Education
has used IQ for over 100 years and it has it’s uses. It also has
it’s limitations. I get a reasonably high number on IQ tests but it
gave only a small aid on the rugby pitch, it did not help me much on
the piano or learning Spanish. These limitations mirror the
observations of work colleagues of graduates, who spot deficiencies
very quickly if not perfectly accurately. IQ is used in education and
predicts achievement in education quite well. Now it does tend to be
used by people with higher IQs to assess and select people. Now I
know when I try to learn a language or musical instrument that I can
slowly pick things up. But next to me have been people who have
progressed much faster. Some people have high IQ and can pick up
musical skills quickly. So it’s not my idea that IQ is insufficient
but most ‘jobs’ are not just IQ. They have requirements of
interpersonal skills or Body-kinaesthetic skills for instance. IQ is
not as good a predictor of real world success, it is one part of the
picture that is measurable. Limiting to just one aspect that is
measurable cherry picks and diminishes accuracy of judgements.
It is an oversimplification of assessment and although it has truth
within it, it misses too much.
These limitations have been noted for
a long time. One answer is quite well known is Howard Gardner’s
multiple intelligences. In this he lists 7 intelligences. These cover
the gamete of human abilities and although some flexibility is needed
in categorising and use they are quite useful. The intelligences;
Musical, Body-kinaesthetic, Logical-Mathematical, Linguistic,
Spatial, Interpersonal and Intra-personal are quite clear for most
lay people when explained. He has also talked of 5 minds disciplined,
synthesising, creating, respectful and ethical which dovetail with
the intelligences.
A
possible approach for education is to use these ideas to develop a
curriculum (with room to manoeuvre). It would replace a traditional,
bureaucratic curriculum not really based on the learners and
learning. People have strengths and weaknesses in each of the
intelligences some are clear others are not as obvious. Through early
years education each intelligence area could be tried with some
assessment of ability and achievement. This could help guide
productive areas that can be prioritised with higher chances of
progress. The strong areas would be prioritised so that students
could progress or excel. Learners would concentrate on 1 to 3 areas
with majors and minors. A forth fun area can be added for a break or
of widening perspective. The myth of all excelling in everything
cannot be done in existing systems with many capable people not
having a realistic chance to progress and others having many
opportunities over confident of their ability.
Syllabuses
could still be formed around the intelligences with general levels
such as excellent for the top 15% performers advanced for the next
15% and general for the next 15%. Those that are not in the top 45%
would not follow that specific intelligence. Although a fun syllabus
for others to experience the area if motivated or for those who have
too many areas of ability. It would enable a reduction by omission of
week areas where it is a very hard task for teacher and learner.
Teaching could be by specialists (like subject specialisms today) and
of mostly higher ability groups that will progress with fewer
distractions. Each intelligence is still wide especially if the
syllabus is not capped and the most able held back until convenient
(bureaucratic) exam times. A range of ‘qualifications’ and
achievements would be built up up until probably 18 years of age. Now
some would be into degree level in their better academic specialisms,
or would be operating at workplace level performance for other
intelligences.
Obviously key skills would need to be
pursued so that at 18 years for instance the basic levels would be
achieved. Some general idea like the 5 GCSEs (or baccalaureate) at C
or above including key skills like Maths, English and Science. These
though are not actually needed until 18 years for the work place or
further education (i.e Universities at present).
Teaching
too would be clearer with some reduced pressure to get very
unmotivated and incapable students up to an artificial C level (maybe
for exam day only). Most groups would be made up of like groups with
similar strengths and weaknesses. Teachers will have groups with
similar weaknesses so strategies will work for the majority of a
class, rather than needing many different teaching strategies or
ignoring many learners. There will always be room for teachers who
are good at building up people (of all ages) in key skills and there
will be a need to learn how to teach logical-mathematical
intelligence to musically intelligent gifted start with maths and
science of music etc. These syllabuses and groups would be easier to
organise and have fewer distractions. When key skills are being
brought up to minimum type standards they will be with older children
who have have had success in their strong areas and more transferable
learning skills, hopefully with more motivation and confidence. These
factors would help with personal examples of a disciplined mind (in
their strength) that can be applied to weaker areas. They will be
able to (with educator support) synthesise (connect) within their
stronger areas which can be used as analogies for development in
weaker areas. They will be more creative as they develop in their
strong areas and respectful of others with different strengths when
they have made progress themselves and know what others have done to
progress. The wider understanding of strengths and weaknesses of all
will provide evidence for the ethical mind.
Now
people want simple one stop solutions and measurements but these are
very limited and harm us all. Progress is the only measurement of
progress not an artificial snap shot of a one for all exam. Learners
are failed by the system but so are educators, and the rest of the
country with false ideas of ability. Finding out what people really
can do, reducing the labels when some areas are favoured and
perceived as more important sometimes just because they can be
measured. There
is also a restricted group of measurements used. The Myers-Briggs
Indicator is a popular
test that evaluates psychological preferences. I have discussed
problems with Autism and disability issues, more generally it can
(and is) argued (quietly) that Introverts
are not catered for in education (they prefer quieter environments
and personal time and space) within a loud bustling loudest noise
wins environment. Now these count as a third to a half of all people
who are being disadvantaged in a similar way as those with Autism.
Other aspects that are not measured are also disadvantaging some
hiding their potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment