The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines intelligence as “the skilled use of reason.” Tests have been developed to measure how well an individual uses his reasoning ability. Intelligence testing assesses an individual’s ability to comprehend, reason, and evaluate sets of data. In the early 1900s, Alfred Binet was among the first to use a standardized test to diagnose learning disabilities. Since then, intelligence tests have been given to students to determine intellectual potential and general knowledge. Today, the main purpose of an intelligence test is to determine if a student’s learning is on track for their age or to diagnose a potential learning disability. There are four prominent intelligence tests used today: the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, the Wechsler-Adult Intelligence Scale, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, and the Wechsler Primary & Preschool Scale of Intelligence. Each one measures intelligence in a slightly different way, but the end results give a measurable number to rate one’s intelligence.
What determines if learning is on track? Can intelligence truly be measured? According to Au and Gourd (2013), Binet’s original testing was only designed as a diagnostic tool for learning disabilities for young children and was never designed to be a measure of “natural” intelligence. It was actually a handful of American psychologists who began promoting Binet’s work as proof of “natural” intelligence and developing his processes into a standardized intelligence test. It was only after their new processes became popular that “intelligence then became something quantifiable through testing” (Hatt, 2013, p 443). In other words, it has only been in the last century or so that intelligence has been deemed measurable; prior to Binet’s processes becoming standard, intelligence merely existed.
Hatt (2012) also points out that as schools, rather than parents, began to take over the responsibility of education, it is the educational system that determines what knowledge is the most important and defines which kids are “smart.” Brinch and Galloway (2012) claim that not only is there is a definite correlation between the number of years of schooling an individual has completed and how high their IQ is but the reversal is also true; the higher a person’s IQ, the more years of schooling they are likely to complete. These conclusions make sense given that schools determine what is appropriate for students to know at each age level.
Additionally, intelligence does not guarantee success in school. Rutger and van de Flier (2012) found that personal effort often results in greater success than test scores alone. If self-efficacy is a greater measure of future academic success, why is there so much emphasis placed on the results of a standard intelligence test? Similarly, labeling children as “smart” or “not smart” often does more harm than good. Shrifer’s (2013) research indicated that students who are labeled as “smart” often become overconfident in their abilities and do not put as much effort into school work as they should, and those students whose IQ is below average often do not challenge themselves because they do not think they have the ability to perform any better.
A final concern with intelligence testing is cultural bias. Cultural bias affects all forms of assessment, not just intelligence tests. Many researchers, including Hatt (2012) point out that intelligence is culturally constructed, and intelligence tests were originally designed “when the dominant group in power (i.e., White, elite men) was anxious about losing its economic and social privilege” (p. 443), and therefore the questions are biased toward other cultures. While this argument certainly has merit, the cultural makeup of modern classrooms is changing, and tests are changing to keep up with the new composition. Dale, Finch, Mcintosh, Rothlisberg, and Finch (2014) highlight the fact that in preschool classrooms across America, minority groups make up the majority of students, and when their test results are compared with their Caucasian classmates, they score at the same level. This research proves that tests are changing with the times. Although keeping up with cultural diversity requires large amounts of work and time, intelligence, and standardized tests are moving in the right direction.
While I believe that intelligence testing has a place, it only measures intelligence based on what the test deems the correct answer to be. Often there is more than one correct answer to a question, but the test will only list one of the possible solutions. Does this mean that the person who came up with a different answer is any less intelligent than a person who came to the answer the test deemed correct? Therefore, measuring intelligence through the results of testing is limited by the test itself. I think that intelligence tests can be informative, but should not be the sole measure of intelligence. Intelligence is more than being able to spout off facts. There are certain levels of social skills that are needed to function in society. Creativity, communication, and collaboration are 21st-century skills that should not be ignored. Employers do not want employees that limit themselves to what has worked in the past; they are looking for individuals who are willing to think outside of the box and apply their knowledge to new situations, and critical thinking can be very difficult to measure on a standarized test.
References
Au, W., & Gourd, K. (2013). Asinine assessment: Why high-stakes testing is bad for everyone, including English teachers. The English Journal, 103(1), 14-19. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24484054
Brinch, C. N., & Galloway, T. A. (2012). Schooling in adolescences raises IQ scores. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(2), 425-430. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23075988
Dale, B. A., Finch, M. H., Mcintosh, D. E., Rothlisberg, B. A., & Finch, W. H. (2014). Utility of the Standford-Binet Intelligence Scales, fifth edition , with ethnically diverse preschoolers. Psychology In The Schools, 51(6), 581-590. doi:10.1002/pits.21766
Hatt, B. (2012). Smartness as a cultural practice in schools. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 438-460. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23249233
Rutger, K., & van de Flier, H. (2012). Predicting academic success in higher education: What’s more important than being smart?. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(4), 605-619. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43551101
Shifrer, D. (2013). Stigma of a label: Educational expectations for high school students labeled with learning disabilities. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(4), 462-480. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43186869
No comments:
Post a Comment