From all considerations that have been mentioned thus
far the reader would be justified in concluding that
I made a mistake in selecting the ten-test method
for my study of the modifiability of the behavior of
the dancer. That this conclusion is not correct
is due to the time factor in the experiments.
If the dancer could acquire a perfect habit as a result
of twelve days’ training, no matter whether
two, five, ten, or twenty tests were given daily,
it would, of course, be economical of time for the
experimenter to employ the two-test method. But
if, on the contrary, the two-test method required
twice as many days’ training as the five-test
method, it would be economical for him to use the five-test
method despite the fact that he would have to give
a larger number of tests than the two-test method
would have demanded. In a word, the time which
the work requires depends upon the number of series
which have to be given, as well as upon the number
of tests in each series. As it happens, the ten-test
method demands less of the experimenter’s time
than do methods with fewer tests per day. The
twenty-test method is even more economical of time,
but it has a fatal defect. It is at times too
tiresome for both mouse and man. These facts
indicate that a balance should be struck between number
of tests and number of series. The fewer the
tests per day, within the limits of two and one hundred,
the higher the efficiency of the method of training,
as measured in terms of the total number of tests necessary
for the establishment of a perfect habit, and the
lower its efficiency as measured in terms of the number
of series given. The greater the number of tests
per day, on the other hand, the higher the efficiency
of the method in terms of the number of series, and
the lower its efficiency in terms of the total number
of tests. By taking into account these facts,
together with the fact of fatigue, we are led to the
conclusion that ten tests per day is the most satisfactory
number.
If my time and attention had not been fully occupied
with other problems, I should have determined the
efficiency of various methods of training in terms
of the duration of habit, as well as in terms of the
rapidity of its formation. As these two measures
of efficiency might give contradictory results, it
is obvious that a training method cannot be fairly
evaluated without consideration of both the rapidity
of habit formation and the permanency of the habit.
A priori it seems not improbable that slowness
of learning should be directly correlated with a high
degree of permanency. By the further application
of the method which I have used in this study of the
efficiency of training we may hope to get a definite
answer to this and many other questions concerning
the nature of the educative process and the conditions
which influence it.
CHAPTER XVI
THE DURATION OF HABITS: MEMORY AND RE-LEARNING
Copyrights
The Dancing Mouse from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.
