>
> I do not know about a lot of you, but I have a strong feeling that a lot of
> students in college classes even
> at upper tier institutions are getting a sub-par education that is more a
> part of a vicious cycle of a certification
> pyramid scheme that may increase their social capital in some sense, but in
> terms of deeper learning.
That's true in the UK too.
Bruce R
> (Which is why a good deal of my energy these days is focused on undergrad
> ed)
> mike
>
> On 1/17/07, geraldine.mcdonald@clear.net.nz
> <geraldine.mcdonald@clear.net.nz>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Michael and others
>> The supposed steady rise in intelligence over generations
>> (the Flynn effect), the stability of the 15-point gap and
>> the season of birth effect have all been interpreted in line
>> with hereditarian and maturational ideas about intellectual
>> growth. The psychological establishment has not come up with
>> a plausible explanation for any of these phenomena.
>> Sternberg's statement that "research by Stephen Ceci and
>> others has shown that IQ increases as a function of
>> schooling" is too imprecise to convince. For example an
>> increase in staying on longer at school could very well
>> lower raw score levels as students with a wider range of
>> ability to answer the test questions stay on to higher
>> levels of education.
>> (1) At least three published reports from three different
>> countries based on OTIS type test answers from thousands of
>> school pupils show that it is grade level and not age which
>> is connected to the raw scores. There is no rise for those
>> groups at the same grade level and within the age expected
>> for the grade. Raw scores rise from grade to grade when the
>> tests are administered to successive grades at the same time
>> of the year.
>> (2) The IQ is derived from a belief in maturation. Test
>> developers assume that scores rise by increments of 3 or 4
>> months. This can be seen in conversion tables. The result is
>> an IQ scale which affects individual children within the
>> same grade. Younger children have their raw score rank
>> raised while older children in the same grade have theirs
>> lowered.
>> (3) Over the last century there has been a decrease of age
>> at grade level. Not because kids are getting smarter but
>> because of changes in population pressure on schools,
>> regulations on class size and acceptance of social
>> promotion. All system effects.
>> Some years ago I recalculated the scores obtained from a
>> version of the OTIS which Jim Flynn had claimed showed a
>> year of intellectual growth over 32 years. Recalculating the
>> scores according to the demographic annual returns from
>> schools showed that most if not all of the score change
>> could be accounted for by demographic change at grade level.
>> Published in the Oxford Review of Education in 1998.
>>
>> There may be other factors involved in score levels. For
>> example, whether a test is timed or untimed or group or
>> individual, but whether the issue is the stability of a gap,
>> the effect of the seasons, or score rise, demographic
>> factors and scoring systems should not be overlooked.
>> Geraldine McDonald
>> School of Education Studies
>> Victoria University of Wellington NZ
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message Follows -----
>> > My difficulty with Sternberg's response is that as soon as
>> > he posits that there is such a thing as reified
>> > intelligence that can be measured through some
>> > standardized test (whether it is limited or not) he is
>> > arguing on Murray's ground. I.Q is a construct that we
>> > developed to prove Murray's thesis, not what Sternberg is
>> > trying to say. Too much advantage is given to a eugenics
>> > based perspective by accepting I.Q. tests as legitimate
>> > ways of measuring some object that we call intelligence.
>> >
>> > Michael
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> >
>> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of David
>> > Preiss Sent: Wed 1/17/2007 10:45 AM
>> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> > Subject: Re: [xmca] In case you missed it
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear colleagues,
>> >
>> > Please see below a letter sent by Robert Sternberg to WSJ
>> > as an answer to Murray's piece.
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> > Charles Murray's "Intelligence in the Classroom" is an
>> > article by a non-scientist filled with serious
>> > distortions and misunderstandings of the current state of
>> > scientific theory and research on intelligence.
>> >
>> > First, Murray is roughly correct in the assertion that
>> > "Half of all children are below average in intelligence."
>> > This is true in the same sense that half of today's
>> > children are below the median (not average) in height, or
>> > below the median age of the population. But median
>> > heights have risen greatly over the past several
>> > generations, as have median age spans. Indeed, research
>> > by James Flynn shows conclusively that median IQs have
>> > risen as well since 1900. Contrary to the tone of
>> > Murray's comments, most of the increase is due to the
>> > so-called general factor, not to other factors. So
>> > Murray's comments regarding possibilities for educational
>> > achievement make no sense. A child of today with an IQ
>> > of 100 would have been scored as having a substantially
>> > higher IQ 100 years ago. Given that the increase in IQs
>> > has been about 9 points per generation, that person would
>> > have had an IQ in excess of 127 at that time, which would
>> > have led to educational predictions very different from
>> > Murray's doom-and-gloom predictions. Similarly, a
>> > 6-footer today is not much above average and would not be
>> > considered particularly tall, whereas 100 years ago, he or
>> > she would have been looked at as exceptionally tall.
>> >
>> > Second, IQ is NOT a "ceiling," and I don't know of any
>> > responsible psychologist who believes it is. IQ gives
>> > rough prediction of a child's school performance, as does
>> > socioeconomic status, motivation, and any other number of
>> > variables. But none of these variables sets a ceiling on
>> > children's performance. First, they are all highly
>> > imperfect predictors--success is multi-factorial. Second,
>> > they are subject to error of
>> > measurement. Third, they are not etched in stone.
>> > Research by Stephen Ceci and others has shown that IQ
>> > increases as a function of schooling, and that it is the
>> > schooling that is responsible for the increase, not the
>> > other way around.
>> >
>> > Third, the temporary effects of interventions to increase
>> > intelligence are in large part because the interventions
>> > themselves are temporary and usually extremely
>> > short-lived. If you have a child living in extreme
>> > poverty, in a challenging and possibly dangerous
>> > environment, and with parents who are not in a position to
>> > provide the best possible education for
>> > their children, it is not surprising that short
>> > interventions--the kinds most easily funded by
>> > grants--are difficult to maintain. Consider an oft-made
>> > analogy to exercise. You can exercise to improve your
>> > muscles. But if you stop exercising, your muscles revert
>> > to what they were before. The same is true of your
>> > intelligence, and research by Carmi Schooler and others
>> > shows precisely that.
>> >
>> > Fourth, it is fallacious to believe that brain development
>> > is etched in stone. Research by William Greenough, Marian
>> > Diamond, and others has shown that learning changes the
>> > brain--permanently. Experience matters for brain
>> > development. Charles Murray had the good fortune to be
>> > exposed to experiences that children in many parts of the
>> > United States and elsewhere never will have. Indeed,
>> > children growing up in war zones often need to devote all
>> > their resources just to staying alive. They cannot have
>> > the kind of schooling that optimizes their scores on the
>> > tests of which Mr. Murray is so fond.
>> >
>> > Fifth, our own peer-reviewed, published research has shown
>> > that broader measures of abilities--based on the
>> > "multiple intelligences" that Murray disdains--can
>> > substantially improve prediction of academic success at
>> > the college level at the same time that they reduce
>> > ethnic-group differences. These assessments do not replace
>> > traditional measures--they supplement them. They are not
>> > "refutations" of the existence of the analytical skills
>> > measured by tests of general ability, but rather,
>> > demonstrations that such measures are relatively narrow
>> > and incomplete in their measurements of abilities. These
>> > conventional tests measure important skills, but not the
>> > only skills that matter for academic and other forms of
>> > success. Indeed, teaching to a broader range of abilities,
>> > our research shows, also can significantly improve school
>> > achievement over teaching that is more narrowly focused.
>> >
>> > In sum, Murray's column gives a false and misleading view
>> > of the state of research on intelligence. I blieve
>> > responsible scientists will not take it seriously.
>> > Unfortunately, many laypeople will not be in a position
>> > to realize that the statements are seriously misleading
>> > and paint a picture of research on intelligence that does
>> > not correspond to reality.
>> >
>> > Robert J. Sternberg
>> >
>> > (Robert J. Sternberg is Dean of the School of Arts and
>> > Sciences and Professor of Psychology at Tufts University.
>> > Previously, he was IBM Professor of Psychology and
>> > Education and Professor of Management at Yale University
>> > and President of the American Psychological Association.)
>> >
>> > On Jan 16, 2007, at 5:51 PM, J. Mark Jackson wrote:
>> >
>> > > This article ran in today's WSJ. The link below takes
>> > > you directly to the full article without registration.
>> > >
>> > > Scary, very scary!
>> > >
>> > > http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25452
>> > ,filter.all/pub_detail.asp >
>> > >
>> > > Mark
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > xmca mailing list
>> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> > >
>> >
>> > David Preiss, Ph.D.
>> > Profesor Auxiliar / Assistant Professor
>> >
>> > Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
>> > Escuela de Psicología
>> > Av Vicuña Mackenna 4860
>> > Macul, Santiago
>> > Chile
>> >
>> > Fono: 3544605
>> > Fax: 3544844
>> > e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
>> > web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
>> > web institucional: http://www.uc.cl/psicologia
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > xmca mailing list
>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > xmca mailing list
>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> >
>> > [Attachment: winmail.dat]
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:33 PST