This paper examines Robert Sternberg's Developing Expertise Model as an alternative to conventional theories of intelligence. It outlines how Sternberg challenges the traditional view of intelligence as a fixed, heritable attribute and proposes instead that intelligence reflects an ongoing process of skill acquisition across five interacting domains: metacognitive skills, learning skills, thinking skills, knowledge, and motivation. The paper also addresses the g-factor debate, the cultural bias embedded in standardized intelligence tests, and the limitations of Western-centric assessments in predicting real-world success.
This paper demonstrates effective critical summarization: the writer does not merely describe Sternberg's model but situates it against competing theories (e.g., the g-factor, crystallized vs. fluid intelligence) and evaluates its implications. This technique shows the ability to synthesize theoretical frameworks and assess their explanatory power.
The paper opens with an introduction that states the thesis and defines key terms. A central section details the five components of the Developing Expertise Model with concrete examples. Two subsequent sections address the g-factor debate and cultural bias in testing, respectively. The conclusion synthesizes the paper's argument and reinforces Sternberg's critique of conventional intelligence measurement. This five-part structure keeps the argument focused and logically progressive.
This paper examines human intelligence in the context of the Developing Expertise Model. The author argues that the conventional view of what intelligence is and how it can be measured is incorrect. He puts forth an alternative perspective that views intelligence as a form of developing expertise and intelligence tests as measuring only a limited aspect of that development. The author concludes by stating that intelligence-related phenomena can be better understood using this new model.
Traditionally, intelligence has been viewed as a relatively stable attribute developed through an interaction between heredity and environment. Intelligence tests measure a variety of skills such as vocabulary, reading comprehension, and arithmetic problem solving. Furthermore, test results are believed to predict one's future success. In contrast, developing expertise is defined as "an ongoing process of the acquisition and consolidation of a set of skills needed for a high level of mastery in one or more domains of life performance" (Sternberg, 1999, p. 359). Although people differ in their rate of expertise development, the main constraint is not some fixed level of capacity, but rather purposeful engagement — such as active participation, role modeling, direct instruction, and reward.
That said, this model does not rule out the potential for genetic factors to limit one's ability to develop a certain amount of expertise. Nevertheless, these genetic factors cannot be directly measured or even reliably estimated. "Rather, what is measured is a portion of what is being expressed, namely, manifestations of developing expertise" (Sternberg, 1999, p. 360).
The Developing Expertise Model has five key elements: metacognitive skills, learning skills, thinking skills, knowledge, and motivation. These elements are distinct, yet they interact with and influence one another. Development in one domain, however, does not necessarily lead to development in another.
Metacognitive skills refer to the way one understands and controls one's own cognition. For example, what an individual knows about writing an essay — such as the steps involved and how those steps can be executed effectively — illustrates metacognitive skills in action. The seven major metacognitive skills are: problem recognition, problem definition, problem representation, strategy formulation, resource allocation, monitoring of problem-solving, and evaluation of problem-solving.
Learning skills refer to knowledge acquisition and are divided into two categories: explicit learning skills (i.e., conscious efforts to learn) and implicit learning skills (i.e., knowledge acquired unconsciously). Examples of learning skills include selective encoding, selective combination, and selective comparison.
Thinking skills refer to performance and include critical thinking skills (e.g., evaluating), creative thinking skills (e.g., inventing), and practical thinking skills (e.g., applying). Knowledge includes declarative knowledge (e.g., facts and concepts) and procedural knowledge (e.g., knowing how something is done). Finally, motivation includes achievement motivation (e.g., strivers constantly trying to better themselves) and competence motivation (e.g., developing a sense of self-efficacy).
Many intelligence theorists claim that human intelligence is a relatively stable attribute, citing as evidence the stability of the alleged general factor — the g-factor — of human intelligence. However, this g-factor may instead be the result of an interaction between an individual's latent abilities and the forms of expertise they developed in school. From this point of view, the g-factor could be made stronger or weaker depending on the type of schooling one receives. In fact, Sternberg argues that Western forms of schooling may have created the g-factor phenomenon by teaching precisely the skills that intelligence tests measure.
A traditional intelligence theorist would argue that schooling develops crystallized intelligence (i.e., the ability to use acquired knowledge and skills) but not fluid intelligence (i.e., the ability to acquire and reason with new information). Conversely, according to the Developing Expertise Model, both crystallized and fluid intelligence are equally susceptible to development through schooling or other aspects of an individual's environment.
The author concludes by stating that intelligence tests measure only a small portion of developing expertise, and that there are many other forms of developing expertise relevant to life success that are not captured by such tests. Furthermore, intelligence tests tend to measure the skills valued by the Western world, whereas many other cultures value different forms of expertise. He therefore concludes that current intelligence tests do not adequately measure one's potential for future success.
You’re 88% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.