| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Just for fun, let's carry on!
| Quote: |
Cultural Bias in IQ Testing
By Lorraine D. Ledger
Cultural bias has long been a problem for test designers. The kinds of biases found in schools, including standardized tests, vary from language differences to exposure to certain historical truths.
|
| Quote: |
| Unfortunately, most placement tests and intelligence tests are biased toward a predominantly white, middle-class population |
| Quote: |
| If a biased intelligence test places such a child into a remedial class, this child may not succeed. History and science have proven that no group of people is intellectually superior to any other ethnic or racial group. The cultural bias that most often hampers school success today for some US children is not race, but economics. |
| Quote: |
Research shows that children of lower socio-economic status are less likely to receive teaching geared toward their individual needs than are children from upper socioeconomic status. This economic bias is compounded by the fact that most public school teachers are from a white, middle-class culture. |
http://www.liberalartsandcrafts.net/contentcatalog/social/bias.shtml
[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The theory of multiple intelligences was developed in 1983 by Dr. Howard Gardner, professor of education at Harvard University. It suggests that the traditional notion of intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, is far too limited. Instead, Dr. Gardner proposes eight different intelligences to account for a broader range of human potential in children and adults. These intelligences are:
Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):
Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
Musical intelligence ("music smart")
Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")
Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")
|
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coffeecup
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| hopefully ending Sir Coffeecups career as a fraudeulent racial supremist permanantly. |
No actually I surf the net about once a day.
I'm just waiting to see how long you'll go and how many judgements you'll keep making about me until you've finally finished. Let's see there was "defeated because he doesn't reply" "racial supremacist" "eugenicist" "nazi" just in this thread alone.
What other comments were there about me.
Is the point of this thread not to discuss whether we think races differ or not? No one has labeled you, why do you do it?
But honestly few people take this website with any seriousness AT ALL. I know I sure don't. For me this website is like the last 6 minutes of each time I surf the web.
When and if I feel like it I'll post something else on this thread. In the meantime let's see how many more labels you can slander others with, which undoubtedly avoids any real debate as well as delays it extensively on my end. But keep in mind NO ONE enjoys reading your name calling and most everyone just skips right past it until the thread becomes useless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fair point Coffeecup, I've called you a few names, I've also posted a LOT of hard information from reputable websites and I've cited all my sourses. You have not come back with anything except to call me on my name calling. If I have offended you, why don't you do something academic to save your sullied name? 
| Quote: |
| Is the point of this thread not to discuss whether we think races differ or not? |
That is indeed the point, and I've argued quite rigorously on that topic, but you haven't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott in HK
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: now in Incheon..haven't changed my name yet
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gardner' s Mulitple Intelligence THEORY...remains just that...there have been no independent studies conducted and there is nothing out there that truly proves his work.
The educational sector jumped at the theory because it sounds so good...but in the end it is still just one guy's theory...and if you have read the book(s) and the criticisms...you might come to the same conclusion as I did and that is that it is a fairly weak theory |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| As I understand it the theory has not been conclusively proven in studies but it's application has shown dramatic results in the classroom. Further, while not yet conclusively proved with lab tests, neither is it conclusively disproved. You will find the debate on this rather political and emotional as it cuts to the heart of educational practice. It would be nice if you posted a link to a site critical of the theory. I will be interested to see if the sourse is connected to the education world or to conservative christians somehow, and will be very surprised if it comes from neutral academics with no stake in the issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Morgan, (1996) refers to Gardner's approach of describing the nature of each intelligence with terms such as abilities, sensitivities, skills and abilities as evidence of the fact that the "theory" is really a matter of semantics rather than new thinking on multiple constructs of intelligence and resembles earlier work by factor theorists of intelligence like L.L. Thurstone who argued that a single factor (g) cannot explain the complexity of human intellectual activity. According to Morgan (1996), identifying these various abilities and developing a theory that supports the many factors of intelligence has been a significant contribution to the field. Furthermore, he believes that MI theory has proven beneficial to schools and teachers and it may help explain why students do not perform well on standardized tests but it in Morgan's opinion it does not warrant the complete rejection of g.
|
| Quote: |
| The first myth is that if there are seven intelligences we must be able to measure them with seven specific tests. Gardner is vocal about his disdain for a singularly psychometric approach to measuring intelligence based on paper and pencil tests. Secondly, he responds to the belief that an intelligence is the same as a domain or a discipline. Gardner reiterates his definition of an intelligence and distinguishes it from a domain which he describes as a culturally relevant, organized set of activities characterized by a symbol system and a set of operations. For example, dance performance is a domain that relies on the use of bodily-kinesthetic and musical intelligence |
| Quote: |
| Other criticisms include the notion that MI theory is not empirical, is incompatible with g, heritability, and environmental influences, and broadens the construct of intelligence so widely as to render it meaningless. Gardner (1995) staunchly defends the empiricism of the theory by referring to the numerous laboratory and field data that contributed to its development and the ongoing re-conceptualization of the theory based on new scientific data |
| Quote: |
| In response to the criticism that MI theory is incompatible with genetic or environmental accounts of the nature of intelligence, Gardner states that his theory is most concerned with the interaction between genetics and the environment in understanding intelligence |
| Quote: |
Finally, the notion that MI theory has expanded the definition of intelligence beyond utility produces a strong reaction from Gardner. He argues passionately that the narrow definition of intelligence as equal to scholastic performance is simply too constrictive. In his view, MI theory is about the intellectual and cognitive aspects of the human mind. Gardner is careful to point out that MI theory is not a theory of personality, morality, motivation, or any other psychological construct (1995, 1999a, 1999b).
|
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/mitheory.shtml#criticism |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It can be argued that research around the functioning of the brain generally continues to support the notion of multiple intelligence (although not necessarily the specifics of Howard Gardner's theory). |
| Quote: |
Conclusion
While there may some significant questions and issues around Howard Gardner's notion of multiple intelligences, it still has had utility in education. It has helped a significant number of educators to question their work and to encourage them to look beyond the narrow confines of the dominant discourses of skilling, curriculum, and testing. For example, Mindy Kornhaber and her colleagues at the Project SUMIT (Schools Using Multiple Intelligences Theory) have examined the performance of a number of schools and concluded that there have been significant gains in respect of SATs scores, parental participation, and discipline (with the schools themselves attributing this to MI theory). To the extent that Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences theory has helped educators to reflect on their practice, and given them a basis to broaden their focus and to attend to what might assist people to live their lives well, then it has to be judged a useful addition.
|
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm#issues |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott in HK
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: now in Incheon..haven't changed my name yet
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I did a literature review on Gardner's theory for my masters course and I didn't find one study that supported HIS theory. The thought that students learn in different ways has been accepted in educational circles for a long time, but that does not equate to their being eight separate independent intelligences working without any central control.
The studies that support his theory are all educational which have proven that if you teach to student's learning strengths then they do better. But they in no way proved that the students have independent intelligences.
I read the Morgan paper and it did not support Gardner's theory rather it supported that intelligence should be looked at more closely. Morgan believes that Gardner is simply taking different cognitive styles and renaming them intelligences. Gardner himself says he did this because he knew it would stir up controversy.
All of Gardner's support comes from a hodgepodge of different sources and the most damning factor against his theory is that the criteria he created to define the intelligences does not actually fit all of his intelligences. The one glaring ommision is the criteria that an individual can have one particular intelligence in great strength while seemingful being devoid of all the others....he uses autisitc children with great math skills to prove this...but he does/can't apply this to some of the other intelligences..especially the inter/intra personal ones....
I could look for the articles again...but I got most of them from my university's database...
the authors to look at are Morgan, Klein, Traub, Allix, Messick...
i would like to lay down a similar challenge...find any source that backs his theory with empirical data...not school success....educators have latched on to this idea and used it in class..but it is not much different from a lot of other learning theories that stated that kids learn in different ways.....
kiwi....i would send you my paper if you want...just don't criticize the proofreading...i am a horrible technical writer....great at the ideas....suck at the mechanics...i even sent it out to be proofread by a more detail oriented friend and he failed me... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The one glaring ommision is the criteria that an individual can have one particular intelligence in great strength while seemingful being devoid of all the others....he uses autisitc children with great math skills to prove this...but he does/can't apply this to some of the other intelligences..especially the inter/intra personal ones.... |
Right off the top of my head I can think of several extremely talented musicians that are, to put it bluntly, completely thick in every other way.
Regarding central control, I don't remember Gardener asserting the lack of central control.
I'll defer to your knowledge, it seems this is a semantic debate anyway, based on the word intelligence. Whatever he was talking about it has been a very productive practical framework for education, even improving formal scores like SAT for learning disability students.
If Gardner hasn't completely nailed it down, he certainly has helped opened up a feild of enquiry that is fruitful. We need to get out of the circular logic we are in that goes like "What is intelligence? Intelligence is what is tested by intelligence tests" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott in HK
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: now in Incheon..haven't changed my name yet
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
it is not quite semantic...the big stumbling block is that he wants his intelligences to be completely independent of each other...operating as complete separate units....and he never addresses the question of a central intelligence because that would argue against his whole independence theory....
and on another note...there are some reviewers who are worried about basing so much educational theory and curriculum development on an unproven theory.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| and on another note...there are some reviewers who are worried about basing so much educational theory and curriculum development on an unproven theory.... |
My dip ed was in English teaching, and much of educational theory comes from behavioural science and not hard psych. People can worry all they want, but if it's producing results in the schools it seems very much like sour grapes to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott in HK
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: now in Incheon..haven't changed my name yet
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
i have a b'ed and doing an masters in education...if that is germaine to the discussion....
and the worry is that some schools may start to promote these other 'intelligences'...telling some student that it is okay that they don't perform well in language and math and that it is not their fault because they are more kinetically intelligent...when the truth is to succeed in the world you need to be successful in these core 'intelligences"....
have you read his book..or any of the criticisms... or are you falling into the trap and justing accepting the theory at face value because it 'feels right'..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have not read the book completely, but large chunks of it at teachers training college. I don't accept his theory in full, but I think it gives good guidelines for teaching methodology.
As for students slipping through with substandard skills due to excessive adherence to his theory, I don't think there's a danger of that as his theories have had an influence on teaching delivery but not on examination design.
I see you also have trouble getting to sleep?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott in HK
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: now in Incheon..haven't changed my name yet
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem is not so much the theory which is just someone's idea..but the fact that educator's, with little real knowledge of the theory, are designing curriculum around the theory and doing a piss poor job of it...
Gardner himself in his follow up book distances himself from all the various programs that have been developed in his name....
i haven't read him yet...but apparently others are exploring these field...sternbeg (spelling)...
my problem is that the book could be boiled down to two facts teachers already know....kids learn differently....and intelligence tests suck... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
