The other day, I was speaking with a fifth, sixth grade teacher
from BC Canada, Michael Jones, about the challenges of standardized
tests. He'd done his Master Thesis on the difference between girls and
boys, the gaps which are quite evident between genders. We discussed the
challenges in teaching, and his real world observations along with the
empirical evidence. He noted that the gaps between gender are changing
as more and more modern day tools are being introduced into the
classroom. Why you ask?
Simple, boy's brains work differently and girl's brains are more geared towards classroom type learning. There is a real difference in the wiring of the brain there and it is really evident at that age. Boys are too distracted and are completely challenged at that age with the uptake and rote memorization in a classroom setting. Then there are differences with ethnicity as well, something that we are told we shouldn't talk about due to our push for equality and political correctness.
Perhaps, you recall the President of Harvard was demoted, forced to resign when he mentioned that females and males learn differently, their brains are formatted differently, and that males are just naturally better at math and science. Well, there is empirical evidence to suggest he is correct on that, but those words are not allowed to be spoken. Still, the gray matter to white matter ratios in the brain are different between men and women and it appears to effect learning in various subjects; reading, writing, literature, philosophy, psychology, mathematics, and science.
My acquaintance and I also discussed the differences in types of learning and which groups of students excelled at which types of subject - the Asian Kids were better at math, drawing, and expanding upon learned knowledge, but those students of European decent seemed to be better at creativity, original thinking, and innovative concepts, which is also quite interesting. Now then perhaps we should also consider how all this relates to standardized tests and how we might be selling some students short.
For instance, if kids are taught to the tests by their teachers, then they will pass those tests, but I ask; have we made them any smarter in the process - that is to say, have we taught them to actually think, rather than rote memorize? Have we assisted them in the ability to think, adapt, or discover ways to use their curiosity, creativity, or critical thinking skills? There is a famous quote by Stephen Hawking, the genius British theoretical cosmologist and physicist of our time; "Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change," and with that said are we truly moving our children towards that level of intelligence?
My acquaintance, Michael Jones, suggested that he was in concert with the thinking of Howard Gardner, and I too concurred with this. Howard Gardner is the famous psychologist who coined the term; Multiple Intelligences. Now then, I personally own many of his books in my home library, and if you are interested in this important sub-topic on the subject of; what intelligence is and how it works, then may I recommend the following titles;
1. "Multiple Intelligences - The Theory and Practice"
2. "Frames of Mind"
3. "Creating Minds - And Economy of Creativity Seen through the Lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliott, Graham, and Gandhi"
4. "Leading Minds - Anatomically of Leadership"
5. "Intelligence Reframed - Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century"
While I have you on this path of books to read, let me introduce you to two more notables in this line of thinking and psychological science; Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Dean Simonton. Professor Simonton has written 300 research papers and a large number of books on genius, eminent achievers, and human brilliance to his credit. Mihaly wrote two excellent books that I might also recommend, again these are in my personal home library;
1. "Flow"
2. "Creativity - Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention"
Now then, on this topic of genius level creativity, innovative thought, rote memorization, and multiple intelligences both myself, and Michael Jones, my acquaintance, have come to the belief that it is very difficult to use standardized has to guestimate or gauge the overall intelligence of an individual. For instance, Michael Jones gave me this example; a student might be having a bad day, something may have happened to them at home; such as they got in a fight with their family, or they are worried about some event, scenario, or circumstance outside of school. In this case they are in survival mode, pre-occupied and they won't be able to focus if it so happens to be the day of the standardized testing.
In that case, they might score very poorly on the test that day. I'd also like to point out the fact that as the coordinator for a think tank which happens to operate online, I've noted another issue, one with adults and standard IQ tests in that some of the most really get members of our group who come up with the most innovative concepts, are not the folks who score genius level IQ on the IQ test. I've also noted that folks who score around 160+ on the IQ test, have only done so because they have taken the test so many times, and decided to keep their highest score.
If one practices taking IQ tests, and learning those types of spatial reasoning problems, and understanding how the makers of those tests go out of their way to fool or trick the test-taker, they learn how to score high, regardless of their IQ. Someone who has a decent level of intelligence, let's say 125 to 130 could indeed score 160 on the IQ test with practice. Of course, there's a big and real difference between 125 IQ and 160 obviously.
Further, sometimes the multiple PhD professors in our think tank are good at solving problems in their niches of science, but they aren't very good at taking information from everywhere and putting it together for a viable solution. This results in an excellent solution to a linear problem, but the world is not linear, and therefore their decisions are dangerous, and might actually lead to unintended consequences which will be far worse than the original challenge or problem.
Now then, let's take this all the way back to education in the fifth and sixth grade. Michael Jones suggests that folks that do really good in school, and academia stay in that sector, and eventually become professors or teachers, and as such they become perfectionists in that field, and if we add in the school administration promoting standardized testing, you can see where we can get into a dilemma where we are not teaching our kids to think.
This concerns me at our think tank because I note that many of the people who attempt to join our think tank have stellar grades and academia credentials and are extremely knowledgeable in their areas of expertise. However, they aren't so good at solving problems, further, I believe this is one of the reasons we are challenged as a society and civilization at the political level, due to the types of experts from academia that are advising our politicians and decision-makers.
Indeed, I hope you will please consider all this and think on it. I would love to discuss this matter with you further if you have the inclination, time, or can contribute additional facts, reports, research, or empirical evidence on this topic. Please shoot me an e-mail if you'd like to have a dialogue, discourse, debate, or discussion along these lines of thinking.
Simple, boy's brains work differently and girl's brains are more geared towards classroom type learning. There is a real difference in the wiring of the brain there and it is really evident at that age. Boys are too distracted and are completely challenged at that age with the uptake and rote memorization in a classroom setting. Then there are differences with ethnicity as well, something that we are told we shouldn't talk about due to our push for equality and political correctness.
Perhaps, you recall the President of Harvard was demoted, forced to resign when he mentioned that females and males learn differently, their brains are formatted differently, and that males are just naturally better at math and science. Well, there is empirical evidence to suggest he is correct on that, but those words are not allowed to be spoken. Still, the gray matter to white matter ratios in the brain are different between men and women and it appears to effect learning in various subjects; reading, writing, literature, philosophy, psychology, mathematics, and science.
My acquaintance and I also discussed the differences in types of learning and which groups of students excelled at which types of subject - the Asian Kids were better at math, drawing, and expanding upon learned knowledge, but those students of European decent seemed to be better at creativity, original thinking, and innovative concepts, which is also quite interesting. Now then perhaps we should also consider how all this relates to standardized tests and how we might be selling some students short.
For instance, if kids are taught to the tests by their teachers, then they will pass those tests, but I ask; have we made them any smarter in the process - that is to say, have we taught them to actually think, rather than rote memorize? Have we assisted them in the ability to think, adapt, or discover ways to use their curiosity, creativity, or critical thinking skills? There is a famous quote by Stephen Hawking, the genius British theoretical cosmologist and physicist of our time; "Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change," and with that said are we truly moving our children towards that level of intelligence?
My acquaintance, Michael Jones, suggested that he was in concert with the thinking of Howard Gardner, and I too concurred with this. Howard Gardner is the famous psychologist who coined the term; Multiple Intelligences. Now then, I personally own many of his books in my home library, and if you are interested in this important sub-topic on the subject of; what intelligence is and how it works, then may I recommend the following titles;
1. "Multiple Intelligences - The Theory and Practice"
2. "Frames of Mind"
3. "Creating Minds - And Economy of Creativity Seen through the Lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliott, Graham, and Gandhi"
4. "Leading Minds - Anatomically of Leadership"
5. "Intelligence Reframed - Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century"
While I have you on this path of books to read, let me introduce you to two more notables in this line of thinking and psychological science; Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Dean Simonton. Professor Simonton has written 300 research papers and a large number of books on genius, eminent achievers, and human brilliance to his credit. Mihaly wrote two excellent books that I might also recommend, again these are in my personal home library;
1. "Flow"
2. "Creativity - Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention"
Now then, on this topic of genius level creativity, innovative thought, rote memorization, and multiple intelligences both myself, and Michael Jones, my acquaintance, have come to the belief that it is very difficult to use standardized has to guestimate or gauge the overall intelligence of an individual. For instance, Michael Jones gave me this example; a student might be having a bad day, something may have happened to them at home; such as they got in a fight with their family, or they are worried about some event, scenario, or circumstance outside of school. In this case they are in survival mode, pre-occupied and they won't be able to focus if it so happens to be the day of the standardized testing.
In that case, they might score very poorly on the test that day. I'd also like to point out the fact that as the coordinator for a think tank which happens to operate online, I've noted another issue, one with adults and standard IQ tests in that some of the most really get members of our group who come up with the most innovative concepts, are not the folks who score genius level IQ on the IQ test. I've also noted that folks who score around 160+ on the IQ test, have only done so because they have taken the test so many times, and decided to keep their highest score.
If one practices taking IQ tests, and learning those types of spatial reasoning problems, and understanding how the makers of those tests go out of their way to fool or trick the test-taker, they learn how to score high, regardless of their IQ. Someone who has a decent level of intelligence, let's say 125 to 130 could indeed score 160 on the IQ test with practice. Of course, there's a big and real difference between 125 IQ and 160 obviously.
Further, sometimes the multiple PhD professors in our think tank are good at solving problems in their niches of science, but they aren't very good at taking information from everywhere and putting it together for a viable solution. This results in an excellent solution to a linear problem, but the world is not linear, and therefore their decisions are dangerous, and might actually lead to unintended consequences which will be far worse than the original challenge or problem.
Now then, let's take this all the way back to education in the fifth and sixth grade. Michael Jones suggests that folks that do really good in school, and academia stay in that sector, and eventually become professors or teachers, and as such they become perfectionists in that field, and if we add in the school administration promoting standardized testing, you can see where we can get into a dilemma where we are not teaching our kids to think.
This concerns me at our think tank because I note that many of the people who attempt to join our think tank have stellar grades and academia credentials and are extremely knowledgeable in their areas of expertise. However, they aren't so good at solving problems, further, I believe this is one of the reasons we are challenged as a society and civilization at the political level, due to the types of experts from academia that are advising our politicians and decision-makers.
Indeed, I hope you will please consider all this and think on it. I would love to discuss this matter with you further if you have the inclination, time, or can contribute additional facts, reports, research, or empirical evidence on this topic. Please shoot me an e-mail if you'd like to have a dialogue, discourse, debate, or discussion along these lines of thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment