In Jonah Lehrer’s most recent post on “The Frontal Cortex” he discusses the topic of “Attention & Intelligence” in relation to Walter Mischel’s marshmallow task and a recent Rutgers study on general intelligence and selective attention. Lehrer argues that the key is “controlling the spotlight” and developing our ability to control our focus. Much of what Lehrer talks about is fascinating, and I urge you to read his post.
More importantly, I want you to be made aware of a comment that he makes in his post where he discusses what some people believe intelligence to be (it’s not).
I think most people assume that intelligence is largely a matter of learning and memory, so that smarter people end up with more facts in their head. (We’ll call this Trivial Pursuit model of intelligence.) This helps explain why people searched for centuries for a correlation between brain mass and raw intelligence, as if Einstein was nothing but a massive hard drive.
I hope that you are all chuckling right now about the idea that people were actually searching for centuries about a correlation between brain mass and raw intelligence. I think it’s even funnier when we come to think of the fact that we can’t even decide exactly what intelligence is and how to assess it.
We can even start thinking about it this way. What Lehrer calls “the Trivial Pursuit model of intelligence”, is what teachers call a multiple-choice test. Now this type of bizarre questioning isn’t limited to multiple choice tests. It can come in any form where there is a single right answer made up of some factoid that takes no deep thinking at all. Sadly, many teachers still believe that this is the way to judge whether or not their students are learning. Then they become sad, disheartened, or angry when kids don’t know the answers to their ridiculous, irrelevant factoids and minutiae.
Let me finish up with one more quote from his blog:
…intelligence isn’t just about remembering abstract facts – it’s about controlling what thoughts we’re thinking about in the first place. (To put it another way, being smart is not just about having a larger working memory – it’s about having more precise control over what’s in working memory.) The brain is a bounded machine and the world is a confusing place, full of errata and distractions – intelligence is the ability to parse reality so that it makes just a little bit more sense. (As William James famously wrote, “Everyone knows what attention is…It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others.”) Our mind has strict cognitive limitations – selective attention helps us compensate.
Note the “strict cognitive limitations” part and how “selective attention helps us compensate”.
For more of my thoughts on the relevance of the “Marshmallow Task” please click here.
Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.
As a 21st century educator, I’m a little disturbed by the consistent derision that meets learning that includes the acquisition of facts (factoids?) to recall. Although I fully embrace the information age and recognize the availability of facts and information at the touch of a Google button, I do believe true problem solving and critical thinking are based in a fairly deep understanding of the content at hand.
While the content does not need to be as narrowly defined as is proposed in some circles, there does need to be some content to grasp in order to demonstrate higher levels of application. Basic literacy, including proper grammar, and basic numeracy are foundations of communication and problem solving. Having some accountability for assuring that all children have the opportunity to have these tools in their toolboxes seems like a reasonable minimum standard. And sometimes a multiple choice question is a valid way to measure the acquisition of skills and knowledge. After all, there may be no one correct way to think about and solve a problem, but sometimes there is one correct answer.
The main problem is that many see those minimum standards and measures of accountability as the definition of education itself, pushing to narrow the curriculum to have a laser-like focus on tested skills. This approach ignores the easy to agree upon belief that high quality education will immerse students in a rich, engaging environment that offers opportunities for solving problems in multiple ways and constructing new knowledge through analysis and synthesis. But we can’t ignore that analysis and synthesis will be more rewarding and effective if students have an elementary grasp of what is being studied.
It seems that the battle lines have been drawn, and it’s either factoids and rote memorization or higher order competencies with what seems to be a disregard for the canon of knowledge built through history. Wouldn’t a first class learning environment offer all students the best of both sides of this discussion?