Special talents and defects

I. RELATION BETWEEN IQ AND CAPACITY FOR READING

It has been stated that most of the mental functions, which human beings perform, are not elementary, but are capable of analysis into many contributing factors. Reading has been shown by such analysis to be a very complex function, interference in any part of which may result in disability. The causes of failure to learn to read under instruction, therefore, differ from child to child. Huey, who spent years studying the psychology of reading, finally became so imbued with the wonder of the process, that he felt that to know it in all its aspects and ramifications would be to know all psychology.

Correlations between IQ and reading ability, among children of the same age, in both silent and oral reading, are positive and very high. This is especially true of reading for the understanding of sentences. Correlation between general intelligence, as measured by a scale like Stanford-Binet, and reading ability, as measured by a scale like Trabue’s Language Completion, or Thorndike-McCall’s scale for understanding of sentences, reaches as high as .90, and hardly ever in any group falls below .60.

These correlations indicate that general mental maturity is very closely related to learning to read. The very intelligent children are the best readers in by far the majority of cases, while school children who do not learn to read under ordinary instruction, are usually feeble-minded. On the basis of experimentation in this field, Ranschburg suggests that even so mechanical an aspect of reading as ability to call correctly words exposed in a tachistoscope, may serve as a rough means of separating feeble-minded school children from the others. Nevertheless, even with correlation coefficients reaching as high as .90, there may occur occasional cases of very marked discrepancy between general intelligence and ability to read.

Very early reading, with little or no formal instruction, is often found among children of very high IQ. Of four children measuring over 180 IQ (Stanford-Binet), found by the present writer in New York City, every one learned to read simple matter fluently during or before the third year of life. Their early mastery of reading was but a symptom of their great general capacity.

Just what degree of intellectual development is typically reached before children can be taught to read is not known, but it is probably not far from a 6-year level. That is, children of ordinary intelligence can learn to read after they have passed their sixth birthday. A child who can read fluently at a mental age much below this must be considered to show a special ability; while one who cannot begin to learn at or above this general level^[10] is afflicted with a special defect, in some of the functions which enter into the reading process. These functions may be classified as those which enter into mechanics, and those which enter into comprehension, of reading.

II. THE MECHANICS OF READING

Under the mechanics of the process fall the sensory, motor, and to a great extent the perceptual, elements in reading.

The sensory elements include the participation of eye, ear, and muscles as sense organs, furnishing respectively the visual, auditory, and kinæsthetic contributions to the total function. In the case of the blind, tactual sensations replace the visual, and in the deaf, the visual replace the auditory. Sensory impairment, that is, impairment of eye, ear, or muscle as an organ, may prevent an intelligent child from learning to read. Examination of the special senses is the first step dictated by common sense and scientific procedure, when an intelligent child does not learn to read. In this way it has happened historically that the first cases of special disability in reading and spelling among school children have been reported by ophthalmologists, to whom they were taken for examination of the eyes. Parents naturally sought the expert who knows eyes in such cases, for to one who has not studied the psychology of reading, it appears that a person “reads with his eyes” only.

The visual defects which may most commonly interfere with the mastery of the mechanics of reading are myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, cataract, muscle-weakness, diplopia, and anomalies of the retina. Surveys of school children by competent oculists have shown that considerable numbers suffer from eye-defects sufficient to cause difficulty.

Deafness obviously may constitute an interference, since the correct sound of the word is essential to reading. Not so obvious is the rôle of the kinæsthetic sensations, but we are led to believe that their part is important through the studies of Fernald, later to be reported here.

Under the motor elements involved, we have to consider articulation, pronunciation, eye-movements, and the coördination of arm, hand, and fingers in writing words. It is hard for an expert reader, like an educated adult, to realize without first-hand study of the facts, to what extent these elements originally entered into his learning. The inexpert reader tends to retain lip-movements, and, indeed, movements of the whole apparatus of articulation, in silent reading.

Perception of a stimulus may be defined for our purposes as seeing, hearing, or otherwise interpreting it in a certain way. Perception is habit, learned just as other habits are learned. We perceive the spoken words “home again” as such, because we learned to do so. One who has not learned, will not perceive two words, but only a jumble of articulate sound. In reading, the perceptual elements include the formulation of habits of responding to parts, and to groups of words, as such. Many investigations have been made of the perceptual elements in the mechanics of reading within the past twenty years.

It has been discovered that the word may be learned without first learning the separate letters which compose it. Spelling and reading are thus psychologically far from identical. In perceiving a word, all parts are not equally stressed. The first half and the upper half of the word have a great advantage over the last and lower halves. In fluent reading, the eye moves by jerks across the line, making three to five pauses in crossing an ordinary page of printed matter. Oral reading requires about 1.6 more pauses per line than silent reading, and the average duration of these pauses is longer. Thus oral reading requires 44 to 64 per cent more perception time than does silent reading. The unit of perception in reading may be the letter, the word, the phrase, the sentence, or even the paragraph, according to the training of the pupil, the degree of skill attained, and the extent to which he “skims.” The letter or the word as the unit of perception results in halting and expressionless oral reading, and in retarded silent reading.

These are some of the results of fundamental studies in the psychology of reading, which help us to understand cases of individual difficulty. Recently Gates has made intensive study of reading and spelling by the methods of correlation, with special reference to disability. He finds that partial and multiple correlations reveal an ability or abilities common to all perceptual tests involving words as materials, sufficient to cause fairly high correlations between them, as compared with the correlations between these tests and tests not involving words. By hypothesis, this common factor is defined as an ability to perceive clearly the significant details of words. The multiple correlations of these tests with spelling are higher than with reading, and it is suggested that those who have a very favorable form of word-perception are to some extent learning (or relearning) to spell during the course of ordinary reading. Gates also points out that poor reading is not caused by bad habits of eye-movement, but on the contrary, faulty eye-movements are merely symptomatic of the fact that the child cannot read well. Not having mastered the mechanics of reading, his eyes move hither and yon at random, seeking, by trial and error methods, to get at the matter before him. Wrong eye-movements can be cured by teaching the child how to read. The child cannot be taught to read by correcting his eye-movements.

It should be added, finally, that all the functions referred to above, and possibly others that analysis has not yet made evident, must be synthesized in an automatic set of habits before the child becomes proficient in the mechanics of reading.

III. COMPREHENSION IN READING

The elements of reading thus far considered are those that contribute to mechanics. Reading to recognize forms and to pronounce words is to be distinguished psychologically and pedagogically from reading for the understanding of sentences. Every teacher of much experience in the elementary school will be able to recall children who could read fluently from the printed page, but could not tell what they had read, nor answer questions about the context. In reading to grasp meaning, additional processes, more difficult to perform, are involved, beyond those required to “see and say” the words.

As would be expected, the ability to master the mechanics of reading is more loosely correlated with general intelligence than is ability to comprehend the matter read. The comprehension of meaning is a very large factor in intelligence. It might almost be maintained that intelligence is grasp of meaning. A child who has perfected the mechanics of reading, understands what is read in accordance with his general intelligence, as correlations prove.

Gates has shown that even in the case of children who are quite deficient in oral reading, the correspondence between general intelligence and comprehension of the context in silent reading, as revealed in answers to questions about the material read, is very much higher than would be believed probable. Such a child, using his lame mechanics, draws meaning from fragments, in accordance with his general intelligence.

On the other hand, young children are sometimes found, who have become very fluent in mechanical reading, who can thus read very abstruse matter, without getting any meaning from what they read, because of the limitations of general intellectual development.

As a result of his studies of “Reading as Reasoning,” Thorndike observes: “Reading may be wrong or inadequate (1) because of wrong connection with words singly, (2) because of over-potency or under-potency of elements, (3) because of failure to treat the ideas produced by the reading as provisional and to inspect, and welcome or reject them.”

This third cause of inferior reading is found invariably in children of low IQ, for to read in this way, understandingly, involves the weighing of many elements in a sentence, their organization in the proper relations to one another, and the selection and rejection of connotations—all functions of general intelligence. It is by tests of such functions that IQ is determined. Therefore, it is not surprising that comprehension in reading is so highly correlated with IQ, among school children of the same age. It is between IQ and mechanical ability to read words, that marked discrepancies may occasionally exist, as illustrative cases show.

IV. WORD BLINDNESS

As has been stated, the first cases of inferiority in reading were reported by ophthalmologists, who, upon discovering nothing wrong with the visual apparatus of the child brought for examination, pronounced the difficulty to be word blindness or “congenital alexia.” In using these terms, they reasoned from analogy with pathological cases of selective loss of function in adults, referred to by us in Chapter III.

The first cases reported from this point of view were, so far as the present writer can determine, those of Kerr and those of Morgan, both reporting in 1896. After these, a number of individual cases were reported in France, England, Germany, and the United States. In 1915, Schröck and Clemesha respectively summarized all literature to that date, the former presenting a bibliography of thirty-two titles. The great drawback to clear interpretation of these cases is that general intelligence was not measured. Some, at least, of the children were feeble-minded, for we find cited as evidence of good general endowment, performances which we now know to be typical of children much younger than those being described.

Hinshelwood, an ophthalmologist, published in 1917 a general discussion of non-readers, from the medical standpoint. According to his treatment of the subject, non-readers constitute a group apart, defined by some congenital, pathological defect in brain structure, but for which they would have read normally. This concept is directly derived from analogy with cases of lost function in diseased persons.

“By the term congenital word blindness, we mean a congenital defect occurring in children with otherwise normal and undamaged brains characterized by a difficulty in learning to read so great that it is manifestly due to a pathological condition, and where the attempts to teach the child by the ordinary methods have completely failed.... The recognition of this condition was the direct outcome and result of the previously acquired knowledge of those symptoms of cerebral disease, which we have been studying.... No doubt it is a comparatively common thing to find some who lag considerably behind their fellows, because of their slowness and difficulty in acquiring their visual word memories, but I regard these slight defects as only physiological variations, and not to be regarded as pathological conditions. It becomes a source of confusion to apply to such cases, as has been done of late, the term congenital word blindness, which should be reserved for the really grave degrees of this defect, which manifestly are the result of a pathological condition of the visual memory center, and which have proved refractory to all the ordinary methods of school instruction.”

This is the supposition which was critically considered in Chapter III, and shown to be irreconcilable with facts known to psychology. Hinshelwood did not make mental examinations of the cases which he describes, by standard psychological methods. He did, however, work out by experience a method of teaching, whereby all the non-reading children described learned to read. This consists simply in returning to the primitive method of instruction, beginning with the letters of the alphabet as units of perception, and proceeding by teaching the spelling of words. The necessity of individual teaching is insisted upon.

Aside from the improbabilities of neurological theory, this work is a valuable contribution to the study of children who have special difficulty in reading. It calls attention to the needs of such children, and shows that they can be taught.

V. PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES OF SPECIAL DEFECT IN READING

In 1917 Bronner published several interesting cases of special backwardness in reading, studied by the methods of psychological analysis. Bronner states that deficiency in reading, in children of normal sensory capacity and intelligence, sometimes is related to special deficiencies in making visual associations or auditory associations. In the former case the visual details of the word would be elusive. In the latter case, the phonetic elements would be inadequately heeded. Since ordinary success in reading arises through both these avenues of approach, deficiency in either might result in poor reading. Bronner suggests that the avenue which is most approachable in these cases be specially utilized. All children cannot easily learn to read by the method which serves the majority. Bronner does not give results of experimental teaching in the cases analyzed.

In 1918 Schmitt reported thirteen cases from the Chicago Schools, with many details of mental and physical examination. Unfortunately, systematic standard tests of general intelligence were not given, which must be considered a defect in the study, since exact comparisons of reading deficiency and mental age, or IQ, cannot be made. We have the investigator’s assurance that “sufficient tests were given to establish normal intelligence.”

The conclusion that special deficiency in reading ability was present, was made upon the following criteria: (1) regular school attendance; (2) reasonably good health and physical condition; (3) no sign of visual defect; (4) persisting slowness in learning to read, or total inability manifested over one or more years of school life; (5) general mental ability good or average; (6) no other interfering factor, such as foreign language in the home, dislike of school, abnormal unresponsiveness to school, or other social situations. Where all these conditions were satisfactorily met, central deficiency in capacity for learning to read was assumed to characterize the child.

It was then found that many of the thirteen thus selected had particular difficulty with phonetics—could not readily connect the sounds of letters with the visual symbol. They could all match words. All could point out the difference in two words differing in one letter. Those who were old enough to have learned to write could transpose a page of print into script. These facts are taken as evidence that the difficulty must be central and not sensory.

Four of the children were followed up with teaching in a special class. Phonics were taught. The easiest letters—those that can be prolonged—were taught first (r, f, l, m, s). In the effort to make the work interesting, the phonics were presented in a story, associating each sound with parts of the story. As many associations as possible were established to fix the sound of the letter.

All who received this special training are reported to have improved greatly, in a short time. Schmitt concludes that there are a few children who are so constituted that they cannot learn readily by the word and sentence method. “Every teacher uses this (the phonic method) to some extent, but to a very slight extent. The average child quickly learns to associate the printed letters and words with their vocal prototypes, without special emphasis on phonics, or special attention to associations.

“Whatever may be said for the word and sentence methods, it is really by the phonic method that the child becomes independent of the teacher.”

In 1920 and 1921 Freeman and Gray respectively presented well-studied cases of individual pupils. Freeman’s case was that of a girl 9 years and 6 months old, in the fourth grade of the University Elementary School, at Chicago. General intelligence was “better than average,” the exact IQ not being stated. The child’s father and paternal aunt had also had marked difficulty in reading. Both parents were above average in social-economic status, and hence probably also in intelligence. An oculist had made a diagnosis of word blindness, with a very discouraging prognosis for learning to read.

As a result of careful psychological analysis, it was decided that there was no deficiency of general intelligence, and no disorder of vision or of visual perception. There was no motor deficiency or general language disturbance. “The defect, therefore, must be a highly specialized one,” apparently consisting in lack of aptitude for associating visual symbols with prescribed sounds.

Phonetic drill had already been carried to excess in efforts to teach this child. She centered all her attention upon “sounding” the words as units, with no grasp of thought units. Devices to extend recognition were instituted. Passages were broken up into sentences, the individual sentences being typed separately on slips of paper. A card was placed upon the page and moved forward as fast as the child could read. Flash-card work was undertaken. Printed directions were given, which the child followed out by appropriate action. Practice in reading arithmetical problems was prescribed, where it was necessary to read exactly every item. Parallel with instruction in reading there was instruction in spelling and writing. Deficiency in spelling was extreme.

From early in October to late in December, these drills were given. The improvement shown on tests of reading ability was very marked after this brief interval. There was no doubt that the child could learn to read, and the prospect of return to the grade normal for her age seemed very good.

Gray’s case was that of a fourth grade boy, aged 10 years and 4 months when the study began. This boy had been obliged to discontinue some of his school work, because of inability to read fluently and effectively. His parents were unusually intelligent, and his sister read well and much.

The boy was normal physically, active and robust. At the age of 4 years, he began to wear glasses to correct astigmatism and myopia, and was constantly under the advice of an expert oculist.

There was a very irregular school history, with “skipping” in grades 1, 2, and 3. General intelligence was slightly better than average, as taken by the Stanford-Binet. Ability was rated good in all phases of school work not requiring reading. On all tests of reading ability he made very low scores. Comprehension was good for material read to him.

It was seen that he recognized words individually, that his eye-movements were faulty, and that the mechanics of reading had not been rendered automatic. Special practice exercises were prescribed in recognition of words, in control of eye-movement, and in grouping words in thought units. Very marked improvement followed upon this individual instruction, for one hour a day, over a period of two months.

A careful analysis, followed up by experimental teaching, has been published by Fernald and Keller. Seven non-readers of normal vision, and of IQ’s ranging from 94 to 130, were studied. All learned to read, under special instruction. The method of teaching stressed tracing, writing, and pronouncing the words. That is, the kinæsthetic elements in reading were emphasized.

Fernald and Keller believe that these children had not learned reading, because ordinary methods of teaching neglect the “kinæsthetic links.” Strong motor tendencies were seen in the children, even after they had learned to read fluently. It must be said that this study is one of the most satisfactory so far presented, because it gives precise quantitative measurements, and because the psychological analyses were so well checked up by experimental teaching.

Gates followed up the poorest readers, all of average or superior general intelligence, in the Scarborough School, with special training in the visual perception of words, with good results in every case but one.

Comment upon the implication of these studies will be postponed until we have considered certain further contributions to the subject, for example Burt’s observations on neurotics.

VI. NERVOUS INSTABILITY AND SPECIAL DEFECT IN READING

Burt has pointed out what every psychologist who examines school children can confirm, that neurotic children are often deficient in reading, though they may be intelligent. This follows from the psychology of the mechanics of reading. Mastery of these mechanics calls for an ordinary degree of coöperation, adherence to definite directions, power of sustained effort, and fidelity to bare facts. Neurotics are those who are characteristically inferior in these essential qualities, among others. Where impulsive response, negativistic attitude, flightiness, and illusion cause failure, neurotic children fail. Hence many of them never learn to read, except by individual teaching.

Under this category, we may consider, also, speech defectives, for speech defects are often symptomatic of nervous instability. Children who stammer or lisp may “turn against” reading, because of the ignominy they fear, in oral reading before their mates. A child who displays a speech defect in oral reading should, for humane reasons, be excused from such reading before the class.

General nervous instability naturally tends to failure in any school subject, which demands the qualities of character mentioned above as essential to the mastery of reading. Thus nervous, but intelligent, children may be deficient in reading, spelling, and arithmetic, “the tool subjects,” while making satisfactory progress in “the subject matter courses,” such as history, nature study, or geography, where precise connections in prescribed sequences of relationships need not be formed, in order to succeed.

Nervous instability may be found in combination with any degree of IQ, apparently, from dullest to brightest. The relation between them is not certainly known, though there is now considerable indication that the correlation between stability and intellect will be found to be positive and high (but not perfect). This would mean that there are very probably more ill-balanced children among the stupid than elsewhere in the distribution of IQ. That organic quality, which shows itself in superior intelligence, robustness, and longevity, also shows itself in nervous stability, more likely than not.

A nervous child, who is also very stupid, will, of course, learn under individual instruction only what his limited intelligence will permit. The methods of mental measurement enable us to differentiate between the nervous child who can learn much, and the nervous child who can learn very little, under individual training.

VII. A FOUR-YEAR STUDY OF A NON-READER

From February, 1918, to May, 1922, the present writer studied and taught a non-reader, a schoolboy.

X was brought to the Psychological Laboratory at Teachers College, in February, 1918, by his mother. The complaint was that the child could not learn to read, and on this account he had been suggested by his teachers for the ungraded class, in which feeble-minded children are taught. His mother, an intelligent woman, could scarcely believe X to be feeble-minded, because he “is very quick about things around home, is keen and capable about doing errands for money, and though he cannot read, gets around the city by himself.” She felt, however, that a boy who after over six years of instruction still remained totally illiterate must require special advice of some kind.

Accordingly, when the suggestion in reference to the ungraded class was made, the mother took X to the Neurological Institute, where an examination was made, in the Psychological Laboratory. The report was then given that the child was not a proper pupil for such a class, and the matter was referred to Teachers College.

X was born on September 23, 1906. He was therefore 11 years and 5 months old when he was first seen by the present writer. His school history showed that he started to school in kindergarten at the age of 5 years, and went into the first grade at 6 years. He had been “left back” in nearly every class, after the study of reading began. He spent three terms in 1A; one term in 1B; two terms in 2A; two terms in 2B; two terms in 3A; and was, when first examined, repeating 3B. In 3B he was reported as “deficient in everything except conduct.” In conduct he was rated always as B+ or A. The teachers said they could not teach him.

When X was about 7 years old, the matter of his difficulties was first taken up, with the family physician, who said he would “grow out of it and be all right.” As years passed, and the child continued to be untaught, the physician finally advised the visit to the Neurological Institute.

The teacher’s opinion was that the boy must be feeble-minded, since five different teachers had tried to instruct him in reading and spelling, yet he had failed to read or spell any word, except his name. He could recognize his name among other words, and could draw it fairly well, much as he would draw a house or tree. He could not spell his name.

Vision and audition had been tested at the Manhattan Eye and Ear Infirmary, and the report was that no significant defect of eye or ear existed. Motor tests showed the boy to be right-handed, so that interference in word-management, possibly due to change in “handedness,” was eliminated.

The developmental history of X as an organism reveals nothing atypical, except defects of speech and difficulty in reading. He was born normally, walked and talked before he was two years old, and was normal in dentition. But he did not talk plainly till he was about 6 years old. He had a speech defect, stuttered, and could not say “l”.

His medical history shows that he had whooping cough as a baby; that tonsils and adenoids were removed at the age of 5 years; that he had an abscess in the left ear at the age of 4 years, which lasted about two weeks, but did not impair hearing; that he had diphtheria at the age of 11 years, a bad case, followed by temporary paralysis of the soft palate; that he had never had any convulsion or loss of consciousness; that he had never had chorea, or other disease of the nervous system. Physically he was well developed, measurements on February 14, 1918, being as follows: Standing height, 59.8 inches; sitting height, 29.6 inches; weight (with ordinary clothing on), 86¼ pounds; cranial circumference, 21.2 inches; right grip (Smedley), 20 Kg.; left grip, 18 Kg.; lung capacity (wet spirometer), 130 cubic inches.

As for family history, X is the youngest of four siblings, all others of whom learned without difficulty to read and spell. His sister graduated from high school with a state scholarship, went through college, and is now a teacher in a high school. An older brother graduated from the elementary school at 14 years, in spite of the fact that he missed two semesters through illness. He also had a speech defect “about the same as X,” but outgrew it. Another brother had reached 8B by the time he was 13 years old. Of thirteen cousins attending school, only one had ever been “left back.”

The mother had graduated at the usual age from common school. The father had been troubled in boyhood by a speech defect, which disappeared. “He could not say certain words and letters.” On this account he did not like school. As an adult he reads the newspapers, and “can write a straight letter.”

X had never known any language other than English, so that interference of habit from other languages was ruled out. No attempt had been made to teach him reading at home, until after the reports of his disability began to be made from the school.

General intelligence was measured by the Stanford-Binet Scale, with a resulting score of 9 years 9 months mental age, and IQ 85. It was thus seen that general intelligence was quite sufficient for learning to read. From general intelligence of this degree, in a child under ordinary instruction for six years, one would usually be justified in predicting close to a fourth grade score on tests of reading.

In this case, however, scores of zero were yielded on all tests of ability to read. No word or letter on any scale could be read. There was, therefore, no question of making an analysis of the child’s difficulty through the use of such tests, since all scores were uniformly zero.

X was anxious to learn, and was becoming self-conscious because of his failure to go ahead. At this time no speech defect was noted by the examiner, and it was supposed to have been “outgrown.” He could copy writing, with some errors, and, as seemed strange, could transpose print into writing, though slowly and with errors.

Since sensory capacity was normal, general intelligence was developed well beyond the minimum at which reading can be taught, and character traits, such as promptness, reliability, and fidelity to duty, were reported to be better than average, it was decided to undertake to teach the child to read. Upon being asked whether he could travel alone from his school in Brooklyn to the office at Teachers College, both he and his mother replied without hesitation in the affirmative, “for he has ways of finding out where he is, without reading.”

Accordingly, from February to June, 1918, X came three times a week to Teachers College, and received special instruction in reading and spelling from Miss Sara Fisk, at that time a graduate student in the Department of Educational Psychology. After some experimentation with the attempt to teach by the word and sentence as units, Miss Fisk decided to begin by teaching first the alphabet, and to proceed with the letter as the unit. X thus learned to read, by spelling out the letters, and “sounding” them as he went. In this way, by the first of June, 1918, he knew and could sound and could write every letter of the alphabet, but could not write the capitals; and he had a reading vocabulary of eighty simple monosyllables. He was advised to study through the summer vacation, if he could.

In October, 1918, X returned to the College, seeking instruction, but Miss Fisk had discontinued her studies, and no teacher was available at the moment. In March, 1919, X’s mother reported that he had “done nothing” in reading and spelling at school, though he was not deficient in geography or arithmetic, and asked for assistance. Upon this report, X was invited to come for further instruction, which was given thereafter by the present writer.

The method previously undertaken was continued. The Riverside Primer was mastered, between March and June of 1919. Each new word was learned by spelling aloud and sounding. After several repetitions of this process, a new word would be assimilated into the vocabulary which could be read at sight, with the word as the unit of perception. In June of 1919, X could read any word in the Riverside Primer, either at sight or by spelling, and could write without error every letter of the alphabet, both small letters and capitals. He could also read simple matter which interested him in daily life, such as the weather reports, from newspapers.

From October, 1919, to June, 1920, X came for one hour each week, to be instructed. The Riverside First Reader was studied through. He made steady progress, as may best be seen from the repeated measurements on Trabue’s “Language Scale A,” which are illustrated in Figure 6 (page 77).

In September, 1920, X entered grade 5B, being 14 years of age, three years retarded in school status, by the New York City age-grade norms. His speech defect was again noticeable. All through this year, till June, 1921, he came for one hour each week to take instruction in reading and spelling. The series of Riverside readers was now abandoned, in favor of the history and other books used regularly in grade 5B. Toward the end of that school year, some reading was also done from boys’ stories, in which X had spontaneously become interested during the summer of 1920.

From October, 1921, to May, 1922, stories written for boys were used as material for the reading lesson. X brought with him whatever book he happened to be reading at the moment, and the lesson was taken from it. By this time X had become so fond of silent reading as a pastime that several difficulties in oral reading, not previously present, developed. One of these was the tendency to guess at new words, without waiting to perceive them accurately, in order to get on with the story. Another was the tendency to leave out all well known and unimportant monosyllables, such as “and,” “the,” “but,” “of,” “who,” and so forth. These words he knew unerringly when he could be induced to look at them, but in silent reading he had evidently formed the habit of neglecting them altogether. These faults were corrected by practice in reading backwards, which offers no incentive to skip words.

Samples of X’s tests in reading are reproduced in Figures 6, 7, and 8, in order that an accurate idea may be conveyed of his growth in power to gain meaning from the printed page.

X’s account of a week’s reading, reproduced in Figure 9 (page 86), gives an idea of the amount of outside reading regularly done, and at the same time an idea of proficiency in writing and spelling words, attained in January, 1922.

A partial list of books read for pleasure, on his own initiative by X, between December, 1921, and May, 1922, gives an idea of the practice he had in silent reading outside of formal instruction. This is presented on page 85, as follows.

Repeated mental tests of X resulted as follows:

Pintner’s “Scale of Performance Tests.” Dec. 26, 1919. Median M. A. 11–0.

Healy’s “Pictorial Completion No. I.” 446 points. (11-year performance). Dec. 26, 1919.

Healy’s “Pictorial Completion No. II.” 55 points. Dec. 26, 1919.

Stenquist “Mechanical Tests,” Series I. Feb. 3, 1922. Raw Score, 54 points. T score, 61.

It is of interest to note that a scale like Stanford-Binet, against which has been repeatedly brought the a priori objection that it depends on verbal acquirement, is capable of differentiating a non-reader from the feeble-minded. It is also interesting that the Pintner “Scale of Performance Tests,” which does not include ability to read at all, gives almost exactly the same result as the Stanford-Binet, in this case.

X is a boy of superior character. He never missed an appointment with his instructor, and was never tardy except once, unavoidably. He gave up pleasures, such as trying out for baseball, in order to learn reading. When asked why he did so, he replied that “You most probably can’t get a living playing baseball, but you can get a better living if you can read.” These qualities of perseverance and fidelity to duty were undoubtedly very important factors in such success as was achieved.

Why did X not learn to read as children of his general character and endowment usually do, in the ordinary course of schooling? After four years of studying and teaching him, the present writer cannot give a definite answer to this question. He was finally taught to read by a method in which the letter is the unit of perception, and in which words are read in the first place by spelling them aloud. This is not the method used in the schools where X attended, nor in any modern school.

Still, the possibility of teaching him by some method other than that which succeeded, has not been excluded. It is even possible that he might have learned to read by the very method used in the schools, under individual instruction, where each habit can be scrutinized as it is being formed. In a class of forty or fifty children, each demanding attention, a teacher cannot succeed with an individual pupil, by any method, as well as with that pupil alone, by that same method.

It was observed throughout the teaching of X that he constantly made appeal to his ear. He could always grasp a difficult word more easily by hearing it spelled aloud, than he could by seeing it. In order to obtain some quantitative statement of the extent to which auditory perception showed an advantage over visual perception in his case, the following experiment was tried.

In the spring of 1922, on four successive weekly appointments, 27 paragraphs, comprising 4131 words, were read by X, both (1) through the ear, the teacher spelling the words, and X pronouncing them without seeing them, and (2) through the eye, X seeing and saying the words, in the usual way. The order of these procedures was reversed for alternating paragraphs, so that no advantage to either method of perception would accrue from practice.

Errors are of two kinds—misreadings and omissions. Omissions in sight reading were not counted, since, according to the method whereby the teacher spelled successive words to X, no omissions were possible. Misreadings only were counted. In reading these paragraphs, X made 162 errors through the eye, and but 57 errors through the ear, in perceiving the same words.

This great reduction in error through auditory channels might, however, be due to the fact that by that method only one word was presented at a time, whereas in the ordinary visual reading the whole page of words was presented, acting as a distraction. In order to check this possible error in interpretation, one hundred isolated words were presented to the eye and to the ear, reversing the procedure alternately for every ten words. The ratio of error was nearly the same as in the first experiment. X can now, in fact, pronounce almost any puzzling word in ordinary reading matter, such as is found in newspapers, by spelling it aloud.

It seems reasonable, therefore, to infer that there are certain specific attributes of the auditory elements in reading, which were especially important for education, in this boy’s case, and which were not much utilized by the method of teaching employed. By teaching him the letter, with its various possible sounds, as the unit of perception, we supplied him with a tool which enables him to construct words for himself, through the channels which are easiest for him. This has not rendered him fluent, but it has rendered him literate. Altogether, he had from us about a hundred and fifty hours of special instruction. The present writer believes that with several times as much practice as X has had, he will become a reasonably fluent sight reader, dropping out the spelling almost entirely.

This case is very much like those referred to by Hinshelwood, and it is interesting that the teachers adopted, after trial and error, the same method adopted by Hinshelwood, without being familiar at that time with Hinshelwood’s contribution.

Inasmuch as a certain practical interest attaches to the final outcome of educational adjustment in such cases, it may be stated that X at the age of sixteen years will leave the elementary school, having completed grade 6B. He will then seek admission to a trade school, maintained by one of the great industries.

VIII. SUMMARY OF STUDIES OF NON-READERS

We see, therefore, that non-readers, of general intelligence much above the minimum level required for reading, do learn to read when special training is given. This training may stress phonics (Schmitt), it may stress the motor and kinæsthetic avenues of approach (Fernald and Keller), or it may stress visual perception (Gates). It may or may not proceed by use of the old “alphabet” method (Hinshelwood).

What is the interpretation of the facts reported? Does it not seem certain that general intelligence is, as indicated by the high coefficients of correlation obtained between reading and intelligence, the chief consideration, in predicting whether or not a child will learn to read? Would it not appear that children of adequate general intelligence, and of normal sensory capacity, learn to read when given intensive training, whatever avenue of approach may be particularly stressed?

It is not credible that all the non-readers found by Schmitt in Chicago, chanced to have a kind of disability approachable by phonics, and in no other way; that those discovered by Fernald and Keller in California were so constituted that they could be approached through motor exercises, and not otherwise; that Gates’ cases in the Scarborough School all happened to be susceptible to training through visual methods, and through no others. In fact, no investigator has established his or her method as the only method of successful approach to particular cases, by excluding other methods through experimental teaching.

For non-readers such as have been described under the criteria laid down by the investigators quoted, it seems highly probable that the best method would be that wherein all the avenues of approach are fully utilized. Such a method would combine all the special exercises devised by the various investigators, in a proportion and sequence, which should be determined upon as optimum by experimental teaching.

Such a method, when experimentally established, would be most suitable for all children—not for the extreme of the distribution exclusively. Here, as in so many questions of pedagogy, all children might profit from our study of the extreme cases, who differ from the typical in degree only.

Children of normal sensory capacity, and of IQ average or superior, typically learn to read passably well, without approach through all the possible avenues, and without special attention on the part of the teacher to all the elements involved. A few such children require intensive teaching in order “to pass” in reading, because of specific idiosyncrasies. If the methods that succeed with the extreme cases were applied to the typical class, perhaps the children might learn to read, not “passably,” but very well. There might be a rise of ten points in norms for reading ability throughout the grades. Such perfection of method might or might not eliminate entirely the necessity for individual teaching of special cases. Probably it would not, in classes as large as those seen in most of our public schools to-day.

IX. CASES OF SPECIAL ABILITY IN READING

It is characteristic throughout of educational psychology, that much more is known concerning the unable than is known concerning the able. The welfare of the strong is neglected by science and by education. It follows that the bibliographies dealing with the deficient, the sick, and the erring are very long, while those dealing with the gifted, the extremely healthy, and the unusually upright are very brief. Modern society gives a very disproportionate amount of time, money, and sympathy to its least profitable members.

The few cases of extreme special forwardness in reading, which are available for reference, are of children who were probably of very high IQ. Most of them were avowedly so. Terman has supplied numerous instances of children who learned to read in the third or fourth year of life, all of them of more than 130 IQ. Francis Galton, who could read fluently when he was 4 years old, was probably of IQ near 200, as has been gleaned from other biographical evidence. Ability to read is in such cases not special.

In 1910, the case of Otto Pöhler was reported. He was a child in Braunschweig, who could read German and Latin at the age of 1 year and 9 months, and also could read German numerals. The subsequent history of this infant shows that at the age of 15 years, he was an Obersekunder in the gymnasium, and that at 17, he was within one and a half years of the University. It is certain, therefore, that general intelligence was superior, but the degree of superiority cannot be guessed, except within wide limits.

It seems probable that the ability to read was somewhat special, in the sense that it exceeded the expectations from IQ. In order to read fluently before the second birthday, a child’s IQ would have to approach 300, to coincide with expectations. From what we know at present of the limits of IQ, it would be impossible for any child to stand at 300 IQ. The case of Otto Pöhler is, therefore, probably one of especially great ability to read, in a child of generally superior endowment.

A similar case is that of Martha, communicated anonymously by her father, through Terman. Martha was seen by Terman at the age of 2 years, when she read fluently from an ordinary primer. The method and amount of instruction which led to this astonishing result, are set forth in the account. Expectation from reading ability alone would place Martha’s IQ at something near 300, for she read what a typical child of 6 years can read. Later Terman tested the general intelligence of this child, and obtained a rating of 150 IQ.

Thus Martha’s phenomenal ability to read must be considered special, in the sense that IQ fell far short of expectation therefrom.

A year ago a child was brought to the present writer for mental examination, because he could read newspapers fluently at the age of 4 years. Upon being measured for speed and accuracy in oral reading, he fell at the 10-year norms (fifth grade). An IQ of over 200 would be inferred from this, assuming the ability in mechanics of reading to be in no way special. As a matter of fact, IQ fell at 142. Scores for comprehension of reading fell at 7 years (second grade norms), corresponding with general intelligence.

Upon retests this year, the scores were as follows: mechanics of reading English (speed and accuracy), fifth grade norm; comprehension in reading, high third grade norm; mental age, 8 years 6 months; IQ 147. This child’s ability to read is special, though general ability in mental work is very superior, too.

These are all cases of generally gifted children, where mastery in the mechanics of reading is, however, in each case much beyond performance in other respects. Cases where test scores have been presented to show special discrepancies in reading, in children of very inferior IQ, have been reported by White, in collaboration with Poull, from the psychological laboratory of the institution for feeble-minded children, in New York City. The children in the school who could read were canvassed, and those who could not read were similarly canvassed, until two groups of five each were selected, all members being above six years mental age, where reading can typically be learned. The two groups compared as follows in age, general ability, and schooling.

It is thus seen that the non-readers have every advantage, being one year higher in mental level, having had a double amount of schooling, and being of the same IQ^[12] as the readers. The investigators then had before them two groups of generally inferior children, of which the members of one had ability to learn reading, not possessed by members of the other.

Tests based on investigations of the psychology of reading were then given. These were for auditory and visual acuity, ability to perceive and reproduce articulate sounds, ability to cross out A’s and to check numbers, to attend to several impressions instantly, and to associate numbers and other symbols through the eye and through the ear. No significant differences in group scores were found, except in the last tests mentioned—those of forming associations between symbols. Here the readers made reliably higher scores than did the non-readers.

The investigators did not measure the reading ability of their subjects, but selected the children from the school reports, as to “reading” and “not reading.” The precise extent of specialized discrepancy between general intelligence and reading ability among the children cannot, therefore, be calculated. However, it may be inferred that two of these children had some degree of special ability. One of these, IQ 67, mental age, 6 years 7 months, is described as the best reader in the group, and it is said of her that she “reads well.” Another, IQ 79, mental age, 6 years 7 months, is said to “read very well,” being then in the second year of attendance on school.

A few cases of superior ability to read, occurring in combination with low IQ, have also been reported by Bronner.

X. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LITERACY

Reflection will show at once the great importance of reading for school progress, since our schools are virtually reading schools. Almost no subjects included in the curriculum can be learned without mastery of reading. Also the importance of literacy for life in modern times can scarcely be overstated. Those who learn to read easily at an early age thus have a natural advantage; while those of good intelligence, who have difficulty, should be assisted in every way to learn.

There are certainly very few children of IQ over 100, with normal eyes and ears, who do not learn with ease to read. A census would doubtless show that most cases of special disability in this respect lie between 50 and 100 IQ, that is, in the lower half of the distribution for general intelligence. Fildes, who measured the general intelligence of twenty-six non-readers, whom she studied, found them distributed as follows, with respect to IQ (Stanford-Binet):

It may be argued that children who cannot read necessarily tend to fall low on Stanford-Binet, because the tests composing the scale are weighted against non-readers. The validity of this argument is doubtful, in view of the fact that but four out of seventy-four tests (not including alternates, of which none require reading) directly involve ability to read or spell. As a matter of fact, Fildes found no correlation among her twenty-six subjects, between IQ and ability to read, as measured by reading tests. “Two of the worst readers were the least intelligent and most intelligent boys. The three worst cases examined, i.e., cases with no reading power at all, had intelligence quotients of 61, 79, and 78 respectively. Many defective boys with such high intelligence quotients read quite well.”^[13]

Non-readers who fall between 80 and 100 IQ are especially worthy of attention, since they have sufficient general intelligence to make considerable use of reading, and to suffer a special handicap from illiteracy.

It may be confidently stated, as a result of the research of the past five years, that all children of average or better than average general intelligence are capable of literacy; and that very early use of and interest in reading are strongly symptomatic of general superiority in selective thinking. From these facts we may hark back to the conclusion of the physiological psychologists, Ladd and Woodworth: “Indeed, the entire cerebrum would seem to be, of necessity, involved in man’s linguistic attainments and uses.” Mastery of language is, as Binet concluded, one of the most reliable indications of competence in general.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. I., and Merton, E.—“Remedial Work in Silent Reading”; Elementary School Journal, 1920.

Anderson, C. I., and Merton, E.—“Remedial Work in Reading”; Elementary School Journal, 1920.

Berkau, O.—“Otto Pöhler, das frühlesende Braunschweiger Kind”; Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung, 1910.

Berkowitz, I. H.—The Eyesight of School Children; U. S. Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1919, No. 65.

Bronner, A. F.—The Psychology of Special Abilities and Disabilities; The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Boston, 1917.

Burt, C.—“Unstable Children”; Child Study, 1917.

Buswell, G. T.—“An Experimental Study of the Eye-Voice Span in Reading”; Supplementary Educational Monographs, University of Chicago, 1920.

Clemesha, I. C.—“Congenital Word Blindness”; Journal of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, 1915.

Fernald, G. M., and Keller, H.—“The Effect of Kinæsthetic Factors in the Development of Word Recognition in the Case of Non-Readers”; Journal of Educational Research, 1921.

Fildes, L. G.—“A Psychological Inquiry into the Nature of the Condition Known as Congenital Word Blindness”; Brain, 1921.

Freeman, F. N.—“Clinical Study as a Method in Experimental Education”; Journal of Applied Psychology, 1920.

Gates, A. I.—The Psychology of Reading and Spelling, with Special Reference to Disability; Teachers College, Columbia University, 1922.

Gray, W. S.—“The Diagnostic Study of an Individual Case in Reading”; Elementary School Journal, 1921.

Gray, W. S.—“Remedial Cases in Reading: Their Diagnosis and Treatment”; Supplementary Educational Monographs, University of Chicago, 1922.

Hinshelwood, J.—Congenital Word Blindness; Lewis and Co., London, 1917.

King, I.—“A Comparison of Slow and Rapid Readers”; School and Society, 1916.

Morgan, W. P.—“Congenital Word Blindness”; British Medical Journal, 1896.

O’Brien, J. A.—Silent Reading. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1921.

Ranschburg, P.—Die Leseschwäche (Legasthenie) der Schulkinder im Lichte des Experiments; Julius Springer, Berlin, 1916.

Schmitt, C.—“Developmental Alexia” and “Congenital Word Blindness or Inability to Learn to Read”; Elementary School Journal, 1918.

Schröck, G.—“Über kongenitale Wortblindheit”; Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde, 1915.