| Subject: Re: Assignment #3 |
Author:
Jessika Morris
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:09:03 06/19/10 Sat
In reply to:
Dr. M-J
's message, "Assignment #3" on 12:17:50 06/19/10 Sat
I know a little about IQ testing from Dr. Jones' learning and cognition course, and from that class I learned to be skeptical about both the tests and how the results are used. I do not think that IQ testing data should ever be a sole source of information about a student's current or potential performance, due to culture, class, and test anxiety variables that seem to impact an individual's IQ score. I have traditionally scored very high on the tests, but seem to struggle with the spatial portions of the test. I can do the math problems and excel in vocabulary, but I always score embarrassingly low on the spatial portions. It is much easier for me to write a research paper than to think about manipulating a plane or object in space. I think that this is one source of value that the IQ test has - pointing out strengths and areas for growth. I know I am strong in linguistic skills, but low in spatial skills. I can then use that information to impact my career choices, or to seek out additional help in that particular area.
When I took the IQ tests from the links, I got much more enjoyment out of the emotional intelligence and classic IQ tests than the culture fair test. (This might be because I scored drastically higher on the first two than on the culture fair test.) Given what I mentioned about my typical experiences with the test, I did poorly on the culture fair test because it was a pattern and spatial abilities test. On the classic IQ test, I scored within three points of what I typically score on those exams - demonstrating the test-retest reliability of the exam. Overall, I think the classic IQ test is fun but dangerous because of the potential one's results have to impact the rest of their lives, as it relegates whether they are placed in special education services or traditional school programs. I place much more merit in alternative theories of intelligence such as Sternberg's triarchic theory or Gardner's multiple intelligences as they leave more room for the individual variations that contribute to success or failure rather than the numeric scores from a standardized IQ exam.
Assignment 3 (Intelligence):
>
>Prior to going to the following websites, write down
>your opinion of IQ testing and you believe your IQ to
>be. Take the designmated tests for
>1) Classical IQ test:
>
><a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://www.queendom.com/tests/iq/classical_iq_r2_access">http://www.queendom.com/tests/iq/classical_iq_r2_access</a>
>.html
>2) Culture-fair IQ test:
>
><a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idR">http://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idR</a>
>egTest=1112
>2) Emotional intelligence:
>
><a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://www.queendom.com/tests/iq/emotional_iq_r2_access">http://www.queendom.com/tests/iq/emotional_iq_r2_access</a>
>.html
>
>Post to the discussion board your opinion of IQ tests,
>both prior to and after taking the above tests. Did
>it change during the course of taking the tests? How
>accurate did you find the tests? How were the results
>useful to you? What parts of the tests were most
>challenging for you? (The posting of your scores on
>these tests is not required.)
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 