Measured intelligence and the ability to learn

intelligence to a dozen rent replies. A sample “‘inhibitive capacity, od response from t “adopt adequately to he pasyagc of years has roach to intelligence and a deeper apr~ciat~o~ of its xities, but it has not brought us much sence of an acceptable describe intelligence “as what i~te~li~e~c~ tests measure” which provides an operational definition of intelligence and considerably narrows the area of exploration. Interested persons ow may examine e contents of a variety of inteliites measured intelligerrce. The gcnce tests to get a sample of what co most frequent observation is that intelli ence tests seem to measure ntelhgence tests measure the learning ability ( imrall, 38). S knowledge that the individual had learned in the past or they require him to make use of is past knowledge in new situations. It is not considered necessary for a intelligence test to sample future learning since it is assumed that what an individual has learned in the past is a valid predictor of what he can learn in the future (Simrall, 38). The right of test constructors to make such an a;sunmption about the predictive value of cGeoch and Irion past learning rests upon certain s assume that all (33) describe these assumptions. of the persons tested have had an equal opportunity in everydaly living or in school to learn the makrials which the test uses. Second, although all persons have had an equal opportunity to learn the materials of the d them to the same degree. Or, if t learned the materials, they make different uses of the materials in new situations. As a result, the differences which appear in a test score are a reflection of differences in intellectual ability. 1

R

2 In recent years, this from various quarters.

of Chicago who have chall underlying intelligence tests. mentation, this group convin in opportunity which exis learning the materials used i (3) were not successful in constru items for children from varying cu work did serve to undermine the a 1st: safely predicted for all individua test. other criticisms have come from experimental psychologists ( 26, 27; Simrah, 38; Woodrow, 45, 46, 48, 50) who have studie ia the laboratory. They have observed that measures of leamin under experimental condations are not significantly related to i easures of learning refer to improvement with practic learning is operationally defined as “ . . . a change in perfor occurs under the conditions of practice” ( CGeoch, 33, p, 5). In 1946, w published a paper reviewing a number of experiments which a Back of correlation between intdligence test scores and lea measured by gains due to practice, even though int correlated with achievement at different stages of of this experimental evidence, o&row derived t (Woodrow, 50, pp. 14~8-149): 1.

he ability to learn cannot be identified with th intelligence,

wn a9

2. Individuals possess no such thing as a unitary gene al learning ability. 3. Improvement with practice correlates importantly with that is, relatively narrow abilities, ard also with speizific factors. 4. Even the group-factors invo!ved in learnin are not unique 1.0 I.eamkg, but consist of abilities which can be measured by tests givein but once. In defense of his postulates, Woodrow argued that te:st u,sers who identified inteUi,gence with learning have confused achievement, which is what actually determines the test score, with the ability to gain with practke. nd hereditary factors an ChieVeAmentis due partly to maturational achievement were identical can never be attributed solely to learning.

ethod recommended by

is more clearly a measure of imsents problems in distortion of perhe secon 1 method is closer ore accurate measure of performance.

e use of gain score, in

NCE AND LEARNING IN U.S.A.

information would be highly repetitive in nature.

will be used in illustration, and the other stud if they relate to other significant findings. clearly the lack of relation of gain score w intelligence was posit%welyrelated with i practice to 95 high school students in two verbal tests, o word test and the r a backwards writi with intelligence. with finCalscore on th with gain due to practice was only 27. test, with the exception of a negatk co age. Some investigators ( rrison, 18; John problem to be used. Jordan ing test whit required subjects to imaginally pl~,;e other betters designated by numbers. Job successful in positively relatkg intelligcnc print in a mkror
type of learning cou 0) reported

correlations

be

a f&lorerepresentative

(25) reported the superiority in per165 1.0. clver children

ing tests were usually positkve but studied this area extensively with ver zge corxktion among learning rneas~~es in the laboratory were .I0 (47). Intercorreains with various school subjects were .I2 in contrast to the rcorrclat;,rn of A0 between xhicvement test scores in a single neral factor to determine his was true rate of i~~r~v whether the ability was mcasur~d by rate of absolute gain (gain per unit of time at the maximum point o!’ the individual’s curve) or by the role of ain as the proportion of the individual’s maximuxl score). ncral factor of minor importance might influence rate of moderately similar tasks. In many cases, learning seemed more related to grou 4) correlated the gain score of 50 subjects in sk tests. ive correlations, but over half we e insignificaht. A factor of movement, analysis of the data revealesi t ree common factors-speed memory, and perception. Simrall (38) selected two tests highly related to mental age to identify three of Thurstone’s factors-memory. spatial relations, and perception. Gain score uas not ’ ortantly related to any wever, gain score was of the factors correlated with mental age.

the memory factor which was usband (26, 27) re , arld ideational lea nly 8 of 91 correlations were 3 were positive. Correlations were great y were not much higher for mo concluded, Cc e whcnIe trend of evid strongly that we must speak of learnin learning ability (singular) as if it were a Some investigators attributed impro or the arnoullt of pre+qerimental practice. Carlson (2) that suc5 factors as inkrest, traits -~::re important in determ that previous knowledge was i gy test, but Carlson (2) fou knowledge in the contents of! a Woodrow (48) commented on the basis of his data was likely to vary inversely with On the average, subject+s wi would show smaller gain. sponsible for gains made In his study on progress examples of failures t0 s to a normally distribulted Function.’ However, it was shown that increasin

EA

7

Uweliability of

Many of the investigators did their learning tests ( must be known and they sho ne should not be s as the rel’lability of t gain scores c cause a low interc

not

cite r

Studies did not always use the same measu qain scores, others used total practic t for eat* learning test tlNo tests worked for five trials will the same tests worked for ten periods. learning situation provide an oppsrtu ing to his ability (Smith, 39). of penaking the brighter stu his growth. The more correct resp his i.nitis%score, the fewer test items n9ent. urthermore, the duller student ing the easier items more correctly. score on the easier items, and he wil difficult items. Carlson (2 but he couid not correct for it. brighter students by using a ratio between gross in~proven~c~t a maximum possi .Lffck oj represe tative sample of fe~~~~i~?~ tests.

any coefficients of correlation ma content between barn~ng tests.

ust use his own ju

be a sa~~~~cof lea9

ercentageof

SUCCeSS

with

of motivation distribution.

for unreliability of mc,asures, number of measures of learning, number of trials, e attributed tlx co ~rtant of all, i.e, same for all, and the ex

e was sure vious practice ark_!motivation. uld appear if m&ivation could be made the ent could be made free from the effects of

carefully

istic to expect a correlatiell

agreement

ued low corr+

constructed

from an item

of unity

reasonable requirement would be that the betwc,tin ability and the criteria

JACQUELINE

10

L. RNPIER

measure to reliabbly measure gains from initial studies over a period of a year in grades 7 and correla:ion of intelligence with initial score was .5

formilnce in s In the 7th g d with the learning criteridn .49. In the 12th grade, correlation of intelligence wi was .43 and with the learning criterion .49. owever, he found that the correlation of .Q. with gains using all the items of the initial test were not reliably 1 s than w.ith the criteri measure, but the latter was superior with respect to reliability .93. concluded, “The correlation b,etween . . . scores and gains should be reported with measures (or estimates) of the extent to *whichgains are suitable learn, it must test scores are to be discredited as indices of the a be done with more concern for defensible criteria than has been given to the problem” (41, p. 296) RECENT

RESEARCH

ON INTELLIGENCE

AND LEAR.!l?Ki

IN U.S.A.

As stated earlier, Woodrow’s postulate on the lack of a relation tween intelligence and learning has not fostered much research. The problems it has presented in methodology could account for its unpopularity. Ferguson (13) believes it has been unpopular due to the practical difficulties of finding appropriate learning tasks which will provide reliable measures lof performance on a representative nun subject,!;. In the past decade, there has been only one published study (to the writer’s knowledge) relatina int gence ‘in normal individuals. administered a verbal learnT’his is an investigation by Green (19). ing test consistin g of five parts (Letter bservation, Vowel-Consonant eading Type) to 41 gigit Symbol, Parenthesis Marking, and pupils in If th grade. The; tests were all given in one timed session. Correlations between the subtests ranged from 42 to 58. these low correlations to indicate that the tests tended to ent learning skiBUs.The learning tests correlated 9 with intelligence and with school grades, while the latter cerrela ‘s study did not differ much in design from t and it had many of the same defects, i.e. no report of a reliability coefficient for the learning tests, small number of su jects, lack of variety in learning tasks, and the effects of previous practn The lack of a fresh approach rather than any lack: of interest may be the main stumbling block:. There has been an interesting trend i the measurement of learning of the interest seems ally retarded individuals. of experimental studies ersun’s stimulating review

al subjects were med for s in the earlier studies, gai

e raxher low correlatixrs showe p woukl correlate more highly erceptual-motor learning significantly differentiated mal groups separated according to significant ,diWFerencesbetween th rotary performance, the group wi S r

drawing. A decrease in the with increase in mental age. Comparisons between normal and subnormal sig~nificant fferznce in learning, with the exception of one study isman, 9). ynolds and Stscey (36) compared 108 subnormals with normals in mirror drawing and they found normals to tform at a higher level than subnormals, but al-l groups showed large eq of improvement, wit individual differences being greater among subnormals. llis and Sloan ( 1 1) studied oddity learning in mental defective and normal subjects. The tas was to find a m#arbIe hidden under ~;*f;:e C! three s with 200 trials as a criterion or 20 Successive correct responses. jects with the lowest mental age of 4 years showed the least improvement with practice, a only 15 o/;, of them attained a solution. thers with higher mental ‘ages received negatively accelerated performance curves, increasing in elevation and degree of bow with increase in ental age. The normal subjects attained final performance comparable o the defectives with equivalent mental ages, but the form of the curve lended to differ from those of the subnormalls. he cne study that showed no group differences in measures of learning he compared the performa stimulus general.izatio

v+ere not enough of these children to qualify for the superior group. comparison of the three intelligence groups on number of trials to learn and the numh:r of co ct responses revealed ificant differences between groups. e in the initial lex the lists as well as after one week and one month cf rest. he author conceded that weaknesses in the study coul account kajr her results differing from those re scores which constituted the main distinctio .tween groups were not all easured by the same instrument, but in

alized populations. 00 simple to differentiate beiween retention

when the initial associative

al inclividuals se s on learning in sub herson‘s question (34) is g answered in a his is really not a surprise, since on s with subnormal intelligence to learn as viduals wit 1 normal in;elligcnce. owever, beyond a minimal level of intelligence, differcnccs between individua s of varying intehigence often do not seet~ to make too much differen e in learning certain types of isman, 9; Green, 1’3; herson, 34). Ht may be that end on the type of tasks used differences between intelligence grou as much as any other factor. r4 it may be that different abilities exert %earning. Ferguson [I 3) hypothesizes different efrects at different sta that abilities which transfer a reduce their effect at one stage of e which transfer .u-td produce their learning may be different fro effect at another stage. “This means that individual differences in abilitier which may be functionally related to individual diferences in hformance in rhe early stages of learning a task, may not be functionally related. elated in a difiercnt way, to performance in the later stages” erguson’s hypothesis could account for the fact that a slow learner under certain conditions, may equal or surpass a fast learner in the same situation. t would explain the inconsistencies in many of the learning experiments reported here which showed individual performance little relation to p:rformance a at one stage of Ilearning beari at another stage of learning. one accepts this ex reported lack of relationship between learning and i be due so much to weaknesses of methodology., but it could be caused bv. individual differences in learning. leishman (14) and Some exper i ntal evidence is available from leishman and rnpel (15) who found that the co binztion of abilities which contribute to individual differences later i psychomotor lear seemed to be different from those contributing early ill learning

Fleishman’s most recent study (I important at each stage of prac predict proficiency in difieaent stages of learning. Finally, there are investigators who are view of intelligence as show on intelligence tests, a comprehensive view, the boundaries towards a m t is probably safe to say that the a significant degree not more than a h tellec,tual factors. There are surely more intellectual factors than that” (p. factor analysis, he hopes to uncover more of the hidden fu are important in intellectual adjustment. earnshaw (23) be only assurance of full intelIectua1 sampl is a systematic and gainst every e theory of intelligence t5at will stand u At present there is no such theory, and the content of tests partly by administrative conveniences, partly by analogy wi tests,# and partly by vestiges of past theories. Recant research on intelligence and learning is characterized by a fresh approach to many old and familiar problems. The use of mentally retarded subjects shows promise as there is not the problem of finding sufficiently complex tasks to differenti;\te between abilities, as in the case of normal owever, certain personality factors peculiar to mental1 retardssubjects. position preferences may tion, such as perseveration, dir, uson and the experioffset some of the advantages. rning as well as the ments of Fleishman on individual differences i earnshaw and uilford in broa enLag the base of intelligence ay yield data which will unravel the mysteries coverin the reWan between intelligence and learning. ARY AND CONCl..USIOM

n the absence of complete nowledge of the ma of the intellect, intelligence is o ationally defined as what intellig ce tests measure erationally defined as the ability to or the ability to learn. draw’s review (50) of ex improve with practice. challenged the belief in e inherent relation of intell laboratory an oodrow’e challenging paper di any such conclusion. rimental evidence on the lack of a relationship arning was soundly criticized for such wea restricted sampling, unreliabilit of learning abilities, and a la

encouraging to those primarily responsible for the dtxelopment of intelliliance on the onebocnce and learning ab time intelligence scar has never been 0 often, teachers obselrve wide individu and inconsistencies in performance unsupport der knowledge of intelliventually simplify as well1as enrich. gence and t.he learning process s the teaching process. EFERENCES

1. Bollton, Euri

e relation

of memory

to intelligence.

1. exp. Ps~~lt&

B., Fisher, R. P. and Young, P. I”., Improvement in elementary psychology as related to intelligence. ~s~chol. Bull., 1945,&Z, 27-34. 3.

wis, A.

4. 5.

rake, I ake,

nerd

The iota function.

intelligerrce or problem

J. edrlc. Res., 1.940, 34, 194)~198.

Buros (Ed.), The Fifth easureme/l t and Park. NJ., Gryphon P f the improvability 0.t”fifth grade school children functions. J. educ. Psych& 1927, 18, 547, 55% inary study of some fa:tors d grades in tke beginning c~wrse gen. Bsychol. 1942, 24, 195-209. avighurst, R. J., Herrick, V. E. and Tyler, ltural di#erences. Chicago, University of Chkagd: 9.

ismans

1951. wweralization and retentiw as ernice S., Paired associate learnitig, ,+_ a function of intelligence. Amer. 9. ment. De/k., 1958, 63, 48 l-489.

JACQUELINE

16 10. Ellis,

&J. R., and

Sloan, W., Rotary

L. RAPPER

pINSuit

performance

as a fUnCtiOn Ofm~n~al

age. Percept. mot. Skills, 1957,

7, 267-270. as a function of mental age. J. camp. physik Psychol. 1959, 52, 228-230. _, Barn&t, C. D. and Pryer, M. W., Performance of mental defectives on the mirror drawing iask. percept. mart. Ski!& 195 7, 7, 27 l-274. Ferguson, 6. A., On learning and human ability. Canad. 9. Psychol., 1954, 8, 95-l 12. Flcishman, E. A., Abilities at different stages of practice in rotary pursuit performance. J. exp. Psycho!., 1960, 60, 162-171. and Hempel, W. E., The relation between abilities and improvement with practice in a visual discrimination reaction task. b. ezp. Psychol., 1955, 49, 301-312. French, Ejjzabeth G., The interaction of achievement, motivation and ability in probltrll solving success. J. abnorrn. SOC. B~ychol., 1958, 57, and

11. _

12. 13. 14. 15.

16.

Oddity

-

leaxning

306-309.

17.

18.

19.

20. .. J’1

,a.

I.

Z2. 23. 24.

E., The relation of tests of memory and learning to each other and to general intelligence Itn a highly selected adult group. J. e&c. Psych,& 1928, 19, 601-613. Garrison, K. C., Correlation between intelligence test scores and success in certain rational organization problems. J. nppl. Psychoi., 1928, 12, 621-630. Green, C. W., , The relationship between intelligence as determined by intelligence tests and the abili’ly to learn as determined by performance on learning tests. J. edrtc. Res., 1953, 47, 19Q-200. Guilford, J. P., Creativity. Amer. Psychof., 1953, 5, 444-454. Mali, C. S., Intercorrelations of measures of h?iman learning. Psychol. Rev. 1936, 43, 179-396. Haught, B. F., The interreiations of some higher learning processes. Psychol. Monogr., 1921, 30, No. 139. Hearnshaw, L. S.. Exploring the intellect. Brir. J. Psychol., 195 1, 42, 3 i 5-321. Heese- K. W., A general factor in improvement with practice. Psyrhcvnetrika, 1942, 7, 213-223.

25. ~~okgwrth,

26. Husband,

L. S. and Cobb, M. V., Children clustering at 165 I.Q. and zhildrcn clustering at 146 I.Q. compared for three years in achievemant. Yew-b. ma sot. srud. Edrcc., 1928, 27, 3-33. R. I&!., Intercorrelations among many learning abilities. J. germ. Ps;xhob.,

27.

1939, 55, 353-364.

Intercorrelations among learning abilities. IV. Effect of age md spread of intelligence upon relatiorlships. J. gerwt. Fsychol., 1941, 58, 43 l&134. 28. Johnso~~ 0. .J., A study of the relation between ability to learn and intelligence as measured by tests. J. edrtc., PsychoC., 1923, 14, 540-544. 29. Jordan, A. M., The validation of intelligence tests. J. edrrc. PsychoI., 1923, 14, 34;8-366. cCullough, T. L., Reswick, J. and iioy, I., Studies of word learning in mental defectives. I. Effects of mental level and age. Amer. J. mento Defic., 1955, 60, 133-139. ,

MEASlJRED 3 1. McCullough,

32.

Geoch,

IN

ELLIGENCE

BILITY TO LEARN

1’9

T. L., Reswick, I. and Weissmann, S., Studies of world learning lation to scores on digit repetition of WISC verbal scales. Amer. J. metzt. Defic., 1955, 60, 140-143. J. A., The fidelity of report of normal and subnormal children. The psychology of human learning. New York,

33. 34.

AN

cPhersonp

Marion

YK, A survey of experimental studies of learning in 1s whc~ achieve subnormal ratings on standardized psychometric measures. Amer. J. ttitittl. Lkfic., 1948, 52, 232-254. iles, T. R., Contributions to intelligence testing and the theory of intelligence. 35. Brit. 1. e&c. Psychol., 1957, 27, 153-233. 36. Reynolds, F. and Stacey, C. L., A comparisort of normal and subnormal m mirror drawing. J. gcrzet. Psychoi., 1955, 87, 301-308. osium on intelligence and its measurement. 1. e&c. Ps.ychol., 1921, 12, 123-147, M-216, 271-275. Simrall, Dorothy, Intelligence and the ability to learn. J. Psyclrol., 19~7, 23, s-42. 39.

Smith, II. A., The relationship between intelligence and the learning which results from the use of educational sound motion pictures. /. e&c. Res., 1949, 43, 24 l-249. 40. Spence, R. ‘W. and Townsend, S. A., A comparative study of groups of high and low intelligence in c1i1Gng a maze. b. ~c’rr. Pswl~~l., 19.30, 3, 113-129. 41. Tilton, I. W., Intelligence test scores as indicative of ability SO learn. Educ. psyzhol. Mcasmt.,

194Y, 9, 29 l-296.

42. Thompson,

G. G. and Witryol, S. I&., The relationship between intelligence and motor learning ability as measured by a high relief finger maze. J. Psychoi., 1946, p?, 237-246. 43. Underwood, B. I., Speed of learning and amount retained: a consideration of methodology. Psycho!. B~lf., 1954, 51, 276-282. 44. Willoughby, R. R., Incidental learning. J. educ. Ps~~twi., 1929, 20, 671-682. 45. Woodrow, II., The relation between abil ties and improvement with practice. 1. ed’uc. Psychol., 1938a, 29, 285-230. -. 46. 9 The effect of practice on groups of different initial ability. i’. educ. P~y~*?i
48. 49. . 50.

Interrelations of measures of learning. J. Psychoi., ~940, 10, 49-73. Intelligence and imp*ovement in school subjects. J. educ. Psychol., 3 1945, 36, 155-166. The dbility to learn. Psychf. Rev., 1946, 53, 147-158. 9 ,