Psychology, sociology, and education literature
seem to be full of references that weave a web of circumstantial
evidence indicating that human interaction and academic achievement
are correlated. Such a connection, if proven, would have a profound impact
on our ideas of education and academic categorization, for intellectual
development through human interaction and socialization implies that forces
outside of traditional education and evaluation determine ability.
The most compelling evidence that suggests
a connection between environment and intellectual development appeared
in the August, 1967 edition of Redbook Magazine.1 Entitled
"The Case of the Wandering IQs," this article chronicled the Skeels-Skodak-Dye
experiements which set out to shed light on whether intelligence could
be influenced by environment and socialization.
Two young psychologists, who had, at an orphanage,
categorized a couple of children as hopelessly retarded, ran into the children
by accident approximately eight months later and noticed a complete personality
turnabout. Testing these children, they found out that they had been transferred
to an adult facility catering to retarded people. Upon closer inspection
the two psychologists noticed that the orphanage offered only basic care
with minimal interaction, while at the adult facility the
two children had been "adopted" by adult inmates who played and talked
with the children on a daily basis, and, in general, gave them the level
of attention and care a normal child would receive in a home environment.
Acting on a hunch, the two psychologists, with the help of a willing bureaucrat,
had other "hopelessly retarded" children transferred to the adult facility
on some particular ruse. To their astonishment, the results of the totally
unplanned "original experiment" were replicated. The children who were
transferred showed remarkable gains within two years time. When these findings
were presented by
the young psychologists before a symposium of their peers, they were
laughed off the podium and banished to unimportant, bureaucratic jobs.
One colleague derisively mocked them as inventors of a wandering IQ from
which this fascinating article derived its name.
The notes on the original experiment were
lost or filed away, while the defrocked psychologists languished in exile
for close to 25 years. A young professor at the University of Chicago,
however, stumbled onto their long forgotten work and pleaded with them
to conduct a followup of their original experiment. Despite a certain reluctance,
they agreed. But they really didn't expect to be able to find any of the
13 original subjects after 25 years. Astounding as it may seem, over three
years time, under grueling conditions and mounting expense, they were able
to track down all the subjects. Even more astounding, they found that all
of these "hopelessly retarded" children had grown up to live normal and
productive lives. Some even made it to college and became professionals.
The longitudinal study, started in 1939 and
completed in 1966, seems to provide compelling evidence that environment
and socialization have an immense impact on intellectual development. What
made the experiment even more bizarre was that the psychologists had constructed
a control group which stayed in the orphanage. Follow-up studies of this
control group showed a
permanent intellectual stunting, and no member of this control group
became an independent, productive adult.
It's hard to imagine the shock on the part
of the psychologists as their 27-year-old research finally came to a conclusion.
The evidence seemed almost incontrovertible; nevertheless, this landmark
case was relegated to the general interest section of a popular magazine.
I was personally moved by the account. I have
recorded it and listened to it many times, and I feel the study has implications
for education today.
IQ, while often touted as an intelligence test,
I feel is more of a measurement of achievement, and not necessarily the
ability to learn. Studies have shown that college graduates tend to
have higher IQs than high school graduates, and college seniors tend to
test higher than college freshmen. Furthermore, a study once showed that
college graduates three years out of college tested lower than college
seniors, indicating that "learned knowledge" fresh in one's mind had an
effect on intelligence test results. Even if these findings are skewed,
individual IQ tests fluctuate with each testing--does this mean the individual's
intelligence varies from testing to testing?
Rather, the Skeels-Skodak-Dye experiments
indicate that environment can radically influence both intellectual and
academic achievement, and that intellectual potential is not genetically
determined. My reading has done nothing to change my opinion. Scimecca
(1980) is full of references to the social interaction-achievement connection.
"Lower-class families are usually larger, and lower class children often
start school verbally disadvantaged because of their limited contact with
adults,"2 he proclaims. He also states that, "another
important contribution to academic achievement is a high level of parent-child
interaction...."3
Ray Rist (1970) also lends support
to the self-fulfilling aspect of the "nurture thesis" when he cites,..."differential
treatment was accorded to the two groups in the classroom, with the group
designated as 'fast learners' receiving a majority of the teaching time,
reward directed behavior, and attention from the teacher. Those designated
as 'slow learners' were taught infrequently, subjected to more frequent
control-oriented behavior, and recived little, if any, supportive behavior
from their teacher."4 Scimecca (1980) further attacks the nature
or genetic argument when he cites that "IQ scores of children do not correlate
with the scores of their parents."5
Perhaps Joanna Ryan (1972) argued
it the best when she stated that the notion of genetically determined potential
ability "involves the notion of ability that is characteristic of an individual
prior to any interaction with the environment, and thus independent of
any social or specific educational influences."6 Demaine
(1981) claims that the problem with the genetic notion, and the reason
why no amount of specific labours can provide the means of measurement
of genetically determined potential is that potential is necessarily expressed
in actual behavior.7
A further example can be seen in Japanese
and Chinese children. Although there is no genetic reason to believe they
are superior, they consistently outperform American kids in IQ and other
performace tests (Scimecca, 1980), (Vogel, 1979),
(Reischauer, 1977). While many explanations have been proferred, it
is a given fact that Asians and Asian-Americans place
great emphasis on parent-child interaction. The time Asians personally
spend relating to their children exceeds that of their
American counterparts. I, being a teacher in a Chinese country, can
personally attest to this.
Closer to home, James Block (1971) has documented
that mastery learning, with a higher emphasis on teacher-student interaction,
produces higher achievement than mass education. In additon, teachers from
several American school districts, such as Liverpool, New York,
have publicly expressed a belief that students from home environments tend
to outproduce students from daycare environments, where child-adult interaction
is less predictable (Susan Wronsky, personal communication), (Marguerite
Michaels, 1985).
While no amount of research can conlusively
prove a thesis, the literature begun by Skeels-Skodak-Dye and continuing
up to today, tends to corroborate the influence of socialization in learning.
So why haven't schools been eager to acknowledge
and learn from this? A partial answer can be seen in the bureaucratic nature
of schools and the implications of the findings. If social interaction
and environment are so crucial to intellectual development, it would imply
that formal schooling or mass education as we know it might not be as important
as first thought to child development. This would further erode the power
and prestige that schools have traditionally enjoyed in our society. Hence,
a powerful and real reason surfaces (if you believe in conflict theory)
for schools to downplay the findings I have cited .
Rather, I would propose an alternate theory--one
which rejects the notion that a state administered institution can be the
sole conduit to intellectual maturity. Schools must work more closely with
parents in educating children. A loose PTA-bureaucratic relationship simply
won't suffice. Liberal arts-humanist subjects much be couched in a values
clarification approach--broad issues which can be explored and discussed
with parents. Vocational and hard science subjects should be taught within
a framework of smaller classes, more teacher-student interaction, and a
greater emphasis on "hands on" or simulation activities.
Research indicates that smaller classes lead
to better performance (probably because of increased student-teacher interaction),
and while critics argue that compensatory education works in the short
term but not in the long term, I would argue that compensatory programs
such as Head Start and mastery learning were successful, but simply didn't
sustain success because the students were mainstreamed into the same stale,
mass-education classroom that has proven over and over again to be a failure.
A school system which recognizes and encourages
development outside the school, and which tries to foster a socially dynamic
environment within the school is, to me, the only alternative. Unfortunately,
this commitment would entail a greater dollar investment and a reduction
in the schools' power base, both which appear to my untrained eye, to be
unacceptable in the present system.
FOOTNOTES
1. Bernard Asbell, "The Case of the Wandering IQs," Redbook
Magazine, August 1967, pp.32,
115-118.
2. Joseph A. Scimecca, Education and Sociology. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1980, p.37.
3. Ibid., p.39
4. Ray C. Rist, "Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling
Prophecy in Ghetto
Education," Harvard Educational Review, 40 (1970), pp. 72-73.
5. Joseph A. Scimecca, Education and Sociology, p. 158.
6. Joanna Ryan, "IQ--The Illusion of Objectivity," in K. Richardson and
D. Spears (eds),
race, Culture and Intelligence. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972,
p. 41.
7. Jack Demaine, Contemporary Theories in the Sociology of Education.
London: MacMillan, 1981, p.112.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Asbell, Bernard. "The Case of the Wandering IQs." Redbook
Magazine, (August, 1967), pp.32, 115-118.
Block, James H. Mastery Learning: Theory and Practice. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.
Bloom, Benjamin S. Every Kid Can: Learning for Mastery. Washington:
College University Press, 1973.
Demaine, Jack. Contemporary Theories in the Sociology of Education.
London: MacMillan, 1981, p 112.
Michaels, Marguerite. "Who's Raising Our Children?" Parade Magazine,
(July 14, 1985), p. 11.
Reischauer, Edwin O. The Japanese. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press,
1977.
Rist, Ray C. "Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling
Prophecy in Ghetto
Education." Harvard Educational Review, 40 (1970), pp. 72-73.
Ryan, Joanna. "IQ--The Illusion of Objectivity." In K. Richardson and D.
Spears (eds.), Race, Culture and
Intelligence. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972, p.41.
Scimecca, Joseph A. Education and Sociology. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1980.
Vogel, Ezra F. Japan as Number One: Lessons for America. Cambridge
MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.