Chapter 4 Nonverbal Communication Chapter 4 Nonverbal Communication.
The Role of Nonverbal Ability Tests in Identifying Academically Gifted Students: An Aptitude...
-
Upload
kamron-sark -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of The Role of Nonverbal Ability Tests in Identifying Academically Gifted Students: An Aptitude...
The Role of Nonverbal Ability Tests in Identifying Academically Gifted Students: An Aptitude Perspective
David Lohman
The University of Iowa
http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman
Overview• Background• Nonverbal tests
– Advantages– Disadvantages
• Understanding abilities • Aptitude perspective
– For minority students
• Recommendations
Background
Why use nonverbal tests?
1. Measure abilities in ways that are fair to all students
2. Increase the diversity in programs for academically gifted and talented
3. Actively assist children who have not had the advantages of wealth or who have not from birth been immersed in English
Other factors to consider
• Get the right kids, not just the right number
• Especially critical for minority students– Next generation of writers, scientists,
mathematicians
• Crafting policy for the identification and development of a diversity of academic talents
Nonverbal Tests• Present visual stimuli (objects, line
drawings) and • Require a nonverbal response (assemble a
puzzle, point, fill in a circle)• “Nonverbal” describes the test, not the
cognitive processes used to solve items• Involvement of verbal processes
– Explicit (UNIT Analogic reasoning subtest)– Implicit (Figural Reasoning tests)
UNIT Analogy
Advantages
• Reduced oral/written language load
• Verbal knowledge, verbally mediated strategies can be in any language
• Reduced mean differences between monolingual and bilingual students
Disadvantages
• Pictorial tests1. Deciphering line drawings
2. Shorter directions are not necessarily better directions
3. Unforeseen linguistic confusions
UNIT Analogy
:
J K L M N
CogAT Figure Analogy
Disadvantages
• Figural reasoning tests– Task specificity greater than for V or Q
Task Specificity 1
Test 1
Task Specificity
Test 1 Test 2+ =
Task Specificity
Figural Verbal
Disadvantages
• Figural reasoning tests– Task specificity greater than for V or Q– Large practice effects– Largest Flynn effect
Example of Flynn Effect
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
IQ S
core
Gains in Wechsler-Binet IQ for the U.S. White population. Sources J. Horgan (1995) and D. Schildlovsky.
Example of Flynn Effect
Disadvantages
• Figural reasoning tests– Task specificity greater than for V or Q– Large practice effects– Largest Flynn effect– Appearance of measuring something innate
Fluid-Crystallized Continuum (1)
Fluid Crystallized
Cognitiveabilities
Physicalskills
General fluidability (Gf)
Scienceachievement
Mathachievement
Social studiesachievement
Knowledge ofliterature
Specificfactual
knowledge
Generalphysicalfitness
Basketball
Swimming
Football
Field hockey
Volleyball
WrestlingCycling
Fluid-Crystallized Continuum (2)
Fluid Crystallized
Cognitiveabilities
Physicalskills
General fluidability (Gf)
Scienceachievement
Mathachievement
Social studiesachievement
Knowledge ofliterature
Specificfactual
knowledge
Generalphysicalfitness
Basketball
Swimming
Football
Field hockey
Volleyball
WrestlingCycling
Disadvantages
• Figural reasoning tests– Task specificity greater than for V or Q– Large practice effects– Largest Flynn effect– Appearance of measuring something innate – Appearance of being culture fair
Culture fair?
• Intuitively plausible but long discredited idea
• Anastasi & Urbina (1997) Psychological Testing (7th ed.)– “no test can be equally fair to all cultures”– “nonlanguage tests may be more culturally
loaded than language tests”
Cronbach quote
• Cronbach (1990) Essentials of Psychological Testing (5th ed).
– “no behavioral evidence is culture free.”– “the term ‘culture fair’ makes a dubious claim”
Scarr quote
• Scarr (1994) In Sternberg’s Encyclopedia of Intelligence
– “intelligence and ability tests sample human cultural knowledge, acquired (through) development.”
– “Although tests such as the Raven Matrices may seem fair… puzzle-like tasks turn out to have their own limitations.”
:
J K L M N
CogAT Figure Analogy
Disadvantages
• Figural reasoning tests– Task specificity greater than for V or Q– Large practice effects– Largest Flynn effect– Appearance of measuring something innate – Appearance of being culture fair– Distal predictors of academic success
Example r = .6 using PR
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Nonverbal Reasoning
Mat
hem
atic
s A
chie
vem
ent
Example of r = .6M
ath
em
ati
cs A
ch.
Example r = .6 using PR
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Nonverbal Reasoning
Mat
hem
atic
s A
chie
vem
ent
Example r = .6 M
ath
em
ati
cs A
ch.
Example r = .6 using PR
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Nonverbal Reasoning
Mat
hem
atic
s A
chie
vem
ent
Example r = .6M
ath
em
ati
cs A
ch.
Example r = .6 using PR
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Nonverbal Reasoning
Mat
hem
atic
s A
chie
vem
ent
29%71%
Example r = .6M
ath
em
ati
cs A
ch.
Construct Representation
Verbal
Quantitative
Nonverbalg
What predicts academic achievement?
VerbalReasoning
Quantitative Reasoning
NonverbalReasoning
AcademicAchievement
Selecting students on the basis of a test of nonverbal reasoning ability would:
• admit many students who are unprepared for advanced instruction in mathematics or science or other content-rich domains.
• exclude many students who either have already demonstrated high levels of accomplishment in these domains OR whose high verbal or quantitative reasoning abilities make them much more likely to succeed in such programs.
Figural reasoning as an inaptitude?
1 40 50 60 99
VerbalQuantitative
Nonverbal
1 40 50 60 99
VerbalQuantitative
Nonverbal
N +
N -
Figural reasoning as an inaptitude?
• Students with an N+ profile do less well in school than students with an N- profile
• Gohm, Humphreys & Yao (1998) find high spatial students do poorly on a wide range of academic outcomes.
• High N, high Q = engineer profile
• Cannot look at Nonverbal test alone
Extravagant Claims, Unlikely Promises
• NNAT claims– culture fair – a “very good” predictor of school achievement– small and inconsequential difference in mean
scores for White, Black, & Hispanic students– identify equal proportions of high-scoring
White, Black, & Hispanic students
Predict achievement?
• r (NNAT, Reading) = .56
• r (NNAT, Reading in Spanish) = .32
• r (NNAT, Math) = .6
• r (CogAT, Reading) = .80
• r (CogAT, Math) = .81
Small mean differences between ethnic groups? equal proportions of high scorers?
• Exceedingly implausible– e.g. NAEP differences 1 SD– Matrix format much studied
• Sample is small and unrepresentative– 5.6 % Urban school children– More high SES Hispanics & Blacks
• Numbers do not add up– W-B and W-H differences inconsistent– means < 100 for all three groups– SD’s all greater than 15
Black
Urbanicity NNAT U.S.
Urban 11.0 54.9 -43.9
Suburban 56.1 31.7 24.4
Rural 32.8 13.3 19.5
Note. Urbanicity is defined as in the U.S. Census.
Demographics: Urbanicity
NNAT
SES White Black Hispanic
Low 19.2 20.8 42.0
Low middle 20.1 26.2 29.3
Middle 20.4 8.4 3.0
High middle 23.7 19.5 6.2
High 16.6 25.2 19.5
Note. SES was a composite of median family income in the community and the percent of adults with high school diplomas.
Demographics: SES
Mean W-B, W-H differences
W-B W-H
• Naglieri & Ronning (2000) 4.2 2.8
• Naglieri & Ford (2003) 3.2 2.0
Aptitude Perspective
• Aptitude is – the degree of readiness to perform well in a
particular situation or fixed domain.
• Examples– Ability to comprehend instructions– To use previously acquired knowledge and skill
appropriately– To make good inferences and generalizations– To manage one’s emotions
Academic accomplishment 1
LearningContext
1
LearningContext
2
Person characteristics
AcademicAccomplishment/
Expertise
On-grade and above-grade
achievement tests
Performance Assessments
Teacher grades/
evaluations
Academic accomplishment 2
CogATVerbal
CogATQuantitative
MathematicsAchievement
CogATNonverbal
Predicting Math Achievement in Grades 1-12 from CogAT 6
CogATVerbal
CogATQuantitative
MathematicsAchievement
CogATNonverbal
Multiple R = .80
.23
.50
.15
Predicting Math Achievement in Grades 1-12 from CogAT 6
CogATVerbal
CogATQuantitative
ReadingComprehension/
Vocabulary
CogATNonverbal
Predicting Reading Comprehension/ Vocabulary in Grades 1-12 from
CogAT 6
CogATVerbal
CogATQuantitative
ReadingComprehension/
Vocabulary
CogATNonverbal
Multiple R = .80
.63
.15
.07
Predicting Reading Comprehension/ Vocabulary in Grades 1-12 from
CogAT 6
CogATVerbal
CogATQuantitative
ReadingComprehension/
Vocabulary
CogATNonverbal
Multiple R = .81 (.80)
.66 (.72)
.14 (.12)
.06 (.04)
Predicting Reading Comp/ Vocab for All Students (Hispanics) grades 1-6
Predictors of Achievement
• The regression equations that best predict achievement in Reading, Mathematics, Social Studies, & Science from CogAT Verbal, Quantitative, and Nonverbal reasoning are the same for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian-American students
• Other investigators find the same (Keith)
Predicting Future Achievement
Achievement
Grade 4 Grade 9
Predicting Future Achievement
Reading Achievement
ReadingAchievement
VerbalReasoning
Grade 4 Grade 9
.35
.30
Predicting Future Achievement
Math Achievement
Math Achievement
Quant.Reasoning
Grade 4 Grade 9
.27
.19
NonverbalReasoning
.19
Recap
1. Structure of abilities the same within ethnic groups
2. Predictors of concurrent achievement are the same in White, Black, Hispanic, & Asian-Americans
3. Best predictors of future achievement in a domain are current achievement in that domain and the ability to reason in the symbol system(s) used to communicate new knowledge in the domain
4. Therefore….
Bilingual students
Verbal achievement in both L1 and L2 depend on a common set of verbal processes
– Phonemic awareness in Spanish predicts reading in English (Lindsey et al. 2003)
– Grades in English are more strongly related to (Swedish) verbal abilities than are grades in Swedish (Gustafsson & Balke, 1993).
– Best predictors of learning French are verbal abilities and achievements in English -- not mathematical or figural reasoning abilities (Carroll, 1981)
Aptitude versus Achievement
• Estimates of academic aptitude must always be judged relative to circumstances.
• Estimates of academic attainment, on the other hand, must be made on a scale that is similar for all.
Common Cut Scores?
• Current Accomplishment
Common standards more reasonable
• Potential for future accomplishment
Common standards not defensible
Lead to the search for aptitude tests that predict achievement but not group differences in achievement
Get more kids, but more of the wrong kids
Distinguishing Present Accomplishment from Predicted Accomplishment
99
95
90
Accelerate
?
Accomplishment
One year later
99
95
90
Same
Improve
Decline
Who is most likely to improve?
• Strongest reasoning abilities in the symbol systems used to communicate knowledge in the domain
• Best, most appropriately challenging instruction
• Motivation and persistence
Guidelines1. Except for very young children, academic
giftedness should be defined primarily by measures of academic accomplishment.
2. The primary cognitive aptitudes for future academic accomplishment are domain-specific achievement and the ability to reason in the symbol systems used to communicate new knowledge.
3. The predictors of achievement are the same in different ethnic groups.
4. Use the nonverbal test as a helpful adjunct, but as a measure of last resort.
5. Provide different levels of challenge to those who have already exhibited academic excellence and those who are working to attain it
6. Use common aptitude measures but uncommon cut scores (e.g., rank within group) when identifying minority students most likely to profit from intensive instruction.
The Role of Nonverbal Ability Tests in Identifying Academically Gifted Students: An Aptitude Perspective
David Lohman
The University of Iowa
http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman