Search Forum:

Try this paper: Shayer, M. (2008). Intelligence for education: As described by Piaget and measured by psychometrics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 1?9 Here are 3 differences: 1: One difference is that psychometricians use norm-referenced tests, where 'norm' refers to factors in the causal nexus. i.e, to causality. For Piaget, human intelligence is always norm-laden, where 'norm' refers to "what has to be done" and "what has to be", i.e. normativity that is non-reducible to causality [Smith, 2006, 2009]. 2: Another difference is that the former have led to to Flynn-effects, i.e. the increase in measured IQ over generations - this is a real anomaly. Piagetian tasks have led to anti-Flynn effects, i.e. the variable display of reasoning abilities under different pedagogical conditions - this, alas, is well known. 3: A third difference is that the former are assessment devices independently of teaching mechanisms - a ruler can be used to measure all manner of things, but does not in itself lay down what these are; so too IQ tests in instructional settings. Piagetian assessment tasks have their basis in a theory of human intelligence with specific implications for instruction and intervention [Shayer, 2008]; though I grant you that Piaget's pedagogy is as subtle as it is apparently misunderstood [Smith, 2009]. Müller, U., Carpendale, J., Smith, L. (2009). Cambridge companion to Piaget. New York: Cambridge University Press, in press. Shayer, M. (2008). Intelligence for education: As described by Piaget and measured by psychometrics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 1?9 Smith, L. (2006). Norms in human development. In Smith & Vonèche (2006) Smith, L. (2006). Norms and normative facts in human development. In Smith & Vonèche (2006) Smith, L. (2009b). Piaget's developmental epistemology. In Müller et al., 2009. Smith, L. (2009c). Piaget's pedagogy. In Müller et al., 2009. Smith, L. & Vonèche, J. (2006). Norms in human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.