SECTIONAL TRANSACTIONS.—L. 393 
Mr. F. W. Reece.—Intelligence testing of secondary school boys at the 
Liverpool Institute (11.30). 
Since 1924 a series of intelligence tests has been applied to the whole 
school, and a record of each boy’s score kept. Altogether the school has 
been tested seven times, and the last four occasions have been at intervals 
of two years. Use has been made of the results for promotions, and for 
grading purposes within a block of forms, but they have never been the sole 
and seldom even the deciding factor. ‘The main object in view when the 
tests were put together was to obtain good results in the age groups 11-14, 
so that, using the results in conjunction with the ordinary examinations, 
promoted boys, and especially new boys, in these groups might be as 
correctly placed and graded as possible. 
In addition to this original purpose, the scores have since been used 
for a variety of purposes. For instance, as a basis of comparison between 
fee-payers and scholarship boys. In this case they indicate in general 
a marked superiority of scholars over fee-payers throughout their school 
careers. Roughly the norms of the fee-payers are equal to the norms of 
scholars who are three years younger. On the results of these tests it may 
fairly be concluded that the number of scholars admitted might be greatly 
increased without there being any likelihood that the general level of intelli- 
gence of the scholars would not still be higher than that of the fee-payers. 
A record has also been kept of the post-school successes of those boys 
who have proceeded to universities, and a comparison made between the 
academic honours gained by them and their intelligence quotients when 
at school. The number of boys considered is not large enough to lead to 
any definite conclusions, but some points of general interest are noted. 
Mr. D. N. Howarp.—The relative merits of the laboratory (practical) 
and demonstrative methods of teaching science (12.0). 
This investigation constituted an inquiry into the relative values of the 
‘laboratory ’ (practical) and ‘ demonstration ’ methods of teaching science. 
In the ‘ demonstration’? method the teacher performed all experimental 
work, in the ‘ laboratory ’ method the pupils did so. 
For comparison three pairs of parallel groups were employed, each two 
groups of a pair being approximately equal in mental, scholastic and 
scientific ability. After preliminary tests one group of each pair was taught 
exclusively by one method for eight months. Final tests enabled differ- 
ences between mean scores to be obtained representing the measures of 
relative progress. Mathematical treatment was adopted to measure the 
reliability of the tests and the probable errors of the differences of means 
upon which the findings were based. 
Summary of findings : 
(1) In the development of those characteristics termed generally 
‘scientific ability ’ neither method establishes definite superiority 
with pupils of all types. 
(2) For pupils who are mentally bright and who have had previous 
systematic training the ‘ demonstration’ method produces the 
better results. 
(3) The‘ laboratory ’ method is consistently better for dull or untrained 
pupils. 
Discussion. (Mr. J. L. Hottanp; Miss M. Younc; Prof. J. J. 
Finpiay ; Miss G. B. Dopps.) 
P 
