http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=HCK12crJ9C4C&lpg=PA26&ots=xfip_kO1jW&dq=conjunctive%20vs%20disjunctive%20concepts&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Check this site. This gives a more complete explanation on conjunctive, disjunctive and relational concepts
Saturday, August 22, 2009
concepts as building blocks of thinking
A warning should be given here. Our textbook rightly says that "the concepts are the basic building blocks around which people organize their thinking and communication". This sounds philosophical, however when it starts to present the various kinds of concepts one realizes that it shifts from the philosophical viewpoint into a psychological description of the concept. I personally does not mind the author for doing this. What is important is that we, as readers, are aware of the shift being done.
If one sticks to the philosophical view of the definition of the concept, one gets into the minds of john locke, emmanuel kant, and others, and we have to get into terms such as a posteriore, and a priore, which are in the field of philosophy. This makes it complicated. Hence the psychological treatment of the concept will suffice for our purpose.
If one sticks to the philosophical view of the definition of the concept, one gets into the minds of john locke, emmanuel kant, and others, and we have to get into terms such as a posteriore, and a priore, which are in the field of philosophy. This makes it complicated. Hence the psychological treatment of the concept will suffice for our purpose.
Sternberg's Triarchic Model of Intelligence
Triarchic theory of intelligence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Triarchic Theory of Intelligence was formulated by Robert J. Sternberg, a prominent figure in the research of human intelligence. The theory by itself was groundbreaking in that it was among the first to go against the psychometric approach to intelligence and take a more cognitive approach. Sternberg’s definition of human intelligence is “(a) mental activity directed toward purposive adaptation to, selection and shaping of, real-world environments relevant to one’s life” (Sternberg, 1985, p. 45), which means that intelligence is how well an individual deals with environmental changes throughout their lifespan. Sternberg’s theory comprises three parts: componential, experiential, and practical.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Different components of information processing
o 1.1 Componential / Analytical Subtheory
o 1.2 Experiential / Creative Subtheory
o 1.3 Practical / Contextual Subtheory
• 2 Challenges
• 3 See also
• 4 References
• 5 Bibliography
[edit] Different components of information processing
Sternberg associated the workings of the mind with a series of components. These components he labeled the metacomponents, performance components, and knowledge-acquisition components (Sternberg, 1985).
The metacomponents are executive processes used in problem solving and decision making that involve the majority of managing our mind. They tell the mind how to act. Metacomponents are also sometimes referred to as a homunculus. A homunculus is a fictitious or metaphorical "person" inside our head that controls our actions, and which is often seen to invite an infinite regress of homunculi controlling each other (Sternberg, 1985).
Sternberg’s next set of components, performance components, are the processes that actually carry out the actions the metacomponents dictate. These are the basic processes that allow us to do tasks, such as perceiving problems in our long-term memory, perceiving relations between objects, and applying relations to another set of terms (Sternberg, 1997).
The last set of components, knowledge-acquisition components, are used in obtaining new information. These components complete tasks that involve selectively choosing information from irrelevant information. These components can also be used to selectively combine the various pieces of information they have gathered. Gifted individuals are proficient in using these components because they are able to learn new information at a greater rate (Sternberg, 1997).
Whereas Sternberg explains that the basic information processing components underlying the three parts of his triarchic theory are the same, different contexts and different tasks require different kind of intelligence (Sternberg, 2001).
[edit] Componential / Analytical Subtheory
Sternberg associated the componential subtheory with analytical giftedness. This is one of three types of giftedness that Sternberg recognizes. Analytical giftedness is influential in being able to take apart problems and being able to see solutions not often seen. Unfortunately, individuals with only this type are not as adept at creating unique ideas of their own. This form of giftedness is the type that is tested most often. Other areas deal with creativity and other abilities not easily tested. Sternberg gave the example of a student, “Alice”, who had excellent test scores and grades, and teachers viewed her as extremely smart. Alice was later seen having trouble in graduate school because she was not adept at creating ideas of her own (Sternberg, 1997).
In different way intelligence according to him has three components 1-metacomponents(or executive skilkls) 2- performance 3- khnowledge acquisition
[edit] Experiential / Creative Subtheory
Sternberg’s 2nd stage of his theory is his experiential subtheory. This stage deals mainly with how well a task is performed with regard to how familiar it is. Sternberg splits the role of experience into two parts: novelty and automation.
A novel situation is one that you have never experienced before. People that are adept at managing a novel situation can take the task and find new ways of solving it that the majority of people would not notice (Sternberg, 1997).
A process that has been automated has been performed multiple times and can now be done with little or no extra thought. Once a process is automatized, it can be run in parallel with the same or other processes. The problem with novelty and automation is that being skilled in one component does not ensure that you are skilled in the other (Sternberg, 1997).
The experiential subtheory also correlates with another one of Sternberg’s proposed types of giftedness. Synthetic giftedness is seen in creativity, intuition, and a study of the arts. People with synthetic giftedness are not often seen with the highest IQ’s because there are not currently any tests that can sufficiently measure these attributes, but synthetic giftedness is especially useful in creating new ideas to create and solve new problems. Sternberg also associated another one of his students, “Barbara”, to the synthetic giftedness. Barbara did not perform as well as Alice on the tests taken to get into school, but was recommended to Yale University based on her exceptional creative and intuitive skills. Barbara was later very valuable in creating new ideas for research (Sternberg, 1997).
[edit] Practical / Contextual Subtheory
Sternberg’s third subtheory of intelligence, called practical or contextual, “deals with the mental activity involved in attaining fit to context” (Sternberg, 1985, p.45). Through the three processes of adaptation, shaping, and selection, individuals create an ideal fit between themselves and their environment. This type of intelligence is often referred to as "street smarts."
Adaptation occurs when one makes a change within oneself in order to better adjust to one’s surroundings (Sternberg, 1985). For example, when the weather changes and temperatures drop, people adapt by wearing extra layers of clothing to remain warm.
Shaping occurs when one changes their environment to better suit one’s needs (Sternberg, 1985). A teacher may invoke the new rule of raising hands to speak to ensure that the lesson is taught with least possible disruption.
The process of selection is undertaken when a completely new alternate environment is found to replace the previous, unsatisfying environment to meet the individual’s goals (Sternberg, 1985). For instance, immigrants leave their lives in their homeland countries where they endure economical and social hardships and go to other countries in search of a better and less strained life.
The effectiveness with which an individual fits to his or her environment and contends with daily situations reflects degree of intelligence. Sternberg’s third type of giftedness, called practical giftedness, involves the ability to apply synthetic and analytic skills to everyday situations. Practically gifted people are superb in their ability to succeed in any setting (Sternberg, 1997). An example of this type of giftedness is "Celia". Celia did not have outstanding analytical or synthetic abilities, but she “was highly successful in figuring out what she needed to do in order to succeed in an academic environment. She knew what kind of research was valued, how to get articles into journals, how to impress people at job interviews, and the like” (Sternberg, 1997, p.44). Celia’s contextual intelligence allowed her to use these skills to her best advantage.
Sternberg also acknowledges that an individual is not restricted to having excellence in only one of these three intelligences. Many people may possess an integration of all three and have high levels of all three intelligences.
[edit] Challenges
Psychologist Linda Gottfredson (Gottfredson, 2003) criticises the unempirical nature of triarchic theory and argues that it is absurd to assert that traditional Intelligence tests are not measuring practical intelligence when they show a moderate correlation with income, especially at middle age when individuals have had a chance to reach their maximum career potential, an even higher correlation with occupational prestige, and that IQ tests even predict the ability to stay out of jail and stay alive (all of which qualifies as practical intelligence or "street smarts").
Gottfredson claims that what Sternberg calls practical intelligence is not a broad aspect of cognition at all but simply a specific set of skills people learn to cope with a specific environment (task specific knowledge).
As for the creative component of Sternberg's model, a Harvard study questions whether it's meaningful to treat creativity as a cognitive ability separate from analytical intelligence, but instead finds that creativity is simply the product of a high intelligence score combined with a low level of latent inhibition—when high intelligence levels are not present, low levels of latent inhibition put one especially at risk for schizophrenia.[1]
[edit] See also
• Educational psychology
• Intelligence quotient
• J. P. Guilford
• Multiple intelligence
[edit] References
1. ^ Decreased Latent Inhibition Is Associated With Increased Creative Achievement in High-Functioning Individuals
[edit] Bibliography
• Gottfredson, L. (2003). Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and its evidence. Intelligence, 31, 343-397.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1997). A Triarchic View of Giftedness: Theory and Practice. In N. Coleangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 43-53). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Sternberg, R.J., Nokes, C., Geissler, W., Prince, P., Okatcha, F., Bundy, D.A., Grigorenke, E.L. (2001). The relationship between academic and practical intelligence: a case study in Kenya. Intelligence, 29, 401-418.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchic_theory_of_intelligence"
Categories: Educational psychology | Intelligence | Psychological theories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Triarchic Theory of Intelligence was formulated by Robert J. Sternberg, a prominent figure in the research of human intelligence. The theory by itself was groundbreaking in that it was among the first to go against the psychometric approach to intelligence and take a more cognitive approach. Sternberg’s definition of human intelligence is “(a) mental activity directed toward purposive adaptation to, selection and shaping of, real-world environments relevant to one’s life” (Sternberg, 1985, p. 45), which means that intelligence is how well an individual deals with environmental changes throughout their lifespan. Sternberg’s theory comprises three parts: componential, experiential, and practical.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Different components of information processing
o 1.1 Componential / Analytical Subtheory
o 1.2 Experiential / Creative Subtheory
o 1.3 Practical / Contextual Subtheory
• 2 Challenges
• 3 See also
• 4 References
• 5 Bibliography
[edit] Different components of information processing
Sternberg associated the workings of the mind with a series of components. These components he labeled the metacomponents, performance components, and knowledge-acquisition components (Sternberg, 1985).
The metacomponents are executive processes used in problem solving and decision making that involve the majority of managing our mind. They tell the mind how to act. Metacomponents are also sometimes referred to as a homunculus. A homunculus is a fictitious or metaphorical "person" inside our head that controls our actions, and which is often seen to invite an infinite regress of homunculi controlling each other (Sternberg, 1985).
Sternberg’s next set of components, performance components, are the processes that actually carry out the actions the metacomponents dictate. These are the basic processes that allow us to do tasks, such as perceiving problems in our long-term memory, perceiving relations between objects, and applying relations to another set of terms (Sternberg, 1997).
The last set of components, knowledge-acquisition components, are used in obtaining new information. These components complete tasks that involve selectively choosing information from irrelevant information. These components can also be used to selectively combine the various pieces of information they have gathered. Gifted individuals are proficient in using these components because they are able to learn new information at a greater rate (Sternberg, 1997).
Whereas Sternberg explains that the basic information processing components underlying the three parts of his triarchic theory are the same, different contexts and different tasks require different kind of intelligence (Sternberg, 2001).
[edit] Componential / Analytical Subtheory
Sternberg associated the componential subtheory with analytical giftedness. This is one of three types of giftedness that Sternberg recognizes. Analytical giftedness is influential in being able to take apart problems and being able to see solutions not often seen. Unfortunately, individuals with only this type are not as adept at creating unique ideas of their own. This form of giftedness is the type that is tested most often. Other areas deal with creativity and other abilities not easily tested. Sternberg gave the example of a student, “Alice”, who had excellent test scores and grades, and teachers viewed her as extremely smart. Alice was later seen having trouble in graduate school because she was not adept at creating ideas of her own (Sternberg, 1997).
In different way intelligence according to him has three components 1-metacomponents(or executive skilkls) 2- performance 3- khnowledge acquisition
[edit] Experiential / Creative Subtheory
Sternberg’s 2nd stage of his theory is his experiential subtheory. This stage deals mainly with how well a task is performed with regard to how familiar it is. Sternberg splits the role of experience into two parts: novelty and automation.
A novel situation is one that you have never experienced before. People that are adept at managing a novel situation can take the task and find new ways of solving it that the majority of people would not notice (Sternberg, 1997).
A process that has been automated has been performed multiple times and can now be done with little or no extra thought. Once a process is automatized, it can be run in parallel with the same or other processes. The problem with novelty and automation is that being skilled in one component does not ensure that you are skilled in the other (Sternberg, 1997).
The experiential subtheory also correlates with another one of Sternberg’s proposed types of giftedness. Synthetic giftedness is seen in creativity, intuition, and a study of the arts. People with synthetic giftedness are not often seen with the highest IQ’s because there are not currently any tests that can sufficiently measure these attributes, but synthetic giftedness is especially useful in creating new ideas to create and solve new problems. Sternberg also associated another one of his students, “Barbara”, to the synthetic giftedness. Barbara did not perform as well as Alice on the tests taken to get into school, but was recommended to Yale University based on her exceptional creative and intuitive skills. Barbara was later very valuable in creating new ideas for research (Sternberg, 1997).
[edit] Practical / Contextual Subtheory
Sternberg’s third subtheory of intelligence, called practical or contextual, “deals with the mental activity involved in attaining fit to context” (Sternberg, 1985, p.45). Through the three processes of adaptation, shaping, and selection, individuals create an ideal fit between themselves and their environment. This type of intelligence is often referred to as "street smarts."
Adaptation occurs when one makes a change within oneself in order to better adjust to one’s surroundings (Sternberg, 1985). For example, when the weather changes and temperatures drop, people adapt by wearing extra layers of clothing to remain warm.
Shaping occurs when one changes their environment to better suit one’s needs (Sternberg, 1985). A teacher may invoke the new rule of raising hands to speak to ensure that the lesson is taught with least possible disruption.
The process of selection is undertaken when a completely new alternate environment is found to replace the previous, unsatisfying environment to meet the individual’s goals (Sternberg, 1985). For instance, immigrants leave their lives in their homeland countries where they endure economical and social hardships and go to other countries in search of a better and less strained life.
The effectiveness with which an individual fits to his or her environment and contends with daily situations reflects degree of intelligence. Sternberg’s third type of giftedness, called practical giftedness, involves the ability to apply synthetic and analytic skills to everyday situations. Practically gifted people are superb in their ability to succeed in any setting (Sternberg, 1997). An example of this type of giftedness is "Celia". Celia did not have outstanding analytical or synthetic abilities, but she “was highly successful in figuring out what she needed to do in order to succeed in an academic environment. She knew what kind of research was valued, how to get articles into journals, how to impress people at job interviews, and the like” (Sternberg, 1997, p.44). Celia’s contextual intelligence allowed her to use these skills to her best advantage.
Sternberg also acknowledges that an individual is not restricted to having excellence in only one of these three intelligences. Many people may possess an integration of all three and have high levels of all three intelligences.
[edit] Challenges
Psychologist Linda Gottfredson (Gottfredson, 2003) criticises the unempirical nature of triarchic theory and argues that it is absurd to assert that traditional Intelligence tests are not measuring practical intelligence when they show a moderate correlation with income, especially at middle age when individuals have had a chance to reach their maximum career potential, an even higher correlation with occupational prestige, and that IQ tests even predict the ability to stay out of jail and stay alive (all of which qualifies as practical intelligence or "street smarts").
Gottfredson claims that what Sternberg calls practical intelligence is not a broad aspect of cognition at all but simply a specific set of skills people learn to cope with a specific environment (task specific knowledge).
As for the creative component of Sternberg's model, a Harvard study questions whether it's meaningful to treat creativity as a cognitive ability separate from analytical intelligence, but instead finds that creativity is simply the product of a high intelligence score combined with a low level of latent inhibition—when high intelligence levels are not present, low levels of latent inhibition put one especially at risk for schizophrenia.[1]
[edit] See also
• Educational psychology
• Intelligence quotient
• J. P. Guilford
• Multiple intelligence
[edit] References
1. ^ Decreased Latent Inhibition Is Associated With Increased Creative Achievement in High-Functioning Individuals
[edit] Bibliography
• Gottfredson, L. (2003). Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and its evidence. Intelligence, 31, 343-397.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1997). A Triarchic View of Giftedness: Theory and Practice. In N. Coleangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 43-53). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Sternberg, R.J., Nokes, C., Geissler, W., Prince, P., Okatcha, F., Bundy, D.A., Grigorenke, E.L. (2001). The relationship between academic and practical intelligence: a case study in Kenya. Intelligence, 29, 401-418.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchic_theory_of_intelligence"
Categories: Educational psychology | Intelligence | Psychological theories
Sternberg's Biography & Theory of Intelligence
Robert Sternberg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Robert Jeffrey Sternberg
Born December 8, 1949 (age 59)
Pennsylvania
Nationality American
Fields psychometrician
Institutions Tufts University
Alma mater
Yale University, Stanford University
Doctoral advisor Gordon Bower
Known for Triarchic theory of intelligence, Triangular theory of love
Robert Jeffrey Sternberg (born December 8, 1949), is an American psychologist and psychometrician and the Dean of Arts and Sciences at Tufts University. He was formerly IBM Professor of Psychology and Education at Yale University and the President of the American Psychological Association. He is a member of the editorial boards of numerous journals, including American Psychologist. Sternberg has a BA from Yale University and a PhD from Stanford University. Gordon Bower was his PhD advisor. He holds ten honorary doctorates from one North American, one South American, and eight European universities, and additionally holds an honorary professorate at the University of Heidelberg in Germany.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Research interests
• 2 A theory of intelligence
o 2.1 Practical application
o 2.2 Criticisms
• 3 Theory of cognitive styles
• 4 Bibliography
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 External links
• 8 Further reading
[edit] Research interests
Sternberg's main research include the following interests:
• Higher mental functions, including intelligence and creativity
• Styles of thinking
• Cognitive modifiability
• Leadership
• Love and hate
Sternberg has proposed a triarchic theory of intelligence and a triangular theory of love. He is the creator (with Todd Lubart[1]) of the investment theory of creativity, which states that creative people buy low and sell high in the world of ideas, and a propulsion theory of creative contributions, which states that creativity is a form of leadership.
He is spearheading an experimental admissions process at Tufts to quantifiably test the creativity of an applicant.[2]
Sternberg has criticized IQ tests, saying they are "convenient partial operationalizations of the construct of intelligence, and nothing more. They do not provide the kind of measurement of intelligence that tape measures provide of height."[3]
In 1995, he was on an American Psychological Association task force writing a consensus statement on the state of intelligence research in response to the claims being advanced amid the Bell Curve controversy, titled "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns."
[edit] A theory of intelligence
Main article: Triarchic theory of intelligence
Many descriptions of intelligence focus on mental abilities such as vocabulary, comprehension, memory and problem-solving that can be measured through intelligence tests. This reflects the tendency of psychologists to develop their understanding of intelligence by observing behaviour believed to be associated with intelligence.
Sternberg believes that this focus on specific types of measurable mental abilities is too narrow. He believes that studying intelligence in this way leads to an understanding of only one part of intelligence and that this part is only seen in people who are 'school smart' or 'book smart'.
There are, for example, many individuals who score poorly on intelligence tests, but are creative or are 'street smart' and therefore have a very good ability to adapt and shape their environment. According to Sternberg (2003), giftedness should be examined in a broader way incorporating other parts of intelligence.
Sternberg (2003) categorizes intelligence into three parts, which are central in his theory, the triarchic theory of intelligence:
• Analytical intelligence, the ability to complete academic, problem-solving tasks, such as those used in traditional intelligence tests. These types of tasks usually present well-defined problems that have only a single correct answer.
• Creative or synthetic intelligence, the ability to successfully deal with new and unusual situations by drawing on existing knowledge and skills. Individuals high in creative intelligence may give 'wrong' answers because they see things from a different perspective.
• Practical intelligence, the ability to adapt to everyday life by drawing on existing knowledge and skills. Practical intelligence enables an individual to understand what needs to be done in a specific setting and then do it.
Sternberg (2003) discusses experience and its role in intelligence. Creative or synthetic intelligence helps individuals to transfer information from one problem to another. Sternberg calls the application of ideas from one problem to a new type of problem relative novelty. In contrast to the skills of relative novelty there is relative familiarity which enables an individual to become so familiar with a process that it becomes automatized. This can free up brain resources for coping with new ideas.
Context, or how one adapts, selects and shapes their environment is another area that is not represented by traditional measures of giftedness. Practically intelligent people are good at picking up tacit information and utilizing that information. They tend to shape their environment around them. (Sternberg, 2003)
Sternberg (2003) developed a testing instrument to identify people who are gifted in ways that other tests don't identify. The Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test measures not only traditional intelligence abilities but analytic, synthetic, automazation and practical abilities as well. There are four ways in which this test is different from conventional intelligence tests.
• This test is broader, measuring synthetic and practical skills in addition to analytic skills. The test provides scores on analytic, synthetic, automatization, and practical abiliteis, as well as verbal, quantitative, and figural processing abilities.
• The test measures the ability to understand unknown words in context rather than vocabulary skills which are dependent on an individual's background.
• The automatization subtest is the only part of the test that measures mental speed.
• The test is based on a theory of intelligence.
[4]
[edit] Practical application
Sternberg added experimental criteria to the application process for undergraduates to Tufts University, where he is Dean of Arts and Sciences, to test "creativity and other non-academic factors." Calling it the "first major university to try such a departure from the norm," Inside Higher Ed noted that Tufts continues to consider the SAT and other traditional criteria.[5][6]
[edit] Criticisms
Sternberg's ideas have been repeatedly criticized in the scientific literature for lacking empirical support (e.g., Deary, 2001; Gottfredson, 2003; Jensen, 1998). The proliferation of "intelligences" he has been suggesting followed the lead of Howard Gardner (1983) and has been copied by other theorists who have been coming up with related notions (e.g., Daniel Goleman, 1995 - "Emotional intelligence").
In 2003, Linda Gottfredson, a professor at the University of Delaware, published a detailed refutation of the claims behind practical intelligence in the journal Intelligence;[7] the article won the 2005 Mensa Excellence in Research Award.
[edit] Theory of cognitive styles
Sternberg proposed a theory of cognitive styles in 1997.
The four forms of mental self-government are hierarchical, monarchic, oligarchic, and anarchic. The hierarchic style holds multiple goals simultaneously and prioritizes them. The oligarchic style is similar but differs in involving difficulty prioritizing. The monarchic style, in comparison, focuses on a single activity until completion. The anarchic style resists conformity to "systems, rules, or particular approaches to problems."
The two levels of mental self-government are local and global. The local style focuses on more specific and concrete problems. The global style, in comparison, focuses on more abstract and global problems.
The two scopes of mental self-government are internal and external. The internal style is the preference to work independently. The external style is the preference to work in collaboration.
The four leanings of mental self-government are the liberal, legislative, executive and conservative. The liberal style involves the attempt to change "existing rules and procedures". The legislative style adds an additional requirement that these changes conform to the individual(s)' ideas. The executive style, in comparison, involves following tradition. The conservative style involves the additional requirement that the ideas are the individual(s)'.
[edit] Bibliography
Key References
On "Higher Mental Functions":
• Sternberg, R. J. (1977): Intelligence, information processing,and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1985): Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1990): Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1997): Successful intelligence. New York: Plume.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1999): "The theory of successful intelligence." Review of General Psychology, 3, 292-316.
• Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J., Snook, S., Williams, W. M., Wagner, R. K., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000): Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000): Teaching for successful intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight.
• (2007) Sternberg, R.J.: Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized. New York: Cambridge University Press
Key References
On "Creativity":
• Sternberg, R. J., James C Kaufman, & Pretz, J. E. (2002): The creativity conundrum: A propulsion model of creative contributions. Philadelphia, PA.
• Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995): Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
• Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996): How to develop student creativity. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Key Reference
On "Leadership":
Sternberg, R. J., & Vroom, V. H. (2002): "The person versus the situation in leadership." Leadership Quarterly, 13, 301-323
Key Reference
On "Cognitive Styles":
Sternberg, R. & Grigorenko, E. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52, 700-712.
[edit] See also
• Howard Gardner
• James C. Kaufman
[edit] References
1. ^ Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
2. ^ Jaschik, Scott (2006). A "Rainbow" Approach to Admissions. Inside Higher Ed, July 6, 2006.
3. ^ The Theory of Successful Intelligence Interamerican Journal of Psychology - 2005, Vol. 39, Num. 2 pp. 189-20
4. ^ Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Giftedness According to the Theory of Successful Intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (88-99). Boston MA: Allyn and Bacon.
5. ^ Jaschik, Scott (2006). A "Rainbow" Approach to Admissions. Inside Higher Ed, July 6, 2006.
6. ^ McAnerny, Kelly (2005). From Sternberg, a new take on what makes kids Tufts-worthy. Tufts Daily, November 15, 2005.
7. ^ Linda Gottfredson, "Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence", Intelligence, vol 31, (2003) 343–397)
[edit] External links
• Robert J. Sternberg - Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences - Tufts University (Tufts profile)
• Triarchic Theory of Intelligence - uwsp.edu
• Video (with mp3 available) of discussion about intelligence and creativity with Sternberg on Bloggingheads.tv
[edit] Further reading
• Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic, 1983
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sternberg"
Categories: Living people | 1949 births | American educators | American psychologists | Creativity researchers | Educational psychologists | Intelligence researchers | Jewish American scientists | Cognitive scientists | Guggenheim Fellows | Fellows of the Society of Experimental Psychologists | Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences | Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science | Stanford University alumni | Yale University alumni | Tufts University faculty | Contributors to Bloggingheads.tv
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Robert Jeffrey Sternberg
Born December 8, 1949 (age 59)
Pennsylvania
Nationality American
Fields psychometrician
Institutions Tufts University
Alma mater
Yale University, Stanford University
Doctoral advisor Gordon Bower
Known for Triarchic theory of intelligence, Triangular theory of love
Robert Jeffrey Sternberg (born December 8, 1949), is an American psychologist and psychometrician and the Dean of Arts and Sciences at Tufts University. He was formerly IBM Professor of Psychology and Education at Yale University and the President of the American Psychological Association. He is a member of the editorial boards of numerous journals, including American Psychologist. Sternberg has a BA from Yale University and a PhD from Stanford University. Gordon Bower was his PhD advisor. He holds ten honorary doctorates from one North American, one South American, and eight European universities, and additionally holds an honorary professorate at the University of Heidelberg in Germany.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Research interests
• 2 A theory of intelligence
o 2.1 Practical application
o 2.2 Criticisms
• 3 Theory of cognitive styles
• 4 Bibliography
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 External links
• 8 Further reading
[edit] Research interests
Sternberg's main research include the following interests:
• Higher mental functions, including intelligence and creativity
• Styles of thinking
• Cognitive modifiability
• Leadership
• Love and hate
Sternberg has proposed a triarchic theory of intelligence and a triangular theory of love. He is the creator (with Todd Lubart[1]) of the investment theory of creativity, which states that creative people buy low and sell high in the world of ideas, and a propulsion theory of creative contributions, which states that creativity is a form of leadership.
He is spearheading an experimental admissions process at Tufts to quantifiably test the creativity of an applicant.[2]
Sternberg has criticized IQ tests, saying they are "convenient partial operationalizations of the construct of intelligence, and nothing more. They do not provide the kind of measurement of intelligence that tape measures provide of height."[3]
In 1995, he was on an American Psychological Association task force writing a consensus statement on the state of intelligence research in response to the claims being advanced amid the Bell Curve controversy, titled "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns."
[edit] A theory of intelligence
Main article: Triarchic theory of intelligence
Many descriptions of intelligence focus on mental abilities such as vocabulary, comprehension, memory and problem-solving that can be measured through intelligence tests. This reflects the tendency of psychologists to develop their understanding of intelligence by observing behaviour believed to be associated with intelligence.
Sternberg believes that this focus on specific types of measurable mental abilities is too narrow. He believes that studying intelligence in this way leads to an understanding of only one part of intelligence and that this part is only seen in people who are 'school smart' or 'book smart'.
There are, for example, many individuals who score poorly on intelligence tests, but are creative or are 'street smart' and therefore have a very good ability to adapt and shape their environment. According to Sternberg (2003), giftedness should be examined in a broader way incorporating other parts of intelligence.
Sternberg (2003) categorizes intelligence into three parts, which are central in his theory, the triarchic theory of intelligence:
• Analytical intelligence, the ability to complete academic, problem-solving tasks, such as those used in traditional intelligence tests. These types of tasks usually present well-defined problems that have only a single correct answer.
• Creative or synthetic intelligence, the ability to successfully deal with new and unusual situations by drawing on existing knowledge and skills. Individuals high in creative intelligence may give 'wrong' answers because they see things from a different perspective.
• Practical intelligence, the ability to adapt to everyday life by drawing on existing knowledge and skills. Practical intelligence enables an individual to understand what needs to be done in a specific setting and then do it.
Sternberg (2003) discusses experience and its role in intelligence. Creative or synthetic intelligence helps individuals to transfer information from one problem to another. Sternberg calls the application of ideas from one problem to a new type of problem relative novelty. In contrast to the skills of relative novelty there is relative familiarity which enables an individual to become so familiar with a process that it becomes automatized. This can free up brain resources for coping with new ideas.
Context, or how one adapts, selects and shapes their environment is another area that is not represented by traditional measures of giftedness. Practically intelligent people are good at picking up tacit information and utilizing that information. They tend to shape their environment around them. (Sternberg, 2003)
Sternberg (2003) developed a testing instrument to identify people who are gifted in ways that other tests don't identify. The Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test measures not only traditional intelligence abilities but analytic, synthetic, automazation and practical abilities as well. There are four ways in which this test is different from conventional intelligence tests.
• This test is broader, measuring synthetic and practical skills in addition to analytic skills. The test provides scores on analytic, synthetic, automatization, and practical abiliteis, as well as verbal, quantitative, and figural processing abilities.
• The test measures the ability to understand unknown words in context rather than vocabulary skills which are dependent on an individual's background.
• The automatization subtest is the only part of the test that measures mental speed.
• The test is based on a theory of intelligence.
[4]
[edit] Practical application
Sternberg added experimental criteria to the application process for undergraduates to Tufts University, where he is Dean of Arts and Sciences, to test "creativity and other non-academic factors." Calling it the "first major university to try such a departure from the norm," Inside Higher Ed noted that Tufts continues to consider the SAT and other traditional criteria.[5][6]
[edit] Criticisms
Sternberg's ideas have been repeatedly criticized in the scientific literature for lacking empirical support (e.g., Deary, 2001; Gottfredson, 2003; Jensen, 1998). The proliferation of "intelligences" he has been suggesting followed the lead of Howard Gardner (1983) and has been copied by other theorists who have been coming up with related notions (e.g., Daniel Goleman, 1995 - "Emotional intelligence").
In 2003, Linda Gottfredson, a professor at the University of Delaware, published a detailed refutation of the claims behind practical intelligence in the journal Intelligence;[7] the article won the 2005 Mensa Excellence in Research Award.
[edit] Theory of cognitive styles
Sternberg proposed a theory of cognitive styles in 1997.
The four forms of mental self-government are hierarchical, monarchic, oligarchic, and anarchic. The hierarchic style holds multiple goals simultaneously and prioritizes them. The oligarchic style is similar but differs in involving difficulty prioritizing. The monarchic style, in comparison, focuses on a single activity until completion. The anarchic style resists conformity to "systems, rules, or particular approaches to problems."
The two levels of mental self-government are local and global. The local style focuses on more specific and concrete problems. The global style, in comparison, focuses on more abstract and global problems.
The two scopes of mental self-government are internal and external. The internal style is the preference to work independently. The external style is the preference to work in collaboration.
The four leanings of mental self-government are the liberal, legislative, executive and conservative. The liberal style involves the attempt to change "existing rules and procedures". The legislative style adds an additional requirement that these changes conform to the individual(s)' ideas. The executive style, in comparison, involves following tradition. The conservative style involves the additional requirement that the ideas are the individual(s)'.
[edit] Bibliography
Key References
On "Higher Mental Functions":
• Sternberg, R. J. (1977): Intelligence, information processing,and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1985): Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1990): Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1997): Successful intelligence. New York: Plume.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1999): "The theory of successful intelligence." Review of General Psychology, 3, 292-316.
• Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J., Snook, S., Williams, W. M., Wagner, R. K., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000): Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000): Teaching for successful intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight.
• (2007) Sternberg, R.J.: Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized. New York: Cambridge University Press
Key References
On "Creativity":
• Sternberg, R. J., James C Kaufman, & Pretz, J. E. (2002): The creativity conundrum: A propulsion model of creative contributions. Philadelphia, PA.
• Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995): Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
• Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996): How to develop student creativity. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Key Reference
On "Leadership":
Sternberg, R. J., & Vroom, V. H. (2002): "The person versus the situation in leadership." Leadership Quarterly, 13, 301-323
Key Reference
On "Cognitive Styles":
Sternberg, R. & Grigorenko, E. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52, 700-712.
[edit] See also
• Howard Gardner
• James C. Kaufman
[edit] References
1. ^ Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
2. ^ Jaschik, Scott (2006). A "Rainbow" Approach to Admissions. Inside Higher Ed, July 6, 2006.
3. ^ The Theory of Successful Intelligence Interamerican Journal of Psychology - 2005, Vol. 39, Num. 2 pp. 189-20
4. ^ Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Giftedness According to the Theory of Successful Intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (88-99). Boston MA: Allyn and Bacon.
5. ^ Jaschik, Scott (2006). A "Rainbow" Approach to Admissions. Inside Higher Ed, July 6, 2006.
6. ^ McAnerny, Kelly (2005). From Sternberg, a new take on what makes kids Tufts-worthy. Tufts Daily, November 15, 2005.
7. ^ Linda Gottfredson, "Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence", Intelligence, vol 31, (2003) 343–397)
[edit] External links
• Robert J. Sternberg - Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences - Tufts University (Tufts profile)
• Triarchic Theory of Intelligence - uwsp.edu
• Video (with mp3 available) of discussion about intelligence and creativity with Sternberg on Bloggingheads.tv
[edit] Further reading
• Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic, 1983
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sternberg"
Categories: Living people | 1949 births | American educators | American psychologists | Creativity researchers | Educational psychologists | Intelligence researchers | Jewish American scientists | Cognitive scientists | Guggenheim Fellows | Fellows of the Society of Experimental Psychologists | Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences | Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science | Stanford University alumni | Yale University alumni | Tufts University faculty | Contributors to Bloggingheads.tv
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
