Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology
Contemporary Theories of Intelligence
Download 9.82 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- Systems Theories
- Contemporary Theories of Intelligence 35
- Successful Intelligence.
- Contemporary Theories of Intelligence 37
34 Contemporary Theories of Intelligence larger left hemisphere better predicted WAIS-R verbal than it predicted nonverbal ability, whereas in women a larger left hemisphere predicted nonverbal ability better than it pre- dicted verbal ability (Willerman, Schultz, Rutledge, & Bigler, 1992). These brain-size correlations are suggestive, but it is difficult to say what they mean at this point. Yet another approach that is at least partially bio- logically based is that of behavior genetics. A fairly complete review of this extensive literature is found in Sternberg and Grigorenko (1997). The basic idea is that it should be possible to disentangle genetic from environmental sources of varia- tion in intelligence. Ultimately, one would hope to locate the genes responsible for intelligence (Plomin, McClearn, & Smith, 1994, 1995; Plomin & Neiderhiser, 1992; Plomin & Petrill, 1997). The literature is complex, but it appears that about half the total variance in IQ scores is accounted for by genetic factors (Loehlin, 1989; Plomin, 1997). This figure may be an underestimate because the variance includes error variance and because most studies of heritability have been with children, but we know that heritability of IQ is higher for adults than for children (Plomin, 1997). Also, some studies, such as the Texas Adoption Project (Loehlin, Horn, & Willerman, 1997), suggest higher estimates: .78 in the Texas Adoption Project, .75 in the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (Bouchard, 1997; Bouchard, Lykken, McGue, Segal, & Tellegen, 1990), and .78 in the Swedish Adop- tion Study of Aging (Pedersen, Plomin, Nesselroade, & McClearn, 1992). At the same time, some researchers argue that effects of heredity and environment cannot be clearly and validly sepa- rated (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Wahlsten & Gottlieb, 1997). Perhaps, the direction of future research should be to figure out how heredity and environment work together to produce phenotypic intelligence (Scarr, 1997), concentrating especially on within-family environmental variation, which appears to be more important than between-family variation (Jensen, 1997). Such research requires, at the very least, very carefully prepared tests of intelligence, perhaps some of the newer tests described in the next section. Systems Theories Many contemporary theories of intelligence can be viewed as systems theories because they are more complex, in many respects, than past theories, and attempt to deal with intelli- gence as a complex system.
Gardner
(1983, 1993, 1999) proposed that there is no single, unified intelligence, but rather a set of relatively distinct, indepen- dent, and modular multiple intelligences. His theory of multiple intelligences (MI theory) originally proposed seven multiple intelligences: (a) linguistic, as used in reading a book or writing a poem; (b) logical-mathematical, as used in deriving a logical proof or solving a mathematical problem; (c) spatial, as used in fitting suitcases into the trunk of a car; (d) musical, as used in singing a song or composing a sym- phony; (e) bodily-kinesthetic, as used in dancing or playing football; (f) interpersonal, as used in understanding and inter- acting with other people; and (g) intrapersonal, as used in understanding oneself. Recently, Gardner (1999) has proposed an additional in- telligence as a confirmed part of his theory: naturalist intelli- gence, the kind shown by people who are able to discern patterns in nature. Charles Darwin would be a notable exam- ple. Gardner has also suggested that there may be two other intelligences: spiritual intelligence and existential intelli- gence. Spiritual intelligence involves a concern with cosmic or existential issues and the recognition of the spiritual as the achievement of a state of being. Existential intelligence in- volves a concern with ultimate issues. Gardner believes that the evidence for these latter two intelligences is less power- ful than the evidence for the other eight intelligences. What- ever the evidence may be for the other eight, we agree that the evidence for these two new intelligences is speculative at this point. Most activities will involve some combination of these different intelligences. For example, dancing might involve both musical and bodily-kinesthetic intelligences. Reading a mathematical textbook might require both linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences. Often it will be hard to separate these intelligences in task performance. In the past, factor analysis served as the major criterion for identifying abilities. Gardner (1983, 1999) proposed a new set of criteria, including but not limited to factor analysis, for identifying the existence of a discrete kind of intelligence: (a) potential isolation by brain damage, in that the destruc- tion or sparing of a discrete area of the brain may destroy or spare a particular kind of intelligent behavior; (b) the exis- tence of exceptional individuals who demonstrate extraordi- nary ability (or deficit) in a particular kind of intelligent behavior; (c) an identifiable core operation or set of opera- tions that are essential to performance of a particular kind of intelligent behavior; (d) a distinctive developmental history leading from novice to master, along with disparate levels of expert performance; (e) a distinctive evolutionary history, in which increases in intelligence may be plausibly associated with enhanced adaptation to the environment; (f) supportive Contemporary Theories of Intelligence 35 evidence from cognitive-experimental research; (g) support- ive evidence from psychometric tests; and (h) susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system. Gardner (1993, 1995, 1997) has suggested that the multi- ple intelligences can be understood as bases not only for understanding intelligence, but for understanding other kinds of constructs as well, such as creativity and leadership. For example, Gardner has analyzed some of the great creative thinkers of the twentieth century in terms of their multiple intelligences, arguing that many of them were extraordinarily creative by virtue of extremely high levels of one of the intel- ligences. For example, Martha Graham was very high in bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, T. S. Eliot in linguistic intelli- gence, and so forth. The theory of multiple intelligences has proved to be enor- mously successful in capturing the attention both of the psy- chological public and of the public in general. Nevertheless, some caution must be observed before accepting the theory. First, since the theory was proposed in 1983, there have been no published empirical tests of the theory as a whole. Given that a major goal of science is empirically to test theo- ries, this fact is something of a disappointment, but it cer- tainly suggests the need for such testing. Second, the theory has been justified by Gardner on the basis of post hoc reviews of various literatures. Although these reviews are persuasive, they are also highly selective. For example, there is virtually no overlap between the lit- eratures reviewed by Gardner in his various books and the lit- eratures reviewed by Carroll (1993) or Jensen (1998). This is not to say that his literature is wrong or that theirs is right. Rather, all literature reviews are selective and probably tend more to dwell on studies that support the proposed point of view. A difference between the literature reviewed by Gardner and that reviewed by Carroll and Jensen is that the literature Gardner reviews was not intended to test his theory of intelli- gence or anything like it. In contrast, the literatures reviewed by Carroll and Jensen largely comprise studies designed specifically to test psychometric theories of intelligence. Third, even if one accepts Gardner’s criteria for defining an intelligence, it is not clear whether the eight or ten intelli- gences proposed by Gardner are the only ones that would fit. For example, might there be a sexual intelligence? And are these intelligences really intelligences, per se, or are some of them better labeled talents? Obviously, the answer to this question is definitional, and hence there may be no ultimate answer at all. Finally, there is a real need for psychometrically strong as- sessments of the various intelligences, because without such assessments it will be difficult ever to validate the theory. Assessments exist (Gardner, Feldman, & Krechevsky, 1998), but they seem not to be psychometrically strong. Without strong assessments, the theory is likely to survive without or because of the lack of serious attempts at disconfirmation. Since the theory was first proposed, a large number of educational interventions have arisen that are based on the theory, sometimes closely and other times less so (Gardner, 1993). Many of the programs are unevaluated, and evalua- tions of other programs seem still to be ongoing, so it is diffi- cult to say at this point what the results will be. In one particularly careful evaluation of a well-conceived program in a large southern city, there were no significant gains in stu- dent achievement or changes in student self-concept as a re- sult of an intervention program based on Gardner’s (1983, 1999) theory (Callahan, Tomlinson, & Plucker, 1997). There is no way of knowing whether these results are representative of such intervention programs, however.
Sternberg (1997, 1999c, 1999d) has suggested that we may wish to pay less attention to con- ventional notions of intelligence and more to what he terms successful intelligence, or the ability to adapt to, shape, and se- lect environments to accomplish one’s goals and those of one’s society and culture. A successfully intelligent person balances adaptation, shaping, and selection, doing each as necessary. The theory is motivated in part by repeated findings that con- ventional tests of intelligence and related tests do not predict meaningful criteria of success as well as they predict scores on other similar tests and school grades (e.g., Sternberg & Williams, 1997). Successful intelligence involves an individual’s discern- ing his or her pattern of strengths and weaknesses and then figuring out ways to capitalize on the strengths and at the same time compensate for or correct the weaknesses. People attain success, in part, in idiosyncratic ways that involve their finding how best to exploit their own patterns of strengths and weaknesses. According to the proposed theory of human intelligence and its development (Sternberg, 1980, 1984, 1985, 1990, 1997, 1999a, 1999b), a common set of processes underlies all aspects of intelligence. These processes are hypothesized to be universal. For example, although the solutions to prob- lems that are considered intelligent in one culture may be dif- ferent from the solutions considered to be intelligent in another culture, the need to define problems and translate strategies to solve these problems exists in any culture.
do, monitor things as they are being done, and evaluate things after they are done. Examples of metacomponents are
36 Contemporary Theories of Intelligence recognizing the existence of a problem, defining the nature of the problem, deciding on a strategy for solving the problem, monitoring the solution of the problem, and evaluating the solution after the problem is solved.
metacomponents. For example, inference is used to decide how two stimuli are related, and application is used to apply what one has inferred (Sternberg, 1977). Other examples of performance components are comparison of stimuli, justifi- cation of a given response as adequate although not ideal, and actually making the response.
to solve problems or simply to acquire declarative knowledge in the first place (Sternberg, 1985). Selective encoding is used to decide what information is relevant in the context of one’s learning. Selective comparison is used to bring old in- formation to bear on new problems. Selective combination is used to put together the selectively encoded and compared in- formation into a single and sometimes insightful solution to a problem. Although the same processes are used for all three aspects of intelligence universally, these processes are applied to dif- ferent kinds of tasks and situations depending on whether a given problem requires analytical thinking, creative thinking, practical thinking, or a combination of these kinds of think- ing. Data supporting the theory cannot be presented fully here but are summarized elsewhere (Sternberg, 1977, 1985; Sternberg et al., 2000). Three broad abilities are important to successful intelli- gence: analytical, creative, and practical abilities. Analytical abilities are required to analyze and evaluate the options available to oneself in life. They include things such as identifying the existence of a problem, defining the nature of the problem, setting up a strategy for solving the problem, and monitoring one’s solution processes. Creative abilities are required to generate problem-solving options in the first place. Creative individuals typically “buy low and sell high” in the world of ideas (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995, 1996): They are willing to generate ideas that, like stocks with low price-earnings ratios, are unpopular and per- haps even deprecated. Having convinced at least some people of the value of these ideas, they then sell high, meaning that they move on to the next unpopular idea. Research shows that these abilities are at least partially distinct from conventional IQ and that they are moderately domain specific, meaning that creativity in one domain (such as art) does not necessar- ily imply creativity in another (such as writing; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Not all creative work is crowd defying, of course. Some work is creative by virtue of extending existing paradigms (see Sternberg, 1999b). Practical abilities are required to implement options and to make them work. Practical abilities are involved when intelligence is applied to real-world contexts. A key aspect of practical intelligence is the acquisition and use of tacit knowledge, which is knowledge of what one needs to know to succeed in a given environment that is not explicitly taught and that usually is not verbalized. Research shows several generalizations about tacit knowledge. First, it is ac- quired through mindful utilization of experience. What matters, however, is not the experience, per se, but how much one profits from it. Second, tacit knowledge is rela- tively domain specific, although people who are likely to acquire it in one domain are likely to acquire it in another domain. Third, acquisition and utilization are relatively in- dependent of conventional abilities. Fourth, tacit knowl- edge predicts criteria of job success about as well as and sometimes better than does IQ. Fifth, tacit knowledge pre- dicts these criteria incrementally over IQ and other kinds of measures, such as of personality and of styles of learning and thinking (McClelland, 1973; Sternberg et al., 2000; Sternberg & Wagner, 1993; Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, & Horvath, 1995). The separation of practical intelligence from IQ has been shown in a number of different ways in a number of different studies (see Sternberg et al., 2000, for a review). Scribner (1984, 1986) showed that experienced assemblers in a milk- processing plant used complex strategies for combining par- tially filled cases in a manner that minimized the number of moves required to complete an order. Although the assem- blers were the least educated workers in the plant, they were able to calculate in their heads quantities expressed in dif- ferent base number systems, and they routinely outper- formed the more highly educated white-collar workers who substituted when the assemblers were absent. Scribner found that the order-filling performance of the assemblers was un- related to measures of academic skills, including intelligence test scores, arithmetic test scores, and grades. Ceci and Liker (1986) carried out a study of expert race- track handicappers and found that expert handicappers used a highly complex algorithm for predicting post time odds that involved interactions among seven kinds of information. Use of a complex interaction term in their implicit equation was unrelated to the handicappers’ IQs. A series of studies showed that shoppers in California gro- cery stores were able to choose which of several products represented the best buy for them (Lave, Murtaugh, & de la Roche, 1984; Murtaugh, 1985). They were able to do so even though they did very poorly on the same kinds of problems when the problems were presented in the form of a paper-and-pencil arithmetic computation test. The same
Contemporary Theories of Intelligence 37 principle that applies to adults appears to apply to children as well: Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann (1985) found that Brazilian street children who could apply sophisticated math- ematical strategies in their street vending were unable to do the same in a classroom setting (see also Ceci & Roazzi, 1994; Nuñes, 1994). One more example of a study of practical intelligence was provided by individuals asked to play the role of city managers for the computer-simulated city of Lohhausen (Dörner & Kreuzig, 1983; Dörner, Kreuzig, Reither, & Staudel, 1983). A variety of problems were presented to these individuals, such as how best to raise revenue to build roads. The simulation in- volved more than one thousand variables. No relation was found between IQ and complexity of strategies used. There is also evidence that practical intelligence can be taught (Gardner, Krechevsky, Sternberg, & Okagaki, 1994; Sternberg, Okagaki, & Jackson, 1990), at least in some de- gree. For example, middle-school children given a program for developing their practical intelligence for school (strate- gies for effective reading, writing, execution of homework, and taking of tests) improved more from pretest to posttest than did control students who received an alternative but irrelevant treatment. None of these studies suggest that IQ is unimportant for school or job performance or other kinds of performance; in- deed, the evidence suggests the contrary (Barrett & Depinet, 1991; Gottfredson, 1986, 1997; Hunt, 1995; Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmidt & Hunter, 1981, 1993, 1998; Wigdor & Garner, 1982). What the studies do suggest, however, is that there are other aspects of intelligence that are relatively independent of IQ, and that are important as well. A multiple- abilities prediction model of school or job performance would probably be most satisfactory. According to the theory of successful intelligence, chil- dren’s multiple abilities are underutilized in educational insti- tutions because teaching tends to value analytical (as well as memory) abilities at the expense of creative and practical abilities. Sternberg, Ferrari, Clinkenbeard, and Grigorenko (1996; Sternberg, Grigorenko, Ferrari, & Clinkenbeard, 1999) designed an experiment in order to illustrate this point. They identified 199 high school students from around the United States who were strong in either analytical, creative, or practical abilities, or all three kinds of abilities, or none of the kinds of abilities. Students were then brought to Yale University to take a college-level psychology course that was taught in a way that emphasized either memory, analytical, creative, or practical abilities. Some students were matched, and others mismatched, to their own strengths. All students were evaluated for memory-based, analytical, creative, and practical achievements. Sternberg and his colleagues found that students whose in- struction matched their pattern of abilities performed signifi- cantly better than did students who were mismatched. They also found that prediction of course performance was im- proved by taking into account creative and practical as well as analytical abilities. In subsequent studies (Grigorenko, Jarvin, & Sternberg, 2002; Sternberg, Torff, & Grigorenko, 1998), students were taught a subject matter in a variety of ways in order to com- pare instruction based on the theory of successful intelligence with other forms of instruction. For example, one set of stud- ies compared such instruction with instruction based on critical thinking and instruction based on traditional, mem- ory-based learning in social studies and science (Sternberg et al., 1998). Another study compared instruction based on successful intelligence to traditional instruction in reading (Grigorenko et al., 2002). Participants in these experiments ranged from middle-school to high-school levels and covered the range of socioeconomic levels from very low to very high. In general, instruction based on the theory of successful intelligence was superior to the other forms of instruction, even if tests of achievement measured only memory-based learning. At a theoretical level, why should instruction based on the theory of successful intelligence be more effective than con- ventional or other forms of instruction? Five reasons have been proffered. First, instruction based on the theory of suc- cessful intelligence encourages students to capitalize on strengths. Second, it encourages them to correct or to compen- sate for weaknesses. Third, it enables them to encode material in three different ways, which, by increasing the number of re- trieval routes to the information, facilitates memory retrieval later on. Fourth, it encourages elaborative rather than mainte- nance rehearsal, which results in more elaborated memory traces for the material. Fifth, it is more motivating to students because it typically renders the material more interesting than do conventional forms of presentation. The theory of successful intelligence has been tested more extensively than many other contemporary theories of intelli- gence. Nevertheless, questions remain. For example, even some who might accept the existence of distinctive creative and practical abilities might argue that they represent psycho- logical attributes distinct from intelligence. Second, the pervasiveness of the general factor in psychological investi- gations must make one wary of Type I errors in accepting the notion that the general factor is not truly general, but rather applies primarily to academic kinds of tasks. Third, there is as yet no published test that measures the triarchic abilities, and the research-based tests clearly need further development. Without published tests, it will be difficult for laboratories
|
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling