In response to:

Jensen and Flynn

dahni Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 1:09 PM
Another study with the same students involved grouping students into 4 groups: Hi and Lo IQ students were identified. Teachers were given a class of mixed IQ, and told they had a group of high achievers, or low achievers. Both Lo-IQ and Hi-IQ students achiever sig. higher when the teacher thought they were smart; and both Lo-IQ and Hi-IQ students scored lower when the teacher thought they were limited intellectually. Hi-IQ students scored higher than Lo-IQ in both groups; and the Hi-IQ students in the 'Limited' classes scored higher than the average students of Lo-IQ in the 'Smart' classes. The need to have all teachers expect learnng to take place and to act like their students can learn is emphasized. In later grades....
dahni Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 1:19 PM
the difference became more evident. By grade 6 the lo-IQ were far behind the Hi-IQ in Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. By end of Grade 8 the evidence supports the contention by many that further 'cognitive directed learning' would put the Lo-IQ students in a situation requiring them to learn stuff they could not learn.

I'm talking cognitive emphasis. IQ . There are many other areas of skills. Gardner's Nine Types of Intelligence is excellent and would make a much better guide for design of School Activities. Check it out.

Anyone who has followed the decades-long controversies over the role of genes in IQ scores will recognize the names of the two leading advocates of opposite conclusions on that subject-- Professor Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley and Professor James R. Flynn, an American expatriate at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

What is so unusual in the academic world of today is that Professor Flynn's latest book, "Are We Getting Smarter?" is dedicated to Arthur Jensen, whose integrity he praises, even as he opposes his conclusions. That is what scholarship and science are...

Related Tags: Intelligence