The case for cognitive modifiability

So how do we tap into this gold mine of intrinsic motivation, assuming that it is lying dormant in the minds and hearts of our students? Keep in mind that memorization does have its place. It is a valuable tool in acquiring information and is often a prelude to understanding. But as we learned in the last chapter, intelligence is not fixed or static. It is dynamic, flexible, and resilient.

The principle of cognitive modifiability is one that every teacher should understand. When we press on to a deeper understanding of the pressures that face us, we can deal with them more successfully.

The wonderful thing about the mind is that it can be changed. This is also an unfortunate thing, for it can be either sharpened or dulled. Left alone or put with less able minds, it can slowly deteriorate. We know much about learning and thinking from a scientific standpoint because our technology has given us the ability to track the workings of the mind by observing the physical brain.

We have discussed that our experiences shape our minds. Quite possibly our social and educational experiences change the very structures of our brains, although this has yet to be proven scientifically. Dynamic, ever-changing fluid intelligence seems open to change throughout a person’s lifetime. This, as I have said, is both good news and bad news.

Modifiability, or the ability to be changed at a deep, intellectual level, is a uniquely human characteristic. It goes beyond the stimulus-response behaviorism demonstrated by Pavlov’s dogs. Many behaviorists consider biological factors the main if not the sole determinants in an individual’s ability to learn and think.

Clearly, the genetic contribution to our abilities or disabilities is a strong one. However, it is not the only one. There is also the powerful force of human social interaction. Professor Reuven Feuerstein (2006) challenges the notion that the genome explains everything relative to brain functioning. His premise is that social-verbal interactions can moderate or change the power of the genome and lessen its influence on cognitive ability. What an amazing thought! It is my conviction that we would forever teach differently if we believed this. Some of the stressors on our list would be changed dramatically.

The biology of an individual does affect the way he responds to his environment.
For example, a child who is hypersensitive, such as those who are severely autistic, resist touch. Yet there is strong evidence that the cultural environment into which a person is born has the power to change the biological factors. In other words, a sensitive, informed adult can, through specific intervention, gradually influence an autistic child to become less and less hypersensitive. This is the theory behind the statement, “Chromosomes do not have the last word.” The human being can be described as the product of the constant, intense, and dynamic encounter between these two heredities, the biological and the sociocultural. But teachers must understand the role they play in the dynamic change process.

Cognitive modifiability refers to the belief that an individual can be changed structurally—that is, biologically—when a mediator (such as a teacher or parent) stands between the material to be learned and the student and helps to frame, focus, and filter the incoming information. Thus, mediated learning involves the purposeful and intentional positioning of an adult between the child and the stimulus in order to add meaning and relevance for the child. An example of mediated learning as opposed to direct exposure to stimuli follows.

Parents are a child’s first mediators. They are the ones responsible for providing the guided experiences necessary for the child to benefit from a lifetime of learning; in fact, there is some evidence that a low level of mediation in the home can result in certain learning difficulties later in school (Feuerstein, 2007). Examples of effective mediation will be woven throughout this book. The critical aspect of mediation is the constructive use of interactive language.

Many busy parents today find it very difficult to mediate learning experiences. If they knew the power of the verbal exchanges, they might make time to interact verbally with their children in meaningful ways. However, even when there is no parental mediation, teachers can provide these opportunities during the school day. Let’s explore some creative ways to apply the theories of cognitive modifiability and mediated learning in the classroom. Much depends on our ability to question and probe thinking.

Surface versus meaningful knowledge

Surface knowledge may be described as anything that can be programmed into a computer (though our computers have become very clever!) or a robot. It is basically memorization of the mechanics of a subject. It aims for correct performance on a test. Meaningful knowledge, in contrast, is anything that makes sense to the learner.

There is increasing evidence that the brain responds very differently to surface knowledge as opposed to meaningful knowledge. For one thing, the brain strongly resists having meaningless information forced upon it. As Piaget believed, our brains are happiest when they are making meaning. Teachers’ brains respond in the same way. We are happiest when we teach a subject we fully understand. Consider the subject that you do not really understand but have to teach anyway. Because you cannot make meaning from the subject, teaching it creates its own kind of pressure.

The search for meaning is at the very heart of motivation. Students must be inspired to wonder, develop intellectual curiosity, and desire to understand and find answers for themselves. We will talk more about the teacher’s role in this adventure in the following chapters.

The need for meaningfulness

Behavioral approaches have predominated in education for over sixty years. Behaviorism, advanced by Skinner (1938), rests on the theory that rewards motivate effective learning and punishment deters slackers. Schools use rewards, such as good grades or passed tests, to promote successful learning.

However, behaviorist theories ignore the power and vitality within students—that is, their innate capacity to create meaning for themselves. If the goal is simply to pass the test, students look to others, such as teachers or more capable peers, to do their thinking for them. According to Caine, as long ago as 1991 we had an entire generation working for grades and tangible rewards. That has not changed in the years since Caine and Caine wrote that; it may even be worse today. Many students have become unmotivated to seek answers for themselves and therefore are deprived of the joy of personal discovery. That same loss of joy affects teachers.

Piaget (1959) believed that children even from infancy were continually engaged in making sense of things. Truly, we are more than machines responding only to “information in, information out.” Thinking educators understand that the teacher’s role is not simply to put “information in” to students. Rather, teaching is the amazing privilege of allowing learners the wonder of discovering for themselves. How can we do this when we have so much information to cover? Many educational theorists agree that the human brain is at its best when it is thinking creatively. But let’s be honest. Are we a bit afraid of creativity, preferring to stay within the dictates of the textbooks? Do you remember that dynamic unpredictability we discussed in Chapter One? Don’t we prefer the predictable, the book with the answer keys? Let’s dig a bit deeper into the knowledge dilemma. Clearly, knowledge can be acquired in different ways and for different reasons.

Find the Way Out

Let’s return to Aesop. As it turns out, his fables contain nuggets of wisdom that apply to many of life’s pressures. Interesting moral lessons may indeed be found here, but how do they apply to education? For those who feel they are in a virtual pressure cooker as they teach our nation’s children, this fable offers some insights. Are we grooming the outside of the “horse” (our students) through polished performances on tests and neglecting the real “food” of fostering a love of learning? It might be interesting to discuss who is really profiting from the high-stakes testing promoted by our “what-to-learn” culture.

Without being cynical, it is appropriate for thinking educators to ask hard questions of those who form educational policy. In fact, it may be useful to share this fable at a faculty meeting, using the interactive method outlined in Chapter One. Meaningful dialogue goes a long way toward helping us find solutions. Take any one item from the preceding list and spend some time sharing the pressures you are feeling. Perhaps generating a corporate-style list of the pros and cons of high-stakes testing would be helpful. Raising academic standards does not have to mean increased pressure for teachers. Let’s purpose to make meaning of the struggles.

Identify the Pressures

The first step in getting out of the cooker is to take inventory of the pressures you are facing. What are they? I am going to suggest a list, and you decide whether you experience these specific pressures.

• Many students are struggling in the classroom and cannot seem to learn no matter how many ways I try to present the material.
• Behavior problems seem to trump instruction, and I spend my time trying to keep order rather than teaching.
• It seems I am always teaching to the next test rather than actually teaching children.
• There is too wide a gap in learner ability in my classroom, so I am teaching to the middle and leaving out the brightest and the slowest.
• There is such competition for scores that my colleagues guard their trade secrets so that there is little sharing of professional knowledge.
• The administrators are not connected to the real issues in the classroom and have little sympathy for our complaints.
• I feel very alone in my job and wonder often if I am in the wrong profession.

You may have found that you identify with more than one of these pressurecooker issues. Any one of them could cause significant stress, leading you to wonder if an explosion is imminent. Thankfully, there are answers. I will address many of these issues in the pages of this book. Begin by being honest about the pressures you feel, and together let’s explore some solutions.

A Survey

Consider changes that you have had to make in your classroom to accommodate mandatory testing.

• What aspects of these changes have been helpful to you and your students?
• What aspects have been difficult?

It may be helpful to make a list of the pros and cons of the new testing requirements; there will likely be some of both. Then compare your list with a colleague’s.

• Do you agree that there is certain content information that forms the body of cultural literacy necessary for all to know who live in the United States or in any given culture?
• Do you think today’s focus on content knowledge is helpful in building a stronger base of informed literacy for all students?
• Do you feel that the way you are now teaching contributes to increased
  intellectual curiosity in your students?
• Are you able to lead them into the pure joy of learning for its own sake and not simply to perform well on a test?
  
• Finally, think about your own situation.
• When was the last time you personally learned something new just for the fun of it?
• Has your love of learning increased or diminished over the past years?
  Can you identify the causes?

Reflect again on your early schooling when you were gaining information by reading in various subject areas. What sparked your interest or made you want to know more? Did you have any difficulty reading for information? Nothing derails intellectual curiosity more thoroughly than a reading problem. If you did not struggle with reading difficulties, how did you feel about those who did? Our attitudes toward those who have educational challenges are usually formed in elementary school. The challenge of struggling learners remains very much with us today. Does their lack of progress fuel frustration for you?

The Pressures Are Real

In reality, many in school settings today feel the pressure of the “cooker.” We are in a global race, and our educational systems are under scrutiny by the rest of the world. America has always been its own worst critic, and our perceptions of our fragile educational system have fired international criticism. Our global “standings” have taken on political ramifications, resulting in demoralized teachers and forcing many to leave this time-honored profession. Some teachers have recently made these comments:

‘‘I am retiring early primarily due to the manner in which I am
forced to teach and assess.’’ ‘‘I don’t teach much reading anymore: I am too busy testing children.’’ ‘‘We feel we are fleeing a sinking ship, after giving our entire lives to our students and our profession.’’ ‘‘It is a sad way to end a career.’’

The pressures have invaded the classrooms and challenged the status quo. Both methods and methodologies are in question, so that teacher confidence and competence have suffered. As the rest of the world looks on, the internal pressures to perform continue to build.

Yet America still leads the world in two important qualities formed in the schools of our nation: creativity and innovation. I was recently on a train in India sitting opposite two professors from South Korea. In our conversation, they remarked that most foreign students long to attend American universities simply because they encourage student debate, are open to fresh new ideas, and are not overly focused on test scores. If this is true at the university level, an important question to be asked is, “What is happening in our elementary and secondary schools?”

Innovation, a blending of intellect and imagination, has truly catapulted and sustained America’s place as a dominant economic force in the global economy. But China and India are on the move in the areas of technology and manufacturing. A great book that explains this phenomenon is The Elephant and the Dragon by Robyn Meredith (2007). China is turning out an abundance of engineers, and India is excelling in technology. But the Chinese themselves have noted that no one from their country has yet won the Nobel Prize. If we downplay innovation and creative thinking at the expense of performing well on standardized tests, we will not only lose our creative teachers but also lose our credibility as a superpower.

Reflect for a moment on this quote (Caine and Caine, 1991):

‘‘Meaningful learning is essentially creative. All students must be given permission to transcend the insights of their teachers.’’

LET’S GET PERSONAL

Have you sensed rising pressure and stress as you prepare students for tests? It is important to remember that test-taking has always been a stress producer for students and teachers alike. I expect that back in 1952 my teacher, Miss Scott, stressed out on testing days.

A New Life

In 1952, my family returned from England to the United States, where I was eager to begin fourth grade in the small town of Bridgeville, Delaware (population 3,500). My father was now out of the military and had returned to his hometown to help my grandfather on the family farm. It was Labor Day, and the roadside market that they ran was particularly busy, so I was amusing myself by playing on the tractor that was standing idle in the field. Before I knew what happened, I had slid from the smooth surface of the tractor’s body where I was relaxing on my stomach and slammed hard onto the ground, breaking my arm in two places.

Being a very religious child (even though I had not seen Jesus under the drape at school in England!), I quickly ran up to the house, fell on my knees, and in a wild, tearful prayer asked God to help me! There was no immediate evidence of such assistance, but I marched bravely to the market and fearfully told my parents about my mishap. They were not too pleased to have to take me to the hospital that day, the busiest of the year. Looking back now, I know it was not a hard-hearted response but a fearful one. We were counting on the income from the sale of our produce.

The moments of my life surged like a pulse, and my memories of them shape me still. The idea of having to walk into a new school with a cast on my arm kept me awake and in tears the night before. Any sense of joy in going to school was quickly overshadowed by a deep insecurity and sadness because of my accident. Would I be laughed at or teased? I was a year younger and smaller than my peers, having begun school in England at the age of four, and that made me even more vulnerable. So I began fourth grade with a cast on my right arm, forcing me to write with my left. This seemed to place me in a very precarious academic position. I not only had to adjust to a very different school culture than the one I had just left but also spoke with a peculiar English accent, and my handwriting looked like I had subnormal intelligence. My teacher, Miss Scott, had certain very proper ways of running a classroom, and never having encountered a child who had been schooled in England before, was not quite sure what to do with me. In the end, I was givenan F in handwriting, and was sent off to the fifth grade in the hopes I could do better.

In addition to these humbling experiences, my father and mother were going through the postwar stresses thatmany families had in those days, so life at home became quite noisy and argumentative. I withdrew more and more into a private world that I could order, and I brought my younger brother, Jackie, along with me. On one memorable occasion, there was a fierce argument going on in the kitchen, then a terrific bang. The pressure cooker had exploded and pieces of macaroni hung everywhere. Jackie and I looked on in wonder asMom and Dad trembled at their good fortune that the lid, which had made a great hole in the ceiling, had not fallen on their heads!

Prepare the Lesson

But before revealing the text on the screen ask, “Jan, what do you know about frogs?” Don’t wait for a hand; ask a specific student and then another. “Ed, do you have more you could add?” “Can you share a personal experience you have had with a frog?” “Describe a frog. In what scientific category could you put a frog? Why? What else would go in that category? What would not?” Explore knowledge through oral language. You are helping students make connections through your questioning.

Project the Text of the Fable

After projecting the text ask, “What do you see here?” Many will want to get right into the content, but focus them with a question such as, “Can you describe the page?” Enlist the response, “A title and a short paragraph.” Ask, “Is the author listed?” “Do you think you might know who the author is?” Aesop should be part of a student’s vocabulary of cultural literacy. Then, “What is a fable?” Lead students by helping them restate their answers to reach a clear, concise definition. Check a dictionary prior to the lesson for clear, specific terminology.

Depending on your class, have the passage read silently or orally and then begin a group discussion on what lesson the fable teaches. You may need to provide some hints. As a class, see if you can come up with ideas. Some examples might be:

• Look before you leap.
• Haste makes waste.
• Think before you rush into something new.

Build Intelligence

Select one of the options and write it on the board after developing it collaboratively as a whole group. This is high-level abstract reasoning. Getting students to talk about the lesson of the fable challenges them to stretch their intellectual powers. And yours. Tell them that.

Ask: “What does this passage teach us about intelligence? How intelligent was the first frog? The second? Were they both able to learn from past experiences? What behavior of the second frog made you think he was intelligent? Can you think of an example from your own life when you were doing something similar to what the frogs did?” Be prepared to share an example from your childhood experience. Students love to hear your stories. This personalization of the fable stretches the learning into a different context, developing cognitive strengths that transfer to other learning.

These suggestions are specifically designed to build intellectual competency, and because they are intended to be answered orally by students, they have the power to direct meaningful thought processes. The power of oral language will be explored later.

Develop Cognitive Competence

As you probe student thinking through open-ended questions, you will
begin to see new cognitive skills emerge. Connecting to students’ prior
experience is always a great place to start. Engage them immediately with
what they already know or have personally experienced. Keep the dialogue
fun, light, and entertaining. This is a great time for you to share your frog
experiences!

Having your students describe the layout or format of the page in clear and precise language helps direct efficient thinking processes and evolves into the great skill of being able to predict tasks by the layout of the page, even before reading the directions. When students begin to anticipate the task based on the page format, it means they are being trained in observation skills that will eventually become internalized and automatic. So, for any new task begin with the question, “What do you see on this page?” Work toward a clear, succinct verbal response. For example: “There are no blanks on this page and no explicit instructions, so I am going to have to infer some things based on the content of the paragraph.”

The ability to put words into categories is an important cognitive skill. Noting likenesses and differences refines intellectual and verbal abilities. In addition, students benefit greatly by hearing their peers express their knowledge. Even more intellectually challenging is the ability to summarize and state a lesson the fable teaches. Have your students work in pairs in future sessions to encourage oral exploration of possibilities. Select a sentence and write it on the board to crystallize the activity. For example, you or a student may write:

Being intelligent and wise means being able to think both backwards to what
happened before and forward to what might happen.

Again, the skill of a master teacher in the learning process provides the structure your students need to direct their own learning. Through your questioning, you are teaching them how to learn. Then the “what,” or content, will come more easily. You are building fluid, intellectual competence. As you purpose to raise your expectations above your students’ actual levels of performance, you will be amazed at the hidden propensities that emerge. Begin by:

• Engaging the quiet ones
• Not calling on the first hand you see
• Moving strategically around the room
• Helping students restate their weak verbal responses
• Being one of the learners
• Setting appropriate challenges
• Modeling your own love of learning
• Building respect for all sincere responses.

REFLECTION

We have begun to infuse some new ideas into the intelligence dilemma. Are you beginning to wonder in your mind and heart if in your classroom in this year you might actually be able to change your students’ abilities to think, reason, remember, and reflect? And to do the same with your own? As teachers, we are not called to simply build fact upon fact; instead, we have the great privilege of renovating the mind’s architecture—in particular, constructing a skylight, a window in those man-made ceilings.

Teaching is both art and science. As you become more confident and competent in your ability to get students talking in meaningful ways to you and to each other, you will begin to equip them with tools that will keep getting better and better. The secret will be unwrapped in the concepts of cognitive modifiability and mediated learning. We will examine both in the next chapter.

Starting School

The year was 1949, and my father had just received military orders to Lakenheath Air Force Base in central England following World War II. Postwar England was a sad and dreary place. It seemed the hearts of the people had been damaged beyond the devastation of the countryside. Ration cards restricted the purchase of many staples, including sugar, butter, and eggs. The war had taken a terrible toll on the country. When we arrived there from America, we could feel the misery. We had come to help.

From my five-year-old perspective, the long, dark days, damp woolen uniforms, meager rations, and never-ending split pea soup for lunch had only a minimal negative impact on my first school experiences. For I was going to school, an event I had yearned for since my earliest memories. I was, as my mother said, ‘‘wired for it.’’ From the first I was clamorous to learn and could hardly contain the wonder of books and desks and teachers.

I began my formal schooling in a very strict parochial school in a little village called Bury St. Edmonds. The nuns were unbending in their discipline. There was certainly no foolishness allowed and definitely no fun. I have few memories of lessons learned or favorite teachers, yet it was here, I believe, that my desire to become a teacher was formed. Maybe it had something to do with the discipline and work ethic or the childlike wonder of learning for its own sake without the frills. Learning to read was one of my greatest joys because it opened to my curious mind whole new worlds.My natural quest for adventure found an outlet in learning, and I soaked it in like a sponge.

However, my curiosity and adventurous spirit got the better of me one day when I climbed up on the altar in the church to see if Jesus really was under that draped chalice as the nuns said he was. I did not see him. Even the severe discipline of Sister Paul Mary did not deter my quest for knowledge. Was I intelligent? I think intellectually curious would be a better description. In any case, my first three years of schooling in England set me on a course of learning for life and helped form many of my beliefs about education. The formation of my intellectual curiosity happened despite the hardships. I did not need worksheets, colorful pages, stars for performance, or grades that affirmed my competence. I had an innate joy in learning for its own sake. As I reflect on the model of the three-story intellect, I see that I yearned for more than just the facts. Staying on the first floor held no appeal. I wanted the skylight.

Reflect for a moment on your early school experiences. Those events helped shape your perceptions of your abilities and aptitudes. They define for you the beginning understandings of your intellectual abilities, your desire to learn, and your attitudes toward other learners. In fact, they may help explain why you became a teacher. As educators, it is helpful for us to examine the circumstances of our lives that led us into this profession. Each of us comes to it with a belief system shaped through personal experiences.

Let’s Get Personal

Consider your classroom:

• Do you see your students in categories?
• Are the bright ones in the front row (literally or figuratively)?
• In contrast, are the slower ones in the back?
• What about those average learners? You may be really surprised to learn that some in the back row actually have an ability to think more abstractly and make more meaningful connections than those who succeed so well in memorizing the school subjects.

Consider your teaching style:

• Do you tend to lower your expectations to a student’s curren level of functioning?
• Do you call on the first hand that is up to keep the lesson moving?
• Do you do most of the talking during a school day? Do you
• consider memorization the goal for mastery of a concept?

Consider your personal level of confidence and competence:

• Do you think you are a good teacher?
• Are you confident that all students in your class are learning?
• Do you give preferential treatment to the bright students who
• learn easily?
• Are struggling learners a chore or a welcome challenge?
• Do you believe your own thinking and learning are modifiable?

The Root of Intelligence

To define intelligence we must first consider the theories and the research done by the individuals who proposed the theories. We have already examined three prominent ones. In addition, the word itself should be analyzed. The root of the word intelligence is intellegere, Latin for “to understand.” Intelligence implies a general mental capacity that varies from person to person and fluctuates over a lifespan. Different individuals have particular propensities or deficits in the areas of reasoning, planning, problem solving, comprehending abstract ideas, and learning from experience. Innate abilities or disabilities in these areas, however, should never be seen as permanent or unmodifiable. All learners can improve their ability to recognize connections as well as develop the capacity to think strategically, thereby laying the groundwork for new knowledge.

Clearly, individuals vary in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to their environments, to engage in different kinds of reasoning, and to overcome obstacles by creative thought. In addition, a given individual’s intellectual performance will vary greatly on any given day and when judged by different criteria. Here is one simple definition that incorporates many of the qualities mentioned:

Intelligence is the ability to recognize and make connections.

This simple definition is extremely relevant to us as we explore learning how to learn in a classroom setting. It may even represent a benchmark for you and your students. How well do you recognize and make connections? Can you teach this skill to your students to enhance their intellectual competency?

Intellectual Potential?

If you ever took an IQ test, you were placed in a category that perhaps “boxed you in” for life. You may have believed that your intellectual potential was measured, when actually your score was merely a predictor of how well you would do in school. The inventors of IQ tests reportedly never believed they were measuring fixed intelligence, yet in practice many educators have translated the scores into biological realities that can never change. Binet, the author of one of the first intelligence tests, is reported to have said, “If it were not possible to change intelligence, why measure it in the first place?” (cited in Campioni, 1989, p. 155).

For example, one look at a child with Down’s syndrome assures many that any attempt to improve on this child’s intellectual functioning would be futile. Yet how many enlightened teachers would declare, “Chromosomes do not have the last word” (Feuerstein, 2006). Many children who have Down’s syndrome today are achieving far more than anyone believed they could fifty years ago. Perhaps the most important quality of intelligence that Feuerstein’s mosaic theory presents is modifiability—that is, the belief that intelligence is not constant or static, but wonderfully open to constructive change for all learners throughout a lifetime.

Mediated Learning

As we enter the arena of intellectual dynamic unpredictability, or the realization that learning is not a lockstep, highly predictable process, we learn to expect change in our students. Embracing the “mosaic model” means that the teacher should believe in the reversibility of poor academic performance, not doubt it. Intellectual skills can be developed by both teachers and students. However, such change does not happen by chance or without understanding the mediator’s role in the process.

The good news for teachers is that all minds can be stretched, inherent abilities unmasked, and thought processes developed—even our own! The secret lies in unwrapping the amazing concept of mediated learning. Mediated learning, in brief, relies on the guidance of an adult, whose role is to help interpret the complex world of input from the environment so that the child can focus, frame, and consider relationships. An extra bonus is that in the process of teaching a child to learn, the teacher too becomes better able to learn and think and make those all important connections. We will discuss mediated learning in more detail in the next chapter.

Classroom Activity

First, copy a series of pictures onto a transparency.

• Tell students you are going to show them the series for five seconds and they are to remember the pictures in that order. Then you will show them the same pictures but in a different order with numbers under them. Your students must put the pictures back into the order of the first transparency.
• Project the first set of pictures on the screen, hold for five seconds (or more if you sense they need it).
• Give a few seconds for processing, then put up the second set of the pictures, which are now in a different order. Have your students write the pictures’ numbers on their papers in the order in which they first appeared.
• Discuss strategies to use for remembering. This is the most important part of the activity. Some may say they made a sentence to remember. Some will say they just kept saying them over and over. Some will have tried to remember just by their using their visual memory. But all should understand the importance of giving the pictures a label (that is, naming the picture mentally: moose, ball, clock, and so on).

Language is key to making connections; it is the DNA of fluid intelligence.If we can improve language, both inner and spoken, then we can affect intellectual functioning. This activity not only builds processing skills through strengthening visual memory but also contributes to strategic thinking and fluid intelligence, the how to learn. Let’s continue to explore the intelligence dilemma.



FIGURE 1.1. Visual Memory Stimulation

Defining Intelligence

How many times have you used the word smart to describe students in your classrooms, wondering if they might be just a bit smarter than you or at least may become so sooner than you would like? What do we mean by smart? Does it mean intelligent, witty, creative, or just clever? It may well be just the ability to adapt to one’s environment as in street smart. Does smart mean the same thing as intelligent? Cleverness may refer to the ability to cleverly adapt to changing circumstances. There seem to be great differences in interpretation among all these words.

There is little consensus among professionals on an operative definition of intelligence. For example, when two dozen prominent theorists from the American Psychological Association were asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen different definitions (1995). The concept is wide open to interpretation. We who are educators should understand some basics. For the sake of the intellectual rigor that upholds our profession, let’s explore the intelligence dilemma together and examine three prominent theories explained by Rafi Feuerstein (1997).

Theory One: Cast Building

It has long been held that there is a measurable general intelligence factor common to all people. Intelligence quotients (IQ’s) have been widely used in educational, business, and military settings. This first theory assumes that there is one basic factor responsible for thinking, or a general mental energy known as “g.” This one factor “g” is presumed to be related to all thinking abilities. Because of its rigidity, this theory could be referred to as “cast building,” as in building a concrete wall. Intelligence is seen as a global capability that causes an individual to respond similarly in all situations, or to all concepts or ideas. Those holding to this theory conclude that intellectual capacity is a relatively easy thing to measure and one that remains fairly consistent across an individual’s lifetime. Is this your belief?

Theory Two: Brick Building

A second theory is a bit more flexible. Rather than cast building, it could be described as brick building. This theory refers to intelligence that has a number of factors responsible for various thinking abilities, and these factors are separate from one another, like bricks in a wall. Separation is due to the content involved in the thinking processes, as in Gardner’s (1993) multiple intelligences theory. This separation of process and content implies different ways of thinking relative to different subject areas. For example, you may have a spatial intelligence that helps you design buildings and find your way in a strange city but not be able to read very well.

A problem, according to Feuerstein, in considering intellectual ability as separate areas, or “bricks,” is that one area of intellectual competence presumably has nothing to do with any other areas of cognitive strength or weakness. That is, this second theory presumes that the systems that support the ability to design a building or read a book have no overlap. Nevertheless, it does introduce some flexibility into the intelligence dilemma.

Have you landed on a specific position yet? Can you be supersmart in one area and really dumb in another? Or are there supporting systems such as flexibility of thinking that underlie both?

Theory Three: Mosaic Model

A third theory could be called the mosaic model. This model resembles a colorful, creatively designed mosaic tile as opposed to a concrete or brick wall. The theory is more flexible than the cast building theory and more general than the brick building one. The mosaic model integrates the features of the other two by proposing:

• Intelligence is built from many factors within an individual, both cognitive and experiential.
• These many factors are general and can be related to all cognitive behaviors (like designing or reading).
• Intelligence can be described as either fluid or crystallized (Cattell, 1987).

You could picture fluid intelligence as being the background on which the mosaic tiles are placed. Fluid intelligence consists of thinking strategies that are separate from the content being learned. In other words, it is how one thinks, not what. Crystallized intelligence, in contrast, is the specific knowledge learned by the individual or the content or body of knowledge that the individual has mastered. It is the mosaic tiles themselves that represent functional cognitive systems.

In other words, this theory assumes intelligence that is separate from the knowledge learned or content measured by many IQ tests. Fluid intelligence— the how to learn—can cross over into many content areas and is open to constructive change. For example, strengthening visual processing could contribute to greater fluency in reading, thereby improving comprehension skills. In fact, improvement in fluid intelligence can contribute to content mastery or crystallization of knowledge. This is great news for all educators. It means that limits that were previously set now have a skylight—a window in the ceiling formerly imposed by intelligence predictions.

Let’s return to our skylight analogy. According to Holmes (1993), there are one-story intellects, two-story intellects, and three-story intellects with skylights. Those who only collect facts are one-story individuals. Two-story individuals compare, reason, and generalize, based on the facts of the fact collectors. Three-story individuals idealize, imagine, and predict. Their best illumination comes from above, through the skylight. If we can begin to understand that intelligence is wonderfully open to change throughout a lifetime and that, as teachers, we can influence intellectual development though our teaching, then the how to learn will take new priority over the what.

In one sentence, write what you believe about intelligence.

Now, apply your belief to your own intelligence and the way you function cognitively. Do you think the way in which you learn has an impact on what you learn or master? In other words, does your fluid intelligence, your basic cognitive functioning, provide for the acquisition of knowledge?

Let’s take an example. Suppose you are having difficulty finding your way in a strange town. You have a map but cannot seem to orient yourself to the street directions. In fact, you are confused about left and right. Based on past experience, you know that stopping to ask for directions may confuse you even more. Then you remember a strategy to deal with this problem. You stop the car and turn the map in the direction that you are traveling. All turns then can be handled easily, because you have oriented yourself in space.

This same remedy, reorienting either yourself or the material, can apply in other contexts. This is an example of fluid intelligence because it crosses categories. In other words, the correct orientation of visual information is useful in other tasks, such as reading, regardless of their content. If good teaching can contribute to structural changes in fluid intelligence, then the content to be learned will become crystallized more easily whatever the subject area.

Are you with me so far? We will add meat to these bones in succeeding chapters.

Let’s get practical for a moment. All theories must be tested in the classroom. Engage students in an activity that will affect fluid intelligence in the realm of visual processing.

A Conceptual Understanding of Intelligence

We hear a lot about intelligence these days. Is it an important concept? What should we as teachers understand about it? Definitions of intelligence are controversial. We have certain beliefs based on prior experience that must be challenged in light of emerging knowledge in the fields of education and psychology. Let’s take a closer look.

If I asked you to rate yourself as above average, average, or below the norm in intellectual functioning, where would you place yourself? This is an important question. It has been said that teachers are the most fragile of professionals, often regarding their own intellectual competency as low to moderate. Examining your personal assumptions about intelligence may remove some misconceptions and provide new ways of thinking about yourself and your students.

Our beliefs guide our practice. It is necessary to examine our beliefs about our students, ourselves, and yes, even our own capabilities in light of current theories and research. As we dig a bit deeper into the theories, perhaps we will discover that we and our students are more intelligent than we ever dreamed. Let’s probe new insights and explore together the meaning of intellectual propensity. Hang in with me here. We are going to set the stage for some amazing discoveries. My strong conviction is that you will not be the same teacher when we have finished our journey together.

Opening The Skylight

I CAN REMEMBER, as a child, seeing a skylight for the first time. The ability to see clouds and blue sky through the roof gave me a thrilling sense of delight. It meant the ceiling did not have the last word. It meant endless possibilities, imagination, vision, dreams. Today, as an educator, I have several skylights in my home that continue to remind me of a world in which there are no limits, only possibilities. That is what this book is about.

As teachers we operate in a world of limits. There are time lines, deadlines, tests that have ceilings, students who have limitations. We desperately need to find the skylights. What exactly are these windows in the roof in relation to our noble profession? I will try to build the case that skylights relate to thinking, learning, assessment, and intelligence.


We underrate our brains and our intelligence. Formal education has become such a complicated and overregulated activity that learning is widely regarded as something difficult that the brain would rather not do. Is it possible that the brain yearns to learn and that good teaching can actually improve the way the brain functions? This is the idea that the skylight represents. This opening in the ceiling implies a lifting of restrictions, unimagined possibilities, a transcending of the predictable. So what do I mean by intelligence?

Intelligence may be best described as an abstract concept, such as beauty or honesty, rather than one that is concrete. The attributes beauty and honesty are measurable, but with greater or lesser objectivity, depending on who is doing the evaluating. And it is certainly agreed that these attributes can change over time. So it is with intelligence.

Intelligence, I would argue, is not a concrete thing, like a house or an egg crate composed of rooms or cells. Nor is it a trait of an individual—such as blue eyes—that cannot be changed. Intelligence is better viewed as a state that is fully able to be changed under the right conditions (Feuerstein, 2007).

A more complete and compelling definition of intelligence for our purposes as educators is this (Feuerstein, 2002):

Intelligence is more correctly defined as the continuous changing state of a person best reflected in the way that individual is able to use previous experiences to adapt to new situations.

The concept is in fact summed up by the words the ability to learn from what has been learned. This propensity for flexibility and dynamic unpredictability is within every learner. This assurance that each individual has the propensity for change becomes the real joy of teaching. In fact, believing in these new possibilities can help us adjust what might be an outdated concept in our own thinking—that intellectual potential is static, unchanging. Let’s begin to unwrap some new concepts.