 later takes only 2 minutes. It may be true that these figures 
 prove both men to have saved four-fifths of the time originally 
 spent, and that, therefore, the amount of the original that each 
 has forgotten is one-fifth; but this hardly seems fair, when 
 we consider that the second man takes only 2 minutes to do 
 his relearning as against the 5 minutes needed by th,e first 
 man. There is still another to be considered in favor of the 
 second man : — it is possible that the first man had forgotten 
 
 *This percentage is not given (directly) in tlie following tables, though it 
 may be computed. It is given directly, however, in the sample tables given in 
 Appendix 0. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 103 
 
 the material so completely at the end of three weeks that not 
 only was he unable to recall any of it, but he also retained 
 practically none of it, and that the second learning was for 
 him practically a memorizing of entirely new material, and 
 that this time he took only 5 minutes, because he was in ex- 
 ceptionally good condition. In fact, when the material used 
 consists of digits we would expect the time for relearning to 
 be, on the average, nearly as great as the original time.-" 
 
 However, taking everything into consideration. Method 3 
 has many merits, and gives us information that neither 
 Method 1 nor Method 2 is capable of. It also has the advan- 
 tage of supplying us with a very easy and accurate measure- 
 ment, namely, time. 
 
 One objection carried by Method 3 is that it makes no 
 allowance for the partial relearning that the preceding Meth- 
 ods (1 and 2) have given. Method 3 is supposed to show,^'^ 
 besides other things, the actual time that is taken for relearn- 
 ing the material. It is obvious, therefore,* that before start- 
 ing this method the subject should not only not have thought 
 of the material during the period that has elapsed from the 
 day it was originally learned, but he should not be allowed to 
 "review" it just previous to starting Method 3. It is just 
 these things, however, that Methods 1 and 2 do, for in the one 
 the subject endeavors to recall as much of the material as pos- 
 sible, while in the other he is allowed a "review." This, how- 
 ever, is not a criticism against Method 3, per se, but a criti- 
 cism against the way in which the method was here used. 
 Bectification was made in two ways — (1) either a separate 
 and distinct material was used for Method 3 or (2) the time 
 taken for the reading of the passage (in Method 2) was added 
 to the time given in column 3. [In some cases the time taken 
 for the "attempted reproduction" was also added.] It will 
 be noted, however, in those tables where this has been done 
 that the addition of a minute or two throughout column 3 
 makes practically no difference in the final correlation. 
 
 ""In several cases the second time was not only equal, but even greater. 
 This is aseribable, either to a poorer mental condition of the subject or to 
 distraction of some sort. 
 
 ""See column 3 of any of the tables. 
 
 " i. e., if we desire Method 3 alone and in its purest form. 
 
104 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 One criticism that might be made of all the methods rather 
 than of any one method in particular is that an investigation of 
 this subject, to be thorough, should involve the use of various 
 time intervals. For example, instead of merely allowing 10 
 weeks to elapse between the time of initial learning and time 
 of relearning we should also use intervals of one day, one 
 week, six months, etc. Proof that the length of the time in- 
 terval allowed to elapse should be seriously considered is 
 seen in the fact that with most groups of subjects the corre- 
 lation of quickness of learning with retentiveness depends 
 to a certain extent on the length of the time interval. 
 
 The complete solution of a problem of this nature should 
 take into consideration all the mental performances of the 
 subject. It should involve the use of all the senses, since each 
 one, as was explained in Chapter I, may be said to have its own 
 "memories." Limited experiments, such as these here de- 
 scribed, can answer the question only in a limited degree. 
 
 MATEEIALS USED. 
 
 Five main kinds of material were employed on all of the 
 regTilar subjects. [In the case of the insane, some of these 
 were omitted or abbreviated.] These five materials were 
 digits, nonsense syllables, words, prose and poetry. Of each 
 of these four sets were employed. The specifications of each 
 of the materials chosen, with the method by which it was 
 selected, are given below under their respective headings : 
 
 (a) Digits. — In the regular set of experiments the num- 
 ber of digits used was 20. With one group of 1 6 individuals 
 series of 40 were also used. The method of procedure in 
 making the list of digits was as follows : 
 
 Small cards, bearing the digits from to 9, inclusive, were 
 placed in a box and shaken up. They were then taken out, 
 one at a time, and if the- digit drawn violated none of the rules 
 given below, it was written down as one of the list. In any 
 case, before drawing another digit the digit previously drawn 
 was put back in the box and the box shaken. 
 
 Eules : 
 
 1. The digits must be drawn by chance. 
 
 2. No digit may be allowed to follow another that is one- 
 
Relation of QtikJcness to Retentivaiwss lOo 
 
 half as much or twice as much as the first, e. i)., 6 may not 
 follow 3 nor 3 follow 6. 
 
 3. No digit may follow another that is only one more or 
 one less than the digit in question, e. g., 4 may not follow 3 
 nor 3 follow 4. 
 
 4. No three digits may be allowed to come together that 
 have the same difference between them, e. g., 3 5-7. 
 
 5. No two digits may come together that have already 
 appeared together in the list. 
 
 6. Since digits, like nonsense syllables, words, etc., are 
 ■generally learned rhythmically in groups of four, no digit 
 may start a group that had previously been used to start a 
 similar group, nor may the final digit of a group (of four) 
 be permitted to stand if it has already been the final digit of 
 a preceding group (of four), e. g., if 7-1-5-2 have occurred 
 once as one group, no other group in the same series may 
 start with 7 or end with 2. 
 
 (&) Nonsense Syllables. — The diverse results that have 
 been obtained by different experimenters using nonsense syl- 
 lables as material can be partly explained by the difference 
 in the syllables selected, i. e., differei^gies in their degree of 
 " nonsensity. ' ' In many cases the nonsense syllables employed 
 by Ebbinghaus belie their name and are not nonsense syllables 
 in the strict sense of the word. Even for the German language 
 many of them are in German as practically words. Those 
 used by Mtiller and Schumann were selected with greater care, 
 and are, on the whole, much better. A really good set of non- 
 sense syllables is extremely difficult of formation. My own 
 method of making the series of 12 and 20 was as follows : 
 
 Out of a list of 90 nonsense syllables,''^ three competent 
 judges selected forty-five that, to their minds, "carried the 
 fewest objections." These forty-five were then placed in a 
 box, and, by following the rules given below, three sets of 
 twenty were selected. Here, as with the digits, if the syllable 
 drawn violated any of the rules, it was thrown back and an- 
 other selected in its place. 
 
 "There are only about 90 fairly good nonsense syllables for English-speaking 
 persons. 
 
106 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 The rules observed in the arrangement of the nonsense 
 syllables were as follows : 
 
 1. Syllables must be drawn by chance. 
 
 2. Initial consonants may not be the same unless separated 
 by two or more syllables. 
 
 3. End consonants may not be the same unless separated 
 by two or more syllables. 
 
 4. Vowels may not be the same unless separated by two 
 or more syllables. 
 
 5. The initial consonant ol one syllable may not be the 
 same as the final consonant of the preceding syllable. 
 
 6. There may be no repetition of the same syllable in any 
 one series. 
 
 (c) Words. — In the regular experiments only nouns were 
 used. These were drawn by chance from 200, previously se- 
 lected, and arranged in lists of 20. Whenever the word drawn 
 made, with the preceding word, an association that was con- 
 sidered ' ' quite obvious ' ' by two of the three judges, the word 
 was thrown back. Of the four sets of words used, two were 
 formed entirely of words of three letters. 
 
 {d) Prose. — Several passages of different nature and 
 content were chosen. 
 
 1. A passage of 100 words from Kipling's "Kim," start- 
 ing with ' * The diamond bright dawn. ' ' 
 
 2. A passage of 100 words from the preface of Haeckel's 
 ' ' Riddle of the Universe, ' ' starting with ' ' The present study. ' ' 
 
 3. A passage of 100 words from Kant's "Critique," be- 
 ginning with "Time is nothing but the form of the internal 
 sense." 
 
 4. A passage of 100 words from Franklin's "Autobiog- 
 raphy," beginning with "But I soon found." 
 
 5. Two sets of unconnected sentences, each set comprising 
 in all 100 words. ' 
 
 (e) Poetry. — Two selections, each containing four stanzas 
 of four lines. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 107 
 
 METHODS OF SCORING. 
 
 The method of scoring the various reproductions of the 
 material memorized — a matter of prime importance in an in- 
 vestigation of this nature — will now be considered in detail. 
 
 (a) Digits— -Method 3 needs no comment as to scoring. 
 It is obvious that where complete relearning is used the only 
 measurement we have to consider is that of time. With meth- 
 ods 1 and 2, however (where the reproductions are never per- 
 fect), mistakes are more or less numerous, and these have to 
 be taken into consideration, be they mistakes of omission, in- 
 sertion of wrong material, wrong order, or what not. In my 
 earliest experiments I used the method devised by Ebbing- 
 haus,^^ scoring every ommission as one error, every displace- 
 ment from the correct position in the series by two or three 
 places as 0.5 error, and every displacement by four or more 
 places as one error. The subjects were then compared with 
 respect to their error-score in series of each length separately. 
 I found, however, upon correlating the scores thus obtained 
 that my results were practically the same as when using the 
 much simpler method used by Dr. Whitley.^^ ' ' The chief diffi- 
 culty," says Whitley, "in comparing people's work on memory 
 lies in the variable methods of scoring, especially with regard 
 to transpositions. If the order is 76431528 and a subject 
 
 writes 7463 , some experimenters call it two errors, 
 
 because both the 4 and the 6 are in the wrong places; 
 other experimenters call it one error because by making 
 one change — by 'lifting' the 6 over the 4 — it is corrected. 
 The latter method seems preferable. Supposing a sub- 
 ject were to write 87643152. Eight errors would be scored 
 by the first method, since each numeral is misplaced; by 
 the latter method only one error is scored, since one change 
 would set all right. ' ' Thus a misplacement is rated by Whit- 
 ley practically the same as an omission. For example, a sub- 
 ject writing 76-31528 would, by the first method, be scored 
 one error for omitting the 4, but two errors if he placed it 
 
 "''H. Ebbinghaus. "Veher eine neue Methode mur Prilfung geistiger Fahig- 
 keiten in iher Anwendung iei ScJiulJHndern," in Z. P., 1907, 13, 401-457. 
 
 '"'Tests for Individual Differences," Archives of Psycliol., 1911, 'No. 19, 
 Page 45. 
 
108 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 before the 6. By "Whitley's method, however, he is, by count- 
 ing misplacements and omissions a^^ equal, scored only one 
 error. This method as used by Whitley is the method that 
 was used in scoring the results given in the following tables. 
 Each numeral that was given correctly was. scored 1, and if 
 it was in the right place, either relative or absolute,"* it was 
 scored 1 more. This method may at first sight seem crude, 
 but many were tried and the more elaborate ones were dis- 
 carded. 
 
 Examples of the Scoring op Series of Digits are Shown Below. 
 
 Series studied 50947152618047381629 
 
 Reprod. by sub. A. F... 50947. 538047362 9. . . . 
 
 Score 22222.2122222122. . . . Total 28 
 
 Reprod. by sub. J. M... 509471541680259646129 
 
 Score 2222222 . 1 1 22 1 1 22 Total 26 
 
 Reprod. by sub. M. K... 50947152618. 7 . 881629 
 
 Score 222222222222 1 . 222222 Total 37 
 
 (fe) Nonsense Syllables. — With nonsense syllables also 
 Method 3 gives no difficulty as far as scoring is concerned, 
 but with Methods 1 and 2 we encounter the same difficulties 
 that confront us with digits, since omissions and misplace- 
 ments are usually numerous. Here also I first tried several 
 of the more elaborate methods, including that of Ebbinghaus, 
 but discarded them for one of my own make. This method, 
 while easy and quick, proved upon comparison with the re- 
 sults obtained by the more elaborate methods to be fully as 
 accurate. Briefly stated, the method is as follows : Each 
 correct letter, provided the syllable is in the correct position,'''^ 
 receives a score of 1, and the syllable, for being in the correct 
 position, receives an extra score of 1. Thus a perfect syllable 
 in the correct position receives a score of 4. A syllable cor- 
 rect in itself, but not correct in position, receives a score of 
 
 "I counted a digit to be correct as to its relative position provided it was 
 preceded by tbe correct digit. My reasons for using the preceding digit in- 
 stead of the following digit In determining correctness of position are given 
 in the following sub-section entitled "Nonsense Syllables." If in pla'ce of a 
 digit the subject merely drew a line thus indicating that he was aware of an 
 omission, he was given credit for thus preserving accuracy of position for 
 the (ligit following. 
 
 ^"Correct position" here, as with digits, may mean correct relative position 
 or correct absolute position. A syllable is in the correct relative position when 
 it is preceded by the correct syllable, or by a syllable of which two letters 
 are correct, provided these letters themselves be in the right order. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 109 
 
 only 3. If the position is correct and the syllable has two of 
 -the three letters correct,^" it is scored 3. If two of the three 
 letters of the syllable are correct, but the position of the syl- 
 lable itself is not correct, either relative or absolute, it receives 
 no score at all. Therefore, unless position is correct, the sepa- 
 rate letters- do not count unless all are correct."' It must be 
 remembered that, as before said, if a syllable is correct, but 
 is not in the correct position, it gets 3, and only 3, counts, since 
 each syllable that is in the correct position and also correct 
 in itself receives a count of 4. The highest score, therefore, 
 obtainable for a list of 20 syllables is 80. The subjects were 
 told to draw a line under the last syllable in their repro- 
 duction if they felt sure that it ivas the last syllable. In this 
 way the last syllfible, even if it was not preceded by the cor- 
 rect syllable, was counted as being in the right position and 
 given a score — e. g., a score of 4 if the syllable was entirely 
 correct and underlined, — 3 for the syllable itself and 1 extra 
 count for being in the correct absolute position.^^ 
 
 The method of scoring is illustrated by thq following 
 example : 
 
 Reproduction by 
 List of Syllables Studied Subject J. M. Scores. 
 VDS VUS 4 
 XIP VIF 3 
 MAV JEP 3 
 JEP RIIj 
 VOB BOV 2 
 FEG SIR 
 WOF WOTj 3 
 TIB TID 3 
 NUZ 
 BOF 
 JED 
 KIB 
 VEL 
 ZID 
 BOL, 
 SEF 
 YAB 
 IfUV Total Score 18 
 
 TEF 
 NAD 
 
 ""Provided these two letters themselves are in the correct order. 
 
 "When, however, all three letters are written, but not in correct order, e. g., 
 the letters reversed, the syllable receives a score of 1, but if the position 
 also Is correct, a score of 2. ,i ui j 
 
 "The same rule was used here as in the case of the nonsense syllables and 
 the two letters themselves had to be in the correct order. 
 
110 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 From the rules laid down on the preceding page for the scor- 
 ing of nonsense syllables there should be no difficulty in under- 
 standing the above scores, but in order to make the method 
 quite clear we shall consider separately each of the syllables 
 (as reproduced by subject J. E.), stating the why and where- 
 fore of ea^h of the scores given. VU8 gets 4 counts, being 
 correct in everything. VIF gets only 3 counts, since, although 
 its position is correct, it starts with "V" instead of "Y." 
 JEP gets 3 counts ; had it been in the correct position, it would 
 have gotten 4, since when a syllable is correct as to its letters 
 but in the wrong position it is credited with only 3 counts — 
 one for each letter. RIL receives no score at all, there being 
 no such syllable. BOV receives a score of 2, for it contains 
 all the letters that occur in VOB, and, moreover, is in the 
 correct position, i. e., where VOB should be. SIR receives no 
 score at all. It is quite likely a pure guess, and put down 
 merely to secure correctness of position for the two following 
 syllables. We are all the more led to believe this when we 
 perceive that the next two syllables, WOL and TID, have, in 
 each, two letters correct, their positions also being correct. 
 
 We have gone somewhat more into detail concerning this 
 method of scoring than may seem necessary in a book of this 
 sort. Our reason for this has been that nonsense syllables are 
 one of the materials most frequently used in investigating 
 memory problems of this nature, and unless the reproductions 
 are scored by an exact and scientific method the inductions 
 drawn may be quite valueless. Should the reader use this 
 method in any experiments he may undertake, he will notice 
 that aiter a few minutes' practice the scoring of "attempted 
 reproductions" becomes a relatively simple matter. 
 
 (c) Words. — With words. Method 3 also gives no diffi- 
 culty, time being the only measurement. With Methods 1 
 and 2, however, a method similar to that used with nonsense 
 syllables was employed. A score of 1 was given if the posi- 
 tion, whether relative or absolute, was correct. Here also 
 correctness of the relative position was determined by the pre- 
 ceding word. An extra count was given if any two letters'" 
 
 "This method of scoriug Is explained in detail in an article on the subject : 
 D. O. Lyoot. "A Rapid and Accurate Method of Scoring Nonsense Syllables 
 and Words " Am. Jour, of Psych. Vol. XXIV, pages 525-531. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness HI 
 
 were correct, provided that the position of the word was cor- 
 rect. If the word was wholly correct, it received still an 
 extra count, making a maximum of 3 counts for each word. 
 The scoring is illustrated by the following case : 
 
 Reproduction by 
 
 861*168 of Words Studied. 
 
 Subject M. K. 
 
 Scoi 
 
 TUB 
 
 TUB 
 
 ;i 
 
 PIN 
 
 HEN 
 
 •1 
 
 HEN 
 
 JUG 
 
 2 
 
 BED 
 
 RAT 
 
 
 
 LID 
 
 TAN 
 
 
 
 GEM 
 
 MUG 
 
 
 
 BUD 
 
 CAT 
 
 2 
 
 CAR 
 
 RUG 
 
 2 
 
 MAT 
 
 PEN 
 
 2 
 
 ROD 
 
 BED 
 
 ■■i 
 
 JUG 
 
 GUN 
 
 3 
 
 FOG 
 LAD 
 
 
 
 
 
 SOD 
 
 
 
 PEN 
 
 
 
 CAT 
 
 
 
 RAG 
 
 
 
 BOX 
 
 Total score... 
 
 .. .10 
 
 NET 
 
 
 
 GUN 
 
 
 
 This scoring may be elucidated by the following remarks : 
 The first word, TUB, is given 3 counts, it having two letters 
 correct, it also being the correct word and also being in the 
 correct position. HEN is given a score of 2, it being the cor- 
 rect word, but not in the correct position. For like reasons 
 JUG is scored 2. RAT receives no score at all, although it 
 has two letters {"AT") that are correct (they being also in 
 the word CAT). The word, however, is not in the prope?' 
 position, either relative or absolute, and hence can receive no 
 count at all. Words of this kind, therefore, receive a score 
 of 2 or nothing for reasons given in detail under nonsense 
 syllables. The fairness of this rule is made clear when we 
 realize that had the word RAT been preceded by the word 
 PEN, the chances of RAT having been a mere guess would 
 be greatly lessened. TAN receives no count at all. To the 
 next word, MUG, one is tempted to give a score of 1, since it 
 contains the two letters UG, which are also contained in JUG. 
 
112 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 It would have received credit for these two letters had the 
 word been preceded by ROD. Not being preceded by ROD, 
 it is given no couni at all. That this is perfectly fair is in 
 this particular case very conveniently shown by the appear- 
 ance later on of the word RUG, which, although there is no 
 such word, is given a score of 2, it being preceded by the cor- 
 rect word CAT. The two letters that are correct in this case 
 are R-G, and, although separated by the wrong vowel, U, 
 they are in the proper order. PEN receives a score of 2, 
 it having two letters correct and also being the correct word 
 itself. BED receives a score of 3 — 1 because it contains two 
 correct letters, 1 because it is the correct word itself, and 1 
 because it is preceded by the correct word. In this case the 
 "preceding" word is not wholly correct, but it contains two 
 correct letters, and thus BED receives a higher scoring 
 than it would have received had it been preceded by the word 
 AXE for example. The last word, GUN, receives a score of 
 3, it being in the correct absolute position for the reason that 
 it is underlined, this proving that the subject knew that it 
 was the last word. 
 
 {d) Prose. — The simplest method of scoring the prose 
 passages is to grade the papers offhand on a basis of 10 (or 
 100), equaling perfection. With this method, however, some 
 examiners would not consider that "perfection" necessarily 
 requires the use of the identical words occurring in the origi- 
 nal, nor might they consider that it requires a perfectly cor- 
 rect order of these words. With a certain amount of justifi- 
 cation, they might say that the only thing necessary to get a 
 score of 100 would be to have a perfect reproduction of the 
 various ideas contained in the original passage — in other 
 words, a practically perfect impression of the "content" of 
 the passage. This rather rough method of scoring has been 
 used by several experimenters. I used this method for a time, 
 but soon gave it up for the more exact method of Henderson,*" 
 somewhat modified. 
 
 In scoring Henderson divided his prose passages into 
 "topics," "subtopics," "details," and words. He was thus 
 
 "E. N. Hendekson. "A Study of Memory for Connected Trains of Thought," 
 r»y. Rev. ilonog. Hupp., No. 2.3, 1003. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness ll.'l 
 
 able to score his papers according to the number of "ideas" 
 and "parts of ideas" that were retained. We shall first take 
 up his method of scoring the smallest of the subdivisions, 
 viz., ivords, and this is best given in a quotation from Hender- 
 son himself : ' ' The scoring of words remembered might eas- 
 ily become a complicated matter. Doubtless, the reproducing 
 of certain words means far more power of memory than that 
 of others. I have used the following system. All words of 
 the original that were reproduced in their former contexts 
 were scored full value. Commonplace words, particularly 
 articles, prepositions, and conjunctions, were not scored when 
 reproduced out of their context. On the other hand, an un- 
 usual word was regarded as remembered even though it ap- 
 peared in the wrong context. Occasionally a word was evi- 
 dently used because its sound was somewhat like that of one 
 in the original. A half-credit was here given. Words that 
 were modified to suit changes in construction, etc., were given 
 partial credit also. " ■ 
 
 In defending his method of analyzing a passage into the 
 various divisions mentioned, Henderson says*'^: "It must be 
 confessed that this analysis has in it something arbitrary. To 
 say that each of the detailed thoughts thus indicated is equal 
 in value to every other is manifestly absurd. And this is true 
 whether our estimate be based on relative importance to the 
 thought in general or on relative difficulty of recall. But it 
 must be granted that the same objection could be raised 
 against any endeavor to compare two mental conditions quan- 
 titatively. However, as the mind of the subject traveled over 
 the thought it was trying to reproduce it may be conceived 
 to have rested momentarily on each of the details indicated. 
 In general, the better memories could be expected to retain 
 not only the easily- remembered details, but also the ones 
 harder to recall, whereas the poorer ones would retain only 
 the former class. In such cases the scores given cannot be 
 challenged on the ground that the lack of equality between the 
 units renders the ranking of the subjects arbitrary. Placing 
 different values on the ideas or analyzing the units differently 
 might affect the ranking in cases where the loss of certain 
 
 'Op. lU., p. 33. 
 
114 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 ideas is pitted against that of different ones, but seldom, I 
 am confident, could one justify a valuation or an analysis so 
 different from mine as to affect materially the ranking of a 
 student. Hence the general results of my investigation are, 
 I conceive, not dependent on the peculiarities of my scoring. 
 
 "The scores given have not been diminished because of 
 errors. They are records only of what was retained. I have 
 taken the ground that the erroneous idea that contains the 
 suggestion of the true one deserves a positive rather than a 
 negative score. It indicates a thought corresponding, how- 
 ever inaccurately, to the, earlier one. Such ideas are given a 
 part of the value of an accurate memory. Some individuals, 
 it is true, leave unexpressed the hazy idea that they fear is 
 erroneous. They might suffer by comparison with cloudier 
 minds that failed to discover the presence of the fog. How- 
 ever, a mind that feels a certain idea to be inaccurate is 
 usually able to express the part or phase of the thought that 
 is accurate, and thus render a true account of what was in 
 the memory." 
 
 My own method of scoring is really nothing but a modifica 
 tion of Henderson 's. The papers were first marked on a scale 
 of 100 by three competent judges. The average of these 
 marks was then taken and called "Judges' Mark." The 
 papers were then scored by Henderson's method, the score, 
 however, being converted into a scale of 1-100. This was 
 termed "Henderson's mark." The arithmetical mean of 
 these two "marks" was then taken as the final score. It was , 
 seldom that the two methods of scoring differed by more than 
 3. In one or two instances the difference was as great as 5, 
 though this difference was mostly due to the presence of an 
 introspective postscript that had been added by the subject, 
 and which, while it could not be considered in Henderson's 
 method, was evidently considered by the judges. It was fre- 
 quently clear that the subject had a fair idea of certain 
 "thoughts" that he was unable to express — thoughts that 
 were evidently not expressed in words sufficiently correct to 
 obtain, by Henderson's method, as high a score as the judges 
 deemed them worthy of, for in these cases the ' ' Judges ' Mark" 
 was invariably higher than "Henderson's mark." 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 115 
 
 The result of the scoring is seen in the following exampL 
 
 ,es; 
 
 Selection Studied.*- 
 
 And gentle Ellen welcomed her 
 AVlth courteous looks and mild: 
 
 Thought she "what if her heart should melt, 
 And all be reconciled !" 
 
 The day was scarcely like a day — 
 The clouds were black outright : 
 
 And many a night, with half a moon, 
 I've seen the church more light. 
 
 The wind was wild ; against the glass 
 
 The rain did beat and bicker ; 
 The church-tower swinging over head, 
 
 You scarce could hear the Vicar! 
 
 And then and there the mother knelt. 
 
 And audibly she cried — 
 Oh ! may a clinging curse consume 
 
 This woman by my side! 
 
 Ueproduction by Subject A. F. 
 
 And gentle Ellen welcomed her. 
 
 With tender looks and mild. 
 Thought she, "what If her heart should melt 
 
 And all be reconciled." 
 
 The day was scarcely like a day, 
 The clouds were black outright 
 
 And many a night with half a moon 
 I've seen the church more bright. 
 
 The — 
 
 The church tower swinging overhead 
 You scarce could hear the preacher. 
 
 And then and there the mother knelt, 
 
 and audibly she cried, 
 "Oh. may a clinging curse consume, 
 
 This woman by my side !'' 
 
 '-'Other selections of prose and poetry, and other lists of digits, words and 
 nonsense syllables, used as materials with some groups of subjects are repro- 
 duced in Appendix A. 
 
116 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 The results of this method of scoring may be seen in the 
 following examples : 
 
 Passage Studied. 
 
 The diamond-briglit dawn woke men and cows and bullocks together. Kim 
 sat up and yawned, shook himself, and thrilled with delight. This was 
 seeing the world in real truth, this was life as he would have it — bustling and 
 shouting, the buckling of belts, and beating of bullocks and creaking of 
 wheels, lighting of fires and cooking of food, and new sights at every turn of 
 the approving eye. The morning mist swept off in a whirl of silver ; the 
 parrots shot away to some distant river in shrieking green hosts ; all the well- 
 wheels within earghot were at work. 
 
 « 
 Reprodtjctioit by Subject A. F. 
 
 The diamond bright dawn woke men and cows and bullocks together. Kim 
 awoke, sat up, yawned and shook himself. This was life as it should be, this 
 was seeing the world in real truth. The creaking of wheels, the lowing of 
 cattle, the clanking of chains, the ringing of bells and new sights at every 
 turn of the approving eye. The parrots shot off to some far away river in 
 
 shrieking green hosts ; the 
 
 and all the well wheels of industry were at work. 
 
 Score, 72. 
 
 Reproduction by Subject J. M. 
 
 The diamond bright dawn woke men, and cows and bullocks all together. 
 Kim sat up and yawned, shook himself, and thrilled with delight. This was 
 seeing life in real truth ; this was life as he would have it. The blowing of 
 horns, the lowing of cattle, the cracking of whips, and the creaking of wheels. 
 
 (There was also something about parrots flying across the river, and that 
 everybody was at work.) 
 
 Score, 49. 
 
 Reproduction by Subject M. K. 
 
 The diamond bright dawn woke men, and , and bullocks together. Kim 
 
 awoke and sat up. "This was seeing the world in truth, this was life as he 
 would have it." The buckling of belts, beating of bullocks and blowing of 
 horns, the cracking of Are and cooking of food and new sights at every turn of 
 the approving eye. 
 
 Score, 50. 
 
 (e) Poetry. — The scoring of the poetry was practically 
 identical with the scoring of the prose. Nothing, therefore, 
 need be said, unless it is that the "Judges' mark" was more 
 or -less influenced by the quality of the rhythm, rhyme, etc. 
 For example, other things being equal, a word that rhymed 
 with the appropriate preceding word was given preference 
 over one that did not, even though neither of the words ap- 
 peared in the original stanza. 
 
 Score, 85. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 
 
 117 
 
 Reproduction by Subject J. M. 
 
 And gentle Ellen welcomed her 
 With courteous looks and mild, 
 
 Thot she, what if her heart should — 
 And all be reconciled. 
 
 Score, 39. 
 
 The sky was dark, the wind blew wild, 
 
 We scarce could hear the vicar. 
 
 (There was something about a mother 
 praying that another woman be cursed.) 
 
 Reproduced by Subject M. K. 
 
 And genter Ellen welcomed her, 
 
 AVith courteous looks and mild, 
 Tho't she what tho her - — '-^' 
 
 Score, 23. 
 
 The day was 
 The clouds 
 
 And many a night I seen more 
 
 Classes of Subjects Tested. 
 
 1. 
 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
 7. 
 
 10. 
 11. 
 
 12. 
 
 40 grammar-school students. Modal age, 14. 
 24 trade-school students. Modal age, 1(5. 
 60 high-school students. Modal age, 17. 
 24 State reformatory inmates. Modal age, 20. 
 132 normal-college students. Modal age, 21. 
 32 Columbia College seniors. Modal age, 22. 
 14 Barnard College seniors. Modal age, 22. 
 24 asylum attendants. Modal age, 25. 
 12 workhouse inmates. Modal age, 30. 
 24 clerks and business men. Modal age, 30. 
 16 graduate students, instructors and professors. 
 
 Modal age, 32. 
 24 prison inmates. Modal age, 34. 
 
118 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 Results. 
 
 The Tables. — To set forth in full the individual records of 
 the twelve groups of subjects mentioned on page 117 would 
 require an excessive amount of space, and I have accordingly 
 limited the detailed presentation to two groups, one of 24 
 normal-college seniors and the, other of 17 students in a 
 course in experimental psychology in the same school. 
 These subjects are all young women. Their records are given 
 in Tables I-X, which are self-explanatory, except, perhaps, 
 for the columns numbered 5 and 6, 8 and 9, and 11 and 12, 
 which give the average results for the quarters and for the 
 halves of the groups when the individuals are arranged in the 
 order of their quickness of learning the material — which is 
 the order in which they are arranged in the tables. Thus, in 
 Table I, Column 5 informs us that the quickest quarter of the 
 group (in learning 20 digits) saved 61 per cent, in relearning, 
 the second quarter 65 per cent., the third quarter 70 per cent., 
 and the lowest quarter 72 per cent. ; Column 6 tells us that the 
 upper half of the group, in respect to speed of learning, saved 
 63 per cent, in relearning, while the lower half saved 71 per 
 cent. 
 
 Table XI sums up the results of Tables I-V in condensed 
 form, and Table XII does the same for Tables VI-X. The 
 column numbers in these, as also in the following tables, cor- 
 respond to those in the full tables I-X. 
 
 It should be understood that the "upper half" and the 
 "lower half" for each material consist of those individuals 
 who fell into the respective halves of the group in the par- 
 ticular material studied. The upper half does not, therefore, 
 always include exactly the same individuals, and the average 
 results, presented in Tables XI-XVI, are obtained by combin- 
 ing the results of these various halves, and not by segregating 
 the individuals who on the average learned the most or the 
 least quickly. 
 
 Tables XIII and XIV give the condensed result for each 
 material from two other groups of subjects, whose records 
 are not presented individually, while Tables XV and XVI 
 present the results from all the groups in still greater conden- 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 
 
 119 
 
 
 
 TABLE 
 
 I. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 20 DIGITS. 
 
 
 
 
 Normal College Seniors. Girls. 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 4 5 
 
 6 7 8 
 
 9 10 11 1 
 
 
 
 METHOD METHOD METHOD 
 
 
 
 THREE ONE 
 
 TWO 
 
 
 
 Per Cent 
 
 of 
 
 
 
 Time of First 
 
 Time After Time Saved Score, 
 
 Score, 
 
 Sul)jcct 
 
 Learning, 
 
 One Week, or Amount Per Cent. Per Cent. 
 
 
 Min. 
 
 Min. Retained 
 
 
 El. W. 
 
 2.25 
 
 .70 69 1 
 
 
 33 ^ 
 
 
 40 " 
 
 
 Ed. W. 
 
 3.00 
 
 1.16 61 
 
 
 34 
 
 
 39 
 
 
 H. B. 
 
 F. Wi. 
 
 4.50 
 4.56 
 
 1.75 61 
 1.25 73 
 
 61 
 
 34 
 9 
 
 -27 - 
 
 36 
 30 
 
 -35 ^ 
 
 
 M. K. 
 
 4.66 
 
 .50 89 
 
 
 37 
 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 G. L. 
 J. M. 
 
 5.00 
 6.00 
 
 4.33 13 J 
 2.33 61 ^ 
 
 
 fi.. 19 J 
 -63 30 ^ 
 
 
 9R 27 J 
 ■26 34 ^ 
 
 
 -S 
 
 F. K. 
 
 6.00 
 
 3.00 50 
 
 
 27 
 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 A. H. 
 
 6.16 
 
 2.80 65 
 
 .65 
 
 24 
 
 -26 
 
 37 
 
 -32 
 
 
 R. W. 
 
 7.00 
 
 2.50 64 
 
 26 
 
 r ''" 
 
 SO 
 
 
 C. C. 
 
 8.00 
 
 2.00 75 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 27 
 
 
 H.M. 
 
 8.25 
 
 1.40 83 J 
 
 
 29 
 
 
 34 J 
 
 
 A. N. 
 
 8.25 
 
 2.33 72 1 
 
 
 23 ] 
 
 
 34 
 
 
 M. T. 
 
 8.25 
 
 1.16 86 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 41 
 
 
 F. Sc. 
 
 8.33 
 
 3.66 56 
 
 ^70 ■ 
 
 19 
 
 ^23 
 
 31 
 
 1.36 
 
 
 F. St. 
 
 8.66 
 
 2.50 71 
 
 27 
 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 B. 0. 
 
 12.00 
 
 2.66 78 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 S. T. 
 
 13.00 
 
 5.88 55 
 
 
 .71 ^l-. 
 
 
 ^22 ?J - 
 
 
 ^S 
 
 A. T. 
 
 15.00 
 
 9.80 35 T 
 
 
 
 ^^ 23 - 
 
 
 
 E. S. 
 
 16.80 
 
 3.50 79 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 46 
 
 
 
 L.J. 
 
 20.16 
 
 2.40 88 
 
 ^72 . 
 
 26 
 
 20 
 
 40 
 
 .36 
 
 
 E. R. 
 
 20.16 
 
 2.00 90 
 
 33 
 
 S- ijV J 
 
 47 
 
 
 E. T. 
 
 21.50 
 
 5.00 77 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 22 
 
 
 J. Mc. 
 
 29.00 
 
 11.50 60 
 
 
 26 
 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 34 
 
 ■36 
 
 Aver. 
 
 10.26 
 
 2.76 
 
 24 
 
 35 
 
120 
 
 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 TABLE II. 
 20 NONSENSE SYLLABLES. 
 
 Normal College Senioes. Girls. 
 
 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 10 11 
 
 
 
 
 METHOD METHOD METHOD 
 
 
 
 
 THEEB ONE 
 
 TWO 
 
 
 Time of First 
 
 
 Per Cent 
 
 of 
 
 
 
 Learning, 
 
 Time Aftei 
 
 Time Saved Score 
 
 Score. 
 
 Subject 
 
 Min. 
 
 One Week, 
 
 or Amount Per Cent.' Per Cent. 
 
 
 
 Min. 
 
 Iletained 
 
 
 M. K. 
 
 12.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 67"^ 
 
 
 17 -^ 
 
 
 49 ^ 
 
 
 El. W. 
 
 13.50 
 
 5.25 
 
 61 
 
 
 22 
 
 
 51 
 
 
 Ed. W. 
 F.St. 
 
 14.00 
 24.25 
 
 7.00 
 5.50 
 
 50 
 77 
 
 -63 
 
 52 
 15 
 
 -26 ^ 
 
 62 
 41 
 
 -47 ^ 
 
 
 A. T. 
 
 25.00 
 
 8.00 
 
 68 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 H. B. 
 
 26.00 
 
 4.16 
 
 84 > 
 
 
 71 40 . 
 ■" 37^ 
 
 
 9fi 50 . 
 '26 49 
 
 
 / 
 
 A. H. 
 
 26.40 
 
 4.50 
 
 83 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 - 4 
 
 F. Wi. 
 
 28.00 
 
 2.33 
 
 92 
 
 
 48 
 
 
 65 
 
 
 
 R. W. 
 
 E. S. 
 
 28.00 
 29.56 
 
 7.00 
 15.00 
 
 75 
 49 
 
 '75 . 
 
 18 
 8 
 
 -25 , 
 
 38 
 17 
 
 -42 
 
 
 F. Sc. 
 
 31.00 
 
 10.25 
 
 67 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 43 
 
 "" 
 
 B. 0. 
 
 31.75 
 
 5.50 
 
 83 . 
 
 
 19 J 
 
 
 38 J 
 
 
 A.N. 
 
 32.00 
 
 9.16 
 
 71 
 
 
 21 ^ 
 
 
 45^ 
 
 
 M. T. 
 
 33.50 
 
 13.40 
 
 60 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 H. M. 
 F. K. 
 
 34.00 
 34.00 
 
 8.80 
 6.40 
 
 74 
 81 
 
 -67 
 
 18 
 21 
 
 ^19 
 
 40 
 30 
 
 ^33 
 
 
 J. M. 
 
 35.50 
 
 15.66 
 
 56 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 L.J. 
 
 36.08 
 
 15.00 
 
 58 
 
 
 ^68 29, 
 
 
 .01 29 
 
 
 
 C. C. 
 
 37.00 
 
 16.50 
 
 55 1 
 
 
 
 ^21 36 = 
 
 
 >-3 
 
 E. R. 
 
 40.80 
 
 15.16 
 
 63 
 
 
 39 
 
 
 53 
 
 
 
 S. T. 
 
 42.00 
 
 13.00 
 
 69 
 
 -69 . 
 
 14 
 
 -23 
 
 18 
 
 .40 , 
 
 
 J. McC. 
 
 42.00 
 
 12.68 
 
 70 
 
 18 
 
 41 
 
 
 G. L. 
 
 44.16 
 
 4.50 
 
 90 
 
 
 46 
 
 
 52 
 
 
 E. T. 
 
 45.00 
 
 15.40 
 
 66 J 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 38 J 
 
 
 Aver. 
 
 31.06 
 
 9.34 
 
 70 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 40 
 
 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 
 
 121 
 
 
 
 TABLE 
 
 III. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 20 WORDS. 
 
 
 
 
 NoKMAi. College Senioks. 
 
 Girls. 
 
 
 J 
 
 2 
 
 3 4 5 6 
 
 7 8 
 
 9 10 11 ] 
 
 
 
 METHOD 
 
 METHOD METHOD 
 
 
 
 THREE 
 
 ONE 
 
 TWO 
 
 
 Time of First 
 
 Per Cent, of 
 
 
 
 
 Learning, 
 
 Time After Time Saved 
 
 Score, 
 
 Score, 
 
 Subject 
 
 Min. 
 
 Ten Weeks, or Amount 
 
 Per Cent. Per Cent. 
 
 
 
 Min. Retained 
 
 
 
 A. H. 
 
 4.40 
 
 1.03 77 1 
 
 
 43 1 
 
 
 53-^ 
 
 
 H. B. 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.66 7 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 43 
 
 
 El. W. 
 G. L. 
 
 7.00 
 7.66 
 
 3.88 43 
 4.66 39 
 
 -45 
 
 
 35 
 11 
 
 -26 
 
 50 
 39 
 
 -44 ^ 
 
 
 Ed. W. 
 
 9.00 
 
 3.08 66 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 
 51 
 
 
 
 A.N. 
 
 9.50 
 
 6.00 37 . 
 
 
 -40 
 
 22 J 
 
 
 2o 28 J 
 ^^^ 52 
 
 
 J 
 
 R. W. 
 
 10.25 
 
 5.00 51 
 
 
 20" 
 
 
 
 - 4 
 
 A. T. 
 
 10.40 
 
 6.75 35 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 M. T. 
 
 11.00 
 
 7.50 S2 
 
 ^35 . 
 
 
 20 
 
 -20 
 
 40 
 
 -45 
 
 
 E. S. 
 
 11.00 
 
 8.75 21 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 39 
 
 
 B. 0. 
 
 11.25 
 
 6.75 40 
 
 
 27 
 
 
 49 
 
 
 J. M. 
 
 11.50 
 
 8.00 30 J 
 
 
 22 J 
 
 
 48 . 
 
 
 F. St. 
 
 11.66 
 
 6.88 41 1 
 
 
 26 1 
 
 
 46 ' 
 
 
 S. T. 
 
 12.00 
 
 4.40 63 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 21 
 
 
 F. Sc. 
 
 12.16 
 
 4.00 67 
 
 > 54 
 
 
 22 
 
 >22 
 
 40 
 
 -S7 1 
 
 
 C. C. 
 
 13.00 
 
 3.75 71 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 
 49 
 
 r *^' 
 
 
 M. K. 
 
 13.25 
 
 3.66 72 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 H. M. 
 F. Wi. 
 
 13.33 
 13.80 
 
 12.25 8 
 4.16 70 1 
 
 
 ^61 
 
 28, 
 
 17 1 
 
 
 "^^ 37 1 
 
 
 .3 
 
 J. Mc. 
 
 14.00 
 
 7.25 48 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 F. K. 
 
 14.33 
 
 4.00 72 
 
 ^68 
 
 
 16 
 
 V 18 
 
 27 
 
 33 
 
 
 E. R. 
 
 15.00 
 
 3.50 77 
 
 
 40 
 
 y XO J 
 
 50 
 
 f- "" J 
 
 L.J. 
 
 16.00 
 
 2.08 87 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 38 
 
 
 E. T. 
 
 28.50 
 
 13.00 54 J 
 
 
 
 9 J 
 
 
 17 J 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 44 
 
 Aver. 
 
 11.88 
 
 5.62 
 
 51 
 
 21 
 
 39 
 
122 
 
 Memory and the Learning Process. 
 
 TABLE IV. 
 
 PROSE. 100 WORDS. 
 
 (The Diamond Beight Dawn). 
 Normal College Seniors. Girls. 
 
 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 10 11 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 METHOD 
 
 Ml 
 
 STHO 
 
 D METHOD 
 
 
 
 
 THREE 
 
 ONE 
 
 TWO 
 
 
 Time of First 
 
 
 Per Cent, of 
 
 
 
 
 Learning, 
 
 Time After 
 
 Time Saved 
 
 Score, 
 
 Score. 
 
 Subject 
 
 Min. 
 
 Ten Weeks, 
 
 or Amount 
 
 Per Cent. Per Cent. 
 
 
 
 Min. 
 
 Retained 
 
 
 
 Ed. W. 
 
 10.00 
 
 1.33 
 
 87 1 
 
 
 97 1 
 
 
 98 1 
 
 
 F. Sc. 
 
 10.40 
 
 2.16 
 
 79 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 89 
 
 
 A. H. 
 
 13.00 
 
 1.00 
 
 92 
 
 -78 ' 
 
 
 93 
 
 ^66 
 
 99 
 
 ■82 ' 
 
 
 E. S. 
 
 13.00 
 
 4.40 
 
 66 
 
 
 33 
 
 50 
 
 
 El. W. 
 
 13.75 
 
 4.00 
 
 71 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 
 85 
 
 
 
 c. c. 
 
 14.33 
 
 4.25 
 
 70 J 
 
 
 ■69 
 
 62 J 
 
 
 .::q 73. 
 f-59 7g . 
 
 
 n 
 
 R. W. 
 
 15.00 
 
 4.66 
 
 69 ' 
 
 
 52 1 
 
 
 
 !-8 
 
 F. Wi. 
 
 15.25 
 
 6.00 
 
 61 
 
 
 
 45 
 
 
 68 
 
 
 
 F. K. 
 
 16.08 
 
 4.50 
 
 72 
 
 -59 
 
 
 39 
 
 -53 
 
 91 
 
 -79 
 
 
 G. L. 
 
 17.00 
 
 11.25 
 
 34 
 
 
 45 
 
 72 
 
 
 H. B. 
 
 17.00 
 
 5.40 
 
 68 
 
 
 84 
 
 
 87 
 
 
 J. M 
 
 17.25 
 
 8.50 
 
 51 . 
 
 
 51 J 
 
 
 75 , 
 
 
 F. St. 
 
 18.66 
 
 6.50 
 
 65^ 
 
 
 32 1 
 
 
 64 ^ 
 
 
 H. M. 
 
 19.50 
 
 10.00 
 
 49 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 52 
 
 
 A. N. 
 
 22.25 
 
 9.00 
 
 60 
 
 -64 ^ 
 
 
 69 
 
 ^46 
 
 76 
 
 -64 
 
 
 B. 0. 
 
 23.25 
 
 9.50 
 
 59 
 
 
 76 
 
 80 
 
 
 A. T. 
 
 24.26 
 
 5.56 
 
 78 
 
 
 
 27 
 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 M. K. 
 S. T. 
 
 25.16 
 26.08 
 
 7.40 
 4.00 
 
 71 
 85 ^ 
 
 
 -66 
 
 50 
 
 42 1 
 
 
 ^^^ 95 = 
 60 
 
 
 -6 
 
 M. T. 
 
 28.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 46 
 
 
 
 46 
 
 
 
 
 L. J. 
 
 29.80 
 
 17.00 
 
 43 
 
 .63 
 
 
 56 
 
 .47 
 
 54 
 
 .70 
 
 
 E. R. 
 
 31.40 
 
 6.56 
 
 79 
 
 
 77 
 
 89 
 
 
 J. Mc. 
 
 34.56 
 
 6.88 
 
 80 
 
 
 49 
 
 
 55 
 
 
 E. T. 
 
 45.16 
 
 11.75 
 
 74 J 
 
 
 
 14 . 
 
 
 67 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 -67 
 
 Aver. 
 
 20.84 
 
 6.94 
 
 67 
 
 53 
 
 74 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 
 
 12.: 
 
 TABLE V. 
 POETRY. 100 WORDS. 
 
 (Gentle Ellen). 
 Normal College Seniors. Girls. 
 
 i 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 METHOD METHOD METHOD 
 
 
 
 
 THREE 
 
 ONE 
 
 TWO 
 
 
 Time of First 
 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 of 
 
 
 
 Learning, 
 
 Time After 
 
 Time Saved Score 
 
 Score, 
 
 Subject 
 
 Min. 
 
 Ten Weeks, 
 
 or Amount Per Cent. Per Cent. 
 
 
 
 Min. 
 
 Retained 
 
 
 El.W. 
 
 2.08 
 
 1.00 
 
 52 1 
 
 
 36 1 
 
 
 59"! 
 
 
 H. B. 
 
 3.00 
 
 1.75 
 
 42 
 
 
 95 
 
 
 98 
 
 
 Ed. W. 
 R. W. 
 
 3.25 
 5.00 
 
 .33 
 1.40 
 
 90 
 72 
 
 ^65 ■ 
 
 64 
 30 
 
 ^56 
 
 100 
 39 
 
 ^72' 
 
 
 E. S. 
 
 7.00 
 
 4.50 
 
 36 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 A. H. 
 
 7.50 
 
 
 
 100 J 
 
 
 ^61 ^^ 
 
 
 ^59 '11 
 
 
 L r 
 
 B. 0. 
 
 8.66 
 
 3.88 
 
 56" 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 G. L. 
 
 8.80 
 
 6.16 
 
 30 
 
 
 28 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 
 A. N. 
 
 9.50 
 
 4.40 
 
 54 
 
 !>57 
 
 57 
 
 ^63 
 
 55 
 
 ^74 
 
 
 F. Sc. 
 
 10.00 
 
 2.16 
 
 78 
 
 
 59 
 
 
 87 
 
 
 
 H. M. 
 
 10.00 
 
 5.25 
 
 48 
 
 
 77 
 
 
 82 
 
 
 F. Wi. 
 
 10.16 
 
 2.25 
 
 78 . 
 
 
 60 J 
 
 
 71 
 
 
 S. T. 
 
 10.50 
 
 2.00 
 
 81' 
 
 
 10 1 
 
 
 35 1 
 
 
 E. R. 
 
 10.56 
 
 3.80 
 
 64 
 
 
 78 
 
 
 92 
 
 
 M.T. 
 
 10.75 
 
 5.00 
 
 53 
 
 .62 
 
 51 
 
 :.43 
 
 84 
 
 .65 
 
 
 F. K. 
 
 12.25 
 
 7.16 
 
 58 
 
 
 73 
 
 
 i9 
 
 
 
 M. K. 
 
 13.40 
 
 5.08 
 
 62 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 E. T. 
 
 13.75 
 
 6.33 
 
 54 
 
 
 .65 24, 
 
 
 -40 48- 
 
 
 -J 
 
 C. C. 
 
 14.00 
 
 3.08 
 
 78- 
 
 
 46 1 
 
 
 *" 67 -^ 
 
 
 
 J. M. 
 
 15.75 
 
 6.25 
 
 60 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 47 
 
 
 
 J. Mc. 
 
 17.00 
 
 5.75 
 
 66 
 
 >68 
 
 39 
 
 .37 
 
 42 
 
 .49 
 
 
 F. St. 
 
 17.16 
 
 5.08 
 
 71 
 
 " 
 
 13 
 
 
 31 
 
 
 A. T. 
 
 19.75 
 
 5.50 
 
 72 
 
 
 32 
 
 
 40 
 
 
 L.J. 
 
 20.00 
 
 7.66 
 
 62 , 
 
 
 53. 
 
 
 68 . 
 
 
 
 73 
 
 -57 
 
 Aver. 
 
 10.83 
 
 4.00 
 
 63 
 
 50 
 
 65 
 
124 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 
 
 
 
 TABLE A. 
 
 
 
 
 
 it 
 
 b 
 Total 
 
 c 
 
 d 
 
 Nons. 
 
 e 
 
 f 
 
 s 
 
 h 
 
 i 
 Average 
 Devia- 
 
 Subject. 
 
 Material. 
 
 Digits. 
 
 Syll. 
 
 Words. 
 
 Prose. 
 
 Poetry. 
 
 Average 
 
 tion. 
 
 El. W..., 
 
 ... 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 2.4 
 
 1.3 
 
 Ed. W.., 
 
 ... 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 2.8 
 
 1.0 
 
 H. B 
 
 ... 3 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 11 
 
 2 
 
 4.8 
 
 3.0 
 
 A. H.... 
 
 ... 4 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 5.2 
 
 2.6 
 
 R. W..., 
 
 ... 5 
 
 10 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 7.4 
 
 1.7 
 
 M. K 
 
 ... 6 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 17 
 
 11.6 
 
 6.9 
 
 F. Wi..., 
 
 ... 7 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 19 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 
 1012 
 
 4.2 
 
 F. Sc... 
 
 ... 8 
 
 15 
 
 11 
 
 15 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 10.6 
 
 3.6 
 
 E. S 
 
 ... 9 
 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 9.8 
 
 4.2 
 
 F. St.... 
 
 ... 10 
 
 16 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 13 
 
 22 
 
 13.6 
 
 4.3 
 
 A. N 
 
 ...11 
 
 13 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 15 
 
 9 
 
 11.2 
 
 3.0 
 
 F. K 
 
 . .. 12 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 21 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 14.0 
 
 4.4 
 
 G. L 
 
 ,..13 
 
 6 
 
 23 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 10.2 
 
 5.1 
 
 H. M..., 
 
 ...14 
 
 12 
 
 15 
 
 18 
 
 14 
 
 11 
 
 14.0 
 
 2.0 
 
 J. M 
 
 ...15 
 
 7 
 
 17 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 20 
 
 13.6 
 
 3.9 
 
 C. C 
 
 ...16 
 
 11 
 
 19 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 19 
 
 14.2 
 
 4.6 
 
 B. O 
 
 ...17 
 
 17 
 
 12 
 
 11 
 
 16 
 
 7 
 
 12.6 
 
 3.1 
 
 M. T.... 
 
 ... 18 
 
 14 
 
 14 
 
 9 
 
 20 
 
 15 
 
 14.4 
 
 2.5 
 
 A. T 
 
 ...19 
 
 19 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 17 
 
 23 
 
 14.4 
 
 6.3 
 
 S. T 
 
 ...20 
 
 18 
 
 21 
 
 14 
 
 19 
 
 13 
 
 17.0 
 
 2.8 
 
 E. R.... 
 
 ... 21 
 
 22 
 
 20 
 
 22 
 
 22 
 
 14 
 
 20.0 
 
 2.4 
 
 L. J 
 
 ...22 
 
 21 
 
 18 
 
 23 
 
 21 
 
 24 
 
 21.4 
 
 1.7 
 
 J. McC. 
 
 ... 23 
 
 24 
 
 22 
 
 20 
 
 23 
 
 21 
 
 22.4 
 
 1.3 
 
 E. T 
 
 ... 24 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 24 
 
 24 
 
 18 
 
 22.6 
 
 1.8 
 
 This table shows at a glance the rank (as to time of first learning) of each 
 of the 24 Normal College Seniors for each of the materials memorized by her 
 (Tables I-V). The average rank of each individual is given in Column h, and, 
 as will be noted, compares closely with the rank for all the material shown in 
 Column b. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 125 
 
 sation. The entries in Tables XV and XVI correspond to 
 the average results from all materials combined, as presented 
 at the bottom of Tables XI-XIV. 
 
 Another way of combining the results from the use of the 
 different materials is illustrated in Table XVII, which again 
 is derived from Tables I-V. The 24 individuals in the group 
 were arranged in the order of their success in each test, and 
 were given numbers indicating their "rank" or position in the 
 group. The table gives the rank of each individual in each 
 performance and his average rank in speed of learning, in 
 retention as measured by the saving method ("method 
 3"), in recall ("method 1"), and in recall after partial re- 
 learning ("method 2"). The average deviation of rank of 
 each individual in each of these kinds of performance is also 
 given. (In Appendix D may be seen the table from which 
 Table XVII is taken.) 
 
 Finally, Table XVIII is derived from the preceding table 
 for a purpose which will be explained later. 
 
 Time of Initial Learning. — ^An examination of any of the 
 tables will reveal the fact that the time of initial learning varies 
 widely with the different subjects, and that these differences 
 in learning are more marked than the individual differences 
 in relearning. In other words, it may be stated as a general 
 rule that with a given number of individuals there will be a 
 greater difference in their time of memorizing than in their 
 retentive capacity. 
 
 Generally speaking, with a group of 20 or 30 subjects the 
 time taken by the quickest learner is to the time taken by the 
 slowest learner as 1 : 4. This, however, would seem to depend 
 partly upon the nature of the material learned. Among the 
 24 Albany Normal College seniors (Tables I to V) it will be 
 noticed that with digits the time of the quickest learner is to 
 the time of the slowest learner as 1:13; that with nonsense 
 syllables the ratio is 1:4; that in the case of ivords the ratio 
 is 1:7; that for prose it is 1 : 5, whereas for poetry it is 1 :10. 
 The difference in these ratios is, of course, largely a matter 
 of chance. Take, for example, the table for words; here the 
 slowest learner takes 28 minutes and 30 seconds, whereas the 
 next slowest learner takes only 16 minutes, It is obvious that 
 
126 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 a mucli fairer form of comparison is that of comparing the 
 average of the first four with the average of the last four. 
 Doing this, we find that the ratios are as follows : For digits, 
 1:6; nonsense syllables, 1:3; words, 1:3; prose, 1:3; poetry, 
 1:5." 
 
 An individual who is a quick learner of one sort of material 
 tends, upon the whole, to be a quick learner of other sorts also. 
 This is seen most conveniently in the first part of Table XVII, 
 which shows the ranks of 24 individuals in quickness of learn- 
 ing five sorts of material. Some individuals stand consistently 
 high, and some consistently low. There is, however, a good 
 deal of shifting from one material to another, and this shifting 
 finds expression in the coefficient of correlation between the 
 ranking in two materials. As computed by the rank-difference 
 method,. the average correlation between the speed of learning 
 any two sorts of material is, for this group of subjects, +.51. 
 For the 17 subjects whose records are given in Tables VI-X, 
 the average correlation comes out a little lower, -\-A2. The 
 shifting of an individual's rank from one material to another 
 is partly due to the accidental factors inherent in a single test, 
 and partly, no doubt, to actual differences in the efficiency of 
 the inidvidual's powers of memorizing different classes of 
 material. 
 
 Interval between Learning and Reproduction. — This in- 
 terval varied in different experiments, as indicated in the 
 several tables. In the majority of our experiments the in- 
 terval that was allowed to elapse for digits and nonsense 
 syllables was either three days or one week, whereas for 
 words, prose, and poetry it was much longer, being from three 
 to ten weeks. In an investigation of this nature, where we 
 are concerned primarily with acquisition as related to reten- 
 tion, we can, of course, choose any interval we wish. We 
 might wait six months and still find a relation between learn- 
 ing and retention. That this relation would differ with the 
 interval, however, appears probable from certain tests we have 
 
 "Even when we thus obtain our ratio by comparing the average of the first 
 four subjects with the average of the last four, the P. E. is very large. It is a 
 noticeable fact, however, and one of some interest, that with every group of 
 subjects the greatest difference (ratio) occurs with the digits. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 
 
 127 
 
 Subject 
 
 B. B. 
 
 F. Wo. 
 E. F. 
 J. S. 
 E. C. 
 I. S. 
 
 A. D. 
 
 B. C. 
 El. F. 
 A. Q. 
 E. A. 
 E.H. 
 M. J. 
 
 G. H. 
 H. A. 
 R. B. 
 M. N. 
 
 TABLE VI. 
 20 DIGITS. 
 
 Class ix Experimental Psychology. Giels. 
 2 3 456789 
 
 Time of First 
 
 Learning, Time After 
 Min. One Week, , 
 
 Min. 
 
 3.40 
 
 4.50 
 
 6.00 
 
 6.50 
 
 6.50 
 
 8.00 
 
 8.56 
 
 9.00 
 
 9.80 
 
 10.00 
 
 11.00 
 
 1].30 
 
 11.80 
 
 12.66 
 
 14.00 
 
 16.16 
 
 24.25 
 
 METHOD 
 THKEE 
 
 Per Cent, of 
 
 . Time Saved 
 
 "or Amount 
 
 Retained 
 
 0.75 
 4.16 
 0.88 
 2.75 
 1.33 
 1.66 
 9.66 
 1.33 
 0.50 
 3.25 
 2.40 
 2.25 
 1.33 
 4.80 
 0.16 
 1.66 
 6.75 
 
 -57 
 
 -58 
 
 -80 
 
 82 
 
 -58 
 
 81 
 
 METHOD 
 ONE 
 
 Score, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 39 
 19 
 34 
 27 
 29 
 35 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 38 
 24 
 20 
 18 
 25 
 
 6 
 40 
 27 
 22 
 
 -30 1 
 
 K25 
 
 -21 
 
 -25 
 
 24 
 
 24 
 
 10 
 
 II 
 
 METHOD 
 TWO 
 
 Score, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 32 
 
 Aver. 
 
 10.20 
 
 2.68 
 
 70 
 
 25 
 
 31 
 
128 
 
 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 Subject 
 
 J. s. 
 
 E. H. 
 B. B. 
 E. F. 
 
 E. C. 
 G. H. 
 El. F. 
 B. C. 
 A. D. 
 A. Q. 
 M. J. 
 I. S. 
 
 F. Wo. 
 H. A. 
 E. A. 
 R. B. 
 M. N 
 
 TABLE VII. 
 12 NONSENSE SYLLABLES. 
 
 Class ii«^ Experimental Psychology. Giels. 
 
 2 3 456789 
 
 Time of First 
 
 Learning, Time After 
 Min. One Week, 
 
 Min. 
 
 6.08 
 6.75 
 7.50 
 9.16 
 10.00 
 11.00 
 11.50 
 12.00 
 13.66 
 14.00 
 14.25 
 16.00 
 17.00 
 18.50 
 19.33 
 31.00 
 32.56 
 
 0.75 
 1.33 
 1.16 
 1.66 
 2.80 
 5.56 
 1.00 
 2.16 
 5.33 
 3.08 
 5.16 
 1.66 
 9.16 
 4.88 
 5.50 
 12.08 
 19.25 
 
 METHOD 
 THREE 
 
 Per Cent, of 
 
 Time Saved 
 
 or Amount 
 
 Retained 
 
 METHOD 
 ONE 
 
 Score, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 10 
 
 METHOD 
 TWO 
 
 Score, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 ^55 
 
 Aver. 
 
 14.72 
 
 4.74 
 
 71 
 
 30 
 
 42 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 
 
 129 
 
 anbject 
 
 B. B. 
 E. F. 
 
 E. A. 
 
 F. W. 
 E. C. 
 B. C. 
 A. D. 
 A.Q. 
 J. S. 
 I. s. 
 M. J. 
 H. A. 
 
 G. H. 
 El. F. 
 E. H. 
 M. N. 
 R. B. 
 
 TABLE VIII. 
 20 WORDS. 
 
 Class in Expekimental Psychologs. Gikls. 
 
 2 3 456789 
 
 Time of First 
 
 Learning, Time After 
 Min. Ten Weeks, 
 
 Min. 
 
 5.80 
 
 7.33 
 
 7.40 
 
 8.00 
 
 8.56 
 
 9.16 
 
 9.16 
 
 10.08 
 
 10.08 
 
 12.00 
 
 13.16 
 
 13:50 
 
 14.50 
 
 15.08 
 
 15.33 
 
 17.00 
 
 19.00 
 
 2.08 
 2.66 
 2.25 
 6.00 
 4.50 
 4.66 
 6.40 
 4.80 
 1.88 
 6.00 
 6.33 
 7.33 
 7.75 
 6.40 
 4.25 
 5.00 
 6.08 
 
 METHOD 
 
 THREE 
 
 Per Cent, of 
 
 Time Saved 
 
 or Amount 
 
 Retained 
 
 •56 
 
 -45 
 
 K50 
 
 -57 
 
 63 
 
 r6i 
 
 METHOD 
 ONE 
 
 Score, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 -28 
 
 ■15 J 
 
 -23 
 
 19 J 
 
 21 
 
 21 
 
 10 
 
 METHOD 
 TWO 
 
 Score, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 -47 
 
 -37 
 
 ■37 
 
 33 
 
 42 
 
 35 
 
 Aver. 
 
 11.48 
 
 4.98 
 
 56 
 
 21 
 
 38 
 
]30 
 
 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 Subject 
 
 B. B. 
 
 E. C 
 B. C. 
 E. F. 
 A. Q. 
 I. S. 
 H. A. 
 G. H. 
 M. J. 
 E. H. 
 El. P. 
 M. N. 
 R. B. 
 
 E. A. 
 J. S. 
 
 F. Wo. 
 A. D. 
 
 TABLE IX. 
 PROSE. 100 WORDS. 
 
 (The Pbesent Study). 
 Class in Experimental Psychology. Girls. 
 
 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
 
 Time of First 
 Learning, Time After 
 Min. Ten Weeks, 
 
 Min. 
 
 7.00 
 11.16 
 12.25 
 14.33 
 16.08 
 17.50 
 19.00 
 19.83 
 20.00 
 20.40 
 21.56 
 25.25 
 28.16 
 28.40 
 30.00 
 82.66 
 39.50 
 
 2.88 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.88 
 
 4.15 
 
 7.00 
 
 4.33 
 
 8.80 
 
 11.56 
 
 5.88 
 
 10.33 
 
 9.00 
 
 10.56 
 
 8.08 
 
 10.25 
 
 15.00 
 
 10.75 
 
 10.66 
 
 METHOD 
 THREE 
 
 Per Cent, of 
 
 Time Saved 
 
 or Amount 
 
 Retained 
 
 59 1 
 
 60 I 
 71 J 
 56 
 
 METHOD 
 ONE 
 
 Score, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 ^51 
 
 21 
 
 10 U 
 
 METHOD 
 TWO 
 
 Score, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 Aver. 
 
 21.38 
 
 7.88 
 
 63 
 
 36 
 
 68 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 
 
 13 L 
 
 Subject 
 
 B. B. 
 
 F. W. 
 M. J. 
 E. F. 
 E. C. 
 
 G. H. 
 E. H. 
 E. A. 
 A. Q. 
 K. B. 
 
 A. D. 
 El. P. 
 
 B. C. 
 J. S. 
 I. s. 
 M. N. 
 H. A. 
 
 TABLE X. 
 POETRY. 100 WORDS. 
 
 (To See a Man). 
 Class in Experimental Psychology. Girls. 
 
 2 3 456789 
 
 METHOD 
 THREE 
 
 Time of First Per Cent, of 
 
 Learning, Time After Time Saved 
 
 Min. Ten Weeks, or Amount 
 
 Min. Retained 
 
 5.16 
 
 7.00 
 
 7.33 
 
 8.50 
 
 9.56 
 
 11.25 
 
 11.50 
 
 11.80 
 
 12.00 
 
 12.16 
 
 12.16 
 
 12.75 
 
 13.00 
 
 14.00 
 
 14.00 
 
 14.56 
 
 14.75 
 
 3.56 
 
 31 
 
 2.50 
 
 64 
 
 2.40 
 
 67 
 
 3.50 
 
 59 
 
 4.33 
 
 55 
 
 8.08 
 
 28 
 
 2.66 
 
 77 
 
 5.08 
 
 57 
 
 2.50 
 
 79 
 
 0.00 
 
 100 
 
 6.56 
 
 46 
 
 6.00 
 
 53 
 
 3.50 
 
 73 
 
 0.33 
 
 98 
 
 4.25 
 
 70 
 
 5.25 
 
 64 
 
 5.50 
 
 63 
 
 -55 
 
 -54 
 
 70 
 
 r74 
 
 55 
 
 72 
 
 METHOD 
 ONE 
 
 Score, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 10 11 
 
 II 
 
 METHOD 
 TWO 
 
 Score, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 ^79 
 
 Aver. 
 
 11.26 
 
 3. J 
 
 64 
 
 60 
 
 74 
 
132 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 
 
 
 TABLE B. 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 Subject. 
 
 b 
 
 Total 
 Material. 
 
 c 
 Digits. 
 
 a 
 
 Nons. 
 Syll. 
 
 e 
 Words. 
 
 f 
 Prose. 
 
 s 
 
 Poetry. 
 
 h 
 Average 
 
 1 
 Average 
 Devia- 
 tion. 
 
 B. B 
 
 .. 1 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1.4 
 
 .56 
 
 B. F 
 
 .. 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 3.4 
 
 1.32 
 
 E. C 
 
 .. 3 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 4.4 
 
 1.76 
 
 B. C 
 
 ,.. 4 
 
 S 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 7.6 
 
 2.88 
 
 A. Q 
 
 ,.. 5 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 8.4 
 
 1.52 
 
 E. H.... 
 
 ... 6 
 
 12 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 10 
 
 7 
 
 9.2 
 
 3.56 
 
 M. J 
 
 ,.. 7 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 9.4 
 
 2.72 
 
 J. S 
 
 ... 8 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 8.8 
 
 5.04 
 
 I. S 
 
 ,.. 9 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 14 
 
 9.6 
 
 2.88 
 
 G. H 
 
 ...10 
 
 14 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 9.4 
 
 3.28 
 
 P. Wo... 
 
 ...11 
 
 2 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 16 
 
 2 
 
 7.4 
 
 5.70 
 
 El. F 
 
 ...12 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 14 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 10.6 
 
 2.08 
 
 E. A 
 
 ...13 
 
 11 
 
 15 
 
 3 
 
 14 
 
 8 
 
 10.2 
 
 3.76 
 
 H. A.... 
 
 ... 14 
 
 15 
 
 14 
 
 12 
 
 7 
 
 17 
 
 13.6 
 
 2.68 
 
 A. D 
 
 ...15 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 17 
 
 11 
 
 10.2 
 
 3.04 
 
 R. B 
 
 ...16 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 13 
 
 10 
 
 10.2 
 
 4.28 
 
 M. N 
 
 ...17 
 
 17 
 
 17 
 
 16 
 
 12 
 
 16 
 
 15.6 
 
 1.44 
 
 This table shows at a glance the rank (as to time of first learning) of each 
 of the 17 girls of Tables VI-X for each of the materials memorized by her. The 
 average rank of each individual is given in Column h, and, as will be noted, 
 compares closely with the rank for all the material shown in Column b. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 13;] 
 
 made, where the longer interval gave a negative correlation. 
 We have not studied the matter systematically, and the data 
 here presented do not show any clear difference according 
 to the interval employed. In general, we may suppose the 
 difference in amount reproduced by quick learners and slow 
 learners tends to become less, since the amounts retained by 
 all approach zero with time. 
 
 Amount Retained. 
 
 Method 1. — Method 1 has already been described in Section 
 2 of the preceding chapter. It shows the amount that can be 
 reproduced, after the lapse of a certain time interval, of the 
 material originally memorized, this reproduction being with- 
 out a fresh presentation. By consulting columns 7, 8 and 9 
 of any table it will be noticed that in the ease of all materials, 
 both meaningless and logical, thete appears to be a positive 
 correlation between quickness of learning and the amount 
 retained. The score obtained by the first half** is, in general, 
 better than that obtained by the last half. This is most 
 marked in the case of prose and least marked with digits. In 
 fact, with digits the score obtained by the last half is, in sev- 
 eral cases, very nearly as high as the first half, and in the 
 case of the high school students (Table XIV) the score of the 
 last half is even better. In any case, however, the difference 
 is small. With nonsense syllables, words and poetry the dif- 
 ference is slightly in favor of the quick learners, although, oil 
 the whole, the difference is but slight. The probable error, 
 however, is in most cases so high that the value of index of 
 correlation is considerably lowered. Were it not that what 
 correlation we do obtain is positive for every table, the figures 
 would have much less value. In the ease of prose and poetry 
 a positive correlation is unquestionable. With prose, for 
 example, the average score for the quickest learners is, as a 
 rule, nearly double the score for the slow learners. This, in 
 
 "In the following pages we shall by "First half" (or "Upper half") hereafter 
 understand the quickest learners, and by "Last half" (or "Lower half") the 
 slowest, or poorest, learners. 
 
134 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 conjunction with the fact that the Pearson method gives a high 
 index, makes the evidence practically conclusive. 
 
 Method 2. — Concerning Method 2, little need be said, the 
 individual diflferences being much the same as those observed 
 by Method 1. With the exception of digits, the quick learners 
 get the higher scores. Here again the greatest difference 
 is with the prose and the least with the digits. The most 
 noticeable fact with this method is that it gives the highest 
 correlation of all, and that the correlation is high throughout, 
 i. e., for all materials. The explanation of this is not hard to 
 find. It lies in the fact that with Method 2, after the lapse 
 of a certain number of days, the material is read once, and 
 only once to the subject, after which reading he is asked to 
 write down as much as possible. Obviously, the quick learner 
 will get more from this one reading than the slow learner, 
 and thus the index is raised. 
 
 Method 3. — So many factors are involved in this method 
 that it calls for a more lengthy discussion than either of the 
 two preceding. With this method the correlation is, as a rule, 
 negative, both by the Pearson method and by the rather crude 
 "percentage method."*^ With the percentage method we 
 find that with digits, words, and occasionally poetry, the quick- 
 est learners retain less than the slower learners. With prose, 
 on the other hand, the quicker learners would appear to retain 
 more, while for nonsense syllables they stand about even. 
 
 To repeat: Method 3 gives results that by no means in- 
 variably agree with those obtained by the two preceding 
 methods. This is due to the nature of the method, i. e., to the 
 manner of computing the "percentage of time saved" and 
 to the treatment of this as a measure of the amount retained. 
 Whether this is fair to the quick learner is questionable. Ac- 
 cording to Method 3, and, for that matter. Methods 1 and 2, 
 those who memorize prose most quickly retain it better than 
 those who memorize it more slowly. With poetry the same 
 relation frequently holds, but the results are not uniform, aiid, 
 as may be seen from Tables XI and XII, the quick learners 
 
 "By tbis we mean the method shown in columns 4, 5, and 6, where the 
 percentage of the first half of the class (comprising the quickest learners) is 
 compared with the half of tb* <da8s comprising the slowest learners. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 
 
 135 
 
 Digits . 
 
 TABLE XI. 
 
 24 Normal College Seniors.' 
 
 1 2 3 6 9 
 
 Method Method 
 
 Three / One 
 
 Time of Time of Per Cent. 
 
 First Second of Time Score, 
 Learning Learning Saved Per Cent. 
 
 j Upper Half 5.5 2.0 G3 26 
 
 ( Lower Half 15.0 4.0 71 22 
 
 Nonsense Syllables 
 
 Words. 
 
 Prose . 
 
 Poetry . 
 
 j Upper Half 24.1 Co 71 20 
 
 i Lower Half 38.0 12.1 68 21 
 
 j Upper Half 10.0 5.5 40 23 
 
 ( Lower Half 14.8 5.7 61 20 
 
 J Upper Half 14.3 4.8 69 59 
 
 (^ Lower Half 27.3 9.1 66 46 
 
 j Upper Half 7.0 2.8 61 59 
 
 j^ Lower Half 14.5 5.2 65 40 
 
 12 
 
 Method 
 
 Two 
 
 Score, 
 
 Per 
 
 Cent. 
 
 34 
 36 
 
 44 
 36 
 
 44 
 35 
 
 80 
 67 
 
 73 
 
 Average. 
 
 j Upper Halves. 
 I Lower Halves . 
 
 12.2 
 21.9 
 
 4.3 
 
 7.2 
 
 61 
 60 
 
 39 
 30 
 
 t).) 
 46 
 
 'The "time interval" here, as In Tables XII and XIV, is one week for the digits and 
 nonsense syllables and ten weeks for the prose and poetry. In Table XIII the "time 
 interval" is three weeks for all materials. 
 
 The numbers heading each column correspond to the column-numbers in the preced- 
 ing tables (Nos. I to X). 
 
 TABLE XIl. 
 17 Normal College Seniors.^ 
 
 Digits. 
 
 ™ ,, , , ,\ Upper Half 
 Nonsense Syllables^ . .„„„ „„,. 
 
 Words . 
 
 Prose. 
 
 Poetry . 
 
 Time of 
 
 First 
 Learning 
 
 j Upper Half 6.5 
 
 i Lower Half 13.5 
 
 9.2 
 
 (Lower Half 19.5 
 
 j Upper Half 8.2 
 
 (Lower Half 14.4 
 
 I Upper Half 14.6 
 
 (Lower Half 27.3 
 
 ( Upper Half 9.0 
 
 (Lower Half 13.2 
 
 Method Method 
 
 Three One 
 
 Time of Per Cent. 
 Second of Time Score, 
 
 Learning Saved Per Cent. 
 
 2.8 
 2.5 
 
 2.0 
 7.3 
 
 4.2 
 5.7 
 
 5.4 
 10.0 
 
 4.0 
 
 3.7 
 
 58 
 81 
 
 79 
 
 65 
 
 50 
 61 
 
 63 
 63 
 
 55 
 72 
 
 25 
 24 
 
 37 
 23 
 
 21 
 21 
 
 51 
 
 21 
 
 53 
 
 50 
 
 12 
 
 Method 
 
 Two 
 
 Score, 
 
 Per 
 
 Cent. 
 
 30 
 32 
 
 0-) 
 
 31 
 
 42 
 35 
 
 79 
 49 
 
 79 
 
 76 
 
 Average . 
 
 j Upper Halves. . 
 ( Lower Halves. 
 
 9.5 
 17.6 
 
 3.7 
 
 5.8 
 
 01 
 
 68 
 
 37 
 28 
 
 57 
 45 
 
 ^The seeming discrepancies between Tables XI and XII are probably largely due to the 
 fact that the "materials" used were not identical. 
 
 "In this group of subjects only twelve nonsense-syllables were used. 
 
136 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 would appear, by this computation, to forget even more, 
 though in any case the difference is not marked. Taking prose 
 and poetry together, however, and assuming that they are 
 illustrative of "logical" or "meaningful" material, we may 
 say that the results obtained agree with those obtained by 
 Methods 1 and 2. Taking all three methods into considera- 
 tion, we are undoubtedly entitled to say that with material 
 that is logical in character those who learn quickly remember 
 the longest. 
 
 With digits, however, a material the memorizing of which 
 is so-called "rote" memory we find that the conditions are, so 
 far as Method 3 is concerned, reversed, for here it is the quick 
 learners who seem to forget the most. With digits the 
 amount forgotten, as ascertained by Method 3, is always 
 greater for the upper half of the class, and not only is this 
 always so, but the difference between the two Jialves of the 
 class is generally marked. This result is contradicted with 
 Methods 1 and 2, but the contradiction is slight, for, as may be 
 seen, the "upper half" and the "lower half" are nearly equal. 
 At any rate, we may say with some degree of certainty that, 
 in the main, those 'who memorize digits slowly are more apt 
 to retain them than those 'who memorize them quickly. This 
 is just the opposite of the statement made for prose and 
 poetry; and digits, being an "opposite" form of material, so 
 to speak, one might make the inference that those who learn 
 slowly remember long if the material used is such as involves 
 motor associations, but that they forget quickly if the material 
 is logical in character, e. g., prose, and, to a somewhat less 
 extent, poetry. 
 
 Such a statement, however, is true only in a very rough 
 way. In the first place, nonsense syllables — a material that 
 is not only " unmeaningf uP ' in character, but that involves 
 the "memorizing," so to speak, of motor associations — seems, 
 so far as Method 3 is concerned, to side more with the prose 
 than with digits. On the other hand, words — a material that 
 one would think necessitated the formation of logical associa- 
 tions — partakes (so far as Method 3 is concerned) of the 
 nature of digits. [For it may be noted the "upper half" 
 always retains less than the "lower half."] Just why this 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 137 
 
 should be is difficult to say, and we have no satisfactory 
 explanation to offer. 
 
 With prose and poetry our results by all three methods are 
 quite uniform. As these materials are essentially ' ' logical ' ' in 
 character, our results here do not disagree with those obtained 
 by Henderson," Thorndike,'' or Pyle,'' each of whom found 
 that those who learn quickly retain more than those who learn 
 slowly. For the material they used was not such as involved 
 the learning of motor associations, as is largely the case with 
 digits, and, with'many individuals, even with words. 
 
 Taking all three methods into consideration, however, and 
 averaging the results we find that with any material, except- 
 ing digits, those who learn quickest forget the least. The 
 contrary result obtained with digits should not be considered 
 in any way remarkable or contradictory,— the associations 
 formed in memorizing digits being- quite different from those 
 formed in the memorizing of words and nonsense syllables. 
 Not that logical associations are invariably formed in the 
 memorizing of nonsense syllables, but when associations are 
 formed they are of the same type as those formed in the mem- 
 orizing of words. In short, the nonsense syllable is first con- 
 verted into a word, and the word is then "memorized." 
 
 We have already considered the question concerning the de- 
 gree to which the extremes at each end of a series should be 
 considered, and whether or not they should be taken at their 
 face value. The method of averaging the two halves of each 
 group so that the average of the first half may be compared 
 with the last half tends, as we have already said, to "tone 
 down" or lower the significance of these extremes by immers- 
 ing them with the remainder of the "half -class" to which they 
 belong. Arguments may be made both for and against this 
 procedure. In the first place, it may justly be contended that 
 it is these very extremes that are most valuable, and that the 
 comparison of most worth would be that in which the first two 
 or three individuals were compared with the last two or three. 
 On the other hand, it is possible that it is precisely these ex- 
 
 '""A study of Memory," Psy- Rev. Monog. Supp. 1003. Vol. ',, No. 23. 
 '"'Memory for Paired Associates," Psy. Rev., Vol. 15, page 122. 
 ""Retention as Related to Repetition," Jour, of Ed. Psy., 1011, "^'ol. 2, p. 311. 
 
138 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 tremes that are most to be suspected of error, and that the 
 chance of error is lessened by taking the average or the 
 median of each half of the class. 
 
 Roughly speaking, the Pearson method may be said to do 
 away with both of these objections, for, while it takes into 
 consideration the actual amounts themselves, it tends to lower 
 the significance of the extremes more than does the method 
 of comparing the average of one half of the class with the 
 other. 
 
 The Pearson method was used with every group of subjects 
 for determining certain of the correlations considered below. 
 It is evident that the data given in the tables supplies material 
 for the working out of several correlations. Of these the four 
 most important are: (1) Column 2 with 3, (2) Column 2 with 
 4, (3) Column 2 with 7, and (4) Column 2 with 10. 
 
 These four correlations have been worked out for every 
 group of subjects. The large amount of figuring necessary 
 for such a procedure may be partly seen from the table given 
 in Appendix D — ^which, of course, is but for one group of 
 subjects. 
 
 Of the four correlations mentioned, the first — Column 2 
 with Column 3 — is, with a few exceptions, positive. The ex- 
 ceptions are not confined to any one material, though they 
 occur mostly with the digit tables. The correlation is fairly 
 high, averaging between .5 and .6. 
 
 The second correlation — Column 2 with Column 4 — belongs 
 to Method 3. Here, of course, the correlations tend to corre- 
 spond to the relation shown by the two figures of Column 6, 
 but this is not invariable. For example, with Tables I to V 
 the correlations are all negative, with the exception of prose, 
 and here the correlation is so low and the P. E. so large 
 that the index obtained is practically of no value. In fact, 
 nearly all of these "Method 3" correlations are extremely 
 low, and their only value is to show that, so far as Method 3 
 is concerned, there is practically no correlation between the 
 rapid learning and retention. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 
 
 139 
 
 TABLE XIII. 
 20 Columbia College Men-Students. 
 
 1 2 3 6 
 
 Method 
 
 Three 
 
 Digits. 
 
 Nonsense Syllables' 
 
 Poetry . 
 
 ( Upper 
 / Lower 
 
 Half. 
 Half. 
 
 9 12 
 
 Method 
 One Method 
 
 j Upper Half 
 
 I Lower Half 
 
 , J Upper Half. . . . 
 i Lower Half 16.0 
 
 Average . 
 
 Time of Time of Per Cent. Two* 
 
 First Second of Time Score, 
 Learning Learning Sared Per Cent. 
 
 3.5 1.6 49 18 
 
 7.4 2.6 62 18 
 
 Words ^ ^'PP^*^ ^^^^- • ■ ■ 
 
 "^""^"^ i Lower Half 14.5 
 
 Procjp" j Upper Half.... 
 
 ^™®® I Lower Half 13.8 
 
 5 Upper Halves . . . 
 (^ Lower Halves. .. 
 
 8.0 
 16.0 
 
 3.7 
 7.2 
 
 52 
 51 
 
 22 
 20 
 
 6.9 
 14.5 
 
 2.3 
 3.0 
 
 66 
 79 
 
 38 
 35 
 
 8.5 
 13.8 
 
 1.6 
 4.0 
 
 80 
 72 
 
 63 
 51 
 
 7.9 
 11.8 
 
 1.6 
 3.3 
 
 81 
 73 
 
 73 
 63 
 
 7.0 
 
 12.7 
 
 2.2 
 4.0 
 
 66 
 67 
 
 43 
 37 
 
 '"Method 2" was not tried with these subjects. 
 »In this group of subjects only 12 nonsense-syllables were used. 
 •The passage of prose used was relatively easier than that used in Tables XI and 
 XII, hence the shorter time. 
 
140 
 
 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 TABLE Xir. 
 CO High School Boys and Girls. 
 
 6 
 
 Method 
 Three 
 
 Method 
 One 
 
 Time of Time of Per Cent. 
 
 First Second of Time Score, 
 Learning Learning Saved Per Cent. 
 
 Nonsense Syllable 
 
 niffit, i Upper Half 6.0 
 
 ^^^"^^ i Lower Half 14.1 
 
 j Upper Half 25.3 
 
 (Lower Half 38.7 
 
 Words \ yPP^-^ ^alf . .... 9.5 
 
 ( Lower Half 15.0 
 
 Prose (Upper Half 15.4 
 
 (Lower Half 26.1 
 
 p„p^„^ 5 Upper Half 6.0 
 
 ' (Lower Half 18.6 
 
 Average . 
 
 J Upper Halves . , 
 J Lower Halves.- 
 
 12.4 
 21.5 
 
 2.6 
 3.1 
 
 8.0 
 10.9 
 
 4.8 
 6.0 
 
 5.2 
 
 10.1 
 
 3.3 
 
 4.7 
 
 4.8 
 7.0 
 
 62 
 
 74 
 
 68 
 68 
 
 48 
 60 
 
 68 
 61 
 
 &5 
 61 
 
 62 
 65 
 
 21 
 22 
 
 30 
 23 
 
 25 
 23 
 
 57 
 38 
 
 61 
 51 
 
 39 
 31 
 
 Method 
 
 Two 
 
 Score, 
 
 Per 
 
 Cent. 
 
 28 
 31 
 
 48 
 35 
 
 44 
 36 
 
 74 
 
 60 
 
 84 
 80 
 
 55 
 
 48 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 
 
 141 
 
 TABLE XV. 
 
 Column Xumbee. 
 
 METHOD 
 THREE 
 
 Time of 
 
 First 
 
 Learning, 
 
 Min. 
 
 METHOD 
 ONE 
 
 Time of 
 
 Itelearning, 
 
 Min. 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 of Time 
 
 Saved 
 
 Score, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 40 Qrammar 
 
 Average Upper Half 
 
 Average Lower Half 
 
 School Girls. Modal Age, 14 
 13.2 5.0 60 
 
 20.1 6.9 64 
 
 37 
 
 28 
 
 Age, 
 50 
 60 
 
 16 
 
 35 
 20 
 
 24 Trade School Boys. Modal 
 Average Upper Half. . . . 11.4 4.2 
 
 Average Lower Half 19.2 7.3 
 
 60 High School Students. Both Sexes. Modal Age, 17 
 
 Average Upper Half 12.4 4.8 62 39 
 
 Average Lower Half 21.5 7.0 6.5 3.1 
 
 132 Normal College -Women Students. Modal Age, 21 
 
 Average Upper Half 11.2 4.0 61 .39 
 
 Average Lower Half 17.8 6.4 65 31 
 
 24 Asylum Attendants. Both Sexes. 
 Average Upper Half. . . . 14.1 5.2 
 
 Average Lower Half 18.3 7.2 
 
 12 Clerk 
 Average Upper Half. . . 
 Average Lower Half. . . 
 
 Modal Age, 25 
 58 35 
 
 62 28 
 
 s and Business Men. Modal Age, 30 
 12.2 4.4 61 
 
 20.0 7.1 67 
 
 30 
 
 12 
 METHOD 
 TWO 
 
 Score, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 55 
 54 
 
 52 
 41 
 
 55 
 
 48 
 
 56 
 47 
 
 52 
 41 
 
 49 
 39 
 
 10 Graduate Students and Professors. Men. Modal Age, 32. 
 
 Average Upper Half 11.1 3.8 61 41 
 
 Average Lower Half. . . . 16.9 6.1 63 33 
 
 The interval between first learning and relearning was, in the groups in- 
 cluded in this table, one week for digits and nonsense syllables, and ten weeks 
 for words, prose and poetry. 
 
142 
 
 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 TABLE XVI. 
 
 Column Number. 
 
 Time of 
 
 First 
 
 Learning, 
 
 Min. 
 
 METHOD , 
 
 THREE 
 
 Time of Per Cent. 
 Kelearning, of Time 
 Min. Saved 
 
 METHOD 
 ONE 
 
 Score, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 24 State Reformatory Inmates. Males. Modal Age, 20. 
 Average Upper Half.... 6.2 2.1 69 50 
 
 Average Lower Half 12.2 3.9 70 43 
 
 Men. Modal Age, 22. 
 2.7 68 42 
 
 5.0 70 35 
 
 32 Columbia College Seniors. 
 
 Average Upper Half 9.1 
 
 Average Lovcer Half.... 12.9 
 
 14 Barnard College Seniors. Women. Modal Age, 
 
 Average Upper Half 7.0 2.2 66 
 
 Average Lower Half 11.8 4.5 69 
 
 12 Workhouse Inmates. Men. Modal Age, 26. 
 
 Average Upper Half 10.3 4.5 68 
 
 Average Lower Half 16.0 5.4 69 
 
 24 Prison Inmates. Men. Modal Age, 34. 
 
 Average Upper Half 9.9 4.1 70 
 
 Average Lower Half 14.3 5.0 72 
 
 22. 
 40 
 33 
 
 40 
 32 
 
 39 
 37 
 
 The Interval between the first learning and the relearning was, 
 groups included in this table, three weeks for all materials. 
 
 12 
 METHOD 
 TWO 
 
 Score, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 71 
 
 62 
 
 6G 
 54 
 
 for the 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 1J3 
 
 The third correlation — Column 2 with Column 7 — belongs 
 to Method 1. The correlation is, with the exception of digits, 
 always positive, i. e., such as to show a correspondence be- 
 tween quickness of learning and retention when the latter is 
 measured by the amount recalled after the interval. It is 
 not, however, a very high correlation, seldom going above .4 
 and averaging only .25. As may be seen from the table given 
 in Appendix D, the signs of the index obtained when Column 
 2 is correlated with Column 7* must be changed before it may 
 be compared with the two preceding correlations, for while 
 with Method 3 the shorter the time of relearning the smaller 
 the "amount forgotten," with Method 1 the shorter the time 
 of relearning the higher, i. e., larger the "score." 
 
 The fourth correlation — Column 2 with Column 10 — belongs 
 to Method 2. Generally speaking, the index obtained agrees 
 fairly closely with that of Method 1. In view of the fact that 
 the material is read once to the subject, Method 2 allows a 
 certain amount of relearning and thus approaches Method 3. 
 This is seen in several of the correlations obtained. 
 
 Even though, as just stated, the general statistical relation 
 between speed of learning and retentiveness is very loose, it 
 might still be true that there was a class of quick learners who 
 were poor in retention and a class of slow learners who were 
 good in retention. Such is the common belief, no doubt, and 
 such a view is sometimes in psychological literature. In at- 
 tempting to judge of the correctness of this view we must 
 not be misled by chance coincidences. In a series of single 
 tests it is almost certain to happen that an individual who 
 learns a certain selection quickly shall be found to retain it 
 poorly, or that one who learns it slowly shall be found to 
 retain it well. In the absence of a general statistical confir- 
 mation of this relation a few such isolated cases have little 
 significance. But if it is found by repeated tests of the same 
 individual that he regularly learns quickly and regularly 
 forgets quickly, then his case is significant as showing that 
 individuals do exist who are distinctively quick learners and 
 poor retainers. My tests afford some opportunity for ex- 
 amining this question, since each individual was tested with 
 
 *In the table of Appendix D this column is numbered "9" 
 
o 
 
 H 
 O 
 
 Q 
 K 
 O 
 O 
 U 
 
 lIOI^BTADtjO 0»<*0000^0>000>OI^OO<Or-OT^lOtSlt-;T-»<ppp 
 
 aSTjiaAy- m « <o evj <* in iri <o' « ej cj * * eo * to iii lo n.' ^' t-^ >* ^ 
 
 „ MtDCMOO^^oocooq^. Ti;<ooqoo<a;<*qu>ioeoqpo 
 
 a^BjaAYpj o^p^r-C^coevicoeot-^coiri'S-'eoiv^oitoisIioiri ^'.<o oi 
 
 saiquH-^SiM OooKiwooiOTHO'*«C't-<Mcoos<X)Cit-o^-^THeorH-* 
 
 asuasuojsi 
 
 r-l I^J 
 
 r-i 1-^ r-\ tHtH <M(Ncq rHiH 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 72 
 
 !_; 
 
 
 »— I 
 
 Q 
 
 l^- 
 
 o 
 
 >< 
 
 ca 
 
 
 H 
 
 » 
 
 B 
 
 i-i 
 
 S 
 
 M 
 
 ~ 
 
 -() 
 
 Q'^ 
 
 H 
 
 sw 
 
 ^'1 
 
 o 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 e5 
 
 ■oi 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 <! 
 
 53 
 
 !4 
 
 < 
 
 «1 
 
 dSOJti; (M ^^^ ^ ^^c<1tH (MtH rH(N C^lrH 
 
 iioi)i;iA3(xcyi ot-i-io^, a>'t-o)tDO>eo<Doo^o>oia)oof^eaootn^ 
 93ij JdAycM* CO ^' '- CO ^' c\i lo ^* ^ lo CO '^ u> T-' ^" T-' iri cvi 00 ^* o ■<- t-* 
 
 CM^a-oocMCj^oo^cM'ttoqoqcMCjcj^oq^oq^otooo 
 Oj>BjaAYc«3 CO ^* o r>^ CNJ c\i csi c\i ifl <£>* ci in T-' d 00 o c\i ^' CO oi Tt ^' w* 
 
 T— Ol t— T-T— T-T- T-t— ^— ^— Wt-CNJt-T- T— W 
 
 Wi-l^rH 1-1 rH(N " i-tCqC^rHiH tHiM 
 
 SDJO AA"^rHiH'^M-^(MU3t-THOOOO'X''^[r-aS'*ThCOCOMOOM 
 
 soiqBii.itg^ ^cDNooo5(-oiMOco'*t-oo'*'^oqi-(cDocotr-miA-<*< 
 
 aSaaSUO^I r-l C^ r-lrn rH T-HiHrH iHNrHlMfM tHM 
 
 S^tStQiM CiTt*0'^t™^oiC500COCDOOO^u:3ffOr-ti-lt~-lNu:5M'^ 
 
 9S0J-Ti~l |--<MO«ioOOWaiCDlOT-(iHeO t-^jc^aOQOOTHOi^COTt" 
 "■r-1 C^ iHiHrHiH iH{N(M SMtHtHtH rHM 
 
 uopuTAaQ esico*i^i^-'T-"«^iv.o»o>oqo>r^p^i^^'r-c\ia»p'i-eoo 
 aSuJaAY loioiniocNiiooi^towineNiwr^coioio^r^rj^odioco^ 
 
 O to r^ CM (D CM O <D CM Csl 00 <0 00 00 00 CM 00 00 00 CM O <0 U> ^ 
 
 8jju.t9AV ddinod^'^^i^cModinoo'T-^in<^CMcoo6o>u>CMi^WcM' 
 ifjaaOrT fMiCiHcooocDoo-^o-^MTPoiTHt-ioc-ccicococOiHoas 
 
 OSlldSUOJsT =^'-' (NiHM (M W THr-lrHi-tNrHrHT-l 
 
 sitSirr ioooit-cocn"*oM'<*^'X>t-(MiOiH<x>co<MT-f'^coiHoooo 
 
 ■^" -^rHNT-l iH T-irHCMC<liHiHt-i rH (N <M iH 
 
 esoJd: ' 
 
 uoHTJIAaa p<o*ocMco(Dr«-CM^-r^po>cqqpi-«o>ooioh*^cooq 
 93BJ9AY T^coctit^i-^^i-^^''4'tncocQ^*CMeoco<b(oc\ic\it-^CM'i-^' 
 
 00C0CM00^CM<4'CMOCM00(O(0OCMt0^<OO^'4-p^(0 
 8ST3jaAy CM d in O) CM ^* 1^ d ^* d ^* CO CO ^' T-' CM* t^' T^ 1^' ^' r^ d CM CM 
 
 T- T- T- t- T- t- T- 1- T- ^ ^- T-1 -r- r- CM CM CM CM 
 
 ^JieO J COO?C>l£5rH05"^C<I?DOO(MO(MTHasc-cOt-COir5T^Tt4rHOO 
 tH iH T-HrH <M(MtH C^rHTHiHC>arHC^t-i 
 
 SD JO M 10lOTHOCOCDt>airHTt^Cgcqir0005DTHOOt-Tt*OieOoqO-^ 
 '^-^*- 1-1 iH r-t rH<M iHiHrH i-i t-IiH WcqiMC^ 
 
 saiqBii^S coiHt-ocqo5a5oo<xico':r't--«*<iLOcocqiCTHiH'*oooiM'<** 
 
 eSUaSUO>j; rn iH i-l iH(M i-i iHiHi-I CNiHi-tcatMCSI 
 
 S^JIStq; Nir3a50iHiHO'"*<OOCDMt-COCSI(rCI:-05ir500-<**rH(M-^CO 
 T-1 M i-li-l iHi-HiHi-lT-i i-(i-|C^I(?qCCIC<I 
 
 3S0J-T »HNC0Tt*U5CDt>00asOiHCqCCTHl0CDt-00(5SOiH(MC0TP 
 "■ iHi-liHiHiHiHi-liHTH-rHOacqMC^S^J 
 
 CM* CO 
 
 in 00 
 
 CM CO 
 
 in N. 
 cm'cm 
 
 CM 
 CO 
 
 in CO 
 
 ^^Kt=b 
 
 fi^^S&'-JsifibOSi-if^': 
 
 ■^ K -< « M 3 i4 H 1-; K <1 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 145 
 
 five different materials. Table XVII, giving the ranks of 24 
 individuals in learning each material and in recalling and 
 relearning it after an interval, affords an opportunity for look- 
 ing for individuals who are consistently quick or slow learners, 
 and for finding how well they do in retention. Table XVIII 
 (extracted from Table XVII) gives the records of the most 
 consistent individuals. 
 
 TABLE XVIII. 
 
 Average Ranks and ^'ariabilities of the Most Consistent Individuals. 
 
 First Recall Relearning 
 
 Individual Learning (Method 1) (Method 3) 
 
 A. D. of A. D. A. D. 
 
 Av. Rank Rank Av. Rank of Rank Av. Rank of Rank 
 
 Ed. W 2.8 1.0 3.2 2.2 10.0 5.2 
 
 A. H 5.2 2.6 4.8 4.1 5.4 5.4 
 
 K. W 7.4 1.7 12.8 2.1 11.0 2.4 
 
 A. N 11.2 3.0 10.2 1.9 14.8 3.4 
 
 S. T 17.0 2.8 21.4 2.0 9.8 7.2 
 
 E. R 20.0 2.4 4.0 0.8 7.0 5.1 
 
 J. Mc 22.4 1.3 14.6 1.5 11.5 3.3 
 
 B. T.'. 22.G 1.8 22.8 1.4 12.4 4.0 
 
 General Average 12.5 3.2 12.5 3.5 12.5 5.0 
 
 Regarding these individuals, it may be noted that : 
 
 Ed. W., while consistently high in learning and recall, oc- 
 cupies a medium and rather variable position in relearning. 
 
 A. H. stands high on the average throughout, but is rather 
 variable in recall and relearning. 
 
 E. W. and A. N. are consistently medium throughout. 
 
 S. T. is consistently low in learning and recall, but variable 
 in relearning. 
 
 E. E., the most interesting case, is consistently low in learn- 
 ing, consistently high in recall, and high, though only mod- 
 erately consistent, in relearning. 
 
 J. Mc. is consistently low in learning and consistently me- 
 dium in recall and relearning. 
 
 E. T. is consistently low in learning and in recall, and con- 
 sistently medium in relearning. 
 
 There is no one, then, who is consistently high throughout, 
 
146 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 or who is consistently low throughout, though there are two 
 who are consistently medium throughout. 
 
 On the other hand, no one who is consistently high in learn- 
 ing is consistently low in retention. But there is one indi- 
 vidual — E. E. — ^who is consistently low in learning and con- 
 sistently high in retention ; and another — J. Mc. — who is con- 
 sistently low in learning and consistently medium in reten- 
 tion. It is reasonable to suppose that these two persons, espe- 
 cially the former, overlearned the material on the first learn- 
 ing. Through excess of caution they delayed presenting 
 themselves for the test of learning until they were extra sure 
 of their material, so we may suppose. If so, this moral trait 
 of caution would produce the spurious appearance of a con- 
 nection between slow learning and good retention. 
 
 Examination of Tables VI-X shows that among the 17 in- 
 dividuals included there is one who was consistently low in 
 learning and rather consistently medium in retention, and one 
 who is consistently medium in learning and rather consistently 
 high in retention, but none who is consistently high in learning 
 and consistently medium or low in retention. 
 
 Of the 41 individuals whose records are here presented in 
 full, then, there is no case of an individual who can be defi- 
 nitely classed as a quick learner and as a poor retainer. There 
 are several quick learners whose average position in retention 
 is considerably lower than their position in learning, but the 
 variability of their position as regards retention makes it im- 
 possible to place them definitely. 
 
 Intellectual Standing {Mental Ability).— A. comparison of 
 the results given by the various groups of subjects (e. g., hos- 
 pital attendants with college students) leads us to suspect 
 that there is a direct relation between "capacity" or ability 
 to learn and general intelligence. Most of those who have 
 investigated this matter have arrived at the same conclusion. 
 Jacobs,*** for example, states that there is a "notable con- 
 comitance" between school standing and "span of prehen- 
 sion." Others, however, Bolton and Ebbinghaus, for ex- 
 
 '^Mina, Vol. 12, 1887. Others who have obtained a positive correlation, 
 though not so Msrh as Jacobs, are Binet, Bourdon, Burt, Pohlmann, Smedlev, 
 Winch and Wessley. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 147 
 
 ample, deny that any such correlation exists. Their results, 
 however, were derived in large part from examinations of 
 single groups that were fairly homogeneous and not by a 
 comparison of one type of intellectuality with another. 
 
 We cannot here go into a detailed examination of all the 
 results shown in the tables, for the reason that space does not 
 permit giving the complete data. But we may say that, to a 
 certain extent, the correlation depends upon the material 
 used. It was found that where the material is logical in char- 
 acter, especially in the case of prose, the college graduates 
 do better than clerks and office men of the same average age, 
 and that these do better than asylum attendants ; that college 
 students do better than inmates of reformatories, and that 
 Barnard College seniors do better than the female servants of 
 the same age. The differences, however, are not marked. 
 Upon taking any one form of material contrary results may 
 obtain. Thus, e. g., the business men and clerks do slightly 
 better with prose than do college students of the same age, 
 while with poetry they do worse. With nonsense syllables 
 the order is very much the same as for prose, although here 
 the senior college students do best of all. With digits the 
 group of clerks and business men do better than any others, 
 excepting the classes in experimental psychology. We cannot 
 help but infer that this is due in a large measure to practice. 
 
 Such statements as the above, however, are more or less 
 loose, for the reason that they refer only to groups of subjects. 
 Some of the hospital attendants may have been more intelli- 
 gent than some of the college students. More exact results 
 were obtained in classes where the general rank in class of 
 each scholar could be ascertained, all his studies being taken 
 into consideration. An examination of the class records of 
 the 132 normal-college students proved "that the students 
 who rank highest in their classes and who can be classed as 
 the most intelligent have, as a rule, the best memories.^" With 
 the group in question the correlation between memory and 
 standing in class was found to be .31. 
 
 ■"D. O. Lyon. Jour, of Phil., Psych, and Sci. Methods, 1912, Vol. IX, page 74. 
 
148 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 Social Standing (Occupation, Environment and Moral 
 Standing). — By social standing we mean not only one's stand- 
 ing in society from a "worldly point of view," but also from 
 the point of view of the sociologist. Other things being equal, 
 we wish to determine if any one occupation is more conducive 
 to tenacity of impression than another. It will be noted that 
 this problem is closely linked with the preceding, and as we 
 used as subjects prisoners and reformatory inmates, we may 
 say that it also bears on morality. 
 
 The group differences here, like those for mental ability, 
 differ with the materials used. The differences where the 
 total material is considered are best seen by consulting and 
 comparing the appropriate tables. With digits no correla- 
 tions of any account were obtainable, though here, as before 
 said, the business men and clerks seem to do better than any 
 of the others, with the exception of the group in experimental 
 psychology. The business men are rather slow in learning 
 the nonsense syllables, and their degree of retention of these 
 is worse than any other group, with the exception of the gram- 
 mar-school students. With words they stand on a par with 
 the high-school students, but for prose they seem to do slightly 
 better, both for time of initial learning and for relative 
 amount forgotten. This is what we should expect, since we 
 have found that there is a positive correlation between mental 
 ability and memory capacity. With the poetry, however, they 
 do not do so well as the high-school students, and even drop 
 slightly below the grammar-school students. 
 
 The inmates of the reformatories, and, to a slightly less 
 extent the prisons, rank fairly high for digits and ivords so 
 far as quickness of learning is concerned. For nonsense syl- 
 lables they do not rank so high. For prose and poetry they 
 stand very well, ranking even higher than the college students. 
 I feel that the explanation of this seeming discrepancy lies 
 in the fact that the minds of reformatory inmates are very 
 receptive while in confinement. Their life being for the most 
 part a dull monotony, they welcome any novelty, and enter 
 upon the experiment with considerable zest. This is undoubt 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 149 
 
 edly even more true as explaining their high degree of reten- 
 tiveness, for we are led to believe from a study of the "intro- 
 spections" handed in that they review the material to them- 
 selves as a diversion. The average time for the criminal 
 group is probably increased considerably by the fact that such 
 groups invariably contain a small percentage of inmates of 
 feeble mental mentality, either bordering on idiocy, or afflicted 
 with one of the numerous psychoses. 
 
 Age. — Speaking of memory in its broadest sense, we may 
 say that memory capacity increases with age. This statement 
 is general in the extreme, in that the rate of increase varies 
 with the material used. Generally speaking, it was found that 
 the increasie in efficiency with age is greater in the case of 
 prose than it is in poetry, and in both of these greater than 
 for either digits or nonsense syllables. 
 
 Several investigators have performed experiments from 
 which they conclude that there is a state of maximal efficiency 
 that comes in the "teens." At this period they maintain that 
 the memory is stronger than at any other period, whether 
 preceding or following it. To me it seems that the materials 
 they have used have been too meager to deduce any sucJi 
 general conclusion. For example, Bernstein and Bogdanoff 
 find this special "memory period" to occur about the age of 
 15. The only material they used on which they based this 
 conclusion consisted of geometrical figures. To me it seems 
 that the only conclusions one can derive from such an experi- 
 m'ent is to say that when geometrical figures are presented 
 to various subjects in a certain way and then tested for rec- 
 ognition after the lapse of a certain interval, the subjects 
 around the age of 15 do, on the average, better than older 
 students and adults. 
 
 With Method 1 I find that high-school students averaging 
 from 16 to 17 years in age retain more of the poetry than do 
 the younger grammar-school students and the older college 
 students. With prose the height of efficiency, as before said, 
 appears much later in life, and the more abstract and difficult 
 the material, the later it appears. This would probably have 
 its limit, however, and even with Kant's "Critique" men of 
 
150 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 50 would undoubtedly do better tban men of 80. The difficulty 
 experienced by the younger children in memorizing a non- 
 sense syllable is undoubtedly ascribable to many causes. 
 Probably the chief of these is that nonsense syllables are un- 
 interesting, and though children may have a better retentive 
 capacity than adults, their attentive capacity is decidedly 
 inferior. 
 
 Sex. — Our object here is to discover if there is any differ- 
 ence in retentive capacity between the male sex and the female 
 sex as a whole, and in particular if there is any difference 
 between the sexes in the relation of the time of learning to the 
 amount retained. 
 
 An examination and comparison of my tables (including 
 some not here reproduced) show that as a whole the women 
 and girls do better in their initial learning than do the men 
 and boys. Thus, e. g., the Barnard College girls memorized 
 the total material in a shorter time than did Columbia College 
 men of the same age. For digits, words, nonsense syllables 
 and poetry the girls average better than the boys. With 
 prose the women do better with the passage starting "The 
 diamond bright dawn," — the men, with the passage starting 
 "The present study of monistic philosophy," but the differ- 
 ence in each case is small. These statements apply only to 
 time of first learning. When we conae to retentiveness, as 
 ascertained by averaging Methods 1, .2, and 3, we find that 
 though the girls still hold their superiority over the men for 
 digits, nonsense syllables, and poetry, the men stand equal 
 with them in the case of words, and for prose even do better. 
 
 Summary and Recapitulation of the Main Results. 
 
 In the preceding chapters we have endeavored to set forth, 
 more or less in detail, the various results obtained from the 
 experiments performed. In a few cases conclusions were 
 drawn, but in the main they were reserved for the present 
 chapter. 
 
 Any attempt to classify these conclusions in a strict and 
 exact manner meets with failure. An analysis of them, how- 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 151 
 
 ever, shows that they may be roughly put under two groups : 
 (1) Those relating to methods and modes of experimentation 
 and correlation and that partake more of the nature of 
 inferences; (2) those results that are drawn from the experi- 
 mental data given in the tables, be their limitations and im- 
 perfections what they may. We shall now give a brief reca- 
 pitulation of the results, conclusions and inferences of these 
 two groups. (Several of the following have been drawn from 
 an examination of the "introspections.") 
 
 Group 1. — (1) Memory is not a distinct, separate and con- 
 crete faculty of the mind, but is complex in the extreme. 
 Experiments such as those described in this and the preceding 
 chapter, being limited in character, apply but to a small part of 
 mentality — and hence memory. 
 
 (2) Association and retention are closely related. It is a 
 question as to how much we should consider the former in 
 investigating the matter. 
 
 (3) Memory should not be confused with attention, nor 
 should this latter even be considered as part of it. We have 
 found that many of the experiments that are supposedly 
 performed on memory are really experiments on attention — 
 or on attention combined with some other faculty. 
 
 (4) The relation of quickness of learning to retentiveness 
 depends upon the method used of ascertaining this "retentive- 
 ness." The different methods [v. p. 98) give opposite re- 
 sults, and yet, in one sense of the word, one method is as 
 "correct" as another. 
 
 (5) Two people may have equal degrees of retentiveness, 
 but very unequal degrees of reproduction. To test briefly the 
 power to recall is but to test a certain factor of memory. 
 
 (6) With the same subjects and the same method of ex- 
 perimentation, different materials give different results. 
 
 (7) In testing "memory" when taken in the fullest sense 
 of the word we should test not only the so-called "rote" 
 memory, but we should also consider the subject's ability to 
 perceive relationships and associations, and his ability to 
 memorize them. 
 
152 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 (8) In relearning it is impossible to distinguish a facility 
 of forming new associations from a retention of subliminal 
 associations. This disadvantage is carried by Method 3. 
 
 (9) "Method 1" has several drawbacks. The chief of these 
 is that reproduction without a fresh presentation of the mate- 
 rial originally learned reveals only the strongest of the 
 original impressions — the so-called "supraliminal associa- 
 tions." 
 
 (10) An examination of over 400 "introspections" would 
 seem to show that it does not pay to attempt to multiply the 
 various forms of imagery. The quickest learners employ the 
 type, or combination of types, to which they ar.e naturally 
 accustomed. 
 
 (11) A factor that must be taken into consideration in inves- 
 tigating retention is the general attitude of the learner toward 
 his work. If he is much interested in the problem in hand 
 and takes great interest in his task, he naturally takes more 
 care, and consequently is able to retain longer than another 
 who has not this same feeling of interest. Where there is 
 zeal and desire in learning, there follows an earnestness and 
 interest in the work which will eventually result in greater 
 retentiveness. This is particularly noticeable in the tests on 
 subjects who are working in psychological laboratories, — sub- 
 jects interested in experimental psychology. 
 
 Group 2. — (1) With any given number of individuals it may 
 be stated as a general rule that they will differ more in the 
 time they take to memorize than they will in retentive 
 capacity. 
 
 (2) The students who stand highest in their various studies 
 and who prove upon examination to be "the most intelligent" 
 have, as a rule, the best memories. They not only learn more 
 quickly, but they retain better. 
 
 (3) Those who employ logical associations and visual 
 imagery in the memorizing of a series of words or nonsense 
 syllables recall them more slowly than do those who memorize 
 in an auditory or motor manner. The latter type of subjects 
 reproduce the associations easily and quickly immediately 
 after the first learning, but forget them just as promptly. 
 
Relation of Quickness to Retentiveness 153 
 
 (4) As a general rule it is best to memorize thoroughly be- 
 fore attempting to recall. When in doubt, do not waste time 
 and form confusing associations by continuing the attempt, 
 but consult the text immediately. 
 
 (5) In general, the women and girls do better in their 
 initial learning than do the men and boys. In retentiveness, 
 however, the men and boys are, on the whole, slightly supe- 
 rior, but this is not so for every material. 
 
 (6) The quickest learners tend to learn their material more 
 as a icJiole than do the slower learners, and this is invariably 
 so with the second learning. The quick learner only divides 
 his material into parts when he is totally unfamiliar with it. 
 
 (7) The quick learners tend more to employ rhythm in the 
 learning of digits, nonsense syllables and words than do the 
 slow learners. If the element of rhyme or rhythm enters, 
 it aids the ability to reproduce after learning. Those who 
 learn by means of rhythm can somehow or other reproduce 
 better than those who do not employ such methods of rhythm. 
 
 (8) The relation of quickness of learning to retentiveness 
 depends on many factors, the most important of which are 
 method) material, and interval. 
 
 (9) A change in the interval does not affect different forms 
 of material to the same de,gree. 
 
 (10) As to the relation of quickness of learning to reten- 
 tiveness, the most general statement that can be made is that 
 those who learn quickly remember longest if the material is 
 logical in character. Where the material is "illogical," espe- 
 cially if it is memorized by "motor associations," the converse 
 is true. This, however, has many exceptions, depending both 
 upon the material and upon the method used. The exceptions 
 are most notable in the case of nonsense syllables and words. 
 
 (11) There would appear to be a positive correlation be- 
 tween quick learning (be it of sense or nonsense material) 
 and retention of logical material (ideas). The correlation, 
 however, is low. Quick learning is no guarantee that the time 
 of retention -w-ill be relatively long. We should not consider 
 economy in learning merely as economy in time spent in 
 learning. 
 
154 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 (12) By Method 1 the score obtained by the first half of the 
 class is invariably better than that obtained by the second 
 half."' The difference between the first quarter of the class 
 and the last quarter is naturally even more marked. The 
 dilference is found to be greatest in the case of prose and 
 least in that of digits. With prose we frequently find that the 
 first quarter of a class of 24 will remember (by Method 1) 
 half as much again as the last quarter. 
 
 (13) The experiments on school children show that girls 
 from the years of 10 to 24 learn more quickly than boys of the 
 same age. The results also show that the number of retained 
 members of any series increases from year to year. 
 
 (14) There is a positive correlation between education and 
 memory. Inmates of prisons and attendants in State hos- 
 pitals do not do as well as boys of 15 years of age. Education 
 thus has much the same effect upon retentiveness as has age. 
 
 (15) With both nonsense syllables and words the first few 
 syllables (or words) of a series are retained longer -than those 
 in the middle of the series. 
 
 "Kxecpting in the case of two groups of stibjects, the digits. 
 
CHAPTEE V. 
 
 THE EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL 
 
 EESEAECH, 
 
 with special reference to 
 
 ECONOMY IN LEAENING 
 
 and 
 
 ' MNEMONIC SYSTEMS. 
 
 Meaning of "economy In learning." Multiplicity of factors to be considered, 
 because a method is the most economical in time does not mean that it is 
 really the most economical. Permanence of retention and facility of use of 
 greater importance than amount of time spent. 
 
 "Sgavoir par coeur n'est pas sgavoir." 
 
 Mnemonic systems. No limit to the number of digits the mnemo-technician 
 can recite. The mnemo-technician assumes an excellence of memory that in 
 reality he does not possess. 
 
 Forgetting. The process of forgetting a selective one. 
 
 Psychology in its relation to the science of education. Practical value of the 
 results of psychological experimentation. Scientific conclusions as a rule are 
 but relative and subject to change. The introspective method v. the experi- 
 mental method. A large part of the writings of introspective psychology con- 
 sist of loose, indefinite and unwarranted generalizations that have never been 
 subject to experimental investigation. Only by experiment can we learn the 
 truth. Experiment slowly changing the general aspect of the old psychology. 
 Exp. psych, has performed its best services in correcting erroneous ideas con- 
 cerning the mind's actions. Exp. psych, still in its infancy. 
 
 Psychology still remains in large part a science of probabilities based on 
 experimental data the validity of which is frequently doubtful. 
 
 It will have been noticed in the preceding pages that several 
 problems of interest to pedagogy have been touched upon. 
 The chief of these is probably that of economy in learning. 
 
 A definition of economical learning is not as easy as it may 
 at first sight appear. We are too much in the habit of consid- 
 ering that economy in time and economy in learning are 
 synonymous terms — ^that a saving in the one means a saving 
 in the other. In judging the degree of economy in any cer 
 tain method of learning the following points should be con- 
 sidered: (1) Amount of time spent; (2) amount of labor 
 (energy or mental force) expended; (3) leng*th of retention; 
 (4) amount (completeness) of retention; (5) fidelity and exact- 
 
 155 
 
156 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 ness of reproduction ; a, — as to the wording — or acquisition of 
 elements; b, — as to the idea — or formation of associations; 
 (6) rapidity of reproduction; (7) degree of comprehension 
 or understanding (this includes form of imagery employed 
 as well as nature and amount of association employed). 
 
 It will be seen that the problem is not a simple one, and 
 that the relative proportions of the factors we have mentioned 
 may vary with the same individual, this depending upon the 
 nature of the material and the purpose for which it is in- 
 tended. The aim — or goal — of learning is not always the 
 same, and what may be considered as an " economical" method 
 for one form of material- may not be for another. In studying 
 his lessons the average schoolboy's sole aim is to be able to 
 repeat once, and once only, the knowledge before him — to 
 answer the question when called on. Acquisition with much 
 a similar aim is, however, also witnessed in the adult, e. g., 
 in the minister with his sermon, the politician with his speech 
 and the actor with his piece. What we wish to emphasize here 
 is that though a certain method may result in leading rapidly 
 to an immfediate recitation, it does not follow that it will be the 
 most economical method where permanent retention is desired. 
 As we have already seen* a certain method may consume a 
 greater amount of time, but secure the desired effect, viz., that 
 of permanent and lasting retention. It wUl be seen that no 
 set rule can be laid down. Generally speaking, all that we 
 may say is that that method is the most economical that attains 
 the end desired (1) in the shortest time, (2) with the least 
 trouble,** and (3) with the minimum degree of fatigue. 
 
 The seven factors that we have mentioned are not all equally 
 susceptible of measurement. Time can be measured with a 
 watch — and in like manner length of retention. But to meas- 
 ure the amount of mental work — the amount of energy ex- 
 pended — is not so easy. A few things, such,- for example, as 
 number of repetitions during a stated interval, may be taken 
 into consideration and thus help us in forming an opinion, but 
 this must always rest but approximate. 
 
 *We refer to the "once-per-day" method. 
 
 **A "twice-per-week" method, e. g., may he economical as far as "total time'' 
 is concerned, and not at all fatiguing, but its observance may be extremely 
 troublesome and annoying. 
 
Educational Value of Psychological Research ' 157 
 
 It is not always an easy matter to differentiate economy 
 in time from economy in force. Not only is the actual amount 
 of mental force saved by the use of a certain method impos- 
 sible of determination, but we are unable to state the rela- 
 tionship of the force saved to the time saved. A saving in 
 time may or may not at the same time represent a saving in 
 force. In short, about the only definite statement that we can 
 make— and one that is self-evident— is that of two methods 
 demanding equal mental force (both quantitatively and quali- 
 tatively), and where the length of duration* is the same, that 
 method is the most economical that necessitates the least ex- 
 penditure of time. It should be borne in mind, however, that 
 a saving in time may be accompanied by such a greatly-in- 
 creased expenditure of energy that no true economy can be 
 said to take place. In like manner, although a certain method 
 may result in a saving in time of first learning, the amount 
 of time the material is retained may be so short that no true 
 , economy may be said to have resulted. 
 
 But this is not all. Not only must we define what we mean 
 by ' ' economical learning, ' ' but we must define what we mean 
 by "learning." In our Introduction we endeavored to show 
 that both "learning" (in the sense of knowing) and "mem- 
 ory" were extremely vague and indefinite terms. We there 
 stated, by way of example, that, although a person may be 
 able to repeat a list of words, he may yet, in one sense of the 
 word, not really know them. This we exemplified by way of 
 one who learns a set of words by using only his motor-auditory 
 memory. We are probably safe in assuming that most people 
 recite the Creed or the Lord's Prayer in this manner. The 
 prayer is started and goes on automatically, the subject's 
 mind being occupied with other affairs. 
 
 The same is, to a large extent, true of all that we learn 
 when we use merely our auditory or auditory-motor memory. 
 Teachers and educators have recognized this for some time. 
 "Sgavoir par cceur n'est pas sgavoir," said Montaigne. A 
 similar truth was recognized by Kant. "When a child," said 
 he, "does not put into practice a rule in grammar, he cannot 
 strictly be said to know it, even though he may be able to 
 
 *Perinanence of retention. 
 
158 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 recite it. On the contrary, he who invariably applies a cer- 
 tain rule may be said to Moiv this rule, even though he may 
 not be able to recite it. The best method of comprehension^ 
 therefore, is to do— to use — to act." That which one learns 
 the most thoroughly, and which. one remembers the longest 
 is what one has realized the truth of, or has learned or in 
 vented by himself. 
 
 In discussing economy in learning, therefore, the question 
 is not only alone one of what will give the best result as to 
 economy in time, but what will give the best and most com- 
 prehensive understanding. The astronomer who says "the 
 distance to Mars from our earth is 35,000,000,000,000 miles" 
 knows the fact in a way altogether different from the school- 
 boy who repeats the same words. In like manner, however, 
 the schoolboy may be said to know this better and. in a dif- 
 ferent manner from the savage who may be taught to repro- 
 duce, in a parrot-like manner, the same sentence. We may 
 observe a similar, though not identical, case in a simple prob- 
 lem in multiplication. A child may be able to give the correct 
 answer for 8X9, and yet fail on 9 X 8. The fact of the mat- 
 ter is that he has learned only the formula "8X9 = 72." He 
 falls down on 9 X 8 because he does not know in as complete 
 a sense as he should the meaning of "8 X 9 = 72." The case 
 is similar, but not identical, with that which we gave of the 
 astronomer. In one sense of the word, 8 X 9 = 72 is no more 
 the same as 9 X 8 = 72 than BOX is the same as XOB. 
 
 "While on this matter we cannot do better than quote from 
 Wells — in an article* which, though not directly on the point 
 in question, is nevertheless extremely elucidative : 
 
 "Pragmatically, to know a thing is to have established an 
 association or co-ordination path which causes us to react 
 according to it. We know a thing more certainly according 
 as we react more certainly or in any way more effectively as 
 though that thing were so. Though the certainty has a differ- 
 ent source, you do not know that two and two make four more 
 certainly than the dervish knows that the prophet's paradise 
 awaits him on death in battle for his faith. To say that one, 
 
 *"A Note on the Retention of Acquired Capacities," Amer. Jour, of Psychol., 
 3915, Vol. XXVI, pages 66-67. 
 
Educational Value of Psychological Research 159 
 
 takes a few sigma longer to add six aiid five than one did two 
 years ago, is another way of saying that he does not know their 
 sum so well." The lesson to the teacher and educator should, 
 however, be obvious : See that the child knows (understands) 
 as completely as possible whatever he may have, to learn, and 
 call in the "logical" memory in preference to any other form. 
 
 With some of the subjects experiments were performed to 
 ascertain the time necessary to memorize the nonsense syl- 
 lables and words in the reverse order. One might, imagine 
 that those subjects who knew the list best (in the original 
 order) would be able to relearn it quickest in the reverse 
 order. Although this was frequently the case, the inference 
 is unjustifiable. Because one knows a poem by heart does 
 not mean that he can repeat it backwards. Some subjects 
 take almost as long to relearn a series of syllables backwards 
 as they took to memorize them in the first place. The dif- 
 ference depends to a great extent upon the maimer in which 
 the work was originally performed — the form of imagery used 
 and the nature of the associations made. 
 
 - ' In discussing economy in learning permanence of retention 
 and facility of use are of greater importance than amount of 
 time spent. As we have seen in Chapter III, with the con- 
 tinuous method the time of learning may be relatively short, 
 but the permanence of retention relatively poor. Permanence 
 
 ! of retention and amount of time spent are capable of being 
 measured,, but, owing to its complex nature, facility of use is 
 more difficult of precise measurement. As we have already 
 stated, a man may be able to repeat a set^ words and yet, 
 in one sense of the word, not know them J The same remark 
 may be more or less applied to digitsj The remark is strictly 
 applicable when the acquisition^ of the digits depends upon 
 the employment of a mnemonic device. 
 
 Several mnemonic devices exist for the "memorizing" of 
 long lists of digits. One of the most commonly used is the 
 following: The subject commences by establishing a bond 
 or relationship between the ten digits and the various cou- 
 
 sin the case of tbe muemo-technician we can hardly use the word memorize. 
 
160 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 sonants of the alphabet. To him each digit invariably stands 
 for and is represented by a certain consonant. It is obvious 
 that to the individual employing such a system it is but a 
 very simple matter for him to replace each number by its 
 appropriate consonant. For example, 582783 is replaced by 
 I, ng, r, d, s, nd., because to him 5 corresponds to I., 8 to ng., 
 2 to r., 7 to d., 8 to s., and 3 to nd., etc. "With these consonants 
 before him he has a skeleton, so to speak, on which he can work. 
 In order to create a phrase for them it is necessary that he in- 
 troduces vowels. In this he allows himself the greatest lib- 
 erty, putting them in wherever and in any number that he may 
 desire. Thus, for example, with using the letters I, ng, r, 
 d, s, nd. he may invent the phrase, "long roads end." 
 
 As a matter of fact, the mnemo-technician ascribes to each 
 digit two or more letters or combination of letters, thus giv- 
 ing himself a larger selection, and, therefore, a greater facil- 
 ity of forming a phrase. For example, the figure 4 may be 
 represented by ze as well as by se, and the figure 6 by te as 
 well as by (Ze. 
 
 It is thus obvious that, given any reasonable number of 
 digits (not more than 100 or 200), the mnemo-technician has 
 no great trouble in preparing and memorizing his prose or 
 poetry to fit them. All he has to do is to learn by heart the 
 phrases he has formed — an affair that for 100 digits may not 
 take more than fifteen minutes. It will be remarked that the 
 process employed by the mnemo-technician in a case such as 
 this is one of substitution, i. e., in place of committing digits 
 or numbers to memory he commits phrases or sentences. In 
 short, he translates his numbers into words, and with these 
 he forms ideas that are relatively easy of retention. It will, 
 of course, be remarked that the mnemo-technician cannot use 
 the same phrase several times unless it so happens that the 
 digits presented to him repeat themselves — an affair that is 
 not probable if the digits are selected by chance. However, 
 in view of the fact that he can (if he has an average memory) 
 commit one-thousand lines of prose or poetry in one sitting, 
 he thereby has at his command some ten or twelve thousand 
 
Educational Value of Psychological Research 16 L 
 
 digits. As he is able to repeat these in exactly the same order 
 as many times as he may be called upon to do so, he appears, 
 to the ordinary observer, to have actually "memorized" them. 
 If, however, the mnemo-technician is himself allowed to 
 select his digits, the number that he is able to acquire is prac- 
 tically unlimited. He may with ease recite three or four hun- 
 dred thousand, even one million, and then, if called upon to 
 do so, repeat them in exactly the same order. When once the 
 method employed is understood, the seemingly remarkable 
 feat becomes most commonplace. The way in which he works 
 is as follows : Placing before him an easy and interesting 
 poem (of, say, a couple of hundred verses) that he has pre- 
 viously learned by heart, he substitutes, using the poem as a 
 skeleton or framework, the consonants in each word with 
 digits. Years of practice in this work give him such a facil- 
 ity in this "substitution work" that he is able to "see" the 
 appropriate digits stand out before him as he recites (to 
 himself) his verses. The process is one of translation, so to 
 speak. A couple of hundred ordinary verses will furnish 
 him with about two thousand digits. Having finished these, 
 he has only to again recite them, this time, however, increas- 
 ing the number by one as the digit ' ' comes ' ' to him or appears 
 before him. Further variations are made by subtracting one 
 or by adding two, three, four, etc. It is thus evident that, 
 without any great expenditure of mental energy, he may re- 
 cite and re-recite one million digits — an affair that, on the face 
 of it, would be impossible for brute memory to accomplish. 
 In fact, when the digits are more than one hundred in number, 
 even the most experienced of the lightning calculators cannot 
 compare with the mnemo-technician. A comparison of the 
 times taken to memorize digits between the mnemo-technician 
 (Mr. Arnould) and the lightning calculator (Mr. Diamandi) 
 may be seen in the following table, which we borrow from 
 Binet's^ most excellent work on that subject: 
 
 =A. BiNET. Psychologie des Grands Calculatenrs, Paris, 1894, p. 173. 
 
Mr. Diamandi. 
 
 Mr. Arnould. 
 
 17 s. 
 
 20 s. 
 
 Im. 15 s. 
 
 1 m. 45 s. 
 
 2 m. 15 s. 
 
 2 m. 30 s. 
 
 3 m. 
 
 2 m. 30 s. 
 
 4 m. 20 s. 
 
 2 m. 45 s. 
 
 7 m. 
 
 2 m. 45 s. 
 
 25 m. 
 
 15 m. 
 
 Ih. 15 m. 20 s. 
 
 45 m. 
 
 162 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 Number of ,— Time necessary for acquisition.- 
 
 digits acquired. 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 20 
 
 25 
 
 30 
 
 50 
 
 10O 
 
 200 
 
 As may be seen from the table above, it is only when the 
 digits are less than twenty-five or thirty in number that brute, 
 memory (be it even of a Diamandi) can surpass the perform- 
 ance of the mnemo-technician. For example, to learn twenty 
 digits takes Mr. Arnould 2 m. 30 s., whereas Mr. Diamandi 
 takes but 2 m. 15 s. With twenty-five digits the respective 
 times are nearly equal — Arnould, it will be seen, took 2 m. 30 s., 
 Mr. Diamandi 3 m.^ 
 
 8 6 4 3 9 Vieux faucheur aime bieu. 
 
 2 5 7 G 2 Nie le cas, ou ecbafaud. 
 
 3 17 3 5 A moi ta gamelle. 
 
 5 18 4 3 La, — tu veux ramer. 
 2 3 5 8 1 Un homme a la fete. 
 
 A comparison of the results obtained by the mnemo-tech- 
 nician with a native memory such as that of Mr. Diamandi is 
 both interesting and instructive. One remarks that with in- 
 creased number of digits there is naturally an increase in 
 time, but the increase in the two cases is not proportionate. 
 
 Mr. Arnould is a mnemo-technician by profession, and 
 frankly admits that his work is one of simulation and deceit ; 
 he assumes an excellence of memory that in reality he does 
 not possess. His work, as we have said, consists in substitut- 
 ing ideas for numbers, or, to put it in other words, he gives 
 to numbers an artificial significance which permits of their 
 being easily retained and recalled. Other professionals are 
 not so frank, and it is not always an easy matter to distin- 
 guish the mnemo-technician from the individual who in reality 
 does possess a remarkable memory for digits. In order to 
 differentiate between the two an examination should be made 
 
 ^As an illustration of the method employed we give below the phraSes and 
 sentences employed by Mr. Diamandi during an actual reproduction by him 
 of twenty-five digits : 
 
Educational Value of Psychological Research 163 
 
 along the following lines: (1) Number of digits capable of 
 being memorized, i. e., extent of memory; (2) rapidity of 
 acquisition; (3) rapidity of repetition— verbal repetition; 
 (4) length of time remembered. 
 
 * * * * * * ,:- 
 
 In connection with economy in learning it is necessary that 
 we discuss forgetting. The process of forgetting is more or 
 less based upon one of selection. In order to have an effective 
 logical memory we should not burden ourselves with the un- 
 essential, The act of forgetting judiciously, therefore, is as 
 important a function as that of retaining judiciously. ' ' Selec- 
 tion," says James, "is the very keel on which our mental ship 
 is built. If we remembered everything, we should, on most 
 occasions, be as ill-off as if we remembered nothing." Our 
 memory of each day's events is constantly disappearing and 
 being obliterated. Passed in review, after a few days' inter- 
 val but few of the sensations previously received, ideas pre- 
 viously formed and emotions previously felt can be recalled ; 
 "most of them have made shipwreck in that great nonentity 
 from which they never more will emerge" (Eibot). 
 
 It is not, of course, to be understood that the line of de- 
 marcation is sharp and distinct — that is, that knowledges are 
 either forgotten or remembered. There are various grades. 
 Upon analysis the problem resolves itself into one of amount — 
 of amount recalled. 
 
 It is obvious that a distinction should be made between 
 total recall and partial recall. Some events are recalled in 
 detail with a complete "setting," so to speak; other events, 
 on the contrary, are recalled in a vague, indefinite and in- 
 complete manner, and merely the "skeleton," as it were, is 
 seen. Theoretically, total recall, in the sense of perfect, com- 
 plete and absolute recall, never occurs, nor would it be often 
 desirable. To have to recall all of the details without the 
 power of omitting the unessential would be most undesirable. 
 Generally speaking, the well-ordered mind is distinguished 
 by its ability to omit the unnecessary and unessential. We 
 witness this with the story-teller. The good story-teller knows 
 what to bring out and what to select in order to produce the 
 effect and emotion that he desires; the poor story-teller, on 
 
164 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 the other hand, not having the power of selection developed 
 to such a degree, dwells so long on the unessential points 
 and lays such emphasis on unimportant matters that he misses 
 the drift and arrives nowhere. 
 
 As a rule, this power of proper selection of ideas and con- 
 trol of the imagination is more or less concomitant with, age 
 and education. The educated man is distinguished by the 
 facility with which he can pass from total to partial recall, 
 and the aptness with which he is able to throw off the unes- 
 sential. In short, he is characterized, by his ability to forget 
 judiciously. 
 
 As we have already said, perfectly total recall really never 
 occurs. What we mean by it in this discussion is a recall 
 where the various experiences and emotions are revived in all 
 their minutiae. Such recall might be valuable in scientific 
 work and in the witness-box, but nowhere else. 
 
 * -jf * * * * * 
 
 In a thorough investigation of economy in learning the 
 question should, of course, be considered as to whether the 
 use of a combination of two senses may not be better than 
 either alone, i. e., may not the employment of two or more 
 senses be more economical, and at the same time give a higher 
 degree of retention. The results obtained by the various ex- 
 perimenters who worked on this problem vary widely. 
 
 Among the most precise experiments performed on this 
 subject are those of Miinsterberg aiid Bigham.* These authors 
 compared visual memory with that of auditory (or auditory- 
 motor) memory. In the experiments to which we refer Miins- 
 terberg and Bigham used as material small squares of colored 
 paper. Each square was of a different shade of color; they 
 also employed other squares of white paper on each of which 
 was written a number that the subject had previously mem- 
 orized in connection with or standing for a certain definite 
 shade or color. Thus, the number 5, for example, stood for 
 blue ; 7, for yellow ; 6, green, and so forth. In this manner it 
 was possible for a subject to memorize a series of colors (in 
 an auditory manner) by digits as well as by names. Their 
 
 •iluNSTBRBERG. Studies from the Harvard Psychological Lahoratory. Psych. 
 Rev., Vol. I, p. 34. 
 
Educational Value of Psychological Research 165 
 
 subjects were but five in number, and their results, therefore, 
 have but a limited value. We cannot here discuss the results 
 of their experiments and their conclusions, which are some- 
 what complex. We shall merely say that they found that : (1) 
 Visual presentation of color gave a higher degree of retention 
 than did mere auditory presentation. 
 
 .. (2) A series of tests presented at the same time to two 
 different organs of senses give a higher degree of retention 
 than when one is presented to the eye alone or to the ear alone. 
 
 [In certain cases, however, the employment of two senses is 
 undesirable, the one seeming to act against the other.] 
 
 Others who have worked on this problem of Economy in 
 Learning are Steffens, Pentschew, Jost, Meumann, Schneider, 
 G. E. Miiller, H. Miiller, P. Ephrussi, Neumann, Witasek, 
 Radosavljevich, Gamble,. Busemann, Ogden, Lakenan, Lar- 
 guier des Bancels, and Pyle and Snyder. The more important 
 of the results obtained by these investigators have been 
 already given (in Chapters III and IV.) 
 
 It has become so customary of late to associate the science 
 of Education with that of Psychology that it is common for 
 those not working in psychological laboratories to infer that 
 a considerable, if not a major part, of psychological experi- 
 mentation is performed with the sole purpose of furthering 
 educational advancement. The inference is an erroneous one. 
 It is only here and there that the results obtained by the ex- 
 perimental psychologist are of any great value to the teacher 
 or educator. Experimental psychology has made but few 
 changes in the science of education, and we have no reason 
 to assume, as we so often do, that the latter is based and 
 founded upon the former. It is only when psychology applies 
 itself strictly to educational problems that results of any 
 moment to the teacher may be expected, and here again the 
 "results" were quite probably already known to the educator 
 in a more or less vague way. 
 
 In short, a large percentage of the results obtained by the 
 experimental psychologist are all very well as facts — scientific 
 
166 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 facts— but they have little to do with every-day life ; at any 
 rate, to the average man they are unemployable. We should 
 here say, however, that experimental psychology and its appli- 
 cations are distinct, and that it is not necessarily the duty of 
 this science to confine itself to matters of practical import. 
 The true investigator centers his attention solely on the search 
 for truth, irregardless as to whether the results he obtains 
 may or may not be of practical application. This may seem 
 somewhat by way of defense — as though we were trying to 
 defend the experimental psychologist and justify his existence. 
 He does not need defense. Apart from what we have said, we 
 cannot but suspect that he invariably hopes that the results 
 he obtains may be of practical value. The zoologist who 
 spends months and years in the study of the chromosomes 
 of the fruit fly DrosopJiila ampelophila — crossing red-eyed 
 females here with white-eyed males there, or individuals of 
 the "vestigial" winged variety here with individuals of the 
 "long-winged" variety there — doubtless hopes that some day 
 he will be able to tell us just what determines sex in man^- 
 possibly even, how to control the sex of his offspring. To the 
 breeder such a discovery would certainly be of great economic 
 value. In short, with all such work the practical man of 
 affairs may fail to see the connection, but it is nevertheless 
 there. And so with a considerable part of the experimental 
 work that has been done on memory; — no true educator can 
 behold the results without perceiving that here are exact 
 knowledges— knowledges which, though they may not be di- 
 rectly applicable, must none the less have a bearing of some 
 sort on the learning process and, therefore, on education in 
 
 GENERAL. 
 
 It is when the psychologist applies himself to the study of 
 memory that the teacher awaits most eagerly for the results, 
 but even here his conclusions are generally disappointing. 
 "Do not endeavor to improve the memory"; "Do not break 
 the material to be learned into parts, but learn it as a whole" ; ■ 
 "Avoid mnemonic devices"; "Trust the memory wherever 
 possible" — these and possibly a half-dozen other rules tell 
 us all that the teacher will receive from the psychologist on 
 memory. The great trouble is that even here the psychologists 
 
Educational Value of Psychological Research 167 
 
 differ even among themselves. Some tell us that the memory 
 (memory in general) is capable of improvement; others tell 
 us that it is incapable of improvement, and that as it is given 
 us at birth, so it remains. 
 
 All this is in no way meant to disparage the science of ex- 
 perimental psychology. We desire merely to limit the idea 
 that experimental psychology— even when applied to mem- 
 ory—must necessarily jdeld results that are of great practical 
 importance, or that are so exact and well defined that no dif 
 ference of opinion may exist. Conclusions in science— even 
 when the data on which they are based are of the best— are 
 but relative and subject to change at short notice. The con- 
 version or alteration of scientific "facts" is more apt to mean 
 that the original conclusions were too hastily drawn than 
 that the data were wrong. Thus in the field of memory e. g., 
 it may be that the "piece-meal" method of learning is, for gen- 
 eral purposes, the most economical, nothwithstanding that the 
 results obtained by Steffens, Ephrussi, and others, would 
 seem to point to the contrary. As we have already said, econ- 
 omy in learning depends upon the object or result that is di- 
 rectly desired. In short, we must define what we mean by 
 "economy." Thus it is that no determination of the economy 
 of a method can ever possess universal validity. We can only 
 say what method will give the best results — ^will be the most 
 economical — for the object the learner has in view. Such re- 
 sults as those obtained by Steffens, Pentschew, Ephrussi, Pyle, 
 and Jost are relative in the extreme, though, with the exception 
 of the two latter, these- authors have failed to appreciate the 
 fact. 
 
 It is the habit of each science to extend the basis of its 
 knowledge by experiment, and psychology is far from being 
 an exception. But psychology is not an exact science, and thus 
 it is continually tempted to make generalizations from im- 
 perfect observations or too small a number of observations, 
 and it is constantly the work of the experimental psychologist 
 to check up the inductions and theories of his "arm chair" 
 colleagues. The desire to form theories is at all times laud- 
 able, but with so inexact a science as psychology they should 
 be formed with great care — and then only after careful and 
 
168 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 repeated experimentation. If for no other reason than the 
 great diversity of opinion held among psychologists regard- 
 ing the laws of the mind, it behooves us to demand an increase 
 in both the exactness and number of the data before forming 
 generalizations. Psychology is not able to express its laws 
 with the mathematical exactness that characterizes chemistry, 
 and physics — and, notwithstanding that mathematical for- 
 mulas are being more and more applied, to certain operations 
 of the mind, psychology remains in large part a science of 
 probabilities based on experimental data the validity of which 
 is frequently doubtful. 
 
 Psychology is, however, trying, and becomes every day a 
 more exact science. For this she may thank both Education 
 and Psychology for the demands put upon her; these sister 
 sciences have formed an inseparable trio, each asking ques- 
 tions of the others. We are no longer satisfied with rule-of- 
 thumb methods, and now demand the how, why, and wherefore 
 of each and every operation. 
 
 The major part of the literature on the mental sciences still 
 consists of loose, indefinite, or unwarranted generalizations 
 that have never been subjected to careful experimental investi- 
 gation. This is especially true of the old psychology, and so it 
 is that experiment is slowly changing the general aspect of this 
 science. This, then, is the chief task of the experimental psy- 
 chologist — the accumulation of data in so great a number and 
 on so many subjects that generalizations may be safely de- 
 duced. Modern psychologists have more or less abandoned 
 the exclusively introspective methods as employed by their 
 arm-chair brethren, and have turned to experiment. Deduc- 
 tion has given way to induction. We shall not say they are 
 going too far, but as yet it must be admitted that, although a 
 few erroneous conceptions concerning the mind have been 
 corrected. Psychology as a science has not been revolutionized. 
 Unfortunately, a considerable portion of the results that have 
 been obtained are as yet either not amenable of application 
 or are of doubtful validity. Parmelee is undoubtedly correct 
 in saying that the prime need in psychology to-day is the de- 
 velopment of its genetic aspect. Here, by tracing the evolution 
 of psychic phenomena from the lowest up to the highest 
 
Educational Value of Psychological Research 169 
 
 species,^ and by keeping in mind that psychic phenomena can 
 be profitably studied only from a viewpoint of objective be- 
 havior, it may be that a considerable amount of useless experi- 
 mentation on human beings will be done away with. 
 
 Experimental Psychology has performed its best services 
 in exploding erroneous ideas regarding the mind— many of 
 them so old that they were uprooted with difficulty. For ex- 
 ample, it has long been held that improvement in one opera- 
 tion of the mind may materially improve others. Thorndike 
 and Woodworth, however, in their paper entitled "The In- 
 fluence of Improvement of One Meiital Function Upon the 
 Efficiency of Other Functions, ' ' have conclusively proven that 
 such is almost never the case. Again, for example, it has 
 long been held that the brain is liable to fatigue, in much the 
 same way as one of the muscles. "Common observation," 
 says Woodworth," "seemed to show that fatigue comes on 
 very quickly in mental work, and this apparent fact has done 
 duty in many psychological explanations." Experiments; 
 however, have shown that this familiar form of fatigue is/ 
 largely a sensory or emotional affair. "It is a feeling of 
 fatigue, not a true fatigue in the sense of incapacity."" In 
 the field of memory experimental psychology has done great 
 service in exposing numerous "systems" for the improve- 
 ment of memory as well as the mnemonic devices supposed 
 to facilitate retention and reproduction. Now psychologists 
 are supposed to hold definite ideas regarding such themes as 
 these, though it would seem that the public pay but little at- 
 tention to them. The reason for this lies partly in the fact 
 that in matters relating to the mind there is so much charla- 
 tinism the psychologist hesitates to popularize his subject. 
 Scientific psychology may definitely prove some prevalent 
 idea to have no foundation, but he may not send the exposure 
 broadcast. In the meantime, the' professional memory teacher 
 acquires fame and support from a public that ought to know 
 better. 
 
 We have already said that now and then the results ob- 
 
 '-Psychiatrti and Experimental Psychology, Proc. of the Am. Medico-Psy. 
 Ass., June, 1906. 
 "Op. cit. 
 
170 Memory, and the Learning Process 
 
 tained from psychological experimentation may be of value 
 to the teacher, and that when it came to memory, nearly 
 every investigation contributed some gain, small though it 
 may be. What, now, are the contributions that such experi- 
 ments as those described in detail in Chapter IV may make to 
 the science of education! For answer we can only refer the 
 questioner to the summary of results given at the end of the 
 chapter in question. It may, for example, be of value to the 
 teacher to know that a rapid learner is at no disadvantage 
 so far as his retentiveness is concerned, but, generally speak-^ 
 ing, such facts are of but limited value to the ordinary teacher. 
 
 Space does not permit a consideration of each of the con- 
 clusions given in the preceding chapter, but it will be noted 
 that scarcely half of them have any direct bearing on, or sig- 
 nificance to, educational problems in general. A positive cor- 
 relation, for example, was found between quiclc learning and 
 amount retained, but it will be noted that it is a very low one. 
 This, as a scientific fact, however, is of value. It may also be 
 valuable for the teacher to know that the popular impression 
 that slow learners retain a relatively greater amount of what 
 they have learned than do quick learners is, as a rule, 
 erroneous. 
 
 To those who are connected with schoolg for feeble-minded 
 and backward children it may be of value to know that here 
 the correlation is slightly higher, especially in the case of 
 prose and poetry. It would seem that with a class* of de- 
 fectives those who learn exceedingly slowly are relatively 
 poor retainers. It should be borne in mind, however, that 
 the memory tests described are not satisfactory tests of rea- 
 soning, notwithstanding the fact that they are tests of a cer- 
 tain kind of mental ability. 
 
 . The results of the experiments would seem to show that in 
 general the power to remember meaningful material increases 
 both with age and intellectual standing. This, however, is 
 but what we would expect. 
 
 When we examine the various tables and notice the quan- 
 tity or percentage of the material that has evidently been for- 
 gotten after the expiration of the time interval in question we 
 
 *i. e., a group or class in school, for example. 
 
Educational Value of Psychological Research 111 
 
 may associate this with an observation that doubtless all of 
 us have at times made with reference to our early school work, 
 viz., that a very considerable fraction of what we memorized 
 in our early years has seemingly been totally forgotten. I 
 say "seemingly" because we are apt to forget that what has 
 here been forgotten has — as is proven by our ' ' Method 2 ' ' — 
 neverthelss left associations and impressions of value, even 
 though these may not be readily recalled. We should remem- 
 ber that the mental work put on any problem, be it on a set of 
 nonsense syllables, has nevertheless necessitated a certain 
 amount of mental activity which may be of value in some way 
 or other in the future. This is undoubtedly more true of the 
 slow learner who (though* according to our tabulated results, 
 may stand lower as to amount retained) may acquire a "some- 
 thing" that the quick learner does not. 
 
 The teacher should impress her pupils of the fact that what 
 is learned and memorized in school is not meant to be useful 
 for the school days alone, but for the pupil's entire life. The 
 final value of whatever we learn is conditioned very largely 
 by our ability to recall it later at pleas.ure. If we are unable 
 so to do, then what we have learned is not really a "posses- 
 sion" in the sense of the word as we used it in Chapter II. 
 Only time can show what real value anything once learned 
 may have. 
 
APPENDICES. 
 
 
 Nonsense 
 
 
 Digits. 
 
 Syllables. 
 
 Words. 
 
 5 
 
 VUS 
 
 TUB 
 
 
 
 YIF 
 
 PIN 
 
 9 
 
 MAV 
 
 HEN 
 
 4 
 
 JEP 
 
 BED 
 
 7 
 
 VOB 
 
 LID 
 
 1 
 
 FBG 
 
 GEM 
 
 5 
 
 WOP 
 
 BUD 
 
 2 
 
 TIB 
 
 CAR 
 
 G 
 
 NUZ 
 
 MAT 
 
 1 
 
 BOF 
 
 ROD 
 
 8 
 
 JED 
 
 JUG 
 
 
 
 KIB 
 
 FOG 
 
 4 
 
 VEL 
 
 LAD 
 
 7 
 
 ZID 
 
 SOD 
 
 3 
 
 BOL 
 
 PEN 
 
 8 
 
 SEP 
 
 CAT 
 
 1 
 
 YAB 
 
 RAG 
 
 6 
 
 KUV 
 
 BOX 
 
 2 
 
 TEP 
 
 NET 
 
 9 
 
 NAD 
 
 GUN 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 Some of the Matebials Used. 
 
 Poetry (100 M'ords). 
 And gentle Ellen welcomed her 
 
 With courteous looks and mild : 
 Thought she "what if her heart should melt, 
 
 And all be reconciled!" 
 
 The day was scarcely like a day— 
 The clouds were black outright : 
 
 And many a night, with half a moon, 
 I've seen the church more light. 
 
 The wind was .wild ; against the glass 
 The rain did beat and bicker : 
 
 The church tower swinging overhead, 
 You scarce could hear the Vicar : 
 
 And then and there the mother knelt, 
 
 ^\nd audibly she cried — 
 Oh ! may a clinging curse consume 
 
 This woman by my side. 
 
 Prose (100 Words). 
 
 (From Kipling's "Kim.") 
 
 The diamond-bright dawn woke men and cows and bullocks together. Kim 
 sat up and yawned, shook himself, and thrilled ^ith delight. This was seeing 
 the world in real truth, this was life as he would have it — bustling and 
 shouting, the buckling of belts, and beating of bullocks and creaking of wheels, 
 lighting of fires and cooking of food, and new sights at every turn of the ap- 
 proving eye. The morning mist swept off in a whirl of silver ; the parrots 
 shot away to some distant river in shrieking green hosts : all the well wheels 
 within earshot were at work. 
 
 Poetry (100 Words). 
 To see a man tread over graves 
 
 I hold it no good mark ; 
 'Tis wicked in the sun and moon. 
 
 And bad luck in the dark. 
 
 You see this grave? The Lord he gives. 
 
 The Lord he takes away : 
 O Sir ! the child of my old age 
 
 Lies there as cold as clay. 
 
 Except that grave, you scarce see one 
 
 That was not dug by me ! 
 I'd rather dance upon 'em 
 
 Than tread upon these three! 
 
 Ay, Sexton ! 'tis a touching tale ! 
 
 You, Sir, are but a lad ; 
 This month I'm in my seventieth year, 
 
 And still it makes me sad. 
 
 172 
 
 
 Nonsense 
 
 
 Digits. 
 
 Syllables. 
 
 Words. 
 
 6 
 
 LEB 
 
 BIRD 
 
 1 
 
 DUT 
 
 RUG 
 
 .5 
 
 NIV 
 
 EAR 
 
 8 
 
 POZ 
 
 SLATE 
 
 2 
 
 DIB 
 
 CAP 
 
 7 
 
 PEG 
 
 DOOR 
 
 5 
 
 ZAD 
 
 BOX 
 
 3 
 
 TOB 
 
 TREE 
 
 9 
 
 KBD 
 
 CORN 
 
 4 
 
 BUP 
 
 AXE 
 
 7 
 
 KIF 
 
 SAIL 
 
 2 
 
 RUZ 
 
 HINGE 
 
 5 
 
 
 BUG 
 
 9 
 
 
 SPOOL 
 
 3 
 
 
 DOG 
 
 
 
 
 BOOK 
 
 8 
 
 
 POST 
 
 1 
 
 
 GUN 
 
 6 
 
 
 BEAN 
 
 o 
 
 
 LAMP 
 
Appendices 173 
 
 Prose (100 Words). 
 (From Preface of Baeckel's "Riddle of the Universe.") 
 The present study of the monistic philosophy is intended for thoughful 
 readers of every condition who are united in an honest' search for the truth. 
 An intensification of this effort of man to attain a knowledge of the truth is 
 one of the most salient features of the Nineteenth Century. This is easily 
 explained, in the first place, by the immense progress of science, especially in 
 its most important branch, the history of humanity ; it is due in the second 
 place to the open contradiction that has developed during the century between 
 science and the traditional "Revelation." 
 
 Prose (160 Words). 
 
 (From Kant's "Critique.") 
 Time is nothing but the form of the internal sense, that is, of our intuition 
 of ourselves, and of our internal states. Time cannot be a determination 
 peculiar to external phenomena. It refers neither to their shape, nor to their 
 position, etc., it only determines the relation of representations in our internal 
 state. And exactly because this internal intuition supplies no shape, we try 
 to make good this deficiency by means of analogies, and represent to ourselves 
 the succession of time by a straight line progressing to infinity, in which the 
 manifold constitutes a series of one dimension onl.y ; and we conclude from 
 the properties of this line as to all the properties of time, with one exception, 
 i. e., that the parts of the former are simultaneous, those of the latter succes- 
 sive. From this it becomes clear, also, that the representation of time Is 
 itself an intuition, because all its relations can be expressed by means of an 
 external intuition. 
 
 Prose (100 Words). 
 (From Franklin's "Autohiography.") 
 But I soon found that I had undertaken a task of more difficulty than I had 
 imagined. While my care was employed in guarding against one fault, I was 
 often surprised by another ; habit took the advantage of inattention ; inclina- 
 tion was sometimes too strong for reason. I concluded, at length, that the mere 
 speculative conviction that it was our interest to be completely virtuous was 
 not sufficient to prevent our slipping, and that the contrary habits must be 
 broken, and good ones acquired and established, before we can have any de- 
 pendence on a steady, uniform rectitude of conduct. 
 
 Two Lists of Disconnected Sentences of 100 Words Each. 
 
 1. From the Kingdom of Heaven those angels have come. 
 
 2. This horse ate nothing but oats. 
 
 3. The wise man seizes every opportunity. 
 
 4. Ten years had elapsed and they therefore crowned him. 
 
 5. From my own experience I know he will never achieve success in that 
 line. 
 
 6. The farce entitled "The Telltale Coo" was written by Haljass, an author 
 who lived in Venebaft. 
 
 7. The wise man is one who realizes the value of industry. 
 
 S. The laboratories here are so arranged that the r6om for psychological 
 work receives the most sunlight. 
 
 9. The work executed in prisons and reformatories is quite frequently very 
 well performed. 
 
 1. Opportunity comes both to the wise man and the fool. 
 
 •_'. The two walls met and the waters were dammed back. 
 
 3. We can say from Christ's teachings that God is Love. 
 
 4. I had dreamt that either rain or snow would fall. 
 
 5. Sin begets sorrow, as any knave can tell from experience. 
 
 6. The fairy thought that either. son or daughter would suffice. 
 
 7. The school system is but one of our many failures. 
 
 8. A short time ago that nation was rich and prosperous. 
 
 9. From his writings we considered him a man who smoked. 
 10. "Waste not, want not," and "Grain in the morning sow." 
 
 As may be noted, the sentences are not only peculiar, but many of them are awk- 
 ward. Many of them come fromold Hindu fables, the awkward translation being desir- 
 able for the experiment in question. 
 
174 
 
 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 Typical Reproductions of Three Subjects Showing Method of Scoring for 
 Digits, Nonsense Syllables, and Words. 
 
 (Tlie Reproductions of the Prose and Poetry of the same three subjects are given on 
 
 pages 115 to 117.) 
 
 Subject — AwiiTA F. 
 
 List 
 studied 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 4 
 
 7 
 1 
 
 Tt 
 2 
 
 6 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 7 
 3 
 8 
 1 
 G 
 
 (Senior, Albany Normal College). 
 
 Digits. 
 
 Reproduction 
 (with Score attached) 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 4 
 
 Total Score 
 for Digits: 28 
 
 Nmisense SyllaMes. 
 
 Reproduction 
 (with Score attached) 
 VUS 
 YIF 
 MAV 
 JEB 
 VOS 
 WEF 
 FEG 
 TIB 
 NUZ 
 LOD* 
 GBR* 
 KUL 
 YAB 
 
 List 
 studied 
 VUS 
 YIF 
 MAV 
 .TEP 
 VOB 
 FEG 
 WOF 
 TIB 
 NUZ 
 BOF 
 JED 
 KIB 
 VEL 
 ZID 
 BOL 
 SEF 
 WAB 
 KUV 
 TEF 
 NAD 
 
 *LOD and GER both receive a score of 2, notwithstanding that they have only one 
 letter correct, 1. e., the vowel. As said on page 93, even though a syllable has two letters 
 correct, but is not in the correct position (either relative or absolute), it receives no 
 score at all. When, however, the absolute position is correct (as it is in the above case), 
 each letter that is correct is scored. Therefore each of the above two syllables receives 
 a score of 2, — 1 because it is in the correct absolute position and 1 for having a correct 
 letter. 
 
 Total Score for 
 Nonsense Syllables : 39 
 

 Appendices 
 
 
 
 Words. 
 
 
 List 
 
 Reproduction 
 
 studied 
 
 (witli Score a 
 
 ttaclied) 
 
 TUB 
 
 TUB 
 
 
 PIN 
 
 PEN 
 
 . , , 
 
 HEN 
 
 CAT 
 
 . . . 
 
 BED 
 
 MAN 
 
 
 LID 
 
 PEN 
 
 . . 
 
 GEM 
 
 RUG 
 
 
 BUD 
 
 5IAT 
 
 
 CAE 
 
 RAG 
 
 , . 
 
 MAT 
 
 WIT 
 
 
 ROD 
 
 RAT 
 
 
 JUG 
 
 BOY 
 
 
 FOG 
 
 RUN 
 
 
 LAD 
 
 
 
 SOD 
 
 
 
 PEN 
 
 
 
 CAT 
 
 Total Score 
 
 KAG 
 
 for Words 
 
 15 
 
 BOX 
 
 
 
 NET 
 
 
 
 QUN 
 
 
 
 175 
 
 Subject — Jennie Mc. (Senior, Albany Normal College). 
 DioHs. 
 
 List 
 studied 
 
 5 
 
 
 4 
 
 7 
 1 
 
 Reproduction 
 (with Score attaciied) 
 
 Total Score 
 for Digits: 26 
 
176 
 
 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 Konseiise SpUaTilcs. 
 
 List 
 studied 
 VUS 
 TIF 
 MAV 
 JBP 
 VOB 
 FEG 
 WOF 
 TIB 
 NUZ 
 BOF 
 JED 
 KIB 
 VEL 
 ZID 
 BOL 
 SEF 
 WAB 
 KUV 
 TEF 
 NAD 
 
 Reproduction 
 (witli Score attached) 
 
 VUS . • . • 
 
 VIF • • • 
 
 JEP • ■ • 
 
 RIL 
 
 BOV • • 
 
 SIR 
 
 WOL • • • 
 
 TID . • • 
 
 Total Score for 
 Nonsense Syllables : 18 
 
 Words. 
 
 List 
 studied 
 TUB 
 PIN 
 HEN 
 BED 
 LID 
 GEM 
 BUD 
 CAR 
 MAT 
 ROD 
 JUG 
 FOG 
 LAD 
 SOD 
 PEN 
 CAT 
 RAG 
 BOX 
 NET 
 GUN 
 
 Reproduction 
 (witli Score attaclied) 
 TUB . • • 
 PILL • • 
 RAG • • 
 CAN 
 
 BAR* 
 DOG 
 
 SUN 
 FLY 
 
 SIAT • • 
 BAG 
 
 BOX • ■ . 
 TOP 
 
 LID • . 
 MAN 
 
 Total Score 
 for Words: IC 
 
 •BAR receives a score of two, altliougli it Is neltlier preceded by tlie correct word nor 
 is it the correct word Itself. The correct word here is CAR, and BAR receives a score of 
 2 as follows : 1 for having two letters correct and 1 because it is in the correct absolute 
 position. 
 
List 
 studied 
 5 
 
 9 
 4 
 
 ITeiJi-oduction 
 (with Score attaclied) 
 
 
 
 
 ■i 
 
 8 • • 
 
 1 • . 
 • • 
 
 2 . . 
 
 9 • . 
 Total Score 
 
 for Digits : 37 
 Nonsense Syllahles. 
 
 Reproduction 
 (with Score attaclied)' 
 
 vus .... 
 
 YIP .... 
 
 TIB .... 
 
 BIF* 
 
 JEB . . • 
 
 NAB 
 
 Total Score for 
 Nonsense Syllables : 17 
 
 List 
 studied 
 VUS 
 YIF 
 MAV 
 JEP 
 VOB 
 FEG 
 WOF 
 TIB 
 NUZ 
 BOF 
 JED 
 KIB 
 VEL 
 ZID 
 BOL 
 SEF 
 YAB 
 KUV 
 TEF 
 NAD 
 
 *BIF can receive no score, it being in neitlier tlie correct relative position nor in the 
 correct absolute position. It has, however, two letters that occur in BOP and for which 
 it may have been mistal^en. JEB (JED) therefore receives three counts, it being in the 
 correct relative position with reference to the preceding syllable HIP (BOP). It will 
 thus be seen that in cases like this what one syllable loses it gives to the other. 
 
 Words. 
 
 Reproduction 
 (with Score attached) 
 TUB • . • 
 HEN • • 
 JUG . . 
 RAT 
 TAN 
 MUG 
 CAT 
 RUG 
 PEN 
 BED 
 GUN 
 
 List 
 studied 
 TUB 
 PIN 
 HEN 
 BED 
 LID 
 GEM 
 BUD 
 CAR 
 MAT 
 ROD 
 JUG 
 FOG 
 LAD 
 SOD 
 PEN 
 CAT 
 RAG 
 BOX 
 NET 
 
 Total Score 
 for Words: 19 
 
178 Memory and the Learning Process 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 The tables given below are practically the same as Tables Nos. 1 and 2 as 
 given in the body of the work (pages 119 and 120), with the exception that the 
 numbers under "Method 3" denote percentage of time lost (i. e., amount for- 
 gotten) instead of percentage of time saved (i. e., amount retained). Due to 
 the addition of extra matter, the column numbers do not correspond. 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 Q 
 
 OOi:OOOI^TJ<C<lt-Ot>'*-«*rHrHT*<COi-ICOCOOt-Nin 
 
 O .q< w CO CO -^ N cc CO CO CO w CO CO -^ CO CO '<* w (N -^ -^ •<# cq CO 
 
 o 
 
 4> a 
 
 K CO ti 
 
 o g. 
 
 "i a — ' ^/— ir V 1 
 
 d _ jr corf Tj* oi t- 050 1- "^ «£> oos CO o as t^co 00O5 ojcd CO ooco 
 
 P «« g CO CO CO CO rH CO N eg (N Oa (M eg CO t-H (M (M iH r-< C<I CO Cg 
 
 H 
 
 03 
 
 '"' S 00 in 
 
 CQ ,^ a 5*^g£ , * V , '' > 
 
 < '^ H ggag, -I ^ '° «? 
 
 ^ jj » M O.S<)M OS Tj; o od 
 
 •^ S SBi^o CO CO CO eg 
 
 Z o 
 
 B fM^ofe 
 
 Q 
 
 H S g'S «S O U5 C0^«> ^ OCO OO O CX300CDCO COOO^ COiO x>o o 
 
 " o a " >0 OO t- CO "-1 to CO O CO US O 00 00 O to pH CO O "-H CO C- rH lOlO 
 
 .SH,^ r-irHCgcO^ COC0C0^COCDir3I>-^COOSt-^lOC0t-00COt- 
 
 ^ W' - f-H T-t 1— t ,-H ,-H 
 
 ^0) ■ 0«0>OU30COCOOOOOOCOtO«50 tooooooo oo 
 ^^5 t- rH IXM in CO CO O 00 us O -^ CO »-l CO US CO 00 00 113 -^ O O "3 
 
 .:^ 
 
 w a . 
 
 '^(MCOOqN(N'-HC^i-tCOlM<MlOOiCOWCquSrH CJ 
 
 ^Mfl^ OaO»Oir3;DOOOi-lOOC<I<NNCQCC>00000'-ii-HOO 
 
 
 0} a> 
 
 rH ?-H 1— I rH W <N <N (N r-^ 
 
 a2 SHWfcSdi-i&;<ii«dWW's'b&H'cQK<jwJBWh4 < 
 
Appendices 179 
 
 * ^ CD 
 
 4J "^ CO 
 
 9) a I ' , , * . 
 
 O O u CC <0 CO CO 
 
 S «^ • ■ CO 
 
 B g. -1" ■* M CO 
 
 S O; i-l(N r-j rt O 03 U3 00 C- CO 00 m 00 O O t-OS «D CO 00 rH N 00 
 
 g -^ lO CO ■^ CO in -^ to CO i-H -^ CO ■* r-l -qi CO 00 IM CO lO i-H ■* U3 CO 
 
 H 
 
 •^ a t> U3 W N Oi CO 00 »H lO CO O CD Oi "^ OQ O t- I-* 00 CO W i-f Tj< '^ 
 
 rt 1— H-H 1-t (M rH T-H C4 1-1 (M i-H W 1— I C<\ 1-i i-H 
 
 M a> a 
 
 o S u 
 
 03 ^ & 
 
 o 9 
 
 H oi O 
 
 «> s 
 
 t- eg (M in iHO t- 00 00 OOO 05 tH I> 00 rH t- O^ C<J O^-^ OOCD CO CO 
 r-l eg in f-H tH T34 CO -^ 1-1 Wf-ICg i-H N iH C<I rH CO iH i-l -^ W 
 
 W 5! -^ 
 
 C3 ^ fl CO 00 T-1 oo 1-' ■<* CD eq CO <N T-H eg OS CO ■<* o c^ t- Oi m o m CO Ti* 
 
 g (jQ cs rH r-t c<i 1— ( eg »-• T-H eg i— ( i— 1 1— I T-H oj th eg 
 
 o 
 Ha"" Ǥ+^ - 
 
 no H 
 
 s« 
 
 S <= M S.5<]b« eg lo eg 
 
 m B SH^o CO eg co 
 
 H EH ft^ofe 
 
 S ^ ^ CO 05 o CO eg CD t- oom o CO t- 00 Oi CD t- -^ ^^ in t- T-H o o -a* 
 
 2 >= Q CO CO S eg CO r^ iH eg lo CO r-i eg CO eg ,-1 Tf -* ^ CO CO C0 1-1 CO 
 
 hi 
 
 O 
 
 rrt a 3 oji^s om o in o o o co o co m 10 o 00 co coooo o coo co co co 00 
 
 "■' t5 iggajS^QOt-oSoSoSt-cgooorHOoooincDOoocoin co 
 
 ~ oR ^ 06 00 1- 00 1- -^ ^H in 1— ' ^ o CO eg o m t- 05 1— ' o in 05 OS Oi OS ?— 1 
 
 l^'^M """^ SSegcgeqeartcgcgcgcgegcgrnegegegeqegcoeg eg 
 
 _^ *jaj- (— iinoOOCOOCOOOinOCDOOO^OOCDOCDOO Tji 
 
 S „ '^S oe5oSoiiHSccooegSi-i'*oo^«Doini-;ocDinTj< co_ 
 
 2 o)i^ rjini>Lnod'*^'egt>'inoin05coo6<oinincoincoeg^in 05 
 
 Q rt i-H 1—1 1^ 1—1 1^ '"I 1^ 1^ 1—1 1^ 
 
 1-1 3. 2 oSoegoo-*ooiooi>oinooinoooooo^(-3 53 
 
 „bS egco'-*'-*uitocoododosrH;-Heg£23;2incDC-oeg2a2|in jh 
 <" (u ^ rH .-( eg eg eg eg eg eg eg CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ^ -^ Til ■* ■^ eo 
 
 I i^^^SHW'w^^wmO^HSMSH^dW^gJH 
 
 s • _■ -a 
 
 > 
 
 « SHHfe'<iJ|II<JfeKWfcH'm<!SaEm-i JOWMi-iOH <! 
 
APPENDIX D AND PLATES WILL BE FOUND IN 
 
 POCKET. 
 
INDEX OF NAMES 
 
 Arnould, 102. 
 
 Bair, G. 
 
 Blgham, 164. 
 
 Blnet, 50, 53, 146, 161. 
 
 Bolton, 146. 
 
 Bourdon, 146. 
 
 Busenius, 51, 77. 
 
 Burt, 146. 
 
 Busemaun, 94, 96, 165. 
 
 Buxton, 29. 
 
 Cattell, 26. 
 
 Cohn, 48. 
 
 Colburn, 29. 
 
 Colegrove. 
 
 Diamandi, 162. 
 
 Ebbinghaus, Herman, 4, 20, 49, 51, .j3, 
 
 76, 107, 146. 
 Ephrussl, 165. 
 Finzi, 30. 
 Frobel, 31. 
 Fuller, 29. 
 FuUerton, 26. 
 Gamble, E., 89, 96, 165. 
 Henderson, E. N., 87, 96, 112, 137. 
 Henmon, V. A. C, 51, 53, 55. 
 Henri, 50. 
 HoUingworth, 27. 
 Jacobs, 146. 
 James, William, 8, 41. 
 Jastrow, 27. 
 Jost, 67, 69, 86, 165. 
 Kant. 
 
 Kirkpatrick, 30. 
 Ladd, 15, 39. 
 Lakeman, 67, 165. 
 Landau, 27. 
 
 Larquier des Bancels, 67, 105. 
 Loisette, 9. 
 
 Lyon, D. O., 10, 20, 52, 62, 71, 110, 146. 
 Meumann, 4, 20, 30, 51, 53, 165. 
 Myers, G., 72. 
 
 Montaigne. 
 
 Montifiori, 31. ' 
 
 Morgan, Lloyd, 8. 
 
 Miinsterberg, 30, 164. 
 
 Muller, G. E., 82, 96, 10.".. 
 
 Miiller, H., 165. 
 
 Myers, 51. 
 
 Neumann, 165. 
 
 Norsworthy, 94, 96. 
 
 Offner, 50, 51. 
 
 Ogden, 87, 96, 165. 
 
 Paneth, 27. 
 
 Parmelee, 168. 
 
 Pentschew, C, 67, 87, 105. 
 
 Pestolozzi, 31. 
 
 Poffenberger, 15. 
 
 Pohlmann, 30, 146. 
 
 Pyle, 07, 68, 91, 96, 137, 105. 
 
 Radosavljevicl;, 51, 53, 88, 165. 
 
 Ribot, 103. 
 
 Ruger, 51, 77. 
 
 Schneider, 07, 165. 
 
 Schumann, F., 82, 96. 
 
 Smedley, 146. 
 
 Snyder, 67, 165. 
 
 Spencer, Herbert, 7, 34. 
 
 Starch, D., 10. 
 
 Stefflns, Lottie, 10, 67, 86, 105. 
 
 Strong, E. K., 68. 
 
 Thorndyke, E. L., 7, 137. 
 
 Toulouse, 25. 
 
 Watt, 73. 
 
 Weber, 27. 
 
 Wells, Lyman, 158. 
 
 Wessley, 146. 
 
 Whitehead, 30, 85, 96. 
 
 AVhitley, 107. 
 
 Winch, 146. 
 
 Witasek, 48, 165. 
 
 Woodworth, R. S., 9. IZ. 109. 
 
 Zola, 25. 
 
SUBJECT INDEX 
 
 Abnormal memories, 102. 
 Accuracy of observation, 9, ICO. 
 Acoustic type, 30. 
 
 Accumulated vs. distributed repeti- 
 tions, 70. 
 Age, relation of, to memory, 149. 
 Agraphia, 14. 
 Aids in learning, 160. 
 Aims in learning, 156. 
 Alexia, 14. 
 Amount of time spent, relation of, to 
 
 economy in learning, 159. 
 Aphasia, 14. 
 .-Vrnould, 161. 
 Association, IT. 
 Attention, 29, 36. 
 Auditory imagery, 26. 
 .\uditory-motor imagery, 20. 
 Auditory type, 26. 
 Capacity, 7. 
 Causes of difference in opinion as to 
 
 one's memory, 18. 
 Children vs. adults (see Age). 
 Classification of ideational types, 21. 
 
 of memories, 26. 
 "Continuous" method, 48. 
 Curve of forgetting, 51. 
 Diamandi, 161. 
 
 Distributed vs. accumulated repeti- 
 tions, 70. 
 Environment, relation of, to memory, 
 
 28, 148. 
 Economical learning, factors to be 
 
 considered in definition of, 155. 
 Education vs. memory, 7. 
 Education, effect of, on memory, 28, 
 
 140. 
 Effect of amount of material, 138. 
 
 of attempted repetitions, 99. 
 
 attempted recitation, 99, 134. 
 
 attention, 29, 36. 
 
 method of ijresentation, 149. 
 
 practice, 8, 10. 
 Emotion, 11, 30. 
 Errors, 1. 
 "External" and "internal" forms of 
 
 mental activity, 10. 
 Experiment, value of data obtained 
 
 by, frequently of doubtful valid- 
 ity, 108. 
 Experimental psychology, practical 
 
 value of, 100. 
 Factors to be considered in economy, 
 
 47, 155. 
 Fatigue, mental, 9. 
 Fidelity of memory, 155. 
 Forgetting, process of a selectice 
 
 one, 100. 
 Goal, 157. 
 
 Gustatory imagery, 25. 
 Habit, 35. 
 Hallucinations, 42. 
 Identification, 39. 
 Illusions, 42. 
 
 Ideas, organization of, 30. 
 Imagery, types of, 19-25. 
 Imagination, 37, 42. 
 Immediate reproduction, 98. 
 Improvability of memory, 8, 10. 
 Individual difderences, 153. 
 Independency, 36. 
 
 Influence of method of presenta- 
 tion, 46. 
 Intelligence vs. memory (see Educa- 
 tion). 
 Intention of learner, 157. 
 Interest, in its relation to memory, 7. 
 Inner voice (internal speech), 24. 
 Language, 23. 
 Law of Ebbinghaus, 51. 
 Laws of association, 39. 
 Laws of retention, 35. 
 "Literal" learning vs. "logical" learn- 
 ing, 18. 
 Lightning calculators, 161. 
 Localization, 14. 
 Logical memory, 18. 
 Material, amount of, 48. 
 
 kind of, 104. 
 Mathematical prodigies, 161. 
 Meaning (sense of). 
 Measurement of amount retained. 
 Mechanical habits, memory for, 6. 
 Memory for abstract ideas, 17, 20. 
 
 concepts, 26. 
 
 colors, 22. 
 
 digits. 
 
 emotions, 26. 
 
 geometrical figures, 22. 
 
 odors, 25. 
 
 persons. 
 
 poetry. 
 
 isrose. 
 
 spatial extents, 22, 40. 
 
 taste, 25. 
 
 time, 27, 40. 
 
 tones. 
 
 weights, 26. 
 
 words, 23. 
 
 neglect of experimental investiga- 
 tion upon by the psychol- 
 ogist, 3-4. 
 
 terminology of. 
 
 unanalyzability of, 4, 14. 
 
 types of, 5, 21. 
 "Method 1," 98, 139. 
 "Method 2." 99, 134. 
 "Method 3," 90, 134. 
 
Memory, 
 
 impossibility of improvement of, 
 8, 10. 
 
 classification. of, 26. 
 
 subdivisions of, 32. 
 
 number of types of, 28. 
 Mifthod of complete memorization, 
 
 78, 89, 04. 
 Method of right associates, 94. 
 Method of retained members, 89. 
 Methods of measuring retention, 44. 
 Methods of scoring digits, 107. 
 Methods of scoring nonsense syllables, 
 
 108. 
 Methods of scoring words, 110. 
 Methods of scoring prose, 112. 
 aiethods of scoring poetry, 116. 
 Methods of learning. 
 Mnemonic devices, 159-102. 
 Mnemo-technician, methods used by, 
 
 IGO. 
 Slodes of presentation, 
 
 motor Imagery, 21. 
 
 motor memory, 21. 
 
 motor type, 30. 
 Natural method of learning. 
 Nonsense syllables, rules for forming 
 
 lists of, 74, 105. 
 Observation. 
 Offactory imagery, 25. 
 Organic memory. 
 
 Optimum distribution of time, 48, CO. 
 "Once-per-day" method, 48. 
 "Once-per-day" method vs. "continu- 
 ous" method, 70. 
 Pathological types. 
 Permanence of retention. 
 "Piece-meal" method of learning, 07, 
 
 86, 165. 
 Practice, 39. 
 Presentation, modes of, 10. 
 
 Profession, effect of, on memory, 28, 
 148. 
 
 Purpose (see Intention). 
 
 Quick vs. slovy learners, 10. 
 
 Race, effect of, on memory, 28. 
 
 Recognition, 39. 
 
 Relation of time taken for learning 
 to amount retained, 20. 
 
 Relation of quickness of learning to 
 retentiveness, 20, 47, and Chapter 
 IV. 
 
 Reliability of memory, 37. 
 
 Repetition, 39. 
 
 Representation, 36. 
 
 Reproduction, 36. 
 
 Retention, 33. 
 
 "Saving" method, 89. 
 
 Scientific method, 10. 
 
 Sex, effect of, on memory, 28, loO. 
 
 Slow learners. 
 
 Stimulus, strength of, 35 ; clearness 
 of, 35. 
 
 Supraliminal associations, 100. 
 
 Synthesis. 
 
 "Systems" of memory training, 0. 
 
 Tactual memory, 25. 
 
 Time, idea of, 30. 
 
 Transfer in improvement in one men- 
 tal process upon another, 15. 
 
 Types of imagery (see Imagery). 
 
 Types of mental activity, 16. 
 
 Types of memory (see Memory). 
 
 Types of learning, 28. 
 
 Understanding, relation of, to mem- 
 ory, 10. 
 
 Verbal memory, 23. 
 
 Verbal imagery, 23. 
 
 Visual imagery, 22. 
 
 Visual memory, 22. 
 
 "Whole" method, 10. 
 
<^^ / /gog — Js^n ?.h fg// 
 
 
 
 iVbrds 
 
 § 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 'is 
 
 I 
 
 PLATE VII. PROSE. The black curve shows the total time spent by t 
 method, at the rate of 5 minutes per 1000 words, for passages of pr 
 15 to 1200 words. Its continuation is shown on Plate Vila. The "co 
 is shown in red. 
 
'^-ttg / /gog ^ Je^nZh /()// 
 
 ~A 
 
 .^ 
 
 8oc 
 
 S/ffo 
 /Oct 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 4 
 
 .^ 
 
 ■^^ 
 ■« 
 
 $ 
 
 SI 
 
 /33 
 
 ni 
 /6s 
 
 ZOl 
 
 '0,%co per day irie^crd 
 
 
 I 
 
 s-a 
 
 90 
 
 /no 
 
 /Z6 
 
 /So 
 /p 
 Zoo 
 ZSO 
 3go 
 
 400 
 
 Soo 
 eoc 
 700 
 foo 
 Soo 
 /wo 
 /zoo 
 
 ., '//o 
 
 // ... 
 '/z . 
 / 
 
 z'k 
 
 3 
 S 
 
 ^A 
 
 St 
 
 9 
 
 /4 
 
 /7 
 
 Zl 
 
 Z4- 
 3b 
 6S 
 
 S>/ 
 
 /3(9 
 //7 
 /^S 
 /86 
 
 Vm >. / ^ 
 
 ( '//o X / . 
 
 ^/f X / ' 
 
 (Ym^ x3 ' 
 
 (7/ik^ X S - 
 
 ('/S K7 ^ 
 
 if^ X ^ = 
 
 (■3//0 AC/ = 
 
 ( ^^ X /-f = 
 (^S\//-- 
 (7^2^ A-a = 
 (7^ X //^ = 
 ( ff yZd = 
 
 ( 7^ ^^^ ' 
 (77^ y zs ' 
 ( / y Z-^ ■ 
 ( /p. y Z77 . 
 ( r/z X M 
 ( Z y. Zf ' 
 ( Zi X Z6 = 
 ( 3 y IS' - 
 i 3/x X 2^ 
 { -4^ y 3^ - 
 
 i^'/z y Z^ - 
 
 { S y 33 = 
 ( t X 3/ 
 
 .'A 
 = 7f^ 
 
 ^ /z^ 
 
 - /' 
 
 - z^' 
 ^-^^) 
 
 3, 
 3-1 
 
 9} 
 /^) 
 
 - zz.) 
 
 - z^> 
 
 j4 
 
 36) 
 Jh) 
 
 S--4-,l 
 
 9/] 
 
 /36\) 
 
 ///.' 
 //oS) 
 
 = /c96) 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 <5s 
 
 I 
 
 <N5 
 
 ?OSE. The black curve shows the total time spent by the "once-per-day" 
 he rate of 5 mirmtes per 1000 words, for passages of prose ranging from 
 ords. Its continuation is shown on Plate Vila. The "continuous" method 
 red. 
 
APPENDIX U. COJIPLETE TABLE FOli PROSE— IW WORDS— ("THE DIAMOND BltlGUT DAWN.") SUBJECTS: 24 NORMAL COLLEGE SENIORS— FEMALES. THIS TABLE GIVES AN 
 
 4 5 
 
 — PRIMARY DATA.- 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 12 13 14 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 
 Subject. 
 
 Ed. W.... 
 F. Sc 
 
 A. H 
 
 E. S 
 
 El. W.. . . 
 C. C 
 
 B. W 
 
 F. W 
 
 F. K 
 
 G. li 
 
 H. B 
 
 J. M 
 
 F. St 
 
 II. M 
 
 A. N 
 
 B. O 
 
 A. T 
 
 M. K 
 
 S. T 
 
 U. T 
 
 L. J 
 
 E. R 
 
 J. Mc 
 
 E. T 
 
 Aver. . 
 A. D.. 
 
 S. D.. . 
 
 Time of 
 
 First 
 Learning. 
 
 Min. 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 13 
 
 13 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 17 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 25 
 
 26 
 
 28 
 
 29 
 
 31 
 
 34 
 
 45 
 
 Sec. 
 25 
 
 45 
 20 
 
 15 
 
 05 
 
 15 
 40 
 30 
 15 
 15 
 15 
 10 
 05 
 
 50 
 25 
 35 
 10 
 
 500 25 
 
 20 58 
 
 Time 
 
 After 
 
 Ten Weeks. 
 
 Min. Sec. 
 
 1 
 4 
 4 
 4 
 4 
 (i 
 4 
 
 11 
 5 
 8 
 6 
 
 10 
 9 
 9 
 5 
 7 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 17 
 6 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 106 
 6 
 
 20 
 10 
 
 15 
 40 
 
 30 
 15 
 
 25 
 30 
 30 
 
 45 
 
 45 
 
 57 
 
 -METHOD THREE. 
 
 METHOD ONE. 
 
 Absolute 
 Time 
 Saved. 
 
 Min. Sec. 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 12 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 10 
 10 
 
 9 
 11 
 
 5 
 11 
 
 8 
 12 
 
 9 
 13 
 13 
 18 
 17 
 
 13 
 12 
 24 
 27 
 33 
 
 323 
 IS 
 
 40 
 15 
 
 35 
 45 
 05 
 20 
 15 
 35 
 45 
 35 
 45 
 10 
 30 
 15 
 45 
 40 
 45 
 05 
 
 50 
 50 
 40 
 
 15 
 
 2S 
 
 Percentage of 
 
 Time Lost or 
 
 Amount Forgotten. 
 
 Rank. 
 
 13 
 
 20 
 
 08 
 
 34 
 
 29 
 
 30 
 
 31" 
 
 39 
 
 28 
 
 66 
 
 32 
 
 49 
 
 35' 
 
 51 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 23 
 
 29 
 
 15" 
 
 53 
 
 57 
 
 21 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 789 
 SS 
 
 Score. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 1 
 
 97 
 
 
 17 
 
 44 
 
 22.3 
 
 2 
 
 93 
 
 
 20 
 
 33 
 
 
 6 
 
 69 
 
 
 '-31.5 8 
 
 62 
 
 
 10 
 
 52^ 
 
 
 15 
 
 45 
 
 40.8 
 
 19 
 
 39 
 
 
 16 
 
 45 
 
 
 3 
 
 84 
 
 
 11 
 
 51 
 
 
 21 
 
 32 "1 
 
 
 23 
 
 20 
 
 30.3 1 
 
 7 
 
 69 
 
 
 5 
 
 76 
 
 
 0'> 
 
 27 
 
 
 ' 34.1 12 
 
 50 
 
 
 18 
 
 421 
 
 
 14 
 
 46 
 
 32.0 
 
 9 
 
 56 
 
 
 4 
 
 77 
 
 
 13 
 
 49 
 
 
 24 
 
 14 
 
 66.31 
 
 !-59.4 
 
 52.6 
 
 45.6 l 
 
 47.3 
 
 46.4 
 
 106 
 
 5S 
 
 METHOD TWO. 
 
 Rank. 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 23 
 
 8 
 13 
 10 
 16 
 
 4 
 15 
 
 7 
 12 
 18 
 22 
 11 
 
 9 
 24 
 14 
 
 3 
 19 
 21 
 
 6 
 20 
 17 
 
 Score. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 981 
 
 89 
 
 99 
 
 50 
 
 85 
 
 73 
 
 78 
 
 68 
 
 91 
 
 72 
 
 87 
 
 75 
 
 64 
 
 52 
 
 76 
 
 SO 
 
 37 
 
 73 
 
 95 
 
 60 
 
 54 
 
 89 
 
 55 
 
 67 
 
 82.3 
 
 I .'8.5 J 
 
 80.4 
 
 63.' 
 
 70.0 
 
 66.8 
 
 1767 
 73.6 
 
 147 
 
 73.1 
 
 SECOND LE.VRNING. 
 
 Time of First Learning. 
 
 Time. 
 
 Min. (1 
 
 10.00 
 10.40 
 13.00 
 13.00 
 13.75 
 14.33 
 15.00 
 15.25 
 16.08 
 17.00 
 17.00 
 17.25 
 18.66 
 19.50 
 22.25 
 23.25 
 24.25 
 25.16 
 26.08 
 28.00 
 29.80 
 31.40 
 34.56 
 45.16 
 
 500.13 
 
 20.8.'f 
 
 6.79 
 
 —10.84 
 —10.44 
 
 — 7.84 
 
 — 7.84 
 
 — 7.09 
 
 — 6.51 
 
 — 5.84 
 
 — 5.59 
 
 — 4.76 
 
 — 3.84 
 
 — 3.84 
 
 — 3.59 
 
 — 2.18 
 
 — 1.34 
 1.41 
 2.41 
 3.41 
 4.32 
 5.24 
 7.16 
 8.96 
 
 10.56 
 13.72 
 24.32 
 
 163.05 
 
 6.79 
 
 117..50 
 
 108.99 
 
 61.46 
 
 61.46 
 
 50.26 
 
 42.38 
 
 .34.10 
 
 31.24 
 
 22.65 
 
 14.74 
 
 14.74 
 
 12.88 
 
 4.75 
 
 1.79 
 
 1.98 
 
 5.80 
 
 11.62 
 
 18.66 
 
 27.45 
 
 51.26 
 
 80.28 
 
 111.51 
 
 188.23 
 
 591.46 
 
 1667.19 
 69./,G 
 
 8.34 
 
 Time of Second Learning. 
 
 Rank. Time. 
 
 2 1.33 
 
 3 2.16 
 1 l.OO 
 7 4.40 
 
 4.00 
 4.25 
 4.6(i 
 6.00 
 4.50 
 
 11.25 
 5.40 
 8.50 
 6.50 
 
 10.00 
 9.00 
 9.50 
 5.56 
 7.40 
 4.00 
 
 15.W 
 
 17.00 
 6.56 
 6.88 
 
 11.75 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 12 
 
 8 
 
 21 
 
 10 
 
 17 
 
 13 
 
 20 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 11 
 
 16 
 
 5 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 166.60 
 H.9.i 
 3.08 
 
 —5.61 
 -^.80 
 —5.94 
 — 2.,54 
 —2.94 
 —2.69 
 —2.28 
 
 — .94 
 —2.44 
 
 4.31 
 
 —1.54 
 
 1.56 
 
 — .44 
 3.06 
 2.06 
 2.56 
 
 —1.38 
 
 .46 
 
 —2.94 
 
 8.06 
 
 10.06 
 
 — .38 
 .06 
 
 4.81 
 
 73.86 
 3.0S 
 
 31.47 
 
 23.04 
 
 35.28 
 
 5.24 
 
 8.64 
 
 7.1'5 
 
 5.20 
 
 .88 
 
 5.95 
 
 18.57 
 
 2.37 
 
 2.43 
 
 .19 
 
 9.36 
 
 4.24 
 
 6.55 
 
 1.90 
 
 .21 
 
 8.64 
 
 64.96 
 
 101.20 
 
 .14 
 
 .00 
 
 23.14 
 
 366.77 
 
 15.28 
 
 3.91 
 
 23 24 25 26 2X 28 29 30 31 
 
 -COMPUTATION OF INDICES OF COBREL.\TION (PEARSON METHOD). 
 
 METHOD THREE), METHOD ONE. 
 
 60.81 
 .10.11 
 46.57 
 10.91 
 20.84 
 17.51 
 13.31 
 5.25 
 11.61 
 
 — 16.55 
 
 5.92 
 
 — 5.60 
 
 .95 
 
 — 4.10 
 2.90 
 6.17 
 
 — 4.70 
 1.99 
 
 — 1.5.40 
 57.71 
 90.13 
 
 — 4.01 
 
 — .82 
 116.98 
 
 +477.49 
 
 I'ercentage of Time Lost. 
 
 Rank. 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 15 
 10 
 12 
 13 
 17 
 
 9 
 24 
 14 
 20 
 16 
 21 
 18 
 19 
 
 7 
 11 
 
 3 
 22 
 23 
 
 6 
 
 Per 
 
 Cent. 
 
 13 
 20 
 08 
 34 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 39 
 28 
 66 
 32 
 49 
 35 
 51 
 4i) 
 40 
 23 
 29 
 15 
 53 
 57 
 21 
 20 
 26 
 
 -.21 
 .14 
 .26 
 .00 
 .05 
 .04 
 .113 
 .< )5 
 .116 
 .32 
 .02 
 .15 
 .01 
 .17 
 .ik; 
 
 .06 
 
 .11 
 
 .05 
 .19 
 .19 
 .2.3 
 .13 
 .14 
 .08 
 
 '.89 
 
 .0169 
 .0196 
 .0676 
 .0000 
 .0025 
 .0016 
 .0009 
 .<X)25 
 .0036 
 .1024 
 .0004 
 .0225 
 .0001 
 .0289 
 .0036 
 .0036 
 .1121 
 .0025 
 .0361 
 .0361 
 .0529 
 .0169 
 .0196 
 .0064 
 
 12 
 
 !.75 .5-593 
 .12 .0233 
 
 .154 
 
 dxd 
 
 2.2764 
 1.4616 
 2.0384 
 .0000 
 .3.545 
 .2(i04 
 .1752 
 
 — .2945 
 .2856 
 
 —1.2288 
 .0768 
 
 — .5385 
 
 — .0218 
 
 — .2278 
 .0846 
 .1446 
 
 — .3751 
 
 — .2160 
 
 — .9956 
 1.3604 
 2.0548 
 
 —1.3728 
 —1.9208 
 —1.9456 
 
 +1.4360 
 
 Rank. 
 1 
 
 20 
 6 
 8 
 10 
 15 
 10 
 16 
 
 11 
 
 21 
 
 12 
 18 
 14 
 9 
 4 
 13 
 24 
 
 Score. 
 
 97 
 44 
 93 
 33 
 
 69 
 62 
 52 
 45 
 39 
 45 
 84 
 51 
 32 
 20 
 69 
 76 
 27 
 50 
 42 
 40 
 56 
 77 
 49 
 14 
 
 53 
 17 
 
 44 
 
 — 9 
 40 
 
 —20 
 
 16 
 
 9 
 
 — 1 
 
 — 8 
 —14 
 
 — 8 
 31 
 
 2 
 
 —21 
 
 — •»3 
 
 16 
 
 23 
 
 —26 
 
 — 3 
 —11 
 
 24 
 — 4 
 —39 
 
 412 
 17 
 
 d= 
 
 1056 
 
 81 
 
 1600 
 
 400 
 
 256 
 
 81 
 
 1 
 
 64 
 
 196 
 
 64 
 
 961 
 
 4 
 
 441 
 
 1089 
 
 256 
 
 529 
 
 676 
 
 9 
 
 121 
 
 49 
 
 9 
 
 576 
 
 16 
 
 1521 
 
 10056 
 419 
 
 dxd 
 
 20.49 
 
THIS TABLE GIVES AN APPROXIMATK IDEA oK THE LAIiGE 
 
 9 30 31 32 S3 ^4 35 atJ 37 
 
 ^SON METHOD). - 
 
 METHOD ONE. 
 
 METHOD TWO. 
 
 AMorXT (IF El(;r-I!IX(; and irATlIEMATICAI. CAECULATIO.X NECESSAEr FOR THE VARIOUS "METHODS.' 
 
 38 
 
 39 40 4] 
 
 43 44 
 
 45 
 
 Time oJ First Learning 
 
 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 
 
 53 
 
 HANK ACCORDING TO 
 
 .\mount Retained (Method Tliree). 
 
 54 
 
 56 
 
 58 59 
 
 60 
 
 61 
 
 62 63 64 
 
 65 
 
 67 OS 
 
 69 
 
 RANK ACCORDING TO 
 
 Score (Method One), Per Cent. 
 
 Store (Method Two), Per Cent. 
 
 did 
 
 -- Ui~ 
 
 U. Sciire. 
 
 Uiiiik. 
 
 
 12 
 
 117 
 
 44 
 
 1056 
 
 — 476.90 
 
 .-> 
 
 98 
 
 24.4 
 
 595.36 
 
 44 
 
 — 9 
 
 SI 
 
 93.96 
 
 .- 
 
 SO 
 
 15.4 
 
 237.16 
 
 !^3 
 
 4^) 
 
 1600 
 
 — 313.60 
 
 1 
 
 99 
 
 25.4 
 
 645.16 
 
 33 
 
 —20 
 
 400 
 
 156.80 
 
 23 
 
 50 
 
 —23.6 
 
 556.96 
 
 69 
 
 16 
 
 256 
 
 — 113.44 
 
 8 
 
 85 
 
 11.4 
 
 129.96 
 
 62 
 
 !l 
 
 81 
 
 — 5S..59 
 
 13 
 
 73 
 
 (; 
 
 ..36 
 
 52 
 
 — 1 
 
 1 
 
 5.84 
 
 !(• 
 
 78 
 
 4.4 
 
 19.36 
 
 4.. 
 
 — 8 
 
 64 
 
 4-1.72 
 
 16 
 
 68 
 
 — 5.(; 
 
 31.3(i 
 
 39 
 
 - -14 
 
 196 
 
 66.(J4 
 
 4 
 
 91 
 
 17.4 
 
 302.76 
 
 4!) 
 
 — 8 
 
 64 
 
 30.72 
 
 15 
 
 72 
 
 — I.e. 
 
 2.56 
 
 84 
 
 31 
 
 961 
 
 — 119.04 
 
 
 87 
 
 1.3.4 
 
 179.56 
 
 51 
 
 o 
 
 4 
 
 7. IS 
 
 12 
 
 75 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.96 
 
 32 
 
 --21 
 
 441 
 
 45.78 
 
 IS 
 
 64 
 
 — 9.6 
 
 92.16 
 
 20 
 
 —33 
 
 1089 
 
 44.22 
 
 • >•► 
 
 52 
 
 —21.6 
 
 460.56 
 
 69 
 
 1(! 
 
 256 
 
 22.56 
 
 11 
 
 76 
 
 .6 
 
 
 76 
 
 23 
 
 529 
 
 55.43 
 
 <» 
 
 SO 
 
 6.4 
 
 39.96 
 
 27 
 
 —26 
 
 (576 
 
 — 88.66 
 
 24 
 
 
 —36.6 
 
 1339.56 
 
 50 
 
 
 9 
 
 — 12.96 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 42 
 
 — 11 
 
 121 
 
 — 57.64 
 
 
 95 
 
 21.4 
 
 457.96 
 
 46 
 
 — 7 
 
 49 
 
 — .50.12 
 
 19 
 
 tJO 
 
 —13.6 
 
 184.96 
 
 56 
 
 o 
 
 !t 
 
 26.88 
 
 21 
 
 54 
 
 —19.6 
 
 384.16 
 
 77 
 
 24 
 
 576 
 
 253.44 
 
 6 
 
 89 
 
 15.4 
 
 227.1(! 
 
 49 
 
 — 4 
 
 16 
 
 — 54.88 
 
 20 
 
 55 
 
 —18.6 
 
 345.96 
 
 14 
 
 —39 
 412 
 
 1521 
 
 — 948.4.8 
 
 17 
 
 67 
 1767 
 
 — 6.6 
 315.2 
 
 43.56 
 
 !72 
 
 10056 
 
 —1440.20 
 
 6284.52 
 
 i>S 
 
 n 
 
 j,iy 
 
 
 
 T3M 
 
 ,?.).i 
 
 ici.sr, 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 
 
 24.1 
 
 
 
 — 264.49 
 
 — I(i0.77 
 
 — 199.13 
 185.02 
 
 — 80.82 
 
 3.!X» 
 
 — 25.69 
 :',1.30 
 
 — S2.S2 
 
 6.14 
 
 — 51.45 
 
 — 5.02 
 20.03 
 28.94 
 
 .84 
 15.42 
 
 — 124.80 
 
 — 2..59 
 112.13 
 
 — 97.37 
 
 — 175.61 
 1(52.62 
 
 — 255.19 
 
 — 160.51 
 
 —1119.02 
 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 
 8 
 4 
 9 
 1 
 16 
 
 12 
 13 
 
 3 
 15 
 10 
 14 
 11 
 17 
 19 
 
 6 
 20 
 18 
 22 
 21 
 23 
 24 
 
 15 
 9 
 
 2l» 
 1 
 
 11 
 
 10 
 4 
 8 
 6 
 
 16 
 12 
 13 
 17 
 19 
 5 
 18 
 14 
 21 
 22 
 24 
 
 11 
 7 
 
 10 
 •'> 
 
 19 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 23 
 
 (5 
 
 17 
 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 13 
 
 12 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 21 
 
 14 
 
 18 
 
 20 
 
 22 
 
 24 
 
 5 
 15 
 
 1 
 10 
 
 o 
 
 16 
 
 7 
 
 19 
 
 21 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 18 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 8 
 
 17 
 
 14 
 
 9 
 
 23 
 
 22 
 
 20 
 
 24 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 19 
 
 4 
 12 
 16 
 
 8 
 
 O 
 
 20 
 22 
 11 
 9 
 7 
 23 
 17 
 13 
 15 
 24 
 14 
 21 
 IS 
 
 2.8 
 
 10.6 
 
 5.2 
 
 9.8 
 
 2.4 
 
 14.2 
 
 7.4 
 
 10.2 
 
 14.0 
 
 10.2 
 
 4.8 
 
 13.6 
 
 13.6 
 
 14.0 
 
 11.2 
 
 12.6 
 
 14.4 
 
 11.6 
 
 17.0 
 
 14.4 
 
 21.4 
 
 20.0 
 
 22.4 
 
 22.0 
 
 J.:2.< 
 4.3 
 
 1.0 
 3.6 
 2.6 
 4.2 
 1.3 
 4.6 
 1.7 
 4.2 
 4.4 
 5.1 
 3.0 
 3.9 
 4.3 
 2.0 
 3.0 
 3.1 
 6.3 
 6.9 
 2.8 
 2.5 
 1.7 
 2.4 
 1.3 
 1.8 
 
 3.2 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 2.3 
 17 
 
 7 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 11 
 
 24 
 20 
 22 
 12 
 21 
 16 
 
 5 
 18 
 
 4 
 
 (i 
 19 
 
 9 
 
 14 
 
 13 
 
 G 
 15 
 20 
 19 
 
 7 
 13 
 
 9 
 14 
 10 
 o.> 
 
 24 
 16 
 17 
 12 
 
 5 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 21 
 4 
 3 
 1 
 
 18 
 8 
 
 
 15 
 
 4 
 
 24 
 
 18 
 
 8 
 1 
 6 
 •> 
 
 3 
 21 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 10 
 
 5 
 13 
 14 
 12 
 19 
 20 
 17 
 11 
 16 
 
 8 2 
 9 
 
 
 22 
 14 
 
 7 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 17 
 24 
 21 
 15 
 23 
 IS 
 16 
 19 
 
 5 
 10 
 20 
 
 1 
 
 O 
 
 13 
 11 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 15 
 10 
 12 
 13 
 17 
 
 9 
 24 
 14 
 20 
 16 
 21 
 18 
 19 
 
 7 
 11 
 
 18 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 20 
 
 24 
 
 22 
 
 14 
 
 9 
 
 21 
 
 17 
 
 15 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 16 
 13 
 11 
 10 
 19 
 
 20.49 
 
 16.18 
 
 10.0 
 10.6 
 
 5.4 
 18.2 
 14.(> 
 11.2 
 11.0 
 
 7.6 
 12.2 
 18^2 
 15.8 
 18.6 
 ll.S 
 15.8 
 14.8 
 12.2 
 13.8 
 
 8.8 
 
 9.8 
 16.2 
 12.0 
 
 7.6 
 11.5 
 12.4 
 
 12.5 
 2.7 
 
 5.2 
 5.3 
 5.4 
 5.7 
 2.7 
 .5.1 
 2.4 
 4.7 
 6.9 
 6.9 
 5.8 
 2.9 
 2.7 
 7.0 
 3.4 
 5.7 
 5.4 
 4.1 
 7.2 
 4.9 
 8.0 
 5.1 
 5.3 
 4.0 
 
 oM 
 
 13 
 1 
 
 22 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 19 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 4 
 
 14 
 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 21 
 
 18 
 
 — O 
 
 15 
 12 
 3 
 17 
 24 
 
 19 
 14 
 20 
 
 4 
 17 
 11 
 22 
 
 9 
 18 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 10 
 
 8 
 16 
 15 
 23 
 
 1 
 21 
 
 7 
 12 
 
 5 
 13 
 24 
 
 'A 
 
 1 
 11 
 
 6 
 o."> 
 
 8 
 19 
 13 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 4 
 17 
 18 
 14 
 
 9 
 12 
 21 
 16 
 20 
 23 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 15 
 24 
 
 11 
 
 1 
 
 16 
 
 O 
 
 4 
 
 12 
 
 15 
 
 17 
 
 21 
 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 19 
 
 14 
 
 24 
 
 13 
 
 IS 
 
 20 
 6 
 8 
 10 
 15 
 19 
 16 
 
 O 
 
 11 
 21 
 23 
 
 7 
 
 ■5 
 
 22 
 
 12 
 
 IS 
 
 14 
 
 9 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 24 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 23 
 
 15 
 
 13 
 
 18 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 19 
 
 O 
 
 16 
 
 10 
 o 
 
 17 
 21 
 24 
 12 
 11 
 4 
 14 
 20 
 
 13.4 
 
 48 
 20.2 
 
 7.2 
 12.4 
 12.S 
 12.4 
 12.2 
 15.4 
 
 6.6 
 12.0 
 15.8 
 11.2 
 10.2 
 
 8.2 
 20.4 
 12.S 
 21.4 
 13.S 
 12.4 
 
 40 
 14.6 
 22.8 
 
 12.5 
 3.8 
 
 3.9 
 41 
 1.5 
 3.4 
 4.9 
 2.1 
 5.9 
 4.6 
 49 
 5.3 
 3.6 
 4.8 
 5.4 
 1.9 
 42 
 1.9 
 5.0 
 2.0 
 .3.7 
 42 
 1.0 
 1.5 
 14 
 
 1 
 {\ 
 
 23 
 
 7 
 
 10 
 
 V, 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 14 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 19 
 
 12 
 
 15 
 
 5 
 
 24 
 
 17 
 
 21 
 
 11 
 
 IS 
 
 3 
 
 20 
 
 P 
 
 S 
 
 IS 
 
 9 
 
 19 
 20 
 16 
 21 
 10 
 13 
 15 
 12 
 14 
 
 23 
 
 1 
 
 11 
 24 
 
 A 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 18 
 15 
 
 1 
 20 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 17 
 12 
 13 
 
 9 
 16 
 19 
 
 7 
 22 
 24 
 21 
 
 3 
 11 
 14 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 1 
 
 15 
 4 
 
 14 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 18 
 21 
 
 6 
 11 
 20 
 23 
 12 
 16 
 
 5 
 19 
 24 
 
 8 
 13 
 10 
 16 
 
 4 
 15 
 
 7 
 12 
 IS 
 2'^ 
 11 
 
 9 
 24 
 14 
 
 3 
 19 
 21 
 
 6 
 20 
 17 
 
 13 
 12 
 21 
 10 
 
 6 
 15 
 
 4 
 17 
 24 
 
 9 
 14 
 
 20 
 18 
 23 
 
 8 
 11 
 
 5 
 19 
 16 
 
 3.2 
 10.6 
 
 42 
 17.0 
 
 7.0 
 144 
 13.4 
 12.8 
 13.6 
 13.8 
 
 7.4 
 13.4 
 15.6 
 14.8 
 1.3.8 
 
 7.4 
 19.4 
 13.0 
 17.6 
 15.5 
 15.2 
 4.0 
 16.0 
 19.0 
 
 12.5 
 3.7 
 
 5JD.* 
 
 1.9 
 3.9 
 3.4 
 6.8 
 2.8 
 4.4 
 .5.9 
 5.8 
 6.9 
 3.9 
 2.1 
 2.8 
 43 
 4.1 
 3.0 
 41 
 3.5 
 5.2 
 6.1 
 7.1 
 49 
 1.6 
 4i) 
 4.0 
 
 i.S 
 
-•^^v 
 
 ^'ttg 4^. 1909. — May Z igiz 
 
 73 
 
 59 
 
 40 
 
 38 
 
 Z3 
 
 /s 
 
 
 ij\ 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 <3 
 
 PLATE VIII. PROSE. "Once-per-day" method. The "curve" shows the numher of 
 readings necessary lo memorize iinssages of prose ranging from 1.5 to 15,000 words. 
 
"lug 4-. I90g, — May Z . fgfz 
 
 
 /s 
 
 ZO 
 
 zs 
 
 JO 
 JS 
 
 SO 
 bo 
 70 
 
 80 
 
 /CO 
 
 /zs 
 /so 
 
 /p 
 
 zoo 
 zsv 
 
 3co 
 
 ■^6 
 SW 
 
 ^00 
 SVo 
 
 /OOO 
 
 /too 
 /■soo 
 
 3 coo 
 
 -9-000 
 SOOO 
 
 ycoo 
 /oooo 
 
 /svao 
 
 / 
 
 J 
 
 s 
 
 7 
 <? 
 o 
 
 // 
 /o 
 /J 
 
 2d 
 2Z 
 CS 
 ■Z-/ 
 
 zy 
 z^^ 
 z.r 
 26 
 z.f 
 
 Z(p 
 
 J4 
 
 Z6 
 
 J3 
 3/ 
 
 dS 
 SI 
 JS- 
 
 SO 
 
 7^ 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 tcaain^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 J 
 
 icciciinojj' 
 
 s 
 
 
 7 
 
 „ 
 
 c? 
 
 
 0/ 
 
 / 
 
 " 
 
 // 
 
 
 'O 
 
 
 // 
 
 
 15 
 
 , 
 
 •-Z 
 
 
 ZJ~ 
 
 
 Zf 
 
 ,_ 
 
 -7 
 
 • 
 
 i/ 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 Zf 
 
 
 z/^ 
 
 
 ■3^ 
 
 
 zC 
 
 
 33 
 
 ,, 
 
 3r 
 
 
 4^ 
 
 
 3S 
 
 
 sz 
 
 
 38 
 
 ,, 
 
 ty 
 
 
 Sf 
 <r/y 
 
 •■ 
 
 P 
 
 ,/ 
 
 
 PLATE Viri. PROSE. "Ouce-per-day" method. The "curve" shows the number of 
 readings necessary to memorize passages of prose ranging from 15 to 15,000 words. 
 
Z065 
 
 /6zs 
 
 /SOO Words tboic 3 00 mtnutc^ (7'/t % 40 = 3oo) 
 
 350 , (/O y 5S ^ JSO) 
 
 yFo -. (/J X sz ^ 78o) 
 
 yho ., {zo y 3S = 7^o) 
 
 „ .'(pZ5 .. { Z5 > hS = ihlS) 
 
 , ZOSS : (36 - S9 ^Zobs) 
 
 4Z00 - ( OO X 5^ - -4-ZOo) 
 
 .. 54-7S .. [7^ ^ 73 = S-nS) 
 
 1000 
 3000 
 4000 
 SVOO 
 
 7000 
 
 JOOOO 
 /5000 
 
 
 
 Words 
 
 63 
 
 
 «5 
 
 
 PLATE Vila. PROSE. The shadetl portion in the lower left corner is a miniature of 
 Table VII and contains "curves" both for the contiiuioiix and the oiicc-pcr-ilaij 
 methods. The remainder of the plate shows the "once-per-day" method (in black) 
 continued up to 15,000 words. 
 
^-ug / if)og 
 
 Aiaij z f^fi 
 
 6i-7S 
 
 4-zoo 
 
 zo65 
 
 /6zs 
 
 /500 Words took S 00 Mmutcs ( f/z % 4o = 3oo) 
 
 lOOO . „ 550 , (/O y 55 ^ JSo) 
 
 3000 ., , 780 : ( /J y 5Z ^ JSO) 
 
c-^Mj / /gog — c-^tc</ fo /g'o 
 
 oi 
 
 Cc^rttc n t ni-u^ TrtetAad. 
 
 ^ 
 
 lic^i-ts 
 
 CCT^ 
 
 .'n 
 
 iriv^. 
 
 /I 
 
 
 . 
 
 '/■h 
 
 ' 
 
 //- 
 
 • 
 
 . 
 
 Z 
 
 
 Z1- 
 
 . 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 JZ 
 
 • 
 
 . 
 
 V 
 
 
 4S 
 
 ■■ 
 
 - 
 
 /f 
 
 
 72 
 
 • 
 
 ■' 
 
 M 
 
 
 '/>'/' 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 Ji 
 
 
 ZfC 
 
 , 
 
 ., 
 
 /5^ 
 
 
 D/^/ts 
 
 'Once fi^y c da< / " /?UtAcd 
 
 F 
 
 (tcgod 
 
 tbric 
 
 /fe 
 
 /Z 
 
 ■ 
 
 ; 
 
 'A- 
 
 /(■ 
 
 . 
 
 - 
 
 /^ 
 
 Z-1- 
 
 „ 
 
 ., 
 
 ■f 
 
 3Z 
 
 , 
 
 ,. 
 
 7 
 
 ^f 
 
 
 .. 
 
 9 
 
 "I 
 
 ■. 
 
 . 
 
 Zl 
 
 ^04 
 
 ■■ 
 
 - 
 
 35 
 
 ZOO 
 
 „ 
 
 . 
 
 f'S 
 
 -fOO 
 
 ^ 
 
 „ 
 
 ZJJ 
 
 Trutv^ 
 
 ri-ATE V. DIGITS. The black curve shows the total time spent by the "nnce-per-ilay" method, al the rale of two digils rer second, for sets of diKits ranging from S t. 
 liHi. The "continuous" method is shown in red. 
 
70 
 
 I 
 
 iJj<xff.--1^^ /0O() -,^'^uff,/o. /g/o. 
 
 51 
 
 41 
 
 cT 
 
 cUr/cU' 
 
 trcA 
 
 / 
 
 e/rif/ 
 
 i e / 
 
 readi'-w/ 
 
 /? 
 
 
 ,. 
 
 s 
 
 ,' 
 
 6 
 
 
 /6 
 
 ,■ 
 
 „ 
 
 // 
 
 „ 
 
 /4 
 
 ; 
 
 z^ 
 
 
 „ 
 
 /8 
 
 „ 
 
 /S 
 
 , 
 
 3Z 
 
 „ 
 
 „ 
 
 Zd 
 
 „ 
 
 ; li 
 
 ; 
 
 ■4S 
 
 n 
 
 „ 
 
 14 
 
 „ 
 
 , 14 
 
 ■' 
 
 7Z 
 
 'f 
 
 ■r 
 
 35 
 
 V 
 
 „ 3d 
 
 
 /Of 
 
 „ 
 
 
 -^/ 
 
 
 .. 4/ 
 
 
 zoo 
 
 „ 
 
 ., 
 
 ,V 
 
 
 .. Sf 
 
 ., 
 
 400 
 
 „ 
 
 
 70 
 
 ., 
 
 ■ 70 
 
 
 D/^/Zs-^ e It lb Z4 3z 'fii 7-z 
 
 :c>o 
 
 400 
 
 PLATE VI. DIGITS. "Once-per-day" method. The curve shows the number of readings necessary to memorize sets of digits ranging from 8 to 400. 
 
Tn^y 4-. 1908 - June Z8 /pop. 
 
 \ Zj Z -^ 5 <6 T i? 
 
 PLATE IV. POETRY. "Once-per-day" method. The curve shows the number of read- 
 ings necessary to memorize passages of poetry ranging from 1 to 100 stanzas in 
 lengtli. The stanzas average 25 words each, excepting those shown in red, which 
 average 35 words each. 
 

 y^^y 4^. /908 - June Z8, /goq 
 
 / 
 
 St<aTix.a 
 
 tc/aiL 
 
 / 
 
 Zby 
 
 c,e. i /S€^d//i^ 
 
 z 
 
 
 n 
 
 * 
 
 J 
 
 
 . 3 
 
 '/ 
 
 d 
 
 
 „ 
 
 */ 
 
 / 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 m 
 
 ♦ 
 
 7 
 
 T 
 
 ' 7 
 
 " 
 
 s 
 
 
 ft 
 
 // 
 
 8 
 
 /, 
 
 s 
 
 
 (b 
 
 
 „ 
 
 „ 
 
 /z 
 
 f/ 
 
 .. a 
 
 " 
 
 7 
 
 
 tf 
 
 
 !\fi 
 
 
 Ar 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 If 
 
 .f 
 
 // 
 
 ,, 
 
 // 
 
 ./ 
 
 /O 
 
 
 ft 
 
 ft 
 
 /s 
 
 
 . /S 
 
 ., 
 
 /Z 
 
 
 ff 
 
 ft 
 
 /Ih 
 
 tf 
 
 ,. /6 
 
 " 
 
 /s 
 
 
 tf 
 
 
 Z,' 
 
 f, 
 
 2/ 
 
 " 
 
 /8 
 
 
 f, 
 
 ^ 
 
 Z7^ 
 
 „ 
 
 ., ZZ 
 
 ; 
 
 Zl 
 
 
 n 
 
 ., 
 
 Z-f 
 
 .., 
 
 ., .<y/ 
 
 ,, 
 
 2S 
 
 
 tr 
 
 /f 
 
 2D 
 
 „ 
 
 , Z£J 
 
 " 
 
 30 
 
 
 „ 
 
 '/ 
 
 ■23 
 
 
 ZZ> 
 
 
 dS 
 
 
 '/ 
 
 '/ 
 
 Zf 
 
 
 „ Z4 
 
 „ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 „ 
 
 -/ 
 
 zz 
 
 
 „ ZZ 
 
 ., 
 
 SO 
 
 
 _,^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 zs 
 
 ,, 
 
 „ Z^ 
 
 rf 
 
 ^0 
 
 
 
 „ 
 
 zz 
 
 O 
 
 .. ZZ 
 
 '. 
 
 7S 
 
 
 *f 
 
 ■f 
 
 3o 
 
 " 
 
 ., 30 
 
 " 
 
 wo 
 
 
 r* 
 
 ri 
 
 J.3 
 
 ,, 
 
 ,. 32> 
 
 // 
 
 -^O 
 
 50 
 
 60 
 
 'sQO 
 
 FRY. "Once-per-day" method. The curve shows the number of read- 
 ' to memorize passages of poetry ranging from 1 to 100 stanzas in 
 itanzas average 25 words each, excepting those sliown in red, which 
 rds each. 
 
//(,iy J^T/gos 
 
 Jccly /0-'\/go<;. 
 
 105 
 
 f3S 
 
 93 
 
 43 
 37 
 
 25 
 
 lb 
 
 ConTtnuotM Tflcthad 
 
 S n.s 
 
 &a<( /f moft . 
 
 /z .. 
 
 ■ 6 niin s 
 
 /6> ., 
 
 , 9 
 
 Z4 .. 
 
 . /b 
 
 3Z ■■ 
 
 , ^s 
 
 f^ -, 
 
 ,. ^3 
 
 72 •■ 
 
 .. /3S 
 
 Once per day "m.£ thc^ 
 
 IS took '/.f 7ncn, 
 
 /z 
 
 3Z 
 
 7z 
 
 /CH 
 wo 
 
 300 
 
 14- 
 
 is 
 
 95 
 /9S 
 
 300 
 
 8 \1 16 
 
 \ 'if/iihcr 
 
 
 S\fIaJ:'/es 
 
 PLATE I. NONSENSE SYLLABLES. The black "curve" shows the total time spent by the "once-pei-day" melhod, at the rate of two syllables per second, for sets of nonsense 
 syllables ranging from 8 to 300. The "continuous" method is shown in red. 
 
78 
 
 56 
 
 43 
 
 35 
 
 2=^. 
 
 2S 
 23 
 
 15 
 
 /flay -f 1^08 — July /o. 1909 
 
 /z 
 /6 
 
 3Z 
 48 
 
 yz 
 
 roi- 
 zoo 
 300 
 
 Zc/ays , 
 
 L e. Z rte£c^i-'n<js 
 
 /5 - 
 
 ■ /5 
 
 // 
 
 Z?, , 
 
 - ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ZJ .. 
 
 - Z^ 
 
 * 
 
 Z4 .. 
 
 , Zf 
 
 „ 
 
 35 . 
 
 .. 3§ 
 
 * 
 
 4-3 ,, 
 
 ., 43 
 
 
 -4-3 : 
 
 ., 4-5 
 
 „ 
 
 5i? V 
 
 .. SG 
 
 , 
 
 7^ ■• 
 
 .. 71f 
 
 ■' 
 
 ^8 
 
 8 l^l6 Z4 3^ 
 Jfurrvbcr <f Syllabic 
 
 7Z 
 
 t04 
 
 ZOO 
 
 300 
 
 PLATE II. NONSENSE SYLLABLES. "Once-per-day" methoa 
 
 The curve shows the number of readings necessary to memorize sets of nonsense syllables ranging from S to 300. 
 
385 
 
 r-> 
 
 
 May /, 1908 —June Z8,1909. 
 
 3 
 
 19 
 
 262 
 
 220 
 
 190 
 
 H7 
 \^6 
 
 Con/inaom i^?e//ic^ 
 
 /J 
 
 yanzci (ZJ M&rc/s)7do.^- fs /P/n 
 
 9 
 
 Ax 
 
 ., (JO 
 
 „ ) 
 
 . //i . 
 
 .3 
 
 - (/o3 
 
 ■■ ) 
 
 ■^ ^ . 
 
 -^ 
 
 „ (m 
 
 ^ / 
 
 ., 5 „ 
 
 S 
 
 o (/ZJ 
 
 „ } 
 
 - /o „ 
 
 6 
 
 -. (/JO 
 
 . ) 
 
 . 9 . 
 
 7 
 
 '■ (.Hi" 
 
 ,. ) 
 
 ' /6 . 
 
 8 
 
 ', (loo 
 
 ■■ ) 
 
 , /9 - 
 
 W 
 
 .. (ZJO 
 
 - ) 
 
 - 26 . 
 
 /Z 
 
 ■- (300 
 
 . ; 
 
 . Z8 .. 
 
 /s 
 
 „ (Jr.^ 
 
 ,. ) 
 
 ,. 3/- 
 
 /s 
 
 . (450 
 
 . ; 
 
 „ 30 ., 
 
 z/ 
 
 . (SZ5 
 
 ^^ ; 
 
 . 44- „ 
 
 zs 
 
 ., (H5 
 
 ., ; 
 
 ., 56 ; 
 
 30 
 
 , (/cm 
 
 . ) 
 
 . /zz ., 
 
 35 
 
 . (875 
 
 .. ) 
 
 ,, //i^ ., 
 
 ^ 
 
 „ (woo 
 
 ■■ ) 
 
 ., /Z^ .. 
 
 SO 
 
 . (/zso 
 
 .. ) 
 
 ./// „ 
 
 ^^o 
 
 .■ (?/€0 
 
 , ) 
 
 .. /^6 ■■ 
 
 7S 
 
 . (/S7^ 
 
 ., ) 
 
 . /90 ., 
 
 /oo 
 
 V (Z600 
 
 - ; 
 
 ..3/Z „ 
 
 1M ■ — 
 VIZ F= 
 
 I 
 
 ■5: 
 
 O/weype/^Day TJ'i^t/iod ^ 
 
 2 
 
 s 
 6 ., 
 
 7 
 8 
 
 '/8 
 
 3/; 
 
 3 
 6 
 8 
 
 /S 
 
 /o 
 
 Zf 
 
 m'rt(./Z X 
 „ (..Z3 X 
 .. (..^0 V 
 ., (30 X 
 
 .r (.GZ X 
 
 . (. 67 X 
 
 \/Z0 X 
 „ (.9/ X 
 ., ojy X 
 
 I 
 
 7= 3) 
 
 5) 
 
 //= /o> 
 
 /2- 
 
y/snz.a. 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 day 
 
 1 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 /bo/C '/s 7?1/rv(..'Z X 
 
 7- /r) 
 
 // 
 
 # 
 
 „ (.13 X 
 
 3= ^/^ 
 
 // 
 
 3'i 
 
 „ (.30 X 
 
 y=A'i) 
 
 rr 
 
 3 
 
 ., (30 X 
 
 7= 3) 
 
 // 
 
 6 
 
 ., (.Gz X 
 
 ^= 5) 
 
 „ 
 
 8 
 
 . (. 67 X 
 
 /2- ,3-; 
 
 // 
 
 /8 
 
 / 9-ZO X 
 
 /5-^ /?) 
 
 ff 
 
 /O 
 
 „ (.9/ X 
 
 //= /O) 
 
 " 
 
 Zf 
 
 ., (/J7 X 
 
 /S^ Z7) 
 
 ', 
 
 Z3 
 
 ., (/.^ X 
 
 /^= zi>) 
 
 .// 
 
 DZ 
 
 ... {Z-^7 \ 
 
 Zf = SZ) 
 
 fi 
 
 46 
 
 . (Z.09 X 
 
 ZZ^ 46) 
 
 ,/ 
 
 60 
 
 ; (Z.50 X 
 
 14=- (>0^ 
 
 '/ 
 
 58 
 
 ■' (Z.90 X 
 
 ZO=5S) 
 
 f.' 
 
 /''5 
 
 '. (s.w X 
 
 23 -//-y) 
 
 /f 
 
 98 
 
 „ (fm X 
 
 Z4^98) 
 
 // 
 
 W3 
 
 „ (4-67 X 
 
 ZZ-^ /03) 
 
 /f 
 
 /46 
 
 ., (S.84 X 
 
 £^= /46) 
 
 // 
 
 zzo 
 
 <■ {/C.ro X 
 
 ZZ=ZPjyl 
 
 // 
 
 Z6z 
 
 V (F.77 X 
 
 JO=-Z&Z) 
 
 " 
 
 o8S 
 
 .. U/6B X 
 
 35 = dS6) 
 
 J Z b4 5 6 
 
 100 
 
 PLATE III. POETRY. The black "curve" shows the total time spent by the "once-per- 
 day" method at the rate of 7 seconds per stanza,* or 5 minutes per 1000 words. The 
 passages of poetry range from 1 to 100 stanzas in length. The "curve" for the "con- 
 tinuous" method is shown in red. The red figures— both in the tables and on the 
 lower maririn — denote those passages composed of (Mine stanzas of ?,'< words each 
 all other stanzas being 4-Iine and averaging 25 words each. 
 
 *ExcoptiEg tlio G-liiio stanzas;, wliioh rcqiiiro 10 seconds poi- stanza.