Intelligence

This week’s readings contained an abundance of information to process.  There is much more to intelligence that I had previously realized.  Overall, I took from the readings that the more we think we know about intelligence, the more questions we have about it.  What stood out the most is that there are so many different definitions of intelligence, and experts cannot seem to agree on any one “correct” definition because intelligence is so multifaceted.  Page 144 of Drummond & Jones (2010) includes a variety of theorists’ definitions of intelligence, some of which I found to seem ironically unintelligent.  For example, Boring’s (1923) definition was that “intelligence is what is measured by intelligence tests” (p. 144).  How insightful.  I found that the most subjective definition was Thorndike’s (1921), which stated that intelligence is “The power of good responses from the point of view of truth or facts” (p. 144).  Tell me more about “good” measures of intelligence… Even more interesting was the fact that intelligence tests have been created before “intelligence” was clearly defined.  Talk about invalid.

            Drummond & Jones (2010) discussed examiners identifying significant statistical differences between the Index scores and to consider these scores when making clinical and educational planning decisions.  This reminded me of a student on my caseload who was re-evaluated at the beginning of this school year.  The WISC-IV was given as part of his evaluation. We will call this particular student “Bob.”  Here is what the school psychologist wrote about Bob when interpreting his index scores for the WISC-IV:

Bob’s FSIQ was not found to be the best overall predictor of his intelligence due to the significant and rare discrepancies between Bob’s Perceptual Reasoning Composite (composite score of 112, above average) and his Verbal Comprehension (composite score of 89, low average) and Processing Speed (composite score of 83, low average) Composites.  Thus, Bob’s intelligence is too multifaceted to be adequately summarized with the FSIQ score.  It is important to consider each index independently in regard to the different academic tasks they impact.

            I believe, in general, that scores from standard intelligence tests do not give adequate information in understanding a person and how he/she learns, especially for my purposes as a teacher.  Knowing one’s verbal comprehension score or processing speed score give me minimal useful information to help meet a child’s needs in my classroom; these are facets of a child’s intelligence that I could most likely informally determine just by working with him/her on a regular basis.  I find that Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences can provide the most useful information for me as a teacher, and I wonder why there are not assessment batteries to assess this.  The Esters & Ittenbach article (2009) states that “the next generation of intelligence tests will help us answer some of the most fundamental questions about students’ success in school and in life.”  It seems to me that success in life relates to a career, and career success relates to one’s work satisfaction and self-efficacy in their careers.  In order to find satisfaction one must understand their strengths and weaknesses, which can also be understood through one’s learning style.  Therefore, an intelligence test that measures intelligence types (i.e. Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences) could help gear people toward better understanding themselves and finding greater success in school and in life.

            Neisser et. al. (1996) assert that “A given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria” (p. 77).  They later state, “Practical intelligence can be relatively independent of school performance or scores on psychometric tests” (p. 79).  I see this regularly as a teacher; some of the most capable or intelligent students put forth minimal effort and lack school success (i.e. have low grades).  I have also had students who have very low IQs and yet still succeed.  I am reminded of a prior student of mine who’s FSIQ was barely 80 (I believe it was a 78).  His “intelligence” was low, but he succeeded in school because he had such good work ethic and determination, and found ways to understand tasks in order to successfully complete them.  This example can further be connected to Sternberg’s theory that “intelligent individuals are those who can figure out their strengths and weaknesses and find ways to optimize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses so they succeed in their environment” (Drummond & Jones, 2010, p. 151).  In addition, while this student may not have naturally excelled in the areas of intelligence that predict success in school, he was extremely kinesthetically and spatially intelligent.  He could find creative ways to put anything together, and had a knack for taking things apart and figuring out how they work.  However, his IQ score did not reflect these abilities, and labeled him as having “borderline intelligence,” when, in reality, he was very intelligent, just not in the “standard” sense of the term.

            Intelligence is such a multifaceted and complex concept.  It seems that there is so much more to learn about it and the factors that influence it, that it could be very difficult to develop a completely valid and reliable test to measure it.

Drummond, R. J. and Jones, K. (2010). Assessment procedures for counselors

            and helping professionals. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Esters, I. & Ittenbach, R. (1999, June).  Contemporary theories and assessments

            of intelligence: A primer.  Professional School Counseling, 2(5), 373.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci,

S.J.,…Urbina, S. (1996, February).  Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.