THE EFFECTS OF COGNITIVE FACTORS AND PERSONALITY …

THE EFFECTS OF COGNITIVE FACTORS AND PERSONALITY

ATTRIBUTES ON LEARNING POTENTIAL

by

CHRISTINE HELEN BENDIXEN

DISSERTATION

submitted in fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree

MASTER OF ARTS

in

PSYCHOLOGY

in the

FACULTY OF ARTS

at the

RAND AFRIKAANS UNIVERSITY

SUPERVISOR: DR. M. JOOSTE

JANUARY 2000.

I

DECLARATION

hereby declare that the dissertation submitted for the

Master of Arts degree to the Rand Afrikaans Universi ty,

apart from the help recognised, is my own work and has

not been formerly submitted to another universi ty for a

degree.

ABSTRACT

In this study, a test-train-retest cogni tive assessment

model was used. The training model for mediation was

group-administered, standardised to correspond to a

Theorist learning style and presented on video. The aim

was to establish whether this form of testing is viable.

In addi tio::, the influence of the following variables on

learning potential scores was examined:

• General cognitive ability (measured by Cattell's

Culture Fair Intelligence Test, Scale 2, Form A) .

• Fourteen personality factors (measured by the High

School Personality Questionnaire) .

• Ten motivational traits (measured by the Picture

Motivation Tests) .

• Four learning styles (measured by the Learning Styles

Questionnaire) .

The ability to transfer what had been learned during

mediation was also examined. Transfer was defined as the

difference between the CCFIT, Scale 2, Form A and Form B,

(administered as pre- and post-tests). Learning potential

scores were defined as the difference between the pre

and post-test scores of Raven's Standard Progressive

Matrices, using a Solomon 4-Group Design to control for

possible practice effects. The mediation was standardised

according to the LSQ's Theorist learning style using

Feuerstein's Set Variations 1 as a teaching tool. The

subjects were 120, black (mostly African), Grade 10

learners.

The results may be summarised as follows:

• The intervention significantly increased scores from

the pre- to the post-test of the RSPM. There was no

statistically significant evidence of a practice effect

on post-test scores.

• Conscientiousness (G+), realism - tough-mindedness (1-)

and proneness to guilt (0+) accounted for 22 % of the

variance in learning potential scores.

• Aggression (self-assertiveness) accounted for 6,6% of

the variance in learning potential scores.

• Cognitive ability scores were independent of learning

potential scores.

• Gain scores on the transfer test were a result of both

the intervention and practice. These scores did not

correlate with learning potential scores.

The fact that the CCF1T pre-test scores did not predict

future learning supports the contention that traditional

intelligence tests are inadequate measures of the

intellectual capacity of educationally disadvantaged

subjects.

The role of conscientiousness in learning is well

documented. The other non-intellective factors require

further research.

The finding that a short, group-administered mediation

can produce signi ficant changes in post-test cogni tive

scores suggests that this technique can be used to

broaden the application of dynamic assessment.

SAMEVATTING

In samelewings met diverse kulturele bevolkings en ongelyke

opvoedkundige geleenthede, kan normatiewe assesserings en

vorige akademiese prestasie nie op 'n betroubare wyse

gebruik word om 'n individu se potensiele kognitiewe vermoe

te asses seer nie. Dinamiese assessering word as 'n

alternatief tot die bogenoemde evalueringspraktyk

voorgehou.

In hierdie studie is 'n toets-oplei-hertoets model vir

kognitiewe evaluering gebruik. Die opleidingsmodule vir

kognitiewe bemiddeling is in groepsverband toegepas deur

middel van 'n video aanbieding, gestandaardiseer volgens

die eienskappe van die Teoretiese leerstyl. Die doel

hiervan was om vas te stel of hierdie evalueringsmodel

doeltreffend is. Verder is die volgende veranderlikes

nagevors om die invloed daarvan op die verkree tellings van

leerpotensiaal te ondersoek:

• Algemene kognitiewe vermoe (gemeet deur Cattell's Culture

Fair Intelligence Test (CCFIT), Skaal 2, Vorm A).

• Veertien persoonlikheidsfaktore (gemeet deur die

Hoerskool Persoonlikheidsvraelys (HSPV)).

• Tien motiveringstrekke (gemeet deur die

Prentmotiveringstoets (PMT)).

• Vier leerstyle (gemeet deur die Learning Styles

Questionnaire (LSQ)).

Die oordrag van di t wat geleer was gedurende bemiddeling,

is ook ondersoek. Oordrag is bepaal deur die

verskiltellings tussen die CCFIT, Skaal 2, Vorm A en Vorm B

(afgeneem as voor- en na-toetse) te verkry.

Leerpotensiaaltellings is verkry deur die verskil tussen

die voor- en na-toetstellings van die Raven's Standard

Progressive Matrices te bepaal, terwyl die Solomon 4

Groepontwerp gebruik is om 'n moontlike oefen-effek te

kontroleer. Die aanbiedingstyl van die bemiddeling het

voldoen aan die kenmerke van die Teoretiese leerstyl. Daar

is van Feuerstein se Set Variations 1 as In kognitiewe

bemiddelingsinstrument gebruik gemaak. Die streekproef het

bestaan ui t 120 Graad 10 Kleurling en swart leerlinge as

proefpersone.

Die resultate kan as volg saamgevat word:

• Die een uur gestandaardiseerde kognitiewe

opleidingsintervensie, wat gebruik maak van Feuerstein se

Set Variations 1, vermeerder tellings op die RSPM op 'n

statisties betekenisvolle peil vanaf die voor-toets tot

die na-toets. Daar was geen statisties betekenisvolle

aanduidings van 'n oeffen-effek vanaf die voor-toets tot

na-toets nie.

• Die persoonlikheidstrek, Pligsgetrouheid (G+), het

positief gekorreleer met leerpotensiaaltellings. 'n

Regressie-analise het drie persoonlikheidstrekke

opgelewer, naamlik Pligsgetrouheid (G+), Realisme

Ontoegeeflikheid (1-) en Geneigdheid tot skuldgevoelens

(0+). Hierdie trekke verklaar 22% van die variansie van

die leerpotensiaaltellings.

• Die motiveringstrek, Aggressie (selfhandhawing),

korreleer positief met leerpotensiaaltellings. In 'n

regressie-analise het hierdie trek 6,6% van die variansie

verklaar.

• Daar is 'n mate van onafhanklikheid tussen die tellings

van algemene kognitiewe vermoe en leerpotensiaal.

• Die intervensie het gelei tot 'n toename in die tellings

vanaf die CCFIT Vorm A tot die CCFIT Vorm B. Hierdie

tellings is egter deur oefen-effekte tot 'n mate

gekontamineer.

• Die verskil tellings tussen die CCFIT voor-toets en die

na-toets as oordragtoets, het nie gekorreleer met

leerpotensiaaltellings nie.

Die feit dat die voor-toetstellings, naamlik die CCFIT

tellings, nie toekomstige leer voorspel het nie, dien as

ondersteuning vir die argument dat tradisionele

intelligensietoetse onvoldoende meetinstrumente is van

intellektuele potensiaal in opvoedingsgeremde persone. Die

mate van oordrag weens bemiddeling kon nie in hierdie

studie vasgestel word nie. Die items van die CCFIT kon

moontlik te moeilik gewees het vir die milieugeremde

proefpersone.

Daar is al baie geskryf oor die rol van pligsgetrouheid in

leer. Daar sal egter meer navorsing gedoen moet word om

helderheid oor die invloed van ander nie-intellektuele

faktore op leerpotentsiaaltellings te kry.

Die bevinding dat 'n korttermyn bemiddeling in

groepsverband, beduidende verskille In na-toetstellings

oplewer, dui aan dat hierdie tegniek moontlik aangewend kan

word vir algemene gebruik in dinamiese assessering.

DEDICATION

To my family, Michael, Karen, Melanie, Peter and Martin,

thank you for your encouragement. A special thanks to

Michael for all the help especially with the statistics;

to Karen for proofreading the document; to Melanie for

all the time spent on the video; and to Peter for his

patience.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to:

The staff and pupils of a Johannesburg

Secondary School who willingly submitted to all

the testing for this project.

To Dr. Jooste, my supervisor, for his

objectivity and interest.

THE EFFECTS OF COGNITIVE FACTORS AND PERSONALITY

ATTRIBUTES ON LEARNING POTENTIAL

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND 1

1.2 NORMATIVE ASSESSMENT 2

1.3 DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 3

1.4 APPROACHES TO DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 5

1.5 FEATURES OF THIS RESEARCH 7

1. 5.1 GROUP ADMINISTRATION 7

1. 5.2 ST~TDARDISED PROTOCOL 8

1. 5.3 SHORT LEARNING INTERVENTION 8

1. 5.4 SCORING 9

1. 5.5 GENERAL SKILLS 10

1. 5.6 PRACTICE EFFECTS 11

1. 5.7 TRANSFER EFFECTS 11

1.6 DEFINITION OF MAIN TERMS 12

1. 6.1 LEARNING POTENTIAL 12

1. 6.2 COGNITIVE FACTORS 12

1 . 6.3 NON-INTELLECTIVE FACTORS 14

1.6.3.1 Personality 14

1.6.3.2 l'1otivation 15

1.6.3.3 Learning Styles 16

1.7 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 17

1.8 AIMS OF THIS RESEARCH 18

1.9 DELIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH

19

·18

1.10 LAYOUT OF THE CHAPTERS

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION 20

2.2 HISTORICAL REVIEW 22

2.3 VYGOTSKY'S THEORY OF THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL

DEVELOPMENT 25

2.4 CURRENT MODELS OF DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 27

2.4.1 THE TEST-TRAIN-RETEST GAIN SCORE MODEL 27

2.4.2 THE CYLINDRICAL MODEL OF LEARNING

POTENTIAL 28

2.4.3 TESTING THE LIMITS ASSESSMENT 33

2.4.4 GRADUATED PROMPTING ASSESSMENT 35

2.4.5 A ~CONTINUUM OF ASSESSMENT SERVICES" MODEL 37

2.4.6 TRAIN-WITHIN-TEST 38

2.5 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 40

2.5.1 LEARNING AND COGNITIVE FACTORS 40

2.5.2 LEARNING AND PERSONALITY 42

2.5.3 LEARNING AND MOTIVATION 46

2.5.4 LEARNING AND LEARNING STYLES 48

2.6 LIMITATiONS OF THE EXISTING LITERATURE ON

DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 50

2.7 THE PRESENT RESEARCH PROJECT IN VIEW OF THESE

PURPORTED LIl'1ITATIONS 52

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION 54

3.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 54

3.3 AIM OF THIS STUDY 55

3.4 HYPOTHESES 56

3.5 SUBJECTS 62

3.6 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 64

3.7 PROCEDURES 65

3.7.1 THE INITIAL TESTING PHASE 65

3.7.2 THE EXPERIMENTAL PRE-TEST PHASE 66

3.7.3 THE EXPERIMENTAL POST-TEST PHASE 66

3.8 INSTRUMENTS 67

3.8.1 RAVEN'S STANDARD PROGRESSIVE MATRICES 67

3.8.2 FEUERSTEIN'S SET VARIATIONS 1 72

3.8.3 HIGH SCHOOL PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE 74

3.8.4 THE PICTURE MOTIVATION TESTS 87

3.8.5 THE LEARNING STYLES QUESTIONNAIRE 91

3.8.6 CATTELL'S CULTURE FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST 96

3.9 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 98

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH RESULTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION 101

4.2 HYPOTHESIS 1 101






4.8 HYPOTHE~':;IS 7 118


CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION


5.2 Sl:JMMARY OF RESULTS 126

5.3 DISCUSSION 127

5.3.1 GRO;JP ADMINISTRATION OF A SHORT LEARNING

TEST USED IN A STANDARDISED COGNITIVE

TEACHING INTERVENTION 127

5.3.2 PRACTICE EFFECTS 128

5.3.3 THE NON-INTELLECTIVE FACTORS 129

5.3.3.1 Personality Factors 129

5.3.3.2 Motivation 132

5.3.3.3 Learning Styles 133

5.3.4 COGNITIVE FACTORS 134

5.3.5 TRANSFER EFFECTS 135

5.4 CONCLUSIONS 137

5.5 LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH 138

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS


6.2 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 140

6.3 CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW 141

6.4 CHAPTER 3 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 144

6.4.1 THE AIM OF THIS STUDY 144

6.4.2 HYPOTHESES AND DATA ANALYSIS 145

1466.4.3 SUBJECTS

6.4.4 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 146

6.4.5 PROCEDURES 147

6.5 CHAPTER 4 - RESEARCH RESULTS 148

6.6 CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION ~~D CONCLUSION 149

6.7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 151

6.8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICAL USE OF THIS

RESEARCH 152

REFERENCES 155

TABLES

Table 3.1

Table 3.2

Table 3.3

Table 4.1

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Table 4.4

Table 4.5

Table 4.6

Table 4.7

Table 4.8

Table 4.9

Table 4.10

Table 4.11

Table 4.12

Table 4.13

Table 4.14

Table 4.15

Table 4.16

Sex 62

Age 63

Home Language 63

The effects of intervention! no

intervention on learning potential scores 102

The Omnibus Normality test on learning

potential scores 102

Variance-Ratio Equal-Variance Test on

learning potential scores 103

Equal-Variance t-Test on learning


Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices

pre-test: descriptive statistics 104

Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices

post-test: descriptive statistics 104

Omnibus Normality Test of residuals 105

Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on ranks 105

High School Personality Questionnaire:

descriptive statistics 106

Pearson's Correlation Coefficients for

personality traits and learning


Regression model summary of the 14

HSPQ traits 109

Regression model of the 14 HSPQ traits 109

Overall test of significance 110

Correlation matrix of independent

variables 110

Picture Motivation Tests: descriptive

statistics 111


motivational factors and learning


Table 4.17

Table 4.18

Table 4.19

Table 4.20

Table 4.21

Table 4.22

Table 4.23

Table 4.24

Table 4.25

Table 4.26

Table 4.27

Table 4.28

Table 4.29

Table 4.30

Table 4.31

Regression model summary of the 10

PMT traits 114

Regression model of 10 PMT traits 114

Overall test of significance 115

Learning styles: descriptive statistics 116


learning styles and learning potential

scores 116


Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test

Scale 2, Form A and learning potential

scores 118 •Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test,

Scale 2, Form A, raw scores 119

Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test,

Form A, standard scores 119

Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test,

Scale 2, Form B, raw scores 120

Cattel's Culture Fair Intelligence Test,

Scale 2, Form B, standard scores 120

The effects of intervention/ no

intervention on Cattell's Culture

Fair Intelligence Test 121

Results of the Omnibus Normality Test on

the difference scores on Cattell's

Culture Fair Intelligence Test 121

Results of the Mann-Whitney u-test on

the difference scores of Cattell's

Culture Fair Tests 122

Kruskal-Wallis Multiple-Comparison

z-value test 123


the difference scores between the CCFIT

Form A and Form B and learning


FIGURES

Figure 3.1 The Solomon 4-Group Design 64

Figure 3.2 Kolb's Circular Learning Pattern 92

Figure 6.1 The Solomon 4-Group Design 147

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1 . 1 RE SEARCH BACKGROUND

Education has been identified as one of the most important

tasks facing South Africa today. Due to the disparity in

the quality and availability of education across the

different population groups, using past academic performance

as a criterion for selection of the most suitable candidates

for educational and career opportunities can only perpetuate

the injustices of the apartheid education system. The use of

traditional psychometric tests in a population as culturally

diverse as South Africa is also questionable since many of

the commonly used tests were originally designed for white,

middle-class, western subj ects with concomitant equal and

similar educational opportunities. It is therefore important

to find new and more equitable methods of assessing

individuals in a socially diverse society.

Since the early 1960's dynamic assessment has been studied

extensively as an al ternative to traditional psychometric

testing (Lidz, 1987). Due to the time and expertise needed

to train subjects individually during assessment, the

incomparability of scores, and the lack of knowledge

concerning examiner effects, more emphasis is being placed

on short-term learning tests with a standardised training

phase (Guthke & Stein, 1996). However, very few researchers

have examined the effects of extraneous variables on

learning potential scores. In this research a short

standardised training phase, which is presented on video, is

1

used, and the effects of cognitive factors, learning styles,

personality traits and motivational factors are examined in

relation to learning potential scores.

1.2 NORMATIVE ASSESSMENT

The migration of culturally different populations throughout

the world has resulted in many societies becoming as

heterogeneous as South African society. The need to assess

culturally diverse populations has led to practitioners from

many countries questioning the validity and applicability of

traditional norm-referenced assessment procedures.

Although cultural differences are commonly cited as a reason

for underestimating intelligence, those who are not deriving

the full benefit from education due to physical or mental

disabilities are also at risk of being misclassified.

Many diverse proposals have been proffered to address the

inadequacies of normative assessment. These include the

following suggestions:

• Culture-fair or culture-free tests have been developed.

Some of these have been criticised for their poor

theoretical background (Anastasi, 1990) . The term

culture-fair has been used to describe tests that

minimise the effects of cultural influences, e.g. Raven's

Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1976) and Cattell's Culture

Fair Tests (Cattell, 1959a). However, the notion of a

cul ture "free" test is not widely accepted, since the

effects of cultural learning cannot be eliminated from

cognitive tests.

2

• Developing separate tests for each cultural group

(Williams, 1972) or adapting existing tests to be more

suitable for other cultural groups.

• Establishing new reference norms by including different

groups in the sample (Resing, Bleichrodt, & Drenth,

1986) .

• Using differential norms that compensate for societal or

cuI tural deprivation - a form of posi tive discriminati.on

(Brown, 1994; Petersen & Novick, 1976).

• Testing the usefulness of items with statistical and/or

linguistic procedures for detecting item bias in tests

(Kok, 1988). Removal of biased items could affect aspects

of the test that are relevant for successful prediction.

• An attempt to replace the 'static' traditional

intelligence tests with a more 'dynamic' assessment

procedure.

This research is concerned with the last of the above

proposals.

1.3 DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT

Dynamic Assessment is the generic term used to describe a

variety of evaluation approaches that emphasise guided

learning to determine a subject's potential for change.

While static tests have been characterised as retrospective

(i.e. they assess what has been learned in the past) dynamic

tests are described as prospective (i.e. they assess

potential ability based on present learning) A feature

common to all dynamic assessment models is the emphasis on

the individual's potential for change.

3

Proponents of dynamic assessment maintain that this form of

testing is preferable whenever doubt exists as to the

fairness of traditional instruments, since it is considered

a means of offering an optimal chance of achieving an

equi table test result. Not only are some of the concerns

surrounding cross-cultural assessment addressed by dynamic

assessment techniques, but it also becomes possible to

broaden the scope of assessment. For example, dynamic

assessment makes it possible to:

• Discriminate between individuals who are educationally

deprived, those who are mentally retarded and those who

are slow learners.

• Assess those with physical disabilities, such as the

blind or deaf.

II Assess giftedness in the culturally deprived.

II Reduce the differences between ~disadvantaged" and

~privileged" children (Guthke & Stein, 1996).

II Reduce the effects that the quality of teaching in

schools has on test results (Guthke & Stein, 1996).

• Reduce the effects of anxiety, neuroticism and stress

and increase the effects of creativity (Guthke & Stein,

1996) .

Dynamic assessment also overcomes some obstacles or

inhibiting characteristics, such as lack of motivation,

anxiety, impuls i vi ty and lack of planning. The predictive

power of intelligence tests is also enhanced since the

extent of the individual's ability to take advantage of

training is measured (Day, Engelhardt, Maxwell, & Bolig,

1997) .

4

1.4 APPROACHES TO DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT

Campione (1989) has proposed a taxonomy of various

approaches to dynamic assessment along three dimensions:

(i) focus which refers to the different ways

potential can be assessed;

(ii) interaction the differences in the

interaction between the examiner and subject;

(iii) target - whether the test is general or domain

specific.

(i) Focus

The maj ori ty of researchers in dynamic assessment use the

test-train-retest paradigm. The focus within this paradigm

differs according to the results the researcher prefers to

emphasise. Practitioners who base their research on

Feuerstein's (1979) Learning Potential Device, focus on

identifying the cognitive strengths and weaknesses in order

to develop programmes sui table for the individual (Lidz,

1987; Mearig, 1987; Skuy, Gaydon, Hoffenberg, & Fridjohn,

1990) .

other researchers focus on:

• the learning potential or gain score (Budoff, 1987a);

• the post-test score (Carlson & Weidl, 1992; Embretson,

1987);

• the transfer of learned skills to other situations

(Campione, Brown, Ferrara, & Bryant, 1984; Ferrara,

1987).

5

The test-train-retest paradigm was used in this research.

The focus was on both the learning potential score and

transfer of learned skills.

(ii) Interaction

The interaction between the examiner and the subject may be

a standardised protocol (Campione et al., 1984; Guthke,

1993) or an unstructured clinical interview (Feuerstein,

1979; Skuy et al., 1992) The choice of an interaction

method is dependent on the aims of the assessment. A

standardised protocol generates quantitative data that is

psychometrically acceptable, whereas the clinical interview

generates a clinical picture of the subject's cognitive

strengths and weaknesses.

The lesson ln this research was presented on video. The

interaction between the instructor and subject was therefore

minimal and standardised.

(iii) Target

The goal of assessment can either be a general assessment of

intelligence or assessment of domain-specific skills and

processes. Feuerstein (1979) concentrates on identifying

strengths and deficient cognitive functions across a variety

of content areas. General skills in the form of a variant of

Raven's Progressive Matrices were the target in the

Campione, Brown, Ferrara, Jones, and Steinberg (1985) study.

Ferrara, Brown, and Campione (1986) also targeted general

skills in their study using a Series Completion task.

Hamers, Pennings, and Guthke (1994) have researched domain

specific areas such as mathematics and reading.

6

Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven's SPM) and

Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Tests (CCFIT), which

were used in this research, are both measures of the general

factor g.

Using the above taxonomy this research can be categorised as

using a test-train-retest paradigm focusing on learning

potential scores, using standardised interventions and

targeting general skills.

1.5 FEATURES OF THIS RESEARCH

1.5.1 GROUP ADMINISTRATION

Dynamic assessment is essentially an individual method of

testing. Time and expertise constraints have resulted in

many studies using a small number of subjects (e.g. Hickson

& Skuy, 1990, n = 22; Rutland & Campbell, 1995, n = 26;

Schottke, Bartram, & Weidl, 1993, n = 22). Some studies do,

however, use group administration. The Learning Potential

Assessment Device (LPAD) includes eight tests that may be

used during group administration. In a large study of 962

children in Israel, Babad and Bashi (1977) found that group

administration of the Series Learning Potential Test showed

significant effects of coaching. Rand and Kaniel (1987)

state that group testing should not replace individual

testing, but rather be used as a screening device to detect

students who show difficulties in performance. Considering

the time and expertise necessary for the administration of

individual learning potential tests, group testing may

become more acceptable and widely used in the dynamic

assessment paradigm.

7

In this study, Set Variations 1 (Var. 1) which is one of the

tests In the battery of the group administered LPAD, was

used as a teaching tool (refer to 3.8.2). This test is

similar in kind and form of representation to the analogical

thinking tasks of Raven's SPM which was used as both a pre

and post-test.

1.5.2 STANDARDISED PROTOCOL

Many researchers (Budoff, 1987ai Carlson & Weidl 1979;

Embretson, 1987; Guthke, 1993) have emphasised the need for

a standardised protocol during the teaching phase of dynamic

assessment. A high degree of individualisation of the

training phase (e.g. Feuerstein, Rand, Jensen, Kaniel, &

Tzuriel, 1987) can lead to subjectivism in test

administration and interpretation, and no possibility of

intersubject comparisons. The choice of whether to use

standardised or clinical intervention procedures depends on

the goals of the assessment. Clinical intervention will lead

to a diagnosis of cognitive strengths and weaknesses,

whereas standardised protocols are generally concerned with

devising methods to increase the predictive validity of

assessment and to provide quantitative data that is

psychometrically acceptable.

Since the goals of this research were to examine the effects

of non-cognitive factors on learning potential scores it was

necessary to standardise the learning phase.

1.5.3 SHORT LEARNING INTERVENTION

The teaching phase of the maj ori ty of learning potential

tests relies on lengthy training phases. Guthke (1993)

8

developed the Short-term Learning Potential Test, which

requires only one testing session during which systematic

feedback and assistance are given. He was able to show that

a relatively short training session of one hour could lead

to significant learning gains. Diemand, Schuler, and Stapf

(1991) administered the Raven's Advanced Progressive

Matrices to students of technology and found that a fifty

minute training phase was sufficient to produce significant

gains.

The video used as a standardised teaching protocol in this

study was approximately one hour in length.

1.5.4 SCORING

The evaluation of change in test performance is central to

all approaches in dynamic assessment. The results of dynamic

assessment yield a number of scores:

• The pre-test score, which would normally be used for

classification or prediction in static testing.

• The data which is available from the instructional

interaction. The LPAD attempts to specify the processes

involved in change during administration. Campione and

Brown (1987) measure how much help the subjects need in

order to reach a specified criterion. Guthke (1993) uses

the amount of help and the kinds of prompts that the

child needs during the assessment as a test score.

• Carlson and Weidl (1979) and Embretson (1987) focus on

the post-test score. They believe that the intervention

provided minimises factors that reduce performance, such

as misunderstanding instructions. The final test scores

are believed to have a greater predictive validity.

9

• The gain score, which is the difference between the pre

and post-test scores was the major focus of Budoff's

(1987a) research. He argued that gain scores give

diagnostic information beyond pre-test and other

standardised measures.

Simple gain scores have been heavily cri ticised by some

researchers (Boeyens, 1989; Embretson, 1987). However, the

concept of gain is embedded in most research in dynamic

assessment.

In this study gain scores were correlated to personality

factors, motivational traits, and learning styles to assess

the effects of these factors on learning potential.

1.5.5 GENERAL SKILLS

Much of research conducted using dynamic assessment

concentrates on general skills or abilities (Budoff, 1987b;

Car lson & Weidl, 1992; Embretson, 1987; Feuerstein, 1979;

Lidz, 1987). The assumption here is that assessments of

fairly general abilities will provide information across a

number of situations.

In this research Set Variations 1 was used as a teaching

tool and the RSPM was used as both a pre-test and a post

test to assess learning potential scores. These tests are

similar in the kind of problems they present. The CCFIT

Forms A and B were used as pre- and post-tests to assess

transfer. These tests were constructed as measures of the

general factor g.

10

1.5.6 PRACTICE EFFECTS

The typical test-train-retest design of many learning

potential tests makes it very difficult to separate the

effects of practice from those of intervention. Results of

retesting can vary considerably and several unknown factors

probably moderate the retest effect. Klauer (1993) maintains

that fluid intelligence (which involves perceptual and

cogni tive performance skills) shows a higher susceptibility

to retest effect than crystallised intelligence (vocabulary

and numerical skills). Both the RSPM and CCFIT measure fluid

intelligence. Klauer suggests that it is advisable to

include a retest-only control group when interpreting mean

gain.

This study included retest only groups in order to separate

the effects of practice from those of intervention.

1.5.7 TRANSFER EFFECTS

Trans fer refers to the capacity to apply what has been

learned to new problems or situations. Transfer tasks must

be related to the trained tasks but at the same time be

different enough not to be a replication of the learning

task. Near transfer refers to the ability to transfer what

has been learned to problems of a similar kind and of

approximately equal complexity. Far transfer refers to the

application of rules learned to novel situations (Ferretti &

Butterfield, 1992).

Campione and Brown (1987) suggest that it is not sufficient

to teach children rules and principles, it is also necessary

to teach in a way that will allow children to use these

rules with some flexibility. Vye, Burns, Delcos, and

11

Brans ford (1987) found that performance following dynamic

assessment is predictive of within-domain (near) transfer

but not of across-domain (far) transfer.

In this study Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test Form

A was administered as a pre-test and Form B as a post-test

to measure far transfer effects. These tests consist of

problems not entirely dissimilar to those in Raven's

Standard Progressive Matrices, but are presented in a more

complex and novel way.

1.6 DEFINITION OF MAIN TERMS

1.6.1 LEARNING POTENTIAL

The difference between the scores obtained on the pre-test

and post-test using the test-train-retest paradigm was

defined as the learning potential score. Raven's Standard

Progressive Matrices was administered twice - once as a pre

test, then after a teaching phase, re-administered as the

post-test.

Vygotsky's (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is a

key concept in learning potential assessment. The ability to

profit from guided instruction is defined as learning

potential.

1.6.2. COGNITIVE FACTORS

Two issues were involved in the role of cognitive factors in

this research:

12

(i) Can general cognitive ability predict learning

potential scores?

(ii) Can general cognitive ability and/or learning

potential scores predict transfer gains?

(i) General cognitive ability was assessed on Cattell's

Culture Fair Intelligence Test Form A (refer to 3.8.6). The

IQ scores obtained were used to establish any relation

between these static measures and learning potential scores.

Early empirical evidence reported low or insignificant

correlations between various intelligence measures and

learning potential measures (Brown & Ferrara, 1980; Budoff,

1987 (b); Vye et al., 1987) However, three contemporary

studies (Campione et al., 1985; Ferrara et al., 1986;

Ferretti & Butterfield, 1992) reported significant

correlations between intelligence and learning, maintenance

and transfer.

(ii) Transfer refers to the ability to apply what has been

learned to novel tasks. Transfer scores were obtained from

the difference between CCFIT Form B (the post-test) and the

CCFIT Form A (the pre-test). This transfer measure was used

to ascertain whether there was any relationship between

learning potential and transfer scores.

Bryant (1982) and Bryant, Brown, and Campione (1983) found

that gain scores were better predictors of transfer than

static ability measures.

13

1.6.3 NON-INTELLECTIVE FACTORS

Feuerstein (1979) maintains that non-intellective factors,

such as motivational levels, personality factors and

learning styles are an integral part of an individual's

manifest behaviour. These factors should not therefore be

considered non- intellective, but rather a central part of

cognitive modifiability and performance.

Classical test theory has never had a clear hypothesis about

the exact relationship between true ability and affective

factors. Tzuriel (1992) suggests that we need to ask

questions, such as: ~What exactly are those non-intellective

factors? How do they effect performance?" and ~How can we

differentiate between non-intellective factors and cognitive

fa·ctors?"

This research examined three possible variables that could

influence learning potential scores: Personality, Motivation

and Learning Styles.

1.6.3.1 Personality

The High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ) (Cattell &

Cattell, 1973) which was used in this research, yields a

personality profile that identifies fourteen primary

personality factors (refer to 3.8.3). These traits were

investigated to ascertain whether there was any relation to

learning potential scores.

It is generally believed that non-cognitive factors, e. g.

personality characteristics, can influence test performance.

Al though very little research is available on the role of

14

personality traits in dynamic assessment, learning theorists

do generally agree that personality plays an important role

in the learning process (Boekaerts, 1996; de Fruyt &

Mervielde 1996; De Raad, 1996; Eysenck, 1996).

Ruijssenaars, Castelijns, and Hamers (1993) maintain that it

is generally assumed that personality variables such as fear

of failure and stress, are greater during the pre-test than

during the post-test. Guthke and Lehwald (1980) found that

the personal i ty characteristic \\ fear" had no differential

effect on pre-test and post-test results. Sensi tivi ty to

stress and frustration-tolerance were found to be stronger

during the pre-test than during the post-test. It is

postulated that training allows the subject to become used

to the task. Familiarity with the task decreases stress.

Budoff (1987a) reports that personality variables such as

neurotic anxiety, acting-out, bravado, mischievousness,

obedience and depressed self-criticism correlate with a poor

performance and/or poor gain scores on Koh's Block Designs.

Correlates of good Koh's performance scores were feelings

that others think well of one's physical ability, belief

that one will succeed in adversity and high achievement

motivation.

1.6.3.2 Motivation

The Picture Motivation Tests (Du Toit, 1983a) use a sYmbolic

pictorial technique for measuring a number of motivational

aspects that are considered important in understanding the

individual personality. Ten subtests measuring different

motivational aspects were used in this research (refer to

3.8.4). These factors were investigated to ascertain whether

15

there was evidence of any relationship to learning potential

scores.

Very little research is available on the effects of

motivation on learning potential. The role of motivation in

learning has been extensively studied in educational

psychology (Dweck, 1991; Mayer, 1998; Strage, 1997).

Atkinson (1980) maintains that if one assumes that a lack of

ability can be compensated for by achievement motivation, it

is conceivable that subjects with equal test scores can have

different combinations of proportions of true ability and

achievement motivation.

Vroom (1964) indicated that when motivation is low, both

high and low ability individuals show similar low levels of

performance. However, when motivation is high, performance

variability due to individual differences in ability is more

evident (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989).

Meijer (1993) found that a combination of high levels of

both achievement motivation and fear of failure lead to a

strong desire to perform well and a strong fear of

performing poorly. These tendencies expend a large part of

the cognitive processing capacity and attention to the task

is reduced.

1.6.3.3 Learning Styles

Honey and Mumford (1982) maintain that when a teaching style

and a learning style are in accord, learning can take place

more effectively. They developed the Learning Styles

Questionnaire, which measures four main styles of learning:

16

Theorist, Reflector, Activist and Pragmatist (refer to

3.8.5). The standardised training phase in this research

would favour a Theorist approach to learning. The sUbject's

learning style was determined in order to ascertain whether

the teaching style had an effect on the learning potential

scores.

Although the effects of specific forms of the training phase

on results of learning potential tests have not been

studied, it can be assumed that certain forms of training

give some subj ects an advantage while others will be at a

disadvantage (Guthke, 1993). Hamers and Sijtsma (1993)

maintain that the efficiency of learning may be contingent

on the teaching strategy employed.

1 . 7 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In light of the time and expertise required, the

incomparability of scores, the lack of knowledge concerning

the examiner effects and the role of cogni tive and non

intellective factors in dynamic assessment, this research

proposes to examine the following questions:

I. Whether a short, group administered dynamic assessment

procedure using a standardised intervention protocol

presented on video, is viable.

II. Whether current general intellectual ability has a

significant effect on learning potential scores.

III. Whether non-intellective factors such as certain

personali ty factors , motivational traits and learning

styles have significant effects on learning potential

scores.

17

IV. Whether transfer from pre-mediation to post-mediation

cognitive functioning is statistically significant.

1.8 AIMS OF THE RESEARCH

In this research the effects of certain cognitive factors,

personality traits, motivational factors and learning styles

on learning potential scores are examined. Learning

potential scores are defined as the difference between the

pre- and post-test scores on Raven's Standard Progressive

Matrices. The training phase is standardised according to a

Theorist learning style and is presented on video to the

subjects using Feuerstein's Set Variations 1 as a teaching

tool. Transfer performance is measured as the difference

between the pre- and post-test administration of Cattell's

Culture Fair Tests Forms A and B, respectively.

1.9 DELIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH

This research is exploratory in the sense that only one

aspect of learning potential is being examined, (i.e.

general cognitive ability) This precludes any aspects

concerned with specific learning, such as learning

Mathematics or English.

It also only concentrates on high school learners from

previously disadvantaged communities. All the subjects are

from a single grade in a single school of these communities.

Furthermore this study is concentrated at a specific point

in time. It does not relate to sustainable performance. A

longi tudinal rather than a cross-sectional study would be

18

necessary to ascertain whether improved performance can be

maintained over a long time.

1.10 LAYOUT OF THE CHAPTERS

Chapter 2 consists of a review of the literature pertinent

to this research and includes an historical perspective.

In Chapter 3 the research approach is defined and the

research questions are formulated. This includes a

description of the method of data collection and analysis.

In Chapter 4 the statistical results and a discussion of the

findings are presented.

In Chapter 5 a summary of the thesis is presented and

recommendations for further research are discussed.

Chapter 6 consists of a summary of chapters 1 5.

Recommendations for future research and practical uses of

these results are suggested.

19

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Two methods have traditionally been employed in the

assessment of a student's ability to learn: past academic

achievement, and/or intelligence tests. Both these methods

are inextricably linked to the quality and availability of

educational opportunities afforded to the individual. These

methods have, therefore, proved to be good predictors of

future learuing in relatively homogeneous societies, from a

cuI tural diversi ty point of view, where equal and similar

educational opportunities are available to all social groups

in that population.

However, a marked disparity in the quality and availability

of educational opportunities, both at school and at home,

resul ts in some groups being systematically disadvantaged.

For example, Visser (1978) found that past academic

achievement was a good predictor of future learning in white

schools but not in black schools. Systematic differences

have also been found in IQ tests. For example, Jensen (1969)

found a mean difference of 15 IQ points between white and

black groups of children, and Babad and Bashi (1977) found a

time lag of two years between advantaged and disadvantaged

children.

In addition, various authors (Duran, 1989; Hamers, Hessels,

& Pennings, 1996; Reynolds, 1982; Sattler, 1982) have

20

suggested that the validity of cross-cultural IQ testing is

questionable for the following reasons:

• Cultural setting. Developmental opportunities may be very

different from those available to most western children,

e.g. rearing practices, expectations, aspirations, formal

and informal learning.

• Language and cross-cultural communication processes.

Understanding the instructions may be affected by

language skills not being fully developed or because the

test is administered in a language other than the

subject's home language.

• Examiner bias. Psychologists and subj ects may belong to

different racial groups. This could intimidate children

especially if communication is inadequate.

• Inappropriate content. Tests are geared towards white

middle-class homes and values and not all children will

have been exposed to materials used in the test items.

Items could also contain references to the cultural

background of the test composer e. g. "What is bacon?"

could be difficult for a child from an Islamic

background.

• Test-wiseness. It is generally assumed that subjects have

acquired the skills necessary for test-taking such as

dealing with time constraints, understanding the

instructions, dealing with one item at a time and

considering all possible answers.

• Inappropriate standardisation samples. Most measures of

intellectual ability use norm-referenced tests where the

goal is to compare the performance of a particular person

wi th the average performance of subj ects in a normative

sample. In South Africa it cannot always be assumed that

all subjects had the opportunity to acquire the same

21

knowledge and skills. Results should be compared to

carefully constructed (i.e. reasonable representation of

language, sex, age, rural vs. urban etc.) norm groups,

which may not always be available.

• Measurement of diverse constructs. Mercer (1979)

contends, for instance, that IQ tests measure the degree

of Anglocentrism at home.

• Differential predictive validity. Cognitive tests fail to

predict some relevant criteria for minorities on an

acceptable level.

Despite these considerations, result-orientated intelligence

tests, where performance assessment is based on current

functioning without the benefit of help, have been widely

used across many cultures since James McKeen Cattell

described the first "mental test" in 1890 (Cattell, 1890).

However, the need for a more dynamic form of testing was

20 thalready being mooted early in the century.

2.2 HISTORICAL REVIEW

The concept of intelligence as an innate, relatively

permanent ability, was questioned as far back as 1909 by

Binet, who maintained that intelligence could, to some

extent, be taught (Binet, 1909); and by Thorndike who

defined intelligence as the 'ability to learn' (Thorndike,

1924).

In the 1920's psychologists began to suggest new approaches

to assessment that intimated the need for dynamic

assessment. For example, Buckingham (1921) suggested that

assessment of the 'ability to learn' should include both

what has been learned and what may be learned in the future.

22

Dearborn (1921) suggested that tests should involve actual

learning rather than the results of learning.

The next few decades saw isolated studies concerned with the

effects of practice and coaching on intelligence scores

(Haeussermann, 1958; Macpherson, 1948; Vernon, 1954; Volle,

1946; Woodrow, 1946;).

In the 1960's efforts were made to devise direct measures of

learning by introducing a test-train-retest model. Shucman

(1960) trained severely retarded children to a criterion of

three consecutive responses on each task. She found that

these tests could discriminate between IQ levels of this

group, and that transfer and retention scores were the most

sensitive reflectors of IQ. Post-training scores were found

to be more stable than initial test scores and were better

predictors of teacher ratings.

Jensen (1969) studied the performance of ethnic minorities.

Using learning tasks he found that standard IQ tests

discriminated between fast- and slow-learning Anglo American

children, but learning tests resulted in ~low-IQ" Mexican

Americans performing at a much higher level than their IQ

tests suggested. He concluded that, although Mexican

Americans consistently scored lower on static tests, the

distribution of learning abilities is not different from

those of the Anglo-American population.

After almost 50 years of isolated questioning of static

intelligence testing, various factors converged in the

1970's that lent impetus to the growing dissatisfaction with

assessment practices:

23

• In the United states and Israel evaluation of low-SES

minority children became an issue. Thousands of children

who did not appear to be dull obtained low scores on

measures purporting to test intelligence. This led to a

preponderance of minorities in special education classes.

• Haywood (1970) and Haywood, Filler, Shifman, and

Chatelenat (1975) brought the work of Feuerstein and his

co-workers to the attention of the American public.

• Budoff (1974), Campione and Brown (1987), and Carlson and

Weidl (1978) among others were carrying out a significant

body of research directly related to dynamic assessment.

• Vygotsky's (1935) Mind in Society: The development of

higher psychological processes, which proposed the ~zone

of proximal development", was translated into English in

1978 by Cole, John-Steiner, Scribner and Souberman.

In addition, the expansion of psychometric assessment due to

the democratisation of education and the migration of

cul turally diverse populations led to the need to produce

more adequate ways to assess individuals. Assessment now

needed to include the following groups:

• Various age groups, from the newborn to the aged.

• Individuals from various cultures, some of whom may be

preliterate or speak a language different to that of the

test and/or the tester.

• Individuals with different levels of functioning, from

those who were previously not considered testable due to

their low levels of functioning, to the intellectually

gifted.

This gave rise to diverse attempts to modify psychometric

practice. A large body of research has accumulated since

24

1970 and various aspects of dynamic assessment are being

studied in many parts of the world. The theoretical

foundation of the dynamic assessment approach is based on

Vygotsky's (1978) concept of the zone of proximal

development.

2.3 VYGOTSKY'S THEORY OF THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT

Although Vygotsky (1896-1934) was a contemporary of Piaget,

his theories were relatively unknown until quite recently.

This was because his work was banned in Russia between 1930

and 1950 for political reasons (Kozulin, 1995), and only

became generally available in the West after the translation

of Mind in Society in 1978. His theory of the Zone of

Proximal Development, based on his concept of 'development

generated learning' (Vygotsky, 1978), has had a major impact

on dynamic assessment.

Development-generated learning was developed as a

theoretical model of the relationship between education and

developmental processes. Vygotsky (1978) maintained that a

child's mind does not develop spontaneously, but is a result

of the acquisition of 'psychological tools', such as

concepts, symbols, formulae, etcetera. These tools are

presented (or mediated) to the child by an adult or a more

capable peer. These tools are first used at an external

level and slowly become internalised. Internalisation alters

the child's mental processes.

This model was developed into a diagnostic principal for the

psychological assessment of children. Vygotsky (1978)

maintained that psychologists should not limit themselves to

the current status of an individual's intelligence, which is

25

usually thought to be determined by biological maturation or

inherent ability and measured on standardised tests. The

process of transition (through mediation) to new forms of

behaviour should also be examined. He did not reject the

standardised psychometric approach to assessment, but argued

that the learning of new 'psychological tools' should be

incorporated into the assessment procedure. To this end he

distinguished between two zones: The Zone of Actual

Development and the Zone of Proximal Development (Karpov,

1995; Karpov & Haywood (1998).

The number of test items a child is able to answer correctly

wi thout any assistance measures the Zone of Actual

Development (ZAD). This score provides a quantitative index

of current developmental status.

The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is used as an

indication of the child's ability to benefit from

interaction with an adult or more capable peer. The

difference between the ZAD score and the level of competency

the child reaches with assistance is operationally defined

as the ZPD.

Luria (1961) modified Vygotsky's developmental assessment

procedure into an assessment of learning potential. The

interaction between child and adult was transformed into a

training phase that became part of the assessment procedure.

By comparing pre-test and post-test scores he was able to

differentiate between a child's actual development and

his/her potential performance level.

26

Vygotsky's (1978) theory of the ZPD has become the central

concept in the practice of dynamic assessment (Ramers,

Ressels & Pennings, 1996).

2.4 CURRENT MODELS OF DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT

Current models of dynamic assessment are generally based on

Luria's (1961) methods. The basic format consists of a pre

test, in which the subject is tested while working alone in

order to provide a baseline measure. The subject then

undergoes a training protocol. Finally the subject is

retested to assess whether he/she has gained from the

instruction. Jitendra and Kameenui (1993) identified five

distinct models of dynamic assessment in research

literature. These models are essentially American. A

European model that has been widely reported has been

inclUded. Although they all use the test-train-retest method

there are wide variations in the target skills, testing and

training procedures. The six models are:

• Test-train-retest Gain Score Model

• The Cylindrical Model of Learning Potential Assessment

• Testing-the-Limits

• Graduated Prompting

• The ~Continuum of Assessment Services" Model.

• Train-within-test.

2.4.1 TEST-TRAIN-RETEST GAIN SCORE MODEL

Budoff (1974, 1987a, 1987b) used the basic test-train-retest

paradigm to assess the learning potential of educable

retarded children. The initial thrust of this technique was

to standardise procedures of dynamic assessment in order to

27

yield a less biased estimate of the ability to profit from

experience. The training phase consists of teaching the

child how to think about solving problems when the content

may be unfamiliar and appropriate strategies are not

apparent. Praise and encouragement are provided and the

child is allowed to experience success.

Budoff (1987a) defines learning potential as the gain score

from pre- to post-test. He originally suggested three

categories: gainers, those who showed significant gains

between pre- and post-tests; non-gainers, children who

showed no improvement from training; and high scorers, those

who did well on the pre-test. By 1987 he preferred to see

gain status along a continuum rather than as three distinct

categories. Budoff has consistently found that training

results in a substantially greater level of improvement for

low socio-economic status children. He suggests that (

children who perform adequately following a brief period of

training are not mentally handicapped but rather

educationally handicapped due to inadequate family and

school experiences.

2.4.2 THE CYLINDRICAL MODEL OF LEARNING POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT

This model is based on Feuerstein's (1979) theory of

structural cognitive modifiability and the mediated learning

experience. The assessment procedure follows the test-train

retest method, but in this case the training phase consists

of intensive mediated learning experiences. The subj ect' s

performance is analysed and interpreted using the following

task dimensions:

28

(1) The modality of presentation, which may be verbal,

pictorial, numerical, figural, symbolic, graphic,

or any combination of these.

(2) The novelty and complexity of the tasks may be

manipulated according to the needs of the subject,

but generally starts by giving all the relevant

information necessary to teach the cognitive

principles involved in the task.

(3) The cognitive operations used to solve the task

are the rules according to which the information

is organised, manipulated and understood. These

operations include categorisation, analogy,

seriation, logical multiplication, permutations

and syllogism.

Feuerstein (1979) developed the Learning Potential

Assessment Jjevice (LPAD) to identify impaired cognitive

functions in basic learning skills, to study the reasons for

low functioning and to ascertain the amount of investment

needed to improve cognitive functioning. All the test

instruments in this battery were constructed or adapted to

take the above task dimensions into account.

The., goals of this dynamic approach to assessment can be

either functional or structural. Functional dynamic

assessment limits the quantity and quality of the changes

that can be targeted. structural dynamic assessment goes

beyond immediate levels of functioning to search for changes

in the structural nature of the cognitive processes. This

view assumes the human organism to be an open system, which

is accessible to structural change, regardless of the

aetiology, stage of development or the severity of the

condition. The results of this form of assessment will not

29

be differences in the levels of performance of the subjects,

but the amount and nature of the investment necessary to

produce desired changes.

Feuerstein (1979, 1980) distinguished two kinds of learning:

(1) Learning by direct exposure to a stimulus. The

stimulus is perceived and reacted to on a basis of

trial-and-error.

(2) Mediated learning, where an experienced and

intentioned adult intervenes between the child and

the stimulus. The adult interprets the stimulus

for the child and in so doing instils learning

sets and habits.

According to Feuerstein mediated learning is an essential

form of learning. Deprivation of this form of learning can

lead to a reduced level of modifiability, a passive attitude

to cognitive tasks, an absence of motivation and a negative

self-concept. This is an important cause of the poor

performance of persons labelled as retarded on standard

intelligence tests.

The Leaning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD) uses mediated

learning to assess an individual's cognitive strengths and

weaknesses. The LPAD involves changes in four basic areas of

assessment:

(a) The structure of the test the tasks are

presented in the test-train-retest format that

allows the examiner to estimate the effects of the

teaching process.

30

(b) The test situation - the examiner is the teacher

observer and the examinee the learner-performer.

(c) The orientation of the test is the exploration of

the nature of learning so as to obtain information

to modify and enhance teaching.

(d) The interpretation of results improved

performance is interpreted as an indication of

cognitive potential.

Each instrument in the LPAD:

• requires the use of one or more cognitive functions;

• has been refined specifically for use in assessing

learning potential through years of use with large

numbers of subjects and in a variety of settings;

• represents tasks requiring higher mental processes;

• is controlled so that functioning is not contingent on

familiarity or prior knowledge;

• is able to detect microchanges in subjects following

exposure to stimuli mediated to them in the LPAD.

The LPAD is administered in a flexible, individualised and

intensely interactive process where the task may be changed

according to need, and the examinee modifies his/her

responses according the needs of the subject. The advantage

of the LPAD is that the diagnostic approach leads to

remedial programmes. Feuerstein has devoted many years to

assessing the modifiability of mentally retarded, culturally

deprived and autistic children and adolescents using the

LPAD and attempting to reverse the effects of the lack of

mediated learning using his Instrumental Enrichment Program

(Feuerstein, Hoffman, Jensen, & Rand, 1985).

31

Many researchers have continued to develop Feuerstein's

(1979, 1980) work. Employing the extensive and richly verbal

interaction based on the mediated learning developed by

Feuerstein, researchers have studied various 'minority

groups' . These include, among others, the mentally

handicapped (Molina & Perez, 1993), the deaf (Keane,

Tannenbaum, & Krapf, 1992), subjects with schizophrenia

(Sclan, 1986 and Skuy et al., 1992), adults with severe head

injuries (Heinrich, 1991), stroke patients (Carr, 1985),

immigrants (Kaniel & Tzuriel, 1992) and potentially gifted

students (Skuy, 1988).

The LPAD was developed primarily for use with adolescents

and school-going children. Mearig (1987) has modified the

existing LPAD instrument for use with kindergarten to

primary school age children. Tzuriel and Klein (1987)

developed the Children's Analogical Thinking Modifiability

(CATM) instrument, and Lidz (1987) developed the Pre-school

Learning Assessment Device, based on Feuerstein's

theoretical model.

The LPAD has been criticised as an assessment tool both from

a theoretical and methodological point of view. Buchel and

Scharnhorst (1993) maintain that the LPAD does not:

• allow for a rational analysis of test tasks because its

dimensions are not well defined;

• present a coherent theory of cognitive functioning;

• properly define the concept of operation;

• standardise hints, scoring procedures or the

interpretation of results;

• lacks reliability and validity studies.

32

Due to the inordinate amount of time and training necessary

to administer the Feuerstein (1979) model, many researchers

are looking for alternative methods of assessment. The

advantage of the LPAD is that the aim is diagnostic and it

is used as an aid to intervention. However, the predominant

role of the LPAD as an assessment tool in dynamic assessment

will be lost if improved standardisation procedures are not

incorporated (Buchel & Scharnhorst, 1993).

The changes brought about by dynamic assessment using the

LPAD are believed to be permanent and can be applied to

increasingly more complex and unfamiliar situations. This is

in contrast to many other dynamic assessment procedures

where the quantity and quality of the changes that are

targeted are limited.

2.4.3 TESTING-THE-LIMITS ASSESSMENT

Proponents of this model include Carlson and Weidl (1978,

1979), Carlson and Dillon (1978) and Guthke (1993) among

others. This approach assesses the limits of the subjects'

abilities by integrating various, usually standardised,

interventions into the testing procedure. There is no

training or practice outside the testing situation itself.

The interventions used in this paradigm include:

• Providing simple feedback concerning the correctness or

incorrectness of the responses.

• Prompting the subj ect to verbalise how (s) he solved the

problem after each answer.

• Prompting the subject to verbalise during and after

solving the problem.

33

• Providing elaborated feedback that explains the

principles involved while solving the problem.

• Prompting the sUbject to verbalise during and after the

solution while providing an explanation of the principles

needed to complete the task.

Testing-the-limits does not require alterations in the

general structure of traditional tests. Modifications of the

tests require only that one or more of the above procedures

be incorporated into the testing situation. Raven's Coloured

Matrices, Cattell's Culture Fair Test, Matching Familiar

Figures Test, Harter's Perceived Competency Scale for

Children and Trail Making and Visual Search Tasks are

commonly administered measures.

For example, Carlson and Weidl (1978, 1979) used three

methods in the administration of the Raven Progressive

Matrices: (a) standard administration, (b) sUbjects were

required to verbalise the solution before seeing the

alternatives or (c) verbalisation after making their choice.

They report that the post-test scores for conditions (b) and

(c) were more predictive than the scores from the standard

administration. Increases in level of performance are seen

to reflect modifications in the understanding of the task or

reduced anxiety in the testing situation.

Carlson and Dillon (1978) found that standardised

administration or simple feedback did not lead to higher

levels of performance among deaf subj ects. However, each

elaborative condition resulted in increased performance. The

authors suggest that an activation process, such as focusing

the child's attention, which leads to the solution, is

probably involved.

34

Schroots (1979) and Spelberg (1987) developed and studied

several limit-testing procedures using tasks from existing

intelligence tests. Wijnstra (1986) developed two learning

potential tests - a puzzle-version of Raven's Progressive

Matrices and a numerical series test. The standardised

training procedures of these tests consist of a combination

of feedback and verbalisation.

Guthke (1993) used one testing session during which either

systematic feedback or extensive assistance in addition to

simple feedback was provided. Both these interventions were

fully standardised. He reported increased performance on all

intelligence tests after training.

Irrespective of the tests used, the testing conditions of

verbalisation and elaborated feedback has led to higher

levels of performance than standard testing conditions

(Bethge, Carlson, & Weidl, 1982; Carlson, 1989; Carlson &

Weidl, 1978, 1979). Increased performance with these

conditions was found regardless of intelligence level,

learning disabilities, or cultural and racial differences.

Dillon (1979) contends that this method is suitable for

routine psychoeducational assessment.

2.4.4 GRADUATED PROMPTING ASSESSMENT

The graduated prompting assessment model developed by

Campione and Brown (1978, 1984, 1987) is based on Vygotsky's

zone of proximal development. The subj ect' s initial

competence is assessed as a baseline measure. The child is

then presented with a number of problems. If slhe is unable

35

to solve a particular problem, a series of hints is given.

These prompts are standardised and hierarchically sequenced.

Unlike testing-the-limits the hints are independent of the

child's response. The initial hints are very general, if the

child is still unable to answer correctly; the succeeding

hints become progressively more specific and concrete. This

allows for the estimation of the minimum amount of help the

subject requires to solve the problem. The amount of

assistance needed for independent problem solution yields a

learning score.

This method differs from many other approaches in that it is

not how much improvement results from intervention, but

rather how much help is needed to achieve a specified

criterion. The same hinting procedure is used for transfer

problems, and is scored in the same way. Following these

interventions a post-test is given and a gain score

resulting from the intervention is determined.

Campione and Brown (1987) work with inductive reasoning

tasks such as series completion and Raven-type matrix

problems. They found that lower ability children required

more prompting to learn a set of rules to a certain

criterion and also more help to apply these rules to new

situations. A number of studies show that learning and

transfer scores were better predictors of gains than static

ability scores. Transfer scores also account for more

variance in gain scores than do learning scores.

Resing (1993) based her work on the approach of Campione and

Brown (1987). She developed two learning potential tests for

inductive reasoning: Exclusion and Verbal Analogies. The

training procedures were standardised and the hints given

36

during training were hierarchically ordered from general to

specific. Transfer was stressed as an aspect of learning

potential. Her results demonstrated the applicability of

this form of testing for children in primary school and in

special schools.

2.4.5 A ~CONTINUUM OF ASSESSMENT SERVICES" MODEL

Burns, Haywood, Delclos, and Siewert (1987), Tzuriel and

Klein (1987) and Vye et al. (1987) used this model which

incorporates the mediational aspects of the LPAD and the

graduated prompting of Campione and Brown (1987). The

Continuum of Assessment technique involves the

administration of a static measure followed by graduated

prompting procedures. If the child performs below a certain

criterion, (s)he is then provided with mediation using

brief, standardised scripts. Mediation involves

metacogni tive skills such as planning and monitoring but

uses brief, scripted instructional procedures. The mediation

phase of the continuum model includes:

• Familiarisation with the task materials. This involves

the direction of the subject's attention to the relevant

dimensions.

• Teaching specific rules and procedures necessary for

completion of the task.

• Allowing the subj ect to practice on assessment items and

giving elaborated feedback on performance.

The nature of the prompts given during mediational

assessment is contingent upon the child's performance,

whereas in the graduated prompting method the prompts are

37

based on task analysis and arranged from general to

specific.

Proponents of Feuerstein's (1979) model would argue that

standardised scripts do not allow for individualisation of

the process and relevant information may be lost. Although

this is true, standardised mediational approaches overcome

many of the difficulties associated with the LPAD (e.g.

extensive input by trained examiners, sUbjectivity of

inferences made during testing, and lack of standardisation

of procedures) .

Burns et al. (1987); Tzuriel and Klein (1987) Vye et al.

(1987) have used this model for research purposes and as an

assessment technique with pre-school children, middle school

children and with disabled subj ects. The mediation method

appears to lead to greater generalisation than graduated

prompting.

2.4.6 TRAIN-WITHIN-TEST

The train-within-test paradigm has neither pre-test nor an

explicit training phase. Training is an integral part of the

test and consists of increasing help according to the needs

of the child. This avoids the problematic issue of change

measurement (Hessels, 1996).

The Learning Potential Test for Ethnic Minorities (LEM) was

developed by Hamers, Hessels, and Van Luit (1991) to

estimate the general cognitive abilities of minority

children. Before testing the child is given extensive

practice to become acquainted with the testing materials and

situation.

38

Training is standardised and consists of repeating items,

non-verbal feedback (i. e. right/wrong information) or

demonstration, depending on the task. The hints are not

hierarchically structured; help is given depending on the

needs of the specific learner. All instructions are non

verbal, the child is taught through demonstration and

practice. This allows for testing children with poor

language proficiency. Hamers et al. (1996) found that the

LEM reduced the di fferences in mean test scores between

Dutch, Turkish and Moroccan subjects. In addition, children

with low intelligence test scores could be differentiated

into low, medium or high scorers on the learning test. This

implies that many children benefit from the learning

potential procedure and that many "false-negatives" could be

discerned.

other learning potential batteries for ethnic minorities

using a similar model have been developed in the United

Kingdom. Coxhead and Gupta (1988) developed the Learning

Efficiency Test Battery based on a demonstration, practice,

testing procedure. Hegarty (1979) developed the Test of

Children's Learning Ability using a teach, practice, test,

teach, test procedure.

These models are all subsumed under the heading of dynamic

assessment because they all link assessment and instruction.

There are, however, significant differences in their

theoretical orientation, purpose of assessment, types of

skills assessed, types of tasks used, the nature of the

interaction between examiner and subject, and quantity and

quality of empirical support they command.

39

Researchers using these different models (Budoff, 1987b;

Burns et al., 1987; Guthke, 1993; Hessels, 1996; Kahn &

King, 1997; Rutland & Campbell, 1995;) generally report that

dynamic assessment leads to more accurate prediction and

classification of individual subjects than the unaided test

scores.

2.5 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

Very few empirical studies directly related to this research

project have been found in the available literature. There

is, however, a growing body of evidence from research in

both educational and personality psychology that indicates

individual differences in learning ability cannot be

explained solely as a result of a general intellectual

ability. There appears to be a complex and dynamic

interaction between cogni tive, affective and motivational

factors that influences learning (Volet, 1996).

2.5.1 LEARNING AND COGNITIVE FACTORS

Empirical results of intelligence-related differences in

learning have often been contradictory. Early empirical

studies reported low or insignificant correlations between

intelligence and learning (Brown & Ferrara 1980; Campione &

Brown, 1984; Vye et ale 1987). However, later studies

contradicted these findings. Campione et al. (1985) found

that mentally retarded children learned as fast as average

children, but they needed more hints to transfer and were

less likely to maintain strategy use. Correct responses in

this study required children to apply a single rule to the

problem. Ferrara et al. (1986) found that when the task

required the simultaneous application of two rules, average

40

children needed more hints to learn the rules than above

average children, and more hints to transfer these rules to

other tasks.

These contradictory results may be explained by the

methodological differences in the studies. In the Campione

et ale (1985) study the subjects were matched according to

their mental age, Ferrara et al. (1986) did not match her

subjects before the testing. When the task was easier (the

application of one rule as opposed to two) and the pre-test

performance was equated across groups, intelligence was not

related to learning.

Ferretti and Butterfield (1992) reported that insignificant

differences were found when the subjects did not need to co

ordinate multiple sources of information. However, once the

task required the simultaneous co-ordination of more than

one dimension, intelligence-related differences were

evident. These results suggest that the difficulty of the

task has some influence on intelligence-related differences

in learning.

Budoff (1987a) found that higher scores on non-verbal or

minimally verbal tests, such as the WISC Performance scale

and Raven Progressive Matrices were associated with better


These results suggest that intelligence-related differences

in learning ability may be found in both the RSPM and the

CCFIT. Both these tests are non-verbal and although the

earlier problems can be solved using one rule, the problems

become progressively more difficult.

41

See Chapter 3 for a discussion of Ravens Progressive

Matrices and Cattell's Culture Fair Tests.

2.5.2 LEARNING AND PERSONALITY

Budoff and his associates (Budoff & Pines, 1971; Harrison &

Budoff, 1972a, 1972b; Harrison, Singer, Budoff, & Folman,

1972) examined the effects of personality factors on

learning potential scores. They found that subjects

classified as gainers showed the following characteristics

(Budoff, 1987a):

• A greater sense of personal adequacy;

• Greater flexibility on a concept shift task;

• More flexibility and the ability to delay response;

• The ability to manage frustrations more effectively;

• Saw themselves as less neurotic or maladjusted and

• Set their aspiration levels more realistically even under

stress of failure.

Guthke and Lehwald (1980) found that the personality

characteristic 'fear' did not have a differential effect on

pre-test or post-test results. Sensi tivi ty to stress and

frustration tolerance was stronger during the pre-test than

during the post-test. They postulate that getting used to

the task helped to minimise these effects. Neuroticism was

found to have a greater effect on traditional tests and

long-term learning tests than short-term learning tests.

These findings are not directly related to the personality

traits measured using the High School Personality

Questionnaire (HSPQ). However, the relationship between

42

personality and learning has been well-documented in

educational and personality psychology.

Many researchers have used the ~Big Five" i.e. extraversion,

agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and

intellect, (Costa & McCrae, 1992i Goldberg, 1990; 1993) to

study the relationship between personality traits and

learning or academic achievement. The results of these

studies may be summarised as follows:

• The correlation between Extraversion and learning appears

to be age-related. There is a positive correlation

between this dimension and school achievement among pre

adolescents. This relationship appears to decrease with

age so that at student levels the relationship is

inverted (De Raad & Schouwenburg/ 1996; Eysenck/ 1996).

This dimension is similar to the second-order factor

Extroversion, which is calculated from various scores,

measured on the HSPQ.

• Agreeableness is concerned with interpersonal

relationships and as such this dimension is not generally

included in studies examining the relationship between

personality and learning. De Fruyt and Mervielde (1996)

found that this factor was not correlated with

educational outcomes. Factor A in the HSPQ measures the

extent to which the individual fits in socially and is

closest to this dimension.

• Conscientiousness has consistently been found to have a

positive effect on learning and academic achievement (De

Fruyt & Mervielde, 1996; De Raad & Schouwenburg / 1996 i

Johnson & Bloom/ 1995). De Fruyt and Mervielde (1996)

maintain that Conscientiousness may be the non-cognitive

equivalent of the cognitive factor g, and part of the

43

variance in educational measures can be explained by this

variable. Visser et al. (1992) maintain that this factor

(Factor G in the HSPQ) correlates positively with

academic achievement.

• The correlation between Emotional Stability and learning

also appears to be age-related. The correlation between

Neuroticism and low achievement becomes closer with

increasing age (De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996; Eysenck,

1996). De Fruyt and Mervielde (1996) found that the

relationship between Neuroticism and low achievement was

only significant for males. The factors that contribute

to anxiety (+D, +0, +Q4, -C, -G, -H, -Q3), a high score on

Factor I and low scores on Factor E and F contribute to

the measurement of neuroticism on the HSPQ (Smit, 1991).

• The factor variously called Intellect, Imagination or

Autonomy includes such concepts as the need for cognition

(Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein & Jarvis, 1996), intellectual

engagement and the desire to be reflective and thoughtful

(Sternberg, 1996). Studies related to the correlation

between this trait and learning or academic achievement

have yielded conflicting results. Goff and Ackerman

(1992) found this trait to be unrelated to academic

achievement. Low correlations were reported by Cacioppo

et ale (1996) whereas Blickle (1996) found that this

trait predicts educational success. De Fruyt and

Mervielde (1996) found this factor to be moderately

negatively correlated for females. None of the factors in

the HSPQ measure this trait directly. One aspect of this

trait - Abstract Thinking (Factor B) is measured using

the HSPQ.

De Raad and Schouwenburg (1996) have described the ideal

student as self-controlled, self-confident, tolerant,

44

mature, diligent, well organised, resourceful, methodica~

and persevering. Most of these characteristics are included

in Factor G of the HSPQ (diligent, well organised,

methodical, and persevering). The other characteristics do

not fit those measured by the HSPQ exactly but are related

in some respects to various factors. For example, Q3

emphasises self-control, -0 measures self-confidence,

tolerance is part of Factor A, maturity is found in Factors

A and C, and resourcefulness in Q2.

Anxiety is a second order factor of the HSPQ. Although high

anxiety is consistently associated with poor academic

achievement (Gaudry & Spielberger, 1971; Sarason & Sarason,

1990) the correlations are generally low, in the order of

0.10 - 0.20 (De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996).

Although the definitions of these constructs do not overlap

exactly with the definitions of the factors measured using

the HSPQ, these results may give some indication of whether

these traits could effect learning potential tests. If these

results were extrapolated to the current research the

following results would be expected:

• Extraversion, Anxiety (second order factors), Factor

+1 (tender-mindedness), Factor -E (submissiveness)

and Factor -F (soberness) may be uncorrelated or be

slightly negatively correlated to learning potential

scores.

• Factors A (outgoing), C (emotional stability), -0

(self-assurance), Qz (self-sufficiency), and Q3 (high

self-sentiment integration) may show positive

correlations to learning potential.

45

• Factor G (conscientiousness) should be positively

related to learning potential.

• Reported results for Factor B (abstract thinking)

are inconclusive.

No studies related to the other factors in the HSPQ have

been found.

See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the factors measured using

the HSPQ.

2.5.3 LEARNING AND MOTIVATION

De Raad and Schouwenburg (1996) maintain that the

di stinction between personality traits and motives may be

merely theoretical since both are dispositional in nature.

Motivation is distinguished by an element of striving.

Different concepts have been dominant at various times in

research related to motivation and learning. Need for

achievement and fear of failure have been replaced by

extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, locus of control and

goal orientation (Boekaerts, 1996).

Very little research dealing directly with the motivational

aspects of the Picture Motivation Test (PMT) could be found.

However, results that focus on some of the aspects measured

on the PMT may suggest possible outcomes of this research.

The majority of studies with regard to learning and

motivation emphasise the Need for Achievement. The

achievement motive has been positively related to

persistence, task performance and grades at school (Carver &

46

Scheier, 1992). The PMT measures both Scholastic Achievement

and General Achievement. Du Toi t (1983b) found that these

factors, plus Cognitive Structure, Endurance, Understanding

and Order contributed to an achievement factor. Aggression

loaded negatively on this factor. Motti-Stefanidi, Besevegis

and Giannitsas (1996) found disruptive and aggressive

behaviour to be related to poor academic achievement.

Cacioppo et al. (1996) reported low posi tive correlations

between a 'need for cognition', defined as a tendency to

engage and enjoy cognitive endeavours, and academic

achievement. This factor resembles the definition of the

Understanding aspect of the PMT.

Romine and Crowell (1981) characterised achievers as

hardworking, consistent, organised, with the need to excel

academically. These factors resemble Scholastic Achievement,

Endurance, Achievement and Order on the PMT.

Ames (1984) and Dweck (1986) found that subjects who enjoyed

exerting effort and were persistent, were less hampered in

the acquisi~ion of intellectual skills than those who

displayed the opposite pattern were. These two concepts are

similar to Understanding and Endurance on the PMT.

Three aspects measured using the PMT Affiliation,

Exhibi tion and Play are concerned with social interaction.

No empirical research relating to these needs has been

found.

From these results the following outcomes may be

hypothesised:

47

• Cognitive structure, Scholastic Achievement, Endurance,

Understanding, Order and General Achievement may be

positively related to learning.

• Aggression may be negatively correlated to learning.

See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the motivational aspects

measured using the PMT.

2.5.4 LEARNING AND LEARNING STYLES

The proliferation of instruments to measure learning and

cognitive styles is evidence that enhancing learning by

matching teaching and learning styles is an intriguing

prospect for educators (Rayner & Riding, 1997). However,

Curry (1991) argues that the systematic operationalisation

of learning styles continues to be susceptible in three

areas:

(1) confusion in definitions;

(2) weaknesses in reliability and validity of

measurement;

(3 ) identification of the most style-relevant

characteristics in learners and instructional

settings.

Although the Honey and Mumford (1982) Learning Styles

Questionnaire (LSQ) is widely used, especially in the U.K.,

very little empirical evidence of its predictive validity is

available (Sadler-Smith, 1997).

Sadler-Smith and Riding (1999) failed to confirm the LSQ's

hypothesised structure and Allinson and Hayes (1988) found

little support for the predictive validity of the LSQ.

48

Allinson and Hayes (1988) maintain that although the utility

of the LSQ has not been completely verified, the LSQ was

able to distinguish similar cognitive dimensions in two

independent samples; the distribution of scores is close to

what might be expected theoretically; and it has good face

validity.

A number of studies have been conducted comparing the LSQ to

personality measures. Furnham (1996) and Jackson and Lawty

Jones (1996) examined the relationship between the LSQ and

the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ). They reported

high correlations between Extraversion and an Activist and

Pragmatist learning style. Extraversion was negatively

correlated to the Reflective learning style. These

correlations were so high that Furnham questioned the

necessity of measuring learning styles. Eysenck (1996)

maintains that personality measures and learning styles are

not independent and the LSQ needs considerable improvement.

Despite these results, learning styles continue to be viewed

as an important element of the learning situation. For

example, Sternberg (1996) states that flexibility in the use

of styles is positively associated with academic

achievement. These empirical results do not give an

indication of what may be expected from this research.

However, from a theoretical perspective, matching the

learning style with the teaching style should aid learning.

The hypothesis would then be that pupils with a Theoretical

learning style should be at an advantage during the learning

phase of this research.

49

2.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE EXISTING LITERATURE ON DYNAMIC

ASSESSMENT

Despite the merits of dynamic assessment, these techniques

do have limitations. Various researchers discuss the

following limitations:

• Construct Fuzziness: It is difficult to evaluate a set of

assumptions which partially overlap and have developed

over a period of almost 30 years with at least five

distinct models differing in definition, theoretical

foundations and procedural requirements. For example, the

graduated prompting model views learning as taking place

in a social context whereas testing-the-limits views

learning as contingent upon personality factors and

cogni tive ability. Inadequacies in some definitions of

the concepts wi thin particular models make it difficult

to draw conclusions about various techniques. For

example, the cogni tive functions in Feuerstein's (1979)

LPAD are not related to one another by a consistent

theory of cognitive functioning. These functions also

overlap and are defined on different levels (Buchel &

Scharnhorst, 1993; Jitendra & Kameenui, 1993).

• Procedural Spuriousness: Most of the empirical testing

and authentication of techniques used in dynamic

assessment are carried out by the original creators. It

is difficult to evaluate their claims with no

corroborating evidence. Savell, Twohig and Rachford

(1986) argue that the statistical significance of

resul ts, the selection of dependent variables and the

differences in the training of instructors makes it

difficult to assess research results.

50

• Instrument Inadequacy: Models such as testing-the-limits

and Budoff's (1974) test-train-retest technique

incorporate instructional strategies into traditional

ability tests. The LPAD and the continuum of assessment

models require examiners to make high-level inferences,

which may lead to arbitrary results. Assessment

instruments have not been designed to cover the diverse

academic content areas (Jitendra & Kameenui, 1993)

• Lack of standardisation of test administration: Although

many of the models of dynamic assessment are

standardising the instruction, examiner effects such as

training and personality may influence the interaction

between the examiner and examinee (Buchel & Scharnhorst,

1993) .

• Labour Intensiveness: Because of the inordinate amount of

time it takes to assess subjects using the individualised

techniques of most of these models, implementing dynamic

techniques on a wide scale is not feasible. Group

measures have not been widely tested, so it is too early

to evaluate their efficacy. The use of computers in

dynamic assessment is a promising avenue that needs

development (Guthke & Stein, 1996).

• The role of cognitive ability: Contradictory results have

been reported concerning the effect of cognitive ability

on learning potential and transfer scores. Task

difficulty and amount of verbalisation required in the IQ

test appears to play a role (Campione et al., 1985;

Ferrara et al., 1986).

• The role of non-intellective factors: Although many

researchers suggest that the role of non-cognitive

factors is important in dynamic testing (Feuerstein,

1979; Ruijssenaars et al., 1993; Tzuriel, 1992) very

little research has been conducted in this area.

51

• The measurement of change: The evaluation of change is

central to all dynamic assessment approaches. Using

simple or residualised gain scores has been criticised on

the following grounds:

(a) The ability to solve problems may change both

quantitatively and qualitatively. Should this be the

case, the pre-test and post-test would measure

different abilities (Schottke et al., 1993).

(b) The effects of intervention and re-testing are

difficult to separate (Klauer, 1993).

(c) Gain is a function of the level attained in the pre

test (Guthke, 1993).

(d) The reliability of difference scores is lower than

the reliability of the pre-test scores and post-test

scores (Boeyens, 1989).

Notwithstanding these limitations, results of many of the

studies discussed above support the view that learning

potential is a viable construct and that dynamic assessment

does address many of the criticisms of traditional testing.

Dynamic assessment appears to hold promise for improving the

predictive a8d prescriptive features of static testing.

2.7 THE PRESENT RESEARCH PROJECT IN VIEW OF THESE

PURPORTED LIMITATIONS

Not all the limitations listed above can be addressed in

this research proj ect. However, the following issues form

the basis of this research:

• The assessment procedures are all group administered. The

training phase takes approximately one hour and is

presented on video. This does away with the need for

52

highly trained instructors, time-consuming assessment and

circumvents the problem of different levels of training.

• The test-train-retest format used in this project is

based on the theories of Vygotsky (1978) operationalised

by Luria (1961) and widely researched by Budoff (1987a).

The aim is to establish whether short-term, standardised

cognitive tests can result in gains.

• The video features an instructor demonstrating how to

solve the problems in Set Variations 1. The instructions

follow the format presented in the manual of Feuerstein's

LPAD.

• Cognitive ability will be measured using non-verbal tests

that require the simultaneous co-ordination of more than

one source of information. Higher scores in this

situation have been associated with better learning

potential scores (Budoff, 1987 a; Ferretti & Butterfield,

1992) .

• Personality, motivation and learning styles are measured

wi th instruments that have been widely used. The

instruments measure a broad spectrum of traits, many of

which have been researched in psychology, but not in

dynamic assessment. The role of these factors on transfer

ability will also be examined.

• Gain scores will be used since this research does not aim

to improve the predictability of the tests or to

categorise the subjects. The intention is to ascertain

which non-intellective factors have a bearing on learning

ability.

This research aims to address some of the inadequacies that

researchers have highlighted concerning dynamic assessment,

in particular the role of cogni tive and non- intellective

factors.

53

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The essential methodological components of this research

project are dealt with in this chapter. The following

elements are discussed:

• The statement of the problem

• The aims of the research

• The hypotheses

• The subjects

• The experimental design

• The procedures that were followed

• The instruments used

• The analysis of the data.

3.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In light of the time and expertise required, the

incomparability of scores, the lack of knowledge concerning

the examiner effects and the role of cognitive and non

intellective factors in dynamic assessment, this research

proposes to examine the following questions:

I. Whether a short, group administered dynamic assessment


presented on video, is viable.

II. Whether current general intellectual ability has a

significant effect on learning potential scores.

54

III. Whether non-intellective factors such as certain

personali ty factors, motivational traits and learning

styles have significant effects on learning potential

scores.

IV. Whether transfer from pre-mediation to post-mediation

cognitive functioning is statistically significant.

3.3 THE AIM OF THIS STUDY

In this research the effects of the following factors on

learning potential scores are examined:

General cogni tive ability measured by Cattell's

Culture Fair Intelligence Test Form A (refer to

section 3.8.6).

Fourteen personality traits measured by the High

School Personality Questionnaire (refer to section

3.8.3) .

Ten motiva tional factors measured by the Picture

Motivation Tests (refer to section 3.8.4)

Four learning styles measured by the Learning

Styles Questionnaire (refer to section 3.8.5).

Learning potential scores are obtained from the difference

between the pre- and post-test scores on Raven's Standard

Progressive Matrices (refer to section 3.8.1). The training

phase is standardised according to a Theorist learning style

(refer to section 3.8.5) and is presented on video using

Feuerstein's Set Variations 1 as a mediation tool (refer to

section 3.8.2). Transfer performance is measured as the

difference between the pre- and post-test administration of

Cattell's Culture Fair Tests Forms A and B, respectively

(refer to section 3.8.6).

55

3 . 4 HYPOTHESES

From the literature review the following hypotheses are

posited. The rationale of the hypotheses follows after the

alternative hypothesis has been stated. The expected outcome

of a hypothesis will be indicated by means of an asterisk to

the left of the relevant hypothesis.

Hol : A standardised teaching intervention by means of a

videotape has no effect on Learning Potential scores (as

measured by the difference between the pre-intervention and

post-intervention scores obtained on the Raven's Standard

Progressive Matrices) .

*Hal: A standardised teaching intervention by means of a

videotape increases Learning Potential scores (as measured

by the difference between the pre-intervention and post

intervention scores obtained on the Raven's Standard


Rationale

Individual administration of dynamic assessment tests is

both time and labour intensive (Boeyens, 1989). The need

for improved standardisation has also been emphasised by

various researchers (Buchel & Scharnhorst, 1993; Savell et

al., 1986). This hypothesis is aimed at testing whether a

short, standardised teaching intervention can, in fact, lead

to a gain in scores.

Ho2 : There is no statistically significant practice effect

between the pre- and post-test scores of the Raven's

Standard Progressive Matrices.

56

*Ha2: There is a statistically significant practice effect



Rationale

Both Anastasi (1990) and Klauer (1993) argue that test

scores obtained from a re-testing with an identical form of

a test may be suspect. They maintain that certain items may

be easier on second presentation and that the subjects may

employ different methods in solving the problems. In order

to ensure that practice effects did not contaminate learning

potential scores, half of the experimental group and half of

the control group did not do a pre-test.

Ho3 : Personality factors as measured by the High School

Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ) are not significantly

related to learning potential scores (as measured by the

difference between the pre-intervention and post


Progressive Matrices)

*Ha3: Personality factors as measured by the HSPQ are

significantly related to learning potential scores (as




Rationale

A number of authors have discussed the effects of

personality factors on learning and educational outcomes

(Anastasi, 1990, Boekaerts, 1996; De Raad & Schouwenburg,

1996; Sternberg, 1996.) The general consensus is that

personality factors play a dominant role in behaviour

57

including learning, educational achievement and test-taking.

The High School Personality Questionnaire measures 14

personality factors regarded by Cattell (1980) as the most

important traits in personality structure and functioning in

adolescents. This hypothesis is based on questions about the

relevance of personality factors in dynamic assessment.

Ho 4 : Motiva tional traits as measured by the Picture

Motivation Tests (PMT) are not significantly related to

learning potential scores (as measured by the difference

between the pre-intervention and post-intervention scores

obtained on Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices).

*Ha4: Motivational traits as measured by the PMT are





Rationale

Atkinson (1980) and McClelland, Atkinson, Clark and Lowell

(1976) assert that the relationship between true ability and

the influence of affective factors, such as motivation, are

not clearly understood in classical psychometric theory.

The basis for this hypothesis is clarification of this

variable as it affects learning potential.

Hos : The learning styles of adolescents as measured by the

Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) are not significantly





58

*Has: The learning styles of adolescents as measured by the

LSQ are significantly related to learning potential scores

(as measured by the difference between the pre-intervention

and post-intervention scores obtained on the Raven's

Standard Progressive Matrices) .

Rationale

Furnham (1992) and Honey and Mumford (1982) maintain that

matching learning and teaching styles can lead to more

effective learning. When administering learning potential

tests to groups, the teaching style may affect the

efficiency with which the subjects learn.

Ho6 : The general cognitive ability pre-test scores (as

measured by Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test, Scale

2, Form A), are not significantly related to the subject's



obtained on the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices).

*Ha6: The general cognitive ability pre-test scores (as


2, Form A), are significantly related to the subject's



obtained on the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices).

Rationale

Empirical results of intelligence-related differences in

learning potential scores as defined in this hypothesis have

often been contradictory. Brown and Ferrara (1980), Campione

and Brown (1984) and Vye et al. (1987) reported low or

insignificant correlations between intelligence scores and

59

learning potential scores. However, Budoff (1987a), Ferrara

et al. (1986) and Ferretti and Butterfield (1992) found

statistically significant correlations between these

variables. The contrasting results may be explained by the

different tasks used in these studies. When the subj ects

were required to learn to apply a single rule, intelligence

related differences were not found. However, when strategies

required the simultaneous application of two rules,

intelligence-related differences were found.

This hypothesis is based on the question of whether the

subjects' performance on IQ tests will determine their

ability to learn during dynamic assessment.

Ho7 : The standardised teaching intervention by video, using

Feuerstein's LPAD Set Variations 1 as a mediation tool, has

no effect on transfer scores (as measured by the difference

score between Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test,

Scale 2, Form A and Form B) .

*Ha7: The standardised teaching intervention by video, using

Feuerstein's LPAD Set Variations 1 as a mediation tool,

improves transfer scores (as measured by the difference



Rationale

Campione (1989) maintains that the flexible transfer to new

situations of insights and other skills learned during

dynamic assessment, are the most important indications that

learning has taken place. The ability to transfer the skills

acquired in Set Variations 1 (used for cognitive mediation

purposes) to Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test

60

(CCFIT) can therefore be seen as an indication of how

successful cognitive reorganisation by means of the

standardised intervention is. An increase of scores from the

CCFIT Form A to the CCFIT Form B after cognitive mediation

will indicate that real learning has taken place.

Hos : The learning potential scores (as measured by the



Progressive Matrices) are not significantly correlated to

the transfer gain scores (as measured by the difference

between Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test Form A and

Form B) .

*Haa : The learning potential scores (as measured by the



Progressive Matrices) are significantly posi tively

correlated to the transfer gain scores (as measured by the

difference between Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test

Form A and Form B) .

Rationale

Bryant (1982) and Bryant, Brown, and Campione (1983) found

that learning potential scores were better predictors of

transfer scores than ~static" ability scores. This

hypothesis will establish whether the gain scores obtained

from the transfer tests were compromised by re-testing using

a parallel form of the test (See rationale for Ho 2 ) •

61

3.5 SUBJECTS

All the students in Grade 10 of a Johannesburg high school,

who receive their instruction in English, were tested. A

total of 120 students completed all the tests. The school

was originally designated a "Coloured" school, but is now

catering mainly to the Black population. The intention

initially was to restrict the sample to Coloured children in

order to control both cultural diversity and language

proficiency problems. Most of the Coloured pupils attending

an English medium school would probably speak English at

home. This would not be the case for Black children. Using a

sample from the Black population means that the pupils come

from diverse cultural backgrounds with different home

languages (refer to Table 3.3). One or more of the problems

associated with cross-cultural assessment (refer to Chapter

2, section 2.1) could contaminate the results of the tests

administered to this group. The demographic breakdown is:

TABLE 3.1

SEX

! SEX NUMBER PERCENTA~

MALES 53 44,2

FEMALES 67 55,8

TOTAL 120

The sample has slightly more females than males.

62

TABLE 3.2

AGE

YEARS

14

NUMBER

12

PERCENTAGE -

10,0

f-----

15

16

31

28

25,8

23,3

f--

f-----

17

18

19

31

13

3

25,8

10,8

2,5

f---

20

21

1

1

0,8

0, 8

TOTAL 120 ~

Most subjects are between 15 and 17 years of age. As may be

expected in a disadvantaged community, the distribution of

Grade 10 subjects is right-skewed in terms of typical age

for their grade.

TABLE 3.3

HOME LANGUAGE

LANGUAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE ~

ZULU 45 37,5

SETSWANA 21 17,5

SESOTHO 14 11,7

SEPEDI 12 10,0

XHOSA I----

11 9,2

ENGLISH 8 6,7 ~

VENDA 4 3,3

AFRIKAANS 2 1,7

TSONGA 2 1,7

SESWATI 1 0,8

r-rrOTAL 120

63

The majority of the subjects speak Zulu, with small

representations from many other languages.

3.6 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A Solomon Four-Group design was chosen for this research

(Kerlinger, 1986).

Figure 3.1

THE SOLOMON 4-GROUP DESIGN

GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 GROUP 4~

EXPERIMENTAL Experimental CONTROL Control

GROUP 1 Group 2 GROUP 1 Group 2 r-- Pre-test No Pre-test Pre-test No Pre-test

Mediated Mediated No lesson No lesson

Lesson Lesson

Post-test. Post-test Post-test Post-test

N = 30 N = 30 N = 30 N = 30 -

This design was chosen because the experimental and control

groups can be compared on the basis of whether they

benefited from mediation or not. The sensitising effects of

pre-testing are controlled by only pre-testing Experimental

Group 1 and Control Group 1. If no sensi tising effect has

occurred, a comparison of Experimental Group 1 (wi th pre

test) and Experimental Group 2 (no pre-test) should be

insignificant, as should a comparison between Control Group

1 (with pre-test) and Control Group 2 (no pre-test). If the

differences between these groups are significant,

Experimental Group 2 (no pre-test) and Control Group 2 (no

pre-test) will need to be compared. Control Group 2 also

64

limits the effects of temporary coincidental events that may

have occurred between the pre-test and the post-test

(Kerlinger, 1986).

The subjects were randomly assigned to the experimental and

control groups as all the pupils had to be involved in the

research in some way, according to the prerequisites of the

school. The groups can therefore differ in composition.

3. 7 PROCEDURES

The assessment procedure was administered in three phases.

During the first and third phases, space constraints

necessitated that the subjects were tested in two separate

venues since more than 120 pupils were being assessed

simultaneously.

3.7.1 THE INITIAL TESTING PHASE

All the subjects completed the following tests, which were

only applied once:

I. The Learning Styles Questionnaire (Honey & Mumford,

(1982) .

II. Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test Scale 2 Form A

(Cattell & Cattell, 1959b).

III. The High School Personality Questionnaire (Cattell &

Cattell, 1973).

IV. The Picture Motivation Test (du Toit, 1983a).

65

3.7.2 THE EXPERIMENTAL PRE-TEST PHASE

One week later, during the pre-test phase, the Raven's

Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1976) were

administered to half of the Experimental and half of the

Control groups. These subjects were randomly chosen from the

experimental and control groups. The whole Experimental

Group then completed the LPAD Set Variations 1 (Feuerstein,

1979), with the lesson being administered by means of a

videotape shown on a television screen. Set Variations 1

consists of a series of five analogical reasoning tasks,

e.g. A is to B, as C is to D. Each series contains a model

task with six variations. The model task was mediated

according to the instructions for the group administration

of the test. The subjects then practised what they had been

taught using the six variations of the task in that series.

A total number of 30 tasks had to be completed for all five

series. No dummy lesson was given to the control group since

the school did not want the pupils to miss more classes than

was strictly necessary. They were therefore only expqsed to

the usual teaching experiences in the school setting, as

well as random life experiences outside the school setting.

3.7.3 THE EXPERIMENTAL POST-TEST PHASE

One week later during the post-test phase Raven's

Progressive Matrices were administered again, this time to

all the subjects.

•Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test, Scale 2, Form B,

the transfer test, was administered to all the subjects one

week later.

66

3.8 INSTRUMENTS

3.8.1 RAVEN'S STANDARD PROGRESSIVE MATRICES

The Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM), developed in Great

Britain by Raven, were designed to measure eductive ability.

Eductive ability is one of the two main components

underlying general intelligence or g in Spearman's (1927)

theory of cognitive ability. It includes the ability to:

• perceive accurately and give attention to detail,

• forge new insights,

• identify relationships,

• perceive what is not always immediately obvious,

• generate new, largely non-verbal concepts which make

it possible to think clearly, and

• Make meaning out of confusion.

Eductive ability remains latent, develops later in life and

declines earlier in old age when the environment does not

satis fy the needs and motives necessary for the child or

adult to achieve or sustain eductive ability. The abilities

measured in this test are built on top of one another; it is

generally not possible to solve the more difficult problems

before being capable of solving the easier ones (Raven,

Court & Raven, 1992).

The scale consists of five Sets (A - E), each containing 12

problems. Each matrix has a part that is missing; the

subject has to choose the correct insert from six or eight

alternatives. The first item in each set is almost self

evident, the problems becoming progressively more difficult,

but still continuing to use the same principles as the

67

earlier problems. The first items in each set provide a form

of training in the method needed to solve the problems. The

five sets provide five opportunities to understand the

method of thought needed to solve the problems and five

progressive assessments of the subject's ability. The

earlier sets require accuracy of visual discrimination,

while the later more difficult sets involve analogies,

permutations and alternations of patterns. There is no time

limit. A person's total score provides an index of

intellectual capacity.

Standardisation

Since the development of the Standard Progressive Matrices

in the mid-1930's extensive norms have been collected in

various parts of the world, including Britain, Ireland,

Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Czechoslovakia, Canada,

China and Belgium. The British standardisation of 1979

confirmed suggestions that there was an increase in SPM

scores from the earlier standardisation samples. The 1979

standardisation also yielded the following findings (Raven

et al., 1992)

• There are no sex differences in the scores obtained

on the SPM except at age 11 ± six months.

• Only 9% of the within-age variance is explained by

social background.

• As in the 1939 and 1972 standardisation, the test

works - ~scalesn - in the same way for children from

different socio-economic status backgrounds.

• Once items become too difficult for children, they

get the item right less often than would be expected

by chance. Their responses are, therefore, not

68

"random", but guided by hypotheses albei t wrong

hypotheses.

In 1984/86 the test was standardised for particular school

districts throughout America. The norms varied with the

ethnic and socio-economic composition of the district and

its geographical location. The test does, however, scale the

same way in each ethnic group and has similar predictive

validity. Owen (1991) found that the RSPM was suitable for

use with four population groups (Black, Whites, Coloureds

and Indians), even though the means differed considerably.

__t-J_o ll.0rms are available for the different ethnic groups in

South Atrica; it was therefore necessary to use raw scores

in this res_ea:rl:::h rather than rely on norms that are not

suitable for the population group. The RSPM contains an

internal consistency check between responses, in order to

determine whether guessing and other random responses

dominated the subject's response patterns, or whether

correct responses could be accepted as a valid reflection of

ability.

Reliability

(a) Internal Consistency

Correlations between item difficulties established in the

UK, US, East and West Germany, New Zealand and China range

from 0,97 to 1,00. These correlations were established

separately for different ethnic groups and different socio

economic groups. The test therefore measures the same entity

in a wide range of cultural and socio-economic groups.

Split-half internal consistency coefficients for Britain and

North America range from 0,89 to 0,98. In other parts of the

69

world (Germany, Belgium, Iran, Korea, Taiwan, China,

Yugoslavia, Uruguay, and India) split-half reliability

coefficients ranged from 0,84 to 0,86 (Raven et al., 1992).

(b) Test-Retest Reliability

Test-retest reliability (temporal stability) studies differ

widely in methodology and intervals between test and retest,

which can range from 1 week to 11 years. Short-term temporal

stability is around 0,90 whilst longer intervals results in

a drop to approximately 0,80. Studies cited in Raven et al.,

(1992) indicate correlations between 0,78 and 0,92 for

intervals from 1 week to 3 years.

Validity

Correlations between the WISC-R and the RSPM range from 0,70

and 0,92. Correlations with verbal and vocabulary tests tend

to be lower, generally below 0,70.

Inter-test correlations for adult subjects between the RSPM

and WAIS range from 0,75 and 0,88. However, some

correlations in eros s-cul tural research tend to be lower.

More research is required in cross-cultural settings in

regard to concurrent validity.

Correlattons between RSPM and performance on achievement

tests are not as high as with intelligence tests, ranging

from 0,22 to 0,87. Correlations with school grades range

between 0,20 and 0,90. Validity estimates tend to be higher

when the criterion measures Maths and Science skills that

are predominantly non-verbal skills rather than language

skills.

70

Factor analytic studies reveal high loadings of up to 0,83

wi th g. Most studies have found a small group factor of

spatial ability but no loading with verbal-educational and

numerical ability factors (Raven et al., 1992).

The Effects of Training.

Budoff (1976), Feuerstein (1979) and Savell et al., (1986)

reported dramatic short-term increases in RSPM scores when

subjects have been taught strategies that are required to

solve the matrices. It is not clear whether these strategies

lead to a general increase in eductive ability or whether

the improvement is confined to the RSPM. Since Cattell's

CuI ture Fair Intelligence Test and Raven's Standard

Progressive Matrices were both constructed as measures of g

(Anastasi, 1990) the former test will be used to establish

whether any transference took place.

The RSPM was administered twice: once as a pre-test and

after intervention using the Set Variations 1 as a post

test. The difference between these scores is the Learning

Potential score.

The RSPM was used in this study because of its similarity to

Set Variations 1, which was used as a mediation tool. Both

consist of a series of matrix problems. In addition, it is

generally accepted as a valid and reliable instrument for

measuring g, due to its local and internationally

established research base (Raven et al., 1992, Owen, 1991).

71

3.8.2 FEUERSTEIN'S SET VARIATIONS 1

Set Variations 1 (Var.1) is part of the Learning Potential

Assessment Device developed by Feuerstein (1979). It is

suitable for group administration and is almost always

included in any battery using the Learning Potential

Assessment Device. Var.1 consists of a series of five

analogy tas ks (A - E). Each series contains one teaching

example followed by six variations that the subject

completes on his/her own.

The RSPM and the LPAD Var.1 have a very similar format. Each

problem is presented with a part missing; the subj ect is

required to choose the correct insert from eight

alternatives. In order to standardise the mediation process

so that all subj ects were given an equal opportunity to

learn the skills, the lesson was presented on video. The

teaching followed the instructions presented in the manual

on group testing using the LPAD Var.1 This method of

instruction is most sui ted to a Theorist Learning Style.

Contrary to the mediated lessons given using the LPAD there

was very little interaction between the examiner and the

subjects.

The mediated lesson focused attention on the following (LPAD

Set Variations 1 Manual, p. 6.33):

• Focusing: The subjects were made to focus on gathering

information e.g. pointing at items in the rows or

columns.

• Selection of stimuli and provision of stimuli: Items

were isolated so that they are clearly perceived and

then integrated again.

72

• Imitation: The video explained in detail how the task

could be solved by modelling and explaining the thought

processes involved.

• Verbal stimulation: The teacher on the video introduced

verbal labels (i.e. circles, ovals, squares etc.),

descriptions of transformations, rules and outcomes.

This allows for a more analytic, operational way of

thinking.

• Cause and effect relationships: In-depth explanations

of how the transformation has taken place in the rows

and columns are given.

• Orientation: Spatial position and direction of figures

and lines were described.

• Temporal orientation and sequencing: The order of the

sequence was emphasised (i . e . from left to right in the

rows and top to bottom in the columns) .

• Comparative behaviour: Given items were compared

minutely with each other.

• Inductive and/ or deductive reasoning: Inferences were

made about the rules governing the analogy and these

were then applied.

• Need for logical evidence and critical interpretation:

The alternative solutions were examined and accepted or

rejected on the basis of evidence.

• Need for precision at the input and output phase: The

video emphasised the need to examine each part of the

whole precisely with regard to orientation, direction,

relative location of content etc.

In reliability studies of the LPAD Var.1 Rand (1982, 1983)

found that the test consistently and systematically

discriminated between regular pupils and culturally deprived

73

pupils at a public school in Israel. Split-half reliability

coefficients ranged from 0,82 to 0,90.

Tzuriel and Rand (1983) examined the effects of differential

learning conditions using Set Variations 1 and 11. Using the

RSPM as a pre-test and post-test they found that groups who

received high-learning or low-learning interventions showed

raised performance levels on the post-test in comparison to

subj ects in the nonlearning group. Rand and Ben-Schachar

(1979) also found that subjects who received Set Variations

testing between two administrations of the RSPM showed a

statistically significant increase in their level of

performance on the RSPM post-test.

In this research the LPAD Set Variations 1 was used only as

a teaching tool and not as a test of the subject's ability.

Because of the similarity in kind and in the form of

presentation of the two tests, Variations 1 was used as a

mediated lesson to teach the skills necessary to solve the

matrix problems in the RSPM. It also fulfils the

requirements of a short lesson that can be presented on

video.

3.8.3 HIGH SCHOOL PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE

The High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ) was

developed by Raymond and Mary Cattell (Cattell & Cattell,

1973). The aim was to fill the gap between the Sixteen

Personali ty Factor Questionnaire for adults and the

Personality Questionnaire for Children. The HSPQ gives a

personality profile for people aged between 12 and 18 years

of age.

74

Terms taken from psychology and psychiatry to describe

personali ty traits were subj ected to factor analysis and

resul ted In the identi fication of 14 primary personality

factors, which the HSPQ measures. Two second- order factors

have been identified. Each of these 14 primary factors is

represented by a letter of the alphabet and is scored on a

bipolar continuum. These factors, and the interpretation of

high and low scores are described by Visser, Garbers-Strauss

& Prinsloo (1992 pp. 23-34) as follows:

(1) Primary Factors:

FACTOR A

WARMHEARTEDNESS

LOW SCORE (-A)

RESERVED

Reserved, detached,

inflexible, aloof

Critical

Stands by personal ideas

Precise, objective

Distrustful, sceptical

Prone to sulk

Rigid

HIGH SCORE (+A)

OUTGOING

Warm-hearted, outgoing,

participating, attentive to

people

Good-natured, carefree,

uncritical

Prepared to co-operate, likes

to participate -

Soft-hearted, casual,

careless

Trusting

Laughs readily

Adaptable, accommodating

A high A score (+A) indicates a person who enjoys group

activities, is warm and easygoing and fits in socially.

People with a low A score (-A) tend to prefer working alone,

do not communicate easily and are introspective. They show

I

75

greater insight in their evaluations of people and things

and are more dependable in the long term.

FACTOR B

INTELLIGENCE .---------c----=-,--~------------ - -=-=~__=__--_c--:--------___,

LOW SCORE (-B) HIGH SCORE (+8)

CONCRETENESS ABSTRACT THINKING

Low mental capacity High general mental capacity

Unable to handle abstract Insightful, fast-learning,

problems intellectually adaptable, has

healthy intelligence

Factor B measures generalised intelligence and level of

abstract thought. This measure is not as reliable as those

obtained from longer intelligence tests.

FACTOR C

EMOTIONAL

LOW SCORE (-C)

EMOTIONAL INSTABILITY

Emotionally less stable,

influenced by emotions

Easily perturbed, changeable

Changeable in attitudes and

interests

Becomes confused easily

STABILITY

HIGH SCORE (+C)

EMOTIONAL STABILITY

Emotionally stable,

emotionally mature

Realistic, calm

Stable, constant in interests

Steadfast

Responsible, distinguishesEvades responsibilities,

between emotional needs andgives up easily

reali ty, adjusts to facts

Tends to worry Calm, unruffled

Gets into fights and problem Shows restraint in avoiding

situations problem situations

76

--

A low C (-C) score indicates a person who has difficulty in

controlling his/her emotions. They tend to have a higher

than average number of neurotic responses, vague health

concerns, digestive and sleep disturbances.

A high C score (+C) indicates an emotionally stable and

controlled person. Their behaviour appears calm and

rational. A high +C score is correlated with leadership.

FACTOR D

EXCITABILITY

LOW

Not r-Calm

SCORE (-D)

PHLEGMATIC TEMPERAMENT f------Reserved, controlled,

inactive, stodgy

Stoical, complacent, calm

Level-headed, deliberate

easily jealous

Unruffled, consistent

Self-effacing, diffident

HIGH SCORE (+ D)

EXCITABILITY

Demanding, overactive,

uncontrolled

Impatient

Excitable, overactive

Prone to jealousy ~

Shows signs of nervousness

Becomes easily confused

Self-assertive, self-

interested, egotistical

A high D score (+D) is associated with the rebellious

adolescent. They are restless sleepers, are easily

distracted and often get angry when they are reprimanded.

Although pleasant and affectionate they are often impulsive

and can be reckless.

77

FACTOR E

DOMINANCE

LOW SCORE (-E) HIGH SCORE (+E)

SUBMISSIVENESS DOMINANCE

Obedient, meek, easily Self-assertive, aggressive

influenced

Docile, accommodating, Competitive, self-assured

compliant I---

Submissive Arrogant, self-assured r--Dependent Independent

Considerate, diplomatic Stern, hostile

Conventional, conforming

Easily upset by authority

Unconventional, rebellious

Headstrong, disobedient -

Humble Demanding admiration

Al though people who score high on Factor E (+E) are often

disobedient and act independently. They also show initiative

and creativity.

In contrast, a low

submission, acceptance

respect for authority.

E score (-E)

of leadership

is associated

from others,

with

and

FACTOR F

CAREFREENESS

LOW SCORE (-F)

SOBERNESS

Introspective, quiet

Sober, silent

Serious, full of cares

Depressed, worried

HIGH SCORE (+ F)

CARE FREENESS

Talkative

Enthusiastic, unthinking,

impulsive

Unworried, careless, carefree

Cheerful values

78

LOW SCORE (- F)

SOBERNESS

Reserved, sticks to inner

values

Slow, caut ious

HIGH SCORE (+ F)

CAREFREENESS

Frank, expressive, reflects

the group

Lively, alert

A high F score (+F) is associated with extroversion. High

scorers tend to show initiative, express their emotions and

have many friends. Their work is often not thorough and they

have a tendency to act impulsively.

Low F scores (-F) are associated with introspection,

nervousness and tension. Their work is thorough, but they

are not popular. They are regarded as secretive and

daydreamers.

FACTOR G

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

accept general moral

disregards

towards

LOW SCORE (-G)

OPPORTUNISTIC

Opportunistic

Does not

standards,

and obligations

others

Fickle

Frivolous

Self-indulgent

Slack, indolent

Undependable

rules

HIGH SCORE (+G)

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

Dutiful, persevering,

moralistic

Concerned about moral

standards and rules

Consistent, persevering,

determined ~

Responsible

Emotionally disciplined

Orderly, conscientious

Dutiful

79

A high G score (+G) is associated with persistence,

determination and organised thinking. There is a tendency to

act according to accepted standards.

People who score

can have outbursts

law.

low on G (-G) tend to

of rage and in ser

disregard

ious cases

set

break

rules,

the

FACTOR H

SOCIAL BOLDNESS

LOW SCORE (-H)

SHYNESS

Shy, reserved, considerate

-

Feels threatened easily,

careful, quick to see danger

signals

Reserved, unsociable,

detached

Emotionally cautious

Modest in face of opposite

sex

Apt to be embittered

Controlled, rule-bound

HIGH SCORE (+ H)

SOCIAL BOLDNESS

Socially bold,

unrestrained

Carefree,

cheerful, does

Likes meeting people,

Participating, hearty

Overt, active interest i

opposite sex

Friendly

Impulsive

thick-ski-nned,

adventurous,

not see danger

jovial

n

A high H score (+H) is associated with talkative, jovial

individuals who like the limelight. They are popular but not

always sensitive to other people's feelings. They are often

more socially oriented than task-oriented.

A low H (-H) score indicates a shy, reserved, careful person

who does not express emotions easily. They are uncomfortable

in big groups even though they are considerate.

80

FACTOR I

TENDER-M1NDEDNESS

'LOW SCORE (- I)

TOUGH- MINDEDNESS

Unsentimental, realist view

Self-satisfied

Expects little of others

Independent, accepts

responsibility

Hard (to point of cynicism)

Few artistic responses (but

not lacking in taste)

Unaffected by ~whims"

r------

Acts on practical, logical

grounds

Does not dwell on physical

disabilities

HIGH SCORE (+ I)

TENDER-MINDEDNESS

Sensitive, dependent,

overprotected

Attention seeking, flighty ~

Fidgety, expecting affection

and attention

Clinging, insecure, seeking

help and sympathy

Kindly, gentle, indulgent, to

self and others

Artistically fastidious,

affected, theatrical

Imaginative in inner life

Acts on sensitive intuition

Hypochondriacal

People with high scores on Factor I (+1) are inclined to be

imaginative, artistic, impractical and disorganised. They

are fastidious, dependent, demand attention, are sensitive

and nervous. They tend to react emotionally and suffer from

headaches and nightmares.

Low I scores (-I) are associated with practical, down-to

earth people who have a mature attitude to life. Decisions

are made on practical grounds rather than emotionally.

81

FACTOR J

INDIVIDUALISM

LOW SCORE ( -J)

ZESTFULNESS

Zest for life

Likes group activities r-,Llkes attention

Sinks personality into group

enterprise, loses individual

interests

Vigorous

Accepts common standards

HIGH SCORE (+J)

INDIVIDUALISM

Circumspectly individualist,

reflective

Acts individualistically

Guarded, wrapped up in self

Fastidious, obstructive,

emphasises trivialities,

meticulous

Complains of chronic fatigue,

pains and a lack of

concentration

Evaluates coldly, does not

become involved

People who score high on the Factor J (+J) tend to be

meticulous. They do not follow the group and are often

unpopular. They prefer to remain in the background. They can

be stubborn.

People with

co-operate in

a low

a gr

J

oup

score (-J) adapt

and can be leade

to

rs

circumstances.

or followers.

They

FACTOR 0

GUILT PRONENESS

LOW SCORE ( -0)

SELF-ASSURANCES

Self-assured, placid,

complacent

HIGH SCORE (+0)

PRONENESS TO GUILT FEELINGS

Anxious, full of self-

reproach, insecure, worrying

82

LOW SCORE (-0)

SE LF-ASSURANCES

Cheerful, vigorous, energetic

'thout regrets

Opportunistic, insensitive to

people's approval or

dl sapproval

Uncaring

No fears

Given to simple action

HIGH SCORE (+0)

PRONENESS TO GUILT FEELINGS

Depressed, cries easily,

Hypochondriacal

Touchy, overcome by moods

Strong sense of obligation,

sensitive to people's

approval or disapproval

Scrupulous, fussy

Phobic symptoms

Lonely, brooding

A high 0 score ( +0) is associated with feelings of

inadequacy. They prefer quiet activities to people and noisy

situations. They often feel depressed and guilty when they

make mistakes.

People who score low on Factor 0 (-0) are self-assured,

placid and are not dependent on other people's approval.

FACTOR Q2

SELF-SUFFICIENCY

LOW SCORE (-Q2 )

GROUP DEPENDENCY I----- .Soclally group dependent

A "j oiner" and follower

HIGH SCORE (+Q2 )

SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Self-sufficient, resourceful

Prefers own decisions

A high Q2 score (+Q?) indicates a mature, confident and

resourceful individual. Helshe is stand-offish and tends to

show disdain for the group. They have faith in their own

decisidns and avoid social contact because they feel it is a

waste of time.

83

Those who score low on the factor (-Q2) tend to follow the

group and value social approval. They are conventional and

follow the prevailing fashion.

FACTOR Q3

SELF CONTROL

LOW SCORE ( -Q3)

LOW SELF-SENTIMENT

INTEGRATION

Lax

Follows own urges

Disregards social rules

HIGH SCORE ( +Q3)

HIGH SELF-SENT lMENT

INTEGRATION -

Strong will power, strong

self control

Disciplined, compulsive

Socially correct

A person with a high Q3 (+Q3) score is self-controlled,

ambitious and conscientious. They value accepted social

standards, are considerate of other and plan ahead.

Low Q3 scores are associated with uncontrolled,

impulsive emotionality and the rejection of cultural values.

FACTOR Q4

TENSION

LOW SCORE (-Q4 )

LOW ERGIC TENSION

Relaxed, lethargic, tranquil

Not frustrated

HIGH SCORE (+Q4 )

HIGH ERGIC TENSION

Tense, irritable, overwrought -

Frustrated

A person with a high score on this factor (+Q4) tends to be

unnecessarily worried, frustrated, tense and irritable. This

factor measures situation-linked anxiety which indicated

that the test situation could heighten levels of anxiety.

84

A low score indicated a low level of tension and anxiety. A

very low score is associated with low motivation.

(2) Second-order Factors:

A factor analysis of the correlations between primary

factors produces broader second-order factors. Two second-

order factors have been identified anxiety and

extroversion.

(a) Anxiety:

An anxiety score is obtained by adding sten scores of

relevant primary factors, -C, +D, -G, -H, +0, -Q3 and +Q4

Anxiety is calculated as follows (Visser et al., 1992):

(II-C) + D + (II-G) + (II-H) + 0 + (11-Q3) + Q4) 7

A high score indicates high anxiety and a low score little

anxiety.

(b) Extroversion:

Extroversion is calculated using the sten scores of relevant

primary factors, +A, + F, +H, -J, and -Qz. Extroversion is

calculated using the following formula (Visser et al.,

1992):

A + F + (ll-J) + (ll-Qz) 7

A high extroversion score indicates an outgoing and sociable

person. A low score indicates a withdrawn person.

85

Reliability

Reliability coefficients have been calculated for different

population groups using several test administrations. Test

retest reliability coefficients for the fourteen personality

traits varied from 0,53 to 0,78 although some coefficients

were lower for Black pupils in a few of the scales. Using a

parallel form of the test, each factor was found to

correlate better with itself than with any other factor.

Al though these coefficients were low, they range between

0,22 and 0,52, this is ascribed to the fact that they are

conceptually, not statistically, parallel forms (Visser et

al.,1992).

Validi ty

Between 1967 and 1979 correlations between raw scores of the

HSPQ factors were calculated. Statistically non-significant

or negative correlations were found between the factors.

This implies that the HSPQ identifies the same factors among

South African groups as it does for the American groups on

which the questionnaire was developed. This indicates

construct validity. In 1989 The General Scholastic Aptitude

Test (GSAT) and the HSPQ were administered during the same

testing period. The following results were found:

• Higher extroversion and abstract-reasoning ability scores

on the HSPQ accompanied high verbal IQ scores on the

GSAT.

• Higher superego scores on the HSPQ were associated with

lower verbal IQ scores on the GSAT. A similar pattern was

found for total IQ scores.

86

• The abstract reasoning score on the HSPQ (Factor B)

correlated well with the IQ scores from the GSAT (Pearson

r = 0,41). High scores on E and F were also associated

with higher verbal and total IQ scores.

Since some of the scores from the HSPQ corresponded to

scores from a di fferent measuring instrument, whose

constructs should theoretically correspond, a degree of

confirmation of the concurrent validity of the HSPQ is

implied (Visser et al., 1992).

The HSPQ is used in this study because a broad range of

personality factors is measured and the test has been

standardised for South African high school pupils.

3.8.4 PICTURE MOTIVATION TESTS

The Picture Motivation Tests (PMT) are an attempt to

construct a multi-faceted battery of tests to measure a

relatively large number of motivational aspects. These tests

are based on H.A. Murray's (1938) theory of needs (du Toit,

1983). According to Murray a need, which is a hypothetical

construct, is an internal directional force that determines

how people perceive, conceptualise, experience and act to

alter an unsatisfactory situation~ Murray emphasised the

importance of unconscious motivation. The PMT pictures are

relatively unstructured so as to elicit projective

responses. The subject is, however, given a choice of three

responses. This allows the test to be group administered,

shortens the testing time and enables the objective

interpretation of the results. The three possible responses

are positive, neutral or negative with regard to the

construct. 'lhe PMT consists of twenty separate tests, each

87

containing twelve items that represent twenty motivational

aspects considered important in the school situation. The

tests are arranged in groups of five so that five, ten,

fifteen or all of the twenty tests can be administered,

depending on specific requirements. In this research the

first two groups of five were administered. These ten tests

are arranged in the following order:

(a) First Group: Cognitive structure, Aggression,

Scholastic Achievement, Affiliation, and Endurance.

(c) Second Group: Understanding, Exhibition, Order,

Achievement (general), and Play.

The behaviour tendencies of subjects who obtain relatively

high scores on these constructs are described as follows (du

Toit, 1983, pp. 3-5):

Cognitive Structure (CS):

A dislike of uncertainty regarding information; wants to

have all questions answered fully; takes decisions on the

basis of thorough knowledge; avoids guessing and

uncertainty; prefers precision, completeness, certainty,

clarity, accuracy; tends to be rigid.

Aggression (Ag):

Tends to overcome opposition forcefully, to fight, to

revenge an injury, to attack, injure, even to kill when

aroused, to oppose forcefully or to punish; tends to be

aggressive, quarrelsome, irritable, touchy, antagonistic,

moody, vengeful and hostile.

88

Scholastic Achievement (SA):

Strives to achieve in school subjects, to get good marks, to

master new material, to do homework well, to complete all

assignment even when ill or tired, to excel; tends to be

hard-working, diligent, resourceful, ambitious and to take

initiative in scholastic study.

Affiliation (Af):

Enjoys being with friends; likes to communicate with others;

readily accepts people; tries to make friends and keep up

friendships. Likes to please and win the affection of

others; tends to adhere and remain loyal to friends; shows a

tendency to be friendly, jovial, warm, good-natured, genial,

hospitable, social, easy-going and obliging.

Endurance (En):

Willing to work long hours; will not easily throw in the

towel; patiently enduring, determined, resolute; constant

working habits; persevering and hard working.

Understanding (Un):

Keen to have an understanding of different areas of

knowledge; tends to ask and answer general questions;

interested in theory, logical thinking, analysis and

formulas; will speculate and generalise; intellectually

inquisitive; explores, tests, examines, samples and

experiments.

89

Exhibition (Ex):

Likes to make an impression, to be seen and heard, to

excite, amaze, fascinate, entertain, shock, intrigue, amuse

and entice others; tries to be the centre of interest;

colourful, out of the ordinary, exhibitionistic,

demonstrative, dramatic and attention-getting.

Order (Or):

Likes to put things in order, to achieve cleanliness, to

arrange, organise, tidy up; exhibits a need for balance,

neatness and precision; methodical; dislikes slovenliness

and carelessness; clean, disciplined, consistent, punctual.

Achievement (Ach):

Likes to accomplish something difficult, to master,

manipula te, or organise physical obj ects, human beings or

ideas, and to do this as rapidly, independently and

thoroughly as possible. Tends to overcome obstacles and

attain a high standard, to excel, to rival, to compete and

surpass others, to use own talents to the best of his/her

ability; aspiring, determined, purposeful, productive,

resourceful and diligent.

Play (Pl):

Enj oys having fun, laughing, joking; seeks enj oyable

relaxation; likes to participate in games, sports, parties

and playing; has a light-hearted, easy attitude; playful,

jovial, pleasure-seeking, fond of laughing, funny, carefree

and cheerful.

90

These tests are not timed. Subjects generally complete the

tests in about an hour and a half.

Reliability

Kuder-Richardson 8 reliabili ty coefficients for the 10 PMT

tests for Standard 8 boys and girls range between 0,6 and

0,7. This lS considered satisfactory for a test consisting

of 12 items.

Validi ty

Results of factor analyses show that there is considerable

similarity between the loadings of the PMT and the

Motivation Questionnaire. This is an indication of factorial

(construct) validity (du Toit, 1983).

The PMT is used in this study because a relatively large

number of motivational aspects are measured, it allows for

group administration and elicits projective responses.

Reliability and validity data are at an acceptable level.

3.8.5 THE LEARNING STYLES QUESTIONNAIRE

The Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) is based on Kolb's

(1976) theory of learning and identi fication of learning

styles. Kolb viewed learning as a series of experiences with

cognitive additions rather than as a series of pure

cognitive processes. According to Kolb experiential learning

follows a 4-phase cycle (Figure 3.2) :

91

Figure 3.2

KOLB'S CIRCULAR LEARNING PATTERN

Concrete Experience

Active Experimentation

Reflective observation

Abstract conceptualisation

Learning is seen as a circular process in which Concrete

Experience is followed by Reflective Observation. This in

turn leads to Abstract concepts that are tested through

Active experimentation. People are not equally effective in

all the stages; most people develop learning styles that

emphasise one or more of these stages. He identified four

styles of learning that correspond with these stages: The

Converger, Diverger, Assimilator and Accommodator. The

Learning Styles Inventory was used to establish an

individual's relative emphasis on each of the four styles.

Building on this model, Honey and Mumford (1982) developed

the Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) to eliminate some of

the shortcomings of the Learning Styles Inventory. In

addi tion, they preferred the terms Pragmatist, Reflector,

Theorist and Activist to describe the four learning styles.

Activists and pragmatists are more practically orientated,

92

whereas reflectors and theorists are more theoretically

orientated. They define these learning styles as follows

Honey & Mumford, 1986):

Pragmatists

Pragmatists search out new ideas, theories and techniques

and experiment with them to see if they work in practice.

They are practical and down to earth.

They learn best when

• there is an obvious link between subj ect matter and

the problem;

• techniques they are shown have an obvious practical

advantage;

• they have a chance to practise techniques with

credible assistance;

• they are exposed to a role model;

• they are given opportunities to implement what they

have learned;

• they can concentrate on practical issues.

Reflectors

Reflectors tend to stand back and think about new

experiences. They like to consider all possible angles

before making a decision. They prefer to observe rather than

participate.


• they are permitted to watch and think about

activities;

• they are able to observe and listen;

93

• they can think before acting, have time to

assimilate;

• they can probe to get to the bottom of things;

• they can review what has been taught;

• they are required to produce carefully considered

reports;

• interaction with others is structured;

• there is no time limit.

Theorists

Theorists like to think problems through in a logical

manner. They enjoy working with assumptions, principles,

theories and models, where they can analyse and synthesise.


• what they learn is part of a theory, concept or

system;

• they have time to methodically explore relationships

between ideas or events;

• they are allowed to question the logic behind

something;

• they are intellectually stretched;

• the situation is structured;

• ideas and concepts are rational and logical;

• ideas need not be immediately relevant, as long as

they are interesting.

Activists

Activists rely on an intuitive trial-and-error approach to

solve problems. They are enthusiastic about anything new and

94

thrive on the challenges of new experiences. They do,

however, tend to get bored in the long-term.

They learn best when:

• there are new experiences and problems from which to

learn;

• they are involved in short "here and now"

activities;

• there is excitement and drama;

• they are In the limelight;

• they are allowed to generate new ideas;

• they are involved with other people;

• they can "have a go" .

Honey & Mumford (1986) maintain that when an individual's

learning style preference and the style of teaching

correspond, it is more likely that effective learning will

take place.

The instructions for group administration of the Set

Variations 1 supplied in the manual, are most suitable for

subjects with a Theorist preference, particularly since the

lesson is presented on video (P. Honey, personal

communication, February, 1994).

Most of the work done with the LSQ has concentrated on

businessmen/women. The adolescent version of the LSQ

consists of 40 statements. Subjects are asked to indicate,

on balance, whether they agree or disagree with each

statement, by marking it with either a tick or a cross.

Norms are available for A level/diploma students.

95

Reliabili ty studies have produced average coefficients of

0,89, with Theorist and Reflector preferences most

consistent at 0,95 and 0,92 respectively. Pragmatists

produced a test-retest consistency of 0,87 and Activists

0,81 (Honey & Mumford, 1982).

The LSQ is used in this research because it identifies the

subject's relative strengths in each of four learning styles

and the mediation lesson corresponds to one of these styles

i.e. the theorist learning style.

3.8.6 CATTELL'S CULTURE FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST

The influence of culture on test performance has been

studied for years. Since it was found to be impossible to

develop a perfectly culture-free test, attempts have been

made to make tests as culture-fair as possible. These tests

do not eliminate cultural influences but try to minimise

their effects (Brown, 1976)

Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CCFIT) was

designed to measure fluid intelligence, which is not

significantly influenced by cultural differences (Cattell,

1959b). The test is non-verbal and relies on the subject's

ability to perceive relationships in shapes and figures.

The CCFIT has three levels. Scale 2, which is suitable for

ages 8 to 13 and average adults was used in this research,

since performance was found to fall below original norms in

cultures which are different from those in America and some

European countries (Anastasi, 1990). Each scale consists of

two parallel forms Form A and Form B. Form A was

administered as a pre-test, before the intervention, and

Form B as a post-test in order to measure transfer effects.

96

Each form of the CCFIT consists of four subtests:

1. Series: The task is to select, from the choices

provided, the item that completes the series.

2. Classification: The subject is presented with five

figures and s/he must mark the item that is different

from the others.

3. Matrices: The item which completes the design or matrix

must be indicated.

4. Conditions (or Topology): In this test five choices are

provided. The subj ect is required to choose the one

that meets the same conditions as those in the sample

design.

Examples are given before each subtest so that the subjects

are aware of what is expected of them.

The CCFIT has strict time limits imposed on each subtest.

Reliability

The reliability coefficients for Scale 2 Form A & B range

from 0,80 - 0,87 and for Form A only from 0,67 - 0,76.

Validity

Correlations between the CCFIT and other measures of

intelligence (otis, SAT and Intelligence structure Test)

range between 0,69 and 0,92.

The CCFIT is used in this study because, like the RSPM, it

is a culture-fair test of g. It is sufficiently different

from, and the items are generally more difficult than those

of the RSPM, to measure transfer effects.

97

3.9 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

In order to ensure that errors were minimised, two research

assistants marked all the tests separately and disparities

were checked. A further check was done on the printout of

the descriptive statistics.

Learning Potential was calculated as the difference between

the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices pre- and post-test

raw scores.

All statistical tests were conducted at the 5% significance

level (a = 0,05). The following inferential tests were

conducted to test the hypotheses.

HI: A one-tailed t-test was conducted to test for

differences in Learning Potential scores between the groups

that were and were not subj ected to the teaching

intervention. Variances were tested for equality using the

F-test: in the case of equal variances a conventional t-test

was used and in the case of unequal variances, the Aspin

Welch modified t-test (Hintze, 1995) was used.

Hz: The Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

test was used to determine whether any practice effects were

present between the Raven's pre- and post-test scores across

the four groups (two experimental and two control). This

non-parametric test was used in preference to one-way ANOVA

because the assumption of normality was rejected using the

Omnibus Normality Test (Hintze, 1995).

H3 : The association between learning potential scores and

the 14 personality traits was measured using Pearson's

98

Correlation Coefficient. The t-test was used to establish

whether these correlation coefficients were significantly

different from zero. In addition a regression analysis was

performed to establish whether a combination of two or more

variables significantly predict learning potential.

H4 : The association between learning potential scores and

the 10 motivational factors was measured using Pearson's






Hs : The association between learning potential scores and

the four learning styles scores was measured using Pearson's






H5 : The correlation coefficients between the learning

potential scores (as measured by the difference between the

pre-intervention and post-intervention scores obtained on

the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices) and the scores on

Cattell's Culture Fair Test, Scale 2, Form A (initial

testing phase) were tested using Pearson's Correlation

Coefficient. A t-test established whether these coefficients

were significantly different from zero.

H : A one-tailed t-test was conducted to test for

difference in transfer scores on Cattell's Culture Fair

7

99

Intelligence Test between the groups that were and were not

subjected to the teaching intervention. Variances were

tested for equality using the F-test: in the case of equal

variances a conventional t-test was used and in the case of

unequal variances, the Aspin-Welch modified t-test was used.

H8 : The correlation coefficients between the Learning

Potential Scores and the pre- and post-test difference

scores on Cattell's Culture Fair Test were tested using

Pearson's Correlation Coefficient and a t-test for

establishing whether these coefficients were significantly

different from zero.

100

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH RESULTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The results of the data analysis conducted on the hypotheses

as stated in Chapter 3 are presented in this chapter. The

expected outcome of an hypothesis will be indicated by means

of an asterisk to the left of the hypothesis.

4.2 HYPOTHESIS 1

Hol : A standardised teaching intervention by means of

videotape has no effect on Learning Potential scores (as


post-intervention scores obtained on Raven's Standard


*Hal: A standardised teaching intervention by means of a

videotape increases Learning Potential scores (as measured

by the difference between the pre-intervention and post

intervention scores obtained on Raven's Standard Progressive

Matrices) .

101

TABLE 4.1

THE EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION/ NO INTERVENTION ON

LEARNING POTENTIAL SCORES

Variable Count Mean Standard

Deviation

Standard

Error

Intervention

= No

30 -0,1 4,286 0,782

Intervention

= Yes

30 2,567 4,174 0,762

95% Lower

Confidence

Limit of

Mean

-1,700

95% Upper

Confidence

Limit of

Mean

1,500

1,008 4,125

The intervention appears to create positive learning

potential scores, as is evidenced by the fact that zero is

not contained within the range of the 95% upper and lower

confidence limits.

TABLE 4.2

THE OMNIBUS NORMALITY TEST

ON LEARNING POTENTIAL SCORES

Value Probability Decision

Intervention

No

= 0,779 0,677 Cannot reject

normality

Intervention

Yes

= 2,475 0,290 Cannot reject

normality

This test indicates that the learning potential scores

follow a normal distribution.

102

TABLE 4.3

VARIANCE-RATIO EQUAL-VARIANCE TEST


Value Probability Decision

1,054 0,888 Cannot reject

equal variances

The assumptions of normality and equal variance underlying

the t-test are thus met.

TABLE 4.4

EQUAL-VARIANCE t-TEST


Alternative hypothesis

(Interventlon = no)

(Interventlon = yes) ":f::- 0

t-Value Prob.

Level

-2,441 0,018

Decision (5%

significance

level)

Reject HO l

The standardised teaching intervention had a statistically

significant effect on Learning Potential scores. Therefore,

the alternative hypothesis Hal is accepted.

103

4.3 HYPOTHESIS 2

Ho z: There is no statistically significant practice effect



*Haz: There is a statistically significant practice effect



TABLE 4.5

RAVEN'S STANDARD PROGRESSIVE MATRICES PRE-TEST:

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Group Mean S.D. S.E. Min. Max. Range Number

1 36,767 8,752 1,598 11 51 40 30

3 37,433 9,420 1,720 15 49 34 30 -

Group

Group

1

3

Pre-test,

Pre-test,

mediated lesson, post-test

no mediation, post-test

TABLE 4.6

RAVEN'S STANDARD PROGRESSIVE MATRICES


POST-TEST:

Group Mean S. D. S.E. Min. Max. Range Number

1 39,333 8,500 1,551 12 51 39 30

2 37,900 6,799 1,241 25 49 24 30

'3 37,333 10,056 1,836 11 55 44 30

4 34,800 8,240 1,504 13 50 37 30

104

Group 1 Pre-test, mediated lesson, post-test.

Group 2 = No pre-test, mediated lesson, post-test.

Group 3 Pre-test, no mediation, post-test.

Group 4 No pre-test, no mediation, post-test.

From these descriptive statistics, it is unclear as to

whether or not any practice effects are evidenced. This can

only be established by the application of formal inferential

tests.

TABLE 4.7

OMNIBUS NORMALITY TEST OF RESIDUALS

Value Probability Decision (5%

significance level)

Reject normality24,131 0,000

It is therefore necessary to use a Kruskal-Wallis test

rather than ANOVA.

TABLE 4.8

KRUSKAL-WALLIS ONE-WAY ANOVA ON RANKS

Ho: All medians are equal (Groups 1 and 3; Groups 2 and 4) .

Ha: Not all medians are equal.

Method

Corrected for ties

DF Chi-Square Probe Decision ~

(H) Level significance

level)

Accept H0 23 6,505 0,089

105

There is no evidence of a practice effect being present from

the first to the second testing. Therefore, the null

hypothesis (Ho 2 ) cannot be rejected.

4.4 HYPOTHESIS 3

Ho 3 : Personality factors, as measured by the High School

Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ) are not significantly





*Ha3: Personality factors, as measured by the HSPQ are





TABLE 4.9

HIGH SCHOOL PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE:


HSPQ

Factors

Count Mean S.D. S.E. Mini

mum

Maxi

mum

Range

A 120 5,125 1,658 0,151 2 10 8

B 120 2,858 1,702 0,155 1 8 7

C 120 5,375 1,680 0,153 1 9 8

D 120 5,617 1,735 0,158 2 9 7 I-------

E 120 4,808 1,740 0,159 1 9 8

F 120 4,633 1,953 0,178 1 10 9 ~

G 120 4,842 1,675 0,153 1 8 7

106

HSPQ Count

Factors

Mean S. D. S.E. Mini

mum

Maxi

mum

Range

H 120 I--

5,625 1,473 0,134 2 9 7

I 120 5,183 2,090 0,191 1 10 9

J 120 6,85 1,708 0,156 2 10 8

0 120 4,741 1,741 0,159 1 9 8

Q2 120 5,217 1,984 0,181 1 10 9

Q3 120 6,075 1,879 0,172 1 10 9 -

Q4 120 4,775 2,092 0,191 1 10 9

ANXIETY 120 5,320 0,921 8,408 3,14 8,57 5,43

EXTRO 120 5,062 0,919 8,391 2,2 7,6 5,4

VERSION ~___L

The names and descriptions of these traits may be found in

section 3.8.3.

Factor B (intelligence) has a lower mean score than the

other factors. Factor J (individualism) is somewhat higher

than the other factors.

TABLE 4.10

PEARSON'S CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR PERSONALITY TRAITS

AND LEARNING POTENTIAL SCORES

Personality

Traits

Count Learning

Potential

Probab

ility

Decision (5%

significance

level)

No significant

correlation

A 60 -0,036 0,783

B 60 -0,047 0,721 No significant

correlation '------

107

Personality

Traits

Count Learning

Potential

Probab

ility

Decision (5%

significance

level)

No significant

correlation

C 60 0,010 0,941

D 60 -0,202 0,121 No significant

correlation

E 60 -0,151 0,251 No significant

correlation

F 60 0,081 0,539 No significant

correlation -~

Significant

correlation

G 60 0,354 0,006

H 60 0,009 0,943 No significant

correlation

I 60 -0,243 0,061 No significant

correlation

J 60 0,0166 0,206 No significant

correlation

0 60 0,185 0,157 No significant

correlation

Q2 60 0,078

0,014

0,556 No significant

correlation

No significant

correlation

~

QJ 60 0,912

Q4 60 -0,083 0,531 No significant

correlation

ANXIETY 60 -0,137 0,298 No significant

correlation

EXTROVERSION 60 -0,074 0,576 No significant

correlation

108

The names and descriptions of these traits may be found in

section 3.8.3.

Only Factor G (Conscientiousness) correlates with Learning

Potential scores. This correlation is weak but positive.

The regression analysis yielded the following results:

TABLE 4.11

REGRESSION MODEL SUMMARY OF THE 14 HSPQ TRAITS

Model R Square

,125

,193

,261

Adjusted R

Square

,110l. G

,1652. G, I

,2213 . G, I, 0

Std. Error of

the Estimate

4,16

4,02 -

3,89

Dependent variable: Learning Potential.

Three variables i. e. G (Conscientiousness), I (Tough

mindedness) and 0 (Proneness to guilt feelings) explain 22%

of the variance in learning potential scores.

TABLE 4.12

REGRESSION MODEL OF THE 14 HSPQ TRAITS

Coefficient T Probability

(Constant) -3,296 -1,400 ,167 I----

G ,965 3,450 ,001

I -,595 -2,502 ,015

0 ,654 2,253 ,028

109

Dependent Variable: Learning Potential.

It is interesting to note that G and 0 are on the positive

poles of these traits i.e. higher scorers, whereas I is on

the negative pole i.e. lower scorers.

TABLE 4.13

OVERALL TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE

Model Sum of df Mean F Significance

1--

Regression

Squares

298,231 ~

3

Square

99,410 6,576

level

,001

Residual 846,503 56 15,116

Total 1144,733 59


This test indicates that the regression model is

statistically significant.

TABLE 4.14

CORRELATION MATRIX OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

,..----~-----~~~----,-- ------G

c--------------_t_

G

~-

o

I

-0,001

o

-0,072

0,122

The independent variables are clearly statistically

independent.

110

The al ternative hypothesis (Ha3) is accepted for Factor G

(Conscientiousness) and for a combination of Factors G

(Conscientiousness), I (Tough mindedness) and 0 (Proneness

to guilt feelings). The null hypothesis (Ho 3) cannot be

rejected for all the other personality factors.

4.5 HYPOTHESIS 4

Motivational traits as measured by the Picture

Motivation Tests (PMT) are not significantly related to



obtained on Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices).

*Ha4: Motivational traits as measured by the PMT are



post-intervention scores obtained on Raven's Standard


TABLE 4.15

PICTURE MOTIVATION TESTS:


-Motiva

tional

Factors

Count Mean S . D. S.E. Mini

mum

Maxi

mum

Range

CS 120 4,508 1,749 0,160 1 8 7

Ag 120 4,417 1,521 0,139 1 8 7

SA 120 4,900 1,558 0,142 1 9 8

Af 120 4,017 1,512 0,138 1 8 7

111

· -r-c-Motlva- Count Mean S.D. S.E. Mini- Maxi- Range

tional mum mum

Factors 1----

End 120 3,808 1,731 0,158 1 8 7

Un 120 4,658 1, 678 0,153 1 9 8

Ex 120 4,383 1,807 0,165 1 9 8 f-

Or 120 4,383 1,848 0,169 1 8 7 --

Ach 120 3,708 1,727 0,158 1 8 7

Pl 120 4,133 1,772 0,162 1 9 8

Abbreviations:

CS Cognitive Structure

Ag Aggression

SA Scholastic Achievement

Af Affiliation

En Endurance

Un == Understanding

Ex == Exhibition

Or Order

Ach Achievement

Pl Play

The means appear similar for all these motivational factors.

112

TABLE 4.16

PEARSON'S CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS

AND LEARNING POTENTIAL SCORES

Motivational Count Learning Proba- Decision (5%

Factors Potential bility significance level i-- .,Cognltlve 60 -0,110 0,401 No significant

Structure correlation

Aggression 60 0,257 0,048 Significant

correlation

Scholastic 60 -0,007 0,958 No significant~--

Achievement correlation

r-Affiliation 60 0,120 0,360 No significant

correlation

Endurance 60 0,073 0.579 No significant

correlation

understanding 60 -0,103 0,433 No significant

correlation

Exhibition 60 -0,057 0,667 No significant

correlation

Order 60 -0,009 0,944 No significant

correlation

Achievement 60 0,049 0,707 No significant

correlation

Play 60 -0,018 0,893 No significant

correlation

The only factor that correlates significantly with Learning

Potential scores is Aggression (Ag). This correlation is

weak but positive.

The regression analysis yielded the following results:

113

--

--

TABLE 4.17

REGRESSION MODEL SUMMARY OF THE 10 PMT TRAITS

,-----

Model R Std. Error of

Square the Estimate r •

4,29Aggresslon ,066


One variable, Aggression, accounts for 6,6% of the variance

in learning potential scores.

TABLE 4.18

REGRESSION MODEL OF 10 PMT TRAITS

Model Coefficients T Probability

(Constant) -2,117 -1,213 ,230

, 048Aggression ,845 2,025


There is a positive relationship between Aggression and


114

TABLE 4.19

OVERALL TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE

I

Model Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Significance

level

Regression 75,560 1 75,560 4.099 .048

Residual 1069,174 58 18,434

Total 1144,733 ~-~-~--'--

59


This test indicates that the regression model is

statistically significant.

The alternative hypothesis (Ha4) is accepted for Aggression.

The null-hypothesis (Ho4 ) cannot be rejected for all the

other motivational traits.

4.6 HYPOTHESIS 5

Ho s : The learning styles of adolescents as measured by the

Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) are not significantly





*Has: The learning styles of adolescents as measured by the

LSQ are significantly related to learning potential scores

(as measured by the difference between the pre-intervention

and post-intervention scores obtained on the Raven's

Standard Progressive Matrices) .

115

TABLE 4.20

LEARNING STYLES:


~-

Learning

Style

Count Mean S.D. S.E. Mini

mum

Maxi

mum

Range

Activist 120 4,317 1,975 0,180 ° 10 10

Reflector r--- .

120 8,658 1,526 0,139 3 10 7

Theorlst 120 7,908 1,449 0,132 2 10 8

Pragmatist 120 7,033 1,705 0,156 3 10 7

The mean scores for Reflector, Theorist and Pragmatist

Learning Styles are very similar. Mean scores for the

Activist learning style appear to be much lower.

TABLE 4.21

PEARSON'S CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR LEARNING STYLES AND

LEARNING POTENTIAL SCORES

Decision (5%Learning Count Learning Probability ~.

significancePotentialStyle

level)

No0,52260 0,084Activist

significant

correlation

No0,716-0,04860Reflector

significant

correlation r---- , No

significant

0,391-0,11360Theorlst

correlationi I

116

Learning

Style

Count

-

Learning

Potential

Probability Decision (5%

significance

level) --~

Pragmatist 60 0,154 0,241 No

significant

correlation

The null hypothesis cannot be rejected since there is no

statistically significant correlation between the Learning

Styles and learning potential scores.

None of the four learning styles proved significant

predictors of learning potential in the regression analysis.

The null-hypothesis (Ho:,) cannot be rejected for all four

learning styles.

4.7 HYPOTHESIS 6

Ho 6 : The general cogni tive ability pre-test scores (as


2, Form A) are not significantly related to the subject's


between the pre-intervention and post-intervention scores on

the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices).

*Ha6: The general cognitive ability pre-test scores (as


2, Form A) are significantly related to the subject's


between the pre-intervention and post-intervention scores on

the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices).

117

--

TABLE 4.22

PEARSON'S CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR CATTELL'S CULTURE

FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST, SCALE 2, FORM A AND LEARNING

POTENTIAL SCORES

Count

CCFIT Form A

Raw scores

CCFIT Form A

Standard scores '----

60

60

Learning

Potential

0,093

0,071

Proba-

Bility

0,479

0,592

Decision

No significant

correlation

No significant

Correlation -~

There is no significant correlation between scores on

Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test Form A and learning

potential scores. Therefore, the null-hypothesis (Hoal

cannot be rejected.

4.8 HYPOTHESIS 7

Ho 7: The standardised teaching intervention by video, using


no effect on transfer scores (as measured by the difference



*Ha7: The standardised teaching intervention by video, using

Feuerstein's LPAD Set Variations 1 as a mediation tool,

improves transfer scores (as measured by the difference



118

Tables 4.23 4.26 will first be presented and then

discussed together. The identification of the groups will be

indicated under Table 4.23

TABLE 4.23

CATTELL'S CULTURE FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST, SCALE 2, FORM A

RAW SCORES

Group Count Mean S. D. S.E. Minimum Maximum Range

1 30 -

23,067 6,045 1,104 9 35 26

2 30 21,8 6,536 1,193 6 31 25

30-

3 30 21,933 6,787 1,239 5 35

314 30 21,167 6,281 1,147 6 25

Group 1 Pre-test, mediated lesson, post-test.

Group 2 No pre-test, mediated lesson, post-test.

Group 3 Pre-test, no mediation, post-test.

Group 4 No pre-test, no mediation, post-test.

TABLE 4.24

CATTELL'S CULTURE FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST FORM A

STANDARD SCORES

RangeMaximumS.D. S.E. MinimumMeanGroup Count

109 525783,667 11,778 2,150301

4097572,48680,1 13,6212 30

109 833,108 2617,02430 79,3333

4057 972,38513,06279,267304

119

TABLE 4.25

CATTELL'S CULTURE FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST FORM B

RAW SCORES

Gro

1

2

3

4

-up Count Mean S. D. S . E. Minimum Maximum Range

30 28 5,246 0,958 14 36 22

-

30

30

30

26,9

24,533

24,167

5,622

7,186

4,983

1,026 13

1,3f2 -

6

0,910 14

37

35

35

24

29

21

TABLE 4.26

CATTELL'S CULTURE FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST FORM B

STANDARD SCORES

Group Count Mean S . D. S.E. Minimum Maximum Range

1 30 88,967 10,746 1,962 57 109 52

2 30 87,067 12,211 2,229 57 113 56

3 30 83,2 12,491 2,281 57 104 47

4 30 81,433 10,827 1,977 57 104 47

These results appear to indicate an increase in scores from

the pre-test to the post-test. This has to be verified by

the application of formal statistics.

120

TABLE 4.27

THE EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION/ NO INTERVENTION ON CATTELL'S

CULTURE FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST

Variable Count Mean Standard

Deviation

Standard

Error

Intervention

= No

60 2,8 5,200 0,671

Intervention

= Yes

60 5,017 5,057 0,653

95% Lower

Confidence

Limit of

Mean

1,457

95% Upper

Confidence

Limit of

Mean

4,143

3,710 6,323

The intervention appears to have increased scores on the

CCFIT, as is evidenced by the fact that zero is not

contained within the range of 95% upper and lower confidence

limits.

TABLE 4.28

RESULTS OF THE OMNIBUS NORMALITY TEST ON THE DIFFERENCE

SCORES ON CATTELL'S CULTURE FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST

r---Value Probability

Intervention

= No

11,621 0,003

Intervention

= Yes

2,818 0,244

Decision (5%

significance

level)

Reject normality

Cannot reject

normality

Because normality of the scores is rejected in the control

group, the t-test cannot be used for comparing the transfer

121

Iscores of the experimental and control groups. Therefore the

Mann-whitney u- test was used.

TABLE 4.29

RESULTS OF THE MANN-WHITNEY U- TEST ON THE DIFFERENCE SCORES

OF CATTELL'S CULTURE FAIR TESTS

Alternative

Hypothesis

Diff # °

Approximation with Correction

Z-Value Probability Decision (5%

Level significance

level)

2,313 0,021 Reject H0 7

Gain scores based on the difference score between the CCFIT

Form A to the CCFIT Form B scores were due to the teaching

intervention. Therefore the al ternative hypothesis (Ha6) is

accepted.

It is also necessary to establish whether these results were

contaminated by a practice effect. An ANOVA test could not

be used because normality could not be assumed. A Kruskal

Wallis One-Way ANOVA yielded a chi-square of 9,84

(probability = 0,02) which suggests that the medians of the

CCFI Form B are not equal across the four experimental

groups. These differences were explored further with the

following results:

122

TABLE 4.30

KRUSKAL-WALLIS MULTIPLE-COMPARISON Z-VALUE TEST

CCFI

TFORM B GROUP

0,00

1 GROUP

0,81

2 GROUP

2,18

3 GROUP

2,82

4

2 0,81 0,00 1,37 2,01

3

4

2, 18

2,82

1,37

2,01

0,00

0,64

0,64 -

----- 0,00

• Group 1 is significantly different from Groups 3 and 4 .

This may be due to the teaching intervention since Group

1 and 2 received the intervention whilst the latter two

did not.

• Group 2 is significantly different from Group 4. This may

al so be due to the intervention since Group 2 received

the intervention and Group 4 did not. However, this does

not explain why there is no significant difference

between Group 2 and Group 3.

• Group 3 is significantly different from Group 1, as shown

above. However, there is no significant difference

between Group 3 and Group 2.

• Group 4 is significantly different from Groups 1 and 2.

Once again since Group 4 did not receive intervention

whilst the other two did, it may be inferred that the

intervention was responsible.

To clarify the above, two further tests were executed. A

Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for difference in Medians for

CCFIT Form A and CCFIT Form B for the 60 subj ects who

received intervention and the 60 who did not, yielded a Z

Value of 4,177 (probability = 0,00003). The gain scores were

therefore significantly affected by practice.

123

Looking at the role of the teaching intervention a Mann

Whitney Test for difference in medians between those groups

who received the intervention and those who did not yielded

a Z-Value of 2,96 (Probability 0,003). The teaching

intervention also had a significant effect on the gain

scores. The gains on the CCFIT Form B appear to be a result

of an interaction between teaching and practice.

4.9 HYPOTHESIS 8

Has: The learning potential scores (as measured by the



Progressive Matrices) are not significantly correlated to

the transfer gain scores (as measured by the difference

between Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test, Form A and

Form B) .

*Has: The learning potential scores (as measured by the



Progressive Matrices) are significantly positively

correlated to the transfer gain scores (as measured by the

difference between Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test,

Form A and Form B) .

124

TABLE 4.31

PEARSON'S CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR THE DIFFERENCE SCORES

BETWEEN THE CCFIT FORM A AND FORM B AND LEARNING POTENTIAL

SCORES

,----

~CFIT Form B

CCFIT Form A

Raw Scores

CCFIT Form B

CCFIT Form A

-

-

Standard Scores '--

--- -,---

Count

60

60

Learning

Potential

0,126

0,106

Proba-

Bility

0,337

0,421

Decision

No significanf

correlation

No significant

correlation

There is no significant correlation between the pre- and

post-test difference scores on the Culture Fair Intelligence

Tests and learning potential scores. Therefore the null

hypothesis (Ho s ) cannot be rejected.

The next chapter will contain a discussion of the findings

reported in this chapter.

125

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The focus of this chapter is a summary and discussion of the

results of this research project. Conclusions are drawn and

limitations are discussed.

5.2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The results as presented in Chapter 4 may be summarised as

follows:

• The one hour standardised teaching intervention resulted

in positive gains from the pre-test to the post-test on

Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM).

• There was no evidence of a practice effect between the

pre- and post-test of Raven's Standard Progressive

Matrices.

• Of the non-intellective factors tested, only

Conscientiousness (as tested on the High School

Personalit.y Questionnaire) and Aggression (as tested on

the Picture Motivation Test) were positively correlated

to Learning Potential scores. However, when a

mUltivariate prediction of learning potential scores from

the personality traits of the HSPQ is made,

conscientiousness, tough-mindedness and proneness to

guilt feelings explains 22% of the variance in the

126

scores. A multivariate prediction of learning potential

scores from motivational factors, indicated that one

variable of the PMT, viz. Aggression was a significant

predictor, explaining 6,6% of the variance in the scores.

• General cogni tive ability (as measured by the Culture

Fair Intelligence Test Form A) and learning potential

scores were independent of one another.

• The increase in scores from the Culture Fair Intelligence

Test Form A to the Culture Fair Intelligence Test Form B

appears to be a result of both the intervention and

practice effects.

• The pre- and post-test difference scores on the Culture

Fair Intelligence Tests did not correlate with learning

potential scores.

5.3 DISCUSSION

5.3.1 GROUP ADMINSTRATION OF A SHORT LEARNING TEST USED IN

A STANDARDISED COGNITIVE TEACHING INTERVENTION

The low scores obtained by the subj ects on the initial

intelligence tests emphasise the unsuitability of standard

normative intelligence testing in a culturally diverse

population. A short, group-administered, standardised,

cognitive teaching phase, presented on video, significantly

improved scores on the RSPM. This suggests that dynamic

assessment in this form may be a more sui table method of

assessing the ability of educationally deprived children,

since it addresses some of the limitations of both dynamic

127

assessment and normative testing. These limitations include

Ithe following:

• The time and expertise required in the administration of

dynamic assessment is minimised.

• The difficul ty of separating children who are mentally

handicapped from those who are educationally handicapped,

may be possible.

• The identification of children, who could benefit from

more extensive, individualised testing is possible.

• Some of the arguments put forward questioning the

validity of cross-cultural normative testing, e. g.

cultural setting, test-wiseness and inappropriate

standardisation, (refer to 2.1) may be addressed by this

form of testing. Test-wiseness in particular may be an

important element in assessing people who are not

familiar with the techniques employed, or the reasons for

testing. For example, one of the subjects in this study

asked whether she would receive a certificate for

completing all the tests.

5.3.2 PRACTICE EFFECTS

Control groups who were not pre-tested were incorporated in

this study in order to separate the effects of practice from

those of the intervention. Although Klauer (1993) maintains

that fluid intelligence is susceptible to retest effects,

this was not found to be the case in this research. This

result is consistent with those reported by Diemand et al.

(1991) who found that the correlation between pre- and post

tests in learning potential designs is lower than those

found between the first and second testings in studies of

retest or parallel test reliability. It appears that re-test

128

effects may not be as prevalent in dynamic assessment as

they are in traditional assessment with verbal tests that

assess crystallised intellectual abilities.

5.3.3 THE NON-INTELLECTIVE FACTORS

5.3.3.1 Personality Factors

Of the personality factors tested in this research only

Factor G, Conscientiousness, was significantly correlated to

learning potential scores. A stepwise regression separated

three factors (Conscientiousness, Tough-mindedness and

Proneness to Guilt), that accounted for 22% of the variance

in Learning Potential scores.

Factor G

Low-scorers on this factor are described as opportunistic,

while high-scorers are described as conscientious.

People who score high on Factor G are conscientious,

persevering, determined and responsible and they act

according to accepted societal norms. This trait correlates

positively with success in a variety of tasks, especially

those that require persistence, determination and organised

thinking, as well as those concerned with academic

achievement (Visser et al. 1992).

Conscientiousness has consistently been found to have a

positive effect on learning and academic achievement in the

fields of personality and educational psychology (De Fruyt &

Mervielde, 1996; De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996; Johnson &

Bloom, 1995). Conscientiousness appears to be a central

factor in learning efficiency.

129

Factor I

Low-scorers on this factor are described as tough-minded,

whereas high-scorers are described as tender-minded.

This factor was negatively correlated to learning potential

scores. People who score low on this factor (tough-minded)

are practical, down-to-earth people with a mature attitude

to life. Decisions are made on practical, logical grounds

and reactions are to obvious facts, rather than feelings.

In Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2 it was postulated that the

maturity of the person who scores low on Factor I, and the

contribution of a high score on this factor to neuroticism,

would suggest that the slightly negative correlation to

learning potential scores could be expected.

Factor 0

Low-scorers on this factor are described as self-assured,

whereas high-scorers are described as having a proneness to

guilt feelings.

People who score high on this factor feel inferior and

inadequate, they are sensitive to people's approval or

disapproval, they prefer quiet interests, are easily upset

by authority figures and are prone to depression, guilt and

remorse if they make mistakes.

In Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2 it was postulated that a low

score on this factor may show a posi tive correlation to

learning potential scores, since it suggests self

confidence, which is one of the traits that describe the

130

ideal student (De Raad & Schouwenburg 1996). Contrary to

this expectation a high score was found to contribute to the

variance in learning potential scores. A tentative

explanation for this finding may be that high scorers on

this factor could have tried harder so that they did not

make mistakes, and also to gain the approval of the tester.

Of these traits only conscientiousness was independently

correlated to learning potential scores. However, the three

traits - conscientiousness, tough-mindedness and proneness

to guilt, collectively influence learning potential scores.

Both Feuerstein (1979) and Sternberg (1996) maintain that

personality and learning are inextricably linked. This

research partially supports their arguments. However, some

factors peculiar to this research may have had an effect on

the results.

• Since the relationships between both extroversion

and emotional stability and learning have been found

to be age-related, the age of the subjects in this

study may account for the independence of these

factors and learning potential scores.

• The impersonal nature of the assessment techniques

and intervention strategy may have had a mitigating

effect on interpersonal characteristics such as

Factors A and E. These factors may be relevant in a

situation where interaction is emphasised.

• Both Carlson (1989) and Guthke (1993) suggest that

dynamic assessment techniques compensate for

inhibiting personal characteristics. Learning

potential scores are therefore less sensitive to

131

environmental influences and the effects of non

cognitive factors are reduced.

5.3.3.2 Motivation

Only one of the moti va tional traits tested, namely

Aggression, was positively correlated to learning potential

scores. A stepwise regression analysis identified this trait

as contributing 6,6% to the variance in learning potential

scores.

Aggression

Aggression has, in general, been found to be associated with

reduced learning ability and poorer academic outcomes

(Sternberg, 1996).

An inter-battery factor analysis performed on the Picture

Motivation Test and the Motivation Questionnaire resulted in

the extraction of six factors (du Toi t, 1983). Aggression

loaded negatively on Factor 1, the achievement factor.

Carver and Scheier, 1992 found that the achievement motive

was positively related to task performance and school

grades. Why aggression and not achievement showed a positive

correlation to learning potential scores cannot be explained

wi thout further research, since thi s finding may be

spurious.

Two factors particular to the subjects in this study need to

be mentioned in this regard.

• The subjects came from what is generally acknowledged to

be a very violent area, and as such .are exposed to

violence on a daily basis. Being in control and

132

exercising self-assertiveness and an internal locus of

control, could possibly necessitate the use of aggressive

behaviours.

• The school has a large number of students and the

facilities are minimal. Assertive, dominant behaviour may

be necessary for achievement.

Although the scores on the aggression index were not

particularly high, the milieu in which these sUbjects live

could mean that overcoming obstacles might necessitate the

use of aggression. In addition, what may be considered

aggressive behaviour in some societies may be viewed as

assertiveness or dominance in a more violent society.

A tentative explanation for this finding may then be that

aggression, when defined in a positive sense as

assertiveness and dominant behaviour, may be a necessary

prerequisite for learning to take place in this

disadvantaged context.

5.3.3.3 Learning Styles

The research results show no significant correlation between

any of the four Learning Styles and learning potential

scores. The hypothesis that subjects who show a preference

for a Theoretical approach to learning would be at an

advantage, was not verified. A regression analysis also

failed to extract any of the four learning styles.

Very little research has been undertaken with students using

the LSQ and none with South African scholars. The only norms

available are for British A-Level students and these may not

be sui table for South African subj ects. More research is

133

necessary to establish the validity of this instrument with

regard to South African learners.

5.3.4 COGNITIVE FACTORS

Traditional intelligence assessment using Cattell's Culture

Fair Intelligence Test yielded a mean 1.0. of 80,6 for the

subjects of this study. This normally indicates below

average intelligence. These results are in line with other

studies where disadvantaged subjects have been found to

score approximately 15 points (approximately one standard

deviation) below the average of the predominantly Anglo

American norm groups on which these tests were standardised

(Jensen, 1969; Rohwer, 1971). The inadequacy of these tests

for the population in this research may result from

differences in child rearing practices, different

expectations and aspirations, different formal and informal

learning experiences, extent of test-wiseness and/or

inappropriate standardisation. These cultural differences

are prevalent throughout South African society.

Traditional intelligence tests are often criticised as

inadequate measures of the cognitive abilities of

educationally or intellectually handicapped children. This

is supported by the findings of this study. The low initial

test scores showed a significant increase after a short,

standardised intervention. In addition, the pre-test scores

on the CCFIT Form A did not correlate with the learning

potential scores. The pre-test scores did not therefore

predict future learning capacity.

These results contradict the findings from other studies,

such as Budoff (1987a) and Ferretti and Butterfield (1992).

134

The results of these studies implied that intelligence

related di fferences would be found when the task required

the simultaneous co-ordination of more than one dimension

and that non-verbal tests were associated with better

learning potential scores (refer to 2.5.1). This may be due

to some of the subtests on the CCFIT being too difficult for

a number of the subjects.

However, Vye et al. (1987) found that intelligence measures

did not predict dynamic performance. They suggest that a

large number of the intellectually handicapped children in

their studies would have been misclassified if static

measures were used exclusively.

Kanfer and Ackerman (1989) maintain that general

intellectual abilities appear to be involved when learners

are confronted with a novel task. However, once the demands

of the task are understood, the relationship between general

intellectual abilities and performance declines. The

teaching intervention in this study may have led to an

understanding of the demands of the test and a concomitant

decline in any correlation between the scores obtained on

the CCFIT and learning potential scores.

5.3.5 TRANSFER EFFECTS

The ability to apply what has been learned to novel tasks or

different contexts, is an important element of dynamic

assessment. As may be seen from the results, the increase in

scores from The CCFIT Form A to Form B was positively

influenced by an interaction of the teaching intervention

and practice. This transfer gain was not correlated to

cogni tive ability measured by the RSPM pre-test (Pearson's

135

Correlation 0,070). This is in line with the finding that

the learning potential scores were not correlated to general

cognitive ability as measured on CCFIT Form A (refer to

5.3.4). These resul ts are contrary to a study by Campione

and Ferrara (Campione & Brown, 1987) who found that transfer

measures were strongly related to ability measures. In fact,

in their study, transfer was the best discriminator among

various ability groups.

Another important finding of this research was that the

transfer score (CCFIT Form B CCFIT Form A) was not

correlated to the learning potential scores (RSPM post-test

RSPM pre-test) (correlation coefficient 0,311). This

suggests that the subjects whose learning potential scores

increased due to the teaching intervention were independent

of those who showed gains on the CCFIT scores. This implies

that transfer may be more complex than near or far transfer.

Two forms of transfer may be postulated:

I. A form of transfer where there is a gain on both the

learning potential test and the transfer test but these

gains are independent of each other,

II. A form of transfer where there is a gain on both the

learning potential test and the transfer test and there

is a positive correlation between those who gain on the

original tests and those who gain on the transfer

tests.

The first of these two forms of transfer was found in this

study. The subjects who showed learning potential gains were

not the same as those who showed gains on the transfer test.

Since the results show that the transfer gains in this study

were a result of an interaction between learning and

136

practice, some learning may have taken place even though no

significant gains were recorded for the learning potential

test.

Generalisation took place between Set Variations 1 and

Raven's cognitive tasks. However, the items of the CCFIT

were of a different nature, as they did not assess

analogical reasoning to any s igni ficant degree. Inductive

reasoning and complex abstract reasoning of a conditional

propositional nature is built into many of the items.

Generalisation did not take place, as the learners were not

cognitively trained to carry out these tasks. Furthermore,

the difficulty level of the items was too high in comparison

to Set variations or Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices

for learners who are generally below average intellectual

functioning.

5.4 CONCLUSIONS

This research has concentrated on the identification of

extraneous variables that may affect the efficiency of

learning during dynamic assessment. A short standardised

teaching intervention produced significant changes in post

test scores on both the near transfer test (RSPM) and also

stimulated the subjects to use what they had learned with

some flexibility (on the CCFIT) This form of testing is not

redundant - static and dynamic testing do produce different

estimates of learning ability. In fact, in this study

learning potential and transfer scores were independent of

general cognitive ability.

The role of the non-intellective factors, other than

conscientiousness, in dynamic assessment is still not clear

137

from this study and more research is needed to clarify these

issues.

5.5 LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH

This research is limited by the fact that only general

cognitive ability was examined. This precludes any aspects

of specific learning, such as learning Mathematics or

English.

The subjects were high school learners from a single grade,

in one school, in a previously disadvantaged community.

Using a sample from the Black population means that the

subj ects come from diverse cultural backgrounds with

different home languages. One or more of the problems

associated with cross-cultural assessment (refer to Chapter

2, section 2.1) could contaminate the results of the tests.

Furthermore, this study is concentrated at a specific point

in time. It does not relate to sustainable performance. A

longitudinal study would be necessary to ascertain whether

improved performance can be maintained over a longer period

of time.

The conditions, under which the testing for this research

took place, were problematic from a psychometric point of

view. The facilities were inadequate and too many subjects

were tested together. Passing traffic often distracted the

subjects and disturbed the testing. During the teaching

phase 60 subjects were in one classroom that could seat

approximately 50 students. This meant that some of the

subjects had to stand and others shared desks. Although far

138

from ideal, these are the conditions under which these

students are taught.

Of the instruments used in this research, the Learning

Styles Questionnaire was probably the least suitable. This

instrument has not been properly validated with adolescents

and is therefore not an appropriate measure of learning

styles for this kind of research until its item content and

psychometric properties have been improved.

The complexity differential between the cognitive tasks used

in mediation and the transfer test is an important factor in

this research. It seems that the CCFIT is more suitable for

research with matriculants or subjects with tertiary

educational qualifications. Ideally, transfer should be

measured with a cuI ture- fair instrument of moderate

difficulty level items in comparison with the items of the

mediation instrument used in the research. An instrument of

this nature is not available at present.

139

Chapter 6

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents a summary of each of the foregoing

chapters. Recommendations for future research in this field

and practical uses of these results are suggested.

6.2 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

Due to the disparity in the quality and availability of

education across population groups in South Africa,

traditional psychometric tests and past academic performance

are not always the most suitable criteria for the selection

of the most suitable candidates for educational and career

opportuni ties. Dynamic assessment has been proposed as one)

possible alternative to normative testing whenever doubt> \

exists as to the fairness of traditional testing methods. ) ...."'''

The majority of dynamic assessment procedures have

concentrated on individualised test-train-retest protocols.

These methods are both time consuming and require highly

trained administrators. In addition, the lack of knowledge

concerning examiner effects and the incomparability of

scores due to lack of standardisation prevent dynamic

assessment from being acceptable from a psychometric point

of view.

140

That cogni tive and non- intellective factors play a role in ")

psychometric assessment is not disputed. However, the extent

and significance of these factors is as yet unclear.

This research focuses on learning potential scores, and uses

a standardised teaching protocol within a test-train-retest

format. General skills are targeted. The following questions

are examined:

I. Is a short, group administered dynamic assessment


presented on video, viable?

II. Does current general intellectual ability have a

significant effect on learning potential scores?

III. Do non-intellective factors such as certain personality

factors, motivational traits and learning styles have a

significant effect on learning potential scores?

IV. Is transfer from pre-mediation to post-mediation

cognitive functioning statistically significant?

This study is exploratory. It concentrates on one community,

at a specific point in time.

6.3 CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW

Dissatisfaction with normative testing methods, the work of

Feuerstein (1979) and the translation of Vygotsky's (1978)

Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological

processes, which proposed the ~zone of proximal development"

(ZPD), has resulted in research into many aspects of dynamic

assessment since the 1970's.

141

Six models of dynamic assessment have been identified in the

literature. These are based on a test-train-retest formula.

The six models are:

The Test-Train-Retest Gain Score Model (Budoff,

1974 )

The Cylindrical Model of Learning Potential

Assessment (Feuerstein, 1979)

Testing-the-limits (Carlson & Weidl, 1978)

Graduated Prompting (Campione & Brown, 1978)

A ~Continuum of Assessment ServicesH model (Burns

et al., 1987)

Train-within-test (Hessels, 1996).

The researchers generally report that dynamic assessment

leads to more accurate prediction and classification of

subjects than unaided test scores.

Results of research in dynamic assessment, personality and

educational psychology suggest that learning is influenced

by a complex and dynamic interaction between cognitive,

affective and motivational factors (Volet, 1996). However,

the influence of these factors on learning potential scores

is not clear.

Empirical findings from a variety of studies suggest the

following results may be anticipated:

1. Intelligence-related differences in learning ability

may be found in both Raven's Standard Progressive

Matrices and Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test

since both these tests are non-verbal (Budoff, 1987 a)

and more than one source of information has to be co

ordinated (Ferretti & Butterfield, 1992).

142

2. If a short, standardised, group administered mediation

is viable, transfer should take place.

3. The High School Personality Questionnaire measures 14

personality factors and 2 second-order factors.

Extraversion and anxiety (second-order factors), Factor

I (tender-mindedness), Factor -E (submissiveness) and

Factor -F (soberness) may be uncorrelated or slightly

negatively correlated to learning potential scores.

Factors A (outgoing), C (emotional stability), -0

(sel f-assurance), Q2 (self-sufficiency) and Q3 (high

self-sentiment integration) may show positive

correlations to learning potential scores. Factor G

(conscientiousness) has consistently been correlated to

learning ability.

4. Factors that may be positively correlated to learning

potential scores measured by the Picture Motivation

Tests are Cognitive Structure, Scholastic Achievement,

Endurance, Understanding, Order and General

Achievement. Aggression may be negatively correlated to


5. Honey and Mumford (1982) suggest that matching learning

styles with teaching style should aid learning. The

mediation is presented in a theoretical style so

subjects with a preference for this style should be at

an advantage during the learning phase.

This research aims to address some of the inadequacies that

researchers have highlighted concerning dynamic assessment.

For example, group administration of a short, standardised

test addresses the issues of length of time and expertise

required when administering learning potential tests and it

is more psychometrically acceptable. In addition, an attempt

143

is made to clarify the role of cognitive and non

intellective factors in dynamic assessment.

6.4 CHAPTER 3 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

6.4.1 THE AIM OF THIS STUDY

In this research the effects of the following factors on

learning potential scores are examined:

General cognitive ability measured by Cattell's

Cui ture Fair Intelligence Test Form A (refer to

section 3.8.6).

Fourteen personality traits measured by the High

School's Personality Questionnaire (refer to

section 3.8.3).

Ten motivational factors measured by the Picture

Motivation Tests (refer to section 3.8.4)

Four learning styles measured by the Learning

Styles Questionnaire (refer to section 3.8.5).

Learning potential scores are obtained from the difference

between the pre- and post-test scores on Raven's Standard

Progressive Matrices (refer to section 3.8.1). The training

phase is standardised according to a Theorist learning style

(refer to section 3.8.5) and is presented on video using ')

Feuerstein's Set Variations 1 as a mediation tool (refer to )

section 3.8.2). Transfer performance is measured as the

difference between the pre- and post-test administration of

Ca ttell' s Culture Fair Tests Forms A and B, respectively

(refer to s~ction 3.8.6)

144

6.4.2 HYPOTHESES AND DATA ANALYSIS

The hypotheses tested in this research are as follows:

H1 : A standardised teaching intervention by means of

videotape has no effect on Learning Potential scores. A one

tailed t-test was conducted to test this hypothesis.

Variances were tested using an F-test. In the case of equal

variances a conventional t-test was used, otherwise the

Aspin-Welch modified t-test was used.

H2 : There is no statistically significant practice effect

between the pre- and post-test scores. Since normality was

rejected using the Omnibus Normality Test, the Kruskal

Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance test was used to

determine the presence of practice effects.

H3 , H4 , and H5: Personality factors, motiva tional traits and

learning styles are not significantly related to learning

potential scores. Pearson's Correlation Coefficient was used

to measure these hypotheses. A t-test was used to establish

whether the correlation coefficients were significantly




H6 : The general cognitive ability pre-test scores are not

significantly related to the subject's learning potential

scores. Pearson's Correlation Coefficient was used to test

this hypothesis. A t-test established whether these

coefficients were significantly different from zero.

145

H7 : The standardised teaching intervention by video, using


no effect on transfer scores. A one-tailed t-test was

conducted to test this hypothesis. Variances were tested

using an F-test: in the case of equal variances a

conventional t-test was used, otherwise the Aspin-Welch

modified t-test was used.

He: The learning potential scores are not significantly

correlated to the transfer gain scores. Pearson's

Correlation Coefficient was used to test this hypothesis. A

t-test was used to establish whether these coefficients were

significantly different from zero.

6.4.3 SUBJECTS

The sample consisted of 120, mostly Black, Grade 10 learners

from a Johannesburg high school. 44,2% were males and 55,8%

were females.

6.4.4 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A Solomon Four-Group design was chosen for this research

(Kerlinger, 1986).

146

GROUP 1

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP 1 1---

Pre-test

Mediated

Lesson

Post-test

N =: 30 "-----

Figure 6.1

THE SOLOMON 4-GROUP DESIGN

GROUP 2 GROUP 3

Experimental CONTROL

Group 2 GROUP 1

No Pre-test Pre-test

Mediated No lesson

Lesson

Post-test Post-test

N = 30 N =: 30

-GROUP 4

Control -

Group 2

No Pre-test

No lesson

Post-test

N =: 30 -~

6.4.5 PROCEDURES

Assessment took place in three phases. During the initial

testing phase all the subjects completed the Learning Styles

Questionnaire, Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test,

Scale 2, Form B, the High School Personality Questionnaire

and the Picture Motivation Tests. One week later half the

experimental groups and half the control group did the

Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices. The experimental group

then completed the Set Variations 1. A week later all the

subj ects did Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices, and a

further week later Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test,

Scale 2 Form B.

147

6.5 CHAPTER 4 - RESEARCH RESULTS

The following results are reported in Chapter 4:

HI: The standardised teaching intervention had a

statistically significant effect on learning potential

scores.

H2 : There is no evidence of a practice effect from the

first to the second administration of the RSPM.

H3 : Only Factor G (conscientiousness) correlated with

learning potential scores. A regression analysis yielded

three variables that account for 22% of the variance in

learning potential scores. These factors are G

(conscientiousness), I (tough-mindedness) and 0 (proneness

to guilt).

H4 : The only factor that correlated significantly with

learning potential scores was Aggression. The regression

analysis indicated that this trait accounts for 6,6% of the

variance in scores.

Hs : No statistically significant correlation between the

learning styles and learning potential scores was found. In

addition, none of the learning styles proved significant

predictors of learning potential in the regression analysis.

H6 : There is no significant correlation between scores on

Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test Form A and learning

potential scores.

148

H7 : The gains scored from the CCFIT Form A to the CCFIT

Form B can be explained by an interaction of the mediation

and practice effects.

He: There is no significant correlation between the pre

and post-test difference scores on the CCFIT and learning

potential scores.

6.6 CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

A short, standardised teaching intervention, presented on

video, produced significant changes in the post-test scores

of the learning potential test (RSPM). It also stimulated

the subjects to use what they had learned with some

flexibility (on the CCFIT), although the latter result is

contaminated by practice effects.

General intellectual ability scores (CCFIT Form A) did not

predict learning potential or transfer scores. Some of the

items on the CCFIT may have been too difficult for the

subjects. Another explanation may be that understanding the

demands of the task could cause a decline in the

relationship between intellectual ability and task

performance (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989).

The transfer scores (CCFIT Form B - CCFIT Form A) were

influenced by both the teaching intervention and practice.

These transfer scores were not related to the learning

potential scores i.e. the subjects who gained on the

learning potential scores were not the same as those who

gained in transfer scores. This may be as a result of the

influence of practice effects or because the items on the

149

CCFIT were much more difficult than those in either the

Var.l or RSPM.

Of the personality factors assessed only conscientiousness

was significantly related to learning potential scores. A

regression analysis yielded three factors

conscientiousness, tough mindedness and proneness to guilt,

which accounted for 22% in the variance of learning

potential scores. Conscientiousness has been found to have a

posi tive effect on learning and academic achievement by a

number of researchers. Tough-mindedness has not been

researched, but the practical, down-to-earth and mature

elements of this factor suggest that it could aid learning.

Subj ects with a high score on proneness to guilt tend to

feel inferior, inadequate and sensitive to approval. It is

postulated that these subjects may have tried harder to

please the examiner.

Aggression was the only motivational factor that was

significantly correlated to learning potential scores. This

factor accounts for 6,6% of the variance in learning

potential scores. It is postulated that in order to succeed

in the context of the violent society in which they live the

subjects might need to be aggressive or assertive.

None of the learning styles assessed had any significant

impact on learning potential scores. The LSQ needs to be

researched in order to establish its validity in the South

African context.

Limitations of this research include the following:

Only a general cognitive ability was examined.

150

The subjects were from one grade in one school.

The subjects have a diverse cultural and language

background.

The study is concerned with a specific point in

time, it cannot be ascertained whether the gains

can be maintained.

Testing conditions were not optimal.

The LSQ needs improvement in item content and

psychometric properties.

The CCFIT may have been too difficult for the

level of the subjects.

6.7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The short standardised teaching intervention used in this

study may be a viable method of testing various hypotheses

associated with dynamic assessment.

The psychometric properties of the LSQ need to be upgraded

and improved or a more valid instrument (e.g. The Learning

Styles Inventory, Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1989) should be

considered. Employing different teaching styles during the ,- .._~

intervention phase may serve to clarify the role of this

variable on the learning process.

Among the motivational and personality factors stUdied in

this research, aggression (self-assertiveness) needs to be

examined more carefully since this may have been a spurious

resul t.

Why do some subjects transfer what they have learned, while

others do not? How and when does transfer of learning to

151

novel tasks take place? Are there two forms of transfer?

These are some questions that need to be answered in order

to clarify this important aspect of dynamic assessment.

The simultaneous assessment of a large number of subj ects

requires good facilities and a number of examiners. It would

be preferable to test smaller groups to ensure that all the

subjects understand the instructions for each test.

During the initial testing phase four tests were

administered with short breaks between each test. It would

be preferable to spread this testing phase over two sessions

to prevent the subjects from becoming bored or tired.

The practice items on Set Variations 1 were not checked to

ensure that the subj ects understood what was required of

them during mediation. A form of testing-the-limits could be

incorporated into this phase by repeating the lesson for

those subjects who could not cope with the practice items.

A mediation protocol, presented on video, could be produced

for a variety of specific cognitive skills, including school

subjects.

6.8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICAL USE OF THIS RESEARCH

Education and training are important areas that need to be

developed in South Africa. Selection criteria for sui table

candidates for tertiary education and job training are

generally based on past academic results and/or traditional

psychometric tests. Neither of these is suitable in South

Africa due to the inequities of the educational system and

152

the ~~ltural diversity of the population. Dynamic assessment

could overcome these problems.

Dynamic assessment is essentially an individual method of

testing. Time and expertise constraints limit the number of

people who could benefit from this form of assessment. A

group administered, short, standardised version, presented

on video would ensure that this form of assessment could be

used with larger numbers of people and in different

contexts.

Many businesses have to deal with the reality of affirmative

action. This often means that the previously disadvantaged

applicants need to be trained for specific positions. It is

very expensive to train personnel only to find that they are

not suitable candidates for the position. An assessment

procedure such as this, targeting specific skills, could be

a useful tool for selection of suitable candidates for

training. A similar format could be used in the selection of v/

students into tertiary institutions.

other uses for this form of dynamic assessment could include

some of the following situations:

• It could make it possible to discriminate between those

who are educationally handicapped and those who are

mentally handicapped.

• It could help to identify those who would benefit from a

more intense individual form of assessment in order to

ascertain strengths and weaknesses in cognitive

functioning, e.g. the LPAD.

• Deaf people could be assessed using a video in sign

language, which does away with the need for a tester to

be both a qualified test administrator and proficient in

sign language.

153

Finally a more elaborate mediation programme could be

developed into a teaching tool. Such a programme could be

divided into a series of self-contained modules targeting

specific skills. After each module, students would be

required to complete certain assignments and reach a certain

level of competence, before tackling the next module. This

could be beneficial for learners who have difficulty with

specific subjects especially maths and science, where the

pass rate in schools in South Africa is extremely low.

154

REFERENCES

Allinson, C., & Hayes, J. (1988). The Learning Style

Questionnaire: An alternative to Kolb's Inventory? Journal

of Management Studies, 25(6), 269-281.

Ames, C. (1984) . Achievement attributions and self-

instructions under competi tive and individualistic goal

structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 478

487.

Anastasi, A. (1990). Psychological testing, (6 th ed.). New

York: MacMillan Publishing Co.

Atkinson, J. W., (1980 ) Motivation effects in so-called

tests of ability and educational achievement. In L. J.

Fyans (Ed.), Achievement Motivation: recent trends in

theory and research. New York: Plenum.

Babad, E. Y. & Bashi, J. (1977). Age and coaching effects on

the reasoning performance of disadvantaged and advantaged

Israeli children. Journal of Social Psychology, 103(2),

169-176.

Bethge, H., Carlson, J. S., & Weidl, K. H. (1982). The

effects of dynamic assessment procedures on Raven's

Matrices performance, visual search behaviour, test

anxiety and test orientation. Intelligence, 6, 89-97.

Binet, A. (1909). Les idees moderned sur les infants. Paris:

Ernest Flammeron.

Blickle, G. (1996). Personality traits, learning strategies,

and performance. European Journal of Personality, 10(5),

337-352.

Boekaerts, A. (1996). Personality and the psychology of

learning. Journal of Personality, 10, 377-404.

155

Boeyens, J. (1989). Learning potential: A theoreti cal

perspective. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.

Brown, A. L., & Ferrara, R. A. (1980): Diagnosing zones of

proximal development: An alternative to standardised

testing. Paper presented at the Conference on Culture,

Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives

Centre for Psyhosocial Studies, Chicago.

Brown, D. C. (1994). Subgroup norming: Legitimate testing

practice or reverse discrimination? American Psychologist,

49, 927-928.

Brown, F. G. (1976) . Principles of educational and

psychological testing, (2 nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston.

Bryant, N. R. (1982): Preschool children's learning and

transfer of matrices problems: A study of proximal

development. Unpublished master's thesis, University of

Illinois, Illinois.

Bryant, N. R., Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1983).

Preschool children's learning and transfer of matrices

probl ems: Potential for improvement. Paper presented at

the meeting of the Society for Research in Child

Development, Detroit.

Buckingham, B. R. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement:

A symposium. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 271

275.

Buche1, F. P. & Scharnhorst, U. (1993). The Learning

Potential Assessment Device (LPAD) : Discussion of

theoretical and methodological problems. In Hamers, J. H.

M., Sijtsma, K. & Ruijssenaars, A. J. J. M., (Eds.),

Learning potential assessment: Theoretical, methodological

and practical issues, (pp. 83-111). Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets

& Zeitlinger.

156

Budoff, M. (1974). Learning potential and educability among

the educable mentally retarded. Final report, Project No.

312312. Cambridge, MA: Research Institute for Educational

Problems, Cambridge Mental Health Association.

Budoff, M. (1987a). The validity of learning potential

assessment. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An

interactional approach to evaluating learning potential

(pp. 52-81) New York: Guilford Press.

Budoff, M. (1987b). Measures for assessing learning

potential. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An

interactional approach to evaluating learning potential

(pp. 173-195). New York: Guilford Press.

Budoff, M., & Pines, A. (1971). Reaction to frustration as a

function of learning potential status. RIEPrint #9.

Cambridge, MA: Research Institute for Educational

Problems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 048

709) .

Burns, M. S., Haywood, H. C., Delclos, V. R., & Siewart, L.

(1987). Young children' s problem-solving strategies: An

observational study. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology, 8(1), 113-121.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis,

w. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive

motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in

need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.

Campione, J. C. (1989). Assisted assessment: A taxonomy of

approaches and an outline of strengths and weaknesses.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(3), 151-165.

Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1978). Towards a theory of

intelligence: Contributions from research with retarded

children. Intelligence, 2, 279-304.

157

Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Learning ability and

transfer propensity as sources of individual differences

in intelligence. In P. H. Brooks, R. D. Sperber, & C.

McCauley (Eds.), Learning and cogni tion in the mentally

retarded (pp. 265-294). Baltimore: University Park Press.

Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic

assessments with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.),

Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to

evaluating learning potential (pp. 82-115). New York:

Guilford Press.

Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., Ferrara, R. A. & Bryant, N.

R. (1984). The Zone of proximal development: Implications

for individual differences and learning. New Directions

for Child Development r 23 r 77-91.

Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., Ferrara, R. A., Jones, R. S.,

& Steinberg, E. (1985). Breakdown In flexible use of

information: Intelligence-related differences in transfer

following equivalent learning performance. Intelligence r

9 r 297-315.

Carlson, J. S. (1989). Advances in research on intelligence:

The dynamic assessment approach. Mental Retardation and

Learning Disability BUlletin r 17r 1-20.

Carlson, J. S., & Dillon, R. (1978) Measuring intellectual

capabilities of hearing impaired children: effects of

testing the limits procedures. Volta Reviewr 80 r 216-224.

Carlson, J. S., & Weidl, K. H. (1978). Using the testing

the-limits procedures in the assessment of intellectual

capabilities in children with learning difficulties.

American Journal of Mental DeficiencYr 82, 559-564.

Carlson, J. S., & Weidl, K. H. (1979). Toward a differential

testing approach: Testing-the-limits employing the Raven

Matrices. Intelligence r 3, 323-344.

158

Carlson, J. S. & Weidl, K. H. (1992). Principles of dynamic

assessment: The application of a specific model. Learning

and Individual Differences, 4(2), 153-166.

Carr, E. G. (1985). Cognitive redevelopment after right

hemisphere stroke. In H. C. Haywood, & S. A. Wingenfeld,

Interactive Assessment as a research tool [Special Issue],

Interactive Assessment. Journal of Special Education,

26(3) 253-268.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1992). Perspectives on

personality (2 nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cattell, J. Mck. (1890). Mental tests and measurements.

Mind, 15, 373-380.

Cattell, R. B. (1959a). Measuring intelligence wi th the

Cul ture Fair Tests, Manual for Scales 2 and 3. U. S .A. :

Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Cattell, R. B. (1959b). Technical supplement for the Culture

Fair Intelligence Tests Scales 2 and 3. U.S.A.: Institute

for Personality and Ability Testing.

Cattell, R. B. (1980). Personality and learning theory, Vol.

2: A systems theory of motivation and structural learning.

New York: Springer.

Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, M. D. L. (1973). High School

Personality Questionnaire. Illinois: Institute for

Personality and Ability Testing.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEOP-R

professional manual. Odessa, FL.: Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Coxhead, P., & Gupta, R. M. (1988). Construction of a test

battery to measure learning potential. In R. M. Gupta, &

P. Coxhead, (Eds.) , Cul tural diversi ty and learning

efficiency. Recent developments ~n assessment. London:

MacMillan Press.

159

Curry, L. (1991). Patterns of learning styles across medical

specialities. Educational Psychology, 11, 247-278.

Day, J. D., Engelhardt, J. L., Maxwell, S. E., & Bolig, E.

E. (1997) Comparison of static and dynamic assessment

procedures and their relation to independent performance.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 358-368.

Dearborn, W. F. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 210-212.

De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1996). Personality and

interests as predictors of educational streaming and

achievement. European Journal of Personality, 10, 405-425.

De Raad, B. (1996). Personality traits in learning and

education. European Journal of Personality, 10, 185-200.

De Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in

learning and education: a review. European Journal of

Personality, 10, 303-336.

Diemand, A., Schuler, H. & Stapf, K.H. (1991): Zum einsatz

eines lerntests bei ingenieurstudenten - eine pilotstudie.

Zeitschrift fur Arbeits- und Organisations-Psychologie,

35(1) 15-22.

Dillon, R. (1979). Improving validity by testing for

competence: Refinement of a paradigm and its application

to the hearing impaired. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 39, 363-371.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1989). Learning Styles

Inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.

Duran, R. P. (1989). Assessment and instruction of at-risk

Hispanic students. Exceptional Children, 56(2), 154-158.

Du Toit, L. B. H. (1983a): Picture Motivation Tests.

Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.

Du Toit, L. B. H. (1983b). Manual for the Picture Motivation

Tests. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.

160

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting

learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048.

Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role in

motiva tion, personality and development. In R. A.

Dienstbier (Ed.) Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol.

38: Current theory and research in motivation (pp. 199

235). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Ernbretson, S. E. (1987). Improving the measurement of

spatial aptitude by dynamic testing. Intelligence, 11,

333-358.

Eysenck, H. J. (1996). Personality and the experimental

study of education. European Journal of Personality, (10),

427-439.

Ferrara, R. A. (1987). Learning mathematics in the zone of

proximal development: The importance of flexible use of

knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University

of Illinois: Champaign.

Ferrara, R. A., Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1986).

Children's learning and transfer of inductive reasoning

rules: Studies in proximal development. Child Development,

57, 1087-1099.

Ferretti, R. P., & Butterfield, E. C. (1992). Intelligence

related differences in the learning, maintenance and

transfer of problem-solving strategies. Intelligence,

(16), 207-223.

Feuerstein, R. (1979) The dynamic assessment of retarded

performers: The learning potential assessment device,

theory, instruments and techniques. Baltimore: University

Park Press.

Feuerstein, R. (1980) . Instrumental enrichment: An

intervention program for cognitive modifiability.

Baltimore: University Park Press.

161

Feuerstein, R., Hoffmann, M. B., Jensen, M. R., & Rand, Y.

(1985). Instrumental enrichment and intervention program

for structural cognitive modifiability: Theory and

practice. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser

(Eds.), Thinking and learning skills, volume 1: Relating

instruction to research. Lawrence Erlbaum, London.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Jensen, M. R., Kaniel, S., &

Tzuriel, D. (1987) . Prerequisites for assessment of

learning potential: The LPAD model. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.),


evaluating learning potential (pp. 237-267), New York:

Guilford Press.

Furnham, A. (1992). Personality and learning style: A survey

of three instruments. Personality and Individual

Differences, 13(4), 429-438.

Furnham, A. (1996) . The FIRO-B, and Learning Style

Questionnaire, and the Five Factor Model. Journal of

Social Behaviour and Personality, ~1 (2), 285-299.

Gaudry, E., & Spielberger, C. D. (1971). Anxiety and

educational achievement. New York: Wiley.

Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence

relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 532-552.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of

personality: The Big-Five structure. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993) . The structure of phenotypic

personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.

! Guthke, J. (1993). Current Trends in Theories and Assessment

of Intelligence. In J. H. M. Hamers, K. Sijtsma, & A. J.

J. M. Ruijssenaars (Eds.), Learning potential assessment:

Theoretical, methodological and practical issues, (pp. 13

18). Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

162

Guthke, J., & Lehwald, G. (1980). On component analysis of

the intellectual learning ability in learning tests. In

Kongress-band XXII. Leipzig: Internationaler Kongress fur

Psychologie.

Guthke, J., & Stein, H. (1996). Are learning tests the

better version of intelligence tests? European Journal of

Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 1-13.

Haeussermann, E. (1958). Developmental potential of pre

school children. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Hamers, J. H. M., Hessels, M. P. G., & Pennings, A. H.

(1996). Learning potential in ethnic minority children.

European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 183

192.

Hamers, J. H. M., Hessels, M. P. G., & Van Luit, J. E. H.

(1991). Leertest voor etnische minderheden: Test en

handleiding. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Hamers, J. H. M., Pennings, A. H., & Guthke, J. (1994).

Training-based assessment of school achievement. Learning

and Instruction, 4(4), 347-360.

Hamers, J. H. M., & Sijtsma, K. (1993). Learning potential

assessment: Epilogue. In J. H. M. Hamers, K. Sijtsma, & A.

J. J. M. Ruij ssenaars, (Eds. ) , Learning potential

assessment: Theoretical, methodological and practical

issues (pp. 365-377). Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Hamers, J. H. M., Sijtsma, K. & Ruijssenaars, A. J. J. M.,

(Eds. ) . (1993) : Learning potential assessment:

Theoretical, methodological and practical issues.

Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Harrison, R. H., & Budoff, 1'1. (1972a). A factor analysis of

the Laurelton Self-Concept Scale. American Journal of

Mental Deficiency, 76, 446-459.

163

Harrison, R. H., & Budoff, M. (1972b). Demographic,

historical and ability correlates of the Laurelton Self

Concept Scale in an EMR sample. American Journal of Mental

Deficiencies, 76, 460-480.

Harrison, R. H., Singer, J., BUdoff, M., & Folman, R.

(1972). Level of aspiration as a function of learning

potential status in the educable mentally retarded.

Psychological Reports, 30, 47-57.

Haywood, H.C. (Ed.) (1970). Social-cultural aspects of

mental retardation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Haywood, H. C., Filler, J. W., Jr., Shifman, M. A., &

Chatelanat, G. (1975). Behavioural assessment in mental

retardation. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in

psychological assessment (Vol. 3). San Francisco: Jossey

Bass.

Hegarty, S. (1979). Test of children's learning abili ty

(Individual version). Test and Manual. Windsor: NFER

Publishing Company.

Heinrich, J. J. (1991). Responsiveness of adults with severe

head injury to mediated learning. In H. C. Haywood, & S.

A. Wingenfeld, (Eds.) . Interactive assessment as a

research tool. Special Issue: Interactive Assessment,

Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 253-268.

Hessels, M. P. G. (1996). Ethnic differences in learning

potential test scores: Research into item and test bias in

the Learning Potential Test for Ethnic Minorities. Journal

of Cognitive Education, 5(2), 133-153.

Hickson, J., & Skuy, M. (1990). Creativity and cognitive

modifiability in gifted disadvantaged pupils: A promising

alliance. School Psychology International, 11(4), 295-301.

Hintze, J. L. (1995). NCSS 6.0 User's Guide 1. Utah:

Number Cruncher Statistical Systems.

164

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1982). The manual of learning

styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey.

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1986). Using your learning styles.

Maidenhead: Peter Honey.

Jackson, C., & Lawty-Jones, M. (1996). Explaining the

overlap between personality and learning styles.

Personality and Individual Differences, 20(3), 293-300.

Jensen, A. R. (1969). Intelligence, learning ability and

socio-economic status. Journal of Special Education, 3(1),

23-33.

Jitendra, A. K. & Kameenui, E. J. (1993). Dynamic assessment

as a compensatory assessment approach: A description and

analysis. RASE-Remedial-and-Special-Education, 14(5) 6-18.

Johnson, J. L., & Bloom, A. M. (1995). An analysis of the

contribution of the Five Factors of personality to

variance in academic procrastination. Personality and

Individual Differences, 18, 127-133.

Kahn, R. J., & King, S. R. (1997). Dynamic procedures for

assessing children's cognitive and emotional strengths and

needs. Journal of Cognitive Education, 6(2), 101-114.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and

cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment

interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 74(4), 657-690.

Kaniel, S., & Tzuriel, D. (1992). Educating non-literate

immigrants: Conclusions and applications of research on

Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Paper presented at the third

international conference of the International Association

for Cognitive Education, Riverside, CA.

Karpov, Y. (1995). L. S. Vygotsky as the founder of the new

approach to instruction. School Psychology International,

16, 131-142.

165

Karpov, Y., & Haywood, H. C. (1998). Two ways to elaborate

Vygotsky's concept of mediation. American Psychologist,

53(1), 27-36.

Keane, K. J., Tannenbaum, A. J. & Krapf, G. F. (1992).

Cognitive competence: Reality and potential in the deaf.

In H. C. Haywood, & S. A. Wingenfeld (Eds.), Interacti ve

assessment as a research tool. Special Issue: Interactive

Assessment, Journal of Special Education, 26(3) 253-268.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioural

research, (3 rd ed.). Orlando, Florida: Harcourt, Brace &

Company.

Klauer, K. J. (1993). Learning potential testing: The effect

of retesting. In J. H. M. Hamers, K. Sijtsma, & A. J. J.

M. Ruij ssenaars, (Eds.), learning potential assessment:

Theoretical, methodological and practical issues (pp. 135

152). Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger

Kok, F. G. (1988). Vraagpartijdigheid, methodologische

verkennigen. Amsterdam: De Amstel.

Kolb, D. (1976). Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual.

Boston: McBer and Company.

Kozulin, A. (1995). The learning process: Vygotsky's theory

in the mirror of its interpretations. School Psychology

International, 16, 117-129.

Lidz, C. S. (Ed.). (1987): Dynamic assessment: An

interactional approach to evaluating learning potential.

New York: Guilford Press.

Luria, A. R. (1961). Study of the abnormal child. American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 31, 1-16.

MacPherson, M. W. (1948). A survey of experimental studies

of learning in individuals who achieve subnormal ratings

on standardised psychometric measures. American Journal of

Mental Deficiency, 152, 232-254.

166

Mayer, R. E. (1998) . Cognitive, metacognitive and

motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional

Science, 26, 49-63.

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A. & Lowell,

E. I. (1976). The achievement motive. New York: Irvington.

Mearig, J. S. (1987). Assessing the learning potential of

kindergarten and primary-age children. In C. S. Lidz

(Ed. ), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to

eval uating learning potential (pp. 237-267). New York:

Guilford Press.

Mercer, J. R. (1979). System of multicultural pluralistic

assessment (SOMPA): Technical Manual. New York: The

Psychological Corporation.

Meijer, J. (1993) . Learning potential, personality

characteristics and test performance. In J. H. M. Hamers,

K. Sij tsma, & A. J. J. M, Ruij ssenaars (Eds.), Learning

potential assessment: Theoretical, methodological and

practical issues, (pp. 341-360). Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets &

Zeit1inger.

l'101ina, S., & Perez, A. A. (1993). Cognitive processes in

the child with Downs Syndrome. Development disabili ties

bulletin, 21(2), 21-35.

Motti-Stefanidi, F., Besevegis, E., & Giannitsas, N. (1996).

Teachers' perceptions of school-age children's competence

and mental health. European Journal of Personality, 10,

263-282.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York:

Oxford Press.

Owen, K. (1991) The suitability of Raven's Standard

Progressive Matrices for various groups in South Africa.

Personality and Individual Differences, 15 (2), 149-159.

167

Petersen, N. S., & Novick, M. R. (1976). An evaluation of

some models for culture-fair selection. Journal of

Educational Measurement, 13, 3-29.

Rand, Y. (1982). LPAD Tests: Var. 1 and Var. 11

reliability data for group testing and discrimination

power. Paper presented at the IASSMD Conference, Toronto.

Rand, Y. (1983). LPAD Tests: Var. 1 and Var. 11

differential levels of learning and reliability.

Unpublished manuscript, Hadassah - WIZO - Canada Research

Institute, Jerusalem.

Rand, Y., & Ben-Schachar, N. (1979). Differential effects of

LPAD learning and static measures. Unpublished manuscript,

Hadassah - WIZO - Canada Research Institute, Jerusalem.

Rand, Y., & Kaniel, S. (1987). Group administration of the

LPAD. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An

interactional approach to eval uating learning potential

(pp. 173-195). New York: Guilford Press.

Raven, J. C. (1976). Standard Progressive Matrices. Oxford:

Information Press Ltd.

Raven, J. C., Court, J. H. & Raven, J. (1992). Manual for

Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales,

Section 3. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press Ltd.

Rayner, S., & Riding, R. (1997). Towards a categorisation of

cognitive styles and learning styles. Educational

Psychology, 17(1-2), 5-27.

Resing, W. C. M. (1993). Measuring inductive reasoning

skills: The construction of a learning potential test. In

J. H. M. Hamers, K. Sijtsma, & A. J. J. M, Ruijssenaars

(Eds.), Learning potential assessment: Theoretical,

methodological and practical ~ssues, (pp. 219-242).


1 68

Resing, W. C. M., Bleichrodt, N., & Drenth, P. J. D. (1986).

Het gebruik van de RAKIT bij allochtoon etnische groepen.

Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Psychologie, 41, 179-188.

Reynolds, C. R. (1982). The problem of bias in psychological

assessment. In C. R. Reynolds, & T. D. Gutkin (Eds.), The

handbook o.f school psychology. New York: Wiley.

Rohwer, W. D. (1971). Learning, race and school success.

Review of Educational Research, 41, 191-210.

Romine, P. G., & Crowell, o. C. (1981). Personality

correlates of under- and over-achievement at the

university level. Psychological Reports, 48, 787-792.

Ruijssenaars, A. J. J. M., Castelijns, J. H. M. & Hamers, J.

H. M. (1993). The validity of learning potential tests. In

J. H. M. Hamers, K. Sijtsma, & A. J. J. M, Ruijssenaars

(Eds.), Learning potential assessment: Theoretical,

methodological and practical issues, (pp. 69-82) .


Rutland, A., & Campbell, R. (1995). The validity of dynamic

assessment methods for children with learning difficulties

and non-disabled children. Journal of Cognitive Education,

5(1), 81-94.

Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). Learning style: frameworks and

instruments. Educational Psychology, 17(1-2), 51-63.

Sadler-Smith, E., & Riding, R. J. (1999). Learning

preferences and cognitive styles In business studies

students. Instructional Science, 27(5), 355-372.

Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1990). Test anxiety. In H.

Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation

research. New York: Plenum.

Sattler, J. M. (1982). Assessment of children's intelligence

and special abili ti es (2 nd edition). Boston: Allyn and

Bacon, Inc.

169

Savell, J. M., Twohig, P. T., & Rachford, D. L. (1986).

Empirical status of Feuerstein's ~Instrumental Enrichment"

(FIE) technique as a method of teaching thinking skills.

Review of Educational Research, 56, 381-410.

Schottke, H., Bartram, M. & Weidl, K. H. (1993) .

Psychometric implications of learning potential

assessment: A typological approach. In J. H. M. Hamers, K.

Sijtsma, & A. J. J. M, Ruijssenaars (Eds.), Learning

potential assessment: Theoretical, methodological and

practical issues, (pp. 153-174). Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets &

Zeitlinger.

Schroots, J. J. F. (1979). Cognietieve ontwikkeling,

leervermogen en skoolprestasies. Lisse: Swets &

Zeitlinger.

Sclan, S. G. (1986). Dynamic assessment and thought disorder

in paranoid and nonparanoid schizophrenic patients. In H.

C. Haywood, & S. A. Wingenfeld, Interactive assessment as

a research tool. Special Issue: Interactive Assessment,

Journal of Special Education, 26(3) 253-268.

Shucman, H. (1960). Evaluating the educability of the

severely mentally retarded child. Psychological

Monographs, 74(14) Whole No. 501.

Skuy, M. (1988). Dynamic assessment of intellectually

superior Israeli children in a low socio-economic status

community. Gifted Education International, 5(2), 90-96.

Skuy, M., Apter, A., Dembo, Y., Tyano, S., Kaniel, S., &

Tzuriel, D. (1992). Cognitive modifiability of adolescents

with schizophrenia: a research note. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 33(3), 583-589.

Skuy, M., Gaydon, V., Hoffenberg, S. & Fridjohn, P. (1990).

Predictors of performance of disadvantaged adolescents in

a gifted program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 97-101.

Smit, G. J. (1991). Psigometrika. Pretoria: HAUM-Tersier.

170

Spearman, C. (1927) . The abilities of man. New York:

Macmillan.

Spelberg, H. C. (1987). Grenzentesten. Groningen: Stichting

Kinderstudies.

Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Personality, pupils and purple

cows: we have the right answers, but do we have the right

questions? European Journal of Personality, 10, 447-452.

Strage, A. (1997). Agency, communion and achievement

motivation. Adolescence, 32(126), 299-311.

Thorndike, E. L. (1924). An introduction to the theory of

mental and social measurements. New York: Wiley.

Tzuriel, D. (1992). The dynamic assessment approach: A reply

to Frisby and Braden. Journal of special Education, 26(3),

302-324.

Tzuriel, D., & Klein, P. S. (1987). Assessing the young

child: Children's analogical thinking modifiability. In C.

S. Lidz, (Ed. ), Dynamic assessment: An interactional

approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 173-195).

New York: Guilford Press.

Tzuriel, D., & Rand, Y. (1983). Testing as an intervention:

Differential learning conditions and levels of performance

on Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM). Hadassah

WIZO, Canada Research Institute, Jerusalem.

Vernon, P. E. (1954). Symposium on the effects of coaching

and practice in intelligence tests. (V. Conclusions).

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 57-63.

Visser, B. L. (1978) Development of a testing programme for

Black university students for selection and careers

counselling. CSIR Report Pers. 281.

Visser, M., Garbers-Strauss, J., & Prinsloo, C. (1992).

Manual for High School Personality Questionnaire.

Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.

171

Volet, S. E. (1996). Cogni tive and affective variables in

academic learning: the significance of direction and

effort in students' goals. Learning and Instruction, 3,

281-298.

Volle, F. o. (1957). A proposal for "testing the limits"

with mental defectives for the purpose of subtest analysis

of the WISC verbal scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

13 (1), 64-67.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of

higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner,

S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Vye, N. J., Burns, M. S., Delclos, V. R., & Bransford, J. D.

(1987) . A comprehensive approach to assessing

intellectually handicapped children. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.)


evaluating learning potential (pp. l73-l95). New York:

Guilford Press.

Wijnstra, J. M. (1986). Leer en grenzentests end die

predictie van skoolvorderingen. Nederlandse Tijdschrift

voor opvoeding vorming en onderwys, 2, 270-284.

Williams, R. L. (1972). The Bitch-100: A culture-specific

test. Annual convention of the American Psychological

Association, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Woodrow, H. (1946). The ability to learn. Psychological

Review, 53, 147-158.

172

Documents

THE EFFECTS OF COGNITIVE FACTORS AND PERSONALITY …