Search Forum:

you are exceptional, then - or at least the exception that proves the rule. Shayer, 1981, 1994, 2002: for the record, I have had no personal involvement in this empirical work of Shayer [by the way, there is/was a team that included Adey, and Yates, and Adhami, and Wylam inter alia. This ain't one person.]. Shayer told me of his assessment studies after their completion when I first met him in 1981; Adey told me of the results of their first intervention study at the JPS in 1990, and they came to me as a complete surprise. Clearly, though: this work is not a one-off - it has been successfully replicated; it does embody durable outcomes that are generalisable from one school subject to two other core subjects; transfereable from adolescence to primary scholling, and elsewhere; and the method is fully documented such that, with suitable training, teachers can appropriate it. How's that for a good deal? Yet most folks neither know of its existence, nor even want to know when told about it. Shayer 2008: yes, I did contribute comments whilst this paper was being written [though I want to say that my best shots were all turned down]. That said: the argument goes to the heart of the matter, namely that a norm-referenced IQ test has an incomplete, even inadequate, control over the norms {the "has to" of implication and obligation] operative in the action and thought of the youngsters taking the test. This is a lesson still to be learned in psychometrics, and elsewhere.