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:
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.
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.
