. Educational Studies Some of our s

. Educational Studies

Some of our studies have looked at creative as well as practical abilities, especially in educational settings. Consider some of our main studies (see also Sternberg & Lubart 1995).

4.1. The Triarchic Aptitude-treatment Interaction Study

A measure was developed to assess the components of the triarchic theory. The Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT; Sternberg 1993) consists of three content domains (verbal, quantitative and figural) crossed with three domains of mental processing (analytical, creative and practical). The three domain of processing reflect the sub-theories outlined above. Analytical questions address the ability to learn from context and reason inductively (i.e. the relation of intelligence to the internal world).

Creative questions address the ability to cope with novelty (i.e. the relation of intelligence to experience). And practical questions address the ability to solve real-world, everyday problems (i.e. the relation of intelligence to the external world). There are three analytical subtests of the STAT, one for each content area (verbal, quantitative and figural). Analytical-verbal abilities are measured in the STAT by 388 Robert J. Sternberg assessing the ability to learn from context. Vocabulary is viewed as a proxy for the ability to pick up information from relevant context (see Sternberg 1987). The analytical-quantitative consists of items that measure inductive reasoning ability in the numerical domain. The analytical-figural items similarly measure inductive reasoning ability with either figure classification or figure analogy problems. In the figure classification, the examinee must indicate which figure does not belong with the others. The creative portion of the STAT also consists of three subtests (verbal, quantitative and figural). The creative-verbal questions require counterfactual reasoning and attempt to assess the ability to think in relatively novel ways. In the creative-quantitative questions, symbols are used in place of certain numbers requiring the examinee to make a substitution. The creative-figural items require the examinee to complete a series in a domain separate from the one in which they inferred the completion rule.

The practical portion of the STAT is designed to assess the ability to apply knowledge to problems with practical relevance. Practical-verbal items require the examinee to answer everyday inferential reasoning problems. Practical-quantitative items require the examinee to reason quantitatively with practical everyday problems of the kind he or she might face in everyday life. Items in the practical-figural portion require the ability to plan a route efficiently, given the information in a map or diagram. In addition, there is a performance component to the STAT, consisting of three essay items, one each stressing analytical, creative and practical thinking. In the current version, the analytical problem requires students to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of having pohce or security guards in a school building. The creative problem requires students to describe how they would reform their school system to produce an ideal one. The practical problem requires students to specify a problem in their life, and to state three practical solutions for solving it. Essays are scored for analytical, creative and practical qualities, respectively, by trained raters.

In a pilot use of the STAT (Sternberg & Clinkenbeard 1995), a variety of abihty tests were administered to 64 participants. The other tests used were the Terman Concept Mastery Test (primarily a test of crystallized abilities), the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (a verbal test of critical thinking), the Cattell Culture Fair Test of g (primarily a test of fluid abilities), a homemade test of insight problems (adapted from Sternberg 1986). Respective correlations of the STAT with these tests were, for the analytical 0.49,0.50, 0.50 and 0.47 (all significant); for the creative, 0.43, 0.53, 0.55 and 0.59 (all significant); and for the practical 0.21, 0.32, 0.36 and 0.21 (the second and third significant). Of the three processing domains measured by the STAT, the one that correlates the least with more traditional measures of general intelligence is practical ability. In a first major study (Sternberg et al. 1996; Sternberg et al. 1999), we examined whether the triarchic theory would give rise to an aptitude-treatment interaction in the context of a college-level psychology course taught to high school students who were selected for their triarchic ability pattern, and then taught in a way that either better or more poorly matched their ability pattern, and whose achievement was assessed triarchically as well. Thus, a crucial aspect of this study was that identification of participants, instruction of participants, and assessment of participants' achievement "My House is a Very Very Very Fine House" — But it is Not the Only House 389 were all based on the same, triarchic theory of intelligence. The motivation for this study was to show that conventional means of teaching and assessment may systematically undervalue creatively and practically oriented students: these students may have the ability to perform quite well, but may perform at lower levels than those of which they are capable because neither the form of instruction nor the form of assessment well
matches their pattern of strength. Participants were 199 high school students (146 females and 53 males), from among 326 who were tested, who were selected for participation in a summer program on the basis of their patterns of abilities. Program participants were socioeconomically and ethnically diverse. Participants were identified via the STAT as high in analytical ability (20%), high in creative ability (19%), high in practical ability (18%), balanced high (i.e. high in all three abilities — 20%), and balanced low (i.e. low in all three abilities — 24%). The 4-week-long instruction for the course involved common and unique elements for each instructional groups. Two parts were common: the college-level psychology text (a prepublication version of Sternberg 1995), which contained analytical, creative and practical content; and the morning lectures, taught by an award-winning teacher (a Yale professor of psychology), and which involved analytical, creative and practical elements. The experimental manipulation occurred in the afternoon, when participants were assigned to a discussion section that emphasized either memory, analytical, creative or practical processing, and that either was a better or a poorer match to the participants' tested pattern of abilities.

As an example, memory-oriented instruction might ask students to recall the main elements of the cognitive theory of depression; analytically-oriented instruction might ask students to compare and contrast the cognitive to the psychoanalytic theory of depression; creatively oriented instruction might ask students to invent their own theory of depression, drawing on but going beyond past theories; practically-oriented instruction might ask students to show how they could use existing theories of depression to help a depressed friend. All participants were tested via homework assignments, a midterm examination, a final examination and an independent project. All assessments were evaluated for
analytical, creative and practical achievement. The examinations included as well multiple-choice items that measured memory achievement.

All correlations of ability tests scores (analytical, creative, practical) with all measures of achievement were statistically significant (all /?< 0.01), reflecting perhaps the fact that the instruction and assessment were guided by the same theory as was the identification instrument (i.e. the STAT). More important was the aptitude-treatment interaction, which also was statistically significant for all ability groups. In other words, students who were better matched triarchically in terms of their pattern of abilities outperformed students who were more poorly matched.

4,2. The Triarchic Instructional Studies

In a follow-up set of studies, we sought to show that in terms of simple main effects, triarchic instruction is potentially superior to other forms of instruction, regardless of 390 Robert J. Sternberg students' ability pattern (Sternberg et aL 1998a, 1998b). The triarchic theory holds that students should be instructed in a way that helps them both to capitalize on their strengths and to remediate and compensate for weaknesses. Thus, ideally, students will be taught in all three ways (analytically, creatively, practically), as well as for memory, so that they both can capitalize on their strengths and learn to deal with their weaknesses. These studies were conducted in the students' own schools rather than in a special summer-school setting; their teachers were their actual classroom teachers; and the material they studied was the actual material they were studying as part of their regular instruction, suitably modified as necessary for the study. Participants in a primary-school study included 213 third-grade students (106 boys and 107 girls) in two elementary schools in Raleigh, NC. Both schools serve a diverse population of almost exclusively lower socioeconomic status students, including large groups of African American, Hispanic and Asian students. A total of nine classes of 20-25 students each participated in the research.

During the intervention, students received an instructional unit on the topic of communities — a social-studies unit required for third-grade students in North Carolina. No formal text was used for the unit, but rather, materials were developed by teachers. The intervention took place for 10 weeks, 4 days per week, for 45 minutes per day, for a total of 30 hours of instruction. Participants in a secondary-school study were 141 rising eighth-graders (68 boys a

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

. Studi pendidikan Beberapa studi kami telah melihat kemampuan kreatif serta praktis, terutama dalam pengaturan pendidikan. Pertimbangkan beberapa studi utama kami (Lihat juga Sternberg & Lubart 1995). 4.1. studi interaksi bakat-pengobatan Triarchic Ukuran yang dikembangkan untuk menilai komponen dari teori triarchic. Tes kemampuan Triarchic Sternberg (STAT; Sternberg 1993) terdiri dari tiga konten domain (verbal, kuantitatif dan figural) disilangkan dengan tiga domain mental pengolahan (analitis, kreatif dan praktis). Domain tiga pengolahan mencerminkan teori-teori sub yang diuraikan di atas. Analytical pertanyaan alamat kemampuan untuk belajar dari konteks dan alasan induktif (yaitu hubungan antara kecerdasan untuk dunia internal). Kreatif pertanyaan alamat kemampuan untuk mengatasi kebaruan (yaitu hubungan kecerdasan untuk mengalami). Dan pertanyaan praktis alamat kemampuan untuk memecahkan masalah nyata, sehari-hari (yaitu hubungan antara kecerdasan untuk dunia luar). Ada tiga analitis subtests stat, satu untuk setiap area konten (verbal, kuantitatif dan figural). Kemampuan analitis-verbal diukur dalam STAT oleh 388 Robert J. Sternberg menilai kemampuan untuk belajar dari konteks. Kosakata dipandang sebagai proxy untuk kemampuan untuk mengambil informasi dari konteks yang relevan (Lihat Sternberg 1987). Analisis-kuantitatif terdiri dari item yang mengukur kemampuan penalaran induktif di domain numerik. Item analitis figural demikian pula mengukur kemampuan penalaran induktif dengan baik klasifikasi gambar atau mencari masalah analogi. Dalam klasifikasi gambar, diperiksa harus menunjukkan angka yang tidak termasuk dengan yang lain. Bagian kreatif STAT juga terdiri dari tiga subtests (verbal, kuantitatif dan figural). Pertanyaan kreatif-verbal yang memerlukan kontrafakta penalaran dan mencoba untuk menilai kemampuan untuk berpikir dengan cara yang relatif baru. Dalam pertanyaan kreatif-kuantitatif, simbol-simbol yang digunakan di tempat nomor tertentu memerlukan diperiksa untuk membuat sebuah substitusi. Item figural kreatif memerlukan diperiksa untuk menyelesaikan serangkaian dalam domain terpisah dari satu di mana mereka disimpulkan aturan penyelesaian. Bagian praktis STAT dirancang untuk menilai kemampuan untuk menerapkan pengetahuan untuk masalah dengan relevansi praktis. Praktis-verbal item membutuhkan diperiksa untuk menjawab masalah sehari-hari ada alasan. Kuantitatif praktis item membutuhkan diperiksa untuk alasan kuantitatif dengan masalah-masalah sehari-hari yang praktis dari jenis yang dia atau dia mungkin menghadapi kehidupan sehari-hari. Item di bagian praktis figural memerlukan kemampuan untuk merencanakan rute efisien, mengingat informasi dalam peta atau diagram. Selain itu, ada kinerja komponen untuk STAT, terdiri dari tiga esai item, masing-masing menekankan pemikiran analitis, kreatif dan praktis. Di versi saat ini, masalah analitis memerlukan siswa untuk menganalisis kelebihan dan kekurangan memiliki pohce atau penjaga keamanan di sebuah bangunan sekolah. Masalahnya kreatif memerlukan siswa untuk menggambarkan bagaimana mereka akan reformasi sistem sekolah mereka untuk menghasilkan satu ideal. Masalah praktis memerlukan siswa untuk menentukan masalah dalam kehidupan mereka, dan untuk menyatakan tiga solusi praktis untuk memecahkannya. Esai mencetak untuk analitis, kreatif dan praktis kualitas, masing-masing, oleh penilai terlatih. In a pilot use of the STAT (Sternberg & Clinkenbeard 1995), a variety of abihty tests were administered to 64 participants. The other tests used were the Terman Concept Mastery Test (primarily a test of crystallized abilities), the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (a verbal test of critical thinking), the Cattell Culture Fair Test of g (primarily a test of fluid abilities), a homemade test of insight problems (adapted from Sternberg 1986). Respective correlations of the STAT with these tests were, for the analytical 0.49,0.50, 0.50 and 0.47 (all significant); for the creative, 0.43, 0.53, 0.55 and 0.59 (all significant); and for the practical 0.21, 0.32, 0.36 and 0.21 (the second and third significant). Of the three processing domains measured by the STAT, the one that correlates the least with more traditional measures of general intelligence is practical ability. In a first major study (Sternberg et al. 1996; Sternberg et al. 1999), we examined whether the triarchic theory would give rise to an aptitude-treatment interaction in the context of a college-level psychology course taught to high school students who were selected for their triarchic ability pattern, and then taught in a way that either better or more poorly matched their ability pattern, and whose achievement was assessed triarchically as well. Thus, a crucial aspect of this study was that identification of participants, instruction of participants, and assessment of participants' achievement "My House is a Very Very Very Fine House" — But it is Not the Only House 389 were all based on the same, triarchic theory of intelligence. The motivation for this study was to show that conventional means of teaching and assessment may systematically undervalue creatively and practically oriented students: these students may have the ability to perform quite well, but may perform at lower levels than those of which they are capable because neither the form of instruction nor the form of assessment well cocok dengan pola mereka kekuatan. Peserta adalah siswa SMA 199 (146 perempuan dan laki-laki 53), dari 326 yang diuji, yang dipilih untuk berpartisipasi dalam program musim panas berdasarkan pola mereka kemampuan. Peserta program yang beragam socioeconomically dan etnis. Peserta yang diidentifikasi melalui STAT sebagai tinggi dalam kemampuan analisis (20%), tinggi di kemampuan kreatif (19%), tinggi dalam kemampuan praktis (18%), seimbang tinggi (yaitu tinggi di semua tiga kemampuan — 20%), dan seimbang rendah (yaitu rendah di semua tiga kemampuan — 24%). 4-minggu-panjang instruksi untuk kursus melibatkan unsur-unsur Umum dan unik untuk setiap kelompok instruksional. Dua bagian yang umum: teks psikologi tingkat college (versi prepublication Sternberg 1995), yang berisi konten yang analitis, kreatif dan praktis; dan kuliah pagi, yang diajarkan oleh guru penghargaan (Yale profesor psikologi), dan yang melibatkan unsur-unsur analitis, kreatif dan praktis. Manipulasi eksperimental terjadi di sore hari, ketika peserta ditugaskan sebuah diskusi bagian yang menekankan baik memori, analitis, kreatif atau praktis pengolahan dan yang baik adalah yang lebih baik atau miskin cocok untuk para peserta diuji pola kemampuan. Sebagai contoh, berorientasi memori instruksi mungkin meminta siswa untuk mengingat unsur utama dari teori kognitif depresi; instruksi berorientasi analitis mungkin meminta siswa untuk membandingkan dan kontras kognitif kepada teori psikoanalitik depresi; kreatif berorientasi instruksi mungkin meminta siswa untuk menciptakan sendiri teori depresi, menggambar pada tetapi melampaui masa lalu teori; instruksi berorientasi praktis mungkin meminta siswa untuk menunjukkan bagaimana mereka bisa menggunakan teori-teori yang ada depresi membantu temannya tertekan. Semua peserta diuji melalui tugas pekerjaan rumah, ujian tengah semester, ujian, dan sebuah proyek independen. Semua penilaian dievaluasi untuk prestasi analitis, kreatif dan praktis. Ujian termasuk serta pilihan ganda item yang diukur memori prestasi. Semua korelasi Skor tes kemampuan (analitis, kreatif, praktis) dengan langkah-langkah yang semua prestasi yang signifikan secara statistik (semua /? < 0.01), mencerminkan mungkin fakta bahwa instruksi dan penilaian yang dibimbing oleh teori yang sama seperti adalah alat identifikasi (yaitu STAT). Lebih penting adalah interaksi bakat-pengobatan, yang juga signifikan secara statistik untuk semua kemampuan kelompok. Dengan kata lain, siswa yang lebih baik cocok triarchically dalam hal pola kemampuan cocok mengungguli siswa yang lebih buruk. 4,2 studi instruksional Triarchic. Dalam serangkaian tindak lanjut studi, kami berusaha untuk menunjukkan bahwa dalam hal efek utama yang sederhana, instruksi triarchic berpotensi lebih unggul dari bentuk-bentuk lain dari instruksi, terlepas dari 390 Robert J. Sternberg siswa kemampuan pola (Sternberg et aL 1998a, 1998b). Teori triarchic berpendapat bahwa siswa harus diinstruksikan di jalan yang membantu mereka berdua untuk memanfaatkan kekuatan mereka dan untuk memulihkan dan mengkompensasi kelemahan. Dengan demikian, idealnya, siswa akan diajarkan di semua tiga cara (analitis, kreatif, praktis), juga untuk memori, sehingga mereka berdua dapat memanfaatkan kekuatan mereka dan belajar untuk berurusan dengan kelemahan mereka. Studi ini dilakukan di sekolah-sekolah siswa sendiri, bukan dalam suasana sekolah musim panas khusus; guru-guru mereka adalah guru kelas yang sebenarnya mereka; dan materi mereka mempelajari materi yang sebenarnya yang mereka belajar sebagai bagian dari instruksi mereka biasa, sesuai dimodifikasi sebagai diperlukan untuk studi. Peserta sebuah penelitian sekolah dasar termasuk 213 siswa kelas ketiga (106 boys dan 107 girls) dalam dua sekolah dasar di Raleigh, NC. Sekolah kedua melayani beragam populasi hampir secara eksklusif rendah siswa status sosial ekonomi, termasuk kelompok-kelompok besar siswa African American, Hispanik, dan Asia. Total kelas sembilan 20-25 siswa setiap berpartisipasi dalam penelitian. Selama intervensi, siswa menerima unit instruksional pada topik masyarakat — sebuah unit studi sosial yang diperlukan untuk kelas ketiga di North Carolina. Tidak ada teks resmi digunakan untuk unit, tetapi sebaliknya, bahan-bahan yang dikembangkan oleh guru. Intervensi berlangsung selama 10 minggu, 4 hari per minggu, selama 45 menit per hari, dengan total 30 jam instruksi. Peserta sebuah penelitian sekolah menengah yang 141 meningkatnya kedelapan anak kelas (68 anak laki-laki