How do I know if someone is intelligent? My gut reaction goes to the good old I.Q. score--or aptitude. In practical reality, though, since I don't go around administering IQ tests to all of the people I interact with, I evaluate intelligence by other factors. The ability to draw reasonable, defensible conclusions from data, for example. Being rational. Being able to analyze, evaluate and synthesize information. Connecting ideas in unique and surprising ways.
Gardener's theory of multiple intelligences didn't actually sway my definition much, if at all. I think his "intelligences" are more of inclinations, or innate tendencies. I believe that "real" intelligence is about transferability. It's one thing to be gifted at one particular aspect of life, but that is not the same as being intelligent, in my opinion.
After reviewing Sternberg and Cattell's theories, I do think that my definition needs to shift a little, as well as gain some clarity. I like Cattell's differentiation between static or crystalized intelligence, and fluid intelligence. I think that amassing relatively static knowledge gives the appearance of intelligence, but really, it amounts to experience and learning. The fluid intelligence is what I could classify as "real" intelligence.
Sternberg's Triarchic theory adds a little depth and nuance to my definition as well. If I am arguing that transferability is the key component of intelligence, Sternberg makes me slow my roll and think about the different steps of transferring ones ability as well as the different ways aptitude/intelligence can cross into new areas. I concede that even within my definition of intelligence, there is room for strengths and weaknesses in terms of how intelligence is applied. All three areas he lists-- the creative, analytical, and practical-- are all parts of how I assess intelligence, and it makes sense that these different aspects would contribute to the concerted effort of intelligence in varying quantities.
I think with my current definition of intelligence, I run the risk of judging kids based on how well they apply skills to the different areas of the content. I need to remember that it's not always universal, not all-or-nothing. The best fiction writers may be crap at poetry, the best poets might suck at punctuation. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent. But I also think my definition will impress upon students that just because they think they "suck at English" but are good at math, doesn't mean I buy that crap. They will know that ALL of them can learn and become good at English, or anything else for that matter. That it solely depends on their willingness to put forth the effort to establish those neural pathways. "Can't" is not a reaction. It is "will" or "won't" and the decision is up to each student.
Another area for consideration is Emotional Intelligence, which is (aparently) a better predictor of future success than IQ scores. The wonderful thing about English as a discipline, is that through literature, exploration of complex emotional issues can take place at a "safe" psycological distance. At such a remove, students can analyze situations without the natural defenses raising that might come up if asked to analyze their own behavior. After having safely examined an issue at a distance, students can then turn those concepts inward as a kind of self-assessment. "How would I have handled that?" or "How would that make me feel?" With a combination of reading, discussing and writing about the emotional issues in literature, I think students can not only identify emotions of others, and explore interpersonal relationships, but also identify their own emotions, finding strategies for managing those emotions (which can give students self-motivation, when they realize they can manage their reactions). Reading is awesome!
No comments:
Post a Comment