Education and Intelligence: Pity the Poor Teacher because Student Characteristics are more Significant than Teachers or Schools

Student Characteristics, Institutional Factors, and Outcomes in Higher Education and Beyond: An Analysis of Standardized Test Scores and Other Factors at the Institutional Level with School Rankings and Salary

When seeking to explain the eventual outcomes of a higher education experience, do the personal attributes and background factors students bring to college matter more than what the college is able to contribute to the development of the student through education or other institutional factors? Most education studies tend to simply ignore cognitive aptitudes and other student characteristics—in particular the long history of research on this topic—since the focus is on trying to assess the impact of education. Thus, the role of student characteristics has in many ways been underappreciated in even highly sophisticated quantitative education research. Conversely, educational and institutional factors are not as prominent in studies focused on cognitive aptitudes, as these fields focus first on reasoning capacity, and secondarily on other factors. We examine the variance in student outcomes due to student (e.g., cognitive aptitudes) versus institutional characteristics (e.g., teachers, schools). At the level of universities, two contemporary U.S. datasets are used to examine the proportion of variance accounted for in various university rankings and long-run salary by student cognitive characteristics and institutional factors. We find that depending upon the ways the variables are entered into regression models, the findings are somewhat different. We suggest some fruitful paths forward which might integrate the methods and findings showing that teachers and schools matter, along with the broader developmental bounds within which these effects take place.

Non-verbal IQ Gains from Relational Operant Training Explain Variance in Educational Attainment: An Active-Controlled Feasibility Study

Research suggests that training relational operant patterns of behavior can lead to increases in general cognitive ability and educational outcomes. Most studies to date have been under-powered and included proxy measures of educational attainment. We attempted to extend previous findings with increased experimental control in younger children (aged 6.9–10.1 years). Participants (N = 49) were assigned to either a relational training or chess control group. Over 5 months, teachers assigned class time to complete either relational training or play chess. Those who were assigned relational training gained 8.9 non-verbal IQ (NVIQ) points, while those in the control condition recorded no gains (dppc2 = .99). Regression analyses revealed that post-training NVIQ predicted reading test scores (conducted approximately 1 month later) over and above baseline NVIQ in the experimental condition only, consistent with what we might expect in a full test of far transfer towards educational outcomes.

Why Intelligence Is Missing from American Education Policy and Practice, and What Can Be Done About It

To understand why education as a field has not incorporated intelligence, we must consider the field's history and culture. Accordingly, in this cross-disciplinary collaboration between a political scientist who studies institutions and a psychologist who studies intelligence, we outline how the roots of contemporary American Educational Leadership as a field determine its contemporary avoidance of the concept of intelligence. Rooted in early 20th century progressivism and scientific management, Educational Leadership theory envisions professionally run schools as "Taylorist" factories with teaching and leadership largely standardized, prioritizing compliance over cognitive ability among educators. Further, the roots of modern education theory do not see the intelligence of students as largely malleable. Hence, prioritizing intelligence is viewed as elitist. For more than a century, these assumptions have impacted recruitment into education as a profession. We conclude with ideas about how to bring intelligence into mainstream schooling, within the existing K-12 education institutional context. We believe that better integration of intelligence and broader individual differences research in education policy and practice would lead to more rapid advances to finding evidence based solutions to help children.

Near and Far Transfer in Cognitive Training: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis

Theory building in science requires replication and integration of findings regarding a particular research question. Second-order meta-analysis (i.e., a meta-analysis of meta-analyses) offers a powerful tool for achieving this aim, and we use this technique to illuminate the controversial field of cognitive training. Recent replication attempts and large meta-analytic investigations have shown that the benefits of cognitive-training programs hardly go beyond the trained task and similar tasks. However, it is yet to be established whether the effects differ across cognitive-training programs and populations (children, adults, and older adults). We addressed this issue by using second-order meta-analysis. In Models 1 (k = 99) and 2 (k = 119), we investigated the impact of working-memory training on near-transfer (i.e., memory) and far-transfer (e.g., reasoning, speed, and language) measures, respectively, and whether it is mediated by the type of population. Model 3 (k = 233) extended Model 2 by adding six meta-analyses assessing the far-transfer effects of other cognitive-training programs (video-games, music, chess, and exergames). Model 1 showed that working-memory training does induce near transfer, and that the size of this effect is moderated by the type of population. By contrast, Models 2 and 3 highlighted that far-transfer effects are small or null. Crucially, when placebo effects and publication bias were controlled for, the overall effect size and true variance equaled zero. That is, no impact on far-transfer measures was observed regardless of the type of population and cognitive-training program. The lack of generalization of skills acquired by training is thus an invariant of human cognition.

Cognitive Training Does Not Enhance General Cognition

Due to potential theoretical and societal implications, cognitive training has been one of the most influential topics in psychology and neuroscience. The assumption behind cognitive training is that one's general cognitive ability can be enhanced by practicing cognitive tasks or intellectually demanding activities. The hundreds of studies published so far have provided mixed findings and systematic reviews have reached inconsistent conclusions. To resolve these discrepancies, we carried out several meta-analytic reviews. The results are highly consistent across all the reviewed domains: minimal effect on domain-general cognitive skills. Crucially, the observed between-study variability is accounted for by design quality and statistical artefacts. The cognitive-training program of research has showed no appreciable benefits, and other more plausible practices to enhance cognitive performance should be pursued.

Using Standardized Test Scores to Include General Cognitive Ability in Education Research and Policy

In education research and education policy, much attention is paid to schools, curricula, and teachers, but little attention is paid to the characteristics of students. Differences in general cognitive ability (g) are often overlooked as a source of important variance among schools and in outcomes among students within schools. Standardized test scores such as the SAT and ACT are reasonably good proxies for g and are available for most incoming college students. Though the idea of g being important in education is quite old, we present contemporary evidence that colleges and universities in the United States vary considerably in the average cognitive ability of their students, which correlates strongly with other methods (including international methods) of ranking colleges. We also show that these g differences are reflected in the extent to which graduates of colleges are represented in various high-status and high-income occupations. Finally, we show how including individual-level measures of cognitive ability can substantially increase the statistical power of experiments designed to measure educational treatment effects. We conclude that education policy researchers should give more consideration to the concept of individual differences in cognitive ability as well as other factors.