Haggerty: Studies in Arithmetic 



93 



This 32 per cent evidently were not benefited by the drill. 

 We have not found any satisfactory explanation for all of this 

 but we have had raised for us some interesting problems, at which 

 we hope to work. 



In this group we have such scores as this: 



February: 11 attempts; 11 rights; 100 per cent dependability. 

 June: 13 attempts; 10 rights; 77 per cent dependabiHty. 



Should a pupil making such score on the February test have 

 been subjected to the drill? We think not. This score was made 

 by a 6B girl, and showed standard ability in speed for grade 

 seven (Courtis Standard) and 100 per cent accuracy. 



Here are the scores of another 6B pupil: 



February: 5 attempts; 5 rights; 100 per cent dependability. 

 June: 5 attempts; 1 right; 20 per cent dependability. 



Would this lad have been benefited more by a speed 

 stimulus ? 



We had scores like this: 



February: 3 attempts; 2 rights; 67 per cent dependability. 

 June: 3 attempts; 0 rights; 0 per cent dependability. 



The above is the score of a 6B boy who belongs in the class 

 ''heavily handicapped by nature." 



We find many scores like this: 



February: 8 attempts; 7 rights; 87 per cent dependability. 

 June: 9 attempts; 7 rights; 78 per cent dependability. 



Here, while the figures show a drop in dependability, we feel 

 that the girl has not been harmed by the drill. 



The fact that 60 per cent gained in dependability as they 

 gained in speed and that 21 per cent lost in dependability as they 

 lost in speed leads us to feel that these two stimuli are inseparably 

 related, but in different ways for different children. We should 

 like to know what would have been the effect on the 21 per cent 

 if we had used the speed stimulus instead of the accuracy 

 stimulus. 



