The Psychology of ArithmeticThorndike, Edward L. (Edward Lee)
Science
The Psychology of Arithmetic
Thorndike, Edward L. (Edward Lee)
Arithmetic -- Study and teaching
The importance of habit-formation or connection-making has been grossly
underestimated by the majority of teachers and writers of textbooks.
For, in the first place, mastery by deductive reasoning of such matters
as 'carrying' in addition, 'borrowing' in subtraction, the value of the
digits in the partial products in multiplication, the manipulation of
the figures in division, the placing of the decimal point after
multiplication or division with decimals, or the manipulation of the
figures in the multiplication and division of fractions, is impossible
or extremely unlikely in the case of children of the ages and experience
in question. They do not as a rule deduce the method of manipulation
from their knowledge of decimal notation. Rather they learn about
decimal notation by carrying, borrowing, writing the last figure of each
partial product under the multiplier which gives that product, etc. They
learn the method of manipulating numbers by seeing them employed, and by
more or less blindly acquiring them as associative habits.
In the second place, we, who have already formed and long used the right
habits and are thereby protected against the casual misleadings of
unfortunate mental connections, can hardly realize the force of mere
association. When a child writes sixteen as 61, or finds 428 as the sum
of
15
19
16
18
--
or gives 642 as an answer to 27 × 36, or says that 4 divided by 1/4 = 1,
we are tempted to consider him mentally perverse, forgetting or perhaps
never having understood that he goes wrong for exactly the same general
reason that we go right; namely, the general law of habit-formation. If
we study the cases of 61 for 16, we shall find them occurring in the
work of pupils who after having been drilled in writing 26, 36, 46, 62,
63, and so on, in which the order of the six in writing is the same as
it is in speech, return to writing the 'teen numbers. If our language
said onety-one for eleven and onety-six for sixteen, we should probably
never find such errors except as 'lapses' or as the results of
misperception or lack of memory. They would then be more frequent
_before_ the 20s, 30s, etc., were learned.
If pupils are given much drill on written single column addition
involving the higher decades (each time writing the two-figure sum),
they are forming a habit of writing 28 after the sum of 8, 6, 9, and 5
is reached; and it should not surprise us if the pupil still
occasionally writes the two-figure sum for the first column though a
second column is to be added also. On the contrary, unless some counter
force influences him, he is absolutely sure to make this mistake.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account