In tonight's reading, there was an interesting quote explaining test content and its accuracy on reflecting true intelligence: "Intelligence tests measure how quickly people can solve relatively unimportant problems making as few errors as possible, rather than measuring how people grapple with relatively important problems, making as many productive errors as necessary with no time factor" (Blum, 1979).
I think that this brings up a valid argument because it goes back to what we talked about on the SAT. Students who demonstrated a lot of intelligence in terms of EQ and having the merit to overcome obstacles didn't always do as well on the SAT. However, this does not mean that they are not intelligent. What it might mean is that they aren't as strong at taking tests, or they could not prepare as well.
He then argues that academics and intelligence tests do not accurately measure someone's ability to successfully handle real life situations that require intellectual activity. I agree with this, because a lot of times success comes from hard work and being able to have all the traits of EQ, like motivation, confidence, and good skills with others. I don't think that one type of intelligence is more important than the other, just that tests should not completely determine one's intelligence.
What do others think about the validity of tests?
In some ways, I would have to agree that tests do not accurately measure intelligence. There are many different forms of intelligence and tests seem to measure only the factual information, not the skills a person has. Good blog.
ReplyDelete