Myths of ability and the importance of thinking beyond students’ levels to their learning potential

The modern search for an objective way to identify the most able people has been going on for over a century. In this time we’ve also increased understanding of cognitive ability, the mind and how people learn. However, the relationship between these insights and the nature of school education is thwart tensions, not least in the very way the notion of ability is embraced. Pressures of accountability and objective comparability of performance in relation to students’ development of academic capabilities has created an emphasis on school as the place where ability will be rigorously recognised and assessed. But if schools are going to fulfil their wider social purpose they may need to think beyond measuring ability to developing students lifelong learning capabilities.

Myth 1: Measurements of ability predict long-term success

It’s true that people have natural talents and for the majority of us that a good proportion of our general intelligence (IQ) remains constant throughout life. But is it helpful to focus on measuring and classifying ability at school? Education should be about helping children to become something they were not, it’s fundamentally a developmental activity. The fact is individuals’ intellectual capabilities peak at different stages of life. When schools see cognitive assessment as a means to set student progress tracking, they can easily forget how much a child’s ability can change[1].

Many of us understand the call to invest more in spotting and supporting gifted children. But is it possible that this very idea is somehow counterproductive? Underachievement is common among ‘gifted’ students and several studies have shown that even when Gifted & Talented programmes are positively promoted, children from lower socio-economic backgrounds still get left behind[2]. Have you visited a school where the majority of students receive on their termly reports: “untalented and ungifted in anything”?   Little thought is given to less obviously talented students who nonetheless could develop significant learning capabilities. G&T programmes are potentially problematic because they re-enforce an educationally deficient school perspective on ability.

IQ is not all it takes to succeed and single measurements of cognitive ability are rarely reliable[3]. Non-cognitive skills, character, and environment all contribute to a person’s chances of fulfilling their potential[4]. Schools would do well to concentrate less on measuring students’ academic ability and more on evaluating how their culture and practices foster positive personal characteristics and learning motivation which will help students flourish.

Myth 2: Continual evaluation and feedback on ability levels leads to improvement.

The perceived importance of evaluating students’ ability has led to pressure for more frequent assessment. There is an argument that the more often a student receives feedback on where they are going wrong, the quicker they will improve. However, it is not the amount of assessment which counts but the quality of the feedback. Improvements in performance rarely arise merely from a concentration on mistakes, they need insights too[5]. 

Crucially, research shows that assessment has a negative effect on students’ progress when it is accompanied with grades. Grades deny students the stimulus to reflect on their work, to arrive at their own insights. They spotlight ability as if it is something easily identifiable, reducing it to numbers (7/10) or letters (C+). This affects students’ academic self-concept, either leading them to think they are better than average and don’t need make an effort, or that they are nearly useless and shouldn’t waste their time[6]. It is useful for teachers to record students’ attainment of new knowledge and skills for their own evaluation, but classroom focus should be on encouraging students’ performance, practice, and efforts. 

Emphasis on the attainment of qualifications as the sole purpose of school education runs the risk of reducing education to training[7]. Many young people simply don’t want to train to pass tests. They don’t see the wider value of qualifications and often schools struggle to help them appreciate the relevance of subjects in the curriculum. It’s when schools are experienced as centres for lifelong learning, where the development of non-cognitive skills are given equal importance, that children fully engage in their study[8]. This has a positive effect on attainment but also helps students succeed in adult life[9].

Myth 3: Ability setting improves academic performance.

The final myth I’m going to challenge is perhaps the most widely accepted. There is a persistent assumption that assigning students to classes based on their level of ability allows teachers to better meet their needs. Also, many teachers prefer this set up because it’s felt to reduce the amount of differentiated teaching preparation required. These may appear quite reasonable notions, but not everything which glistens with pedagogical sense is learning gold. 

Evidence suggests that at best there is only slight advantage to top set students but negative effects for all others from setting by ability. Furthermore, it seems that even the moderate advantages enjoyed by top setters are short lived and that subsequent academic performance is not advantaged[10]. We’d do well to remember the pioneering research by Carol Dweck on mindsets through which she shows how praising students for their intelligence rather than effort leads to an aversion to challenge, underachievement and self-deceit – a fixed mindset[11]. Is not setting by ability akin to large scale praising of intelligence rather than effort?

Several studies appear to indicate that ability setting may be bad for students’ long-term success[12]. Furthermore, the quality of teaching for students who are not in the top sets appears worse, leading to a further self-fulfilling prophesy. All but the most able students are perceived by teachers as less academically engaged, are taught in less challenging ways, perform worse and suffer a loss of learning motivation, thus reducing their academic engagement and achievement[13].

Beyond ability towards lifelong learning

These three myths, like the most dangerous myths, contain aspects of truth. But examined together they expose the unnecessary and potentially damaging influence on our school systems of an obsession with measuring students’ ability. Adding much more value to children’s chances of success are approaches which help individuals develop their learning capabilities. Focusing on what children might become through the effort of learning is what is needed and this has to be evidenced in everything from teaching practices to class grouping.    

For reflection

§ How can you encourage a focus on learning effort, rather than ability, in lessons?

§ What methods of formative assessment do you use which don’t include grading students’ work?

§ How do you help students benefit from mixed-ability teaching groups?

____________________________________________________________________

Article originally published in NEXUS Circle’s monthly professional learning publication designed to equip, empower and enable educational leaders.

https://circle.education/nexus/

______________________________

Thanks for reading. If you’ve appreciated the post please ‘like’ and share with your network. More posts can be found on my profile page here.

Interested in knowing more about learning power, the importance of seeing the relationship between learning dispositions and willpower, or considering how teachers' development can be supported? Have you got questions about how growth mindset or formative assessment techniques can really be made to work? Or, are you interested to know more about the school values which help students learn?

Nigel is an educational researcher, consultant and speaker working to help schools and students realise their learning potential. 

References

[1] Hartshorne, J. K., & Germine, L. T. (2015). When does cognitive functioning peak? The asynchronous rise and fall of different cognitive abilities across the life span. Psychological science, 0956797614567339.

[2] https://theconversation.com/a-nation-at-risk-how-gifted-low-income-kids-are-left-behind-56119

[3] Hampshire, A., Highfield, R. R., Parkin, B. L., & Owen, A. M. (2012). Fractionating human intelligence. Neuron, 76(6), 1225-1237. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312005843

[4] Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92(6), 1087.

Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go?. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152-170.

Kautz, T., Heckman, J. J., Diris, R., Ter Weel, B., & Borghans, L. (2014). Fostering and measuring skills: Improving cognitive and non-cognitive skills to promote lifetime success (No. w20749). National Bureau of Economic Research.

[5] Klein, G. (2013). Seeing what others don't: The remarkable ways we gain insights. PublicAffairs.

[6] Black, P., Harrison, C., & Lee, C. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Granada Learning.

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199-218.

[7] Biesta, G. J. (2015). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge.

[8] Crick, R. D., Broadfoot, P., & Claxton, G. (2004). Developing an effective lifelong learning inventory: The ELLI project. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(3), 247-272.

Lovat, T., Clement, N., Dally, K., & Toomey, R. (2010). Values education as holistic development for all sectors: Researching for effective pedagogy. Oxford Review of Education, 36(6), 713-729.

[9] Kautz, T., Heckman, J. J., Diris, R., Ter Weel, B., & Borghans, L. (2014). Fostering and measuring skills: Improving cognitive and non-cognitive skills to promote lifetime success (No. w20749). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Kautz, T., & Zanoni, W. (2014). Measuring and fostering non-cognitive skills in adolescence: Evidence from Chicago Public Schools and the OneGoal Program. University of Chicago.

[10] Werblow, J., Urick, A., & Duesbery, L. (2013). On the wrong track: How tracking is associated with dropping out of high school. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(2), 270-284.

See also, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/resources/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-or-streaming/

[11] Dweck, C. (2012). Mindset: How you can fulfil your potential. Hachette UK.

[12] Wilkinson, S. D., & Penney, D. (2014). The effects of setting on classroom teaching and student learning in mainstream mathematics, English and science lessons: a critical review of the literature in England. Educational Review, 66(4), 411-427.

[13] Agirdag, O., Van Avermaet, P., & Van Houtte, M. (2013). School segregation and math achievement: A mixed-method study on the role of self-fulfilling prophecies. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-50.

Smyth, E. (2016). Ability Grouping. In Students' Experiences and Perspectives on Secondary Education (pp. 145-166). Palgrave Macmillan UK.