Cognitive Abilities are the over all determinant of success...

[Kacey]

Having not noticed this thread until today, I skimmed over it when it showed up in the new threads list, and I'm going to add a few things to the discussion.

First, I'm going to tell you about my background, because I think it is relevant to my opinion. I am a special education teacher, with a BA in Psychology, an MA in Counseling, and I am working on an Ed. S. (Educational Specialist) in School Psychology. I just finished a course on cognitive assessments which went over this very argument in great detail. The information I will be sharing is an amalgam of information, largely from my recent course but also from my previous education and experience.

Ability is a combination of genetics and environment; in general, a person is born with a genetic capability to reach a certain potential, and the environment in which a person is raised will influence how much of that potential is reached. Various factors can influence how much of a person's potential is reached and how it is manifested, including, but not limited to, culture, early exposure to information and learning, parental education, economic status, personal motivation, language (both the language a child learns and background as a monolingual or bilingual speaker), illness, injury, siblings, birth order... any number of factors can affect how much of a person's potential is stimulated and reached - for example, the child of a musician will have different experiences than the child of a garbage collector; not necessarily better or worse, but different, and those experiences will influence interest, background knowledge, accessibility, and so on.

IQ tests were originally devised for a variety of reasons, such as determining which students would most benefit from going on to secondary school (back when most students ended formal education between 6th and 8th grade, depending on the level the one-room schoolhouse went to), to determine who should be accepted into the armed forces, and to winnow out those who should not be allowed to immigrate into the US. Because of these uses, many IQ tests lean heavily on verbal ability... an ability which, while mediated by inborn ability, can be strongly affected by environment. Many intelligent people have strengths in areas other than verbal ability (Gardner's intelligences being a great example of this), and many people simply do not test well. In addition, since vocabulary is heavily influenced by parental education (better educated parents generally have more varied vocabularies) and family income (also influenced by parental education) children of better educated, higher earning parents are more likely to score well on IQ tests. Since motivation is a key factor in education, as are cultural expectations, children raised in cultures that favor education tend to be more motivated to succeed in school... and thereby gain the experiences that improve both their obtained scores on IQ tests and their school performance. There is an article in the current issue of TIME that addresses why Asian immigrants to the US generally do so well - and it starts with the statistically-based concept that Asians who immigrated to the US were generally better-educated than members of other immigrant groups. The IQ assessment generally used in schools is the WISC, although other tests are available; the WISC is an older assessment with a great deal of data behind it (although I'm not sure that that, by itself, is a good reason to use it). There are acknowledged and documented cultural biases in the WISC, which are discussed in the examiner's manual in great detail, which give examiners information needed to interpret scores based on individual students' backgrounds.

In addition, IQ scores are significantly correlated with one thing and one thing only: success in school. Success out of school is a very subjective concept, with as many definitions as there are people, and which may or may not include schooling beyond high school. While many highly intelligent people are successful in a wide variety of fields, there are many other people who are of average intellectual ability (defined as an obtained IQ score of 85 - 115; qualification for MENSA begins at 130) do equally well; this is the motivation factor in the success equation. As a special education teacher in a low-income school with a large at-rish population, I see this in many students: those who want to do well, and/or whose parents want them to do well and are involved in their education, do better than those who are uninterested and/or whose parents are uninterested or uninvolved in their children's education. Students who want to do well will ask for help in their classes, will come in for extra help, and will spend quality time on their homework - and this will invariably improve their vocabulary, which has the side effect of improving their obtained scores on that section of an IQ test. The other side of that equation is children who are raised in low-stimulus environments; the classic example is children raised in Eastern European orphanages, who suffer from a variety of problems, both intellectual and emotional, which have been traced to lack of stimulus in their environments.

Is cognitive ability a part of achievement? Certainly. Is cogntive ability influenced by genetics? Also certainly. Is cognitive ability influence by a variety of environmental influences? Again, certainly. Are IQ tests biased toward certain cultural (and often racial) groups? Again, certainly.

Newer IQ tests have variations which provide the option to remove vocabulary from the full-scale evaluation of "g", but even those are biased toward people who are native speakers of the language in which the test was written - the K-ABC is an example of this type of assessment. There have been attempts to create entirely non-verbal IQ tests, which rely on gestures (examples are the UNIT and the TONI) - but those assessments rely on gestures which vary by culture, and contain biases of their own. There is no such thing as an unbiased IQ test, and therefore there is no such thing as an unbiased IQ score.

There is no one answer to this question, and, I suspect, will not be for some time to come. But it certainly makes for an interesting discussion!

 

[tradrockrat]

Sure, if you are in the psuedoscientific habit of collapsing causation with correlation.

I found nothing in the aforementioned data that clearly differentiated ethnicity from variables such as economic class, social upbringing, or cultural values. It shouldn't go without saying that there is a considerable overlap between certain ethnic groups and cultural standards.

Well, I don't have time to rewrite the papers I've read and written on this subject during my courses for a masters in Special Education (not done yet!), but let me say this, the initial study is hoplessly inadequate to explain the "cognitive distribution" used to justify such racial (not racist!) stereotyping.

In short, it's bull. Other studies with the same test subjects show a much greater correlation between socio-economic status and cultural mores in determining "cognitive ability". Also, I placed the term in quotation marks because conventional thinking in the educational circles is that most of this so called "cognitive ability" is in fact judged and tested biasly to begin with! For example, some cultures teach their very young children much differently than others. This leads to the children learning through different modalities and in fact tparents often emphasis learning different things. Put simply, they think differently at a fundamental level that the tests do not address.

Now having said that, it is also clear that people who are able to learn and assimilate information quickly - however they do it - are more likely to succeed in life, whether they live in America or a third world tribal village as long as they have other abilites equally developed!

This brings up my final point. I teach autistic and asperger students. Autistic children often test off the charts in certain cognitive areas such as science and math - genious level. But they stand almost no chance of success on their own. Ever. They can master Calculous, but they cannot do the rest. They have no social abilities because they cannot understand it. Eventually, an autistic child will hit his or her limit of ability and understanding of social cues, and it will take most of their life.

 

[tradrockrat]

Haha! I wish I had read the whole thread. Kacey covered it perfectly.

 

[Makalakumu]

This is a problem with the aforementioned theory only when you take what Arnett wrote out of its proper context, which was explicitly a comparison of the intelligence scores between Whites and Blacks.

The theory, if I may, maintains that different cultures (and subcultures) value certain qualities and abilities more highly than others. That other cultures (or subcultures) may value some of these same abilities even more highly than the majority culture in no way denigrates from the validity of this explanation. Rather, this criticism only looks at one-half of the data and then argues that the theory proposes something that it, in fact, does not.

I think that one must look at all minority groups in order to understand the effects of majority culture. If one looks at the data I posted earlier, it looks as if all ethnic groups "resist" the majority culture's influence one way or another. Are we really saying that cultural groups in America are so different that they are the sole determinant of the measured differences? In my experience, it seems as if we much of our culture is a shared phenomenon. Knowing that, couldn't some of the difference be explained by genotypic difference?

Perhaps, but you have absolutely no data to support this conjecture. It is simply an assumption on your part, one apparently motivated by an intellectual commitment to your aforementioned position on the subject.

I wanted to go back and edit the above statement to say "could easily be explained" because the only data that I have to back this statement up is knowledge of the adoption process...as in knowing that it is not a random selective process. Asking this question, IMO, still casts doubt on the conclusions presented.

As far as my intellectual commitment is concerned, the only reason that I'm entertaining these thoughts is because I'm wondering if the current paradigm is creating schools that aren't giving kids what they need. I'm not committed to these ideas.

As it currently stands, this data is a powerful repudiation against the claim that there are overtly "ethnic" or "racial" differences in intelligence testing. When sociocultural variables are controlled for, as I argued in an earlier post, we see very slim differences when it comes to racial differences in so-called "intelligence". This interracial adoption research helps to do that.

If one "controls" the data so it produces certain results by using data, like the interracial adoption data, which is, itself a uncontrolled set of assumptions, then one really isn't controlling the original data at all. One is manipulating it to say what one wants it to say. With that being said, I think that it is possible to test peoples abilities by designing a test that focuses on a certain culture.

I must say I find your conjecture intriguing, though. For it to actually have any kind of meaningful validity, several hypotheses must first be validated. Do you also maintain that White children that are adopted by White families will also score significantly above the adopted Black children?? Do you further maintain that there is no significant difference in testing between Black children adopted by Black families and Black children adopted by White families?? What about White children adopted by Black families compared to White children adopted by White families??

These are all interesting questions, but I have no answers.

Considering the number of premises needed to validate this criticism, Occam's Razor tells me this isn't a very powerful argument.

Perhaps, but one must take care not to use Occum's razor to slice off bits of reality. The question of whether or not the selective process of adoption affects ability scores is a valid one and it remains unanswered. Until then, the conclusions drawn above are in doubt.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the data on adolescents and young adults is still there. Although, I'm quite curious as to what age you believe these cognitive domains are supposed to have "solidified", as well as any data supporting this proposition.

I am not using the correct terminology. Domains refer to something entirely different then what I wanted it to mean. I’m attempting to talk about cultural memes.

I would be interested in hearing your definition of "children" in this context.

Elementary age or below.

Are you suggesting that all young children display roughly equivalent capability in, say, mathematical reasoning and artistic ability?? I find that hard to believe.

That isn’t what I’m suggesting at all. In fact, I’m suggesting the opposite and I’m wondering if some of this difference is determined by our genes. If a rather large portion (40% and up) of the difference is genetic then we may be teaching our kids with school models that are not giving them what they need.

I am also curious as to the source of you're claim that a variety of cultural influences can be controlled for at an early age. The research I've read, particularly concerning the development of particular linguistic abilities, seems to contradict such an assertion.

I’m assuming that certain cultural practices would be less ingrained in a younger individual. Attitude toward education and learning, for instance, is something that can change overtime. People who teach in inner city schools often report that students attitudes toward learning shift negatively as they get older.

No. They're not.

In fact, even a cursory understanding of statistics will demonstrate that a statistical mean is only valid if the variance in one's sample is within an appropriately small range. Extreme scores on either end of the variance will skew the data. In this context, this means that a child that scores average on items 1 through 4, but scores well above average on item 5 will have a resulting "general intelligence" that registers as slightly above average.

I see your point yet I still suspect that if all of the domains were able to be accurately tested and the scores were averaged, one would find that the combined scores (the real g) would still be normally distributed. This indicates that there are certain individuals who have high ability in all of Gardner’s domains and that there are certain individuals who have low ability in all of them. How our society reacts to this difference is very important.

Right now, teachers in regular education have large class sizes and are forced to “shoot for the mean” in their curricular approach. If the kids in our classes are normally distributed in terms of “g” then this approach is going to be “successful” with the majority of kids. Yet, the more an individual diverges from the 50th percentile, the less the curriculum is going to service the child’s actual educational needs.

If we could somehow group kids by standard deviation, teachers could offer a curriculum that better serves a students actual educational needs.

You're correct. They are "right on" in schools that emphasize a limited subset of cognitive abilities (namely, mathematical and linguistic logic).

Ergo, these "predictions" have a certain hint of self-fulfilling prophecies to them: in schools that evaluate success on the basis of competency in math, science, and English, then of course the students that score high in tests of math, science, and English will "succeed". Thus, the prophecy is fulfilled.

One might want to consider whether high scores in certain domains will make one more successful or not. I would wager that high scores in visual/spatial, verbal/linguistic, and mathematical/logical would be a major determinant of success in our society. An individual may have high scores in other domains, but these would play second fiddle to the “big three”.

 

[heretic888]

While Kacey's post as a whole was brilliant, there was one part that stands out....

Is cognitive ability a part of achievement? Certainly. Is cogntive ability influenced by genetics? Also certainly. Is cognitive ability influence by a variety of environmental influences? Again, certainly. Are IQ tests biased toward certain cultural (and often racial) groups? Again, certainly.

This sums up my own views --- and, I suspect, the views of most developmental and education psychologists --- almost perfectly. I couldn't agree more.

The only slight disagreement I have with the aforementioned post is the notion that one's genetics provide one with a predetermined "potential" or end-limit that the individual is capable of. I accept a more epigenetic model that both a) sees both human intelligence and human neurophysiology as incomparably plastic structures (examples including the Baldwin effect, the Flynn effect, and long-term potentiation), and b) sees human intelligence (in any domain or stream) as a dynamic relationship between genetics and environment (at all levels of interaction, whether they be that of the gene, the organism, the population, or the species).

As such, along with Dr. Gardner, I reject entirely the "nature/nurture" dichotomy. The variables of genetics and environment simply cannot be selectively "teased" apart from one another so easily, as one mutually informs and co-develops the other. It is, in essence, a two-way system.

But, in everything else, I am in complete agreement.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

In short, it's bull. Other studies with the same test subjects show a much greater correlation between socio-economic status and cultural mores in determining "cognitive ability".

I suspected as much.

Also, I placed the term in quotation marks because conventional thinking in the educational circles is that most of this so called "cognitive ability" is in fact judged and tested biasly to begin with! For example, some cultures teach their very young children much differently than others. This leads to the children learning through different modalities and in fact tparents often emphasis learning different things. Put simply, they think differently at a fundamental level that the tests do not address.

Agreed.

Now having said that, it is also clear that people who are able to learn and assimilate information quickly - however they do it - are more likely to succeed in life, whether they live in America or a third world tribal village as long as they have other abilites equally developed!

Yes, but this brings up the question as to whether this "learning ability" is consistent across all cognitive domains (logico-mathematic, visuo-spatial, verbal-linguistic, socio-emotional, etc.) or whether the supposed "learning ability" an individual possesses is context-specific within a given cognitive domain.

I feel that Dr. Gardner and his colleagues have amassed a wealth of evidence in support of the latter explanation. Hell, the very existence of idiot savants seems to indicate that a general "learning ability" does not carry across all cognitive domains. Furthermore, some of the most compelling evidence comes from the ever-growing fields of neuropsychology and biopsychology. There seems to be an emerging consensus that our brains compartmentalize different areas for different cognitive capacities, which are usually referred to as "modules" in cognitive science.

I do not deny the reliability of "g" as a measure of testing, but question the scope of its validity. It is my opinion that it only tests for a limited subset of cognitive abilities that are available to human beings.

This brings up my final point. I teach autistic and asperger students. Autistic children often test off the charts in certain cognitive areas such as science and math - genious level. But they stand almost no chance of success on their own. Ever. They can master Calculous, but they cannot do the rest. They have no social abilities because they cannot understand it. Eventually, an autistic child will hit his or her limit of ability and understanding of social cues, and it will take most of their life.

And bingo was his name-o.

Laterz.

 

[tradrockrat]

While Kacey's post as a whole was brilliant, there was one part that stands out....



This sums up my own views --- and, I suspect, the views of most developmental and education psychologists --- almost perfectly. I couldn't agree more.

The only slight disagreement I have with the aforementioned post is the notion that one's genetics provide one with a predetermined "potential" or end-limit that the individual is capable of. I accept a more epigenetic model that both a) sees both human intelligence and human neurophysiology as incomparably plastic structures (examples including the Baldwin effect, the Flynn effect, and long-term potentiation), and b) sees human intelligence (in any domain or stream) as a dynamic relationship between genetics and environment (at all levels of interaction, whether they be that of the gene, the organism, the population, or the species).

As such, along with Dr. Gardner, I reject entirely the "nature/nurture" dichotomy. The variables of genetics and environment simply cannot be selectively "teased" apart from one another so easily, as one mutually informs and co-develops the other. It is, in essence, a two-way system.

But, in everything else, I am in complete agreement.

Laterz.

I agree with you, however, one must certainly admit that there IS a practical limit to an individuals ability to learn and utilize information in the real world. This is very clear in working with Special Needs Students. It's a type of "diminishing returns" scenario. True, the student can continue to learn and improve their whole life, but realistically, they will reach a plateau wherein their progress will for all intents and purposes cease. This is true of students with no other disability than borderline Mental Retardation - a disability BTW that is determined based on Stanford Binet IQ scores primarily. This indicates that it is a natrual phenominon of the learning process that becomes more pronounced the less "cognitive ablility" the individual has. Simply put, some people are smarter than others and no amount of studying in the world will change it.

 

[tradrockrat]

Yes, but this brings up the question as to whether this "learning ability" is consistent across all cognitive domains (logico-mathematic, visuo-spatial, verbal-linguistic, socio-emotional, etc.) or whether the supposed "learning ability" an individual possesses is context-specific within a given cognitive domain.

I feel that Dr. Gardner and his colleagues have amassed a wealth of evidence in support of the latter explanation. Hell, the very existence of idiot savants seems to indicate that a general "learning ability" does not carry across all cognitive domains. Furthermore, some of the most compelling evidence comes from the ever-growing fields of neuropsychology and biopsychology. There seems to be an emerging consensus that our brains compartmentalize different areas for different cognitive capacities, which are usually referred to as "modules" in cognitive science.

Absolutely! (speaking of Bingo :wink2: ) I am most definitely a fan Gardner's work, and not just because it makes sense - but because it works when applied to my classroom. Autism makes much more sense and is much more managable when thought of in this context.

 

[Makalakumu]

Simply put, some people are smarter than others and no amount of studying in the world will change it.

This really is the nuts and bolts in the debate. You spoke above of a borderline where the returns diminish and one's abilities plateau. I would imagine that this line exists in every single individual...including myself. I just completed my degree in physics a few years ago and at the end of my degree, I was learning things that stretched me to the limit and pushed me a little beyond. For example, I still don't really intuitively understand quantum physics and I know that others, my professors, do.

So does it make sense to spend a lot of time, energy, and money teaching me the intricacies of quantum physics? Not really. And I think that this applies to other kids as well in regards to other subjects.

 

[tradrockrat]

So does it make sense to spend a lot of time, energy, and money teaching me the intricacies of quantum physics? Not really. And I think that this applies to other kids as well in regards to other subjects.

Well, quantum physics most likely isn't as important to success as say balancing a checkbook, that's why there are standards for all highschool students who wish to obtain a diploma. If a student cannot meet those standards, we are faced with a serious issue. The reality we face is that it IS neccessary to teach these skills, and some students will not learn it by "traditional methods". Are they stupid? Not at all, because chances are that if you take the time to learn how the student assimilates knowledge naturally, you will find an alternative way to teach the student. This is one of the basic concepts behind special education.

For example, in my Special Ed. math class last year I had a linguistic learner and an intrapersonal learner. That meant that one had to be told everything and then re-read it, while the other couldn't stand the interuptions caused by my voice - he wanted to do everything by himself, totally alone. Well this led to the idea of a headset for the student so that he would not continually run out of the class, and later I had the linguistic learner listen to my lecture with his eyes closed and his head down as he was primaily an auditory learner over a visual one. Both passed a Geometry class taught to state standards. differnt modalities, but the ability was there all along. Now to be fair, I don't think either one will ever understand Quantum Physics, but it is up to them to try it in college if they want to.

 

[heretic888]

I think that one must look at all minority groups in order to understand the effects of majority culture.

Agreed.

If one looks at the data I posted earlier, it looks as if all ethnic groups "resist" the majority culture's influence one way or another. Are we really saying that cultural groups in America are so different that they are the sole determinant of the measured differences?

I'm certainly not. For the record, neither does Dr. Gardner.

In my experience, it seems as if we much of our culture is a shared phenomenon. Knowing that, couldn't some of the difference be explained by genotypic difference?

Quite possibly.

However, it should be mentioned that we do not yet know the exact genetic relationship between ethnicity and intelligence. It could very well be that the genotypes associated with intelligence exist across all human cultures and ethnicities.

At one time it was also believed that Piaget's formal operations were not prevalent in certain cultures, until culture-sensitive modifications to his tasks were developed. This could very well be the same case with traditional intelligence testing.

I wanted to go back and edit the above statement to say "could easily be explained" because the only data that I have to back this statement up is knowledge of the adoption process...as in knowing that it is not a random selective process. Asking this question, IMO, still casts doubt on the conclusions presented.

Certainly.

As far as my intellectual commitment is concerned, the only reason that I'm entertaining these thoughts is because I'm wondering if the current paradigm is creating schools that aren't giving kids what they need. I'm not committed to these ideas.

I agree with your concerns here, but I also feel that traditional intelligence testing and standardized testing as a whole is a big part of the problem here.

I am not using the correct terminology. Domains refer to something entirely different then what I wanted it to mean. I’m attempting to talk about cultural memes.

With all due respect, memetics as it is generally used was mostly baseless speculation on the part of Richard Dawkins based on his equally questionable paradigm of "Universal Darwinism". To my knowledge, it has very little corroboration in developmental or social psychology.

Elementary age or below.

By age 5, most children have already begun to develop concrete operations and rules, which are pretty much culturally-informed. By age 2, children have already begun to develop pre-operational and symbolic-representational thought, which is strongly informed by both the dominant language they are exposed to and their daily experiences/observations.

I would be exceedingly skeptical of any attempt to control for cultural variables within the individual after two years of age. And, even before age 2, we cannot entirely rule out the role of culture, language, and daily experiences.

That isn’t what I’m suggesting at all. In fact, I’m suggesting the opposite and I’m wondering if some of this difference is determined by our genes. If a rather large portion (40% and up) of the difference is genetic then we may be teaching our kids with school models that are not giving them what they need.

Neither I nor any of the others with psychology backgrounds on this thread have argued that genetics do not play a role in intelligence. Please see my outline of an epigenetic perspective in my previous post.

However, there is a difference between associating aspects of intelligence with genetics and associating aspects of intelligence with racial ethnicity. We do not know what genes may encode for intelligence, nor what relationship these genes may have with the genes that encode for a number of racial characteristics.

In any event, as before, it is futile to try to "tease" apart the influence of genetics from that of the environment. They go hand in hand.

I’m assuming that certain cultural practices would be less ingrained in a younger individual. Attitude toward education and learning, for instance, is something that can change overtime. People who teach in inner city schools often report that students attitudes toward learning shift negatively as they get older.

Be that as it may, the daily observations and experiences that a child has will inevitably vary from culture to culture. Culture has a pivotal role in the child's development almost from the very beginning, and definately by age 2.

I see your point yet I still suspect that if all of the domains were able to be accurately tested and the scores were averaged, one would find that the combined scores (the real g) would still be normally distributed.

Within a given domain, yes. Dr. Gardner has made it very clear that he recognizes competency within a domain on the basis of hierarchical excellence. Please see his "The Socialization of Human Intelligences Through Symbols" in Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. The section entitled Waves of Symbolization is of relevance here.

Across all domains, however, the validity of your hypothesis is far from clear. The problem is that, while it is almost universally recognized that cognition is domain-specific, we don't actually know how many domains there really are. Even Dr. Gardner admits that his seven or eight intelligences may not be the only ones there are. In fact, in his Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century, he openly considers the existence of moral, existential, and spiritual intelligences (among others).

As such, until we conclusively determine exactly how many domains or streams there are, as well as devise a means of reliably testing for competency in each one, there is just no way of testing your hypothesis.

This indicates that there are certain individuals who have high ability in all of Gardner’s domains and that there are certain individuals who have low ability in all of them. How our society reacts to this difference is very important.

I find the existence of an all-high or all-low individual possible, but extremely unlikely.

Right now, teachers in regular education have large class sizes and are forced to “shoot for the mean” in their curricular approach. If the kids in our classes are normally distributed in terms of “g” then this approach is going to be “successful” with the majority of kids. Yet, the more an individual diverges from the 50th percentile, the less the curriculum is going to service the child’s actual educational needs.

"G" as it currently exists only tests for a limited subset of human cognitive abilities. There is a reason that Gardner's theory is so popular among teachers and education specialists.

One might want to consider whether high scores in certain domains will make one more successful or not. I would wager that high scores in visual/spatial, verbal/linguistic, and mathematical/logical would be a major determinant of success in our society. An individual may have high scores in other domains, but these would play second fiddle to the “big three”.

I would agree with this.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I agree with you, however, one must certainly admit that there IS a practical limit to an individuals ability to learn and utilize information in the real world. This is very clear in working with Special Needs Students. It's a type of "diminishing returns" scenario. True, the student can continue to learn and improve their whole life, but realistically, they will reach a plateau wherein their progress will for all intents and purposes cease. This is true of students with no other disability than borderline Mental Retardation - a disability BTW that is determined based on Stanford Binet IQ scores primarily. This indicates that it is a natrual phenominon of the learning process that becomes more pronounced the less "cognitive ablility" the individual has. Simply put, some people are smarter than others and no amount of studying in the world will change it.

I agree completely, provided we are addressing the topic of domain-specificity here. That very same individual may be "smarter" in one domain but "dumber" in another. A rather extreme example being, of course, idiot savants.

That being said, I never meant to imply that there is no end-limit at all that individuals possess. Rather, I was addressing the notion that this end-limit is genetically determined. I believe the end-limit is a result of interacting genetic and environmental variables.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Absolutely! (speaking of Bingo :wink2: ) I am most definitely a fan Gardner's work, and not just because it makes sense - but because it works when applied to my classroom. Autism makes much more sense and is much more managable when thought of in this context.

Truthery!!! :boing1: :boing1: :boing1:

 

[heretic888]

I can't believe I missed this part....

If we could somehow group kids by standard deviation, teachers could offer a curriculum that better serves a students actual educational needs.

Hmm. I'm gonna have to go back to Sigelman and Rider on this one:

"Finally, it does not matter much whether or not a school uses ability grouping, in which students are grouped according to ability and then taught in classes or work groups with others of similar academic or intellectual standing. Grouping by ability has no clear advantage over mixed-ability grouping for most students (Betts & Shkolnik, 2000; Rutter, 1983). It can be beneficial, especially to higher-ability students, if it means a curriculum more appropriate to students' learning needs (Kulik & Kulik, 1992). However, low-ability students are unlikely to benefit and may well suffer if they are denied access to the most effective teachers, taught less material than other children, and stigmatized as 'dummies' (Mac Iver et al., 1995; Mehan et al., 1996). Too often, this is just what happens. As Hugh Megan and his colleagues (1996) put it, 'It is not that dumb kids are placed in slow groups or low tracks; it is that kids are made dumb by being placed in slow groups or low tracks' (p. 230)."

But, they later state:

"Finally, characteristics of the student and characteristics of the school environment often interact to affect student outcome. Lee Cronbach and Richard Snow (1977) called this phenomenon aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI); it is an example of the broader concept of goodness of fit between person and environment that we emphaseize throughout this book. Much educational research has been based on the assumption that one teaching method, organizational system, or philosophy of education will prove superior for all students, regardless of their ability levels, learning styles, personalities, and cultural backgrounds. This assumption is often wrong. Instead, many educational practices are highly effective with some kinds of students but quite ineffective with other students. The secret is to find an appropriate match between learner and teaching method.

To illustrate the ATI concept, highly achievement-oriented students adapt well to unstructured classrooms in which they have a good deal of choice, whereas less achievement-oriented students often do better with more structure (Peterson, 1977). Sometimes alternative teaching methods work equally well with highly capable students, but only one of them suits less capable students. In one study, for example, highly distractible students got more from computer-assisted instruction than from a teacher's presentation of the same material, whereas more attentive students benefitted from both methods (Orth & Martin, 1994). Finally, students tend to have more positive outcomes when they and their teacher share similar backgrounds (Goldwater & Nutt, 1999). Evidence of the importance of the fit between student and classrom environment implies that educational programs are likely to be most effective when they are highly individualized --- tailored to suit each student's developmental competence and needs."

- Carol K. Sigelman & Elizabeth A. Rider. Life-Span Human Development, Fourth Edition. pp. 266-267.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

I find the existence of an all-high or all-low individual possible, but extremely unlikely.

Why would this be so implausible? I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that we all have an equal amount of intelligence points to spread among the domains. In fact, in my line of work, I see plenty of individuals that would qualify as low in most domains.

 

[Makalakumu]

I can't believe I missed this part....



Hmm. I'm gonna have to go back to Sigelman and Rider on this one:

"Finally, it does not matter much whether or not a school uses ability grouping, in which students are grouped according to ability and then taught in classes or work groups with others of similar academic or intellectual standing. Grouping by ability has no clear advantage over mixed-ability grouping for most students (Betts & Shkolnik, 2000; Rutter, 1983). It can be beneficial, especially to higher-ability students, if it means a curriculum more appropriate to students' learning needs (Kulik & Kulik, 1992). However, low-ability students are unlikely to benefit and may well suffer if they are denied access to the most effective teachers, taught less material than other children, and stigmatized as 'dummies' (Mac Iver et al., 1995; Mehan et al., 1996). Too often, this is just what happens. As Hugh Megan and his colleagues (1996) put it, 'It is not that dumb kids are placed in slow groups or low tracks; it is that kids are made dumb by being placed in slow groups or low tracks' (p. 230)."

But, they later state:

"Finally, characteristics of the student and characteristics of the school environment often interact to affect student outcome. Lee Cronbach and Richard Snow (1977) called this phenomenon aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI); it is an example of the broader concept of goodness of fit between person and environment that we emphaseize throughout this book. Much educational research has been based on the assumption that one teaching method, organizational system, or philosophy of education will prove superior for all students, regardless of their ability levels, learning styles, personalities, and cultural backgrounds. This assumption is often wrong. Instead, many educational practices are highly effective with some kinds of students but quite ineffective with other students. The secret is to find an appropriate match between learner and teaching method.

To illustrate the ATI concept, highly achievement-oriented students adapt well to unstructured classrooms in which they have a good deal of choice, whereas less achievement-oriented students often do better with more structure (Peterson, 1977). Sometimes alternative teaching methods work equally well with highly capable students, but only one of them suits less capable students. In one study, for example, highly distractible students got more from computer-assisted instruction than from a teacher's presentation of the same material, whereas more attentive students benefitted from both methods (Orth & Martin, 1994). Finally, students tend to have more positive outcomes when they and their teacher share similar backgrounds (Goldwater & Nutt, 1999). Evidence of the importance of the fit between student and classrom environment implies that educational programs are likely to be most effective when they are highly individualized --- tailored to suit each student's developmental competence and needs."

- Carol K. Sigelman & Elizabeth A. Rider. Life-Span Human Development, Fourth Edition. pp. 266-267.

Laterz.

These guys are on the right track, but educational research has moved on quite a bit in the last twenty five years. Differentiated instruction based on ability groupings is coming back. So is tracking by ability...mostly by the "Big Three" of Gardner's domains which I listed above. There is still alot of resistence to tracking though. People are clinging to the Blank Slate model.

I find it sad that the authors above would say that ability grouping would work well with kids on the right of the bell curve but not the left. Throwing lower ability kids into the mix with others who are at the mean or above can be very frustrating and demeaning. They are over their heads and they know it and they hope to god that no one else knows it, so they often act out and "remove" themselves from class. Thus destroying their educational opportunities. When these kids recieve instruction that is more on their levels, they are engaged in learning and even enjoy it.

 

[tradrockrat]

Uh oh...


We're comming dangerously close to the segregation / inclusion debate - a totally different animal

 

[Makalakumu]

Uh oh...


We're comming dangerously close to the segregation / inclusion debate - a totally different animal

This discussion regarding the limitations set by cognitive ability has a direct impact on the outcome of the segregation/inclusion debate.

For the layman, segregation, in the educational sense, means taking low cognitive ability kids and putting them in their own classes. Inclusion puts these kids in a classroom with the general population of students. The philosophy behind each is based on cognitive theories and social conditions.

Segregation, for instance, takes a look at kids cognitive limitations and attempts to teach kids what they are really able to learn. Inclusion is based off the fact that low ability kids have been treated like second class citizens in schools and they do not get the resources they need for a quality education AND the premise that putting kids in an environment that challenges their abilities, will ultimately bring those kids up higher then if they were segregated.

My initial thought on this is that if a kid does not not have the cognitive ability to learn certain things, NO amount of effort will be enough to teach them those things.

The segregation/inclusion debate can also be applied to high ability students. Does one pull them out of the regular classroom so they can be challenged to the highest degree or does one keep them in the regular classroom so they can help bring others up?

Again, I think it is important to give these kids the challenges they need to rise as high as they can. In a regular classroom environment, this can be very difficult because the rigor and amount of the work can seem really unfair. This is complicated by the "teach to the mean" approach that many (most) teachers use. The end result of inclusion of high ability kids is that they are bored and frustrated with school.

This is an ironic mirror image of what low ability kids feel.

 

[Kacey]

For the layman, segregation, in the educational sense, means taking low cognitive ability kids and putting them in their own classes. Inclusion puts these kids in a classroom with the general population of students. The philosophy behind each is based on cognitive theories and social conditions.

Segregation, for instance, takes a look at kids cognitive limitations and attempts to teach kids what they are really able to learn. Inclusion is based off the fact that low ability kids have been treated like second class citizens in schools and they do not get the resources they need for a quality education AND the premise that putting kids in an environment that challenges their abilities, will ultimately bring those kids up higher then if they were segregated.

My initial thought on this is that if a kid does not not have the cognitive ability to learn certain things, NO amount of effort will be enough to teach them those things.

The segregation/inclusion debate can also be applied to high ability students. Does one pull them out of the regular classroom so they can be challenged to the highest degree or does one keep them in the regular classroom so they can help bring others up?

Again, I think it is important to give these kids the challenges they need to rise as high as they can. In a regular classroom environment, this can be very difficult because the rigor and amount of the work can seem really unfair. This is complicated by the "teach to the mean" approach that many (most) teachers use. The end result of inclusion of high ability kids is that they are bored and frustrated with school.

This is an ironic mirror image of what low ability kids feel.

And herein lies the layman's problem: the vast majority of students in special education do NOT have low cognitive abilities; they have learning disabilities. By definition, cognitive delay is NOT a learning disability; it falls under a different definition entirely, and accounts for less than 1% of students identified for special education. The legal definition of a learning disability is:

[SIZE=-1](A) IN GENERAL- The term "specific learning disability" means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](B) DISORDERS INCLUDED- Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](C) DISORDERS NOT INCLUDED- Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
​

When discussing inclusion and segregation, this definition is vital. As a special education teacher, students with learning disabilities are the ones I work with the most. They are NORMAL kids who have difficulty learning for one or more reasons. The two most common learning differences are

Specific learning disability: A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. This term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. This term does not include children who have learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; mental retardation; or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage.
Speech or language impairment: A communication disorder such as stuttering, impaired articulation, language impairment, or a voice impairment that adversely affects a child's educational performance.
​

These kids need additional instruction - not DIFFERENT instruction. The vast majority of them are able to learn the same material as their peers, but they may need extra time, may not be able to read as well as their peers but can demonstrate competence/understanding verbally, and so on - but as long as they are segregated from their peers, they will have only each other to model and learn from. It has been proven that if students are placed only in ability-homogeneous groups, the average and below-average students will only achieve at the level of the highest student in the grouping; if they are placed in heterogeneous groups for most of the day and provided additional instruction where needed, the average performance of the group as a whole improves. High achieving students achieve well regardless of the grouping. The key is to provide heterogeneous grouping for general instruction, and homogeneous grouping for additional instruction, during which time students who need extra help recieve it, and students who don't need extra help can recieve enhancement to improve their skills beyond the grade standard.


Even for students who are cognitively delayed, inclusion is a legal requirement. The two key phrases are "least-restrictive environment" - that is, it is legally required that disabled students be educated in an environment as close to that in which their non-disabled peers are educated as possible, and "free and appropriate public education", which is just what it sounds like. The overlap between "least-restrictive" and "appropriate" is where inclusion and segregation exist - even for the most cognitively delayed students (and there is a student at my school with a tested IQ of 37) can benefit from inclusion in classes such as art. Will this student ever draw like her peers? Not likely... but they will model appropriate behavior for her in a way not possible if she spent all day, every day, in a room with only other cognitively-delayed students... and likewise, her peers learn from her about the range of human ability, and the need for empathy. Less-impacted students benefit from inclusion in PE, Health, Choir, and so on. Learning disabled students and speech/language students, by definition, have normal intelligence, and, if they experience difficulty reading, writing, and/or doing math, can still learn the concepts through participation in oral discussions in all subjects, and can be assessed through alternative means.


Sorry to go on so long, but I live with this argument every day. Remember, special education is not a place, it is a service-delivery method regulated by federal law.

 

[tradrockrat]

This discussion regarding the limitations set by cognitive ability has a direct impact on the outcome of the segregation/inclusion debate.

Well, in as much as proponents of inclusion believe that cognitive ability has zero place in determining where a child goes to class. In full inclusion - which is considerd by the "experts" to be the only form of inclusion that will work - places all children of the same age in the same classroom; special needs, exceptional needs, and "average" students alike.

For the layman, segregation, in the educational sense, means taking low cognitive ability kids and putting them in their own classes. Inclusion puts these kids in a classroom with the general population of students. The philosophy behind each is based on cognitive theories and social conditions.

Most people on tyhis forum will have gone to school that practiced this model. Think Special Ed. classes down the hall, and gifted and talented classes upstairs.

Segregation, for instance, takes a look at kids cognitive limitations and attempts to teach kids what they are really able to learn. Inclusion is based off the fact that low ability kids have been treated like second class citizens in schools and they do not get the resources they need for a quality education AND the premise that putting kids in an environment that challenges their abilities, will ultimately bring those kids up higher then if they were segregated.

Well, of course it goes much deeper than that, and both sides are full of studies, case histories and social theoryies to justify their positions

My initial thought on this is that if a kid does not not have the cognitive ability to learn certain things, NO amount of effort will be enough to teach them those things.

The segregation/inclusion debate can also be applied to high ability students. Does one pull them out of the regular classroom so they can be challenged to the highest degree or does one keep them in the regular classroom so they can help bring others up?

Again, I think it is important to give these kids the challenges they need to rise as high as they can. In a regular classroom environment, this can be very difficult because the rigor and amount of the work can seem really unfair. This is complicated by the "teach to the mean" approach that many (most) teachers use. The end result of inclusion of high ability kids is that they are bored and frustrated with school.

This is an ironic mirror image of what low ability kids feel.

Well, here is where we agree. Reality has no time for "ideal classtroom conditions" required for the concept of inclusion to work. However, with the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) directive by our glorious leader completely neglecting to even mention Special Needs students, let alone make provisions for them, inclusion has gained significant popularity because that's a possible way to bring up all test scores - theoretically. Remember, those high functioning kids become "peer educators" under the inclusive classroom setting. In reality, the low functioning kids are literally removed from school so that inclusion looks better, and test score do indeed meet the minimum required by NCLB to continue recieving their funding.

The problem is, if we accept Gardners intelligences as valid, then we quickly realize that no single classroom could ever hope to address the needs of 40 students at once, aspecially if you include students who are Emotionally Disturbed, Autistic, Mentally Retarded, etc. all in the same classroom. Mark my words, by the time we get rid of NCLB you will see a vast majority of Special Needs students shuffled off to non-public schools like the one I teach at because it is WAY TOO EXPENSIVE to keep them in public school.