/
Predicting Perceptions of Predicting Perceptions of

Predicting Perceptions of - PowerPoint Presentation

tatyana-admore
tatyana-admore . @tatyana-admore
Follow
356 views
Uploaded On 2018-11-25

Predicting Perceptions of - PPT Presentation

Intelligence Jenna M ontague 1 Antonio Brewer 2 Thomas Ledbetter 2 Supreme Santiago 3 The University of Rochester Rochester NY Authors Notes Jenna Montague Buffalo NY Sacred Heart Academy ID: 733761

smart intelligence standardized perception intelligence smart perception standardized learning intelligent gender york 179 amp qualitative rochester race socioeconomic class tests test 1997

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Predicting Perceptions of" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Predicting Perceptions of Intelligence

Jenna

M

ontague

1

Antonio

Brewer

2

Thomas Ledbetter

2

Supreme Santiago

3

The University of Rochester, Rochester, NYSlide2

Authors’ Notes

Jenna Montague

Buffalo, NY

Sacred Heart AcademyAntonio BrewerBrooklyn, NYMillennium Brooklyn High SchoolThomas LedbetterNewark, NYNewark High SchoolSupreme SantiagoBridgeport, CTBridgeport Military AcademyThis research was supported in part by the University of Rochester Pre-College ProgramContact: precollege@Rochester.eduSlide3

BackgroundWhat do you think intelligence

is?

What do you think being smart is?Is there a difference?What factors predict intelligence?Slide4

IntroductionSpearman (1904): general intelligence

Daniel (1997): different kinds of intelligence tests

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1966): How expectations of teachers affect pupils’ IQ gain

Herrnstein and Murray (1994)We predict that those who identify as smart will also identify as intelligent Slide5

Methods

Mixed-Methods Approach (

Cresswell

, 2002) Survey Analysis (multiple linear regression)Interviews: thematic codingToolsSurveyMonkey.comSPSS (statistical package for social science)Google docsWordPress.comSlide6

Survey FormatSurvey Questions:

Demographics (gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic class)

Home Setting

Learning DifferenceSchool TypeLearning Style ( Visual/Spatial, Verbal/Linguistic, Logical/Mathematical, Auditory)Standardized tests scoresSelf-Perception of being smartSelf-Perception of intelligenceSlide7

Interview FormatTell me about yourself

Tell me about your family background

Do you think that standardized tests are a measure of your intelligence? Why or why not?

Should standardized tests be necessary for college admissions?What do you think about intelligence? How do you characterize it?Do you think you are smart?Do you think you are intelligent?Slide8

Findings:

Descriptive Statistics

Gender

61% female36% male3% gender-fluid  

 

 

Race

77% white

10% black

3% Hispanic

3% Asian

3% Mixed Race

2% Pacific Islander

2% Other

Home Setting

49% Suburban

21% Village

18% Urban

7% Town

5% Rural

 

 

Learning Difference

82% No13% Not sure5% Yes    School Type52% Private46% Public2% Charter0% Boarding   Socioeconomic Class66% Middle Class18% Upper Class16% Lower Class    Learning Style41% Visual/Spatial33% Verbal/Linguistic21% Logical/Mathematical5% Auditory   Standardized Test Scores42% N/A25% 1700 to 200019% 1500 to 17009% less than 15005% 2000 or greater  Self-perception of being smart76.67% yes11.67% no11.67% not sure    Self-perception of being intelligent78.33% yes13.33% not sure8.33% no    Slide9

Pearson Correlation (Findings Continued)

Variable

2

34567

8

9

10

1 Self-perception of intelligence

.134

.104

-.179

.286

.114

.049

.080

.142

.414

2 Gender

1

-.19

.163

.266

.174

.057-.003-.001-.1783 Race 1-.314.003.27-.14-.224.031-.1064 Home Setting  1-.285-.405.183.166.047-.2845 Learning Difference   1.132.079-.14-.010.3736 School Type    1-.423.096.142.0087 Socioeconomic Class     1.181-.387.0008 Learning Style   

 

 

 1.166-.0839 Standardized Test Scores       1.00110 Self-perception of being smart        1

The only significant variables that we found were highlighted (p<0.05 or p<0.001)Slide10

Predictor Variables

Model

B

Se-bBetaPearson’s RSr2Structured Coefficient

Constant

-.651

.794

 

 

 

 

Gender

.303

.179

.259

.134

.046

.241

Race

.073

.047

.23

.104

.039.187Home Setting -.034.086-.064-.179.003-.321Learning Difference.07.251.043.286.001.513School Type-.027.211-.022.114.0003.205Socioeconomic Class.114.187.1.049.006.088Learning Style.107.109.145.08.016.144Standardized Test Scores.074.067.158.142.019.255Self-perception of being smart.483.156.462.414.153.743Slide11

Best Fit LineSlide12

Qualitative Data2 Participants

Different perspectives on intelligence

First Participant: Intelligence and being smart are synonymousSecond Participant: Although intelligence and being smart are related, they are different conceptsMain theme: no clear consensus on what people perceive as being smart and being intelligentSlide13

Conclusion/DiscussionQuantitative: being smart predicts whether one believes that they are intelligent

Qualitative: there is no clear consensus

Even though that we showed that those who believe that they are smart will, statistically, also believe that they are intelligent, the qualitative data shows that there is no clear consensus on public perceptions of intelligence.Slide14

References

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The Effect of Poverty on Children.

Children and Poverty,

7(2), 55-71.Creswell, J. (2002). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Daniels, M. H. (1997). Intelligence Testing. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1038-1045.Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic Assessment or g? The Relationship Between the Scholastic Assessment Test and General Cognitive Ability. Psychological Science, 15, 373-378.Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gould, S. J. The

mismeasure

of man

. New York, NY: Norton.

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994).

The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life.

New York: Free Press.

Jacoby, R., &

Glauberman

, N. (Eds.). (1995).

The Bell Curve debate: History, documents, opinions.

New York: Times Books.

Siegler

, R. S. (1992). The other Alfred

Binet

.

Developmental Psychology, 28,

179-190.

Spearman, C. (1904). “General Intelligence,” objectivity determined and measured.

American Journal of Psychology, 13, 201-293.Thorndike, E. L., et al. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 123-147, 195-216, 271-275.Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis: A development and expansion of The Vectors of Mind.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.U.S. Census Bureau (2013). 2013 US Census, Summary File 1 (SF1). QT-P7. Socioeconomic class alone: 2013. Retrieved July 16, 2015 from http://factfinder.census.govSlide15

Questions?