Intelligence testing is an old practice dating back more than 100 years (http://www.apa.org ). In the United States, standardized intelligence testing is used for school entry, determining who is gifted, and potentially identifying learning disabilities. Examples of intelligence testing are the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the Kaufman Assessment Battery of Children, the Standford-Binet, and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children.
These tests focus on academic aptitude; however, Howard Gardner describes eight areas of intelligence: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic that should be considered (Berger, 2009, p. 326)
As stated in Berger (2009), a child may have a low IQ test result, but be responsible, demonstrate emotional control, and memorize names of friends. Unfortunately, the pressures for academic achievement make it unlikely that intelligence testing and assessments based on intellectual aptitude will be de-emphasized in the United States anytime soon.
When I looked for assessment approaches in other countries, I surprisingly found a lot of information on New Zealand Schools. Their Ministry of Education (MOE) adapted Uri Bronfenbrenner’s social cultural model to their education system and called it Te Whariki. Likewise, their assessment philosophy for school-aged children follows the same model. For example, the MOE provides tools to ensure development and assessment include the cultural tradition of oral story-telling and use of cultural symbols, not just “traditional” reading and writing. In fact, teachers are encouraged to assess children in their first language so that the second language (English) is not a barrier. Even though, I could not find the specific assessment tools used, the Te Whariki framework for assessment includes Well Being, Belonging, Contribution, Communication, and Exploration (http://www.educate.ece.govt.nz/learning/curriculumAndLearning/TeWhariki.aspx). If New Zealand is actually practicing what they preach, I think the MOE has masterfully balanced the social context of native New Zealand children with their national requirements for achievement. Furthermore, they appear to work very hard to maintain the cultural integrity and self-esteem of children when teaching and assessing them. The New Zealand approach demonstrates that intelligence is not reserved for the few, if the basis by which intelligence is determined includes the dynamic environment in which people live.
Reference:
Berger, K. S. (2009). Middle Childhood: Biosocial Development, The developing person through childhood (5th ed.) (p. 324 - 326). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
I think assessing children in their first language as you discovered from your study of assessment methods in New Zealand enables an unbiased and true assessment for children. Children thought process is done in their first language. As stated by Johnstone & Selepeng (2001) students struggle to learn in a second language which results in loosing at least 20 percent of their capacity to reason and understand in the process. It therefore means that results produced when children are tested in their second language cannot be the true representation or reflection of such children's ability.
ReplyDeleteReference:
Johnstone, A. and Selepeng, D. (2001). A language problem revisited. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2(1), 19-29.
I find it interesting that we rely on Gardner's multiple intelligence to help us teach our students yet we assess them using the same standardized tests. It seems as though we do everything possible to meet the needs of our students except give them an assessment that shows what they have learned and that they are capable and competent. The assessment of children in New Zealand seems wonderful. I was interested to hear that they use Uri Bronfenbrenner’s social cultural model in their assessment of children. I think that having assessments that relate to a culture are important for children. We all do better when we can relate to a subject and apply what we know. There are have been many studies out on how the questioning in the Tennessee state standardized tests asks questions that are very unrelated to the students culture. It is assumed that this throws the students off when answering the questions. I believe that it is important to have informal ongoing classroom assessment to assess all students varying abilities. This also helps to foster in the education of students with disabilities.
ReplyDeleteJoy,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Berger, a child may have a low IQ test result, but the child may be responsible, demonstrate emotional control, and able to memorize names of friends. I truly believe some children are not good test takers. I think there should be other ways to test what a child has learned and knows, especially if the child is pressured before testing.
I had a very prominent professor at my undergraduate university tell me that he felt that IQ tests measure nothing but how good you are at taking IQ tests. He said that because you can get better at it with practice, you can raise your score, but you are'n actually changing your intelligence. I think this is a very interesting way to look at them, and probably very true.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned how far back IQ tests date, and it reminded me that I read once that they were first developed during WWI to help determine what areas soldiers would best work in. So their roots are more vocational in nature.
Hi Joy,
ReplyDeleteIt has been a great privilege to have you as a colleague for the past 8 weeks. Your postings on discussion board, on your blog, and comments has positively impacted on me. While thanking you and wishing you much success in your program, I would like to let you know that it will be a great pleasure to have you as a course mate in future courses at Walden.
Best wishes,
Shola