EDUC 391
Intelligence in Everyday Life
Syllabus
Fall 2008
|
TR 11:00 a.m.-12.15 p.m.
Smith Hall, Room 201
School of Education
University of Delaware
|
|| Objectives
|| Course
Requirements || Grading ||
Writing
Fellows ||
|| Policy
on Cheating || Policy on
Illness ||
|| Quick
Calendar of Assignments || Weekly Schedule
of Reading and Writing ||
|| Required
and Recommended Readings ||
This course is a Freshman Honors Colloquium. As such, it emphasizes class
discussion and requires considerable writing. The aim is to develop your
thinking and writing skills while sharing an intellectual adventure into a
sometimes contentious scientific arena--differences in human intelligence.
We will focus on questions of most relevance to daily life in modern
society. Is intelligence just a narrow academic skill, as some critics claim,
or does it provide practical advantages in everyday affairs? What is life like
for people of low, average, or high intelligence? And just what is intelligence
anyway, and why do people (even siblings) differ so much in intelligence level?
This course examines old discoveries as well as new surprises in the scientific
study of intelligence. We will also closely examine various IQ tests to help
understand why the mental differences they measure have practical value in
virtually all arenas of social life, but especially education, work, and
health. There is a wide dispersion in intelligence within all societies, so we
will ponder and debate the vexing challenges that such variation poses for
democratic societies such as ours.
We will carefully distinguish the scientific search for facts (what “is”)
from the moral and political debates over how we should respond to them (what
“ought to be”). This is very important. Although scientists lack complete
understanding of the facts, they look at the quality of evidence for competing
explanations in order to decide—provisionally—which is closer to the truth.
Such contests are not decided by what we want to be true, but by what the total
body of evidence says. This is a science class, so I demand that all claims
about facts be supported by evidence and logic, not wishes and presumptions.
How citizens and policy makers ought
to deal with the facts is an entirely different matter, however. There are
always different possible choices, and citizens and policy makers will
inevitably disagree about which ones are best, depending on their own interests
and values. Science can help us understand what our choices are but it can
never tell us which to choose. That is what the democratic process is
for—negotiating our choices. I will therefore encourage you to think about
alternative social policies for dealing with the empirical realities we
discuss.
- There will be three papers.
You will rewrite the first two. Rewriting is more then just a cosmetic
touch-up. It involves rethinking, too. Usually lots of it. A Writing
Fellow will be available to assist you with all papers, including the
rewrites. See the schedule below for when papers and rewrites will be
assigned and due. All papers and rewrites must be typed, double-spaced,
proofread, and stapled—and
pages numbered. You can use any standard bibliographic style for
your references.
All three papers will involve different aspects of
a larger research project, to be explained in class. (See also Starting Library Research).
- In addition to the graded
assignments, there will be daily pass-fail
writing assignments based on the readings for that day. I much prefer
but do not require that these assignments be typed. Pass-fail assignments
for a particular day are always finalized by the end of the prior class.
- You will be expected to
attend class, have done your readings, and regularly participate in class
discussion. Your participation grade is enhanced by a willingness to take
intellectual risks in class, asking good questions, facilitating discussion
among your classmates, and bringing pertinent news articles and
observations to class. Being prepared also includes bringing the day's
readings to class, because we will sometimes turn to them during our
discussions.
Table of
Contents
- 80% Papers
- 25% Rethink/Rewrite 1
- Note: You must turn
in the first versions of Papers 1 and 2 on time, or I will subtract
points from your grade for the rewrite.
- 30% Rethink/Rewrite 2
- 25% Paper 3
- 20% Class participation
(doing pass-fail writing assignments, attending and being prepared for
class everyday, being a fully contributing member of your research team,
raising good questions in class).
- I grade using the plus-minus
system.
This course, like other Freshmen Honors Colloquia,
participates in the Honors Program's Writing Fellow Program. Writing Fellows
are UD undergraduates who have taken a special course in peer tutoring of
writing.
- Fellows come from many
majors, and are not intended to know the subject matter. They do not
comment on the content of your papers. Rather, they work with you,
one-on-one, to help you improve your writing. (I will give you feedback on
the relevance, accuracy, and completeness of the content.) Fellows do not
edit or correct your papers. Rather, they help you formulate, organize,
and support your ideas, among other things mentioned below. Our objective
is not just for you to end up with a better paper, but to become a better,
more self-aware writer!
- Here is the fellowing process we follow in this class.
- Paper 1:
- You will turn in two
copies of your paper, one to me and one to your writing fellow. You will
also bring with you a completed Writer
Response form for your fellow. It gives the fellow helpful
information when going through your paper.
- NOTE: Your first
version is not a "draft!" It is your first best effort. If
it's not, then you are wasting my time and the fellow’s, and you are
less likely to end up with a satisfactory result.
- One week after you
turn in the paper, you will get feedback on it from the writing
fellow. Fellows do not give any
grades.
- You will have one
week to rethink and revise your paper. During this time you will meet
for a one-half hour conference with your fellow to discuss how you want
to revise your paper. You will turn in two copies of your second
version.
- The conference for
this paper is mandatory, and you must notify the fellow ahead of time,
if possible, when you cannot keep your appointment. You must then
reschedule it.
- I will return your
revision to you in one week, with feedback and a grade.
- You may seek advice
from either the writing fellow or me, or both, anytime during this
process.
- Paper 2:
- Exactly the same
process as for Paper 1.
- Paper 3:
- There is no
mandatory conference, but I strongly encourage you to meet with your
writing fellow because you will not be rewriting this paper.
- Fellows use a variety of
practices to help students with their writing, depending on the stage of
the writing process and students' needs. For example, they can help you
- brainstorm thoughts
for a paper and interpret the writing assignment
- revise your drafts by
helping you with organization, tone, the thesis statement, proper
citation, and the like
- use
a variety of stylistic techniques to polish near-final drafts.
- Writing fellows are a
wonderful and rare resource. Make good use of this opportunity.
·
Please familiarize yourself with the University's statement on academic dishonesty
in the Student Code of Conduct, especially as it pertains to plagiarism.
- I prosecute cheating and I have won all
cases so far.
Table of
Contents
If you have a contagious illness, please do not come to class. Stay home and
rest. Just let me know as soon as you can why you will miss, or have missed,
class. Your classmates and I can help you catch up.
Clicking on the date in the calendar will take you to that date's readings
and P/F writing assignment. (Clicking on the day in the Weekly Schedule,
further below, will also take you to that day's assignment.)
Weekly Schedule of Reading and Writing
I. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF INTELLIGENCE AND IQ TESTING
·
Cartoon
Day 2
(9/9) Gap between public perceptions and the science on “intelligence”
- ABC World News Tonight with
Peter Jennings, “The American Agenda,” part 1, ____ (in class)
- “Mainstream Science on
Intelligence,” Wall Street Journal, December
13, 1994, p. A16 (handed out in class)
- Neisser ("Knowns and
unknowns"(first and last pages only)
II. WHAT DO INTELLIGENCE TESTS REALLY MEASURE?
Day 3 (9/11) A look
inside some IQ tests
- Deary's
Intelligence, pp. 1-12, "Dataset 1" (also the prior 5
pages if you don't know what correlations are)
- A
checklist for assessing Gardner's intelligences—take it yourself, then
bring to class
- In class, you will examine
the widely-used IQ test that Deary describes (the WAIS)
Day 4 (9/16) Public controversy over the meaning and
measurement of intelligence
- Jensen's Straight Talk,
pp. ix-xiv, 1-13
- Think Tank video on The
Bell Curve, part 1 (shown in class)
Day 5 (9/18) Test validity: What do test scores really
mean? (education as the focus)
- Jensen's Straight
Talk, pp. 19-20, 26-34,
50-51. Pages 21-26, 42-50 are only recommended.
Day 6 (9/23) Intelligence as g (the general
mental ability factor)
- Jensen's Straight
Talk, pp. 52-73
- Deary's
Intelligence, pp. 13-16 (Dataset 2)
III. HOW MUCH, AND WHY, DOES INTELLIGENCE MATTER IN EVERYDAY
LIFE?
Day 7 (9/25) Complexity as the key to g's
importance in everyday life, I: Jobs as mental tests
- Gottfredson's "Why g matters,"
read pp. 79-80, 87-92 carefully and skim 81-86 well enough to explain the
main points highlighted in the article's subheadings
- Deary's
Intelligence, pp. 91-99 (Dataset 10)
- Handout on What is g?
Day 8 (9/30) Complexity as the key to g's
importance in everyday life, II: Job tasks as mental test items
Day 9 (10/2) Daily self-maintenance as a complex job:
"Functional literacy" (bills, order forms, bus schedules, maps, etc.)
and “health literacy” (prescription labels, prep directions for lab test, appt.
slips)
Day 10
(10/7) Chronic diseases and accident
prevention as cognitively demanding jobs
Try this! How many hazards can you find in this picture?
Bring it to class
Day 11 (10/9)
Life chances and challenges along
different ranges of the IQ bell curve
·
Gottfredson's "Why g matters," pp.
116-125.
·
Masten ("Resilence in children at risk")
·
Lunsky & Reiss ("Health needs of women with
mental retardation")
DUE: Paper
1
Day 12
(10/14) Mental retardation
- Koegel & Edgerton ("Black 'six-hour
retarded children' as adults")
- Kenney
("When one falters...")
- Matarazzo ("Degrees of mental
retardation")
- NBC video ("The
struggle to be normal - fitting in"--in class)
Day 13
(10/16) Giftedness
IV. BIOLOGICAL & CULTURAL
CORRELATES OF INTELLIGENCE
Day 14
(10/21) Homo sapiens’ big brain
- TBA
- Adams
("The evolution of idiots" --very short, very funny piece
from a Dilbert book on the trouble that smart people create for everyone
else)
Day 15
(10/23) Young and old: Or, the rise
and fall of raw mental power
·
DUE:
Paper 1 rewrite
Day 16
(10/28) g and speed of simple
mental processing
- Eysenck
(Chapter
4: "Intelligence, reaction time, and inspection time")
Day 17
(10/30) Brain correlates of g
- Eysenck
(Chapter
5: "The biological basis of intelligence")
- Deary's
Intelligence, pp. 43-49 (Dataset 6)
- Everyday efforts to raise
intelligence nutritionally--not required
ELECTION DAY
11/4
Day 18
(11/6) Genetics of intelligence I:
Heritability
Day 19
(11/11) Discussion of class
findings
Due: Paper 2
Day 20
(11/13)
Genetics of intelligence II: Two big surprises
- Eysenck
(Chapter
3: "Nature and nurture: The great partnership")
- Deary's
Intelligence, pp. 81-85 (Dataset 8)
- Murray
("Brains, rather than...")
- Worksheet
on shared and non-shared environmental effects--bring to class
Day 21
(11/18) Genetics of intelligence
III: Two big myths
- Rowe,
pp. 133-146, 153-155
V. SOCIETAL CHALLENGES POSED
BY DIFFERENCES IN INTELLIGENCE
Day 22
(11/20) Cultural bias in testing:
How much, if any?
Day 23
(11/25) Magnitude and implications
of group differences I: Race and class
- Jensen's Straight
Talk, pp. 191-196, 206-212
(pp. 213-223 recommended)
- Rough rendition of
differences in bell curves for races,
sexes, and social classes.
- Different views of whether
we should research or talk about racial differences in ability--not
required
Day 24
(12/2) Magnitude and implications of
group differences II: Sex
Due: Rewrite 2
Day 25
(12/4) The
tradeoff between equality and excellence
Day 26 (12/9) Different views on how society should deal
with differences in intelligence
Finals day
(TBA) Relevance of intelligence
differences to social policy
·
Team recommendations
Paper
3: DUE: Friday, Dec. 12, in my office or mailbox by 4:00 p.m.
Note: Some readings may be deleted and others added during the
course of the semester. The readings (and pass-fail assignments) for any
specific class will be considered final at the time of the previous
class.
- Required books available
at UD bookstore
- Gardner, J. W.
(1984). Excellence: Can we be equal and excellent too? (revised edition). You will read most of this little
book. {Gardner's Excellence}
- Deary, I. (2000). Intelligence: A very short
introduction. Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press. You will read several chapters of this. {Deary's Intelligence}
- All other required
readings are available online (see below).
Table of
Contents
- Required and recommended
articles (all online, some requiring the class password: 6335)—plus some
extras
- Adams,
Scott. (1996). Pp. 6-9 in The Dilbert
Principle. New
York: Harper Collins.
- Affeldt,
J., & Paterson, E. (1994, November 17). I.Q. tests are
designed for white middle-class children. Oakland Tribune,
p. A18.
- Benbow, C.P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Pp. 146-148 in Academic
precocity: Aspects of its development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press.
- Boldt, D. (1998, Sept 19). Casting a new
thoughtful light on the racial gap in test scores. The Inquirer.
- Bornstein,
M. H. (1994). Infancy. Pp. 570-575 in R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.
- Bouchard,
T. J., Jr. (1997). Whenever the twain shall meet. The Sciences,
pp. 52-57.
- Davis,
B.D. (1980). Three specters: Dangerous products, powers or ideas. Pp. 3-8
in A. Milunsky & G.J. Annas
(eds.), Genetics and the law II. New York: Plenum.
- Edgerton,
R. B. (1981). Another look at culture and mental retardation. Pp. 309-320
in M. J. Begab, H.C. Haywood, & H.L.
Garber. (Eds.), Psychosocial influences in retarded performance. Vol.
I: Issues and theories in development. Baltimore: University Park
Press.
- Eysenck,
H. J. (1998). Intelligence: A new look. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
- Chap.
3. "Nature and Nurture: The great partnership" (pp.
29-47).
- Chap.
4. “Intelligence, reaction time, and inspective time” (pp. 49-60).
- Chap.
5. “The biological basis of intelligence” (pp. 61-80)
- Fowler,
S. (1996, March 1996) "Test helps teams make smart picks." The
Charlotte Observer, pp. 1A, 15A.
- Gardner,
H. (1998, Winter). A multiplicity of
intelligences. Scientific American Presents, 9 (4), 19-23,
51.
- Gottfredson, L. S.
(1998, Winter). The
general intelligence factor. Scientific American Presents, 9
(4), 24-29, 51.
- Glazer,
N. (1994, October 31). The lying game. The New Republic,
15-16.
- Goo, S.
K. (1998). "Steering wheels are lap desks in scary mobile
offices." Wall Street Journal, September 23, p. B1.
- Gottfredson, L. S.
(2002).
"Everyday effects of health literacy." Excerpt from g:
Highly general and highly practical. A chapter in R. J. Sternberg &
E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The
general intelligence factor: How general is it? Erlbaum.
- Gottfredson,
L. S., & Deary, I. J. (2004). Intelligence predicts health and
longevity, but why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1),
1-4.
- Grenier, R. (1994, October 19). The ongoing
irrelevance of IQ. Washington
Times, p. A19.
- Herrnstein,
R., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and
class structure in American life, Chapter 21: "The way we are
headed". New
York: Free Press.
- Holewa ,
L. (1998, Oct. 16). High-tech parking meters prove too taxing. News
Journal. p. A4.
- Holloway
M. (1998, Winter). Seeking "smart"
drugs. Scientific American Presents, 9 (4), 24-29, 51.
- Jensen, A. R. (1998).
The g factor: The science of mental ability. Greenwich CT:
Praeger.
- Kaus,
M.
(“End of equality" article)
- Kaus,
M. (1992, June 22).
The end of equality. Excerpt in The
New Republic.
- Kenney,
E. L. (1997, November 3). When one falters, the other is there. News
Journal, pp. A1, A8.
- Koegel,
P., & Edgerton, R. B. (1984). Black "six-hour
retarded children" as young adults. Pp. 145-171 in R. B. Edgerton
(Ed.), Lives in process: Mildly retarded adults in a large city. Washington, DC: American Association on
Mental Deficiency.
- Laycock, F. (1979). Terman's
studies. Pp. 38-48 in Gifted children.
Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.
- Lindberger, U., & Baltes, P. B. (1994). Aging
and intelligence. Pp. 52-66 in R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.
- Loehlin, J.C. (1992). Should we do research on
race differences in intelligence? Intelligence, 16 , 1-4.
- Lunsky, Y., & Reiss, S. (1998, March). Health
needs of women with mental retardation and development disabilities
(Letter). American Psychologist, 53, (3), p.319.
- Maller, J. B. (1933). Vital indices and their
relation to psychological and social factors. Human Biology, 5,
94-121.
- Masten, A. S. & Coatesworth,
J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable
environments. American Psychologist, (53), 205-220.
- Matarazzo, J. D. (1972). Weschler's
measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore, MD:
Williams & Wilkins.
- Murray,
C. (1997, May 25). Brains, rather than family background, determine how
well our children will do in later life, says author of The Bell Curve
Charles Murray. London
Sunday Times.
- Sample
data on the heritability of attitudes and life events
- Seligman, D. (1994). Chapter
6 (Slipping: How intelligence declines with age") in A
question of intelligence: The IQ debate in America.
New York:
Citadel Press.
- Schofield,
J. W. (1982). Pp. 84-92 in Black and white in school: Trust, tension,
or tolerance? Praeger.
- Seligman, D. (1994).
Chapter 1 ("What
it's like to take an IQ test") in A
question of intelligence: The IQ debate in America. New York:
Citadel Press.
- Seligman, D.
(1998, April 20). Gender and brains II. Forbes, pp. 52.
- Seligman, D. (1998, April 6). Gender mender.
Forbes, pp. 72.
- Shweder, R.A. (1991, March 17). Dangerous
thoughts. [Review of In search of human nature, by C. N. Degler. New York: Oxford University]. New York
Times Book Review, pages 1, 30, 31, 35. {ER}
- Simonton,
D. K. (1994). Chapter 8 ("The importance of intelligence") in Greatness:
Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford,
pp. 216-246.
- Thurow, R. "Duh...NFL players really aren't
so dumb." The Wall Street Journal, April 19, 1996, p. B1.
- Weissglass, J. (1998, April 15). The SAT:
Public-spirited or preserving privilege? Education Week, 44-45.
- Winner,
E. (1996). Pp. 1-43 in Gifted
children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic.
Table
of Contents
Linda S. Gottfredson
219b Willard Hall
School of Education
College of Human Services, Education, and
Public Policy
University of Delaware
Newark, DE
19716
(302) 831-1650 (phone)
(302) 831-6058 (fax)
gottfred@udel.edu
© URL= www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/intel/index.html
This page was last modified on 02/11/08.