Pre-service teachers and conceptions of intelligence in the Scottish context: challenging a unidimensional view

Figures & data

Figure 1. Tripartite frame – understanding and engaging with intelligence.

Table 1. Nature of ability – how do I conceptualise ability/intelligence as an abstract concept?

Nature of ability/intelligence	PGDE PT	PGDE ST
General	14%	34%
General + specific	78%	60%
Only separate specific intelligences	8%	6%

Table 2. Ability/Intelligence – fixed or fluid.

Ability/intelligence – fixed or fluid	PGDE PT	PGDE ST
Fixed	6%	3%
Hard work = increase intelligence	19%	28%
New skills/knowledge but no increase in intelligence	75%	69%

Table 3. Ability/Intelligence – innate or shaped by environment.

Ability/intelligence – innate or shaped by environment	PGDE PT	PGDE ST
Wholly shaped by genetics		6%
Mainly genetic and to lesser extent environment	53%	30%
Mainly environment and to limited extent genetics	31%	47%
Wholly shaped by environment		2%
Invalid responses	16%	5%

Table 4. Any link between grades and ability.

Any link between grades and ability	PGDE PT	PGDE ST
Grades do not reflect intelligence	8%	9%
Grades = intelligence + other factors	78%	65%
Grades good indicator of intelligence	14%	26%

Table 5. How do student teachers gauge children’s intelligence and what influence can teachers have on children’s intelligence?

Children’s intelligence	Primary teachers n = 46	High School teachers n = 41	Teacher influence on pupil intelligence	Primary teachers n = 46	High School teachers n = 41
Comparison with others	7%	-	I can increase children’s intelligence but always a limit	30%	22%
Mostly comparison with others but also individual progress	24%	18%	I can help children learn new things but can’t change intelligence	45%	56%
Progress over time	17%	20%	I can help children become more intelligent – there is no limit	23%	22%
Mostly progress over time but also comparison with others	52%	62%	No response	2%

Table 6. Primary student teachers evaluating pupil intelligence.

Primary student teachers N = 41	Would use this to form a view of intelligence (please tick all that apply)	Priority 1 = high priority; 7 = low Most frequent priority given
Standardised tests such as Edinburgh Reading Test	36%	4
Exam results/national tests	29%	2
IQ tests	5%	6
Participation in class	93%	1
Class tests/other class work	95%	1
Other (please specify) Teacher observation	85%	2

Table 7. High school teachers evaluating pupil intelligence.

Secondary student teachers N = 46	Would use this to form a view of intelligence (please tick all that apply)	Priority 1 = high priority; 7 = low Most frequent priority given
Standardised tests such as Edinburgh Reading Test	22%	6
Exam results/national tests	96%	2
IQ tests	11%	7
Participation in class	91%	1
Class tests/other class work	96%	1
Other (please specify) Teacher observation	43%	2