At 08:16 AM 2/21/2005, you wrote:
>Hi Sue,
>Aren't skills part of the learning package, whereas intelligence is the
>gas to make that package run?
To postulate a separate driver seems to me to invoke an extra unnecessary
layer.
>But having said that. I tend to agree
>about the specializing that is going on with the notion of intelligence.
>This particular workshop was geared toward instructors who teach English
>to speakers of of other native languages and in that context, the
>different intelligences were presented as (stretching this) cars other
>than a Ford sedan. I also think the realm of MI is really about tracking
>the brain and the locales of its various jobs and then making
>applications of the knowledge. So for example, they know that a region
>of the brain controls musical aptitude and recognition of beats, etc.
Recognition of beats, I would call a basic level skill. This has pertinence
to many different areas of experience. Not just music but sport, poetry,
fluent handwriting, stress in speech, dance among many other activities
all use depend at least to some extent on the recognition of beats. Musical
ability presupposes some sensitivity to recognition of beats, but also
pitch, intonation, pattern recognition, physical control etc.
>Since it is a brain function that can be identified, then maybe the same
>"theys" or maybe different "theys" then admitted to the reality of
>musical intelligence. What is making this fall apart though, is the
>newest intelligences, like the "Existential" and the "Digital" and here,
>the cart came before the horse. These were theorized prior to being
>mapped, if I recall correctly.
It seems to me absurd to assume that we are all born with a specific
'intelligence' (ie 'driver' as you have above) that relates to a relatively
new technology. A couple of generations (or more) ago there would have been
some people who were specially keyed into observing say the weather for
farming purposes, animal tracks for hunting purposes, relating colour to
the temperature of a fire (as potters who use long kilns still do today).
We can see how both personal/economic need and cultural supports would
enable these skills to be developed on the basis of observation,
comparison, salience etc. We don't need to relate each one of them to a
specialised intelligence.
>That is why they're "questionable,"
>because they haven't been able to find a geographic location for these
>theoretical intelligences. Anyway - it is still all exciting and thought
>provoking to me.
>
>I almost said that your quick aptitude with learning Japanese after
>drawing might be because of the pictographic nature of the Japanese
>alphabet. Glad I didn't because, I'm wrong, aren't I? So sorry there's
>no nice correlation like that because those are so much more enjoyable.
>I guess it's something to do with opening up new neural pathways, and
>like any exercise, once something is done the first time and then
>repeated, it makes like activities easier.
>Ann
Yes, I'm sure new neural pathways can give the brain more overall
flexibility. Kanji (one of the three Japanese kinds of scripts) is based on
Chinese characters and so pictographic, is visual, but in a way quite
different to drawing from life. Instead of observation and analysis you
have the memorisation and recognition of sequences of strokes similar to
signs or symbols. This conceptual approach is what you have to be able to
detach yourself from to draw in a realistic manner.
But to return to what I said in my first post, I do think that Gardner's
theory helps us teachers to realise that individuals have their own
profiles with some strengths and weaknesses and that concepts need to be
introduced and reinforced through a number of different channels. It also
helps us to recognise the pure variety of these strengths, and make things
like good communication skills more 'respectable' by giving them the name
'intelligence'.
best, Sue
|