Hi

I had a quick look at the article, but did not notice the basic correlations 
among the various predictors that I was looking for, probably because of the 
authors' emphasis on growth.  But the article and even the abstract Mike P 
posted demonstrates that it does not warrant any conclusion about the 
irrelevance of IQ.  One issue is that the authors included cognitive strategies 
as a predictor, as noted in the abstract.  I am not aware of anyone who thinks 
that IQ contributes to academic performance by some mystical force; rather, the 
assumption is that the influence of IQ would be mediated by behaviours and 
processes, such as the basic cognitive processes (memory) implicated in the 
earlier brain-related study posted by Mike, and, might one guess, by the kinds 
of cognitive strategies that students use, as measured in this study.  That is, 
the results could simply be the expected outcome from a mediational analysis of 
the role of IQ; namely, the contribution of IQ diminishes when mediating 
factors are statistically controlled.

I think the example of IQ is a good one to teach our students about the 
complexity of drawing inferences about our theoretical models.  In addition to 
the mediation point mentioned above, for example, several studies have reported 
a negative correlation between IQ and study time, an example I have probably 
mentioned on the list before.  Unless one controls for this negative 
association, the relationships between grades and either IQ or study time will 
be diminished given both have positive influences on grades.  The failure to do 
this undoubtedly contributed to a headline in a Vancouver newspaper many years 
ago: "Want to get good grades? Then don't study!".  The article was based on a 
survey of high school students showing little or no association between study 
time and grades. The negative association itself is perhaps surprising but 
quite understandable.  People study as long as it takes for them to decide that 
they know the material well.  Some people take longer than others, because of 
factors associated with IQ (e.g.., study strategies, memory, ...), producing a 
negative correlation.

IQ is perhaps also a good area to teach our students about the possibility that 
our values and other biases can affect how we interpret the results of studies, 
perhaps especially when even the theoretical and empirical issues are complex 
as in IQ.  Some of us are perhaps too quick to completely dismiss the 
literature on IQ because we find the idea of such inequities unpalatable, 
whereas others of us are perhaps too quick to exaggerate the importance of IQ 
and minimize the role of environmental factors.  Perhaps this is one of those 
cases where the correct interpretation does actually fall between these 
extremes, which is not always true about nature.

Take care
Jim


James M. Clark
Professor & Chair of Psychology
[email protected]
Room 4L41A
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
Dept of Psychology, U of Winnipeg
515 Portage Ave, Winnipeg, MB
R3B 0R4  CANADA


>>> "Mike Palij" <[email protected]> 22-Dec-12 10:05 AM >>>
A research study in "Child Development" examines (a) the importance
of intelligence and (b) level of motivation and study skills in achievement
over time in mathematics.  A press release summarizes the research
here:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/sfri-msh121312.php 

The research article presenting the results can be accessed here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.12036/abstract;jsessionid=7C6206CBCEA81317FD92EB1A9C96A620.d01t04
 

Quoting the abstract:
|This research examined how motivation (perceived control, intrinsic
|motivation, and extrinsic motivation), cognitive learning strategies
|(deep and surface strategies), and intelligence jointly predict long-term
|growth in students' mathematics achievement over 5 years. Using
|longitudinal data from six annual waves (Grades 5 through 10;
|Mage = 11.7 years at baseline; N = 3,530), latent growth curve
|modeling was employed to analyze growth in achievement. Results
|showed that the initial level of achievement was strongly related to
|intelligence, with motivation and cognitive strategies explaining
|additional variance. In contrast, intelligence had no relation with the
|growth of achievement over years, whereas motivation and learning
|strategies were predictors of growth. These findings highlight the
|importance of motivation and learning strategies in facilitating
|adolescents' development of mathematical competencies.

One wonders whether/how this applies to other academic areas.

-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected] 








---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=22506
 
or send a blank email to 
leave-22506-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=22507
or send a blank email to 
leave-22507-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

<<attachment: Jim_Clark.vcf>>

Reply via email to