Intelligence and learning

“Education never ends, Watson. It is a series of lessons, with the greatest for the last.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, His Last Bow

Spoiler alert! If you haven't seen the Enola Holmes film from Netflix, please stop reading right here. 

Playing chess, tennis, learning jujitsu, doing Scientific experiments, reading tons of books, and solving puzzles were some of the things the fictional character, Enola, learned in the coolest homeschool ever. I think it's timely that I watched this film, because I remembered my readings in EDS 103. The character Enola (played by Millie Bobby Brown from Stranger Things) was intelligent, wise beyond her years, and full of insight. She was able to apply the knowledge that she learned from her mom and used it as she went through all sorts of misadventures, as the story unfolded. Given that she is not a real person, I am still reminded by Robert Sternberg's definition about intelligence which is a mental quality that consists of the abilities to learn from experience, adapt to new situations, understand and handle abstract concepts, and use knowledge to manipulate the environment. Another fictional character, by the name of Sherlock Holmes--the older brother of Enola--the original genius, is the ultimate example of a character who had high IQ. This was evident because of his extensive expertise in various subjects, being able to comprehend and solve different mysteries, make connections and patterns, manipulating different situations to overcome the challenges presented to him, all the while thriving in a creative environment that celebrated his genius. Of course, the real genius came from the staggering inventive mind of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Yes, I'm a fan.

How do we characterize intelligence in real life though? In my Art History book, it states that human beings, just like animals dream--that's imagination at work. However, there is a profound difference, humans are the only creatures who can inform others about their ideas, either through words or drawings (Janson. 1997). In the book Drawing from the Right Side of the Brain, students attained the basic skill of drawing with the help of the author, Betty Edwards. The goal was to transfer perceptual skills to thinking and problem solving. In education, this is called "transfer of learning" (Edwards. 2012). Edwards wanted to make the learners transfer their perceptual skills, through drawing, which can be used for comprehension, analysis, and problem solving in different fields. Intelligence, as we learned, is not about being able to memorize data, charts, definitions, theorems, historical dates, formulas, vocabulary, and the like in the hope of getting high marks in standardized tests. It is more of a cognitive process which includes perception, learning, memory, reasoning, and problem solving. As agreed upon by psychologists, adaptation to the environment, is the key to understanding what intelligence is. Adaptation involves making a change in oneself in order to cope more effectively with the environment, but it can also mean changing the environment or finding an entirely new one (Sternberg). What I can infer from this statement is that intelligence sets in motion innovative and out-of-the-box ideas. Truly, human intelligence is unfathomable especially when it comes to not just analysis, linguistic, numeracy, problem solving--but the unexplored side of which is perception, intuition, imagination, and creativity. Albert Einstein captured it well, when he said: "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." (Edwards. 2012)

From my understanding, all the theories of intelligence presented were "correct" or relevant during the time they were constructed. They were backed up by research, and not merely a hypothesis. Like Charles Spearman's G-factor in the first decade of the twentieth century, statistical studies were made on the nature of intelligence which he has been exploring in the interrelations among scores obtained from many people on a wide variety of different tests (Anastasi). An outcome from Spearman's factor analysis developed into the multiple aptitude batteries applied in test research for the armed forces in World War 2. He couldn't exactly explain what the g-factor was, but it was stated that he thought of it as a 'mental' energy". This is where it becomes questionable because the general ability or fluid ability could not describe what was happening in the person's mind as he is showing the ability in question. It seems it was hard to prove if there was a G-factor at all. Sternberg concluded in his article that specific attributes are more important than a general ability, because it elaborates the individual differences in intellectual operations. Another "incorrect" view of intelligence is that of the four major periods in individual and intellectual development postulated by Jean Piaget, these are sensorimotor (0-2 years old), pre-operational (2-7 years old), concrete operational (7-12 years old) and formal operational (12- onwards). He described in each level of development what a child could possibly do, though it was widely accepted in the mid-twentieth century, it is not accepted now. Most abilities defined in each level were already evident in earlier ages than the ones he mentioned. As a mother of a 4 year old and a 7 year old, I can tell that children these days are more advanced than the ones he described for each developmental level. 

The theories that I find productive or useful to education are that of Howard Gardner's multiple intelligence, Robert Sternberg's triarchic theories of intelligence, and that of David Perkin's theory of learnable intelligence. What makes me interested in all three is its multidimensionality in scope. It doesn't limit an individual to a single General Intelligence factor. This in turn brings me to IQ tests which defines a person's intelligence level. It discriminates individuals falling on the mentally deficient  side based on a single test. This is a grave injustice to people who don't do good, especially if the scope of the test is limited and taking into account the context a particular person is in while having the test. In short, IQ scores don't definitely define someone's intelligence and is somehow counterproductive because it can affect a person's self-esteem. Hence, I go back to the different intelligences postulated by Gardner, Sternberg, and Perkin, because it takes into account the different intelligences exhibited by a person.

Learning and intelligence are correlated in the way that intelligence is hard-wired in the brain or already existing once we are born---learning happens as an individual grows up through his environment. As previously defined in the first module, learning is associated with the acquisition of new knowledge or the modification of those already existing. Learning can be shown in different ways, through one's behavior, attitudes, knowledge, skills, or even preferences. Sometimes though, learning is not yet evident in an individual like when a child is still learning to talk and only hears those around him. He may not be able to exhibit this skill yet, but there is already learning transpiring in his brain. Hence, in most baby books, parents are advised to read to their babies even if they are still in the tummy. Through one's intelligence one is able to learn from his experiences and be able to adapt to new situations.