Raising of intelligence - A research issue
Our models of intelligence affect the way we interpret intelligence test performance and help to answer philosophical questions about human nature. But they also matter in psychological practice where we have a responsibility to validate our theories before they are put into practice to ensure that we ‘do no harm’ – the first ethical principle of being a psychologist. There have been instances in the past of theories about causes underlying intellectual deficits leading policy makers and educators down unhelpful paths. For example, at one time, people with low IQ were locked in asylums with no effort at remediation or maximization of potential. Today, there are ongoing debates about integration of children with Down’s syndrome into regular classrooms. While some people believe this ‘elevates’ the child’s intelligence, others argue that it places the child under unreasonable pressure. In answering questions like this, perhaps we need to consider the central issue of whether it is possible to improve our intell gence. There have been many attempts to do so. The Carolina Abecedarian Project (www.fpg.unc.edu) is one example of a scientifically controlled study exploring the potential benefits of early childhood educational intervention programmes for children from poor families who were considered to be at risk of environmental or ‘cultural–familial’ mental retardation. Design and procedure Beginning in 1972, each of 111 children received nutritional supplements and referral to social services as needed. Additional educational intervention was provided to 57 of these children in a full-time childcare setting from infancy to age five. Each child had an individualized programme of educational activities presented as ‘games’ throughout the day, focusing on social, emotional and cognitive development. Children’s progress was monitored over time and into adulthood (Campbell & Ramey, 1994, Campbell et al., 2002). Results and implications Results suggest that children in this study completed more years of education and were more likely to attend college, they were older (on average) when their first child was born, and their own mothers achieved higher educational and employment status than those whose children were not in the programme. These results seem especially pronounced for the children of teen mothers. A cost–benefit analysis estimated a 4:1 financial return on the cost of the programme in terms of savings from poor predicted outcomes for this population (Masse & Barnett, 2002). And yet, importantly, when the results were carefully evaluated, no increase in measured IQ was found (Spitz, 1999). This research suggests that even when significant environmental factors contribute to intellectual impairment (perhaps through lack of opportunity for learning), structured educational intervention does not lead to general improvements in IQ. Similarly, in early intervention studies focusing on children with specific organic intellectual disabilities, such as Down’s syndrome, changes in IQ do not typically occur following early in ervention, despite many optimistic reports. See Spitz (1999) for a critical review of methodology in studies targeting changes at both ends of the IQ spectrum. Does it follow that special educational opportunities are pointless for children with low IQ, as some researchers have suggested (e.g. Howe, 1998)? No, it does not. What does change as a result of such programmes is behavioural repertoire, levels of functional daily skills and the range of applications of knowledge through repetition and reinforcement across contexts. Such changes can have an enormous impact on quality of life for participants and their families. These interventions provide an opportunity to maximize the use of the cognitive resources available to the child. As outlined in the Abecedarian Project, there may also be important social welfare outcomes.
Our models of intelligence affect the way we interpret intelligence test performance and help to answer philosophical questions about human nature. But they also matter in psychological practice where we have a responsibility to validate our theories before they are put into practice to ensure that we ‘do no harm’ – the first ethical principle of being a psychologist. There have been instances in the past of theories about causes underlying intellectual deficits leading policy makers and educators down unhelpful paths. For example, at one time, people with low IQ were locked in asylums with no effort at remediation or maximization of potential. Today, there are ongoing debates about integration of children with Down’s syndrome into regular classrooms. While some people believe this ‘elevates’ the child’s intelligence, others argue that it places the child under unreasonable pressure. In answering questions like this, perhaps we need to consider the central issue of whether it is possible to improve our intell gence. There have been many attempts to do so. The Carolina Abecedarian Project (www.fpg.unc.edu) is one example of a scientifically controlled study exploring the potential benefits of early childhood educational intervention programmes for children from poor families who were considered to be at risk of environmental or ‘cultural–familial’ mental retardation. Design and procedure Beginning in 1972, each of 111 children received nutritional supplements and referral to social services as needed. Additional educational intervention was provided to 57 of these children in a full-time childcare setting from infancy to age five. Each child had an individualized programme of educational activities presented as ‘games’ throughout the day, focusing on social, emotional and cognitive development. Children’s progress was monitored over time and into adulthood (Campbell & Ramey, 1994, Campbell et al., 2002). Results and implications Results suggest that children in this study completed more years of education and were more likely to attend college, they were older (on average) when their first child was born, and their own mothers achieved higher educational and employment status than those whose children were not in the programme. These results seem especially pronounced for the children of teen mothers. A cost–benefit analysis estimated a 4:1 financial return on the cost of the programme in terms of savings from poor predicted outcomes for this population (Masse & Barnett, 2002). And yet, importantly, when the results were carefully evaluated, no increase in measured IQ was found (Spitz, 1999). This research suggests that even when significant environmental factors contribute to intellectual impairment (perhaps through lack of opportunity for learning), structured educational intervention does not lead to general improvements in IQ. Similarly, in early intervention studies focusing on children with specific organic intellectual disabilities, such as Down’s syndrome, changes in IQ do not typically occur following early in ervention, despite many optimistic reports. See Spitz (1999) for a critical review of methodology in studies targeting changes at both ends of the IQ spectrum. Does it follow that special educational opportunities are pointless for children with low IQ, as some researchers have suggested (e.g. Howe, 1998)? No, it does not. What does change as a result of such programmes is behavioural repertoire, levels of functional daily skills and the range of applications of knowledge through repetition and reinforcement across contexts. Such changes can have an enormous impact on quality of life for participants and their families. These interventions provide an opportunity to maximize the use of the cognitive resources available to the child. As outlined in the Abecedarian Project, there may also be important social welfare outcomes.
Campbell, F.A., & Ramey, C.T., 1994, ‘Effects of early childhood intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: A follow-up study of children from low-income families’, Child Develo pment, 65, 684–98.
Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S., 2002, ‘Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project’, Applied Developmental Science, 6 (1), 42–57.
Howe, M., 1998, ‘Can IQ change?’, The Psychologist, February, 69–71.
Masse, L., & Barnett, W.S., 2002, A Benefit–Cost Analysis of the Abecedarian Early Childhood Intervention, National Institute for Early Education Research (accessed at http://nieer.org/resources/research/AbecedarianStudy.pdf , May 2004).
Spitz, H.H., 1999, ‘Attempts to raise intelligence’ in M. Anderson (ed.), The Development of Intelligence, Hove: Psychology Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment