Sternberg Robert J, Todhunter Rebel J E, Litvak Aaron, Sternberg Karin
Department of Human Development, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
J Intell. 2020 Apr 15;8(2):17. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence8020017.
In many nations, grades and standardized test scores are used to select students for programs of scientific study. We suggest that the skills that these assessments measure are related to success in science, but only peripherally in comparison with two other skills, scientific creativity and recognition of scientific impact. In three studies, we investigated the roles of scientific creativity and recognition of scientific impact on scientific thinking. The three studies described here together involved 219 students at a selective university in the Northeast U.S. Participants received assessments of scientific creativity and recognition of scientific impact as well as a variety of previously used assessments measuring scientific reasoning (generating alternative hypotheses, generating experiments, drawing conclusions) and the fluid aspect of general intelligence (letter sets, number series). They also provided scores from either or both of two college-admissions tests-the SAT and the ACT-as well as demographic information. Our goal was to determine whether the new tests of scientific impact and scientific creativity correlated and factored with the tests of scientific reasoning, fluid intelligence, both, or neither. We found that our new measures tapped into aspects of scientific reasoning as we previously have studied it, although the factorial composition of the test on recognition of scientific impact is less clear than that of the test of scientific creativity. We also found that participants rated high-impact studies as more scientifically rigorous and practically useful than low-impact studies, but also generally as less creative, probably because their titles/abstracts were seemingly less novel for our participants. Replicated findings across studies included the correlation of Letter Sets with Number Series (both measures of fluid intelligence) and the correlation of Scientific Creativity with Scientific Reasoning.
在许多国家,成绩和标准化考试分数被用于选拔学生进入科学研究项目。我们认为,这些评估所衡量的技能与在科学领域的成功有关,但与另外两项技能——科学创造力和对科学影响力的认识相比,只是间接相关。在三项研究中,我们调查了科学创造力和对科学影响力的认识在科学思维中的作用。这里描述的三项研究共涉及美国东北部一所精英大学的219名学生。参与者接受了科学创造力和对科学影响力的认识的评估,以及各种先前使用过的衡量科学推理(提出替代假设、设计实验、得出结论)和一般智力的流体方面(字母集、数字系列)的评估。他们还提供了两项大学入学考试(SAT和ACT)中一项或两项的成绩以及人口统计学信息。我们的目标是确定科学影响力和科学创造力的新测试与科学推理测试、流体智力测试、两者还是两者都不相关且是否能分解开来。我们发现,我们的新测量方法涉及到了我们之前研究过的科学推理的各个方面,尽管对科学影响力的认识测试的因子构成不如科学创造力测试的清晰。我们还发现,参与者认为高影响力的研究比低影响力的研究在科学上更严谨、更具实用性,但通常也缺乏创造性,这可能是因为它们的标题/摘要对我们的参与者来说似乎不那么新颖。各研究中的重复发现包括字母集与数字系列(两者都是流体智力的测量方法)的相关性以及科学创造力与科学推理的相关性。