I am mystified by the practice of administering IQ tests to any child at any age. The IQ score is said to be a predictor of later educational and lifetime success (Berger, pg. 324). How can such a test be considered accurate for determining a child's capacity for learning when there are so many other factors that influence a child's learning? We know that the brain is plastic, and can develop or not develop according to environmental and epigenetic factors (Berger, 2009). Why bother submitting children to a test that has an outcome ignores the child's biosocial and psychosocial development? A capacity perceived as limited will limit the efforts of child and teacher. A capacity perceived as beyond average but is actually limited by social/emotional factors is no capacity at all. The Flynn effect is the explanation for the general IQ of entire nations rising, when IQ is believed to be genetic, and so fixed. (Berger, 2009. pg. 324). The learning capacity of children can be changed by the environmental and social experiences they have. The IQ score is not useful in educating children. Children should be assessed regularly, routinely, and naturally by their adult caregivers and teachers to determine their present level of biosocial, cognitive, and psychosocial development in order to plan for the child's next level of advancement. Here is where this child is performing today. Here is where we want to go tomorrow. This is how we are going to get there. This is real capacity for success without regard to IQ.
It seems as if Finland uses individual measures for determining a child's success in school and career. The Finnish National Board of Education determines the curriculum, and local schools are given authority to educate in the methods they deem best for their community of learners. Acceptable performance is determined by teachers who stay with young children throughout Primary Education. Depending on the needs of the children, there may be as many as 3 teachers in a classroom. Basic education begins at seven years old, which coincides with Piaget's theories of the beginning of concrete operational thought (Berger, pg.338). The assessment process is described as the evaluation of learning outcomes, and is "encouraging and supportive in nature" (FNBE) . The school system teaches and encourages self-evaluation to promote a child's self-concept and learning potential.
The practice of administering IQ tests to determine a child's potential for learning seems inconsistent with research regarding the influences on child development and the plasticity of the human brain. It is at best a waste of time and effort, and at worst, a burden that limits what a child is really capable of with individual and group support.
Resources:
Berger, K.S. (2009). The developing person through childhood (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
The Finnish National Board of Education. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/english/education
4 comments:
I am with you about adminstering a test that only looks at one aspect of a child. Some children grow faster in some areas than others and only testing one is one sided. I don't think IQ should be tested but hey shouls be tested to see how they are developing. Like when you take a small child to the doctor and she checks to see if they are at the average level for a 6 month old.
I agree that IQ testing really isn't a test that really measures what the child needs now, but really predicts what a child will be later in life. A child's learning is made up of so many more factors that should be considered, along with aptitude.
I have a question well a concern. When it comes to IQ testing what are the guidelines the scores are being measured on and if a childs IQ is hight or low who determines if they are mental retared or a genius.
I believe that children should be assess to help teachers plan for their needs. As far as IQ testing it should be done only if there is a need for placementfor a particular class.
Post a Comment