ElmCore Journal of Educational Psychology October, 2014 | Page 51

Science-Fellows®
situations; they serve to identify the problem and
connect it with experiences from the past. There is,
however, no action directly related to
metacomponents, they simply direct what actions will
follow. Performance components are the actions taken
in the completion of a problem-solving task.
Performance components go beyond metacomponents
in that they perform the function also of weighing the
merit and or consequences of actions in comparison to
other options rather than simply identifying options.
Sternberg’s third proposed type of intelligence is the
knowledge-acquisition component. This type is
characterized by the ability to learn new information
in order to solve a potential problem. This type is
much more abstract and may or may not be directly
related to a current problem-solving task (Driscoll,
2001). This three-leveled view of intelligence
comprises the componential aspect of Sternberg’s
theory, but this is only one of three parts to his larger
triarchic theory of intelligence (Kearsley, 2001c).
Sternberg’s (1988) theory adds the
components of feedback to theories of cognitive
development; this suggests that an individual’s social
interaction has some impact on cognitive
development. In fact, one of the three parts of his
theory is based on the context in which learning takes
place; this subpart of the theory “specifies that
intelligent behavior is defined by the sociocultural
context in which it takes place and involves adaptation
to the environment, selection of better environments,
and shaping of the present environment” (Kearsley,
2001c). The addition of social context as a factor in
cognitive development links Sternberg to the
interactional theories of development of Bruner (1977,
1986) and Vygotsky (1978). These theories, and
others of this type, are premised on the assumption
that learning does not occur in a vacuum. Therefore,
one must discuss the social and cultural contexts of
learning. Driscoll (2001) says, “Of central importance
is viewing education as more than curriculum and
instructional strategies. Rather, one must consider the
broader context in how culture shapes the mind and
provides the toolkit by which individuals construct
worlds and their conceptions of themselves and their
powers” (p. 221).

Once one understands how information is
stored in memory and the developmental process of
learning, the question that naturally arises is how one
can best understand a student’s developmental
progress and what he or she knows. It is important to
address domain-specific knowledge and processing
capacities as well as capacities that are non-domain
specific.
Dietel, Herman, and Knuth (1991) provide
some important guidelines regarding assessment and
evaluation. One of the most important points is that
data gathered during the assessment process, which in
turn, will be used for evaluation purposes, is guided by
one’s beliefs in regard to learning. As one can surmise
from the review of literature on information
processing and memory, this can be a very complex
task. They report that “From today’s cognitive
perspective, meaningful learning is reflective,
constructive, and self-regulated. People are not seen as
mere recorders of factual information but as creators
of their own unique knowledge structures” (p. 3).
How, then, accurate assessments can be made
becomes troublesome.

Assessment and Evaluation Concerns

One might think that a traditional area of
strength for the educational system has been the
assessment of knowledge and cognitive skills.
However, as previously discussed, the cognitive
taxonomy of educational objectives developed by
Bloom et al. (1956) and revised by Anderson and
Krathwohl (2000) show there is a significant
difference between lower- and higher-level thinking
and knowing. Unfortunately, the testing process now
used in the United States overemphasizes lower-level
knowing (Striggins, 2002) The fact that standardized
test scores seem to dictate most educational practice
suggests a direct conflict of interest for ensuring that
students are taught and assessed in higher-level
cognitive skills. Striggins argues that the failure to
balance classroom assessment of higher-level skills
with standardized assessments has drastically hurt the
educational system. More recently, “most of the
national curriculum standards expect teachers to create
active learning environments that stimulate higherlevel student thinking” (Freiberg, 2002, p. 56). In view

ElmCore® Journal of Educational Psychology

(01) 1001