I am just back from a wonderful week-long vacation in California (I finished my first marathon! Don’t ask my time. Let’s just say I finished). Anyway, May is a great time for education stories, so I anticipate slightly more frequent posting until my book (168 Hours) comes out May 27 and things get crazy.
On today’s agenda: more evidence of the fact that teachers matter. None of us particularly likes standardized testing. But as the movement to tie children’s test scores to individual schools and teachers heats up, researchers are finding some fascinating things in the data this movement is producing.
First, twins are often assigned to different classrooms. This creates a natural experiment, since identical twins in particular have the same genes, and most likely the same home environment. So if they’re in the same school but separate classes, then at least some of any difference can likely be attributed to the experience they’re having in their classrooms.
In general, according to a new study from Florida State University, this turns out to be pretty much the same experience. Genes and home environment are most predictive of educational outcomes. But in cases where twins strongly diverge in their reading ability, in many cases, their teachers also have divergent quality ratings. This reinforces previous findings that differences in schools between great teachers and awful teachers are often bigger than between schools.
A whole industry of researchers is currently trying to isolate what makes a “great” teacher. But another recent study found one thing that definitely does not: anxiety about math. According to a study from the University of Chicago, girls whose female early elementary school teachers feel most anxious about their math abilities pass this belief – that math is something boys do – on to their pupils. That’s a problem since elementary education majors apparently have the highest levels of math anxiety of any college students. I'm not sure what to do about that except that, over time, our society needs to start believing that teaching, like engineering, is a math-intensive field, and requires a high level of competence. It is not a field for people who aren't "numbers people."
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Time Mag: Is Cash the Answer?
A quick question for Gifted Exchange readers: do you reward your children for good grades? What do they think about this?
My family used to go out for ice cream if we got good report cards, and I can't say that it particularly affects me much now. My husband, the way he tells it, used to get to go out for King Crab Legs if all four kids got straight A's (which I guess they usually did). It seems to have left quite an impression on him, because every time we're at a restaurant that serves King Crab Legs, he orders them.
The question of whether rewards work has long been debated in education. Dan Pink's Drive (which I reviewed for City Journal here) makes the case that pay-for-performance doesn't work if you want the most creative results. The strongest motivation is intrinsic: you do something because the action itself is pleasurable to you.
No one argues that we would love to have kids learning because they love to learn. I also think it's not particularly controversial to say that a lot of kids don't necessarily show this kind of motivation (or at least schools haven't tapped into it). So what should be done?
This past week, Time magazine ran a cover story about a recent, multi-city study that looked into whether cash awards can boost student learning. You can read the article, "Is Cash The Answer" by following the link in this sentence. The experiment was run by Roland Fryer, a young Harvard economist who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks himself, and would like to figure out a way to boost the performance of at-risk kids.
The answer to whether cash is the answer? Maybe. As Time reporter Amanda Ripley writes, "The results are fascinating and surprising. They remind us that kids, like grownups, are not puppets. They don't always respond the way we expect." For instance, in New York City, paying for higher test scores did not lead to any measurable effect on end-of-year standardized tests. In Washington DC, rewarding for five different activities improved reading skills. In Dallas, paying kids to read boosted reading comprehension scores by the equivalent of being in school an extra 3 months (which is quite a big difference).
Fryer and his team have puzzled through the differences, and seem to have taken a few things away from these results. First, incentives work when kids can actually directly control how they will do. Getting a grade is pretty subjective, but you can control if you read a book, or if you show up for class or don't get in a fight. And second, you have to know how to achieve success. As Ripley puts it (quoting another economist), if I ask you to solve a third-order linear partial differential equation right now, and you don't know what I mean, it really doesn't matter if I offer you a million dollars. You're not going to be able to do it. If a kid doesn't know how to do better at geometry, cash doesn't help. But kids do know how to read through a book. They know when they have successfully done that. Hence the Dallas program, which paid for that, had the most success in jump-starting learning. Read enough books, and you get better at reading.
So what does this have to do with gifted education? Many highly gifted kids do, intrinsically, love to learn. Their brains are good at learning, at figuring things out. As parents, we want to be careful not to step on this joy. On the other hand, other things -- like turning in homework on time -- may not be so natural, and may be an area that's more ripe for rewards.
My family used to go out for ice cream if we got good report cards, and I can't say that it particularly affects me much now. My husband, the way he tells it, used to get to go out for King Crab Legs if all four kids got straight A's (which I guess they usually did). It seems to have left quite an impression on him, because every time we're at a restaurant that serves King Crab Legs, he orders them.
The question of whether rewards work has long been debated in education. Dan Pink's Drive (which I reviewed for City Journal here) makes the case that pay-for-performance doesn't work if you want the most creative results. The strongest motivation is intrinsic: you do something because the action itself is pleasurable to you.
No one argues that we would love to have kids learning because they love to learn. I also think it's not particularly controversial to say that a lot of kids don't necessarily show this kind of motivation (or at least schools haven't tapped into it). So what should be done?
This past week, Time magazine ran a cover story about a recent, multi-city study that looked into whether cash awards can boost student learning. You can read the article, "Is Cash The Answer" by following the link in this sentence. The experiment was run by Roland Fryer, a young Harvard economist who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks himself, and would like to figure out a way to boost the performance of at-risk kids.
The answer to whether cash is the answer? Maybe. As Time reporter Amanda Ripley writes, "The results are fascinating and surprising. They remind us that kids, like grownups, are not puppets. They don't always respond the way we expect." For instance, in New York City, paying for higher test scores did not lead to any measurable effect on end-of-year standardized tests. In Washington DC, rewarding for five different activities improved reading skills. In Dallas, paying kids to read boosted reading comprehension scores by the equivalent of being in school an extra 3 months (which is quite a big difference).
Fryer and his team have puzzled through the differences, and seem to have taken a few things away from these results. First, incentives work when kids can actually directly control how they will do. Getting a grade is pretty subjective, but you can control if you read a book, or if you show up for class or don't get in a fight. And second, you have to know how to achieve success. As Ripley puts it (quoting another economist), if I ask you to solve a third-order linear partial differential equation right now, and you don't know what I mean, it really doesn't matter if I offer you a million dollars. You're not going to be able to do it. If a kid doesn't know how to do better at geometry, cash doesn't help. But kids do know how to read through a book. They know when they have successfully done that. Hence the Dallas program, which paid for that, had the most success in jump-starting learning. Read enough books, and you get better at reading.
So what does this have to do with gifted education? Many highly gifted kids do, intrinsically, love to learn. Their brains are good at learning, at figuring things out. As parents, we want to be careful not to step on this joy. On the other hand, other things -- like turning in homework on time -- may not be so natural, and may be an area that's more ripe for rewards.
Friday, April 09, 2010
Parents are spending more time with their kids -- is it because of college admissions?
Earlier this week, Tara Parker-Pope's Well blog over at the New York Times highlighted findings from a recent study that American parents were spending far more time with their kids than a generation ago. College-educated parents in particular have really stepped up their game -- moms and dads -- which the headline deemed surprising (since more women are in the workforce now than in years past). I don't find it surprising (as I blog about over at My168Hours.com) but what's most interesting is a thesis that doesn't make it into the Well column. The husband and wife economist team, the Rameys, who ran these numbers, speculate that parents are investing more time in their kids because college admissions has gotten more competitive.
In a paper called The Rug Rat Race, they speculate that there are far more college-bound children now than in recent years, and that this surge in college-bound children is concurrent with the rise in investment of parental time. It's a crowded cohort, so you have to do something to make your child stand out.
I don't know about this explanation -- though they do some interesting calculations. On the whole, it seems like a negative gloss on a mostly positive thing: that parents value their time with their children, and so are more likely to engage in that during their non-working hours, instead of other hobbies or housework. Some of it may be sparked by increased competition. But it may just be a broader change in culture, too.
In a paper called The Rug Rat Race, they speculate that there are far more college-bound children now than in recent years, and that this surge in college-bound children is concurrent with the rise in investment of parental time. It's a crowded cohort, so you have to do something to make your child stand out.
I don't know about this explanation -- though they do some interesting calculations. On the whole, it seems like a negative gloss on a mostly positive thing: that parents value their time with their children, and so are more likely to engage in that during their non-working hours, instead of other hobbies or housework. Some of it may be sparked by increased competition. But it may just be a broader change in culture, too.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Davidson Young Scholar Success Stories
The Davidson Institute offers several programs for highly gifted young people. We've covered the opening of the Davidson Academy several years ago, and the winners of the annual Davidson Fellows awards, but I also wanted to call readers' attention to the Young Scholars program, which is one of the institute's biggest efforts, now reaching 1600 young people. When kids are accepted into the program, they are eligible for consulting services which can help parents and educators decide on the best way to meet their needs. Every child is different, of course, but by the time you've studied what works and what doesn't for 1600 highly gifted kids, there are some pretty robust best practices.
You can read several success stories of different students in the program, and how those best practices worked here. You can find out how to apply here.
You can read several success stories of different students in the program, and how those best practices worked here. You can find out how to apply here.
Friday, April 02, 2010
In Defense of AP
Many, many years ago, I took several AP (Advanced Placement) classes and AP exams in high school. I had quite a range of experiences with them, too. I got 5s (the top score) on the Calculus BC, Chemistry, and Biology tests. I believe I scored a 2 on the AP Physics exam, which is a pretty poor showing. The tests felt very different, too. I was completely lost in the physics one, whereas I knew, in the middle of the biology and chemistry ones, that I was pretty much going to ace them. There was nothing I didn't know cold. I was clearly the same person, with the same work ethic (positive or negative) for all these classes, and given my calculus scores, presumably had enough math knowledge to deal with physics, so why the incredible difference in outcomes?
I was thinking of this as I read a recent article in USA Today called "Advanced Placement: Good for top students, oversold for others?" Harvard Education Press has recently released a book showcasing research into the College Board's AP program. The results, according to the article, are pretty mixed, but I believe this is a question of what you think the AP should do.
As USA Today quotes Philip Sadler, a Harvard prof and one of the co-editors of the book, here is the value proposition of AP for students: "Advanced Placement courses offer you an opportunity to study a subject in a very rigorous and demanding fashion. You will probably be in a class that has fewer students, those students will likely have stronger backgrounds, and there will be fewer student discipline issues than you have experienced in other courses. Your teacher will have a strong subject matter background and excellent teaching skills."
In my calculus, biology and chemistry classes, this was definitely the case, and I am far from the only one of my classmates who did well on the exams. But the fact that a course is AP can't necessarily make up for deficits or unevenness in teaching and preparation.
This is an issue because in recent years, many school districts have decided to roll out AP courses very broadly. Many cited a study finding that kids who attempted hard classes in high school were more likely to go to college. So why not offer AP, have kids challenge themselves, and watch the college enrollment rates go up?
That's a reasonable idea, but the reality is that many kids aren't prepared for the rigor of AP classes, and their teachers are equally unprepared to teach them well. They can lack subject matter expertise or teaching ability. So if you want to go this route, you're going to have to be prepared to watch a lot of students fail at least in the near term. And as the USA Today article indicates, there are schools where basically no one gets above a 2. There are also schools where the majority of kids score 3-5. The AP program is standardized, but it can't be completely standardized. It is hard to get around the reality that some kids don't come into AP programs ready to deal with them and that teachers matter. Period.
But I don't think this is a problem with the program. I think that it is what it is -- a great way for top high school students to try rigorous classes and stretch their brains. I still have a soft spot in my heart for chemistry and biology, and when I was writing a column for Scientific American for a while, I found that my basic knowledge from the AP on these topics was enough to converse with leading scientists. Knowing that my knowledge would be tested at the end of the class and that the results would mean something compared with all other high school students was very important to me. Coming from Indiana, I had no idea whether what I was learning would match up against the brightest kids from around the country. The AP exams let me see that. There was no wiggle room. Your score is your score, and a sympathetic teacher can't give you a top score just because you were the sharpest kid in her class. It is benchmarked for everyone, and at a level of very high standards. I wish more of American education was like that.
I was thinking of this as I read a recent article in USA Today called "Advanced Placement: Good for top students, oversold for others?" Harvard Education Press has recently released a book showcasing research into the College Board's AP program. The results, according to the article, are pretty mixed, but I believe this is a question of what you think the AP should do.
As USA Today quotes Philip Sadler, a Harvard prof and one of the co-editors of the book, here is the value proposition of AP for students: "Advanced Placement courses offer you an opportunity to study a subject in a very rigorous and demanding fashion. You will probably be in a class that has fewer students, those students will likely have stronger backgrounds, and there will be fewer student discipline issues than you have experienced in other courses. Your teacher will have a strong subject matter background and excellent teaching skills."
In my calculus, biology and chemistry classes, this was definitely the case, and I am far from the only one of my classmates who did well on the exams. But the fact that a course is AP can't necessarily make up for deficits or unevenness in teaching and preparation.
This is an issue because in recent years, many school districts have decided to roll out AP courses very broadly. Many cited a study finding that kids who attempted hard classes in high school were more likely to go to college. So why not offer AP, have kids challenge themselves, and watch the college enrollment rates go up?
That's a reasonable idea, but the reality is that many kids aren't prepared for the rigor of AP classes, and their teachers are equally unprepared to teach them well. They can lack subject matter expertise or teaching ability. So if you want to go this route, you're going to have to be prepared to watch a lot of students fail at least in the near term. And as the USA Today article indicates, there are schools where basically no one gets above a 2. There are also schools where the majority of kids score 3-5. The AP program is standardized, but it can't be completely standardized. It is hard to get around the reality that some kids don't come into AP programs ready to deal with them and that teachers matter. Period.
But I don't think this is a problem with the program. I think that it is what it is -- a great way for top high school students to try rigorous classes and stretch their brains. I still have a soft spot in my heart for chemistry and biology, and when I was writing a column for Scientific American for a while, I found that my basic knowledge from the AP on these topics was enough to converse with leading scientists. Knowing that my knowledge would be tested at the end of the class and that the results would mean something compared with all other high school students was very important to me. Coming from Indiana, I had no idea whether what I was learning would match up against the brightest kids from around the country. The AP exams let me see that. There was no wiggle room. Your score is your score, and a sympathetic teacher can't give you a top score just because you were the sharpest kid in her class. It is benchmarked for everyone, and at a level of very high standards. I wish more of American education was like that.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Tennessee and Delaware win Race to the Top
So the winners of the first round of competition for the Race to the Top grants have been announced, and Tennessee and Delaware have come out ahead.
While a number of people had fretted that a dozen or more states would win awards, thus watering down the impact, the selection of only two is promising. It makes this a real competition, and hopefully will empower reformers. As someone with vaguely libertarian leanings, it does bother me that the federal government compels people in all the states to send in tax money, and then doles it back out. But given that our government is definitely not moving in a libertarian direction, I'm glad to see that some federal dollars are being used in a way that could improve educational outcomes. Plus, with only two state winners, we'll be able to track if things do change.
The Race to the Top announcement has gotten me thinking what would be on my educational wish list. Next up? A Race to the Top for raising the performance of America's top 5% of students against the top 5% of students in other countries, as measured by international benchmarks... I have been pondering what that would look like. Flexible but frequent "readiness" grouping (aka ability grouping). Lots of acceleration, so kids would be challenged. And a focus on identifying and nurturing the talent of the best and brightest, much as we have coaches for nurturing athletic talent. What is noticed and measured and rewarded gets done, and gifted education could definitely use a race to the top.
On a personal and self-promotional note: Gifted education is one of my favorite topics, but I also write about many other things. One of my other favorite things to write about is time use, and I have a book coming out May 27 called 168 Hours: You Have More Time Than You Think. Why 168 hours? It's the number of hours in a week! I'm keeping a blog at My168hours.com in advance of the book coming out, and would be very flattered if any GE readers wished to spend a few minutes of their 168 hours checking it out. I'm hoping to build up a readership and get people talking.
Ok, now back to gifted education. :)
While a number of people had fretted that a dozen or more states would win awards, thus watering down the impact, the selection of only two is promising. It makes this a real competition, and hopefully will empower reformers. As someone with vaguely libertarian leanings, it does bother me that the federal government compels people in all the states to send in tax money, and then doles it back out. But given that our government is definitely not moving in a libertarian direction, I'm glad to see that some federal dollars are being used in a way that could improve educational outcomes. Plus, with only two state winners, we'll be able to track if things do change.
The Race to the Top announcement has gotten me thinking what would be on my educational wish list. Next up? A Race to the Top for raising the performance of America's top 5% of students against the top 5% of students in other countries, as measured by international benchmarks... I have been pondering what that would look like. Flexible but frequent "readiness" grouping (aka ability grouping). Lots of acceleration, so kids would be challenged. And a focus on identifying and nurturing the talent of the best and brightest, much as we have coaches for nurturing athletic talent. What is noticed and measured and rewarded gets done, and gifted education could definitely use a race to the top.
On a personal and self-promotional note: Gifted education is one of my favorite topics, but I also write about many other things. One of my other favorite things to write about is time use, and I have a book coming out May 27 called 168 Hours: You Have More Time Than You Think. Why 168 hours? It's the number of hours in a week! I'm keeping a blog at My168hours.com in advance of the book coming out, and would be very flattered if any GE readers wished to spend a few minutes of their 168 hours checking it out. I'm hoping to build up a readership and get people talking.
Ok, now back to gifted education. :)
Monday, March 22, 2010
America's Real Dream Team
Thomas Friedman has a great column in this weekend's New York Times, "America's Real Dream Team," also covering the Intel Science Talent Search.
He lists the names of the finalists to make an obvious point: Most of these young people are children of immigrants or immigrants themselves. Their projects are incredible, showing imagination, technology and drive -- the three factors that will produce the jobs and economic growth of tomorrow. America's immigrants have always done well on these fronts. A great reason to keep the doors open, and something I remember when I run through Battery Park (from where you can see the Statue of Liberty) here in New York.
He also interviewed Amanda Alonzo (the star teacher who helped mentor two finalists this year, including the 2nd place winner). She told him that San Jose real estate agents are now advertising what she's done in Asian newspapers so potential immigrants know exactly where to buy a house! These agents are on to something: We should be competing for the best and brightest in the world, and their children. As a teacher at Thomas Jefferson told me at the Intel STS public day, when he's traveled to other countries such as Russia, "They are putting a lot of effort into their best and brightest." Some teachers, such as Alonzo (who told me she took her 1-month-old infant along with her to the International Science and Engineering Fair last spring-- phew!) do this, but it needs to be a much more coordinated effort. As the Time magazine cover story this week on "The Workforce: Where Will the New Jobs Come From?" points out, ultimately only innovation creates jobs and growth. If we want jobs and growth, we need more innovators. The Intel STS suggests where we can find them.
He lists the names of the finalists to make an obvious point: Most of these young people are children of immigrants or immigrants themselves. Their projects are incredible, showing imagination, technology and drive -- the three factors that will produce the jobs and economic growth of tomorrow. America's immigrants have always done well on these fronts. A great reason to keep the doors open, and something I remember when I run through Battery Park (from where you can see the Statue of Liberty) here in New York.
He also interviewed Amanda Alonzo (the star teacher who helped mentor two finalists this year, including the 2nd place winner). She told him that San Jose real estate agents are now advertising what she's done in Asian newspapers so potential immigrants know exactly where to buy a house! These agents are on to something: We should be competing for the best and brightest in the world, and their children. As a teacher at Thomas Jefferson told me at the Intel STS public day, when he's traveled to other countries such as Russia, "They are putting a lot of effort into their best and brightest." Some teachers, such as Alonzo (who told me she took her 1-month-old infant along with her to the International Science and Engineering Fair last spring-- phew!) do this, but it needs to be a much more coordinated effort. As the Time magazine cover story this week on "The Workforce: Where Will the New Jobs Come From?" points out, ultimately only innovation creates jobs and growth. If we want jobs and growth, we need more innovators. The Intel STS suggests where we can find them.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
2009 Davidson Fellow Erika DeBenedictis Wins Intel STS
Erika DeBenedictis, a 2009 Davidson Fellow, won the Intel Science Talent Search last night for her project developing a software navigation system to help improve spacecraft travel through the solar system. Her research looked at gravity and how the planets move to help create "easy transit routes," (per the Intel press release) which will "ultimately help spacecraft move faster and with less fuel." You can read about her Intel project here, and about her Davidson Fellowship here.
(I also interviewed her for a Wall Street Journal article last fall on why it wasn't a bad thing for kids to be very busy).
She's a very impressive young lady and I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more from her in coming years. In the meantime, now that she's won another $100,000 in scholarships from Intel, I'm not sure there is a college that's expensive enough to cover all her winnings!
(I also interviewed her for a Wall Street Journal article last fall on why it wasn't a bad thing for kids to be very busy).
She's a very impressive young lady and I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more from her in coming years. In the meantime, now that she's won another $100,000 in scholarships from Intel, I'm not sure there is a college that's expensive enough to cover all her winnings!
Monday, March 15, 2010
Observations from the Intel Science Talent Search
I went down to DC yesterday to interview folks at the Intel Science Talent Search finals for a City Journal article (slated for the autumn issue). As I go to more of these events (Siemens, Davidson, ISEF and Intel STS) I am continually struck by how certain schools show up again and again: the Texas Academy of Math and Science, Thomas Jefferson (in VA), Ward Melville in New York, Montgomery Blair (in Maryland) and a few others.
One of those this year was Lynbrook High School in San Jose, California, which had 2 finalists (and 6 semi-finalists). Unlike some of the others, Lynbrook is a regular public high school and doesn't have a long institutional history of sending kids to the Intel (or Westinghouse) finals. It only started happening a few years ago.
Why? Because of a young teacher named Amanda Alonzo, that's why. You can read this profile of her in the San Jose Mercury News.
Basically, she got excited about scientific research and invested the time in starting a program and mentoring her students. Over the past few years it has paid off. Several of her students are now going to get loads of scholarship money, and possibly have more college choices than if they had not been Intel finalists or semi-finalists.
It's a fascinating thought experiment. Clearly, the latent talent was there at Lynbrook. But a motivated, talented teacher helped develop it. If Mrs. Alonzo was teaching somewhere else, would there now be a major research program at another school? Would her students have done what they did? It is hard to know. The two I interviewed at Intel yesterday were obviously incredibly bright and hard-working and came up with their own ideas, so it is quite possible they'd still be there. But probably several of Mrs. Alonzo's students who didn't make it to the top reaches, but learned a lot about science in the process, will pursue careers in the field. The question is whether Mrs. Alonzo can be replicated.
One of those this year was Lynbrook High School in San Jose, California, which had 2 finalists (and 6 semi-finalists). Unlike some of the others, Lynbrook is a regular public high school and doesn't have a long institutional history of sending kids to the Intel (or Westinghouse) finals. It only started happening a few years ago.
Why? Because of a young teacher named Amanda Alonzo, that's why. You can read this profile of her in the San Jose Mercury News.
Basically, she got excited about scientific research and invested the time in starting a program and mentoring her students. Over the past few years it has paid off. Several of her students are now going to get loads of scholarship money, and possibly have more college choices than if they had not been Intel finalists or semi-finalists.
It's a fascinating thought experiment. Clearly, the latent talent was there at Lynbrook. But a motivated, talented teacher helped develop it. If Mrs. Alonzo was teaching somewhere else, would there now be a major research program at another school? Would her students have done what they did? It is hard to know. The two I interviewed at Intel yesterday were obviously incredibly bright and hard-working and came up with their own ideas, so it is quite possible they'd still be there. But probably several of Mrs. Alonzo's students who didn't make it to the top reaches, but learned a lot about science in the process, will pursue careers in the field. The question is whether Mrs. Alonzo can be replicated.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Building a Better Teacher
The cover story of the New York Times magazine this past week, Building a Better Teacher, dealt with the increasingly popular topic of improving America's teaching corps. Author Elizabeth Green makes the point that with 3.7 million teaching jobs in the US, you can't simply hope to attract a better caliber of teacher in the future. Your best bet for improving student outcomes is raising the skill-level of the vast majority of teachers who are neither great nor awful.
Teaching and managing a classroom are, it turns out, skills like any other. Some people are naturally better at them than others, but most people can become better than they currently are with focused, deliberate practice. It's a fascinating piece, and worth checking out.
Teaching and managing a classroom are, it turns out, skills like any other. Some people are naturally better at them than others, but most people can become better than they currently are with focused, deliberate practice. It's a fascinating piece, and worth checking out.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Common Core Standards
Today, the National Governors Association released a draft of its core standards for grades K-12. Almost all the states (well, 48 of them) have signed on to this idea of creating standards that define what students should know at any given grade level.
I've been reading through the standards (available here) and I think there is a lot to like about them.
For starters, the math standards were specifically benchmarked against countries that routinely eat America for lunch in international comparisons (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea). And so they are far from the lowest common denominator standards that some folks had fretted about. Kindergartners need to know how to count by tens, to understand what adding and subtracting are as concepts, and to think about geometric concepts such as 2- and 3-dimensions. By 6th grade, students are learning to think algebraically about problems (if I can walk half a mile in 10 minutes, how can I use that information to figure out how many miles I can walk per hour?) By 7th grade, students are learning about probability concepts--if I guess on 10 true-false questions, what are the chances I get 7 right?--and in 8th grade, they're thinking about the slopes of lines and concepts in solid geometry that in general many kids these days get around to in 10th grade.
Some critics in the news articles about these standards have said so what, what's the point in learning concepts earlier? That doesn't mean you'll really know them. But I disagree with this -- the earlier things are introduced, the more time you have to think about them. And waiting to introduce concepts until later has had the effect of watering down standards, to the point where 4th graders are still working on addition because you have to fill time with something.
The National Governors Association also released the language arts standards, and at least on the writing front, I'm cautiously optimistic about them. Many of the student writing samples in the appendix are pretty good (one 4th grade short story blew me away, though the authors of the standards pointed out that it may have been edited -- then again, so is all professional writing!).
I think it is encouraging that the common standards will be aimed high, and I also think it's encouraging that we will have common standards, in part because I hope this will pay off for gifted kids. If we define as a nation exactly what an 8th grader should know, then it raises an obvious question. If a 10-year-old knows what an 8th grader should know, why can't that 10-year-old be in 8th grade? This question exists now, but because there are so many varying standards on 8th grade knowledge, there is always wiggle room. Common standards help take that away -- which I think is a good thing.
I've been reading through the standards (available here) and I think there is a lot to like about them.
For starters, the math standards were specifically benchmarked against countries that routinely eat America for lunch in international comparisons (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea). And so they are far from the lowest common denominator standards that some folks had fretted about. Kindergartners need to know how to count by tens, to understand what adding and subtracting are as concepts, and to think about geometric concepts such as 2- and 3-dimensions. By 6th grade, students are learning to think algebraically about problems (if I can walk half a mile in 10 minutes, how can I use that information to figure out how many miles I can walk per hour?) By 7th grade, students are learning about probability concepts--if I guess on 10 true-false questions, what are the chances I get 7 right?--and in 8th grade, they're thinking about the slopes of lines and concepts in solid geometry that in general many kids these days get around to in 10th grade.
Some critics in the news articles about these standards have said so what, what's the point in learning concepts earlier? That doesn't mean you'll really know them. But I disagree with this -- the earlier things are introduced, the more time you have to think about them. And waiting to introduce concepts until later has had the effect of watering down standards, to the point where 4th graders are still working on addition because you have to fill time with something.
The National Governors Association also released the language arts standards, and at least on the writing front, I'm cautiously optimistic about them. Many of the student writing samples in the appendix are pretty good (one 4th grade short story blew me away, though the authors of the standards pointed out that it may have been edited -- then again, so is all professional writing!).
I think it is encouraging that the common standards will be aimed high, and I also think it's encouraging that we will have common standards, in part because I hope this will pay off for gifted kids. If we define as a nation exactly what an 8th grader should know, then it raises an obvious question. If a 10-year-old knows what an 8th grader should know, why can't that 10-year-old be in 8th grade? This question exists now, but because there are so many varying standards on 8th grade knowledge, there is always wiggle room. Common standards help take that away -- which I think is a good thing.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Idaho encourages gifted kids to graduate early
Acceleration is good for gifted kids -- allowing them to move through school at a rapid pace without dredging up some of political issues that dog other accommodations. Now the state of Idaho is realizing that acceleration can be a money-saver for governments, too.
According to the Associated Press, a new Idaho plan would pay kids to graduate early. (Direct URL: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMyjdWG670FdForgcXMTVOa4MY1QD9E7AU780 -- I have been having trouble with Blogger on getting the whole URL in these links lately).
Kids who finish high school up to three years early would be eligible for a scholarship of $1600 for each year they don't do. That sounds like it would be a new expense for the state of Idaho, but of course it isn't. Every year that a kid spends in the Idaho public schools costs the state $4593. Not only will the kids have the opportunity to move on to more challenging work, the state will save about $3000 a year. The one problem, of course, is that tuition at a place like the University of Idaho runs more than $1600 a year, but at least this is a start.
According to the Associated Press, a new Idaho plan would pay kids to graduate early. (Direct URL: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMyjdWG670FdForgcXMTVOa4MY1QD9E7AU780 -- I have been having trouble with Blogger on getting the whole URL in these links lately).
Kids who finish high school up to three years early would be eligible for a scholarship of $1600 for each year they don't do. That sounds like it would be a new expense for the state of Idaho, but of course it isn't. Every year that a kid spends in the Idaho public schools costs the state $4593. Not only will the kids have the opportunity to move on to more challenging work, the state will save about $3000 a year. The one problem, of course, is that tuition at a place like the University of Idaho runs more than $1600 a year, but at least this is a start.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Primary Sources
Today, the Gates Foundation, partnering with Scholastic, released the results of a survey of 40,000 American teachers. You can read the press release (and find links to the main report) here.
There were several interesting results. For instance, more teachers thought that supportive leadership, time to collaborate, and quality curriculum were important for retention than thought that higher salaries were essential. About half of elementary school teachers said they'd be willing to have parent-teacher conferences in kids' homes. Teachers endorsed the idea of clear standards, common across the states. And perhaps most interestingly, only 10% of teachers said that tenure was a good measure of teacher performance. Some 42% said it wasn't a good measure at all. This suggests a potential difference in belief between rank-and-file teachers, and teacher union leadership (since years of service and graduate degrees tend to be the most commonly allowed standards for differences in pay).
In recent years, the Gates Foundation has moved on from its initial Small Schools programs (which turned out not to work that well) to focusing on teacher quality. This report is a first step in figuring out what teachers think, in order to enlist their support in future reforms.
There were several interesting results. For instance, more teachers thought that supportive leadership, time to collaborate, and quality curriculum were important for retention than thought that higher salaries were essential. About half of elementary school teachers said they'd be willing to have parent-teacher conferences in kids' homes. Teachers endorsed the idea of clear standards, common across the states. And perhaps most interestingly, only 10% of teachers said that tenure was a good measure of teacher performance. Some 42% said it wasn't a good measure at all. This suggests a potential difference in belief between rank-and-file teachers, and teacher union leadership (since years of service and graduate degrees tend to be the most commonly allowed standards for differences in pay).
In recent years, the Gates Foundation has moved on from its initial Small Schools programs (which turned out not to work that well) to focusing on teacher quality. This report is a first step in figuring out what teachers think, in order to enlist their support in future reforms.
Friday, February 26, 2010
St. Louis -- and what's wrong with gifted education
Yes, this is the second post of the day, but I wanted to get this one up before the weekend (and the early school dismissal on account of snow).
Out in St. Louis, the city school system is looking to open a second gifted elementary school, according to this article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
On one hand, this is great. I'm always glad to see schools trying to meet gifted kids' needs. On the other hand, the tone of this article points to two big problems with gifted education as it currently exists.
First, the article notes that there are hundreds of students on the waiting list for the gifted program. This means that gifted education isn't being treated as an intervention for kids who need it. It is a special program for those lucky enough to get in.
Second, the school system is explicitly using the existence of a gifted program as a way to keep middle-class families in the city schools. Again, this makes gifted education about special treatment--a situation that is ripe for resentment. All children deserve a good education; some children just need to move at a different pace than others.
As we've talked about many times on this blog, gifted education should be about matching students with an education appropriate to their needs. It should not be considered "better" than what other kids get. While I'm glad St. Louis is taking gifted education seriously, this seems to be the underlying assumption, at least according to the people quoted in this article.
Out in St. Louis, the city school system is looking to open a second gifted elementary school, according to this article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
On one hand, this is great. I'm always glad to see schools trying to meet gifted kids' needs. On the other hand, the tone of this article points to two big problems with gifted education as it currently exists.
First, the article notes that there are hundreds of students on the waiting list for the gifted program. This means that gifted education isn't being treated as an intervention for kids who need it. It is a special program for those lucky enough to get in.
Second, the school system is explicitly using the existence of a gifted program as a way to keep middle-class families in the city schools. Again, this makes gifted education about special treatment--a situation that is ripe for resentment. All children deserve a good education; some children just need to move at a different pace than others.
As we've talked about many times on this blog, gifted education should be about matching students with an education appropriate to their needs. It should not be considered "better" than what other kids get. While I'm glad St. Louis is taking gifted education seriously, this seems to be the underlying assumption, at least according to the people quoted in this article.
The Early Literacy Crisis
Earlier this week, I had my first "real" parent-teacher conference at Jasper's (2y9m) pre-school. We had a parent-teacher conference last year, too, but that was mostly just to report that he liked to sing the clean-up song and seemed to have mastered the concept of drinking out of a cup. This year, though, I found myself sitting down with a list of which letters Jasper could recognize, and nodding in a way to convey that I understood that this was important.
I don't think it really is at age 2, but it turns out that letter recognition is a big deal these days, in part because it is a proxy for other things. It is a way to try to quantify young children's pre-literacy skills. Such skills include the knowledge that in the English-language world we read left to right, how you hold a book, that we read words not pictures, that letters correspond to sounds, that letters strung together make words, which stand for concepts.
As Richard Whitmire points out in his new book Why Boys Fail, the early grades have become much more reading intensive over the past few decades. Some children thrive in this language-rich world, but others (more often boys than girls) do not.
One way to make children comfortable with language is to expose them to lots of it. My son's pricey pre-school is teeming with books, as is our house (to the point of absurdity, as my toddler fell asleep last night on top of a copy of What Do You Do With A Tail Like This? which I thought had been misplaced). But many environments are not. The Pearson Foundation came out with a study last fall noting that 61 percent of low-income families do not have any age-appropriate books in their houses. Parenting magazine picked up on this and ran a story this past month called The Early Literacy Crisis, calling for more pre-school and highlighting early educational interventions.
I think in general such interventions are a good idea. The important thing is to get them to where very young kids are, and this is slightly more problematic. If the kids are in daycare centers, that's one thing, but if they're in family care, or in home-based daycare centers and other informal arrangements, this is going to be more difficult. People try with educational television (since, alas, television occupies a lot of children's time, even if reading does not). When people talk about public pre-schools, they're often talking about schools for 4-year-olds. The scary thing is that this may just possibly be too late. While letter recognition at age 2 doesn't mean a whole lot, when kids' brains haven't been surrounded by a lot of language early on in life, they may not develop in a way that will make reading intuitive later. And that has all sorts of consequences. In one of the most awful and cynical sentences I have ever read, Parenting reported that "States like California and Indiana have even factored in the number of third-graders who are not reading at grade level when planning future jail construction."
I don't think it really is at age 2, but it turns out that letter recognition is a big deal these days, in part because it is a proxy for other things. It is a way to try to quantify young children's pre-literacy skills. Such skills include the knowledge that in the English-language world we read left to right, how you hold a book, that we read words not pictures, that letters correspond to sounds, that letters strung together make words, which stand for concepts.
As Richard Whitmire points out in his new book Why Boys Fail, the early grades have become much more reading intensive over the past few decades. Some children thrive in this language-rich world, but others (more often boys than girls) do not.
One way to make children comfortable with language is to expose them to lots of it. My son's pricey pre-school is teeming with books, as is our house (to the point of absurdity, as my toddler fell asleep last night on top of a copy of What Do You Do With A Tail Like This? which I thought had been misplaced). But many environments are not. The Pearson Foundation came out with a study last fall noting that 61 percent of low-income families do not have any age-appropriate books in their houses. Parenting magazine picked up on this and ran a story this past month called The Early Literacy Crisis, calling for more pre-school and highlighting early educational interventions.
I think in general such interventions are a good idea. The important thing is to get them to where very young kids are, and this is slightly more problematic. If the kids are in daycare centers, that's one thing, but if they're in family care, or in home-based daycare centers and other informal arrangements, this is going to be more difficult. People try with educational television (since, alas, television occupies a lot of children's time, even if reading does not). When people talk about public pre-schools, they're often talking about schools for 4-year-olds. The scary thing is that this may just possibly be too late. While letter recognition at age 2 doesn't mean a whole lot, when kids' brains haven't been surrounded by a lot of language early on in life, they may not develop in a way that will make reading intuitive later. And that has all sorts of consequences. In one of the most awful and cynical sentences I have ever read, Parenting reported that "States like California and Indiana have even factored in the number of third-graders who are not reading at grade level when planning future jail construction."
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Fleeting Youth, Science and Hiring College Grads
Is there an age for optimal creativity?
That's a question many people have debated over the years. Many great mathematicians and scientists did their most innovative work quite young (see this story, "Fleeting Youth, Fading Creativity in Science" by Jonah Lehrer in the Wall Street Journal for more on this.) It can help to be able to see a field afresh, without the weight of previous interpretation narrowing your focus. This isn't necessarily true in all fields -- writing a great novel may require knowing lots about the human condition, which tends not to happen until you've experienced the human condition -- but it is in many branches of science.
That can be a problem, because funding tends to come later in a scientist's career. Grant-making bodies like the NIH like to see a track record, which a younger scientist might not have. But Lehrer highlights work that is being done to change that, so that's encouraging.
Of course, one easy way to get funded is to work for a tech company that really hopes you will make a breakthrough. So I was fascinated to see, yesterday, a press release from Intel about a new $3.5 billion job initiative. Intel, and several other companies, are committing to increase hiring of American college grads into various science and tech positions. I imagine that many top math and science grads already have their pick of positions, but certainly giving a broad swath of young people access to capital and equipment probably won't hurt the cause of innovation.
That's a question many people have debated over the years. Many great mathematicians and scientists did their most innovative work quite young (see this story, "Fleeting Youth, Fading Creativity in Science" by Jonah Lehrer in the Wall Street Journal for more on this.) It can help to be able to see a field afresh, without the weight of previous interpretation narrowing your focus. This isn't necessarily true in all fields -- writing a great novel may require knowing lots about the human condition, which tends not to happen until you've experienced the human condition -- but it is in many branches of science.
That can be a problem, because funding tends to come later in a scientist's career. Grant-making bodies like the NIH like to see a track record, which a younger scientist might not have. But Lehrer highlights work that is being done to change that, so that's encouraging.
Of course, one easy way to get funded is to work for a tech company that really hopes you will make a breakthrough. So I was fascinated to see, yesterday, a press release from Intel about a new $3.5 billion job initiative. Intel, and several other companies, are committing to increase hiring of American college grads into various science and tech positions. I imagine that many top math and science grads already have their pick of positions, but certainly giving a broad swath of young people access to capital and equipment probably won't hurt the cause of innovation.
Friday, February 19, 2010
The New Child-Testing Craze
Gifted Exchange garners a mention in NurtureShock authors Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman's new piece in The Daily Beast: The New Child-Testing Craze.
We are grateful for the shout-out, but I worry that their writings on this topic aren't being read as carefully as one might hope.
Bronson and Merryman repeat their point from NurtureShock that a child with a tested IQ of 130 at age 4 may not necessarily test in the gifted range later, then go on to say that unfortunately other tests aren't any more reliable (such as those designed to see if kids can get along with others, follow teacher instructions, etc.).
Thus, they write, admission to gifted programs can be random, "save for an occasional bona fide prodigy who blows the top off these tests."
The problem is that this is an exception that is worth thinking about. While there may not be a big difference between a child with a 125 IQ, and a 130 IQ, and IQ can change over time, there are ways to deal with this. First, you can test multiple times. Kids can go in and out of gifted programs. And most fundamentally, gifted education should be viewed as an accommodation for kids who need it, not some sort of reward. That's one reason that acceleration (grade skipping) is often a pretty good option. It's not a special program where you get to go to science museums on Friday. It's what everyone else is getting... just a few years ahead.
But while there may not be a big difference between 125 and 130, there is a difference between 100 and 160, which Bronson and Merryman readily point out. Unfortunately, I think that point often gets lost in the recent craze (see the New York magazine article recently) to claim that giftedness is a myth.
We are grateful for the shout-out, but I worry that their writings on this topic aren't being read as carefully as one might hope.
Bronson and Merryman repeat their point from NurtureShock that a child with a tested IQ of 130 at age 4 may not necessarily test in the gifted range later, then go on to say that unfortunately other tests aren't any more reliable (such as those designed to see if kids can get along with others, follow teacher instructions, etc.).
Thus, they write, admission to gifted programs can be random, "save for an occasional bona fide prodigy who blows the top off these tests."
The problem is that this is an exception that is worth thinking about. While there may not be a big difference between a child with a 125 IQ, and a 130 IQ, and IQ can change over time, there are ways to deal with this. First, you can test multiple times. Kids can go in and out of gifted programs. And most fundamentally, gifted education should be viewed as an accommodation for kids who need it, not some sort of reward. That's one reason that acceleration (grade skipping) is often a pretty good option. It's not a special program where you get to go to science museums on Friday. It's what everyone else is getting... just a few years ahead.
But while there may not be a big difference between 125 and 130, there is a difference between 100 and 160, which Bronson and Merryman readily point out. Unfortunately, I think that point often gets lost in the recent craze (see the New York magazine article recently) to claim that giftedness is a myth.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Planning for Early College
Many of us, these days, work in jobs where we are judged on results. We aren't compensated based on how many hours we spend in a seat, but on achieving certain objectives. I get paid the same amount whether a USA Today column takes me 10 hours or 5 hours, and there's also a certain standard. If it isn't good enough, it won't be published, no matter how many hours I devote to it.
But while growing numbers of us have such flexible, results-oriented jobs, education remains largely a matter of keeping your posterior in a chair. In general, a school year is 180 days with about 6 or so hours of instruction per day. You do that for 13 years (K-12) and then you are done. Yes, you have to pass classes, but there is often no particular standard aside from what one individual teacher decrees. If he isn't particularly knowledgeable about the subject, or not good at teaching it, chances are his pupils won't learn much, but that doesn't matter. In many cases, you pass the class and you get a credit.
Of course, this leads to cases of people having high school diplomas that don't indicate much of anything. So over the past 20 years, a number of states and districts experimented with high school exit exams. Starting in 10th grade or so, you'd have a certain number of opportunities to pass a test of basic high school level skills. There would sometimes be exceptions (you could submit a portfolio of work instead) but the idea was that all high school graduates would have at least a minimum level of competence.
But then what? It raises the question: if the majority of students could pass a high school exit exam in 10th grade (and generally that was the level such tests aimed for), what were the last two years of high school for? Students intending to go on to selective colleges would take college prep classes, but what about everyone else?
It's a good question, and so I'm glad to see that, according to an article in the New York Times, a "New Plan Would Let High Schoolers Graduate Early." In eight states, certain schools would allow kids who passed the high school exit exam in 10th grade to actually...exit high school. They would enroll in community college classes for the next two years instead.
I think there is a lot to like about this idea. First, it gets more kids starting college. Many students get lost somewhere in between high school graduation and college, or in their first year or so of college, because they're also adjusting to adulthood at the same time. But if you're still technically a kid and going to college, then you can get at least 2 years under your belt before you're off on your own. Two years is enough for an associate's degree--not a bad thing to have in the job market.
And second, it reinforces the idea that you are in high school to learn certain skills, and not to twiddle your thumbs until you're 18. If you learn those skills, then it's time to move on to something else. Gifted kids are going to be the biggest beneficiaries of this separation of learning goals from seat time. Because frankly, if you can master the high school material in 10th grade and move on, why not an option to master it in 8th grade and move on? Or 6th grade? Since every state promises children a free and appropriate education up to grade 12, I think it would be a logical step forward to say that the state would promise a free and appropriate education up to the equivalent age. Gifted kids could then enroll in community colleges in their teens and hopefully get the kind of challenge that middle and high schools often fail to provide.
But while growing numbers of us have such flexible, results-oriented jobs, education remains largely a matter of keeping your posterior in a chair. In general, a school year is 180 days with about 6 or so hours of instruction per day. You do that for 13 years (K-12) and then you are done. Yes, you have to pass classes, but there is often no particular standard aside from what one individual teacher decrees. If he isn't particularly knowledgeable about the subject, or not good at teaching it, chances are his pupils won't learn much, but that doesn't matter. In many cases, you pass the class and you get a credit.
Of course, this leads to cases of people having high school diplomas that don't indicate much of anything. So over the past 20 years, a number of states and districts experimented with high school exit exams. Starting in 10th grade or so, you'd have a certain number of opportunities to pass a test of basic high school level skills. There would sometimes be exceptions (you could submit a portfolio of work instead) but the idea was that all high school graduates would have at least a minimum level of competence.
But then what? It raises the question: if the majority of students could pass a high school exit exam in 10th grade (and generally that was the level such tests aimed for), what were the last two years of high school for? Students intending to go on to selective colleges would take college prep classes, but what about everyone else?
It's a good question, and so I'm glad to see that, according to an article in the New York Times, a "New Plan Would Let High Schoolers Graduate Early." In eight states, certain schools would allow kids who passed the high school exit exam in 10th grade to actually...exit high school. They would enroll in community college classes for the next two years instead.
I think there is a lot to like about this idea. First, it gets more kids starting college. Many students get lost somewhere in between high school graduation and college, or in their first year or so of college, because they're also adjusting to adulthood at the same time. But if you're still technically a kid and going to college, then you can get at least 2 years under your belt before you're off on your own. Two years is enough for an associate's degree--not a bad thing to have in the job market.
And second, it reinforces the idea that you are in high school to learn certain skills, and not to twiddle your thumbs until you're 18. If you learn those skills, then it's time to move on to something else. Gifted kids are going to be the biggest beneficiaries of this separation of learning goals from seat time. Because frankly, if you can master the high school material in 10th grade and move on, why not an option to master it in 8th grade and move on? Or 6th grade? Since every state promises children a free and appropriate education up to grade 12, I think it would be a logical step forward to say that the state would promise a free and appropriate education up to the equivalent age. Gifted kids could then enroll in community colleges in their teens and hopefully get the kind of challenge that middle and high schools often fail to provide.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Richard Whitmire on Why Boys Fail
Richard Whitmire, an education writer who did a Q&A with us last year on various educational issues, and who co-write an op-ed with me for Ed Week on skipping grades, has a new book out called Why Boys Fail. He argues that while reading and verbal skills have become increasingly important, and emphasized, in the early grades, boys haven't caught up. As a result, they start out behind, and in many cases stay lost. He argues that the current collegiate practice of accepting young men with fewer qualifications than young women is needed at least for a few years until the gender ratio becomes closer to 45-55 (it's currently 43-57 men to women). He also warns, in a world in which young women still seem to prefer to marry men with equal or more education than they have, of a marriage gap as women can't find suitable husbands.
It's interesting stuff, if a bit controversial. Yes, women now comprise 50% of US non-farm payroll employment, but looking around the centers of power in this world -- the big corporations, the government, big law firms, banks, even non-profits -- it's kind of hard to argue that men are underrepresented at the top. But it is always dangerous to think that what is true now will be true in the future, and we will be better off if men and women all learn the skills necessary to succeed in this new economy. You can read a Q&A with him on the topic here in USA Today.
It's interesting stuff, if a bit controversial. Yes, women now comprise 50% of US non-farm payroll employment, but looking around the centers of power in this world -- the big corporations, the government, big law firms, banks, even non-profits -- it's kind of hard to argue that men are underrepresented at the top. But it is always dangerous to think that what is true now will be true in the future, and we will be better off if men and women all learn the skills necessary to succeed in this new economy. You can read a Q&A with him on the topic here in USA Today.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Gifted brains...more efficient?
An old but interesting link crossed my desk recently--a CNN look ("Scientists Dissect Mystery of Genius") at the MIND Institute, where researchers do brain mapping and study what that tells us about intelligence. It seems that the brains of people with high IQs appear less active, but it is because they are processing information more efficiently.
I guess this should not be surprising. One of the basic definitions of intelligence is the ability to piece together bits of information to solve problems, particularly new problems in new situations. Being good at this means being able to retrieve and relate information more quickly -- like a librarian who knows his way around the stacks.
Of course it raises the question -- if high IQ brains are more efficient, can training make any brain more efficient? If IQ is fungible within a certain range, then it would seem that one could push toward the top of a range through repeated use. This could explain why certain problem solving games could lead to slightly higher scores on IQ tests.
I guess this should not be surprising. One of the basic definitions of intelligence is the ability to piece together bits of information to solve problems, particularly new problems in new situations. Being good at this means being able to retrieve and relate information more quickly -- like a librarian who knows his way around the stacks.
Of course it raises the question -- if high IQ brains are more efficient, can training make any brain more efficient? If IQ is fungible within a certain range, then it would seem that one could push toward the top of a range through repeated use. This could explain why certain problem solving games could lead to slightly higher scores on IQ tests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
