Robert Conley
Fall, 2000
Dr.
Marianne Dove
Reflections on the
Effectiveness of Triarchic Teaching and Assessment
Robert Sternberg, in his Triarchic Theory of Intelligence (Sternberg, R.
J. (2000 Spring). The Effectiveness of Triarchic Teaching and Assessment , Retrieved
October 21, 2000, from NRC/GT database on the World Wide Web:http://www.Gifted.ucon.edu/indextxt.html)
postulates that abilities are not fixed, but rather, flexible.
He believes that intelligence results from information processing being
applied to experience for the purposes of adaptation to, shaping of, and
selection of environments. Intelligence
can be formed like any other expertise. Combining
the idea that learners must learn a problem solving cycle and use three kinds of
thinking, Sternberg (Yale University) and his colleagues, Pamela Clinkenbeard
(University of Wisconsin), Michel Ferrari (University of Toronto), and Bruce
Torff (Hofstra University) did a study using this theory on gifted students as
well as regular education students in order to test their hypothesis.
By teaching to the three kinds of thinking and laying groundwork for the
problem-solving model, student achievement should rise and qualities of
education improve.
The problem solving cycle mentioned three steps.
First one must identify the problems to be addressed.
Second comes the allocation of resources in order to solve the problem.
Third comes the formulation of strategies for solving the problems.
All students make a determination whether their work is complete or needs
improvement. The distinction
between average students and gifted comes in the degree to which they use the
three kinds of thinking needed to problem solve.
According to the triarchic theory and its idea that intelligence can be
formed, three kinds of thinking are essential for true intelligence and problem
solving and giftedness shows through in the degree to which a student uses the
levels of thought.
The first level of thinking is analytical which occurs when the
components are applied to relatively familiar types of problems.
Words such as analyze, evaluate, judge, compare and contrast and critique
describe this level of thinking. On
a base human level everyone performs these functions on a daily basis.
Second is creative thinking. This
occurs when information processing is applied to relatively novel types of
problems. People who create,
invent, discover, explore, suppose, and imagine use these skills.
Third is practical thinking when information processing is applied to
highly contextualized, everyday problems. It
involves people who apply, use, utilize, and implement.
According to research conducted by this group, it was possible to improve
thinking on all levels through instructional intervention. And student
achievement can be improved when the triarchic theory is applied.
This research was conducted in a variety of grades, in regular
classrooms, and using the regular teachers.
Students were taught in all three ways (analytical, creative, and
practical) as well as for memory. Units
included science, social studies, and reading in a variety of grades.
The studies were conducted with the idea that teachers as well as
students needed to be exposed to the three levels of thinking and the problem
solving methods.
The results of the research showed that when taught with the triarchic
mode in mind students scores improved and teacher behavior changed.
Students responded better to materials presented because of the challenge
it presented and teachers were able to expand their horizons beyond the
memory-based curriculum taught in many classrooms across America.
Before implementation of this program, teachers tended to rely on memory
based questions and very few, if any analytical, creative, or practical
activities. After intervention,
teachers increased the numbers of higher level thinking skills activities.
Student interest peaked with surveys showing 35% liked the activities
very much, 51% liked the activities, 10% did not care much one way or the other,
2% disliked the activities, and 25 hated the activities.
Overall, gains tended to be significant.
In putting this theory into practice Sternberg and his associates proved
that using higher level thinking skills would increase student progress and ease
teacher stress in lesson preparation. The
research tended to emphasize what many teachers have known for years. If you make the material more accessible to students and
increase the thinking level of the questions presented to students, they will
rise to the level of expectation.
This research was interesting in that it brought up a number of good
points but also raised many questions that were left unanswered.
One of the first things this paper pointed to was something teachers have
known for years. Effective teaching methods do allow for student success and
increased cognitive skills. Challenging
the brain, which is a muscle, will cause it to be exercised and growth will
occur. Good teachers are aware of
this concept and the research reinforced this view.
Using nontraditional questioning and creating an atmosphere of creative
thinking raise the bar in educational expectations.
The research is good to see and might cause a change to occur in the
classroom were it not for two things. First,
legislators tend to accept testing materials designed by non-educators as the
criteria by which the progress of students should be marked.
Much of this testing is mandated by the states and bases the pass/fail
analysis on low level, fact based questions and not higher level questions.
This is, in part, due to the need for a quick, easy rubric upon which to
gauge progress. Since a pen and paper test cannot easily measure creativity
and three-dimensional thinking, the skills taught in the schools tend to be
geared toward those types of questions. There
is such a pressure upon the teachers to have students perform well on those
tests that many educators teach to the tests instead of teaching upper level
thinking skills.
Secondly, theorists teach many teacher prep programs in undergraduate
school with little or no lower level teaching experience.
Therefore, many would be teachers are not prepared for the reality they
will be facing upon being drafted into the classroom.
If college students were exposed to more materials like the triarchic
theory, and were exposed to it on a daily basis in their own classes, these
proven methods of teaching might be perpetuated into classroom after classroom.
Teachers are not exposed to higher level thinking skills even in
undergraduate college courses. This
creates a situation wherein the multiple choice – short essay method of
determining grades is inbred into teachers and must be unlearned in order to
feel comfortable with methods such as the triarchic theory.
It
is good to see research that tends to support the use of methods such as this in
the classroom, not only for gifted students but also for regular classroom
students. Hopefully, there will be
more use of such methods in the classroom in the future so that the trend will
infiltrate into the undergraduate world
Robert Conley
Dr. Dove
Fall, 2000
