Revaluating Intelligence and Aptitude forAdmissions and Access with Alexander S. Templeton
Research QuestionsIf we only use 10% to 15% ofour brain’s potential, how canonly a few tests measure ourintelligence?What are the tests measuringfor?Are there other viable tools ofassessing intelligence?If so, how can they be useful tothe administration of access tohigher education?
Defining IntelligenceMultiple (Gardner, 1983) Linguistical, Logical MathematicalEmotional (Goleman, 1998) Actresses, Actors Healthy behavior, but relation to success in college?Successful (Sternberg, 1985, 1986, 2004,2005) “Analytical” – hierarchal, taxonomy, unchanging context “Creative” – interpret in changing context “Practical” – novel, system handling
Cultural IntelligenceIncludes Creative and Practical IntelligenceSocio-cultural Context: Relation to Environment India Tanzania Africa Brazil “Any town” USASternberg (2006): Some languages don’t even have a single word for intelligence, (pg. 323) Intelligence outside of its cultural context is mythological construct, (pg. 328).College influence is “inversely related to the cultural distancebetween a student’s culture(s) of origin and the cultures ofimmersion,” (Kuh and Love, 2000, 204).
Standardized Aptitude TestUsefulness Quantification Universal Commercially Viable Bases Intel.Limitations On how its Measured, not Outdated Theoretical Measure skills relevant to On how its Psychology academic more than practical Constructed. problems Count for small portion of performance criteria Vicious cycle of theory and applied Weak psychology Use of Applied Psychology Defining intelligence based on the results of the intelligence test. Produce gaps among gender and socially defined racial groups
What has been done?Sternberg’s Rainbow Project Sternberg’s Triarchic Assessment Test (STAT) Series of SAT Augmentations from small (300) to large (8000) samples of students Tested Successful Intelligence Results: Was more predictive then combining GPA and SAT scores in predicting college GPA Larger variety of scores across the board Smaller gap of scores from different racial backgrounds then regular SAT Michigan Business Project GMAT Practical Intelligence
Non-Cognitive MeasuresDefining Non-Cognitive variables: Overcoming significant hardship (socio- cultural context) Support system (cultural integration)Sedlacek’s (2003) NCQ (Non-Cognitive Questionnaire) Non Cognitive variables Portfolios New variables of creativity and identity intelligence
Dynamic Immersion and Non-cognitive MeasuresDeborah Bial’s Dynamic Indexand Posse Foundation NCQ as BDI Faculty Dynamic Immersion Process Harvard to Northeastern University Roger B. Clegg, chief counsel to Interviews Student Counseling Cohort Facilitator the Washington-based Center for Equal Opportunity, "the only think tank devoted exclusively to the promotion of colorblind equal NCQ opportunity." (Pulley, 2000).
Impacting Adverse AccessLimitations – Bial (2006), “no tool has constituted a measure that can be widely applied” (pg. 26)Dissent Larger admissions offices needed (Selingo, 1996) No convincing public that current tests are free from corruption, (Rowe, Kenneth and Hill, 2001). No altruistic definition, so no true theory, no true tool, (Sternberg, 2006, 323).
Proposals and Suggestions Augmentations of SAT’s (NCQ) – Gates Foundation Millennium Scholarship Portfolios Dynamic Immersion Programs Inside UNLV: Christine Clark and Suzanne Espinoza Not changing current cognitive criteria Refining UNLV’s admissions process to improve grad rates and demographics for diversity Treating a symptom or the problem?
Teaching to New Intelligence“An Institution can surely admitstudents from underrepresentedminority groups, but unless itteaches them in a way that fitsthe way they learn, these wellintentioned admissions decisionsmay do little good,” (Sternberg,2005, 9).
SummaryFor Students: Optimize chances for admissions Fair application processFor the Institution: Obtain best students possibleFor Society: That cannot afford to waste talent
ReferencesBial, Deborah. Rodriguez, Alba. (2007). Identifying a Diverse Student Body: Selective CollegeAdmissions and Alternative Approaches. New Directions for Student Services. 118, 17-30.Kamara, Margaret. (2007). Awarding Genius Endeavors Diverse: Issues in Higher Education.11/1/2007, Vol. 24 Issue 19, p13-13, 1/2p, 1c.Kuh, G.D., & Love, P.G. (2000). A cultural perspective on student departure. In J.M. Braxton(Ed.) Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville: Vanderbuilt University Press.McMillan, James H. (2008). Educational Research Fundamentals for the Consumer. 5th Edition.Virginia Commonwealth University. Pearson Education, Inc.Pulley, John L. (2000) A Program That Believes in Going With the Posse. Chronicle of HigherEducation. 4/28/2000, Vol. 46 Issue 34, pA40, 3p, 1 chart, 2cRowe, Kenneth J. and Hill, Peter W. (1996). Assessing, recording and reporting studentseducational Progress: The Case for Subject Profiles. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &Practice. Nov. Vol. 3 Issue 3, p309, 44p.Russell, Diane. (2007). Mission Diversity: New Office Making Studies Toward More InclusiveCampus. Inside UNLV: News & Information for UNLV Insiders. November, pg. 1, 7.Sedlacek, W. E. (2003). Alternative admissions and scholarship selection measures in highereducation. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 35(4), 263.Selingo, Jeffrey; Brainard, Jeffrey. (2001). Call to Eliminate SAT Requirement May ReshapeDebate on Affirmative Action. Chronicle of Higher Education. Vol. 47 Issue 25, pA21, 2p, 2c.Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59(5), 325.Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Theory-based university admissions testing for a new millennium.Educational Psychologist.Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The rainbow project: Enhancing the SAT through assessments ofanalytical, practical, and creative skills. Intelligence, 34(4), 321. Taken fromwww.sciencedirect.comSternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Kidd, K. K. (2005). Intelligence, race, and genetics.American Psychologist, 60(1), 46.Sternberg, Robert J. (2005) Accomplishing the Goals of Affirmative Action--with or withoutAffirmative Action. Change. 37, 1.