Based on the requirements set forth in the discussion’s directions, I will be discussing the age group of “Adolescents and young adults ages 16 and 25.
There are myriad theories about human intelligence, as well as many definitions about what intelligence is. For example, Howard Gardner defined intelligence as “the ability or skill to solve problems or to fashion products that are valued within one or more cultural settings” (Gregory, 2014, Ch. 5, section 5.1), whereas Sternberg defines it as “the mental capacity to automatize information processing and to emit contextually appropriate behavior in response to novelty; intelligence also includes metacomponents, performance components, and knowledge-acquisition components” (Gregory, 2014, Ch. 5, section 5.1). Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence and Sternberg’s Triarchic theory of successful intelligence will be the two theories discussed in relation to the aforementioned age group.
Howard Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences was established in 1983. It is a theory that suggests that conventional idea(s) of intelligence, based upon I.Q. testing, is extremely limited. Because of such belief systems, Gardner developed a theory comprised of seven primary intelligences to make up a more comprehensive breadth of human potential in children and adults. The seven intelligences include: Linguistic intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, spatial intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, musical intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, and intrapersonal intelligence (Gregory, 2014). When applying this theory to the adolescent and young adult populations, we being to notice some strong implications when it comes to learning and development. School institutions rely heavily on linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences. Just look at all of the standardized tests that focus largely on math and language. Thus, a great deal of students who have low scores in these areas, yet harness gifts in other distinct areas of intelligence are often mislabeled with things like “ADD” or “ADHD”, etc. This can be particularly concerning for adolescent populations because they will often be labeled as underachievers, troublemakers, agitators, so on and so forth. No two students learn the same or harness the same set of intelligences. Thus, Gardner’s theory opens up ways for classrooms to tailor curriculum in such a way that it is conducive to all learning styles and incorporates a variety of activities that engages students from a level they can each appreciate. Unfortunately, most educational institutions still teach in the same dull way focusing primarily on linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences. When it comes to young adults, many find themselves in job positions that are not conducive to their highly developed intelligences. Thus, they are often unsatisfied, lack motivation, and do not perform to the best of their ability. The theory of MI essentially allots adults, particularly in the younger age bracket, to examine their lives and untapped potential from multiple pathways. The MIDAS assessment is a self-assessment tool that asks a series of questions designed to calculate a person’s strengths and weaknesses in relation to the seven intelligences. The assessment has a likert-type scale upon which patients answer questions that range from “None” to “All the time”. Depending on a participant’s answers, a percentage is given for how much of the seven intelligences the individual possesses. High percentages in certain areas illustrates strengths, and low percentages in other areas represents not as much strength, but that is not to say that those intelligences that received a lower percentage cannot be honed and skills improved.
Sternberg presented the Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence. This theory is termed “triarchic” because it is comprised of three aspects of intelligence: Componential (Analytical) intelligence, Experiential (Creative) intelligence, and Contextual (Practical) intelligence. Each of these three intelligences harnesses two or more subcomponents. Based on his theory, Sternberg created a research tool to assess the validity of his approach. The Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT) goes beyond standard inquiries that call upon analytical intelligence, rather the test incorporates “creative and practical questions as well” (Gregory, 2014, Ch. 5, section 5.11). Ultimately, this theory and subsequent assessment, reflect that intelligence has numerous apparatuses. To apply it to both adolescents and young adults, the assessment would be able to gauge how well one is able to adapt to their environment, to select other more suitable environments, and to shape the environment to suit personal needs/talents within society.
Ethical implications for adolescents and young adults would be ensuring that they have provided informed consent. Typically those aged 16 and older are believed to be able to provide their own informed consent; however, to ensure that all ethical codes are being followed professionally, perhaps garnering permission from parents would be suitable. Young adults within this group must also provide informed consent. Sociocultural issues that should be considered are things like ethnic values, behaviors, belief systems, etc. Assessment answers may not truly reflect a person’s intelligence, especially if from a minority group. The culture we identify with often influences the way we see ourselves and situations within society. Thus, with most assessments being primarily from Anglo-American psychologists, it is important to take into account sociocultural factors that may or may not have influenced a test-takers responses.
In terms of other studies supporting or opposing the utilization of instruments with my assigned population, Rattan, Savani, Naidu, & Dweck (2012) illustrate that most beliefs about intelligence are culturally shaped. When American’s beliefs about intelligence, that only some people can become highly intelligent, was manipulated, results indicated that the participants believed that everyone can become highly intelligent. This newly established belief supports both Gardner and Sternberg’s theories, as well as their subsequent assessments in that it demonstrates that we all have the capacity to become highly intelligent when we play to and shape our environments that are conducive to our unique talents and gifts. Though I did not come across a specific study, when it comes to multiple intelligences assessments for this age group, or any for that matter, the opposition lies within the fact that many critiques feel the assessment is too broad, ambiguous, and doesn’t harness much validity.
When it comes to the pros and cons of individual versus group assessment of ability, we know that group assessment allows for examiners to test a large group of people in one sitting in a fraction of the time it would take to test them all individually. Moreover, as maintained by Gregory (2014), “group testing poses two interrelated risks: (1) some examinees will score far below their true ability, owing to motivational problems or difficulty following directions and (2) invalid scores will not be recognized as such, with undesirable consequences for these atypical examinees” (Ch. 6, section 6.1). I think in other instances of group testing there could be issues with high-performing students feeling at a disadvantage, as well as low-performing students being placed at a disadvantage. Though, in theory, these sort of groupings are designed to help challenge and motivate students, they can also create things like exclusion and anxiety.
Finally, labeling and/or mislabeling any person from any age group can have strong adverse implications. While some labels may be beneficial and help individuals within this age group become more motivated to achieve goals, labels can also result in low self-esteem, peer issues, lower degrees of motivation and performance, etc. Labeling not only shapes our perception of people, but it influences how others see themselves. Often times, labels that we ascribe to people become self-fulfilling prophecies, which can be quite detrimental in some instances. Labels are often utilized to place value on people. Personally, I think this is more of a detriment than anything because humans are of distinct worth. There are so many intangible qualities and characteristics of human beings that are vast and immeasurable. Thus, we must be careful of how we label others.
References:
Gregory, R. J. (2014). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Rattan, A., Savani, K., Naidu, N. V. R., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Can everyone become highly intelligent? Cultural differences in and societal consequences of beliefs about the universal potential for intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 787-803. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029263
Comments