Develop tests of native aptitude for each school subject separately and question the Accomplishment Quotient¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 2 studies (2 associational), q2–q3 · 1 of 2 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

Given the low intercorrelations among school subjects, the article recommends attacking "the problems of discovering tests of native ability for each subject separately," with tests for native aptitude for arithmetic, writing, drawing, spelling, and so on. It also argues this finding "raises a question with regard to the validity of the concept of the 'Accomplishment Quotient'" and similar practices assuming slight specialization, and suggests correlating tests with abilities developed to the limit rather than with school-practice-dependent achievement.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Assumes a specialization of native abilities among school subjects, for which the article says there is evidence though greater abundance exists for the former view

Constraints¶

• The article notes its data represent merely the facts for one school, and that correlations would probably not rise near +1.00 even if each subject were developed to the limit

Target Learners¶

• elementary school pupils in grades I to VIII

Target Learning Goals¶

• measurement of achievement and aptitude in reading, arithmetic, spelling, and writing

Claims¶

• School subjects intercorrelate lowly except reading comprehension with reading rate (0.85) [+W]
• Reading comprehension correlates 0.40 with spelling, 0.24 with arithmetic, and 0.10 with writing [+W]

Related Strategies¶

• Standardize handwriting-interpretation tests before using them as measures of form- or position-perception

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Arthur I. Gates. (1923). The Correlations of Achievement in School Subjects with Intelligence Tests and Other Variables (Concluded). The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0066477