This is the third part of a transcribed lecture presenting the PASS
model.
The first part discussed psychologists’ and clients’ beliefs about
intelligence and intelligence tests.
The second part discussed theories of intelligence and presented PASS theory.
PASS theory places particular emphasis on two important principles:
1. Emphasis on the
processing mechanism rather than on the modality
Simultaneous processing can take place with both visual and verbal
stimuli. Reading comprehension, for example, requires simultaneous processing
in order to connect the various elements of a text and form a coherent overall
picture. However, this simultaneous processing is applied to verbal material,
which is sequential by nature. Although written text is visual, its content is
linguistic.
Similarly, successive processing can take place with both visual and
verbal stimuli. For example, in the Hand Movements subtest of the Kaufman
Assessment Battery, the child is required to reproduce a sequence of hand
movements demonstrated by the examiner. The processing mechanism is successive,
although the stimulus is visual.
2. Emphasis on the
processing mechanism rather than on the test
Although the Kaufman Assessment Battery and the CAS contain subtests
classified as measures of successive processing and other subtests classified
as measures of simultaneous processing, the developers of the theory emphasize
the importance of examining how the child approaches and performs the test,
rather than relying solely on the test’s formal classification.
A child may use a successive approach when performing “simultaneous”
tasks. For example, in the Object Assembly subtest of the Wechsler test, some
children do not initially perceive the complete object that will emerge.
Instead, they focus on individual details, fitting one piece to another
according to their outlines. Only after the object has been assembled do they
suddenly recognize what it is. Thus, they perform a task that “invites”
simultaneous processing in a successive or sequential manner.
The Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test, or RCFT, also “invites”
simultaneous processing, in which the individual distinguishes between the
central and peripheral elements of the stimulus and copies it on the basis of
this distinction. Some children, however, approach the test successively,
copying the figure from left to right, for example.
A child may also use simultaneous processing when performing
“successive” tasks. The Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, or Rey AVLT, for
example, “invites” a successive processing approach. Some children, however,
perform it by creating clusters of words with a shared semantic component, such
as words associated with school.
When a child works in a way that differs from the processing style
“invited” by the test, the result may be suboptimal. Alternatively, the child
may achieve a good result, but only at the cost of additional time and energy.
It is therefore important to examine the child’s work process qualitatively
rather than looking only at the final product. Examining the process allows us
to identify strengths or difficulties in successive and simultaneous
processing.
Sean Carroll argues that different theories can be correct at the same
time, with each theory being valid within its own domain of application. It is therefore less important to
ask which theory is more correct than to ask which theory is more useful.
We use theories of intelligence when applying our working model, which I will now present
using examples from PASS theory. The model contains three components: cognitive abilities, emotional
abilities, and the child’s functioning. The latter includes the child’s general
functioning at school, functioning in reading, writing, and mathematics, and
functioning in the social and emotional domains.
When working with
this model, we seek to explain how cognitive abilities affect the child’s
functioning, how emotional abilities affect the child’s functioning, how
cognitive abilities affect emotional abilities, and how emotional abilities
affect cognitive abilities.
For example, when a child has a weakness in the planning system, the
child may have difficulty setting priorities when doing homework and monitoring
the work process. The planning system will therefore affect the child’s
academic functioning. How might it affect the child’s social and emotional
functioning? When the planning system is weak, the child may have difficulty
delaying gratification and controlling impulses and may also have difficulty
responding flexibly to change.
As an example of the effect of cognition on the emotional world, we can
consider a child with impaired simultaneous processing. Such an impairment may
interfere with the child’s ability to understand body language and nuances in
social situations and to perceive a social situation from several perspectives
at the same time. A child with impaired successive processing, by contrast, may
experience the world as chaotic and unpredictable. The child may have
difficulty anticipating what will happen next, even in routine situations, and
may experience life as a series of disruptions.
As an example of the effect of emotional abilities on cognition, we can
consider a prolonged state of stress, which may impair the attention and
planning systems.
We will now apply our working model to the domain of reading and examine the relationship between the different PASS systems and reading.
(Click the slide to enlarge it.)
The planning system is related to reading comprehension. It enables the
integration of information and ideas during reading while monitoring and
controlling attention. It is also related to written expression through the
planning and organization of the text, monitoring of the writing process, and
integration of the ideas expressed in writing.
The attention system helps us inhibit distractions while reading and
maintain concentration on the text over time.
The simultaneous-processing system enables automatic global reading of
individual words. It allows us to process grammar at the level of the
individual word—for example, to understand how the different components of the word
"unbelievable" (un+believe+able)
combine to create its complete meaning. It also allows us to process grammar by
understanding connections and relationships between words. The
simultaneous-processing system also contributes to reading comprehension.
The successive-processing system allows us to acquire letter sequences,
decode individual words through phonological blending or letter-by-letter
reading, read pseudowords, produce and understand syntax—in which the sequence
of words in a sentence affects its meaning—and spell.
From the perspective of PASS theory, a child who has difficulty decoding
individual words accurately may have a weakness in successive processing. If
such a weakness is identified, we may recommend, for example, transforming the
task into a simultaneous one by teaching the child to recognize whole words
through rapid visual presentation.
From the perspective of the CHC model, a child who has difficulty
decoding individual words accurately may have a weakness in rapid naming, for
example. Rapid naming belongs to retrieval efficiency and is related to the
ability to connect sounds with symbols. If such a weakness is identified, we
may recommend working with mnemonic aids, for example.
What similarities
and differences can be found between the PASS and CHC models?
The models differ in the status they assign to attention. In the PASS
model, attention is regarded as part of intelligence, a view with which many
psychologists would agree. In the CHC model, attention is not considered part
of intelligence.
Another difference concerns the status of achievement domains. As we saw
earlier, the PASS model emphasizes processing mechanisms rather than content.
The CHC model includes several broad abilities relating to content acquired
through formal education. Reading, writing, and mathematics are part of
intelligence in the CHC model but not in the PASS model.
Crystallized knowledge is also regarded in the PASS model as a product
of processing mechanisms rather than as part of intelligence itself. This has
implications for diagnostic work with children from culturally diverse
backgrounds. An intelligence test that does not include achievement domains
dependent on formal education may be more culturally fair. Indeed, the Kaufman
Assessment Battery emphasizes that it produces smaller differences between
minority groups and the dominant cultural group.
Finally, PASS theory emphasizes executive functions as a separate
system—the planning system. In the CHC model, executive functions are included
within fluid ability.
Both theories view intelligence as residing within the brain.
This brings us to the third part of the lecture, in which we will move
beyond the boundaries of intelligence and locate it, at least partly, outside
the brain.
This subject will be presented in Part Four.
Comments
Post a Comment