Class J2£^^ PRESENTED BY MI6> --.- THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING Ube XHntversits of Chicago The Psychology of Drawing With Special Reference to Laboratory Teaching A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OP THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OP ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OP PHILOSOPHY (DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION) BY Fred Carleton Ayer A Private Edition Distributed By The University of Chicago Libraries A Trade Edition Is Published By Warwick & York, Inc. Baltimore, Md. 1916 a *V0 -'MMMMWMI-lt-HMlHI-l»-lWW W M IH MMCNWHH MM WH-ll--(CSHHl-lCN|MI-lhHCNl-HWHHMWWW W W W W MMCNH-IM MM l-lW'-HC^Ml-ICNH-ll-IH-tMMI-ll--l|-HM 0] H C) 01 M H H-IMWCNW|-lW , - , ^ , - , ^ MW WMMHHI-ll-tMI-ll-l 01 CN M CN W M M mmWWCNmi-i'-iWmWi-imcXh-iihmcnWWW WWWWWWWW t-tMCNWCNi-iW , - | ^ MC ^ MKH ^ c X , - ,, - ,, - |W ^ mWWWWWWW*-' mmnWNmmhhWmnmmnmmmmm hhmWWWWWWWw hmNC' ,hm ^h-ihhh-i WWWi-iWWW>-iNOi w W W W i-( W WMtNCNWWWWH-iCSWWWWWWWWWWWW M M -icswwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww m W cOtHOvO WOO On O m W CO tJ- lOVO t^OO On O m W CO "^" mvO t^OO On O MMI _,H»MI-IMH-IMMWWWWWWvNWWWCO n8 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING Sample of Final Score for a Set of 30 Sash Lifter Draw- ings No. TA KO SM PS LH HM LN HN AC AA 1 3i 35 32 38 36 39 32 33 37 38 2 30 35 37 38 35 35 36 36 37 3i 3 53 43 30 37 34 45 5 1 43 32 36 4 49 48 54 50 45 50 49 46 50 53 5 48 49 45 55 48 38 46 39 54 48 6 35 3i 30 35 36 34 3i 35 34 32 7 45 49 56 55 49 40 54 55 41 46 8 34 31 34 41 30 29 33 30 33 40 9 5i 5i 50 47 44 45 46 45 50 50 10 29 35 37 36 33 42 34 36 41 30 11 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 12 34 33 44 33 33 33 43 34 34 36 13 39 40 47 46 43 36 40 37 45 46 14 54 55 49 48 53 5° 5<> 54 53 49 15 37 38 39 4i 46 43 42 45 39 38 16 36 32 34 30 33 30 33 31 31 35 17 32 41 43 39 41 37 33 40 42 40 18 41 40 36 36 37 42 35 39 41 37 19 41 46 46 45 47 51 50 45 46 42 20 45 42 38 32 50 51 49 33 39 54 21 42 42 41 42 39 40 40 41 41 41 22 40 41 46 36 50 43 45 37 49 41 23 47 52 42 54 38 49 51 53 39 43 24 51 48 53 5i 54 54 53 49 52 53 25 56 50 55 54 54 53 5i 54 55 54 26 47 29 31 29 29 31 30 46 30 30 27 55 56 55 55 54 5i 54 55 52 55 28 57 55 42 47 44 54 54 45 43 56 29 47 5i 5i 50 50 56 51 48 55 50 30 41 48 50 47 51 55 48 54 50 42 Total Final Points Rank 351 6 350 5 404 11 494 23 470 19 343 4 490 22 334 3 479 20 353 7 580 30 361 8 419 14 515 26 408 12 325 1 388 10 384 9 459 17 437 16 409 13 428 15 468 18 5i8 27 536 28 332 2 542 29 497 24 509 25 486 21 THE EXPERIMENTS 119 (b) Method of Scoring Descriptions. The de- scriptions were graded by the method of counting points which is ordinarily used in scoring Aussage tests. In this instance each point was weighted by the judge according to its clearness of mean- ing on a basis of u lo" for "perfectly definite." A score of 12-98 indicates that the pupil has given 12 points of description with sufficient clearness of statement to total 98. The descriptions were then ranked according to total scores. Where ties occurred the method of intermediate ranking was used; thus, a tie at 22 and 23 was ranked 22.5. Each judge read all of the descriptions of a group before beginning to score. Each paper was then given a second preliminary reading, after which it was read a third time and scored by points. The final marks were determined by averaging the rankings of the ten judges. (c) Method of Scoring Diagrams. The 51 dia- grams of the structure of a feather were scored on the basis of a system of weighted points. One of the judges first ranked the diagrams serially ac- cording to the merit of their general appearance. To test the reliability of this ranking, a list of all the points which could be shown in a complete diagram of the feather was prepared. A second judge then ranked the diagrams according to the total number of points exhibited. The ranking which had been made upon the basis of general 120 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING appearance was now compared with the ranking which had been made upon the basis of the number of structural points shown. The two rankings were approximately, but not exactly, similar. The discrepancies were taken into account and a new system of weighted points arranged which made allowance for the difficulty as well as the number of the points shown in the diagram. The list follows: Standard for Measuring Quality of Diagrams Characteristics Shown Credit 1. Barbs attached to one side of shaft I point 2. Barbs attached to both sides of shaft }4 " 3. Barbs shown parallel yi " 4. Barbs shown at a slant to shaft yi " 5. Barbs attached to all parts of shaft 1 6. Barbules attached to one side of barb 1 7. Barbules attached to both sides of barb yi " 8. Barbules shown parallel y£ " 9. Barbules at proper slant yi " 10. Two distinct kinds of barbules 1 11. Barbules intermingled I 12. Barbules attached to all parts of barb 1 13. Hooks attached to barbule 1 14. Several hooks on one barbule yi " 15. Hooks on upper row only 1 16. Hooks hooking over barbules at a slant 1 17. Hooks on entire margin of row of barbules. . 1 Total possible score 13^ points Points labeled insufficiently are given one-half credit. Points labeled incorrectly are graded o. THE EXPERIMENTS 121 Attention is called to the fact that the standard is not used to measure ability in representative drawing. In fact, the diagrams for the most part look very little like the original feather. It is, in reality, a measure of analytical observation, for the diagram called for is an excellent example of what is described in the first chapter as " analyt- ical drawing." The pupil must have made the preliminary scientific analysis called for in the test directions before he can construct a successful diagram. As the particular test used requires a wide range of discrimination and considerable ingenuity in figuring out the structural plan of the feather, it serves most excellently for compar- ing tfye pupil's ability in analytical drawing with his ability in representative drawing. 4. Method of Determining Correlation. The pres- ence of correlation signifies that some definite causal relation exists between two series or groups of data. The mere fact that two coexisting con- ditions vary in the same direction does not imply true correlation unless one condition is the cause of the other or both are due to a third cause. But if it can be shown that there are common factors possible to two variables, a tendency, however small, for the variables to fluctuate constantly in the same or opposite directions may be taken as proof of an actual correlation. Thus the determ- ination of a small degree of correlation between 122 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING any two traits or achievements of a group of school children at once assumes significance, because there is no question about the common factors of intelligence and training. The import- ant problem in this event is the elimination of all possibility of error in the method of finding the degree of correlation. (i) Correlation by the Rank Method. The most practicable method of determining correlation between abilities for which there is no standard scale of measurement is by the rank method. When the same group has been ranked in two abilities in the manner described above, the results offer data for direct comparison. Column A, Table V, shows how the 51 high school students (see Test No. 1) stood when ranked in order of ability in description. The pupil ranked 1 was best in description; No. 2 was second best; and so on down to No. 51, who was the poorest of the entire group. Column B shows the order of merit of the same group in drawing. By thus arranging the individual describers in a column in order, 1 to 51, and placing directly opposite the rank each received in drawing, we can get a general idea of the comparative ranking of the students in the two different abilities. Save in extreme cases, such casual comparison of the two columns will not be sufficient to ascertain satisfactorily the degree of correlation which may Table V Comparison of Abilities in Drawing and Description of 51 High School Pupils ABC ABC Rank in Rank in D or Dif- Rank in Rank in D or Dif- Name Descrip- Drawing ference Name Descrip- Drawing ference tion in Rank tion in Rank (Continued from below) Brock 1 36 35 Pierce 27 15 12 Angel 2 38 36 Stone 28 47 19 Klein 3 30 27 Furth 29 21 8 Rose 4 19 15 Logan 30 22 8 Bean 5 26 21 Sully 31 20 11 Moraw 6 42 36 Hagen 32 6 26 Henry 7 24 17 Vander 33 44 11 Glass 8 II 3 Cook 34 16 18 Mathew r 9 39 30 Virden 35 25 10 Greve 10 37 27 Lee 36 8 28 Lawler 11 49 38 Ames 37 51 14 Cooper 12 3 9 Lovel 38 9 29 Willet 13 35 22 Gamble 39 46 7 Hogan 14 4i 27 Jack 40 50 10 Bolte 15 5 10 Tipton 4i 18 23 Wilson 16 33 17 Cutler 42 28 14 Keen 17 12 5 Adler 43 1 42 Heck 18 43 25 Hill 44 3i 13 Foster 19 27 8 Jacob 45 45 Ansorg 20 17 3 Atty 46 7 39 McKinn 21 32 11 Agar 47 23 24 Leap 22 48 26 Knapp 48 13 35 Runs 23 40 17 Weber 49 29 20 Donald 24 10 14 Ingle 50 4 46 Donker 25 34 9 Cole 51 14 37 Joseph 26 2 24 (Continued above) 53 )ioi6 Average Rank Difference or Av. D. equals 19. 9 Chance D. equals 17 r=» — .271 P.E.r = .09 R = — .172 124 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING be present. A number of significant possibilities lie bound up in data of this nature and the true one may be discovered only by careful study. (a) First Possibility. The more ability a per- son has in drawing, the more he has in descrip- tion. Then in a given test, barring errors in grad- ing, the student ranking I in drawing ranks I in description; No. 2 in drawing is 2 in description; and so on through the series. Such a correspond- ence is signified by saying that the correlation equals 1 or 100% positive. Such a correlation exists between the volume and the weight of water. The merest glance at Table V shows that such a correlation does not exist between abilities in drawing and description. No. 1 in description is 36 in drawing. (b) Second Possibility. The more ability a person has in drawing, the less he has in descrip- tion. No. 1 in drawing would in this case be 51 in description; No. 2 in drawing would be 50 in description; and the others similarly related. This type of correlation is said to be — 1 or — 100% negative. Such a correlation exists between the volume and the amount of pressure exerted by a given weight of gas. It plainly does not exist in Table V. (c) Third Possibility. The abilities in the two traits are in no way related, the obtained results occurring by mere chance. Such 3 result would THE EXPERIMENTS 125 be obtained, for instance, if the papers were graded as they happened to lie in order in the pile without reference to their contents. Results indicating such a relationship are expressed by saying that the correlation is indifferent or equal to 0. The factor of chance correlation is particularly signifi- cant when dealing with small groups and in any case must always be discounted before a seeming correlation can be used as a basis for proof or infer- ence. It will be necessary to examine our results more closely to determine if an indifferent correla- tion is present. (d) Fourth Possibility. There is a tendency more or less pronounced for those good in draw- ing to be good in description, or, on the contrary, for those good in drawing to be poor in descrip- tion. Such a tendency, depending upon its strength, manifests itself by a certain proportion of one group being good, or bad, as the case may be, in the other. According to the strength of the tendency it approaches plus 1, or +100%, if positive, or minus 1, or — 100%, if negative. A complete analysis of the results obtained in this experiment will be necessary to detect partial correlation. (e) Fifth Possibility. A certain selected part of one group is correlated with a certain part of the other group, while the rest of the group is indiffer- ently correlated. Thus the best ten in drawing 126 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING may be very good in description, with all of the others in the group scattering. This type of correlation cannot be expressed by a simple co- efficient, but must be shown by tabulations or graphs of the entire series. The results of this experiment give no evidence of this type of cor- relation. It is evident that such terms as good, poor, fair, etc., secured from a brief inspection of compara- tive data do not indicate the amount of correla- tion with sufficient accuracy for scientific pur- poses. We have, therefore, resorted to more accurate methods of determining correlation. (2) Theory of Correlation. The fundamental factor in correlation, as shown by the rank method, is the relative position of the same individual in two series of rankings. For instance, Glass (see Table V), who ranks 11 out of 51 in drawing ability and 8 in description, differs in relative position by only 3 points, which indicates a high positive correlation. Adler, however, who is first in drawing, ranks 43 in description, differing in position by 42 points, which indicates a negative correlation. The rank differences, 3 and 42, are designated D, and serve as an indication of the tendency of correlation. A single D in a series of 51 D J s indicates but little, for it may be due entirely to chance, just as the man who is first in wealth THE EXPERIMENTS 127 among 51 may by pure chance be either second or forty-third in weight. If, however, we obtain the average of the 51 rank differences, we shall have a figure which measures the degree of correlation present. This measure is the Average Rank Dif- ference, or, more simply, the Average D. In this series (see Table V, column C) the Average D is 19.9. The Average D due to pure chance is equal to one-third of the number of subjects in a series, in this case one- third of 51, or 17. This average is called the Chance D. It means that if a pupil's D is less than 17, it is likely that there is some com- mon factor which favors positive correlation; if the pupil's D is more than 17, it is probable that there is a common factor interfering with positive correlation and producing a negative correlation. If now we contrast the Average D obtained for the 51 pupils, 19.9, with the Chance D, 17, we must conclude that within this group there is a tend- ency for ability in drawing to interfere with ability in description. The degree of correlation is indi- cated by the amount of difference between the Chance D and the Average D, in this case 17 — 19.9, or — 2.9. This sum is not large enough to be par- ticularly significant with as few as 51 subjects. As a matter of fact, it is reduced by the results of the other series. For a rapid and accurate method of ascertaining the presence of correlation in a series of pairings approximating 50, the author recom- 128 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING mends the foregoing method. Reduced to formu- lae, we have the following: Average D = ^^; Chance D = § ; in which 5 is the symbol for summation, D is the numerical difference between each corresponding pair of ranks, and n is the number of pairs. If the Average D is found to be within the range of | ± 2, there is no evidence of significant correla- tion. To find the numerical value of the correlation, the following formula may be used: n 2 This quantity should be doubled if negative, which will obviate Lehman and Pederson's criti- cism given to Spearman's "Foot-Rule" method. This formula will give almost identically the same results as Spearman's: n 2 — I in which g equals the numerical gain in rank of those individuals who made a gain in the second series over the first. Correlation may also be computed by the "Pearson Method Adapted to Rank Differences," which gives more weight to the large D's. The formula, in which r is the degree of correlation, is: 6S(D 2 ) r b- i — — • n[tr — i) THE EXPERIMENTS 129 Provision is made for variation due to chance by use of the formula : (1—n 2 ) P.E. r =. 7 o6 3 K —^r v n If r is no greater than P.E., there is no indication whatever of correlation. If r is greater than 3 P.E., the chances are 16 to 1 that an actual cor- relation exists. The correlations obtained by both the Spear- man and Pearson methods are given in the follow- ing results. The variations between them are without particular significance for these experi- ments. 5. Results and Conclusions. (a) Correlation between Drawing and Descrip- tion. The individual positions of the 51 high school pupils, and the group correlation between abilities in drawing and description are exhibited in Table V. Tables VI and VII show similar data for the group of 48 graduate students. Table VI shows the description in serial arrangement with the corresponding ranks in drawing. Table VII compares the descriptions to the drawings in serial order. Tables VIII and IX exhibit the cor- relations of the three remaining groups of students. Table VI Comparison of Abilities in Drawing and Description 48 Adult Students ABC ABC Rank in Rank in D or Dif- Name Descrip- Drawing ference tion in Rank Rank in Rank in D or Dif- Name Descrip- Drawing ference tion in Rank Cragun Russ Hughes Hosmer White Carr Geilen George 8 Ganard 9 Wagner 10 Hubb 11 M'Cann 12 Dohert 13 Brown 14 Heig 15 Boden 16 Duffy Hope Buch Moss Kerst Rhodes 22 Burg 23 Snod 24 17 18 19 20 21 7 32 18 6 20 16 27 36 22 25 9 35 10 19 39 1 40 3 42 38 13 26 17 43 6 30 15 2 15 10 20 28 13 15 2 23 3 5 24 15 23 15 23 18 8 4 6 19 (Continued above) (Continued Cano 25 M'C'mb 26 Shield 27 Butler 28 Colpit 29 Ferry 30 Cato 31 Weber 32 Mitch 33 Coward 34 Harmon 35 Smith 36 Whitem 37 Allen 38 Jenn 39 Kenn 40 Yarbo 41 Hutch 42 Donson 43 Zeller 44 Thomas 45 Vogel 46 Cowan 47 Porter 48 from below) 41 16 8 18 15 12 44 16 12 17 46 16 29 2 11 21 2 3i 23 11 5 30 14 22 28 9 33 5 24 15 48 8 45 4 3i 11 4 39 47 3 30 15 37 9 34 13 21 27 48)712 r = .228 Average Rank Difference = 14.9 Chance Rank Difference =16. P.E. r = .09 R = .079 Table VII Comparison of Abilities in Drawing and Description 48 Adult Students Rank in Name Drawing Rank in D or Dif- Descrip- ference tion in Rank Boden 1 Mitch 2 Hope 3 Donson 4 Harmon 5 Hosmer 6 Cragun 7 M'C'mb 8 Hubb 9 Dohert 10 Weber 1 1 Colpit 12 Kerst Smith Shield Carr Burg 13 15 16 17 16 33 18 43 35 4 1 26 11 13 32 29 21 36 27 6 23 Hughes 18 3 Brown 19 14 White 20 5 Porter 21 48 Ganard 22 9 Cowart 23 34 Jenn 24 39 (Continued above) 15 3i 15 39 30 2 6 18 2 3 21 17 8 22 12 10 6 15 5 15 27 13 11 15 B Rank in Rank in D or Dif- Name Descrip- Drawing ference tion in Rank (Continued from below) Wagner 25 10 15 Rhodes 26 22 4 Geilen 27 7 20 Whitem 28 37 9 Cato 29 3i 2 Thomas 30 45 15 Hutch 31 42 11 Russ 32 2 30 Allen 33 38 5 Cowan 34 47 13 M'Cann 35 12 23 George 36 8 28 Fogel 37 46 9 Moss 38 20 18 Heig 39 15 24 Duffy 40 17 23 Cano 41 25 16 Buch 42 19 23 Snod 43 24 19 Butler 44 28 16 Yarbo 45 41 4 Ferry 46 30 16 Zeller 47 44 3 Kenn 48 40 8 48)712 r = .200 Average Rank Difference = 14.9 Average Chance Difference =16. P.E. r = .09 R= .079 Table Vttl Comparison of Abilities in Drawing and Description SO College Students A B c A B c Rank in Rank in D or Dif- Rank in Rank in D or Dif- Name Descrjp- Drawing ference Name Descrip- Drawing ference tion in Rank tion in Rank (Continued from below) Halm I 43 42 1 Hone 26 32 6 Clark 2 45 43 Mclll 27 27 Bloys 3 36 33 Park 28 48 20 John 4 20 16 Huston 29 8 21 Lewis 5 12 7 Moss 30 31 1 Miller 6 47 4i Tuny 3i 14 17 Cume 7 35 28 Webon 32 33 1 Duncam 8 39 3i Scott 33 22 11 Mull 9 19 10 Rankin 34 28 6 Webb 10 49 39 Quinn 35 13 22 Alex ii 34 23 Bland 36 5 31 Crook 12 I 11 Erhart 37 23 14 Ever 13 3 10 Fite 38 37 1 Weir 14 6 8 Hug 39 4 35 Powe 15 16 1 Mill 40 50 10 Angus 16 II 5 Walters 4i 42 1 Cole 17 40 23 James 42 30 12 Mann 18 2 16 Coon 43 44 1 Oxly 19 10 9 River 44 23 21 Evert 20 4 6 26 Kalt 45 41 4 Fogal 21 17 4 Habt 46 18 28 Wills 22 24 2 Ellin 47 7 40 Woods 23 9 14 Peter 48 26 22 Austin 24 36 12 Doby 49 25 24 Cordy 25 15 10 Betts 50 29 21 (Continued above) 50)834 — .041 P.E., .1 Av. D. = 16.68 Chance D. = 16.66 R = — .001 Table IX Comparison of Abilities in Drawing and Description Group A, 30 College Students; Group B, 31 College Students. Group A Group B Rank in Rank in D Rank in Rank in D Drawing Descrip- tion Drawing Descrip- tion I 5 4 I 25 24 2 13 11 2 20 18 3 7 4 3 15 12 4 26 22 4 4 5 16 11 5 7 2 6 29 23 6 26 20 7 17 10 7 1 6 8 3 5 8 3i 23 9 2 7 9 3 6 10 6 4 10 28 18 11 12 1 11 13 2 12 14 2 12 9 3 13 28 15 13 5 8 14 23 7 H 16 2 15 20 5 15 14 1 16 24 8 16 29 13 17 21 4 17 2 15 18 27 9 18 11 7 19 9 10 19 27 8 20 25 5 20 8 12 21 19 2 21 10 11 22 1 21 22 21 1 23 15 8 23 6 17 24 18 6 24 30 6 25 4 21 25 17 8 26 22 4 26 23 3 27 9 18 27 12 15 28 8 20 28 24 4 29 10 19 29 22 7 30 30 30 19 11 31 18 13 30)286 31)296 ilu. D. = 9-53 Av. D. = : 9-55 Chance D. = 10.00 Chance D. = 10.33 r- .074 R = .047 r = .1 51 R = .076 P.E. r = .: [2 P.E.r = .12 134 THE PS YCHOLOG Y OF DRA WING The names of the subjects are omitted in Table IX. The figures indicate the rank of the indi- viduals in the series stated at the head of the column. The amount of correlation discovered between drawing and description in the five groups of sub- jects who were tested in Experiment I is shown in Summary form in Table X. The Av. D., the Chance D. y the degree of correlation by the Pear- son method (r), its Probable Error (P. E. r ), and the degree of correlation by the Spearman method (J?), is given for each group, together with the averages of the five groups. Table X Correlation between Drawing and Description Number Average Chance r P.E.r R Subjects Rank£> RankD (I) 51 IQ.QO 17.00 — .271 .09 — . 172 (2) 48 I4.9O 16.00 .200 .09 .079 (3) 50 16.68 16.66 — .04I .10 — .001 (4) 30 9.53 10.00 .074 . 12 .047 (5) 3i 210 9-55 10.33 .151 .12 .O48 .076 All 70.56 70.00 .023 .006 Conclusion. The combined results of the tests taken by the 210 subjects show that there is no correlation between ability in representative draw- THE EXPERIMENTS 135 ing and ability in description. This is evidenced by the average of the coefficients of correlation determined by the Pearson method (.023), that determined by the Spearman method (.006), and by the equivalence of the Chance D's and the Average D's. A pupil who is good in description is not necessarily good in drawing. He may be either good, medium, or poor, as chance wills it. Because a pupil can not draw well is not a sign that he cannot describe an object well. There is nothing in common between the two processes which justifies using them for the same purpose in laboratory teaching. (b) Correlation between Diagramming-Drawing and Diagramming-Description. The correlation between abilities in diagramming and drawing and between diagramming and description was esti- mated for the group of 51 high school students in exactly the same manner as has been described for the drawing-description correlation. The fol- lowing degrees of correlation were established : Diagramming-Drawing r = — .052 Diagramming-Description r = .231 Ability in diagramming (which is a type of analytical drawing) is not, therefore, correlated with ability in representative drawing. On the other hand, the processes of diagramming and description exhibit a positive correlation (.231) 136 THE PSYCHOLOGY OJF DRAWING which, although small, is significant of the pres- ence of a common factor between the two. It is evident from the results of Experiment I that the process of representative drawing is similar neither to description nor to diagramming. The pro- cesses of diagramming and description, on the contrary, show an intimacy of relationship which is indicative of an inherent similarity between the two. This contrast will receive further emphasis by the results of the experiments to follow. Experiment II. Drawing and School Grades. i. Problem. To evaluate the correlation be- tween achievement in "school" Drawing and achievement in other school subjects. 2. Materials. The materials included the final grades received by 141 normal school students for one year's work in various school subjects includ- ing Drawing. All students were required to take Drawing two times per week throughout the year. The total number of grades, exclusive of Drawing, includes 810 individual marks in 28 school subjects taught by 15 different teachers. 3. Method of Procedure. It was necessary to adjust the method of correlation to the system of grading in use at the normal school from which the statistics were secured. The different grades assigned under this sytem are 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, and o. The grades run by theoretically equal steps from THE EXPERIMENTS 137 5 for the best grade of work down to o for the poorest. It was necessary to shift the marks of four of the fifteen teachers one point in order to make the correlations upon the basis of actually parallel rankings. Table XI exhibits the method of tabulation and correlation which was followed for all school subjects. The 21 members of the class in Latin are ranked as they stood in the six grades which are possible in Drawing. The rank in Latin is placed directly opposite the rank in Drawing. The difference between the two gives the Rank Difference (d). Following this in the last vertical column is the product of the Rank Difference squared (J 2 ), which is required in the computa- tion of the correlation by the (adapted) Pearson formula, 6S(d) r = 1 iV(w 2 — 1) It is necessary to remember that the number of cases differs from the number of ranks. The number of cases (N) varies with the class (in this case, 21); the number of ranks {%) is always 6. 4. Results. A summary of the results obtained from the entire 810 pairings is exhibited in Table XII. The several classes are grouped under the titles of Manual Training, Mathematics, Foreign Languages, Household Arts, English, Music, Edu- 138 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING Table XI Correlation between Achievement in Drawing and Achieve- ment in Latin as Shown by School Grades Rank in Name Drawing Latin d (d)a Haulot 1324 Mullen 2200 Thiel 3124 Wier 3 2 1 1 Tomkins 3 21 1 McComb 3 2 1 1 Austin 3300 Behn 3639 Corbin 4139 Lassator 4139 Fogal 4224 Pitts 4224 White 4 3 I 1 Powell 4400 Hodnett 4400 Osley 4400 Kittle 4624 Weather 5 6 1 1 Blount 5 6 1 1 Bloys 6600 Johnson 6600 N=2i S(d) = 25 53=S(d 2 ) 6S(d*) 6x53 r = 1 = 1 = .568 N (n 2 — 1) 21x35 THE EXPERIMENTS 139 Table XII Correlation Between Achievement in Drawing and Other School Subjects as Shown by School Grades Rank Difference Number Subject Students 1 2 3 4 S(d) R r Man. Tr. 18 4 4 5 4 I 30 .16 .28 Mathematics 98 19 45 18 13 3 132 •33 .49 Fgn. Lang. 39 11 15 7 6 49 •37 •57 Home Econ. no 21 58 26 4 1 126 •43 .66 English 144 36 67 3i 10 159 •47 .68 Music 134 38 58 32 4 2 142 •47 .68 Education 116 3i 55 22 8 123 •57 •73 History 35 15 10 7 2 30 .60 .80 Science 116 4i 60 12 3 93 .60 .80 All 810 216 372 160 54 7 884 .45 .66 cation, History, and Science. The degrees of correlations between the various school subjects and Drawing are shown in the last two columns by the Spearman and Pearson methods, respect- ively. 5. Special Observations. Any legitimate inter- pretation of the foregoing array of statistics must take into account the complexity of factors which enter into the assignment of school grades. Spec- ial inquiry shows that the grades in Drawing were 140 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING computed from a number of separate factors. These include (a) ability in representative draw- ing, (b) ability in designing, (c) ability in artistic discrimination, (d) ability with color, washes, shading, etc., (e) attendance, (f) discipline, and (g) vocational interest. Without taking into account the possibility of similar heterogeneity in the grading of other classes, it is evident that the gross correlations found for achievement in school Drawing do not necessarily apply to its individual factors. As a check upon the factor of ability in representative drawing, the drawings of the 51 high school students, which were secured in Part I of Test No. 1, were compared directly to the class standings of the same students. Two correlations were computed by the methods previously described; one with grades in Science, and one with the aver- age of the class standings in Science, English, Latin, and Mathematics. In neither case was correlation between representative drawing and achieve- ment in school subjects shown. 6. Conclusion. Achievement in Drawing is highly correlated with achievement in other school subjects, averaging nearly 70 per cent, positive. This is, no doubt, due to the fact that the standard of drawing instruction calls for a variety of mental and motor processes which are the same as, or similar to, those found in other THE EXPERIMENTS 141 school subjects. Ability in representative draw- ing is not correlated with achievement in school subjects when it is isolated from the other factors of school Drawing. 1 Experiment III. Retention and the Devices Used to Secure It. 1. Problem. To determine the correlation be- tween retention and representative drawing, de- scription, and analytical drawing. Two special tests were used for the solution of this problem. Each consisted of an unannounced examination given to test the student's memory of the characteristics of an object which had been drawn, described, or diagrammed previously. 2. Method of Procedure. Test No. 1. Sub- jects. 51 students in a first-year high school class in General Science. (See Experiment I.) Twenty-four hours after the analytical study of the feather previously described, the pupils were given the following examination: 1. Make a simple diagram of a feather, showing and labeling the parts visible to the naked eye. 2. (a) What difference is there in the two sides of a feather? (b) What difference is there between the upper and lower surfaces? 1 See also Albien's experiment, p. 36. 142 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 3. Explain in detail how the various parts of a feather are held together. 4. Distinguish two kinds of barbules as to their shape and position. 3. Method of Scoring. The examination papers were carefully scored on a basis of points similar to that described for the scoring of descriptions and diagrammatic drawings. (See Experiment I.) The pupils were then ranked according to the degree of merit of their answers to the ques- tions of the test. As the questions involve the recall of the essential characteristics of the feather, the results exhibit the comparative amount of retention possessed by each student. By com- paring the position of an individual pupil in reten- tion with his position in representative drawing, description, or analytical drawing, it is possible to determine the degree of correlation present between retention and each of the devices used to secure it. 4. Results of Test No. 1. Table XIII shows in detail the correlation which exists between these several devices and retention. Considered as a measure of the group as a whole, the individual tabulations in Table XIII may be reduced to the following general correlations: Representative Drawing and Retention . . r =» — .022 Description and Retention r « .234 Analytical Drawing and Retention r = .433 THE EXPERIMENTS 143 Table XIII Correlation between Retention and Representative Drawing, Description, and Analytical Drawing Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank in in in in in in in in Memo- Draw- Des- Dia- Memo- Draw- Des- Dia- ry ing crip- tion gram ry ing crip- tion gram I 38 2 I (Continued from below) 2 41 14 5 26 24 7 2 3 37 I 14 27 6 32 47 4 22 30 4i 28 16 34 18 5 7 46 4 29 20 31 8 6 17 20 10 30 4 50 22 7 48 22 43 31 44 18 40 8 27 19 6 32 19 4 17 9 42 6 27 33 13 48 45 10 39 9 31 34 33 16 33 11 31 44 19 35 11 8 44 12 36 10 9 36 23 47 36 13 18 4i 26 37 1 43 38 14 21 29 12 38 43 33 29 15 9 38 23 39 8 36 11 16 35 13 35 40 29 42 21 17 5i 37 24 4i 30 3 46 18 25 35 39 42 2 26 42 19 10 24 34 43 47 28 28 20 26 5 25 44 32 21 7 21 12 17 30 45 15 27 20 22 28 49 5i 46 46 39 47 23 34 25 13 47 49 11 16 24 3 12 15 48 50 40 50 25 45 45 3 49 5 45 30 (Continued above) 50 40 23 48 51 14 5i 49 144 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 5. Conclusion. There is no correlation between skill in representative drawing and subsequent retention of the essential characteristics of the object drawn. There is noticeable correlation (.243) between ability in description and reten- tion. There is marked correlation (433) between ability in analytical drawing and subsequent re- tention. These facts are of the utmost importance to laboratory teaching and will receive further comment in the concluding chapter. 6. Method of Procedure. Test No. 2. Subjects. 61 college students. It is frequently held that, whatever else may be lacking, the process of drawing compels the obser- vation of form and color. In view of this claim, a special test was devised to compare the amounts of retention of this type secured by the devices of drawing and description. The subjects of the test were divided into two groups, A and B, of 30 and 31 members, respect- ively. Each member of Group A was given a triangular metallic object (see Figure 3), desig- nated as the "triangle." Each member of Group B was given a small metallic sash-lift (see Figure 4). They were given similar drawing materials and instructed as follows: Part I. Write your name at the top of the page of drawing paper. Place the object in position as THE EXPERIMENTS . 145 directed and draw it so that it may be identi- fied by your drawing. (Time allowed, 8 min- utes.) The members of Group A exchanged objects with Group B, and all were directed: Part II. Write your name at the top of he page. Place the object in position as directed and describe it so that it may be identified by your description. (Time allowed, 8 minutes.) The danger of mental superiority on the part of one group over the other was obviated by the exchange of objects between the two parts of the experiment, which permitted all of the subjects both to draw and to describe. Five days later the same subjects (one absent) were given an unannounced examination to test their retention of the elements of form and color which had characterized the two objects. Part III. Directions after passing paper: "I am about to ask you a series of questions concerning the objects which you drew and described five days ago. I am extremely anxious that no one shall in any way be aided by any other student, so I shall insist that you keep your eyes away from the work of other students, and that you neither make comments nor ask questions which may be in the least suggestive to other members of the class/ ' 146 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING The questions below were then read and answered one at a time, each student writing his answer. When necessary, the exact meanings of the directions were illustrated by diagrams on the blackboard. Set 7. Sash-lift. Write your name at the top of the page. State whether you drew or described the sash- lift. 1. Draw a line indicating the greatest width of the flat part of the sash-lift. 2. Draw a line indicating the least width of the sash-lift. 3. What is the ratio of the thickness of the material at the edge of the object, to that of the edge of a half-dollar; approximately, (a) two times as thick, (b) one and a half times as thick, (c) as thick, (d) two-thirds as thick, (e) one-half as thick, or (f) one-fourth as thick. (Each student was given a half-dollar for com- parison at this point.) 4. Were the holes in the flat part, (a) nearer to the edges, of the sides, (b) the base, or (c) were they the same distance from each? 5. (a) Draw a circle indicating the size of the upper opening of one of the holes; (b) also a circle indicating the size of the lower opening. (The outside of the pencil mark is to be taken in these questions.) (c) Draw a line indicating the distance on the upper surface of the sash- lift between the two holes (measuring from inner edges). THE EXPERIMENTS 147 6. Was the upper surface (a) polished approxi- mately smooth, or (b) were there numerous slight indentations or abrasions upon it? 7. Was the exact contour of the upper part of the finger piece from the front (a) regularly- rounding, or (b) somewhat flattened? 8. State the color of the following areas of the sash-lift. (A diagram was drawn on the board and lettered, which divided the front and back surfaces of the sash-lift in six parts each. Two of these parts in the original were copper-colored, the remainder nearly black.) Set II. Triangle. Write your name at the top of the page. State whether you drew or described the tri- angular object. 1. Draw a line indicating the exact length of one side of the object from tip to tip. 2. Draw a line indicating the exact length of one of the outer sides of one of the inner tri- angles. 3. What is the ratio of the thickness of the material at the edge of the object, to that of the edge of a ten-cent piece; approximately, (a) two times as thick, (b) one and a half times as thick, (c) as thick, (d) two-thirds as thick, (e) one-half as thick, (f) one-fourth as thick. (Each student was given a ten-cent piece for comparison.) 4. Were the three sides of the inner triangles (a) equal in length; (b) equally curving; (c) parallel, or askew, with the near sides of the outer triangle? 148 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 5. (a) Draw a circle, the outer edge of which indicates the exact size of the hole in the center of the triangle, (b) Draw a line indicating the exact distance from the edge of the hole in the center to the nearest point of one of the sides of the triangle. 6. Was the surface of the object (a) polished approximately smooth, or (b) were there slight indentations or abrasions upon it? 7. Were the outer points of the triangle (a) regularly rounded, or (b) somewhat flattened? 8. (a) Were the lines which delineated the various triangular figures on the concave side of the object grooves or ridges? (b) On the con- vex side? 7. Results of Test No. 2. The results obtained from the foregoing test were concrete in character and readily submitted to objective measurement, which was carried out with accuracy and detail. The average error or percentage correct of each detail of the test was computed for both drawers and describers. The tabulated results are exhib- ited in Tables XIV, XV, and XVI. Drawing proves to be no better than descrip- tion as a device for securing retention of surface dimensions. It was 6% less efficient than descrip- tion with fine dimensions, and markedly inferior with the dimension of thickness. In the total recall of all dimensions, based upon 330 judg- ments, description surpassed drawing by over 6%. THE EXPERIMENTS 149, Table XIV Memory for Surface Dimensions Cross Dimensions Average Error Made by Drawers Describers Length of sash-lift 14.7% 17-0% Width of sash-lift 18.7% 15. 7% Length side triangle 11.6% 9-5% Side inner triangle 26.7% 27.7% Average total 17.9% *7-7% Fine Dimensions Between holes 71. 0% 47-0% Triangle hole 38. 0% 34-1% Center to edge 46. 0% 60. 0% Upper hole 23.0% 19-7% Under hole 32.4% 22.0% Average total. 42. 1% 36. 6% Thickness Triangle 41-9% 41-4% Sash-lift 97. 0% 56. 0% Final average error 38. 3% 31.8% Neither drawing nor description exhibited marked superiority in the retention of the ele- ments of general design. The process of description is markedly superior to that of drawing as a device for securing reten- tion of color. The ratio of correct judgment is nearly 2 to 1 in favor of the pupils who made descriptions of the objects. ISO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING Table XV Memory for General Design Drawers Descrlbers Rights Rights Contour of: Sash-lift 22% 35% Triangle 73% 70% Position of: Sash-lift holes 20% 50% Triangle holes 73% 65% Surface Markings: Grooves, etc , 93% 93% Abrasions, Triangle 93% 93% Abrasions, Sash-lift 90% 89% Final average rights 67% 71% Table XVI Memory for Color Drawers Describers Rights Rights Number seen 77. 0% 100. 0% Position 3.0% 55-0% Areas 38.8% 71-3% Average rights 39-6% 75-4% 8. Conclusion. The results of Experiment III give positive evidence that representative draw- ing is not a successful device for securing the analytical observation necessary to successful retention. Even in its own domain of form and dimension it is no better than, and in all probabil- ity not equal to, the process of description. THE EXPERIMENTS 151 Experiment IV. Analysis of Observation During Representative Drawing and Description. 1. Problem. To determine the direction of attention during drawing and description. 2. Method of Procedure. Subjects. 48 univers- ity graduate students. (See Test No. 2, p. 91). Immediately after spending seven minutes each in describing and drawing a microscope clip, the subjects of this experiment were given the follow- ing directions: Directions. Introspect carefully, and pro- ceed as follows: State in writing as definitely as possible any differences which distinguished your consider- ation of the object (a) while drawing it from that (b) while describing it, such as: 1. Aspects or characteristics of the object which held your attention during (a) and (b) above. 2. Kind of mental analysis of the object or mental procedure during (a) and (b). 3. Difficulties in the technique of expression during (a) and (b). 4. Any other specific difference which you may have experienced. The majority of these subjects had had con- siderable training in psychology and were able to make a satisfactory psychological analysis of their previous attempts at observation. The follow- ing summary presents the results obtained from 152 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING the foregoing introspections. It has been veri- fied frequently since the original experiment. 3. Results. Analysis of Description and Drawing Scope of Attention Description 1. Many categories of characteristics, such as: (a) spatial, (b) visual, (c) nomenclature, (d) classification, (e) material, (f) use, (g) construction, (h) kinaesthetic, (i) aesthetic, etc. 2. Absolute circles, angles, dimensions, etc. 3. All parts significant. 4. Object dynamic. Drawing 1. Characteristics limited to three categories: (a) spatial; — proportions, (b) visual; — appearance, (c) aesthetic; — beauty. 2. Circles, etc., modified by distance and perspective. 3. Surface view significant. 4. Object static. THE EXPERIMENTS 153 Type of Mental Analysis Description 1. Dealing with concepts. 2. Rational analysis and synthesis. 3. Constant comparison with previous knowledge ; "association." 4. A sequence of ideas and definitions logically devel- oped into a whole. 5. Many categories of thought. Desire to dissect. 6. Mental activity more intense. 7. Various types of imag- ery used. Drawing 1. Dealing with percepts. 2. Imitative reproduc- tion. 3. Constant comparison with appearance of resulting drawing; "isolation." 4. Any part may be drawn into the whole at any time. in 5. Two groups present class: (a) limited categories — geometrical, (b) trial by error methods. 6. Mental activity relieved by motor. 7. Visual imagery used. Difficulties Description 1. Lack of proper words to express meanings realized. 2. Not knowing how to be definite. 3. Failure to think of at- tributes. 4. Incompleteness. 5. Difficulties with organi- zation of elements into a logical whole. Drawing 1. Lack of control of hand in attempting lines. 2. Not knowing how to produce three-dimension ef- fects. 3. Failure to select ele- ments of form. 4. Incorrectness. 5. Difficulties of organiz- ing details into a unified whole. 154 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING Experiment V. The Effect of Analytical Observation upon Drawing. i. Problem. To determine the effect of analyt- ical observation upon ability in representative drawing. 2. Method of Procedure. Subjects. 16 gradu- ate students. A stuffed bird, the black-crowned night heron, was placed before a group of students for study. The students had never seen this species of bird before and none of them was acquainted with the methods of bird study. They were first acquainted with enough anatom- ical terms to enable them to follow the directions. The class was then divided equally into two groups. A and B. The members of both groups were given the following directions: Directions. Answer the following questions on the paper supplied: 1. What is the shape of the bird's bill? 2. What is the condition of the crown? The forehead? 3. What is the position of the wings at rest with reference to the body and tail? 4. The knee is concealed by the plumage. The first visible joint is the heel. The bone connecting the heel and the foot is the meta- tarsus. Which way does the heel bend? Each group was then given a special direction for observation which was not given to the other group. The directions follow: THE EXPERIMENTS 155 Group A. Note carefully the comparative lengths of the bill and meta-tarsus. Group B. Note carefully the number and comparative lengths of the front and hind toes. Finally, both groups were given the following direction: Direction. Make a drawing of the night heron. Draw the bird in any convenient posi- tion. 3. Results. The parts to which attention had previously been called were more accurately drawn than the parts which had not received mention. Group A, which had been directed to observe the comparative lengths of the bill and metatarsus, drew this feature with much greater accuracy than Group B, which had not received this instruction. Table XVII gives the compar- ative measurements of the drawings of the two groups for this feature. Other features exhibited similar results. 156 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING Table XVII Comparative Length of a Bird's Bill and Meta-tarsus Drawn with and without Previous Analytical Study. The Bill and Meta-tarsus are Actually of Equal Length. Group A (After analysis) Student Length of bill Meta- tarsus Group B (Without analysis) Student Length of bill Meta- tarsus A.K 25 mm. 24 mm. L.M 25 " 28 F.P 20 " 20 F.S 9 " 9 R.C 25 " 20 E.W 30 " 32 W.M 24 " 25 J.S 19 " 17 A.P 14 mm. 20 mm. L.W. C.R.. H.M. J.P.. O.P.. E.B.. S.J... 35 35 i8' 4 25 28 15 40 58 45 8 35 35 25 4. Conclusion. Analytical observation improves the ability to make a representative drawing. Greater accuracy of dimension is exhibited after such study. Group A, above, after having their attention directed to the comparative length of the bird's bill and meta-tarsus, drew it with ap- proximate accuracy. Group B, without such directed attention, made errors anywhere from 15 to 250 per cent. Chapter VII FINAL CONCLUSIONS 7. The Psychological Analysis of Drawing. The psychological analysis of drawing shows that the process of graphical expression is subject to the influence of three interrelated factors, (i) a preconceived purpose, (2) ability to see, and (3) ability to represent. 1. The Preconceived Purpose. The preconceived purpose of drawing varies with the individual and the occasion. It may be (a) to fix an object in consciousness, (b) to catalogue items of informa- tion, (c) to make a visual representation, (d) to interpret an artistic sentiment, or (e) to illustrate a scientific concept. One decides to sketch a route to the next village, another to record the parts in an automobile wheel, a third to draw a picture of his house, a fourth to interpret the tragedy of war, and a fifth to demonstrate the action of a force-pump. Then follow, each sub- ject to the original intent of the effort, the direc- tion of attention, the play of memory, the marshal- ling of ideas, the choice of interpretation, and the guidance of the hand. Whatever it may be, the purpose of the moment dominates the entire pro- cess of graphical expression. 157 158 THE PS YCHOLOG Y OF DRA WING 2. The Ability to See. (See pp. 97-99.) The ability to discriminate the particular character- istics of an object which should be shown in a draw- ing depends upon both native talent and train- ing. 1 A certain inherent perspicacity for, and a predisposed tendency toward, analytical observa- tion are fundamental and peculiar to each type of drawing. One individual may be given to the type of analysis which is demanded by artistic drawing, another to the analysis required by scientific drawing, and a third to that necessi- tated by representative drawing. Each procliv- ity favors one type of drawing and interferes more or less with the others. On the other hand, the ability to see with dis- crimination may be greatly improved by train- ing. (See p. 103.) One learns by experience to discover more readily the lines which exhibit artistic beauty, is taught to discriminate charac- teristics which are scientifically important, or comes in the course of training to recognize ele- ments of form which carry representative value. Successful training in any one or all of these is not impossible to any normal child. 3. Ability to Represent. Given the same pre- conceived purpose and ability to see discriminat- ingly, achievement in drawing depends upon a number of closely interrelated factors. 1 See footnote, p. 100. FINAL CONCLUSIONS 159 (a) Visual Imagery. The clearness of visual imagery, particularly in memory drawing, is of great importance to accurate representation and is subject to great individual variation. With different individuals the drawing image may be (1) clear and distinct, (2) vague and incomplete, (3) distinct, but inaccurate, or (4) changeable and evanescent when the act of drawing begins. (See PP. 93, 94, and 99.) (b) Reflection. Knowledge of the physical char- acteristics of an object may serve to strengthen the visual image or even to substitute for it, as when one recalls that an object is just twice as long as it is broad. (See pp. 93-95.) (c) Memory Devices. The memory may be fortified by the acquisition of drawing schemata of common objects. The possession of a typical dog schema, for instance, is of great service when one attempts to make a drawing of the village bulldog "Buster." (See p. 100.) (d) Hand Control. The control of the hand movements when making regular lines which co- ordinate with the image or percept of the object fundamental to accurate drawing. (See pp. 99-100.) (e) Principles of Drawing. An acquired knowl- edge of drawing is necessary for the purposes of visual representation. (See p. 100.) 160 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING (f) Synthetic Capacity. All drawing depends upon a final synthesis of the elements which have been isolated during the analysis which precedes the use of the pencil. (See p. 76.) One of the earliest of the child's difficulties with drawing is his incapacity to assemble parts into a synthesized whole. He is unable, for instance, to arrange the human features which he knows as separate units into a uniform face. Later on, synthetic incapacity remains to mar the symmetry of visual representation. Many drawers never see the ' 'whole" object well enough to fit in the parts symmetrically. Finally, it is synthetic incapacity that sets the limits to the artistic interpretation of beauty and the scientific discovery of law. II. Adaptation of Laboratory Teaching. The psychological analysis of the drawing act shows that there is great variation among differ- ent individuals in ability to draw and in the man- ner in which graphic expression is utilized. Labor- atory procedure must be adapted to these varia- tions before the highest type of instruction is attainable. One of the earliest necessities, therefore, in science teaching is a study of the graphic propensi- ties of individual students. This may be done by subjecting them to tests similar to those de- scribed in Chapters V and VI. The teacher should FINAL CONCLUSIONS 161 know the degree of ability and the cause for the superiority or the deficiency of every student in description and in representative, memory, and analytical drawing. Means should then be taken to improve defective ability whenever possible by special training and, whenever impossible, to adjust laboratory practice to the capability of the student. Improvement in the art of scientific expression may be secured through the co-operation of teachers of English and Drawing. The descrip- tions resulting from the foregoing experimental tests indicate that many of the subjects have had deficient training in accuracy of verbal expres- sion. (See Test No. 2, p. 113.) General terms and figures of speech often deceive both writer and reader as to the actual lack of any genuinely specific statements. Each reader supplies a dif- ferent set of imagery, which proves frequently upon psychological analysis to be widely removed from the reality of the original material. The pupil's description of a feather usually reads well if no check is made upon what is specifically said, because the reader unconsciously fills in the gaps with his own previous knowledge. It is different with a strange object like a microscope-clip. For most persons the expression "microscope- clip" fails to arouse any image or tendency to react toward it, and the student feels at once his i62 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING need for specific terms of description. One college graduate was unable to write a single word of description about the microscope-clip, and a num- ber of others were practically helpless. Without question training in scientific expression is a legitimate, and should become a regular, part of the work in English. Achievement in scientific expression is similarly closely related to Drawing instruction. More- over, the development of skill in analytical " see- ing* ' is essential to the interests of artistic expres- sion itself. (See pp. 96 ff .) Drawing from mem- ory, appreciation of the scientific principles of drawing, ability to modify representative draw- ings so as to express some aesthetic ideal or to interpret or emphasize some salient aspect of an object or scene — one and all are dependent upon analytical observation. It is, therefore, not only important to the interests of science, but desir- able from the artistic point of view, that pupils learn early to analyze with discrimination for each type of graphical expression, whether it be visual representation, artistic interpretation, or scientific illustration. III. Analytical Observation. 1 Laboratory procedure makes use of three devices to stimulate analytical observation, (1) repre- 1 See p. 5 for definition of analytical observation. FINAL CONCLUSIONS 163 sentative drawing, (2) description, and (3) analyt- ical drawing. 1. Representative Drawing. 1 Representative drawing does not insure a consideration of the scientific aspects, or an analytical study of an object. (See Experiment IV, p. 150.) The pre- conceived purpose of reproducing a visual copy narrows the scope of observation, and the atten- tion, at best, is directed to items of form and color. There is nothing to call up associations which have to do with scientific ends. The atten- tion is, in fact, kept away from the associations that have to do with science as such. Even in the province of form, sustained attention is not necessary. The pupil's drawing is always subject to direct comparison with the object at hand, so that extended study and reflection over its pro- portions are not necessary. It is a waste of time for the interests of scientific thinking to require pupils to spend extended periods of time at repre- sentative drawing. In fact, it is worse than a waste of time, for it encourages bad habits of analytical study which are opposed to interests of scientific thinking and constructive research. It is no wonder that so few of our picture-laden notebooks give evidence of scientific grasp or initiative. The excessive use of representative drawing is a serious pedagogical formalism which 1 See p. 6. i64 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWIN& produces copyists instead of scientists and which creates distaste instead of enthusiasm for science. 2. Description. The preconceived purpose of description gives a much broader direction to at- tention. (See Experiment IV, p. 150.) The at- tempt to describe an object directs attention to a large number of its characteristics and initiates an effort toward an analysis in terms of the subject's own knowledge and previous experience. The student who attempts to describe a feather thinks of its color, its shape, its use; all he has ever known or thought about it is subject to the play of his reflection. The attitude of mind brought about is ideal, but for purposes of scientific analysis it lacks specific direction. The pupil is frequently unable to determine what characteristics of the object are of scientific importance. He not un- likely devotes the major portion of his time to describing the intricate color pattern of the feather, and may overlook entirely the structural elements which adapt the feather to the service of protec- tion or of flight. It is necessary, therefore, to supplement and direct the pupil's attempt at description. 3. Analytical Drawing. 1 The preconceived pur- pose of analytical drawing supplies the direction of attention which is lacking in spontaneous description. The attention is directed to the 1 See pp. 6-8 for definition of analytical drawing. PINAL CONCLUSIONS 165 particular characteristics of the object which are of immediate scientific concern. The successful type, schematic, or diagrammatic drawing cannot be made without analytical study. The student who attempts to make a diagrammatic drawing showing how the parts of a wing feather are held together has before him a definite problem in analysis which necessitates sustained mental ef- fort to the end of the process of representation. (See Experiment I, p. 107.) IV. Laboratory Records. 1. Representative Drawings. The results of the various special tests show that representative drawings do not afford a measure of the pupil's progress or an adequate record of the work which he has accomplished. 2. Description. Description is a desirable record of the work of the pupil. It covers a wide range of observation and lacks only in the matter of the extra time required for the preparation of accurate and comprehensive statements, and for the teacher to make critical inspection. 3. Analytical Drawings. Analytical drawings are ideal records of work accomplished and should be used wherever adaptable to the laboratory exercise. They require but a minimum of time for execution, can be made without exceptional skill of hand, and may be readily inspected. 166 THE PS YCHOLOG Y OP DRA WING V. Retention. i . Representative Drawing. Representative drawing does not aid the memory. (See results of Experiment III.) As far as scientific concepts are concerned, it interferes with it. Many indi- viduals who can make excellent representative drawings are unable to remember what the object looks like. They fail in the attempt to draw from memory because of faulty and inaccurate observa- tion. Memory tests show that there is no corre- lation between retention and ability in represent- ative drawing. (See p. 142.) 2. Description. Description aids retention by establishing numerous secondary associations dur- ing the period of observation and writing. (See pp. 142 and 152-153.) Subsequent recall is greatly facilitated by the number and strength of these associations. 3. Analytical Drawing. Analytical drawing aids retention in the same manner as does description. Ability in analytical drawing is positively corre- lated with retention. (See p. 142.) The visual memory of the analytical schema serves as an additional support for the recall of associated ideas. 4. Memory Drawings. The attempt to draw from memory tests the retention of space and form relationships. (See pp. 98 ff.) By means of subsequent comparison of the defective memory FINAL CONCLUSIONS 167 drawing with the real object, the attention is directed to the things which had escaped recall while drawing. For instance, one attempts to draw his watch from memory and puts the second dial near the center. He then compares his draw- ing with the watch. What happens? He immedi- ately scrutinizes the characteristic which his earlier observation has failed to fix correctly in memory. Thus the attempt to draw from mem- ory supplies the direction of attention to the visual characteristics of an object which is lacking in representative drawing. VI. Recommendations. 1. It is recommended that the directions of laboratory teaching shall be specifically adapted to the scientific purport of the hour. The direc- tions given for the conduct of Parts III and IV of Test No. 1, Experiment I, in the preceding chapter, are suggested as typical of the proper laboratory procedure. (See pp. in ff.) 2. It is recommended that science teachers shall make an early study of their pupils to dis- cover individual variations in skill at graphic expression, and that laboratory instruction shall be adapted to the needs and capabilities of the individual members of the classes. 3. It is recommended that special attention shall be given to training pupils in the art of 168 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING scientific expression by teachers of English and Drawing. 4. It is recommended that the device of repre- sentative drawing shall be supplanted in labora- tory teaching by the use of description, memory drawing, and analytical drawing. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Albien, Gustav. "Der Anteil der nachkonstruierenden Tatigkeit des Auges und der Apperception an dem Behalten und der Wiedergabe einfacher Formen." Zeitschrift fur experimentelle Padagogik. V. u. VI. Bd. 1907. (Thirty-four plates in) Gratisbeilage, Bd. VI. An experimental study of the drawing act of great value. The author also reviews the history of the methods of education in drawing and gives a lengthy analytical discussion of the drawing act. 2. Bailey, Henry Turner. Article on "Drawing." Monroe's Cyclopedia of Education. (Macmillan, 1912.) II. 366. On the educational values of drawing. 3. Bailey, Henry Turner. "Report on Industrial Draw- ing in Fifty-eighth Annual Report of the Board of Education." (Massachusetts. 1893-94.) Boston, 1895. 4. Baldwin, James M. "Mental Development in the Child and the Race." (Macmillan, New York, 1895.) 5. Balfour, H. "The Evolution of Decorative Art." (Macmillan, 1893.) 6. Ballard, P. B. "What Children Like to Draw." Journal of Experimental Pedagogy. 1913. 2: 127- 129. 7. Barnes, Earl. "A Study of Children's Drawings." Pedagogical Seminary. December, 1893, pp. 451-463. One of the earliest attempts to interpret large groups of children's drawings. 8. Barnes, Earl. "Child Study in Relation to Elemen- tary Art Education." In "Art Education in the Public Schools of the United States." (Haney. 169 176 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING American Art Annual. New York, 1908.) pp. 101- 132. The author gives a comprehensive review of the literature of children's drawings with special refer- ence to the pedagogy of drawing. 9. Barnes, Earl. "Studies in Education." (Stanford University and Philadelphia. 1897, 1902.) Vols. I and II. A series of short articles, both statistical and inter- pretive, on children's drawings. 10. Bastin, E. S. "Laboratory Exercises in Botany." (Saunders, 1895.) 11. Bechterew, W. V. "Objektive Psychologies ' (Teub- ner, Leipsig, 1913.) P- 392, ff. 12. Bechterew, W. V. "Recherches Objectives sur l'Evolution du Dessin chez l'Enfant." Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique. V. 5. 191 1. A good description of the drawings of the patho- logically degenerate. 13. Bergen, J. "Note-book to Accompany Botany Texts." (Ginn, 1904.) 14. Bigelow, M. A. "The Teaching of Zoology." (In Lloyd and Bigelow, "The Teaching of Biology." Longmans, 1907.) 15. Binet, Alfred. "Interpretation des Dessins." Revue Philosophique. December, 1890. 16. Broerman, E. "L'Ecole dans la Nature." Revue de l'Institut International d'Art Public. VII et VIII. December, 1909. Contains: (a) International Inquiry on children's drawings; (b) Prehistoric drawings; (c) Free drawings of our children; (d) Reform of drawing instruction in France. 17. Brown, Elmer E. "Notes on Children's Drawings." (University of California. 1897.) Vol. II, No. 1. Interprets four biographical studies of children's drawings. BIBLIOGRAPHY 171 18. Brown, William. "The Essentials of Mental Measure- ment." (Cambridge University Press. 191 1.) Part II, Correlation. An excellent discussion of the mathematical theory of correlation. 19. Burk, Frederick. "The Genetic versus the Logical Order in Drawing." Pedagogical Seminary. Sep- tember, 1902. Includes a summary of studies in children's draw- ings and discusses pedagodical applications. 20. Chamberlain, A. F. "The Child. A Study in the Evolution of Man." (Scribners, New York, 1900.) Chapter VI. The Arts of Childhood. An interesting treatment of children's drawings which includes numerous ethnological comparisons. 21. Claparede Ed. (et Geux.) "Plan d'Experiences Collectives sur le Dessin des Enfants." Archives de Psychologie. Janvier, 1907. pp. 276-278. 22. Clark, A. B. "The Child's Attitude toward Perspec- tive Problems." (Stanford University Studies in Education, 1897.) Vol. I, pp. 283-294. 23. Clarke, I. E. "Art and Industry." (United States Bureau of Education. 1885-89.) Part I. An excellent source of information concerning the early development of industrial drawing in the United States. 24. Cooke, Ebenezer. "Art Teaching and Child Nature." Journal of Education, London. December, 1885. January, 1886. An early treatment of children's drawings which has had considerable influence upon educational practice. 25. Conn, H. W. "Biology." 1912. 26. Curtis. "Laboratory Directions in General Zoology. " 1912. 27. Danzel, T. W. "Die Anfange der Schrift." (Voigt- lander, Leipsig,^i9i2.) 172 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 28. Duck, J. "Uber das zeichnerische und kunstlerische Interesse der Sch tiler.'* Zeitschrift fur experimen- telle Psychologie. 13. 19. 12. The author gives particular emphasis to the changes of interest which occur at puberty. 29. Elderton, Ethel. "On the Association of Drawing with Other Capacities in School Children." Biome- trika, 1909-10. pp. 222 ff. 30. Farnum, Royal B. "Present Status of Drawing and Art in the Elementary and Secondary Schools of the United States." (Bulletin, 1914, No. 13. United States Bureau of Education.) Contains a fund of excellent source material. Includes: (a) Historical development; (b) Aims and scope in art teaching; (c) Organization, methods, and outlines; (d) Application and correlation; (e) Pic- ture study and school decoration; (f) Materials and equipment; (g) Art clubs and associations. 31. Findley, Miss M. E. "Design in the Art Training of Young Children." Child Life, London, 1906-7. 32. Fitz, H. T. "Freehand Drawing in Education." Popular Science Monthly. Vol. 36, pp. 397-400. A statistical account of the failure of the average school child to draw. 33. Ganong, W. F. "The Teaching Botanist." (Macmil- lan, 1900.) 34. Gennep, A. Van. "Dessins d'Enfant et Dessins Pre- historique." Archives de Psychologie. X. Febru- ary, 1911. 35. Gotze, Karl. "Das Kind als Kunstler." (Hamburg, (1898.) 36. Grosse, E. "Die Anfange der Kunst." (Leipsig, 1894.) (Also, ''The Beginnings of Art." Appleton, 1897.) 37. Grosser, H., und Stern, W. "Das freie Zeichnen und Formen des Kindes." (Barth, Leipsig, 1913.) Contains a number of separate treatments of drawing and modeling. BIBLIOGRAPHY 173 38. Haddon, A. C. "Evolution in Art: As Illustrated by the Life-histories of Designs." (Scribners, 1914.) . An excellent ethnological treatment of the evolu- tion of drawing as a decorative art. 39. Hall, E. H. "The Teaching of Physics." (In Smith and Hall, "The Teaching of Chemistry and Physics," Longmans, 1904.) 40. Hall, G. Stanley. "Contents of Children's Minds on Entering School." Pedagogical Seminary. 1902. 41. Haney, James P. "The Development of Art Educa- tion in the Public Schools." (In "Art Education in the Public Schools of the United States." Edited by J. P. Haney. American Art Annual. 1908.) pp. 21-77. A useful historical treatment of the development of drawing in the public schools of the United States. 42. Hardest. "Laboratory Guide for Histology." 1908. 43. Hind, C. Lewis. "The Education of the Artist." (London. 1907.) Contains an interesting discussion of the training of the artist, given chiefly from the point of view of the author's experience. 44. Hogan, Louise. "A Study of a Child." New York. 1898. 45. Holmes, W. H. "Origin and Development of Form and Ornament in Ceramic Art." (Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, Washington, 1886.) An excellent and frequently quoted source of materials. 46. Howells, W. D. "A Little Girl among the Old Mas- ters." (New York. 1876.) Records the artistic development of a girl living in the midst of European art galleries. 47. Ivanof, E. "Recherches experimentales sur le Dessin des Ecoliers de la Suisse romande. Correlation entre T Aptitude au Dessin et les Autres Aptitudes." Ar- 174 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING chives de Psychologic VIII, No. 30. Decembre, 1908. pp. 97-156. An elaborate analysis of the drawings collected from the inquiry instigated by ClaparSde and Geux, with special reference to the correlation between ability in drawing and other school subjects. 48. Jessup, Walter A. "The Social Factors Affecting Special Supervision in the Public Schools of the United States." (Teachers College, Columbia Uni- versity, 191 1.) Chapter III, "Drawing," pp. 18-31. 49. Johonot, J. "Principles and Practice of Teaching." (Appleton, 1878.) 50. Judd, C. H., and Cowling, D. J. "Studies in Percep- tual Development." Psychological Review. 1897. An experimental study of attempts to draw a simple figure from memory. 51. Karrenberg, C. "Der Mensch als Zeichenobjekt." (Quelle and Meyer, Leipsig, 19 10.) 52. Katz, David. "Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Kinder- zeichnungen." Zeitschrift fur Psychologie u. Phys. der Sinnesorgane. 1906. pp. 241-256. A study of the perceptual process of children dur- ing attempts to make drawings of pasteboard geo- metrical figures. 53. Katzaroff, M. D. "Qu'est-ce les Enfants Dessinent?" Archives de Psychologie. IX. pp. 125-133. 54. Kerschensteiner, George. "Die Entwickelung der zeichnerischen Begabung." (Gerber, Munich, 1905.) An elaborate and important inquiry involving some 300,000 drawings of school children. One of the most influential works on the practical applications to teaching. Contains a wealth of discursive, sta- tistical, and illustrative material. 55. Kik, C. "Die iibernormale Zeichenbegabung bei-^ Kindern." Zeitschrift fur angew. Psychologie. 11/ 1908. pp. 92-149. BIBLIOGRAPHY 175 Contains a detailed treatment of the artistic ability of thirteen exceptionally gifted drawers. Gives particular emphasis to the relation of special merit in drawing to intellectual ability. 56. "Kind, Das, und die Schule." Katalog zur Ausstellung Kind und Schule auf der Buchgewerbe-Ausstellung, Leipsig, 1914. (Diirr, Leipsig, 1914.) An important treatment of drawing, reading, modeling, writing, etc. 57. Koch-Grunberg, Theodor. "Anfange der Kunst im Urwald." (Berlin, 1906.) Contains an interesting comparison of the draw- ings of children and primitive peoples. 58. Kohler. Zeitschrift fur angewannte Psychologie u. Psychologie Sammelforsch. Band I, 1908. See Stern, — Kohler, — Verworn. 59. Kretzschmar, J. "Sammlungen freier Kinderzeich- nungen." Zeitschrift fur angewannte Psychologie. 1910, 3. pp. 459-463. 60. Lamprecht, Karl. "Les Dessins d'Enfants comme Source Historique. Bulletin de TAcademie Royale de Belgique, nos 9-10, pp. 457-469. 1906. Gives the method of a research which has been carried out on a vast international scale. 61. Levinstein, Siegfried. "Kinderzeichnungen bis zum 14 Lebensjahr. Mit Parallelen aus der Urgeschichte, Kulturgeschichte und Volkerkunde." (Voigtlander, Leipsig, 1905.) 169 pages, 85 plates, 18 graphs. An important statistical research with an added extended bibliography. Chapter I, The human figure; II, Animals and plants; III, Perspective and colors; IV, Stories; V, Drawing as a language; VI, Parallels with historical and ethnographical develop- ment; VII, Drawings of Esquimaux; VIII, Pedagogi- cal conclusions. 62. Lindner, Rudolph. "Das Lesenlernen in der Taub- stummenschule. Das Kind und die Schule." Kata- log zur Kinder-Abteilung der Leipsiger Buchgewerbe Ausstellung. 19 14. p. 248, ff. 176 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 11 63. Lobsien, M. "Kinderzeichnung und Kunstkanon Zeitschrift f iir padag. Psychologic 1905. pp. 393- 404. Contains a comparison of children's drawings to the canons of classic art. 64. Locke, Josephine, C. "With What Should Drawing Begin?" (Proceedings of the National Educational Association, 1893.) pp. 491 ff. 65. Lukens, H. T. "A Study of Children's Drawings in the Early Years." Pedagogical Seminary. October, 1896. Contains a summary of the studies in children's drawings up to 1896. 66. Luquet, M. G. "Les Dessins d'un Enfant." (Alcan, Paris, 1913.) 150 plates. 262 pages. Contains a very complete analytical account of the drawings of a little girl from the age of three to nine years. The best biographical study to date. 67. Maitland, Louise. "What Children Draw to Please Themselves." Inland Educator. September, 1895. 68. Maxwell, W. H. "The New Course of Study." 1904. 69. Messmer, O. "Zur Psychologie des Lesens bei Kindern und Erwachsenen." Archiv f. d. ges. Psychologie. II. 70. Meumann, Ernst. "Ein Programm zur psycholo- gischen Untersuchung des Zeichnens." Zeitschrift fur pad. Psychologie. 1912. 71. Meumann, Ernst. "Die Analyse des Zeichnens und des Modellierens." In "Vorlesungen zur Einfuhrung in die Experimented Podagogik." (Englemann, Leipsig, 1914.) 00. 693-775. Contains the most elaborate analysis of the psy- chology of drawing to date. Includes: 1, The de- velopment of drawing and the gift of drawing in the child; 2, Analysis of the gift for drawing; 3, The de- velopment of^the child's understanding of pictures and sculpture* BIBLIOGRAPHY 177 72. Moore, K. C. "The Mental Development of a Child." The Psychological Review. October, 1896. 73. O'Shea, M. V. "Children's Expression through Draw- ing.' ' (Proceedings of the National Educational Association, 1894.) pp. 1015-1023. 74. Pappenheim, Karl. "Bemerkungen iiber Kinder- zeichnungen." Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psy- chologie. March, 1891. 75. Partridge, Sophie. "Children's Drawings." The Paidologist, London, November, 1904. An elaborate objective study of children's drawings. 76. Patridge, Lena. "Children's Drawings of Men and Women." (Stanford University Studies in Educa- tion, 1900.) Vol. II, pp. 163-179. 77. Passy, Jacques. "Notes sur les Dessins des Enfants." Revue Philosophique. December, 1891. pp. 614- 621. 78. Perez, Bernard. "L'Art et la Poesie chez l'Enfant." Paris, 1888. 79. Peter, Rudolph. "Beitrage zur Analyse der zeich- nerischen Begabung." Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psychologie. Jarg. XV. February, 19 14. 80. Preyer, Wilhelm. "The Mind of the Child." (Trans- lated by W. H. Brown. New York, 1899.) 81. Probst, M. "Les Dessins des Enfants Kabyles. " Archives de Psychologie. 6:131-140. 1906. An interesting study of the drawings of children who had not been subject to the influence of a civilized environment. 82. . "Report of Schools of Erie, Pennsylvania." 1877-78. 83. Ricci, Carrado. "L'Arte dei Bambini." (Bologna, 1887.) An early and much quoted objective study of children's drawings. It is translated in part in the Pedagogical Seminary for October, 1895. 178 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 84. Rooper, T. G. "Drawing in Primary Schools." New York, 1894. 85. Rosen. "Darstellende Kunst im Kindesalter der Volk- er." Zeitschrift fur angewannte Psychologie. I, P- 93, ft- 86. Rouma, G. "Le Langage Graphique de l'Enfant." (Alcan, Paris, 19 13.) The most comprehensive treatment of children's drawings from the development viewpoint to date. Contains a preliminary chapter on methods of study, an excellent bibliography, and many graphs, tables figures, and plates. 87. Ruttmann, W. J. "Die Ergebnisse der bisherigen Untersuchungen zur Psychologie des Zeichnens." (Wunderlich, Leipsig, 191 1.) Contains an excellent analytical summary of the important statistical and experimental studies of the psychology of drawing to 191 1. 88. Sargent, Walter. "Fine and Industrial Arts in Ele- mentary Schools." (Ginn, 1912.) 89. Sargent, Walter. "Problems in the Experimental Pedagogy of Drawing." Journal of Educational Psychology. May, 19 12. 90. Schuyten. "Het oorspronkelijk teekenen als bijdrage tot kinderanalyse." Paedolog. Jaarb. II. 1 901. pp. 1 12-126. Attempts to measure the artistic development of the child on the basis of the degree of perfection of his drawings as compared to classic standards. 91. Shinn, M. W. "Notes on the Development of a Child." (University of California Studies, Berkeley, 1899.) 92. Simpson, B. R. "Correlation of Mental Abilities." (Columbia University, 19 12.) 93. Spearman, C. "Footrule for Measuring Correlation." British Journal of Psychology. 1906. pp. 89-109. 94. Spencer, H. "Education." (Appleton, 1861.) BIBLIOGRAPHY 179 95. Stern, C. u. W. "Die zeichnerische Entwickelung eines Knaben." Zeitschrift fur angewannte Psychologie. III. }>£. 1909. A study in the early developmental period of drawing. 96. Stern, W. "Spezielle Beschreibung der Ausstellung freier Kinderzeichnungen aus Breslau." Bericht liber den Kongres fur Kinderforschung und Jugend- fursorge in Berlin. (1-4 October, 1906.) pp. 411-417. 97. Stern, — Kohler, — Verworn. "Sammlungen freier Kinderzeichnungen." Zeitschrift fur angewannte Psychologie. Sammelf. Band, I, 1908, pp. 179- 187-472-476. Band II, Heft 1 and 2. Includes a discussion of the collections of children's drawings then in existence. 98. Stiehler, Georg. "Beitrag zur Psychologie und Meth- odik des Zeichnenunterrichts. (Osterwieck, Leipsig, 1913.) 104 pages. An attempt to base drawing instruction upon ex- perimental psychology. Contains many excellent and practical suggestions. 99. Stone, J. M. "The Relation of Nature Study to Draw- ing in the Public School." (Proceedings of the National Educational Association, 1900.) p. 524, ff. 100. Sully, James. "Studies of Childhood." (Appleton, 1908.) 101. Tanner, Anna E. "The Child." (Rand, McNally, New York, 1904.) pp. 373-392. 102. Terman, L. M. "Genius and Stupidity." Pedagogical Seminary, 1906. 103. Thorndike, Edward L. "The Measurement of Achieve- ment in Drawing." Teachers College Record. November, 19 13. Contains a scale for the measurement of ability in representative drawing together with a discussion of the method of constructing the scale. i8o THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 104. . "University of Chicago Entrance Requirements." 1912. 105. Verworn, Max. "Zur Psychologie der primitiven Kunst." (Fisher, Jena, 1908.) 106. Wagner, P. A. "Das freie zeichnen von Volksschul- kindern." Zeitschrift fur angewannte Psychologie. 1913. 8: 1-30. Contains Stern's statistical investigation, Classi- fication made of the classes of possible motives, and percentages of frequency are given for representations of movement, human figure, indications of humor, etc. Four stages of development are recognized. 107. Whipple, G. M. "Manual of Mental and Physical Tests. " (Warwick and York, 19 10.) 108. Wilson, T. "Prehistoric Art." (Report of the United States Nat. Mus., 1896.) pp. 325-644. 109. Wundt, Wilhelm. "Volkerpsychologie." (Engelmann, Leipsig, 1900-09.) no. Yule, G. U. "An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics." (Griffen, 1912.) INDEX Page Albien, G 41, 64, 87, 92, 141 Analysis of drawing 46, 67, 87, 107, 157 Analytical drawing 2, 6, 164 Analytical observation 5, 98, 162 Analytical study 156 Attention, direction of 151 Average Rank Difference 127 Bailey, H. T 52 Barnes, E 18, 19 Bastin, E. S 56 Becterew, W. V 77 Bergen, J 56 Bibliographical survey 15 Bigelow, M. A 57 Biographical method 36 Bird, study of 154 Brown, E. E 37 Burk, F 73 Chance Difference 127 Claparede, E 25 Clark, A. B 22 Clark, I. E 51 Comparative products method 33 Conn, H. W 56 Constructive drawing 93 Correlation 9, 65 method of determining 121 rank method 122 181 1 82 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING theory of 126 with drawing 61, 107, 139, 143 Cultural values of drawing 49 Description 164 and observation 151 and retention 142 as a laboratory device 2 relation to drawing 107, 124, 130, 134 Developmental stages 70, 73 Diagram 113, 120 Diagramming and description 107, 135 Diagramming and representation 107, 135 Difficulties of drawing 97, 153 Drawing, aesthetic values of 51, 53 analysis of 67, 87, 151 analytical 6, 164 and intellectual development 49 as a language 52, 79, 83 as mental discipline 51 bibliographical survey of 15 correlations 61 cultural values of 49, 53 difficulties of 97, 153 freehand 54 industrial values of 49 involuntary 76 memory {see Memory drawing) 2 representative {see Representative drawing) 2 scientific value of 53 spontaneous 8, 67 stages of 70, 73, 76 types of 92 university entrance requirements 54 INDEX 183 Elderton, E 59 Experimental method 39 Experiments, special 107, 156 Farnum, R. B 50, 53 Feather, study of 108 Fixating seeing 42 Ganong, W. F 56, 57 General ability, and special 10, 64 relation to drawing 58 General intelligence 64 Gross products, method 16 studies in 67 Haddon, A. C 34, 80, 82 Hall, E. H 57 Haney, J. P 49 Hans Guck-in-die-Luft 20, 31, 72 Hogan, L 38 Human form 69 Industrial values of drawing 49 Intellectual development 49 Introspection 10, 151 Ivanof , E 26, 60 Jessup, W 50 Johnny Head-In-The-Air 20, 31 Johonot, J 56 Judd, C. H s 40, 89, 91 Karrenberg, C 103 Katz, D 40 Kerschensteiner, G 28, 36, 64, 74, 77, 82 Kik, C 31, 62 184 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING Laboratory, aims 107 drawing 4, 163, 165 procedure 3, 162 method I records 2, 134, 165 teaching 1, 160 Lamprecht, K 30 Language and drawing 52, 79, 83, 161 Levinstein, S 34, 36, 68, 69, 72, 79 Lindner, R 36 Lobsien, M 36 Lukens, H. T 38, 79 Luquet, M. G.. 38, 58, 69, 75, 78, 82 Maitland, L 18, 67 Maxwell, W. H 56 Memory drawing 8, 43, 46, 99, 101, 159 Memory, for color 150 for dimensions 149 for general design 150 Mental analysis 10, 153 Messmer, O 95 Methods of research 9, 15 Meumann, E 41, 45, 66, 74, 80, 97, 100 Motion, representation of 71 Objective methods 15 Observation 54, 96 analysis of 151 analytical ...... 2, 11, 154 Patridge, L 22, 168 Pearson method 128 Perceptual development 91 Peter, R 45 INDEX 185 Preconceived purpose 89, 157 Probst, M 24, 68 Psychological analysis 4, 107, 157 Rank method. 122 Realim, logical and visual 76, 78, 82 Recommendations 167 Reflection 159 Representative drawing 43, 46, 103, 163 ability in 158 analysis 151 and retention 142 as a laboratory device 2 definition of 6 relation to description 107 relation to diagramming 107 Retention, and description 141 and drawing 142 devices for 141 in laboratory procedure 3 types of 100 Ricci, C 17 Rouma, G 16, 18, 26, 36, 59, 64, 66, 69, 70, 78, 83 Ruttmann, W. J 16, 18, 33 Sargent, W 52 Sash-lift, study of 144 Schema 8, 74, 100, 159 School grades 136 Schuyten, H 23, 36 Scientific expression 162 Scientific values of drawing 55 Scoring methods 1 14, 142 Seeing ability 158 Simpson, B. R 65 186 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING Smith, W 50 Spearman method 128 Special aptitudes 58 Special products method 18 Speech and drawing 79 Spencer, H 56 Stages of drawing 70, 73, 74, 76, 79 Stern,W 32, 38 Stiehler, G 44, 66, 77 Subjective methods 16 Synthetic incapacity 76, 82, 160 Terman, L. M 64 Tests, analytic 9 Thorndike, E. L 77 Triangle, study of 144 Types of drawing , 72, 92 Types of reading ' 95 Verworn, M 75 Visual drawing 92 Visual imagery 99, 159 Wagner, F. H 32 Wundt, W 35 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: Nov. 2004 PreservationTechnoIogies A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066 (724)779-2111