Very true for Chile as well.
David P.
On Jan 18, 2007, at 10:25 AM, Bruce Robinson wrote:
>
>> 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
>
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:33 PST