GT Course

Assignment #4

October 23, 2006

Karen Wagner

What is intelligence? I like the definition Howard Gardner gives in Intelligence Reframed, his follow up book on multiple intelligences. Gardner says intelligence is “a biophysical potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture.” He further explains that intelligences are not things that can be seen or counted, rather potentials that may or may not be activated. Dr. Mel Levine, a physician who has studied brain development and lectures on “specialized minds” describes intelligence in a similar way, and says that awareness of potential is the “flashlight that helps kids find their way to the switch that turns on ability.”

Both of these scientists appreciate the complexity of intelligence, and they share the belief that cultural influences can make a critical difference in whether or not a potential intelligence is developed. Neither expresses much confidence in traditional intelligence testing methods beyond predicting how well an individual might perform in a traditional school setting, because there are so many issues that affect learning that cannot be measured on any test (though Gardner concedes that the greater a value society places on a type of intelligence, the more elaborate the steps to measure it and achieve excellence will exist). Both believe that teachers are in a good position to observe and nurture the development of intelligence. Gardner discusses the difficulty of developing standardized assessments for intelligences like bodily-kinesthetic, musical or intrapersonal. His Project Spectrum study created learning centers relating to the various forms of intelligence, and then observed children as they demonstrated the ability to solve problems or create products. Though they gathered much rich data, he cautions that such observations measure intelligences only in that moment of time, and don’t necessarily predict future outcomes.

Levine says that we not only need to have more than one way of evaluating a child, we are “morally obligated” to make sure we understand the kids who are struggling and find ways to help them rather than punish them for not learning. He suggests that really observant teachers can figure out why a child is having “output failure” based on neurodevelopment functions. If a student lacks the procedural memory, pattern recognition or spatial ability to solve a word problem, can we be more flexible in designing our tests so different kinds of minds can be successful? Is there a way we can use what we have learned about brain development and intelligences to inform our instruction for understanding the differences between kids and responding to those differences? And how do we help students mobilize and connect their intelligences with respect to their inclinations and today’s cultural preferences?

Daniel Goleman has explored emotional intelligence, and more recently “social intelligence” (which I see as elaborations on Gardner’s intra- and inter-personal intelligences). In his study of brain development, he is particularly interested in what happens when parts of the brain are damaged, and in the neuroplasticity of brain cells – what things can be relearned or “rewired” in the brain. What things can enable or disable the brain’s capacity to develop certain intelligences?

Reading about brain development makes me wonder about the identification of gifted and talented children. Are we casting a broad enough net? Most intelligence tests that exist lean toward measuring linguistic and logical skills. Gardner questions if the test developers had been business people, politicians or entertainers, might we be testing different faculties? Because of the time constraints and increased emphasis on assessments, teachers may not have the energy or inclination to look for demonstrations of intelligences beyond those that typically help students succeed on tests. Certainly there are teachers that help provide those “flashlights” that Levine says are instrumental to children becoming aware of abilities. Sadly, there are too many focused on punishing kids for not learning in the ways we expect them to and have designed curriculum and assessments to measure. It scares me to think about how many kids are not getting the opportunity to unlock potential. Once again I recall how many of the students I worked with in JMG had GT potential recognized in earlier grades, but by high school were largely disaffected learners. What happened??

Shifting focus a bit, I did do the K-Bit test. The score came out in the same range as my IQ measured back in grade school, which I found interesting in light of the reading I had done. Perhaps it only confirms that I have always been a strong linguistic and logical thinker; I have usually been a good tester. Completing “My Self-Portrait” confirmed this information as well, though I was surprised to have such a high body-kinesthetic score (28!). With the exception of musical and technology, all my scores were within 2-3 of one another. This balance probably reflects my age and need to have further developed some areas for continued success in personal relationships and work settings. Doesn’t everyone “layer on” things they need to know? If we all eventually learn what we need to know to be successful, how does this impact how we teach and evaluate kids in school settings? Levine suggests that we grade students only on those areas they are passionate about, letting students choose where to place emphasis. Without the pressure of a grade in a subject less compelling to a student, might they learn more?

As usual, more learning has raised more questions.

# posted by MSAD 48 Gifted and Talented Program @ 10:15 AM