Fixed Intelligence and Associated Neuromyths

In schools we talk about ability all the time, we label, we stream, we differentiate based on ability. We measure intelligence, we use CAT tests to predict and identify talent, stating categorically that they can’t be prepared for when they absolutely can be.

When looking at a list of myths that teacher’s believe in Dekker et al’s (2012) study they list the idea of critical periods as a myth – that is that there is a point at which a skill can no longer be learned such as a language. The idea that our brain has reached its intellectual limit at aged 10 – the basis for the 11+ – is known now not to be true and yet our education system (grammar school in particular) is predicated upon this. So where to start?

The concept of intelligence

We have so many words to describe people who we consider ‘intelligent’ – bright, clever, able, academic – we use them to describe people but what exactly do we mean by this. For me intelligence is a narrow concept that is unhelpful, it implies something that is static, that is measurable and fails to encompass the broad range of skills, talents and gifts that individuals bring to the classroom, the ones that can’t be measured on a test such as leadership, kindness, humour, curiosity.

In general intelligence is considered to encompass a broad range of cognitive abilities such as memory, speed of reactions, verbal and spatial reasoning. Standardised IQ (Intelligence Quotient) tests are used to measure intelligence and the score compares the individual with others of the same age. IQ has been thought to be relatively stable throughout an individual’s life time, but research has shown that this just isn’t the case and can vary by as much as 20 points during the teenage years (Ramsden et al. 2011).

What influences intelligence?

Intelligence however you want to define it is in part hereditary – studies suggest that things like reading skills can be attributed to genes, but the environment has a lot more to do with it.

The ever changing brain

We know that the brain has plasticity – that is it can grow new connections, prune old unused connections and can adapt to the shifting environment. I remember the lecture about studies on monkeys that demonstrated that when researchers cut off a finger the area of the brain that controlled that digit didn’t just wither but instead grew projections to enhance dexterity of the fingers that were left. We know that if you lose a limb or a sense the part of the brain that would control that limb/sense is used to compensate for the loss by growing and changing to adapt. Maguire’s famous taxi driver study shows a similar change – the brain (hippocampus in this case) changes due to the skills required to navigate around London.

To me this suggests that intelligence, in an academic sense, is something that we can work on and improve, it is fixed and under the right conditions we can achieve academic success. But what are the circumstances in which we can improve our ‘intelligence’?

Mindset

One theory that stands out for me is that of Growth Mindset (Dweck & colleagues). Her belief is that intelligence is fluid and changing, that natural ability is only the starting point for learning and that any new skill can be acquired and depends on how you approach the task and how much effort you are willing to put into practice, learning, failing and trying again. The research bears this belief out.

Do I think we can all be world class at everything – no, certainly not – and I am sure that is not what Dweck is saying. I would love to be good at tennis or play the piano beautifully, whilst I can do both (badly) and I know if I put time and effort in I could do both better.

Labelling

I guess why I find labelling people as clever or not is that it stays with them for life, we are forever judged on how we faired at school – we even say things like ‘I was no good at maths’ or ‘I wasn’t very good at school’, I hear it all the time. My mum failed her 11+ she still tells me that she isn’t clever, at 11 the education system labelled her a failure and that was, well, a long time ago. I have seen this throughout my teaching career and it is born out in the research literature – when we label children as ‘able’, ‘clever’, ‘bottom set’ they live up or down to our expectations. Rosenthal and Jacobson’s Pygmalion in the classroom is as true today as it was when it was written.

To finish…

I think I could write a thesis on this, I feel quite strongly that IQ tests, CAT tests and exams measure a fraction of a person at a single point in time. When we use SATs results to predict GCSE grades we do children a disservice, when we put pupils into sets they don’t have the opportunity to move beyond the label of the set. Our brains are the most amazing organ and when we use it well, when we are encouraged and supported, everyone is capable of remarkable things!

References

Dekker, Sanne & Lee, Nikki & Howard-Jones, Paul & Jolles, Jelle. (2012). Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions among Teachers. Frontiers in psychology. 3. 429. 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.

Maguire, E. A.; Gadian, D. G.; Johnsrude, I. S.; Good, C. D.; Ashburner, J.; Frackowiak, R. S. J.; Frith, C. D. (2000). “Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers” . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 97(8): 4398–4403. doi: 10.1073/pnas.070039597

Ramsden, S., Richardson, F. M., Josse, G., Thomas, M. S. C., Ellis, C., Shakeshaft, C., Seghier, M. L., & Price, C. J. (2011). Verbal and non-verbal intelligence changes in the teenage brain. Nature, 479(7371), 113–116. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10514

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom.