CHAPTER n

INTELLIGENCE AND ITS CONCEPTIONS

Introduction

Descriptive Conceptions of Intelligence

2.2.1 Definitions of Intelligence

2.2.2 Intelligence - Origin o f the Concept

2.2.3 Comprehensive Definitions of Intelligence

2.2.4 Intelligence and the Present Experiment

Theories of Intelligence

2.3.1 Two - Factor Theory

2.3.2 Holzinger's Bi-Factor Theory

2.3.3 Sampling Theory

2.3.4 Multi - Factor Theory

2.3.5 Group Factor Theoiy

Models o f Intelligence

2.4.1 Burt's Model

2.4.2 Vernon's Model

2.4.3 Guilford's Structure o f Intellect ( The Cubic M o d el)

2.4.4 Sternberg's Triarchic Theory o f Human Intelligence

2.4.5 Jean P ia g e t: A Biological Approach

Artificial Intelligence
2.1 INTRODUCTION

The critical question of this period of human history- the answer to which

must also come from the critical use o f man's mind - is whether or not human

intelligence as traditionally defined offers any reliable assurance o f human survival.

This question may seem hopelessly abstract, even trite. But nothing could be more

concrete. Is pure intelligence enough to protect man from self - inflicted destruction?

Among a group o f children at play, we spot those who seem to be bright

and those who seem to be dull in catching on to the rules o f the game and as we

watch them at school, we make a distinction also between bright and dull. We

frequently encounter representatives of the extremes.

Aristotle rightly says, "Reason, in the sense of intelligence is not found

equally in all animals, nor in all men." Distinctions in intelligence are recognized and

used almost every hour of human lives. The teacher or the educationist responsible

for the education of individual children from the beginning, is supposed to know as

to what is understood by intelligence, what is its real nature. Sometimes teachers in

the classroom and even many educational administrators are not very clear about the

concept o f intelligence. For example, if a teacher is asked to point out the most

intelligent pupil in the class, he very often points out a quiet, shy child who gives no

trouble, comes to the class regularly, does his homework regularly and is no

problem to the teacher and the teacher thinks that this boy is very good in his

behaviour and routine classwork and is thus very intelligent. He may, on the other

hand, point out another child who is rather aggressive, rowdy, sometimes cutting

classes,not doing his homework regularly and even sometimes questions the teacher

in the class and enters in an argument. He may be labelled as a bad boy, and may

b e called an ass. But if intelligence of these boys is judged, the former may be found

to be having I.Q. near about 100, whereas the second child who is active and

restless may be found to have an I.Q. o f 125. To the teacher, ordinarily good

behaviour stands for good intelligence, but it is known that good behaviour is

different from intelligent behaviour.

24
 The confusion, therefore, arises when the meaning o f intelligence as a

concept is not understood. It is among the most elusive of concepts. Certainly, there

are few other concepts that have been conceptualized in as many diffeiffent ways.

The various conceptions of intellignce that have been proposed have usually sounded

related to each other; unfortunately, the nature and extent o f the inter-relations

remain fuzzy.

2.2 DESCRIPTIVE CONCEPTIONS OF INTELLIGENCE

2.2.1 Definitions of Intelligence

In popular understanding, intelligence means mental abilities enabling one to

think rationally, learn readily, act purposefully, and deal effectively with one's

environment. In psychological testing, it is a term that has been given many different

technical meanings concerned with mental abilities such as verbal reasoning,

quantitative thinking, abstract analysis, manipulation of geometric shapes, recognition

of similarities and differences between pictured objects.

Inelligence also implies "intellect" as

(a) Capacity : Capacity or power o f the mind for thinking and

knowing in contrast to those mental faculties by which the
individual feels or wills.

(b) Figurative : Figurative references to individuals with marked

capabilities for thought, or to thinking powers, in general.1

According to the Dictionary of Psychology,

'Intelligence' refers to the ability to function effectively with

problems, whereas 'intellect' refers to the rational thought
functions of the human mind.2

With the invention of mental tests, the question "what is intelligence" took a

different turn. Psychologists proved to be generous to a fault with their definitions

of intelligence. A number o f definitions has been evolved by psychologists

according to their own concept of the term but no two psychologists agree on a

single definition of the term.

25
2.2.2 Intelligence : Origin of the Concept

According to Cyril Burt, the term intelligence goes back to intelligentia, a

term introduced by Cicero. The former, then, adds, "As Guilford has reminded us,

the modem notion of ‘intelligence as a unitary entity’ was a gift to psychology from

biology through the instrumentality of Herbart Spencer." 5

According to Spencer,
during the evolution o f animal kingdom, and during the
growth o f the individual child, the fundamental capacity of
cognition "progressively differentiate in a hierarchy of
m ore specialised abilities" - sensory, perceptual,
associative and relational, much as the trunk of a tree
sprouts into boughs, branches, and twigs.4

After the first scale of intelligence measurement was published by Binet and

Simon, psychologists tried to study and define the term intelligence critically.

Symposia were held on the problem, and numerous voices were heard. As

Spearman put it, intelligence became a "mere vocal sound, a word with so many

meanings that finally it had none."5

It would not serve much purpose; rather, it would be a dull affair to give a

mere parade of definitions. Instead, definitions o f intelligence given by Binet and

Terman who were totally concerned with the Binet scale and its American revisions

respectively are dealt herewith, with some comments thereupon.

Binet, a pinnacle among mental testers, had his views about intelligence but

he never stated a formal definition o f intelligence in a published form. According to

Hollingworth, "Binet emphasized three phases o f behaviour: (1) the ability to take

and maintain a given mental set; (2) the capacity to make adaptations for the

purpose of attaining a desired end; and (3) the power of auto-criticism."6 Guilford

adds, "Still later, Binet added a fourth step, comprehension. With the four steps of

direction, comprehension, invention and criticism, Binet's description of thinking or

problem solving is quite congruent with recent thinking."7

26
Binet stated that,

"The mental faculties o f each subject are independent and

unequal; with little memory there may be associated much
judgment.....Our mental tests, always special in their
scope, are each appropriate to the analysis o f a single
faculty."®

Guilford comments that by the use o f the term faculty, Binet was not

committing himself to the philosophical tradition o f faculty psychology. The

former, then, adds:

"It is obvious that Binet did not carry his conception of

independent faculties to the logical conclusion in terms o f
measurement. In the practical situation in which he found
himself, ail he needed was a means by which to reach a
single administrative decision about each child. A single
score was a natural means to that end. "9

Terman makes intelligence synonymous with abstract thinking in his

statement, "An individual is intelligent in proportion as he is able to carry on

abstract thinking." According to Rex Knight, “Terman gives emphasis on abstract

thinking but neglects the process o f perceptual level o f thinking. The definition

ignores the fact that undirected abstruse thought is as little intelligent as undirected

observation. Again, it assumes that the capacity for abstract thinking is simple and

indivisible, whereas, in fact, it is a compound ability comprising more than one

power.”! 1 Rex Knight, then concludes that “the capacity for abstract thought, like all

other abilities, involves factors specific to itself as well as intelligence, and therefore

to identify it with intelligence is a mistake.”12

Many more definitions with their respective comments can still be added but

it would not be o f much use. For a long time, it was fashionable to set down as a

definition the statement that intelligence is what the intelligence tests measure.

Commenting on the definitions of intelligence, McNemar humorously states that,

“.... it might be claimed that no definition is required because all intelligent people

know what intelligence is; it is the thing that the other guy lacks."13

27
2.2.3 Comprehensive Definitions of Intelligence

“The attempt to compress the concept of intelligence into a compact

definition is too complex, too many-sided, too wide-ranging and too vague.”14

Accordingly, there have been various attempts to describe it in a more

comprehensive manner rather than define it in a compact form. The note­

worthy attempts to define intelligence comprehensively are those of Stoddard,

Wechsler, Piaget, Thorndike and Hebb; the last two, o f course, describe types

of intelligence. Here, the contributions o f Stoddard, Wechsler, E. L. Thorndike

and Hebb only have been briefly discussed.

Stoddard's description

Stoddard describes intelligence, treating it as a theoretical composite whose

elements may be operationally tested.

Intelligence is the ability to undertake activities that are

characterised by (1) difficulty, (2) complexity, (3)
abstractness, (4) economy, (5) adaptiveness to goal, (6)
social value, and (7) the emergence o f originals, and to
maintain such activities under conditions that demand a
concentration o f energy and a resistance to emotional
forces. 15

Difficulty which is a function of the "percentage passing" as well as a function

of population must increase with chronological age, so long as mental growth is

postulated. Stoddard remarks that, "it must be, to be meaningful, truly hierarchical

and not simply a broadening of the base." Complexity is referred to the breadth or

area of intelligence. In other words, it refers to the number o f tasks that can be

successfully undertaken by the individual. For Stoddard, the third attribute of

abstractness "lies at the heart of intelligence."!6 It is the key characteristic of all high

level mental operations.

Coming to the fourth attribute of intelligence, Stoddard remarks that

economy is another name for speed - the accomplishment o f the most mental tasks

in the least time. However he prefers the word "economy" for speed for the latter
28
implies fast motion without sufficient stress upon direction and accuracy. While

discussing the fifth and the sixth attributes, Stoddard states that the adaptiveness to a

goal and social value tend to merge. "Regardless to the test content revealing these

attributes, the first reference point is to individual behaviour and the second to the

more slowly changing mores."17 The seventh one, the emergence o f originals, is

included, as one attribute because of its special place at the upper end of any valid

distribution of intelligence.

Wechsler's description

In the preface of the fourth edition of his work, published in 1958, Wechsler

writes that his views on the nature of intelligence have not changed radically but that

he has become increasingly convinced that intelligence is most usefully interpreted as

an aspect of the total personality.18

As per Wechsler,

Intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity o f the

individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to
deal effectively with his environment ^

The definition specially states that an individual's intelligence is revealed by

his behaviour as a whole and that intelligence involves behaviour toward a goal

which may be more or less immediate. The inclusion of phrases "to act purposefully"

and "to deal effectively" specifies that "drive" or "incentive" enters into intelligent

behaviour. Wechsler clearly emphasizes these aspects by supporting Alexander's

findings, which include a reference to such non-intellective aspects. 2®

Freeman comments;

The inclusion of "drive", "incentive" and the like as aspects

of intelligence is of doubtful validity; their inclusion would
confuse the issue, the testing instrument, and the results
obtained.... This is not to say that in assessing an
individual's intelligence and personality as a whole we
should ignore "drive", "incentive", "interest"; for the
competent psychological examiner does evaluate these and
other non-intellectual traits in presenting his test-results. 21

29
 It can be seen that though Wechsler acknowledges "drive", "incentive",

"temperament" as basic factors in general intelligence and hold that general

intelligence cannot be equated with intellectual ability, but must be regarded as a

manifestation of the personality as a whole,22 he has not been able to redevise his

two world-wide famous scales - Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) - to include the measurement of

the non-intellectual traits.

Wechsler, too, seems to have been quite conscious of this. In the preface to

the 1958 edition of his works, he writes:

I look upon intelligence... as a resultant o f interacting

abilities-nonintellective included. The problem confronting
psychologists today is how these abilities interact to give the
resultant effect we call intelligence. At this writing it seems
clear that factorial analysis alone is not the answer. Probably
a new statistic involving field-theory and non-linear differential
equations will be required. In the mean time, I remain a
reformed but unchastened Spearmanite. 23

Thorndike's description

Under the effect of this era o f specifications, E. L. Thorndike specified

intelligent activity into three types: (1) social intelligence or ability to understand and

deal with persons; (2) concrete intelligence or ability to understand and deal with

things; (3) abstract intelligence or ability to understand and deal with verbal and

mathematical symbols.

This division indicates the need for designing separate tests to measure how
effectively the individual is functioning in each. But psychologists discordant with
Thorndike's views do not think that such specialised measurement is necessary.
Freeman, here, remarks that though in the case of any given person the score attained
on a test of abstract intelligence might differ appreciably from those attained by him on
a test of "social" relationships and insights, or on one of "concrete" intelligence, the
correlations between the types of tests are found to be positive and significant, both
psychologically, and statistically, when "a representative group" of individuals are

tested. 24

30
 It is an indubitable fact that tests of abstract intelligence outweigh others and

are most pronounced in current tests of intelligence which are designed for use with

persons, who are presumed to have developed facility in dealing with concepts and

symbols, on the grounds of maturity. The testing of concrete intelligence is usually

restricted to the earliest developmental levels but it has only slight predictive value

for later development o f mental abilities. As Freeman observes, even tests that

present the subject with "things" rather than with ideas and symbols are not devoid

o f demands upon ability to conceptualize and make abstractions, although the

subject need not necessarily respond in the form of language and number. 25

2.2.4 Intelligence and The Present Experiment

Since every theory may still be regarded to be in the experimental stage, it is

very difficult to accept any one of them, and then to construct tests to suit it. The

investigator has looked to the practical side of the matter without any theoretical

prepossessions and selected the tests for the battery.

It is necessary for a test constructor to know what exactly is to be measured

by the instrument which he or she is going to prepare. Therefore a clear

understanding of the concept is highly essential. The mental tests depend on the

good team work of a group of mental abilities acting together as one unit and

intelligence is thought to be constituted of these abilities.

Abstract intelligence is measured by most o f the verbal tests (and abstract

intelligence is partly a product of heredity and partly o f environment). Concrete

intelligence is measured by performance tests and to some extent by the tests

involving pictures rather than words. The present test measures abstract intelligence

as well as concrete intelligence.

In framing the test items Spearman's principles of neogenesis have been kept

in .view. Later on in the factorial analysis of these tests only one general factor and

the remaining specific factors have been found. No group factor has been

discovered. Therefore the present research supports Spearman's two factor theory.

31
 The factorial diversity of the abilities in adults is probably due to different life

experiences and different kinds of school and vocational training.

As the present test is for the pupils of grades V to VII who are all students,

50% of the items are verbal. While preparing the test items, a great precaution was

taken to avoid the effect of different specific abilities. The test is meant to measure

only the "g" factor and to measure intelligence "A" as described by Hebb. It would

be too much to align oneself to that school simply from the results of a

comparatively small investigation like this.

2.3 THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE

Apart from defining "intelligence", psychologists have been concerned to

know the structure of intelligence. They have made analyses in an effort to

determine its underlying factors. The purpose of these analyses has been to

discover if possible the elements or components o f intelligence, not only for a

better theoretical understanding o f this complex process but also to learn what

might be the implications for the design and construction o f mental tests.

It is not to be inferred, however, that the dynamics o f intelligent activity

can be adequately understood merely by enumerating and characterizing the

components, whatever they might be. Whatever the components, they do not

operate independently or in isolation. Understanding the dynamic aspects of

mental activity requires some means o f characterizing the organization of

factors, their inter-relationships and their relation to motivational forces.

Philosophers and psychologists developed various theories as regards to the

nature of intelligence. The representative theories o f intelligence are as follows :

2.3.1 Two-factor Theory

The first and for many years the most influential theory of trait organization

based on a statistical analysis of test scores was the two factor theory. This attempt

in analysing the nature of intelligence was made by English psychologist Charles

32
Spearman in the University of London where he was Professor o f Psychology in

1904. He proposed that intellectual abilities were comprised o f two factors, general

ability or common ability, known as "g" factor and group o f specific abilities known

as "s" factor.

General mental ability (g) is a factor necessary for any kind o f intellectual

functioning. Characteristics of "g" are as follows :

(a) It is an universal inborn ability.

(b) It is general mental energy.

(c) It is constant in the sense that for any individual in respect of all the

correlated abilities, it remains the same.

(d) The amount of "g" differs from individual to individual.

(e) It is used in every life activity.

(f) Greater the "g" in an individual, greater the success in life.

(g) It is merely a value of magnitude and not something concrete.

Performance on any task requires the operation o f an additional "specific

mental capability" (s) which is specific to that task. Characteristics o f "s" are as

follows:

(a) It is learnt and acquired in the environment

(b) It varies from activity to activity in the same individual.

(c) Individuals differ in the amount of "s" ability.

This theory was the outcome o f a deep and thorough observation o f a

mathematical data of co-efficients of correlation between different abilities. Although

two types o f factors, general and specific, are posited by this theory, it is only the

single factor "g" that accounts for correlation. In contrast to other theories o f trait

relations, therefore it could be more precisely characterised as a single factor theory,

although the original designation has persisted. Figure 2.1 illustrates the basis for

correlations among tests according to this theory.

33
 In this illustration, tests 1 and 2 would correlate highly with each other since

each is highly saturated with "g" as shown by the shaded areas. The white area in

each test represents specific and error variance. Test 3 would have low correlation

with each of the other two tests since it contains very little "g".

FIGURE 2.1

CORRELATION MODEL UNDERLYING TWO FACTOR THEORY

34
 He likened 'g' to general mental energy equivalent to physical energy, and

therefore dominant. It is an innate, unchangeable factor. The 's' factor is energized by

'g' and is capable of modification under different environmental conditions such as

formal education.

Spearman's theory although popularly called 'two factor1theory is basically a

one factor theory or monarchic in structure because it depends on the existence of

only one common factor. It is simple yet elegant presentation about the structure of

human ability. Figure 2.2 presents the structure of ability in this connection.

A look at the figure 2.2 indicates that 'g' factor is present in all the five tests,

while factor 's' is specific to a test - S, present in test 2, S2 present in test 1, S3

present in test 3, S4 present in test 5 and S5 present in test 4 only.

Test General Specific Factors

'g* s, S2 S3 S4 S5
1 + -f
2 + +
3 + +
4 + +
5 *4*

FIGURE 22
STRUCTURE OF ABILITY
From practical point of view of testing, this doctrine is very helpful because

it gives one a method by which one can measure the intelligence o f an individual.

This theory has been a pioneer in advancing psychometric techniques and

establishing the concept of general intelligence in psychological for half a century. It

follows that aim of psychological testing should be to measure the amount/of each

individual's 'g!. Spearman proposed that a single test highly saturated with *g* be

substituted for the heterogeneous collection of items found in intelligence tests. He

suggested that tests dealing with abstract relations are probably the best measures of

'g' and could be used for this purpose. Examples of tests constructed as measures of

'g' include Raven's Progressive Matrices and Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test.

35
 2.3.2 Holzinger’s Bi-Factor Theory

Spearman and his adherents later on realised that those tests which do not

satisfy the criterion of proportionality and which Spearman has termed distributors

may be retained in the correlation matrix, if it is recognized that some o f the tests

may have a factor in common, in addition to the general factor that is common to all

the tests. Holzinger's bi-factor theory which is a variation of Spearman's two factor

method accepts a general factor and one or more group factors. The bi-factor may

be represented schematically, as in Figure 2.3

FIGURE 23

SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF HOLZINGER’S BI-FACTOR THEORY

36
Tabular representation of Bi-Factor theory has been presented in Table 2.1

TABLE 2.1
REPRESENTATION OF BI-FACTOR THEORY 26

2.3.3 Sampling Theory

The two-factor theory has been criticised by some statistical psychologists,

notably Thomson and Tryon. In 1916, G. H. Thomson first proposed his sampling

theory which he refined in 1935 and still later in 1948. According to this theory

intellectual behaviour depends upon a large number of independent abilities, which

enter into a wide variety o f tasks. For example in figure 2.4, tests B, C and D

have something in common. The double shading represent group factors and the
(YrtoYio -c elou*«4-P
unshadedjjareas represent specific factors. Test A has nothing in common with tests

B, C and D. This theory explains the two factor theory and the hierarchical theory.

This theory also explains why more complex subjects like English, Arithmetic or

Latin possess more *g'; for 'g' in them is not unitary but complex.

Thomson holds that the hierachical order and the zero tetrad differences can

be explained by his sampling theory, according to which any activity such as a

mental test calls upon a sample of bonds which the mind can form, and that some of

these bonds are common to two tests and cause their correlation.27

37
 A

FIGURE 2.4
SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THOMSON’S SAMPLING THEORY

From his study Thomson ultimately said that he was more inclined towards

Speannan's 'g' and to the later group factors. He thought that the theory of 'g' is,

as it were, meaning the whole mind, and the tests were bringing out part of 'g'. He

stated that Thurstone's work on second order factors had rehabilitated 'g'.

38
2.3.4 Multifactor Theory (Stimulus-Response Theory)

Thorndike thought that intelligence was neither a unitary quality nor a

composite o f two factors of Spearman or group factors as given by Thurstone,

Burt and others. He, as a behaviourist, thought o f mental acts as constituted of

minute elements operating together. According to this theory intelligence is said to

be constituted o f a multitude of separate factors or elements, each one being a

minute element o f ability. Any intellectual activity is dependent upon a great

number of these minute factors operating together. Therefore, if performances on

any two intellectual activities are positively related, it is due to the number of

common elements involved in the two activities.

If two types of mental activities A and B are more highly correlated than

are A and C, the reason, according to the multifactor theory, would be that the

first pair has more elements in common than does the second pair. In short, the

degree o f relationship o f a pair of tasks is in direct proportion to the number of

common elements involved in the tasks.

According to this theory, then, "there is really no such factor as "general

intelligence"; there are only many highly specific acts, the number o f such

depending upon how refined a classification we might wish to make and are

capable of making."

To his atomistic theory he adds, however, that certain mental activities have

so many o f their elements in common that it is useful to classify these tasks into

separate groups to which special names are given; for example, verbal meaning,

arithmetical reasoning, comprehension, visual perception of relationship and others.

Consequently, in constructing a mental test, Thorndike found that his atomistic

theory and multitude of minute elements of ability are of less practical significance

than the conception that many of them operate together in any situation demanding

intelligence, i.e. certain factors could be grouped together for purposes of

measurement.

39
 Thorndike's CAVD test designed to measure ability to deal with

abstractions has tests of sentence completion (C), arithmetical reasoning (A),

vocabulary (V), and the following of directions (D). It is not claimed by Thorndike

that these four sets of items encompass the entire range of abstract intelligence. He

contended that these measures of abstract intelligence were sufficient bases from

which to estimate other aspects of abstract intelligence.

Thorndike later modified his view of highly particularised and independent

abilities in favour of a theory o f unique traits. This theory received the support of

Kelley, Patterson, Hotgeljng and others. Kelley, for example, by means o f statistical

analysis of the intercorrelations between performances on many kinds of tests

arrived at the conclusion that all the varying abilities o f an individual can be

accounted for on the basis of a relatively small number o f independent traits or

separate abilities that were completely unrelated to each other. These he called as

orthogonal traits.

2.3.5 Group-factor Theory

Intermediate between the two factor o f Spearman and multifactor theory of

Thorndike is the group factor theory put forth by L. L. Thurstone. The then

prevelant contemporary American view of trait organization recognised a number of

*

moderately broad group factors, each of which may enter with different weights into

different tests. For example, a verbal factor may have a large weight in a

vocabulary test a smaller weight in a verbal analogy test and a still smaller weight in

an arithmetic reasoning test. Figure 2.5 illustrates the intercorrelations among five

tests in terms of a multi-factor (group-factor) model.

40
 The correlations o f tests 1, 2 and 3 with each other result from their

common loadings with the verbal factor (V). Similarly the correlation between tests

3 and 5 results from the spatial factor (S), and that between tests 4 and 5 from

the number factor (N).

From the second basic theorem o f factor analysis, we can also tell

something about the relative magnitude of the intercorrelations. For example, test 3

will correlate highly with test 5 than with test 2, because the weights of the S

factor in test 3 and test 5 (represented by the overlapping areas) are larger than

the weights of the V factor in tests 2 and 3.

FIGURE 2.5
CORRELATION MODEL UNDERLYING GROUP FACTOR THEORIES

This theory has been advocated by L.L. Thurstone, an American engineer

turned psychologist and his associates. His assumption was that certain mental

operations have in common a primary factor (which is not essentially "g") which

41
gives them psychological and functional unity and which differentiates them from

other mental operations. These mental operations constitute in themselves a group

and the primary factor or the mental ability operating through that group or bunch

o f those operations was named as the "group factor" or the primary factor which

is relatively independent of such other primary factors operating in certain other

group or bunches of mental operations.

He objected to Spearman's emphasis on general intelligence. He felt that

intelligence could be broken down into a number of primary abilities. To find these

abilities, he applied the method of factor analysis to results from a large number of

tests employing many different types of items. One set of items was for verbal

comprehension, another for arithmetical computation and so on. He wished to find

a more definitive way of grouping intelligence test items than the rather crude item­

sorting used in the verbal and performance scales o f the standford-Binet and

Wechsler Tests.

After administering a large variety of test material to college students and

to high school and eighth-grade pupils, he intereorrelated the scores o f all the

tests. Then he applied factor analysis to arrive at the basic factors. Those test

items that best represented each of the discovered factors were used to form new

tests; these tests were then given to another group o f subjects and the

intercorrelations reanalyzed. Thurstone and his collaborators concluded that six

primary factors emerged clearly enough for identification and use in test design and

construction. The six factors identified by Thurstone are as shown in Table : 2.2

42
 TABLE 2.2

PRIMARY FACTORS (ABILITIES)

Sr. No. Factor Meaning

1 Number factor (N) The ability to do numerical calculations

rapidly and accurately.

2 Verbal factor (V) The ability found in tests involving verbal

comprehension. The ability to understand
the meaning of words. Vocabulary tests
represent this factor.

3 Space factor (S) The ability involved in any tasks in which the
subject manipulates an object imaginally in
space. The ability to visualize space form
relationships, as in recognizing the same
figure presented in different orientations.

4 Word fluency factor (W) The ability involved whenever the subject is asked
to think of isolated words at a rapid rate. The
ability to think of words rapidly, as in solving
anagrams or thinking of words that rhyme.

5 Reasoning factor (R) The ability found in tasks that require the
subject to discover a rule or principle
involved in series or groups of letters.
Although it is believed both induction and
deduction are involved, it seems that
induction is more significant here.

6 Rote memory factor (M) The ability to memorize quickly. The ability
to recall verbal stimuli such as word pairs
or sentences.

Later Thurstone added a new factor making it 7 - the perceptual ability (P).
Still later he added 2 factors to his list making the total as nine, deduction
reasoning (D) and inductive reasoning (I), apart from general reasoning (R).

43
 Although primary mental abilities or factors were originally said to be

functionally independent of each other, it was actually found that they were

positively and significantly intercorrelated as shown in Table 2.3

TABLE 2.3
INTECORRELATIONS OF SUBTESTS

N W V S M R

Number - .41 .40 .28 .31 .53

facility

Word fluency .41 - .54 .17 .36 .46

Verbal ' .40 .54 - .16 .35 .59

meaning

Spatial .28 .17 .16 - .13 .29

perception

Rote memory .31 .36 .35 .13 - .39

Reasoning .53 .46 .59 .29 .39 -

From Table 2.3 it is clear that the test constructors could not devise tests

that would sample the primary mental abilities in pure form. This means that the

primary and presumably independent factors are not the only factors at work in

the mental activities required by the tests. There must be some other factor or

factors to account for the common ground. Thurstone therefore concluded "that in

addition to the primary abilities, there is a 'second-order general factor'. He also

stated, 'if further studies of the primary mental abilities should reveal this general

factor, it may sustain Spearman's intellective factor."29

Thurstone's hope of discovering the basic elements of intelligence through

factor analysis was not fully realized for several reasons. His primary abilities are not

completely independent. There are significant intercorrelations among them providing

support to Spearman's idea of a 'g' factor.

The number of factors identified by factor analysis depends on the nature

of the items chosen. The distinction between general, group and specific factors is

44
 not so basic as it may first appear. If the number of variety of tests in a battery is

small, a single general factor may account for all the correlations among them. But

when the same tests are included in a larger battery with a more heterogeneous

collection o f tests, the original general factor may emerge as a group factor,

common to some but not to all tests. Similarly a certain factor may be represented

by only one test in the original battery, but may be shared by several tests in the

larger battery. Such a factor would have been identified as a specific in the original

battery, but would become a group factor in the more comprehensive battery.

Factorial research seems to have produced a bewildering multiplication of

factors. Investigators using different test items have come up with a large number

o f cognitive factors. Guilford, for example, has suggested that there are atleast 180

unique intellectual abilities.

Attempts have been made to achieve a certain amount of order by cross-

identifying factors. Even after these efforts at simplification and co-ordination, the

number o f factors remains large. Human behaviour is varied and complex, and

perhaps it is unrealistic to expect a dozen or so factors to provide an adequate

description of it. For specific purposes, however, one can choose appropriate

factors with regard to both nature and breadth.

2.4 MODELS OF INTELLIGENCE

Any serious investigator in basic science or technology finds a good frame of

reference very helpful. The one which is close to a scientific theory is the most useful

to the investigator of a particular domain - for example, intelligence.

A good frame of reference to serve the investigator's purpose has three

important specifications; it should be comprehensive, systematic and empirically based.

Human understanding of natural phenomena establishes the fact that there

are regularities in nature. They offer the possibilities of establishing principles and

scientific laws, which provide a short hand type for apprehending information. In

the pursuit of further simplification, model building becomes possible. Model

45
building is theory construction. Piaget points out that there is growth in conceptions

of what he calls seriation. By seriation he means the arrangement o f items of

information in linear order, each item related to the next in line in the same

manner, as for example larger than, harder than, or more beautiful than. In the

adult, particularly the educated adult, thinking in terms of abstract dimensions

becomes more or less natural.

There are dimensional models, which are most widely applied in

mathematics and the physical sciences. The second type of model is hierarchical

model, in which there is a parallel development in the recognition of classes and of

classes within classes. This type o f model has been strongly advocated for an

encompassing theory of intellectual abilities and other traits of personality.

The third type o f model is named as morphological by the astronomer

Zwickly. Basically this model is a cross classification of phenomena in interesting

categories, rather than in categories within categories as in the hierarchical model. The

most notorious example in science is the chemist's periodic table in which the chemical

elements are arranged in rows and columns, each row and column representing a

different category. It is also known as a logical matrix. The use o f this type of model

is advocated by Guilford.

A fourth type o f model is known as operational type o f model useful to

conceive events in terms of interconnected series of transmission of information.

Current notions of intelligence have changed tremendously. Intelligence can

not now be defined in monolithic terms like, "general intelligence" or "Spearman's

'g' factor". There are many more specialised types of abilities: verbal, numerical,

mechanical, mathematical, spatial, perceptual, inductive reasoning, deductive

reasoning, imagination, etc. And an individual may be quite high in one and

comparatively lower in the other, though all these abilities tend to correlate

positively and significantly. There is some divergence of views between the British

and the American factor psychologists regarding the number o f these abilities

46
(factors) and their distinctiveness. The concept that intelligence is characterized by

a general underlying ability plus certain task-specific abilities constitutes the basis

of major theories of intelligence developed by British researchers. The hierarchical

scheme has been proposed by a number of British psychologists including Burt

and Vernon and by Humphreys and Cattell in America.

Quite distinct from the British theories o f intelligence are those developed

by American theorists. Whereas the British theories represent intelligence in terms

of a general factor that can be broken down into more specific factors, the

American theorists emphasize specific abilities that can be combined to form more

general abilities. Thurstone developed factor-analytic techniques that first separate

out specific or primary factors.

Raymond Cattell attempted a reproachement o f the theories o f Spearman

and Thurstone. In an attempt to produce a general (g) factor, he combined

Thurstone's primary factors to form secondary and higher order factors. Cattell

found two major types of general factors and three minor ones, from his analysis.

He labeled the two major factors as "fluid" and "crystallized" general intelligence

Cgj and 'g ' respectively). Cattell argued that the fluid intelligence factor represents

an individual's basic biological capacity and can be measured as perceptual ability.

The other major factor, crystallized intelligence, represents the types o f abilities

required for most school activities which reflect experiential-educative-aeculturative

influences, and is measured by most general intelligence and achievement tests.

Cattell labeled the minor general factors "gv", "gr" and "gs" for visual abilities,

memory retrieval, and performance speed respectively. Cattell's initial theory has

been extended by his co-worker Horn and others.

Humphreys also recommends a hierarchical model as a means o f coping

with the proliferation of factors. Rather than considering the first-order, narrower

factors as primary, he suggests that each test constructor or user choose that level

of the hierarchy that is most appropriate for her or his purposes. Humphreys

recognises, however, that a single test may be classified into more than one

47
hierarchy, with reference to content, method and other facets. To measure any one

facets' he proposes that the test be made "heterogeneous" with regard to all other

facets. For example, if we are interested in the person's ability to solve analogies

problems, we should use a test that includes verbal, numerical, pictorial and spatial

analogies. If we wish to measure verbal ability, we should do so with a variety of

item types, such as vocabulary, analogies and series completion. This procedure

contrasts with that followed by Guilford who seeks separate factors (and tests) for

each homogeneous cell in his three way classification.

2.4.1 B urt's Model :

As newly discovered factors increased in number, the need for arranging them

into some kind of logical inter-relationships became a recognized problem. Cyril Burt,

the British Psychologist, was one of the first to attempt at it. He suggested that

intellectual abilities might be hierarchically organised. From his factor-analytic studies,

he argued that comprehensive general factor could be used to represent all intellectual

performance. This general factor could also be sub-divided into several group factors

accounting for different broad classes of intellectual behaviour. These broad group
factors according to Burt's conception can be further subdivided into narrower group

factors, then down to numerous very specific factors.

Burt conceived of an ideal hierarchy within successive dichotomies, each

sub-division of a higher factor to give immediately lower. He identified the various

levels of bifurcation as relations at the highest level; associations at the second

level; perception at the third level and sensation at the fourth. In fitting group

factors into the model, however, Burt had to depart from strict dichotomization for

many sub-categories contain more than two factors. At the association level, for

example, he recognised a division into memory with a general retentiveness under

which are group factors: visual, auditory, kinesthetic and verbal memory factor of

fluency and originality. Other general association factors include verbal ability,

language ability and arithmetical ability, under each o f which are two or three sub­

factors. Diagram illustrating Burt's Model is reproduced in Figure : 2.6.

48
 THE HUMAN MIND

49
FIGURE 2.6
BURT'S CONCEPTION OF AN IDEALISED HIERARCHICAL MODEL
2.4.2 Vernon's Model

Vernon elaborated Burt's hierarchical theory of intelligence. He, as a more

recent worker in the field of intelligence testing, thfought that British and American

views differed about the number o f primary abilities and about "g". Thurstone,

Guilford and others broke the mind, according to Vernon, into a number of

independent primary mental abilities with some overlapping (which showed a

general or second order factor). Thurstone's work, according to Vernon, was

carried out on homogeneous university students as the subjects of the study. At

this age, due to the impact of cultural requirements, special abilities do get

crystallized out of the general mental ability or "g". Whereas British studied whole

range o f school children and adults in whose case the correlation between quite

different tests were termed to be high which pointed to the reasons o f an

underlying "g" and the specialised abilities were subsidiary group factors which

were further composed of specific factors. As Vernon puts it, the lower the age of

testees and lesser the effects of education and training, the better is the emergence

of "g". But in each situation, the "g" factor, the group factors and the specific

factors are there. In other words we can picture the mind as a kind of hierarchy

or genealogical tree, where "g" is the most prominent mental ability, in the sense

that it accounts for the greatest proportion of differences in abilities.

Diagram illustrating Vernon's application o f this system is reproduced in

Figure : 2.7.

50
 GENERAL (G)

MAJOR FACTORS

VERBAL-EDUCATIONAL PRACTICAL-MECHANICAL
(V : ed) (K : m)

51
MINOR GROUP
FACTORS

SPECIFIC
FACTORS

FIGURE 2.1
VERNON'S MODEL OF HIERARCHICAL ORGANIZATION OF ABILITES
 At the top of the hierarchy, Vernon places Spearman's "g" factor. At the

next level are two broad group factors, corresponding to verbal educational (v:ed)

and to practical mechanical (k:m) aptitudes. These major factors may be further

subdivided. The verbal-educational factor, for example, yields verbal and numerical

sub-factors, among others. Similarly, the practical-mechanical information, spatial

and psychomotor abilities. Still narrower subfactors can be identified by further

analysis, for example of the verbal tasks. At the lowest level of the hierarchy are

the specific factors.

In a later elaboration of the model, Vernon included certain more complex

interrelations and cross contributions at the third level, especially in connection with

educational and vocational achievement. At the second level a third group factor,

the mathematical factor (M) also emerged through statistical analysis. A subject

may score equally or differently on the three group factors, v:ed, k:m and M, as

they are relatively independent.

Vernon's hierarchical scheme if inverted resembles a genealogical tree with

"g" at the bottom, which tends to fall into three major group factors. The three

group factors further seem to be broken down into more specific abilities.

In summary, the two major orientations in factor analytic theories of

intelligence have been to emphasize a general factor or very specific factors.

Whereas the British factor out a general factor first, and then consecutively factor

major and minor group and specific factors, the Americans factor out specific

abilities and consider general factor as o f secondary importance. These differing

theoretical orientations o f the British and American researchers have strongly

affected the composition of various types of intelligence tests. In particular, it has

led to a predominance of general aptitude testing in the United Kingdom versus a

predominance of differential aptitude testing in the United States.

2.4.3 Guilford's Structure of Intellect (The Cubic Model)

Guilford, the American Psychologist, rejects the idea o f a general

intelligence factor and also broad factor groups like Thurstone's primary abilities.
52
He believes that many aspects of intelligence tend to be ignored when items are

lumped together to form tests. An item used as a test o f verbal ability is

distinguished from one that is non-verbal on the basis o f its content-words as

opposed to pictorial material. But what one does with the content of the test item

will depend upon the nature of the task and may be relatively independent o f the

content. Suppose that a subject is shown pictures of a dozen different objects and

is told that he will be asked to recall the names of the objects at some later time.

Will this task involve verbal or pictorial ability? To be sure, pictures are presented,

but most subjects will name the objects and then rehearse the names rather than

try to memorize the pictures themselves.

Guilford maintains that intelligence test items should not be distinguished in

terms of content alone, but also in terms o f the operations performed upon the

content and the product that results. He says that, "several facts based upon

experiences in factor analysis of intellectual tests in the United States had cast

doubt upon the applicability o f a hierarchical structure. Almost no one reported

finding a "g" factor, in fact, the tendency has been for each factor to be limited to

a small number of tests in any analysis."30

The second consideration which he had given that "the absence of a "g"

factor and the apparently comparable generality o f all the factors do not support

the hierarchical conception of their interrelationships."31

He thought that many factors have obviously parallel properties. According

to him, "if one collects half a dozen verbal factors in one set and half a dozen

non-verbal factors in another, it is clear that the factors in the two sets can be

paired of in a meaningful manner. The psychological operation is the same in each

pair, only the content o f the test items is different."32

Guilford has attempted to bring order out of the welter of factors, with his

theoretical "structure of the intellect". Structure of intellect, briefly written as "SI",

is a model o f intellect activity that was produced as a result o f factor analytic

53
research conducted by J.P.Guilford and his associates in the Psychological

Laboratory, at the University of Southern California in the U.S.A.

The "SI" model is an attempt to identify the nature of specific intellectual

abilities by generating models of intelligence that postulate numerous intellectual

skills. He suggests that since people obviously possess uneven constellations of

mental abilities and the theories models, measures of intelligence ought to reflect

these differences in a systematic fashion. The "SI" model postulates 180 specific

components of intelligence based on 3 broad categories. According to him every

mental process or intellectual activity has three dimensions, three basic parameters

along which any possible intellectual behavior can take place-namely 'operation',

'product' and 'content'.

The three dimensions of the model represent the operation, content and

product of a given kind of intellectual act.

1 Operations : What one does to the environment, basic psychological

processes.

2 Contents : The nature of the information in the environment, the kind of

material or content to which the person responds.

3 Products : The result o f an operation upon the content, which produces

the final overt response.

Each broad category has subcategories. 'SI' model consists of six types of

mental operations, five types of content and six products.

As shown in Figure: 2.8, at present the maximum number o f factors can be

6 x 5 x 6 = 180.

Operation is further subclassified into six components, namely (i) congnition,

(ii) memory recording, (iii) memory retention, (iv) divergent thinking, (v) convergent

thinking, and (vi) evaluation. Content is classified as (i) visual, (ii) auditory,

(iii) symbolic, (iv) semantic, and (v) behavioural. Product comprises of (i) units,

54
(ii) classes, (iii) relations, (iv) systems, (v) transformation, and (vi) implications.

Each factor hypothesized or accounted for by the model is uniquely

located and defined by specifying a category on each of the three dimensions. In

this 'SI' model each factor has a trigram symbol, e.g. 'C.B.T.' would mean

'Cognition Behavioural Transformation' factors, and C.F.U. would stand for

'Cognition of a Figural Unit'. Customarily, the first part is taken from 'Operation'

parameter, the second from 'contents' and the third from 'product'. Thus all the

factors can be named as D.F.C., E.S.R. etc. Though some of the factors have not

yet been identified practically, their properties can be written in advance. In 'SI'

model, the factors are well defined and specific.

55
 1

CONTENT OPERATIONS PRODUCT

1. Visual 1. Cognition 1. Units

2. Auditory 2. Memory recording 2. Classes

3. Symbolic 3. Memory retention 3. Relations

4. Semanic 4. Divergent thinking 4. Systems

5. Behavioural 5. Convergent thinking 5. Transformations

6. Evaluation 6. Implications

FIGURE 2.8

GUILFORD'S MODEL (STRUCTURE OF INTELLECT)

56
Educational Significance of the 'SI' Model

Guilford's structure of intellect model has served several useful functions for

educators. Some school districts have used the model to develop aspects o f their

curriculum, and some commercial companies have used the model as a guide in

the construction of curricular materials.

This is the most comprehensive model taking into consideration all possible

aspects of intellectual activity.

Two very significant educational implications of the SI model are :

(1) In the present world, knowledge is expanding very fast, forcing specialization

even at the earlier stages o f the educative process. Special aspects of

intellectual activity are involved in the different specialization processes both

academic and professional. It is therefore needed "a prior" knowledge about

the specific ability of each student to place him in the right line of

specialization. SI model and analysis of the individual under its guidance can

just pinpoint the individual's abilities and provide ones a secure base on which

his future learning is to be based.

(2) When some students with adequate intelligence fails to learn, corrective

learning (also known as cognitive therapy) in that case first requires an

accurate measure of his abilities, and some concrete steps for utilising his

strengths and developing him where he is weak. Mere knowledge of IQ

here is of little use. Only assessment made by SI model tests can provide

here an academically acceptable method of dealing with the problems. This

can be a great diagnostic use of this theory.

flThe international Encyclopedia o f Education too states, "Guilford's SI

model theory has led to the development of many educationally appropriate

measures particularly in the area of creativity." 33

57
2.4.4 Sternberg's Triarehie theory of Human Intelligence

Robert Sternberg is a major figure in intelligence theory. He aims at nothing

less than a kind of grand synthesis of ideas that for others are mutually contradictory.

His three part theory accommodates both the traditional view that intelligence is

general, the same from one culture to another, and the counter traditionalist view that

environment-whether classroom or inner-city streets-shapes intelligence to different but

equally valid ends. And, like the physicist who is comfortable with the knowledge that

light is both a particle and a wave, Sternberg can look at intelligence as a set of

components, "a wide array of cognitive and other skills", which are at the same time

strongly unified by what he calls executive processes.

In the hot field of cognitive science, people in half a dozen different

disciplines-psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, anthropology, linguistics and

the neurosciences-are all trying to figure out what goes on in one's heads when

one brings intelligence to bear on the behaviour. Or, to define the problem

cognitively, one wants to know how one processes information. Models of the

mind in action are essential if the computer scientists working on artificial

intelligence are to develop the so-called fifth generation o f smarter computers.

Neuroscientists have been analysing the actual activity o f the brain on the basic

level of neuron and synapse and are preparing to test theories about the brain's

operations in terms of larger processing units or circuits of neurons.

Cognitive psychologists are looking at behaviour how people actually solve

problems and analyse the mental steps involved. But as Sternberg points out, the

problems on which most psychological information-processing theories are based

have largely been of the verbal analogy, sequence completion and spatial

orientation type familiar to anyone who has come up through American schools.

In everyday life, though, as Sternberg writes in his recent book, 'Beyond

I.Q.', "people no more go around solving analogies.... than they go around

pressing buttons in response to lights or sounds".34

58
Sternberg35 says,

I started off as an information processing psychologist, and

then I realized, well it's not that this stuff is wrong, it’s only
answering a subset of interesting questions. It does not deal
with how business executives function in their jobs. It
doesn't say anything about why my best student is the one
with the relatively low Graduate Record Exam Scores, while
people with high 700s, even 800s, sometimes come to Yale
and flop.

In response to such questions, Sternberg's triarchie theory of intelligence

evolved. This theory o f human intelligence seeks to specify the loci o f human

intelligence and to specify how these loci operate in generating intelligent behaviour.

It provides a somewhat broader conceptualization o f intelligence than do most

conventional theories. It is a theory o f individuals and their relations to their

internal world, their external worlds, and their experiences as mediators o f the

individual's internal and external world. The triarchie theory postulates the locus of

intelligence to be in the individual, in behaviour and in the contexts of behaviour.

Structure of the Triarchie Theory

This theory seeks to understand intelligence in terms o f three subtheories; a

contextual subtheory that relates intelligence to the external environment o f the

individual, a componential theory that relates intelligence to the internal environment

of the individual, and an experiential subtheory that applies to both the internal and

external environments.

U,
Behavior is intelligent to the extent that is (a) used in adaptation to,

selection of, or shaping of one's environment; (b) responsive to a novel kind of

task or situation or in the process of becoming automatized; and (c) the result of

meta-componential, performance-componential, or knowledge-acquisitional

functioning o f the kind specified by the componential subtheory. The overall

structure of the theory and subtheories is shown in Figure : 2.9,

59
 * TRIARCHIC THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE *

COMPONENTIAL EXPERIENTIAL CONTEXTUAL

SUBTHEORY SUBTHEORY SUBTHEORY

1. METACOMPONENTS 1. ABILITY TO 1. ADAPTATION

DEAL WITH
NOVELTY
2 PERFORMANCE 2. ABILITY TO 2 SELECTION
COMPONENTS AUTOMATIZE
PROCESSING
3 KNOWLEDGE- 3 SHAPING
ACQUISITION
COMPONENTS

COMPONENTIAL SUBTHEORY

Theory o f Theory of
Fluid Abihlties Crystallized Abihlties

Theory o f Theory of Theory o f Theory o f

Induction Deduction knowledge Real-time
Acquisition Processing

Theory of Theory o f Theory of Theory of Theories o f Theories of

Information Response Information Response
Processing Choice Processing Choice
Mediating Representation Processmg
Variables

Contextual Processes
Cues

60
 Task Models

Analogies Linear Syllogisms Learning Processing

Series Completions Categorical Syllogisms Vocabulary Vocabulary
Classifications Conditional Syllogisms
Metaphors
Causal Inferences

EXPERIENTIAL SUBTHEORY

Theory o f Ability Theory o f Ability

to Deal with Novelty to Automatize
Information Processing

Theory o f Novelty Theory o f Ability Theory o f Global

in Concept or in Concept or and Local
Task Acquisition Task Execution Processing Systems

Task Models

Concept Insight
Projection

CONTEXTUAL SUBTHEORY

Theory o f Theory o f
Practical Social
Intelligence Intelligence

Task Models

Utilization o f Tacit Knowledge Nonverbal Cue Decoding

FIGURE 2.9

STRUCTURE OF THE TRIARCHIC THEORY AND

SUBTHEORIES OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE

61
 Sternberg sees three areas in which intelligence is exercised; the external

(or contextual), the experiential and the internal. Intelligence is always mental

activity, but each part of the theory considers it in relation to a different domain.

The context is, simply, the external environment in which intelligence

functions, whether classroom, office or squash court. The same person may use his

intelligence in each environment in a different way. Experience is the domain in

which people face new situations, and in which intuition, insight and creativity -

nonrational processes that simply don't come into the usual -information processing

picture-operate mental mechanisms, by which intelligence relates to the internal

world of the individual, are brought to bear on intelligence through experience.

In short, Sternberg's triarehic theory is intended to get at the kind of

intelligence that counts in real life-what Neisser calls general and Sternberg calls

practical. Along with a number of other psychologists, many of whom disagree with

him on almost everything else, Sternberg aims to change the way one thinks about

intelligence. Ultimately, he hopes to revise intelligence testing to take practical

intelligence into account.

2.4.5 Jean Piaget 36 : A Biological Approach

Piaget is the most influential figure in child psychology today. Piaget was bom

in 1896 at Neuchatel in the French part of Switzerland. His father was a professor of

medieval literature whose scholarly pursuits had an early impact on the young Jean.

He early demonstrated an interest in science, publishing his first paper at the age of

ten. His first scientific field was zoology, and by the age o f 21, he had published

twenty papers on molluscs. He was granted Ph.D. when he was 21. In his early

twenties, Piaget became interested in psychological problems and worked for a while

with Theodore Simon, the collaborator on the Binet scale o f intelligence. Piaget was

more interested in the responses children gave to the investigator's questions than in

the test itself, and was especially fascinated by the incorrect answers and the way

children arrived at them. During the same period, he also studied at Eugen Bleuler's

62
psychiatric clinic in Zurich, where he became acquainted with the "method clinic". It

later proved very useful in interviewing children as to their processes of reasoning. In

1921, Piaget became the director of the Institute Jean Jacques Rousseau in Geneva.

No other person has observed, analyzed and described child behavit^r and thought

more comprehensively or incisively. Piaget was not as concerned about studying the

static structure of intelligence at a point in time as he was about studying the

systematic, dynamic evolution of intelligence or cognitive development over a period

of time. According to developmental theorists, if one is to understand the nature of

intelligence or cognitive abilities, it is very important to identify those processes that

contribute to a change in development. What cognitive skills does an infant possess at

birth, and how does the environment interact with the infant to produce qualitative and

quantitative changes in development over a long period of time ?

Piaget has arrived at the conception o f intellectual development, after a

lifetime of study. It reflects his basic interest in biology and epistemology. He

postulates that human beings inherit two basic tendencies : "Organisation" (the

tendency to systematize and organise processes into coherent systems) and

"adaptation" (the tendency to adapt or adjust to the environment). As biological

process o f digestion transforms food into a form that the body can use, Piaget

believes intellectual processes transform experiences into a form the child can

use in dealing with new situations, and these processes must be kept in a state of

balance, which they seek through the process o f "equilibration"- a form o f self

regulation that permits the child to bring coherence and stability to his conception of

the world and to make inconsistencies in experience comprehensible.

Organization and adaptation combine to produce cognitive "structures" or

"schemata" that permit the child to differentiate between experiences and generalize

from one experience to the another. Organization is illustrated by a child combining

two separate skills, such as looking and grasping, into a more advanced skill-picking

up something he is looking at. Adaptation occurs through two complementary

processes : accommodation to the external environment which takes place as a result

63
 of interacting with objects in a variety o f ways, and assimilation o f these new

experiences, either by incorporating them into existing schemata or by developing

new ones.

Piaget conceives o f intelligence as the ability to adapt mentally to new

situations. Viewed from a developmental perspective, the child is seen to evolve

through increasing complex stages, namely, sensorim otor (0-2 years),

pre-operational (2-7 years), concrete operations (7-11 years) and formal operations

( 1 1 + years).

2.5 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is now recognised as one of the major scientific

endeavours of the twentieth century. In the last decade, there has been an

extraordinary growth in the practical application o f AI to many fields : expert

systems in industry, natural language understanding systems, robotics and so on. This

growth has been fuelled by unprecedented support from American, European and

Japanese governments.

AI is the science of designing computers to do things which would be

considered intelligent if done by people. It can solve the problems in all the areas

including education. Like all other new fields, Intelligent Computer Aided Instructions

(ICAI) is both derivative and innovative. On the one hand, ICAI researchers bring

with them or adopt theories and methodologies from associated disciplines such as

psychology and computer science. On the other hand, ICAI is innovative in that it

contributes ideas back to associated disciplines and also-as it must if it is to justify

its own label - generates research guessflow of its own.

Intelligent machines are often referred so as self-organizing systems. In the

strict sense o f the words, such machines cannot exist since they would have to

operate without external motivation of any kind. However, if external motivation is

allowed, so that the system can be provided with criteria with which to evaluate its

response, learning can occur.

64
 Any attempt to reproduce human brain by extant technology is doomed to

failure because of our inability to produce the intricate complexities and to simulate

the detailed mechanism of any but the simplest neuron. It is quite unlikely that our

knowledge encompasses all of the subtleties of interconnection required, and our

models are certainly much more than first attempts at producing neuromimes. Even if

suitable techniques are available, all we would achieve by a slavish modeling of the

brain would be an extremely complicated logical device. Without the secret of life,

we can not hope to construct an automation which would mimic the wisdom of

Plato, the inquisitiveness of Newton^ the inspiration of John Kennedy or the

leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.

What we can hope to do, however, is to devise electronic systems which

can operate in restricted areas performing those tasks which are currently delegated

to humans, not because they require the intrinsic facilities possessed by a man, but

because, heretofore, their performance has been beyond the capability of electronic

systems. It is to be hoped that the application of these techniques will provide the

keys to develop new approaches to the technology which will be required to

support the continuing scientific revolution in the new millenium.

Very recently, Scientists at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC),

Mumbai, have made use o f AI to detect earthquakes. They have developed the

techniques to detect very weak seismic signals which are otherwise difficult to

detect. They have also designed two artificial neural networks (ANNs) which

emmulate the network of neurons in humans - for detecting and indentifying weak

Seismic signals.

It is all to apparent that any major advance in the development of AI per se

depends on the state of our knowledge of biological phenomena. But it can be

confidently predicted that continued work in this field will yield useful and probably

unexpected results, which will greatly affect the design of Philosophy and

implementation of future electronic system.

65
 Thus artificial intelligence has nothing to do with what we have understood

"What human intelligence is" in this very chapter. And, intelligence tests are,

therefore, going to exist in one form or another, under one name or another till

mankind is to exist on the earth.

66
 REFERENCES

1 R. Gene and Howes : The concise Dictionary of Education

(Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc..
New York, 1982.) pp.119-120.

2 Sunila Sharma and : Dictionary of Psychology (Anmol

R. B. Bhatia (Eds.) Publication, New Delhi, 1989.) p.139.

3 C. Burt : “The Evidence for the Concept of

Intelligence” The British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1958, p.160.

4 Ibid.

5 J. P. Guilford : The Nature of Human Intelligence

(McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc., New York,
1967.) p.12.

6 R. Printer : Intelligence Testing : Methods and

Results (Henry Hold & Company New
York, 1957.) p.47.

7 J. P. Guilford : Op.cit, p.12.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 J. H. Shah : Quoted in “Adaptation of the Stanford-

Binet Intelligence Scale (1960 Revision) for
Gujarati population” {Unpublished Thesis,
Gujarat University, 1971.) p.44.

11 Rex Knight : Intelligence and Intelligence Tests

(Methuen & Company Ltd., 1956.) p.22.

67
12 Ibid. : p.23.

13 Quinn McNemar : “Lost; Our Intelligence ? Why ?”

American Psychologists, XIX, 12, p.871.

14 J. L. Mursel : Psychological Testing (Longmans Green

and Co., New York, 1950.) p.78.

15 G. D. Stoddard : The M eaning o f Intelligen ce (The

McMillan and Co., New York, 1956.) p.4.

16 Ibid. : p.15.

17 Ibid. : p.23.

18 David Wechsler : Measurement and Appraisal o f Adult

Intelligence (The Williams and Winkins

Co. Baltimore, 1958.) p.VII.

19 Ibid. : p.7.

20 Ibid. : p.14.

21 F. S. Freeman : Theory and Practice o f Psychological

Testing (Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.,

New Delhi, 1968.) p.152.

22 D. Wechsler : “Cognitive, Conative and Non-intellective

Intelligence” In Jenkins and Petterson

(Eds.) Studies in Individual Differences:

The Search fo r Intelligence, (Appleton-

Century-Croffs, Inc. New York, 1961.)

p.659.

23 Ibid. : p.VII.

24 F. S. Freeman : Op.cit, pp. 157-58.

68
25 Ibid.

26 Benjamin, Fruchter : Introduction to F actor A nalysis

(Affiliated East West Press Pvt. Ltd., New

Delhi, 1967.) p.10.

27 G. H. Thomson : The F actorial A n a lysis o f Human

Ability (University o f London Press,

London, 1954.) p.45.

28 F. S. Freeman : Op.cit., p.160.

29 L. L. Thurston : Multiple Factor Analysis, (University

Press of Chicago, Chicago, 1947.) p.7.

30 J. P..Guilford : Op.cit., p.60.

31 Ibid. : p.61.

32 Ibid.

33 Torsten, Husen and : The In tern a tio n a l E ncyclopedia of

Postlethwalte, T.Neville (Eds.) Education, (Vol.V) (Pergamom Press,

New York, 1988.) p.2615.

34 Robert T. Sternberg : Beyond IQ (Cambridge University Press,

London, 1985.) p.27.

35 Ibid. : p.34.

36 Jean Piaget : The Origin o f Intelligence in the Child

Translated by Cook-Margret (Routledge &

Kegan Paul London, 1979.) p.160.

69