Search Forum:

I sympathize with your plight. It is very difficult to find the kind of evidence that translates into knowledge that teachers find useful. When non-academics are introduced to cognitive developmental theory they always want to know how it relates to IQ, grades, and test scores. For good reason. These are the indices with which they are familiar. With respect to cognitive development and IQ, the research with which I am familiar suggests the following: IQ is a dimension of "ability" that has been defined psychometrically and is based entirely on psychometric analysis of results from tests consisting of many items, each of which has one correct answer. IQ scores (which are standardized using a variety of psychometric methods) are arranged along a scale that is based upon the performances of hund given assessment (usually of a certain age). IQ is considered to be a relatively fixed characteristic of a person. People who score higher on an IQ test are considered to be smarter than people who score lower. Cognitive development is a theoretically defined, evidence based dimension that can be modeled psychometrically. Developmental level is determined by asking individuals to engage in activities that expose their reasoning. Items on developmental assessments are typically open-ended and do not focus on correct answers. They focus on how people go about seeking answers. A single developmental dimension has been shown to underlie development in a wide range of cognitive domains, making it possible to define a non-arbitrary scale along which development progresses. Performances can be placed on this scale. Cognitive developmental level is not viewed as a fixed trait and is known to vary within persons, depending on knowledge area and a range o f contex o demonstrate higher levels of cognitive development are viewed as being more developed than those demonstrating lower levels of cognitive development. Children with higher IQ's learn the kind of knowledge and skills represented in IQ tests faster than people with lower IQs. Where this is the case, cognitive development in the knowledge or skill areas covered on a given IQ test is likely to be more rapid (and have a higher "endpoint"). The subject matter of IQ tests is limited, and the skill sets that are tested are narrow, so we have to be careful about making generalizations. The same is true for cognitive developmental assessments. Good cognitive developmental assessments are now providing scores that are reliable within 1/5-1/4 of one of Fischer's skill levels, making their precision similar to that of conventional assessments, but the scores apply to performance on a single assessment in a single subject area, and d o not ca of a test-taker. The inability of any single assessment (or type of assessment) to provide an accurate evaluation of the general ability of a person suggests that the best (most ethical) use of assessments involves repeated measurements across a wide range of subject areas over time. Currently, my colleagues and I are looking at the relation between developmental levels of reflective judgment and final exam scores, as part of a larger study of a college critical thinking curriculum. Also, DiscoTest, our k-12 project, is designed to allow us to follow cohorts of students over several years. Through collaborations with schools and districts, we can track learning with online cognitive developmental assessments and make comparisons with other indices, including standardized test scores, portfolio assessments, grades, and IQ. Cognitive developmental pedagogies are unlikely to have a great deal of impact in the real worl d until supporting development is associated with better life outcomes than tracking and supporting the acquisition of content knowledge.