La Revista Educational Leadership de la Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development de los Estados Unidos de América contiene en su edición de diciembre 2007 / enero 2008 un excelente artículo sobre el tipo de evaluación educacional que importa, del piscólogo Robert J. Sternberg, uno de los líderes mundiales en estudios sobre la inteligencia y su aplicación práctica a la solución de los problemas de la vida y el trabajo.
Ver texto completo del artículo más abajo.
En este artículo Sternberg expone su modelo de evaluación conocido como WICS, que en breve él resume de la siguiente forma:
The model that underlies our assessments is called WICS, which is an acronym for wisdom, intelligence, and creativity, synthesized (Sternberg, 2003). The basic idea underlying this model is that active and engaged citizenship and especially leadership require individuals to have (1) a creative vision for how they intend to make the world a better place, not just for themselves, but also for their family, friends, colleagues, and others; (2) the analytical intellectual skills to be able to explain why their vision, and that of others, is a good one; (3) the practical intellectual skills to be able to execute their vision and persuade others of its value; and (4) the wisdom to ensure that their ideas represent a common good, not just their own interests or those of their friends or family. Can we apply this model to assessments that can be used in schools? We have done a variety of projects suggesting that we can.
Recursos asociados
Informative ASssessment, colección de artículos de Educational Leadership que compaña al de Robert R. Sternberg, diciembre 2007/enero 2008
Artículos académicos de Robert Sternberg, diciembre 2007
CV y obra de Robert Sternberg
Entrevista a Robert Sternberg sobre tópicos relacionados a sus estudios, julio 2004
Entrevista a Robert J. Sternberg, Resumen extraido de la Revista de Psicología de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Año VI, N°2, Noviembre 2003. [Ver texto completo más abajo, después del artículo de Sternberg]
CV de Robert J. Sternberg
Robert J. Sternberg is Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, Professor of Psychology, and Adjunct Professor of Education at Tufts University. He is also Honorary Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Prior to accepting his positions at Tufts, he was IBM Professor of Psychology and Education in the Department of Psychology, Professor of Management in the School of Management, and Director of the Center for the Psychology of Abilities, Competencies, and Expertise at Yale. This Center, now relocated to Tufts, is dedicated to the advancement of theory, research, practice, and policy advancing the notion of intelligence as developing expertise–as a construct that is modifiable and capable, to some extent, of development throughout the life span. The Center seeks to have an impact on science, on education, and on society.
Sternberg was the 2003 President of the American Psychological Association and is the 2006-2007 President of the Eastern Psychological Association. He is President-Elect of the International Association for Cognitive Education and Psychology. He was on the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association (2002-2004) and on the Board of Trustees of the APA Insurance Trust (2004) and of the American Psychological Foundation (2005-2007). He is on the Board of Directors of the Eastern Psychological Association (2005-2008) and of the American Association of Colleges and Universities (2007-2009). He is also Chair of the Publications Committee of the American Educational Research Association. Sternberg further has been president of the Divisions of General Psychology (1), Educational Psychology (15), Psychology and the Arts (20), and Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology (24) of the APA. Sternberg has been Acting Chair and Director of Graduate Studies in the Department of Psychology at Yale.
Sternberg received the Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1975 and the B.A. summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, with honors with exceptional distinction in psychology, from Yale University in 1972. He also holds honorary doctorates from the Complutense University of Madrid, Spain; the University of Leuven, Belgium; the University of Cyprus; the University of Paris V, France; and Constantine the Philosopher University, Slovakia; the University of Durham, England; St. Petersburg State University in Russia; and the University of Tilburg in Holland.
Sternberg is the author of about 1200 journal articles, book chapters, and books, and has received over $20 million in government and other grants and contracts for his research. The central focus of his research is on intelligence, creativity, and wisdom, and he also has studied love and close relationships as well as hate. This research has been conducted in five different continents.
Sternberg is also a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Psychological Association (in 15 divisions), the American Psychological Society, the Connecticut Psychological Association, the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters, the International Association for Empirical Aesthetics, the Laureate Chapter of Kappa Delta Pi, and the Society of Experimental Psychologists. He has won many awards from APA, AERA, APS, and other organizations. These awards include the Arthur W. Staats Award from the American Psychological Foundation and the Society for General Psychology; the E. L. Thorndike Award for Career Achievement in Educational Psychology Award from the Society for Educational Psychology of the American Psychological Association (APA); the Arnheim and Farnsworth Awards from the Society for the Psychology of Creativity, Aesthetics, and the Arts of the APA; the Boyd R. McCandless Award of the Society for Developmental Psychology of the APA; and the Distinguished Award for an Early Career Contribution to Psychology from APA; the Positive Psychology Network Distinguished Scientist and Scholar Award; the Palmer O. Johnson, Research Review, Outstanding Book, and Sylvia Scribner Awards from the American Educational Research Association (AERA); the James McKeen Cattell Award from the American Psychological Society (APS); the Distinguished Lifetime Contribution to Psychology Award from the Connecticut Psychological Association; the Anton Jurovsky Award of the Slovak Psychological Society; the International Award of the Association of Portuguese Psychologists; the Distinguished contribution Award and E. Paul Torrance Award of the National Association for Gifted Children; the Cattell Award of the Society for Multivariate Experimental Psychology; the Award for Excellence of the Mensa Education and Research Foundation; the Distinction of Honor SEK, from the Institución SEK (Madrid); the Sidney Siegel Memorial Award of Stanford University; and the Wohlenberg Prize of Yale University. He has held a Fulbright Senior Specialist Fellowship to Slovakia, IREX Fellowship to Russia, Guggenheim Fellowship, and Yale University Senior and Junior Faculty Fellowships as well as an NSF Graduate Fellowship. He also has held the Honored Visitor Fellowship of the Taiwan National Science Council and the Sir Edward Youde Memorial Visiting Professorship of the City University of Hong Kong.
Sternberg has been listed in the APA Monitor on Psychology as one of the top 100 psychologists of the 20th century, and is listed by the ISI as one of its most highly cited authors (top ½%) in psychology and psychiatry. He also was listed by the Esquire Register of outstanding men and women under 40 and was listed as one of 100 top young scientists by Science Digest. He is currently listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in the World, Who’s Who in the East, Who’s Who in Medicine and Healthcare, and Who’s Who in Science and Engineering. He has served as Editor of the Psychological Bulletin and of The APA Review of Books: Contemporary Psychology, and as Associate Editor of Child Development and Intelligence.
Sternberg is most well known for his theory of successful intelligence, investment theory of creativity (developed with Todd Lubart), theory of thinking styles as mental self-government, balance theory of wisdom, WICS theory of leadership, and for his duplex theories of love and hate.

Educational Leadership
December 2007/January 2008 | Volume 65 | Number 4
Informative Assessment Pages 20-26
Assessing What Matters
Robert J. Sternberg
Worthy assessments should reflect the broader capabilities that students need to thrive in the 21st century.
My freshman-year introductory psychology course was designed like most courses one finds not just at the college level, but from middle school onward. The main means of teaching was lecture, and the main assessment of performance was a set of tests that measured our recall and basic understanding of the facts taught in the course. I got a C. My professor commented to me, “There is a famous Sternberg in psychology, and it looks like there won’t be another one.” I got discouraged, left psychology, and came back only when I was failing my introductory course for math majors and decided a C was better than an F.
Thirty-five years later, I became president of the American Psychological Association, which, with a membership of 155,000, is the largest professional organization of psychologists in the world. In some ways, it is the best position one can get in the field of psychology. I cracked to my predecessor that it was ironic that I, who had gotten a C in my introductory course, was now president of the association. He looked me straight in the eye and admitted that he, too, had gotten a C.
This vignette points out in microcosm what may be wrong with the assessments to which we, as a society, have committed ourselves. As a teacher or administrator, how many times have you had to take a multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank test except perhaps, when you needed to show that you were supposedly qualified for your job? When I look at the skills and concepts I have needed to succeed in my own field, I find a number that are crucial: creativity, common sense, wisdom, ethics, dedication, honesty, teamwork, hard work, knowing how to win and how to lose, a sense of fair play, and lifelong learning. But memorizing books is certainly not one of them.
One can argue, with justification, that one cannot think without content to think with and about. This is indisputable. But when we teach only for facts, rather than for how to go beyond facts, we teach students how to get out of date. For example, the facts that I learned in my introductory psychology course matter little today. An introductory text today contains almost entirely different facts. I know: I am the author of one of those textbooks (Sternberg, 2004). Other fields, such as the hard sciences, political science, economics, and so forth, change at least as rapidly. Even the humanities change: A set of classic works remains, but the interpretations—and even what constitutes such interpretations—change.
So what should we assess? We should assess what students need to become active and engaged citizens of the world in which they will live—in a sense, what it takes to be “expert” citizens. Oddly enough, a lot of models can prepare students for the roles they will play in their world. Traditional schooling just does not happen to be one of them. We should also assess in ways that can help students develop the skills they need for success in school and life.
Consider students on an athletic team. They learn declarative knowledge about the sport. But learning the rules of the game will no more help them in playing the game than memorizing a book of rules on driving will help someone drive. The students also need to learn how to play the sport.
But the most important skills they learn have nothing to do with one sport or another. These skills are very much like those I mentioned previously: dedication, honesty, teamwork, common sense, and the wisdom to distinguish right from wrong. Athletics is not the only model for such learning. Consider the members of an orchestra or of a dance ensemble. They, too, must learn to work together and must develop similar skills.
How might assessments better reflect the kinds of skills that matter—not just in school, but also in life beyond school? This is a question that we in the Center for the Psychology of Abilities, Competencies, and Expertise, formerly at Yale and now at Tufts University, have posed for ourselves. It is a challenge that we have, to some extent, taken as our life work.
Assessing for WICS
The model that underlies our assessments is called WICS, which is an acronym for wisdom, intelligence, and creativity, synthesized (Sternberg, 2003). The basic idea underlying this model is that active and engaged citizenship and especially leadership require individuals to have (1) a creative vision for how they intend to make the world a better place, not just for themselves, but also for their family, friends, colleagues, and others; (2) the analytical intellectual skills to be able to explain why their vision, and that of others, is a good one; (3) the practical intellectual skills to be able to execute their vision and persuade others of its value; and (4) the wisdom to ensure that their ideas represent a common good, not just their own interests or those of their friends or family. Can we apply this model to assessments that can be used in schools? We have done a variety of projects suggesting that we can.
The Successful Intelligence Model
Some of our earlier projects were based on the predecessor of WICS—the model of successful intelligence (Sternberg, 1997). The programs in this model were designed to determine whether we could teach and assess students for memory and for analytical, creative, and practical achievement in the context of any academic subject at any grade level. At that point, wisdom was not separated from practical skills, although it is distinguishable from them. Wisdom involves using academic and practical intelligence, as well as creativity and knowledge, for a common good. If, for example, a used-car salesman convinces customers to buy bad cars, he could be high in practical (or emotional) intelligence without being wise.
As an example, in social studies, we might assess understanding of the American Civil War by asking such questions as (1) Compare and contrast the Civil War and the American Revolution (analytical); (2) What might the United States be like today if the Civil War had not taken place (creative)? (3) How has the Civil War affected, even indirectly, the kinds of rights that people have today (practical)? and (4) Are wars ever justified (wisdom)?
In English, we might assess understanding of a novel such as The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by asking (1) How was the childhood of Tom Sawyer similar to and different from your own childhood (analytical)? (2) Write an alternate ending to the story (creative); (3) What techniques did Tom Sawyer use to persuade his friends to whitewash Aunt Polly’s fence (practical)? and (4) Is it ever justified to use such techniques of persuasion to make people do things they do not really want to do (wisdom)?
In science, we might ask (1) What is the evidence suggesting that global warming is taking place (analytical)? (2) What do you think the world will be like in 200 years if global warming continues at its present rate (creative)? (3) What can you, personally, do to help slow down global warming (practical)? and (4) What responsibility do we have, if any, to future generations to act on global warming now before it gets much worse (wisdom)?
In mathematics, we might ask (1) What is the interest after six months on a loan of $4,000 at 4 percent annually (analytical)? (2) Create a mathematical problem involving interest on a loan (creative); (3) How would you invest $4,000 to maximize your rate of return without risking more than 10 percent of the principal (practical)? and (4) Why do states set maximum rates of interest that lenders can charge, and should they do so (wisdom)?
We have found in studies of reading, social studies, science, and mathematics at a variety of grade levels that teaching for analytical, creative, and practical thinking, as well as for memory, boosts achievement on tests that measure achievement broadly, across subject-matter areas and grade levels (see Grigorenko, Jarvin, & Sternberg, 2002; Sternberg, Grigorenko, Ferrari, & Clinkenbeard, 1999; Sternberg, Torff, & Grigorenko, 1998). Interestingly, even when students are assessed solely for memory, they perform better when taught broadly than when taught just for memory. This is because broader teaching enables students to capitalize on their strengths and correct or compensate for their weaknesses in learning. For example, broader teaching might involve encouraging students who are more visually oriented and less numerically oriented to draw a diagram to help them visualize and solve an algebra problem. Students who are more numerically oriented might proceed directly to constructing a set of equations.
Assessing Creative and Practical Thinking
In our society, a problem with teaching and assessing more broadly is that the kinds of standardized assessments we currently use are quite narrow. For example, the SAT Reasoning Test and the SAT Subject Tests assess primarily remembered knowledge and analytical skills applied to this knowledge. Creativity, practical thinking, and wisdom are assessed minimally or, more likely, not at all. Is there any hope that our society can transport some of these skills to high-stakes assessments?
My collaborators and I decided to find out. In one study, the Rainbow Project, we designed tests of creative and practical thinking that could supplement tests like the SAT Reasoning Test, which measures analytical skills in the verbal and mathematical domains. We tested 1,013 high school students and college freshmen from 15 different schools. We posed analytical questions much like those traditionally found on standardized tests. But we also asked the students to answer creative and practical questions.
The creative tests required the students to stretch their imaginations. For example, they might be asked to write a creative story with a title like The Octopus’s Sneakers or 3821. Or they might be shown a collage of pictures, such as of musicians or athletes, and be asked to tell a story about the collage. Or they might be asked to caption an untitled comic strip.
The practical tests required the students to solve everyday problems. Some tests were presented verbally; others, through videos. For example, students might see a movie showing a student about to ask a professor for a letter of recommendation, but also showing the blank look on the professor’s face, indicating that he did not know who the student was. The task would be to decide what the student should do. Or students might see a video that shows a group of friends trying to figure out how to move a large bed up a winding staircase.
There were three crucial findings (Sternberg & the Rainbow Project Collaborators, 2006). First, in addition to the information that the tests provided about students’ creative and practical thinking capabilities, we learned something important about multiple-choice problem solving: Multiple-choice tests, no matter what they were supposed to measure, clustered together. Students who were better at one multiple-choice test tended to be better at others as well. This result suggested that using multiple-choice tests consistently tends to benefit some students and not others.
Second, we discovered that using broader tests for college admissions can enhance academic excellence. When compared with using SAT scores alone for predicting freshman-year grades, using these broader tests enabled us to double the accuracy of that prediction. Compared with the predictive value of SAT scores and high school grade point average combined, we increased the accuracy of prediction by about 50 percent. In other words, our assessments were not quixotic ventures into esoteric realms. On the contrary, they enhanced our ability to predict who would be more, as opposed to less, successful in college, at least from an academic point of view.
Third, we discovered that we could substantially reduce ethnic group differences with the tests. In other words, using such tests could increase the proportion of ethnic minorities admitted to selective colleges. The tests would not compromise academic excellence, but actually enhance it. Because different ethnic groups have different conceptions of what intelligence is (Sternberg, 2006), they tend to socialize their children to be intelligent in different ways. For example, on our tests, American Indians, on average, performed lower than most other groups on analytical assessments. But on oral storytelling, they had the highest average scores. Different groups excel, on average, in different ways; giving them a chance to show how they excel enables them to show that they can succeed.
Tests like the Rainbow Assessment do not benefit only members of ethnic minority groups. Many students who come from the majority group, and even from well-off homes, learn best in ways that are different from those assessed by conventional standardized tests. Our tests help identify such students.
Increasing Quality and Diversity
It is one thing to have a successful research project, and another actually to implement the procedures in a highstakes situation. We have had the opportunity to do so.
In 2005, I moved from Yale University, where I was the lead collaborator in the Rainbow Project, to Tufts University, where I became dean of the School of Arts and Sciences. Tufts University, under the leadership of its president, Lawrence Bacow, has strongly emphasized the role of active citizenship in education. So it seemed like an ideal setting to put into practice some of the ideas from the Rainbow Project. In collaboration with Linda Abriola, dean of the School of Engineering, and Lee Coffin, dean of admissions, I instituted Project Kaleidoscope, which implements the ideas of Rainbow but goes beyond that project to include in its assessments the construct of wisdom.
On the 2006–07 application for all of the more than 15,000 students applying to the schools of Arts, Sciences, and Engineering at Tufts, we placed questions designed to assess WICS (Sternberg, 2007). Whereas the Rainbow Project was a separate high-stakes test administered with a proctor, the Kaleidoscope Project was a section of the Tufts college application. The advantage of the Kaleidoscope Project is that it got us away from the high-stakes testing situation in which students must answer complex questions in very short amounts of time under incredible pressure. The section was optional this past year, and students were encouraged to answer just a single question.
For example, a creative question asked students to write stories with titles like “The End of MTV” or “Confessions of a Middle School Bully.” Another creative question asked students what the world would be like if some historical event had turned out differently, for example, if Rosa Parks had given up her seat on the bus. Yet another creative question, a nonverbal one, gave students an opportunity to design a new product or an advertisement for a new product. A practical question queried how students had persuaded friends to adopt an unpopular idea. A wisdom question asked students how they might apply a passion they had toward the common good.
We now have the results of our first year of implementation, and they are promising. Some stakeholders were afraid that the number of applications would go down; instead, they went up slightly. More notable, the quality of applicants rose substantially. There were fewer students in what before had been the bottom third of the pool in terms of academic quality. Many of those students, seeing the new application, decided not to bother to apply. Other stakeholders were afraid that average SAT scores might plummet. Instead, they went up. This is because the new assessments are not negatively correlated with SAT scores. Rather, they are not much correlated at all.
So adopting these new methods does not result in admitting less-qualified applicants. Rather, admitted applicants are more qualified, but in a broader way. Moreover, after several years in which the number of applications by underrepresented minorities remained relatively flat, this year they increased substantially. In the end, we admitted 30 percent more black students than the year before and 15 percent more Hispanics. Our results, like those of the Rainbow Project, showed that it is possible to increase academic quality and diversity simultaneously and to do so for an entire undergraduate class at a major university. Most important, we sent a message to students, parents, high school guidance counselors, and others that we believe there is more to a person than the narrow spectrum of skills assessed by standardized tests and that we can assess these broader skills in a quantifiable way.
Such projects can be done at any level. We designed an admissions test for a well-known private school, which showed results for a whole class that were comparable to those for the Rainbow Project. We also did a project in a large business school and showed that we could increase the accuracy of prediction and decrease both gender and ethnic group differences in admissions (Hedlund, Wilt, Nebel, Ashford, & Sternberg, 2006). We are currently developing a comparable test for middle school students (Chart, Grigorenko, & Sternberg, in press).
One might wonder how to assess responses to questions that seem so subjective. The answer is through well-developed rubrics. For example, we assess analytical responses on the basis of the extent to which they are analytically sound, balanced, logical, and organized. We assess creative responses on the basis of how original and compelling they are, as well as on the basis of their appropriateness to the task presented. We assess practical responses on the basis of how feasible they are with respect to time, place, and human and material resources. We assess wisdom-based responses on the extent to which they promote the common good by balancing individual interests with others’ larger interests, over the long and short terms, through the infusion of positive (prosocial) values.
Promoting Wisdom
Perhaps conventional assessments met the cognitive demands placed on students 100 years ago. They do not meet the cognitive demands of the world today. Active and engaged citizens must be creatively flexible, responding to rapid changes in the environment; able to think critically about what they are told in the media, whether by newscasters, politicians, advertisers, or scientists; able to execute their ideas and persuade others of their value; and, most of all, able to use their knowledge wisely in ways that avoid the horrors of bad leadership, as we have seen in scandals involving Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco, Clearstream, and innumerable other organizations.
It may be a hard sell to teach and assess for wisdom. However, wisdom is the most important and yet most neglected aspect of education today (Sternberg, 2001a, 2001b). We have seen in failed leaders the enormous costs of having leaders who are knowledgeable and intelligent—who have “good degrees” from prestigious schools—yet who are unwise. They tend to commit several serious cognitive fallacies. They are (1) unrealistically optimistic, believing that anything they do will turn out well because they are so brilliant; (2) egocentric, believing that the world revolves around them; (3) falsely omniscient, failing to learn from experience because they believe they know everything; (4) falsely omnipotent, believing that they are all-powerful by virtue of their superior skills or education; (5) falsely invulnerable, believing they can get away with almost anything because they are so clever; and (6) ethically disengaged, believing that ethical principles apply only to lesser mortals. In my view, much of what is wrong in the world today stems from people who are simultaneously smart and foolish.
Four caveats are in order here. First, my work on WICS and successful intelligence is not the only theory on the basis of which we might create new, broader assessments. Howard Gardner’s (1999) theory of multiple intelligences provides another basis for such assessments, and other theories could be used as well. Second, the assessments do not measure all the skills required for success in everyday life. For example, although I assess teamwork in the courses I teach, the assessments I have described do not measure this skill, at least not directly. Third, the assessments have not been scaled up for use on a statewide or national basis. Doing so would no doubt present new challenges. Fourth, expanded assessments cost more time and money. But when we consider the benefits of opening up possibilities and hope to diverse students who learn and think in a variety of ways—whatever their gender or ethnic background—the costs may be relatively small.
Worthy and Wise
There is another issue we need to face. Traditional assessments provide little help to students in learning how to capitalize on strengths and compensate for or correct weaknesses. They measure only narrow bands of skills. Broader tests can give broader ranges of scores and help students see where they have mastery and where they need to improve. Teachers, in turn, can teach in ways that help students acquire the skills they need to succeed in school and life (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000, 2007). From this point of view, instruction and assessment are two sides of the same coin rather than two different coins. Assessment drives instruction.
So let’s create assessments that are worthy of such a role. To prepare students for a world in which political, economic, social, and even climatic contexts are rapidly changing, we must focus on more than just facts and figures. Our society needs citizens and leaders who are not just memorizers and who are more than just analytically adept. We need people who are creative, practical, and, especially, wise.
References
Chart, H., Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (in press). The Aurora Battery: Toward better identification of giftedness. In C. Callahan & J. Plucker (Eds.), What the research says about: An encyclopedia of research on gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Grigorenko, E. L., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). School-based tests of the triarchic theory of intelligence: Three settings, three samples, three syllabi. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 167–208.
Hedlund, J., Wilt, J. M., Nebel, K. R., Ashford, S. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Assessing practical intelligence in business school admissions: A supplement to the graduate management admissions test. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 101–127.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). What does it mean to be smart? Educational Leadership, 54(6), 20–24.
Sternberg, R. J. (2001a). Why schools should teach for wisdom: The balance theory of wisdom in educational settings. Educational Psychologist, 36(4), 227–245.
Sternberg, R. J. (2001b). Wisdom and education. Perspectives in Education, 19(4), 1–16.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Recognizing neglected strengths. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 30–35.
Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Finding students who are wise, practical, and creative. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(44), B11.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Teaching for successful intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2007). Teaching for successful intelligence (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., Ferrari, M., & Clinkenbeard, P. (1999). A triarchic analysis of an aptitude-treatment interaction. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15(1), 1–11.
Sternberg, R. J., & the Rainbow Project Collaborators. (2006). The Rainbow Project: Enhancing the SAT through assessments of analytical, practical, and creative skills. Intelligence, 34(4), 321–350.
Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching for successful intelligence raises school achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 667–669.
Robert J. Sternberg is Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, Professor of Psychology, and Adjunct Professor of Education at Tufts University, Medford Massachusetts; [email protected].
Copyright © 2007 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
——————————————————————————————————
Entrevista a Robert J. Sternberg(*)
Entrevista a Robert J. Sternberg(*)
1152161783_0225
Si hubiese un ranking mundial de psicologos, su nombre apareceria de seguro entre uno de lo mas importantes del siglo XXI. Dr. en Psicologia, investigador de la Universidad de Yale, y creador de una serie de teorias que abarcan campos como inteligencia, creatividad, el amor, la sabiduria y el odio. En esta oportunidad reflexiona sobre la sociedad y el papel de la psicologia en su cambio.
La entrevista se realizo durante su visita al Perú por motivo del Congreso Interamericano de Psicologia que se realizo acá en Lima-Perú.
P. Su ponencia en este congreso fue “una teoría del odio y su aplicación al terrorismo”, al respecto podría comentarnos el por qué odia la gente
R. Las razones son muchas:
1. En busca de la unidad, hay que crear un enemigo imaginario para unir a la gente internamente, esta es una técnica que los líderes han usado a través de la historia. Y se manifiesta en la frase: “Está con nosotros, o está contra nosotros”
2. Económico, ya que se adquiere ventajas sobre los recursos de los estados destruidos o en la reconstrucción de los mismos. Cuanta mayor sea esta ventaja, mayor será su probabilidad de ocurrencia.
3. Para extender el poder, y esto es para cualquier gobierno imperialista.
4. Las personas tiene algo que hacer. En varios países hay desempleo y pobreza, no hay acceso a recursos, cuando hay un exceso de personas la probabilidad de guerra aumenta.
Los malos sentimientos están ahí, existen prejuicios y puntos de vistas defectuosos, alguien las utiliza y empeora estos sentimientos con otros propósitos. Las personas mal educadas o que no piensan críticamente son utilizadas por los líderes cínicos.
P.En sus últimas investigaciones tanto en la teoría del odio, del amor y la sabiduría, se aprecia que su línea de investigación se orienta a la problemática social ¿considera usted que ese, es el rumbo de la psicología en estos tiempos?
R. Mira, muchos de mis colegas en los Estados Unidos realizan muchas investigaciones experimentales, hechos con los propios alumnos y publican sus investigaciones en revistas que nadie lee, luego ganan premios. No les interesa lo sustancial del mundo, la dirección es contra los fenómenos del mundo natural.
Te doy un ejemplo: había una vez un mensajero que llegó a la puerta de la universidad para entregar una carta al señor Morales, pero su secretaría le dijo que vuelva al día siguiente. El mensajero volvió y tampoco lo encontró, así que volvió al día siguiente, y tampoco lo encontró. Así sucedió durante siete años ininterrumpidos, hasta que alguna vez le dieron su diploma de Doctor por su constante asistencia a la universidad, y así como ese mensajero hay muchos en la universidad.
He tratado que mis investigaciones tengan una intersección con la vida cotidiana, las mido por su valor científico y por su influencia en la sociedad, no me interesa lo otro.
P. Tenemos entendido que trabajó con el gobierno venezolano, en un proyecto para desarrollar la Inteligencia, ¿podría darnos un alcance de aquella experiencia?
R.Hace muchos años, quizás en los 80 o 81 recibí una llamada de una representante de Luis Alberto Machado , pidiéndome una reunión para conversar sobre la posibilidad de un proyecto en Venezuela, uno de muchos proyectos para mejorar la inteligencia de la población venezolana, y lo que resultó fue un proyecto y eventualmente un libro: “Inteligencia Aplicada” y la idea fue tener un proyecto a nivel universitario para mejorar las habilidades de los estudiantes en las universidades. Nosotros comenzamos el proyecto y nunca completamos tal. Debido a que el partido de Machado, perdió la siguiente elección, presuntamente a causa de corrupción. A partir de esto todos o casi todos de los proyectos fueron cancelados e incluso los usaron como ejemplos de demagogia y malgasto del dinero público.
Yo creo que la meta de Machado, fue no solo aumentar la inteligencia sino mejorar a las personas, hacer a las personas, personas mejores, más humana, más decentes. Su idea fue: “si se aumentara el CI , de alguna manera las personas mejorarían”; pero no se logró conocer los resultados de este experimento.
Con respecto a lo anterior hay un efecto llamado el “Efecto de Flynn”, Flynn es un psicólogo de Nueva Zelanda y él preguntó: “¿Qué pasaba con los CI a través de los años?”; la razón de que los CI siempre tengan un promedio de 100, no es por que Dios haya decidido que el promedio debe ser 100; sino porque las editoriales de test cambian las normas para asegurar que el promedio sea 100. Entonces su pregunta fue: “Si las editoriales no cambiaran las normas, “¿qué pasaría?”, “los CI subirían porque hay mejoramiento de tecnología, de educación, de la situación familiar, ¿los CI se mantendrían iguales? o quizás bajarían por que la gente con CI bajos tienen más hijos, y el resultado después de muchos años debe ser que la gente se hace más estúpida.”
Y el resultado de su investigación fue muy claro y es que los CI han subido en cada país. En todos los países que él estudió, los CI han aumentado a 3 puntos por 10 años y después de esto mi pregunta fue: “¿Si los CI han aumentado 3 puntos cada 10 años?, y ¿si Machado hubiese estado en lo correcto, se anticiparía que la gente de hoy sería muy humana y muy gentil y muy buena en su comportamiento?”, pero me di cuenta que en los 90 hubo más masacres, mas genocidios, más terrorismo que en otras épocas del siglo XX, excepto por la segunda guerra mundial, y esto me demostró que Machado no estuvo en lo correcto; ya que el aumento de conocimiento, del CI, de mejores escuelas; no crea una mejor sociedad.
Tenemos la responsabilidad de desarrollar la sabiduría porque el conocimiento no es suficiente. Por ejemplo con respeto al terrorismo, yo me interesé en la sabiduría y no solo en la inteligencia exitosa, porque los terroristas pueden ser muy inteligentes, tienen las habilidades creativas para seleccionar a los blancos, tienen la inteligencia analítica para analizar cuales son los mejores blancos, tienen las habilidades prácticas para entregar sus bombas, sus métodos de destrucción con éxito. Y de una manera son exitosos en su inteligencia, pero no tienen la sabiduría, y es la razón que yo creo que la inteligencia exitosa no es suficiente. Los terroristas pueden ser muy inteligentes y aún líderes de países como Stalin o Sadam Husein tienen mucha inteligencia exitosa y no son iguales con respecto a su sabiduría, eso es mucho más importante.
P.Entonces, ¿enseñar sabiduría a los jóvenes es una de la soluciones?
R. Es una solución, no es la única y no hay cura total; hay maneras para tratar de mejorar la situación.
Es peligroso pensar como algunos líderes de cultos que dicen: “tengo la solución y si ustedes creen en mi y me dan sus posesiones y dinero, yo puedo salvar el mundo”. Y usualmente son fraudes, cualquier persona que cree que él tiene, la respuesta, es un fraude; no hay respuesta única hay esfuerzos para resolver problemas muy difíciles.
P. Se entendería entonces, que los programas de Enriquecimiento Intelectual no son suficientes si la persona no utiliza la inteligencia para el bien común
R. Es la idea, el usar la inteligencia en la dirección del bien común, tomando en cuenta sus propios intereses, los intereses de las otras personas y los intereses más obvios como de la sociedad, del país, de Dios. No es decir que sus propios intereses no importan, sino que no son los únicos intereses que importan; por lo menos en los Estados Unidos yo creo que hay una cultura de egocentrismo.
P.Howard Gardner comentó que la educación norteamericana en el nivel básico tenía algunos errores. Por ejemplo, el pretender abarcar muchos contenidos en los diferentes cursos o asignaturas no permite que el alumno de razón de algunas teorías como el Big Bang, la teoría de la relatividad, de la evolución de las especies, etc.
R. Mi énfasis no son las grandes teorías, sino en el uso de la información. ¿Para qué se usa la información?
¿Para conseguir buenas metas o malas metas? Cuando yo hablo de enseñanza para desarrollar la sabiduría, no es como enseñanza moral, no es como se dice: se debe hacer eso, esto, y aquello. Es para entrenar a los estudiantes para pensar bien, para pensar de una manera que quieran usar su conocimiento para fines buenos. Entonces estamos de acuerdo que la enseñanza no es la mejor, no sólo en los Estados Unidos, no es la mejor en Europa, hay más énfasis sobre los hechos, pero yo creo que no es la comprensión del Big Bang, sino comprensión de la utilización de conocimientos para realizar buenos fines, buenas metas que transforman la sociedad de una manera positiva y no negativa, por que se puede tener una sociedad de personas con buena comprensión de teorías que usan ese conocimiento, para malos fines.
P.Por lo tanto hay una cuestión moral en la formación de las personas. En el Perú por ejemplo hemos transitado por un periodo de corrupción muy grave. ¿Para la psicología hay un reto, en lo que se puede llamar la psicología moral?
R.Es un ejemplo excelente de lo que estoy diciendo, por que los problemas no son la compresión del Big Bang y la teoría de la evolución, en mi opinión; los problemas son las personas que quizás tengan la educación pero son corruptas o roban a la gente, usan las oficinas políticas para enriquecerse y destruyen la sociedad. En México, por ejemplo, el hermano de Carlos Salinas, probablemente robo millones o billones de dólares, y nunca fue suficiente. Y los hombres de “General”, los ejecutivos, ¡cuantos dólares se necesita!, si es suficiente para sus niños, y para generaciones de sus niños y roban más; y se puede tener un país con mucha riqueza. Parece que nunca es suficiente para satisfacer eso.
Es la razón, por la que creo que la enseñanza debe enfatizar el buen uso del cocimiento a causa de este tipo de problemas de corrupción y también para que la gente haga algo. Lo que pasa en muchas sociedades, es que lo miembros y los ciudadanos saben lo que está sucediendo y no hacen nada. Aceptan los robos, aceptan las guerras, por ejemplo la situación en Hong Kong reciente fue interesante, quinientos mil personas demostraron y tuvieron un efecto contra una ley de seguridad interna; es decir la URSS fue el rival de los ciudadanos que eventualmente cambió el gobierno.
Pero si los ciudadanos no hacen nada, y dicen: “no quiero arriesgar nada, no quiero decir nada”, nada pasa, nada cambia y los políticos, los taicanes en los Estados Unidos siguen robando.
Pero el problema no es sólo con ellos, es con toda la gente que no hace nada. Por ejemplo en el holocausto, mucho de la gente sabía lo que sucedía pero no hacia nada para nadie. Y es lo que pasa en muchas sociedades, se pueden hacer cambios, pero no se hace nada.
Y regreso a su pregunta original, es la cuestión de la utilización de los conocimientos psicológicos para transformar la sociedad de una manera positiva.
P.¿Es optimista con la humanidad, con nuestro futuro?
R. Ah, no sé tengo dos hijos, y la verdad es que tengo miedo. Por que yo creo que las señales no son las mejores, eventualmente armas muy peligrosas estarán en las manos de terroristas, sin duda, quizás no el año próximo, pero quizás en 15 años en 20 años. Y si nosotros no transformamos nuestra manera de pensar, yo creo que la situación puede ser muy peligrosa.
No soy pesimista pero las cosas no cambian simplemente por hacer nada. Y necesitamos más personas que estén preparadas a arriesgarse de alguna manera para efectuar cambios. Yo puedo dar un ejemplo: yo conozco a un profesor en otra universidad, y él tiene muchas diferencias con el gobierno, él dice que hay una lista negra, de los que se oponen al gobierno, su nombre esta en esa lista y no se puede ganar subvenciones. No sé si es verdad o no, de alguna manera no importa, si la gente piensa eso, y decide no hacer nada, nada va a cambiar. Necesito más, de corazón, de audacia, de una manera de coraje.
P. Existe una similitud en la forma de sistematizar sus teorías. ¿A qué se debe el uso persistente de triángulos?
R.A veces he dicho una historia, que originalmente tuve una teoría triárquica de la inteligencia y después formé una teoría triangular del amor y después forme tres teorías de tres partes de la creatividad y después de tener una teoría con tres partes, un reportero me preguntó: ¿por qué su teoría siempre presenta tres partes? Y yo dije: es un buen punto, no se exactamente por qué, pero yo creo que hay tres razones….
Me di cuenta que estaba viendo las cosas en términos de tres cosas y yo lo uso como ejemplo de la “cristalización”, es decir que para desarrollar la creatividad, cuando se hace más experto en cualquier cosa, el costo es el peligro de cristalización, no se puede ver las cosas de un manera nueva; es cómo estar en un túnel en donde se pueden ver las cosas muy estrechamente y me di cuenta que yo sufría del problema del que hablaba. Pero en la vida siempre es así, cuando yo hablo de la estupidez y de las falacias, yo sé que a veces y cometo esa falacias, también.
P.¿Cuál es el objetivo de la enseñanza de la psicología? Y ¿cuál sería su futuro?
El objetivo cuando yo enseño psicología, es enseñar a los estudiantes a pensar como psicólogos de una manera científica pero también humana, yo no veo la oposición que mucha gente ve. El tema de mi presidencia de la Asociación Americana de Psicólogos es la unificación entre práctica y académica, entre enseñanza e investigación, entre las investigaciones aplicadas y más básicas. Yo creo que es importante enseñar a la gente pensar de una manera unificada porque hay fortalezas en la unificación.
Con respecto al futuro de psicología, no soy profeta. Espero que haya más énfasis sobre el uso de nuestro conocimiento para mejorar la situación humana, esa es mi esperanza.
(*)Resumen extraido de la Revista de Psicologia de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Año VI, N°2,Noviembre 2003.