paper, a vital attack from the viewpoint of "Psychology in Literature." Those who are familiar with Dr. Irion's outstanding Teachers' College Contribution 189, Comprehension Difficulties in the Study of Literature, directly or through summary and conclusions published in the February, 1927, issue of the English Journal, know the value of his incisive approach to greater economy and higher conceptions in the teaching of literature. Brief digests of all the addresses follow:

PSYCHOLOGY IN TEACHING LITERATURE

THEODORE W. H. IRION

University of Missouri

The translation of my findings into the actual teaching problems which confront us as teachers of literature-not the contents of the report-is my theme. It is an attempt to make a psychological analysis of the teaching difficulties of ninth-grade literature and a study of the definite processes which the student must perform in attempting to master the subject. What are the demands which this process makes upon the reading process? The good reader makes accurate reaction to words, especially pivotal words; he reacts sharply to combinations of words which I shall call expression; he must get the exact facts from the printed page. These abilities are tested by the ordinary reading test, but there are larger reactions. The students must differentiate between the various facts presented, giving them the proper weight and relationship. He must react to the main points of the presentation and discover the conclusions offered. These abilities are not generally measured by reading tests. Finally and ultimately, he must make a critical reaction to the problems described. Unless he does this makes a philosophic response to the stimulus offered by the author-the study of literature is not worth while.

Facing this situation, it is recognized that the ordinary reading tests are inadequate. Consequently others were devised. Among other selections they were applied to The Spy, by Cooper. Percentages of accuracy were found for three items: pivotal words, expression, and pivotal facts. Tested in word knowledge, using only pivotal words of values from o to 20 according to the Thorndike Word Book, the performance of the lower quarter of the students tested was 30 per cent.

The case of the median student is much more hopeful; his performance was 60 per cent.

The case of the Q3 student, that is of one who stands at the head of three-fourths of the class, is somewhat superior, and he stands a chance of studying the literary selections presented to him with some degree of success. All this, however, represents the performance of the students in the narrower reading comprehension. With regard to the main points made by the author and his understanding of the important conclusions, the median student

has only a 50 per cent performance. Students who rank below the average or median make these reactions so feebly and obscurely that the educative value of the study becomes almost nil.

What remedies are proposed? A few practical suggestions may be offered. First, it is feasible for teachers of literature to construct reading tests with a high degree of reliability and of greater analytic and diagnostic value than the ordinary reading test. Second, it may be highly necessary with the lowest grade of ninth-grade students to begin at once this remedial instruction. Third, using analytic methods, such as those described in the investigation of 1925, there should be some agreement as to the relative difficulty of various literary selections, and judgment should be based not only upon reading difficulties but also upon information required. This will permit grading of literature commonly taught. Last, and perhaps most important, the teacher must become such a person as to inspire her pupils during the literature class. She must provide the background which will make the selection stand out in the pupil's mind as a treasured and valuable possession.

THE CURRICULUM IN ENGLISH EXPRESSION

ROY IVAN JOHNSON

Harris Teachers College, St. Louis

The reorganization report of 1917 set up definite skills in certain activities, mainly justifiable ones. It has taken a decade to establish in our thinking a social-activity basis for English curricula; it will probably require another to adjust our practices to our theories. A curriculum is a series of pupil activities. The basic difference between various courses, then, lies in the centers about which these activities are organized. The old centers (1) literary types and (2) artificial "forms of discourse"-are not closely related to the lifeneeds of most pupils. The centers of organization in a composition course should be a carefully developed series of activities which illustrate the major purposes for which language is used in the ordinary experiences of life. The following are the principal expressional activities for which training should be given in the course in composition: (1) the writing of letters, (2) conversing, (3) engaging in group discussion, (4) making talks, (5) giving reports of experience-direct or indirect, (6) giving directions or explanations, and (7) telling stories. The specific projects should not be arranged in haphazard manner dictated by interest only but should be so organized as to reveal the large social purposes which they support. These social purposes appeal powerfully to young people. Standards of excellence and details of instructional content must be determined by research studies. At present our textbooks are unsatisfactory in these particulars.

We are too much discouraged over the results of our attempts to teach English usage. The social viewpoint, however, will rouse in the pupils desire

for improvement and lead to more rapid progress. Definite and limited goals are essential to genuine mastery in this field, and the co-operation of other departments of the school is necessary.

The new curricula are embodying some of these ideas. Change is in the right direction.

SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL ENGLISH EARL HUDELSON

University of Minnesota

In spite of the emphasis that is being put upon minimum essentials, there is wide disagreement among English teachers as to what constitute minimum essentials in both literature and composition, as to the order in which the essentials should be presented, as to the year in which each essential accomplishment should be made a requisite, and as to what degree or amount of proficiency should be demanded. There is far from general acceptance by classroom teachers of the selection and arrangement of minimum essentials as published in official lists, and wide disagreement upon standards of achievement.

It appears, on the other hand, that in those English fields where objective standards exist, they are capable of bringing teachers into closer agreement. The use of objective measuring devices in composition, for example, yields the following results: They produce more nearly normal distributions of pupil marks. They decrease the frequency of superior marks. They shift a considerable number of barely-passing marks down into the failure level, thereby yielding a distribution curve more in keeping with expectancy in unselected classes. They cause class medians to rise at a more reasonable rate. They tend to refine judgment as well as to stabilize it. They perform the paradoxical function of rendering teacher-judgment both more constant and more amenable to improvement. They tend to have a chastening influence upon English teachers. That is, they give English teachers a more modest and rational opinion of their ability to judge composition quality.

The values which accrue from the use of objective composition standards are, on the whole, greatest for teachers whose powers of discrimination are already most refined. That is, those English teachers whose subjective standards are most reliable generally improve most and fastest in practice with objective composition standards.

There is evidence that ability to use general-merit composition scales reliably is a fair measure of the same factors of intelligence that our mental tests now measure.

Comparable means of refining teacher-judgment in literary matters are still generally lacking. One significant scale exists for measuring ability to appreciate poetry, and numerous other literary tests and scales are in process of building or refinement. If they prove to be as serviceable in their way as

comparable devices in the composition field are in theirs, sincere, scrupulous English teachers may hope to be able to face their future pupils and problems with more courage and confidence.

For the Saturday morning session Susan E. Wilcox, of the Springfield (Illinois) High School, served as chairman and R. R. Williams, of the Hyde Park High School, Chicago, as secretary.

Mary Hargrave, of Central High School, Madison, Wisconsin, gave a suggestive report of her experience with "The Dalton Plan in Practice." It will be published in a later edition of the Journal. We present abstracts of the other two papers:

EXTENSIVE AND INTENSIVE TEACHING OF LITERATURE NANCY G. CORYELL

Wadleigh High School, New York City

To discover whether careful study of a few books or wide reading with less intensive discussion is better, a full-year experiment was conducted in 9 eleventh-year classes of the Wadleigh High School (large, public, for girls), New York City. Three classes met the fourth period of the day and were taught by 3 teachers, all using the intensive method; that is, they made a detailed analytical study of the minimum of literature required by the syllabus. Three other classes met the seventh period and were taught by the same three teachers, this time all using the extensive method. The extensive method may be characterized as the rapid reading of a comparatively large amount of literature with general comments and discussions in class. The remaining 3 classes were used as controls. The pupils were classified according to ability and each of the three teachers taught one class by the intensive method and another of the same grade of ability by the extensive method.

The reading was so planned that the intensive-study classes covered the literature required by the syllabus. The extensive-reading classes read 6 times as much. At the close of each unit of literature work, a 40 minute objective test consisting of 50 questions was given on the minimum requirement, which had been covered intensively by one group and read along with 6 times as much literature by the extensive group.

In each of the 6 50-question tests most emphasis was put upon appreciation of the literature, of life, of people, and of ideas, especially upon grasp of the significance of the whole selection. Least stress was laid upon points of style, technique, and literary history. The tests covered only the literature read by the intensive-method classes.

In each of the 6 tests the extensive-method classes did as well as or better than the intensive-method classes. Moreover, in the school's grade-uniform tests and in the New York State Regents' examinations the same results appeared.

Apparently the extensive-reading pupils learned as much about the required work as did those pupils who studied it intensively. In addition, they probably learned five times as much again, which they had no chance to use on examinations, since they read five times as much literature beyond the required work.1

ROMANTICISM ON TRIAL

RICHARD FOSTER JONES

Washington University, St. Louis

The purpose of the paper is to explain Professor Babbitt's conception of romanticism. He sees in romanticism a philosophy which would give free reign to the imagination, emotions, and desires, and which could discountenance any restraint on the part of reason or conscience. The romanticist looks for truth only to the ever-changing flux of the sensuous world and of his own impulses and desires instead of into the ethical nature of man. In romantic verse we have full liberty given to imagination and emotions with no thought of ethical responsibility, with the result that this poetry often portrays moods which in actual experience would be condemned. Wordworth's nature philosophy is a sham religion because he seeks truth only in the world of sensation, and in the final analysis his religion rests upon the efficacy of sight and hearing. Coleridge's imagination was subject only to the stimulus derived from the mood of fear and from the craving for the strange and surprising. His was but an intoxicated imagination freed from restraint of mind and conscience. Shelly indulged in an Arcadian reverie with an imagination subject only to desire and eschewing all law and restraint. Keats identified truth with sensuous beauty only, thus denying the ethical nature of man and destroying the integrity of life. Byron's imagination and emotions freed themselves, as did his life, from any ethical control, and sought truth in the flux of nature. Keats' "Ode to a Nightingale" affords an excellent example of the expansive nature of the romantic emotion and imagination carried to the farthest limits, to death and dissolution without let or hindrance from the “dull brain.”

There are many moods and emotions in romantic poetry which must be condemned when indulged in actual life. The idling, drifting, daydreaming mood so characteristic of romanticism, if translated into the practice of life, would merely emphasize the futility of existence. Yet we do not feel contaminated in reading such poetry. The reason is that romantic poetry is detached from life; its purpose is only to afford an escape from life. Romantic art gives pleasure because it releases those emotions life restrains; but, being an imaginative experience and subject to laws of its own, it neither undermines character nor falsifies life. Finally, romantic verse should not be taught as

'EDITOR'S NOTE: The complete report of this study appears in Teachers College (Columbia) Contributions to Education, “An Evaluation of Extensive and Intensive Teaching of Literature."