Monday, March 21, 2005
Flexing some muscle
I like this article I read today on different types of intelligence. It kind of crystallized something that I've been thinking about for a while. I think schools do students a disservice when they teach them that there's only one kind of smart kid, and it's the one who does well on tests. I did well in all of my school classes, and so people tended to think of me as intelligent. I'd argue that I had a particular kind of intelligence, and that once you start living your life outside of the framework of classes and tests, that may or may not make much of a difference in how your life actually plays out. You go to college, and you're suddenly thrown together with a lot of people who have your particular brand of intelligence. And you get a job, and you are better at some things and get your ass totally kicked at others. And really, it doesn't matter what type of intelligence you have; I think it matters how well you play to your strong points. (Going by the article's list, I think mine are linguistic and intrapersonal.) But it also doesn't help to focus on your strengths to the exclusion of everything else. To really become completely comfortable with yourself, I think you have to push yourself to explore your weak points too.
One of mine is definitely what the article terms "bodily kinesthetic intelligence". I've never been particularly athletic, and I've always had a complete aversion to team sports. For a long time I just thought that it wasn't something that interested me, but then I realized that it was a fear of failure. I felt like I was on the low end of the scale for physical grace and eye-hand coordination, and I hated the way that made me feel embarrassed when I tried a sport in front of other people. So I just didn't try. It wasn't like I became some kind of hermit; I rode my bike, I played frisbee, I swam. I just didn't feel particularly good at any of it. I've never really accomplished anything that made me proud to be in my body and proud of what that body could do.
So now I'm working on it. I'm going to the gym, where I can use my body without having to master a whole new set of skills. (If you can put one foot in front of the other and walk you can pretty much use a treadmill or an elliptical trainer, or a stairmaster.) And I'm slowly trying new things, like rock climbing, where I can do them at my own pace, and work on improving my own skills without the pressure of my lack of talent affecting anyone else's enjoyment of the sport.
I want that feeling of accomplishment when my body is able to do something that it couldn't have a year ago or a month ago. I want to feel joy at being in my own skin.
One of mine is definitely what the article terms "bodily kinesthetic intelligence". I've never been particularly athletic, and I've always had a complete aversion to team sports. For a long time I just thought that it wasn't something that interested me, but then I realized that it was a fear of failure. I felt like I was on the low end of the scale for physical grace and eye-hand coordination, and I hated the way that made me feel embarrassed when I tried a sport in front of other people. So I just didn't try. It wasn't like I became some kind of hermit; I rode my bike, I played frisbee, I swam. I just didn't feel particularly good at any of it. I've never really accomplished anything that made me proud to be in my body and proud of what that body could do.
So now I'm working on it. I'm going to the gym, where I can use my body without having to master a whole new set of skills. (If you can put one foot in front of the other and walk you can pretty much use a treadmill or an elliptical trainer, or a stairmaster.) And I'm slowly trying new things, like rock climbing, where I can do them at my own pace, and work on improving my own skills without the pressure of my lack of talent affecting anyone else's enjoyment of the sport.
I want that feeling of accomplishment when my body is able to do something that it couldn't have a year ago or a month ago. I want to feel joy at being in my own skin.
Comments:
maybe i krazie, but i cannot abide by multiple intelligences, mo! my brother, howard, has proposed this idea, i think, as a political move (similar to that of the ebonics movement) to change the education system to accomodate students who weren't recognized before. if you label an ability, talent, or aptitude an "intelligence", then you necessarily force the school system to address it. after all, aren't schools geared towards fostering intelligence (well, in THEORY anyway)? it just seems like some crazy semantic propaganda device, intended to change the way people think about student abilities by forcing them to look through some sort of Sapirian lens.
as an instructional model, you have elementary teachers who interpret it to mean that you can teach mathematics through music. stressing interdisciplinary connections is one thing, but bringing in an instrument to somehow teach that 8-5=3 is something else. gardner's theory causes teachers do such things. no kidding.
Hobart Gardner,
http://punct.blogspot.com/
as an instructional model, you have elementary teachers who interpret it to mean that you can teach mathematics through music. stressing interdisciplinary connections is one thing, but bringing in an instrument to somehow teach that 8-5=3 is something else. gardner's theory causes teachers do such things. no kidding.
Hobart Gardner,
http://punct.blogspot.com/
# posted by 
: April 08, 2005 4:03 PM
: April 08, 2005 4:03 PM
Yeah, but BGB, er... I mean Hobart, don't you think that there's an advantage to teaching children that the world doesn't live or die by standardized test scores? I'm not knocking the conveyance of actual knowledge. I'm totally behind the idea that kids need to learn facts, and that you can't replace a math lesson with lute practice. But don't you feel like some of our smartness was just that we (collectively, as a school) tended to rock the ITBS, or the the SAT, or the APs? And I think TAG fostered the idea that if you got into the "best" schools you were somehow better. But that's just demonstrably not true. And I don't think it would hurt to teach the "smart" kids that, while smart is important, they're going to have a tough row to hoe in life if they think that's all that makes a difference. I'm not saying we should de-emphasize learning, I'm just saying that it seems like there are chances to educate kids in a more complete way. For example, I've always had an affinity for doing things with my hands. I still am glad I spent that semester in wood shop at Spence instead of typing, even though typing would undoubtedly be more practical for my day to day life. But in high school it seems like it became a very either-or proposition. You could either work with your hands, in which case it was assumed that you didn't want to stretch your mind, or vice versa. I guess I'd just like to see some way for the school system to acknowledge the complexity that occurs in human beings. But maybe that's a bit much to expect when we have to educate the largest number of people possible.
Post a Comment
