These days we are inundated with opinions on childrearing and childdevelopment.

Describe how psychologists have used and refined the concept of intelligence in their efforts to measure children's abilities. Critically evaluate the idea of intelligence as a single, innate ability in the light of these efforts.

Introduction

It is difficult to define ‘intelligence’ but most psychologists can agree that it refers to intellectual ability as opposed to intellectual achievement (Gardner, 1998). There are a whole host of theories about , none of which really agree with each other. Every approach comes up with a different theory of . Each from it's own different perspective, with it's own assumptions, and often challenge at least one other theory. What this study would do in the first part is show how the concept of intelligence, using four main approaches: psychometric, cognitive, contextual and social construction, has been used by psychologists in their, though sometimes futile attempts, to measure a child’s ability.

Leading from this, with the rise of intelligence testing came a series of debates over the nature of intelligence. Earlier last century, psychologists like Spearman (Smith, 2003) aimed to prove Intelligence as ‘single ability’ in a child, i.e. a single general intelligence permeating a child’s individual differences. (Smith, 2003). The essay will look, in particular, at Howard Gardner’s (1984/98) work into multiple intelligence as an argument against a single ability.

Psychologists also argued that the nature of intelligence was innate supporting the nature aspect of the continuing nature-nurture debate. The second part of the study would look at both these issues evaluating whether intelligence is an innate and single ability to a child.

Part 1

Intelligence is a word used extensively by society as a whole both past and present, where people had different notions of what intelligence is historically compared to nowadays. Even now, Intelligence means different things to different people and some psychologists cannot agree (Richardson, 1995). Sternberg & Detterman (1986) surveyed psychologists on what they thought the definition is. Learning and adaptive abilities, metacognition, or the ability to understand and control oneself came across as important.

In addition to the definition, the view of intelligence can be contentious. In the western society, people who are labeled as intelligent would generally be perceived as superior. According to Mugny and Carugati (1989) it does of the opposite effect for people classed as ‘unintelligent’ where they would be seen as inferior. These views stems from their theory based on the Social Construct model where they question the real existence of intelligence and states that it is ‘social’ in origin rather than intrinsic.

Their study of social representation looked at perceptions and attitudes that generally label a person depending on their level of intelligence as an important factor. By looking at intelligence for what it really is, social perceptions and attitudes often varies depending on the developmental expectations surrounding a child (Fry 1984), the experiences of those responsible for the child’s development, and the culture. Okagaki & Sternberg (1993) recognized in their study, as an example, that Western parents tended rather heavily to emphasize the importance of cognitive skills. Other cultures in particular the Latin Americans place social interactions as more important.

This is a different approach from the psychometric school of thought to intelligence which is amongst the oldest of approaches, and dates back to Plato’s two-thousand year old judgments on the superiority of certain types of people (Richardson, 1985). There was also Galton’s (1869) psychophysical account of intelligence and attempts to measure intelligence in terms of mental strength or power’

This is a preview of the whole essay

Galton (1869) who like Plato, actually condemned the notion of ‘natural equality’. He tried to test this by assessing individual performance on motor and sensory tasks (Evans & Waites, 1981). He assumed that someone’s position on the social ladder corresponded with their level of ‘natural ability’. The results from his and his associates testing were totally ambiguous where according to Evans & Waiter (1981). There was no independent estimate for Galton to base his testing on. His strategies were pragmatic; the test results were a failure. He still however, pursued using his theories to support his selective breeding programs.

Since then there have been numerous attempts to test the abilities of children using Psychometric testing. One such pioneer included French psychologists Alfred Binet (1905) who used a barrage of tests on areas like comprehension, memory etc to measure higher mental processes in children. The tests would assess whether or not a child is brighter or below what is expected of them from teachers. Richardson (1995) questions whether this is a fair assumption by making educational achievement equate to intelligence.

Binet’s tests were later developed by Lewis Terman of Stanford University which from this developed the ever-popular IQ or ‘Intelligence Quotient’ test. IQ tests which often was used to predict school achievement and job status. Whether IQ tests adequately measure a child’s ability is a matter of debate. They tend to measure only one aspect of intelligence like analytical and verbal aptitude and overlooks aspects like creativity (Richardson, 1995). A major problem with psychometric testing is that people generally place a lot of faith in them, accepting them unreservedly.

Psychometric researchers have attempted to measure individual intelligence in relation to stability or changes with age. Sigman et al.,(1991) measured children’s attention span using longitude study. A major problem with this study is that there are individual differences that will affect the attention span of the child. (Slater 1990)

All the disparities with psychometric testing had led others to look at other ways of looking at intelligence. One such approach is the Cognitive approach originated by Aristotle, Plato’s student where intelligence is understood in terms of actual knowledge and reasoning processes (Richardson, 1995). The reason for this, unlike the psychometric approach, this approach is more ‘processed-focused’ (Horn 1986)

Many studies have looked at the child’s Reaction Time (RT) as one of the measures (Detterman, 1987). Anderson felt that the time it takes children to inspect the object of research before making a judgment is genetically determined and is a reflection of a child’s quick knowledge acquisition.

Other people would argue that the speed of Inspection Time (IT) could depend on other factors i.e. how much practice the child had before the experiment also the confidence of the child has a bearing (Nettlebeck 1992)

Piaget believed that intelligence developed from the action of the child on external objects. He also viewed intelligence as an ‘‘evolutionary process’, where acquisition of knowledge proceeds in a progressive manner (Butterworth & Harris1994) – genetic epistemology

Piaget’s development of intelligence as an latter stages succeed earlier stages because they are more adaptive, that is more adequate to the demands of reality.

This is revealed in everyday actions a child goes through at any age. The differences between the stages where a latter stage succeed earlier stages, is how the child, through co-ordination, is able to represent such actions through mental structures. The child begins to understand more and more what they are doing.

One of the criticism of Piaget’s theory are the rigidity these hierarchical development stages. Donaldson (1987) believed that if the problems or tasks given to test a child do not make any sense, they will more likely to fail. Based on the Contextualist approach, she also argued that a child also understand if they have some prior knowledge about the task concerned already.

Richardson (1991b) tested children on reasoning based on socio-cognitively meaningful items, based on a child’s everyday life. He compared this to the standard Raven type test. The children tested consistently out performed those tested with the traditional Raven test.

Part 2

There are many views on the nature of intelligence. One view by Galton (1869) is that intelligence is general ability that would be reflected in any test or task undertaken by a child (Smith, 2003). Terman (1916) typified intelligence as an ‘all-round general power,’ Weschsler (1958) concurrently saw it as a global capacity.

A key argument supporting this was Spearman (1904) notion of 'General Intelligence', or 'g' which is a single factor, which influences a persons performance on all tests. Spearman (1927) carried this research out again, this time with adults where they were given a range of mental tests. He founded here that adults who performed well in one test overall tended to perform better in the other tests he set.

Unfortunately for him, his theories were disputed by many because of the simplistic nature of 'g’ of the whole concept and its limited significance (Smith, 2003).

The results of Gardner’s study (1984), which looked for a firm cognitive foundation of intelligence, had dispelled Spearman and others claim on a ‘single ability’. He articulated that there were ‘multiple intelligence’ where a child possesses, what it called a ‘profile of intelligence’. This for him meant that a child is born with genetically determined mental operations that makes them naturally adhere to specific qualities. His study found that people have eight intelligence’s: logical-mathematical, linguistic, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and the naturalistic.

The constructivist side to his theory was that these genetically programmed modules might be subject to some developmental plasticity. He also proposed that there were individual differences in their profiles of intelligence’s and that children by the four years old, on entering school, would benefit highly from having their individual differences catered for. For instance if a child has a propensity towards music perhaps he or she should be given extra support or encouragement in that particular area.

Gardner's developing ideas suggest that any simple attempt at defining intelligence is inadequate given the wide variety of skills, abilities, and potential that people manifest. (Gardner, 1998). This is evident when you look at the whole spectrum of individual differences where you find child prodigies, where young children are astounding in certain areas like playing the piano, mathematics etc.

Gardner would however not have supported some of Galton views over intelligence in relation to its perceived innateness. Galton’s work Hereditary Genius ( ) argued ‘that innate differences in overall superiority existed within human groups, that those differences were mental in origin, and that they were inheritable’.

Gardner and others who agreed with the constrictivist view that even though it is intrinsic it doesn’t mean there isnt any hope for a child who in some pscyhometric views classed them as ‘unintelligent’. It is Gardner’s view that it could be improved. Flynn (2002) supported this argument by illustrating the differences in levels of intelligence at the turn during Galton’s era and how significantly higher it is now. Also if that were true the total population during that time would have had ‘mental retardation’.

Firmly on the ‘nurture’ side of the debate, Vygotsky’s Social Constructive theory of zone of proximal development" or (ZPD) providing a child with "scaffolding would have stressed emphatically the importance of the social environment and culture. One of the main disputes especially with the psychometric approach it fails to acknowledge the effects of culture and time has on perceptions on what is intelligence and effects on the levels of intelligence. Impressions of intelligence according to Richardson (1995) are culturally biased and have evolved over time.

There is evidence from anthropologists who are beginning to put emphasis on culture as the primary emphasis. Claims strengthened during the middle of the twentieth century by studies carried out especially at the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station (Carson, 2002), where IQ was found to change depending on nutrition and educational environment. At the same time other researchers were teasing out ever more complicated connections between intelligence development and such factors as mental and physical health, family child-rearing practices, socio-economic status, and quality of education received.

No one could denounce the role that genetics plays in helping a child to develop but there is strong evidence to suggest that environment and genetics influences development (Richardson, 1994).

Conclusion

IQ testing is predominately used as a good indicator for educational achievements but fails to recognise other abilities and skills from a child which are important. You need to look at the whole child some may be more proficient at interpersonal skills and others at music. But all, according to Gardner is part of intelligence.

Society does have a role to play as people define intelligence differently and see certain attributes as more important depending on their own experiences, the age of the child and their culture.

With all these factors in mind, let us not forget the role the child has to play intrinsically in their own levels of ‘intelligence’ where combining environmental factors and gene action, they have the predisposition to do better in certain areas than others.

References

Binet, A (1905) cited 'The Development of Intelligence', P (ed.) Children’s Cognitive and Language Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University (1995)

Butterworth & Harris 1994-

Carson, J (2002) ‘Intelligence: History of the Concept ‘a University of Michigan Ann Arbor USA

Detterman, D. K. (1987) cited ‘Richardson, K cited 'The Development of Intelligence', P (ed.) Children’s Cognitive and Language Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University (1995) p 165

Donaldson, M (1987) cited ‘Theories of Cognitive development’, Das Gupta, p and Richardson, K (1995)

Evans & Waites (1981) cited 'The Development of Intelligence', P (ed.) Children’s Cognitive and Language Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University (1995)

Fallows J, (1989) , cited ‘Richardson, K 1995 p 153

Flynn (1998), cited ‘Does IQ Matter?, 1998, http://www.findarticles.com

Fry, C (1984), cited ‘Richardson, K 1995 p176

Galton (1869) cited 'The Development of Intelligence', P (ed.) Children’s Cognitive and Language Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University

Gardner, H ‘Does IQ Matter?, 1998, http://www.findarticles.com

Gupta, P (1994) ‘Images of Childhood & Theories of Development’, The Foundations of Child Development

J Fallows (1989) cited 'The Development of Intelligence', P (ed.) Children’s Cognitive and Language Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University

Nettlebeck, T (1987) cited ‘Richardson, K 1995 p 165

Okagaki L, Steinberg RJ. 1993. cited ‘Human Abilities’: Annual Review of Psychology, 1998

Richardson, K (1991b) cited ‘Richardson, K 1995 p 173

Richardson, K (1994) ‘Evolution & Development’, The Foundations of Child Development

Richardson, K (1994) ‘Interactions in Development’, The Foundations of Child Development

Richardson, K (1995) 'The Development of Intelligence', P (ed.) Children’s Cognitive and Language Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University

Sigman et al.,(1991) cited 'The Development of Intelligence', P (ed.) Children’s Cognitive and Language Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University

Slater (1990) cited 'The Development of Intelligence', P (ed.) Children’s Cognitive and Language Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University

Smith, P; Cowie, H; Blades, M; (2003) Understanding Child Development Basic Psychology (Oxford, England

Spearman (1904) cited 'The Development of Intelligence', P (ed.) Children’s Cognitive and Language Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University

Spearman (1927) cited 'The Development of Intelligence', P (ed.) Children’s Cognitive and Language Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University

Sternberg & Detterman (1986) cited Sternberg, R.J. (1998) ‘Human abilities’ Annual Review of Psychology http://www.findarticles.com
Okagaki & Sternberg (1993) cited Sternberg, R.J. (1998) ‘Human abilities’ Annual Review of Psychology

Terman 1916) cited 'The Development of Intelligence', P (ed.) Children’s Cognitive and Language Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University

Weschsler (1958) cited 'The Development of Intelligence', P (ed.) Children’s Cognitive and Language Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University

Wohwhill (1994) ‘Images of Childhood & Theories of Development’, The Foundations of Child Development