Implicit Theories of Intelligence - Coursework Example

To What Extent Can Implicit Theories of Intelligence be Considered a More Effective Predictor of Educational Success Than IQ? To What Extent Can Implicit Theories of Intelligence be considered a More Effective Predictor of Educational Success than IQ? Introduction De Castella and Byrne (2008) argue that motivation and achievement are subjects that have been of great interest to many psychologists. Nevertheless, they point out that much of the research has been focused on achievement goals, as well as their impacts on academic outcomes in schools. However, the goals set by students themselves and the choices they make regarding their performances may stem in crucial ways from the beliefs that they nature relating to the nature of intelligence. A research conducted by Dweck and Leggett (1988) found out that many students perceive intelligence in two different ways. In this regard, they found that certain student view intelligence as something fixed and unchanging commonly referred to as ‘entity’ or entity theory while others view it as a malleable thing (incremental theory). As a result, psychologists have regarded these beliefs as ‘implicit theory’ because they are not always consciously held as noted by Blackwell, Trzeniewski, and Dweck (2007). Implicit theories have widely been used as a predictor of education achievements in various circles. This is because it helps in understanding whether a student is likely to do well or perform poorly in school. Nonetheless, it is not only the implicit theory that has been put forward as a predictor of educational outcome of students. Instead, some psychologists have tried to predict the educational outcome of students using the Intelligent Quotient (IQ) scores (Blackwell, Trzeniewski, and Dweck, 2007) However, many psychologists have found that implicit theories are better predictors of educational outcome of students than the IQ score. This paper will explore the extent to which implicit theory of intelligence can be considered more effective predictor of the educational success than the intelligence quotient. To begin with, education experts have used IQ test scores for a long time as a predictor of academic success of students in school and in life. An IQ is generally a score derived from a number of standardized tests that are designed to assess the intelligence of an individual (Barton, Dielman, and Cattell, 2006). Despite the fact that the IQ tests are good at predicting the student’s performance in schools, many psychologists have termed it ineffective in predicting the success in the real world. Sternberg (1996) argues that IQ tests are not a good predictor of performance because its prediction is limited to about 4%-25%. This leaves a large percentage unaccounted for thereby requiring another predictor to account for the remaining percentage that the IQ test cannot account for in predicting outcomes. McGrew and Evans (2004) also note that IQ cores can only be used as an excellent predictor of a student’s achievement at the point where IQ-achievement test correlation is equal to one or close to one. He was, however, quick to note that at no time will an intelligent test ever reaches such a level of prediction. He, therefore, concludes that intelligent tests are not good predictors of student’s academic achievements. In addition, Kelly and Amble (1970) argue that, despite the fact that several predictions have been done based on IQ test scores, it is an insufficient metric to base reasonable predictions about any student’s future expected results. This implies that the predictions done using IQ cores cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, to make up for the shortcomings of IQ test scores in predicting the future academic achievements of a student, psychologists have proven that implicit theory of intelligence is a perfect alternative. This is because implicit theory of intelligence provides a more accurate prediction of future academic achievement of a student than the IQ. De Castella and Byrne (2008) noted that students who hold an entity theory, therefore, viewing intelligence as fixed and unchanging tend to become more bothered with demonstrating their ‘fixed’ ability level. As a result, De Castella, Byrne (2008) observed that such students become quicker at making low-ability and helpless attributions when confronted with failure. When this happens, such students become vulnerable to criticism and negative feedback while at the same time become prone to disengagement when such threats pop up as noted by Mangels et al. (2006). Because of this reason, Hong et al (1999) argues that students holding an entity theory of intelligence also have a high likelihood of shunning opportunities for learning and are, therefore, at a high risk of experiencing a decline in academic performance as time progresses. Contrary to this, perception that intelligence are malleable as maintained by the ‘incremental theory’ adjust students towards improving their abilities. As a result, De Castella and Byrne (2008) noted that such students incline towards life challenges making them associate setbacks to their personal efforts. Hong et al (1999) also noted that since such students think that intelligence can be cultivated, incremental theorists are not defensive about their abilities and shortcomings. As a result, such students tend to show greater engagement resilience and persistence when confronted with setbacks and focuses on learning from their mistakes, notes Mangels et al. (2006). From all this, it becomes apparent that implicit theories provide a better prediction of the academic achievement of a student than that which can be obtained using the IQ tests which cannot predict the behavior of an individual when confronted with setbacks in life. Hong et al (1999) also asserts that implicit theories have also been found to provide a better prediction of students’ academic achievement than IQ because implicit theories tend to orient students towards a variety of goals such as performance goals vs. learning and mastery goals. This is because these goals make an individual concentrate of achieving high competence as opposed to displaying incompetence. This helps psychologists and educationists predict with ease the future academic achievements of a student in school. Research conducted by Bempeck, London and Dweck (1991) showed that students who believe that intelligence is fixed are more bothered about pursuing things that are likely to make them successful in life. As a result, they tend to pursue only the performance goals rather than things that are not helpful in their life. As a result, Blackwell (2002) observed that such students tend to choose familiar or less complex tasks and strive towards obtain good grades over being challenged. Contrary to this, De Castella and Byrne (2008) argues that incremental theorists tend to pursue mastery and learning goals more frequently and at the same time choose tasks that they believe can enable them improve their skills and abilities regardless of the difficulties they may come across. Robins and Pals (2002) assert that this kind of preferential goal has been demonstrated both in real-world setting and in experimental studies. De Castella and Byrne (2008) also noted that implicit theories are a better predictor of academic achievement than an IQ test since implicit theories have the potential of affecting the belief of a student concerning their effort and the way they make sense of their shortcomings in school. In this regard, the belief by entity theorists that intelligence is fixed basically implies that academic results can provide a good indication of an individual’s ability. According to entity theorists, poor performance by a student implies permanent lack of skills or intelligence by the student according to De Castella and Byrne (2008). In this way, it becomes easy for educationalists to predict the performance of a student in school. A large body of research on implicit theories has found that entity theorists tend to make helpless attributions for their poor perforce with hastily (Robins and Pals, 2002). In contrast, incremental theorists are not very much bothered by setbacks or failures because to them such events reflect on strategy or effort and give important information concerning how to improve. This makes such students consider taking remedial actions so as to improve their performance in the future. This is quite evident in colleges and universities where students who fail because of one thing or the other tend to seek for remedial classes, to make up for things that have not been understood during normal learning time. This is because such students believe that they can improve their performance by going an extra mile to take remedial actions. In most cases, this always turns out to be the case, as most students taking remedial classes because of poor performance tend to perform better. Therefore, this can be used as a good predictor of academic performance of students in school (Robins and Pals, 2002). Based on the relationship between implicit theories, attributions and achievement goals, it is no wonder that implicit theories have a huge impact on the academic achievement among students in school. This is because it became apparent that incremental theory of intelligence could be used to predict with greater accuracy the higher performance on normal tests something that IQ cannot do with accuracy. Incremental theory of intelligence can also predict with accuracy the differences in grades in colleges and middle school according to Blackwell, Trzeniewski, and Dweck (2007). A great deal of relationship between implicit theories and academic achievements in schools has also been proven in interventional teaching with the help of incremental theory to students. Blackwell, Trzeniewski, and Dweck (2007) discovered one such relationship when they ran an 8 weeks intervention by teaching an incremental theory coupled with study skills to students of seventh grade. The study found out that students initially showed a decline in grade before the introduction of the intervention (Dweck and Leggett, 1988). However, the decline was soon reversed for students who had been subjected to the 8-week incremental lesson. The study also found out that students who were subjected to experimental condition achieved more than three times positive changes in classroom motivation. Aronson, Fried, and Good (2002) note that the impacts of implicit theory interventions have been written in studies focusing on the negative impacts of poor performance among students belonging to stereotyped groups. According to these studies, it was noticed that students exposed to incremental theory messages get a significantly higher grades due to follow-ups. This indeed provides a good prediction of academic success among students in school. Research has also shown that implicit theories are better predictors of academic success because they are based on the working memory of an individual. Evidence has also shown that the success of a child in class is dependent on how good the child’s working memory is regardless of Intelligence Quotient. In this regard, it was noted that implicit theories, particularly the incremental theory provide a powerful predictor of a student’s subsequent academic success than IQ during their childhood. This revelation is very crucial because it helps in addressing the shortcomings of IQ as a principle predictor of academic success. This is based on the fact that IQ scores are unreliable and cannot be relied on fully as a predictor of the success of an individual. This is because a person can have an average IQ score in class but still perform poorly in learning. This has been practically seen in classrooms. At the same time, some students appears to have below average IQ score in class but still end up performing so well in class. Therefore, IQ gives unreliable predictions that cannot be relied on fully when assessing the subsequent achievement of a student (Blackwell, Trzeniewski, and Dweck, 2007). In fact, some psychologists have pointed out that the relationship between learning and IQ is greatest when a student is learning new information and not at later stages when the presumption is that any gain made are due to individual practice. This is one of the greatest shortcomings of IQ scores in predicting academic success of a student. However, implicit theories provide a good prediction of an individual’s subsequent skills in spelling, reading, mathematics, and science subjects. Research has also demonstrated that, unlike IQ, implicit theories prediction of a student’s academic achievement is not linked to the level of education of the student’s parent or socio-economic background as suggested by IQ scores. This implies that all students regardless of their environmental influence or background can have similar opportunities of accomplish their potential if assessed and setbacks addressed where possible (Robins and Pals, 2002). Research has also shown that an achievement of an individual is highly dependent on their motivation level. It is for this reason that many psychologists and education experts agree that implicit theories of intelligence are a better predictor of academic success than an IQ test scores. What is certain is that a motivated individual tends to work harder than a demoralized individual does. At the same time, a motivated student tends to worker harder in order to continue receiving good grades. This is not true with students who are demoralized in one way or the other. For instance, research has shown that many students who become demoralized for poor performance tend to continue performing poorly with some ending up dropping out of school believing that they are not able to do any better. In contrast, students who get motivated for their good performance tend to continue performing well due to the fact that they tend to work harder in order to be able to maintain the high standards of performance Bempeck, London and Dweck, 1991) Therefore, it becomes clear that, since implicit theories of intelligence impact on an individual’s motivation, it becomes a better predictor of a student’s academic success or failure than an IQ. This is because an IQ score cannot tell with certainty how a student will react to failures or better performance in order to predict the future. Other studies have also showed that the success of a student depends on their emotions. As such, psychologists have argued that emotional intelligence, as part of implicit theory is a better predictor of academic success than IQ scores. The conclusion has been reached based on a study conducted recently, which supported the notion that effective learning develops from cognitive interaction and emotional realm. Certainly this appears convincing because generally a child who is calm and happy tend to think upright and take his or her education serious and with a lot of optimism. At the same time, an increase in a child’s emotional intelligence allows a child to understand and manage with ease their emotions, as well as relationships. This generally improves the well-being of a child (Dweck and Leggett, 1988). In fact, study conducted by Bempeck, London and Dweck (1991) has shown that the ability of a teacher to shape behavior in line with the philosophies and ideas taught is the t most effective predictors of their impacts on a child. Therefore, it becomes very crucial for teachers today to focus much of their efforts on emotional competency training in the school curriculum. Conclusion It can be stated strongly that implicit theories of intelligence and IQ scores are both good predictors of student’s achievements in school. As having being stated, traditionally, psychologists and educationalists relied much on IQ as the best predictor of academic success among students. Nevertheless, findings have shown that IQ scores have a lot of shortcomings making it ineffective predictor of future achievement of students. The main reason being, it cannot predict at 100% the achievement of an individual. Therefore, implicit theories of success have demonstrated the capability of predicting with a high degree of certainty the future achievement of students. In this regard, it will be advisable for educationalists and psychologists to avoid overdependence on IQ scores for success prediction among students, but instead do their predictions based on implicit theories of intelligence, which are more accurate. References Aronson, J., Fried, C., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125. Barton, K., Dielman, T. E., &. Cattell, R. B. (2006). Personality, motivation, and IQ measures as predictors of school achievement and grades: A nontechnical synopsis. Psychology in the Schools. Volume 9, Issue 1, pages 47–51. Bempechat, J., London, P., & Dweck, C. S. (1991). Children’s conceptions of ability in major domains: An interview and experimental study. Child Study Journal, 21, 11-35. Blackwell, L. S. (2002). Psychological mediators of student achievement during the transition to junior high school: The role of implicit theories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York. Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. De Castella, K., & Byrne, D. (2008). My intelligence may be more malleable than yours: The implicit theories self-form is a better predictor of achievement and motivation. A Personal Measure of Implicit Theories. P. 1-28. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273. Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588-599. Kelly,T.J., & & Amble, B.R. (1970). IQ and perceptual motor scores as predictors of achievement among retarded children. Journal of School Psychology. Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages 99–102. Mangels, J. A., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model. Social Cognitive Affective Neuroscience, 1, 75-86. McGrew, K. S., & Evans, J. (2004). Expectations for students with cognitive disabilities: Is the cup half empty or half full? Can the cup flow over? (Synthesis Report 55). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis55.html. Robins, R. W. & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1, 313-336. Siegler, R. S., Duncan, G. J., Davis-Kean, P. E. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23 (7): 691-697. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Read More