PD 2: Musing about Intelligences

This post is part of my blog project “Pedagogy Discourses (PDs),” which is a course requirement at the University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU).

When I was in Grade 6, my former school had an acceleration system. This system means that if you get a high grade, you can skip Grade 7 - and note that this was before K-12 - and head directly to first year high school. I was somewhat pressured by my peers to aim for acceleration, but it proved to be quite impossible for me at the time. Mathematics was incredibly difficult for me, especially since this was the stage when I first became acquainted with algebra. In addition, I recall struggling with my Filipino classes as well because at the time, I struggled to interpret poems and did not get high test scores as I did in my other classes. I was not also good in my Physical Education classes and could not do the dribbling techniques well. As such, I failed to qualify for acceleration and still went to Grade 7.

I remember feeling really down for not making the cut even if it was not really an issue for my family. I felt that I was less intelligent compared to my other classmates, especially those who did well in our math and Filipino classes. I also felt insulted when some of my peers said, “Mga bobo lang ang mga pumupunta sa Grade 7.” (“Only idiots go to Grade 7.”)

However, I am thankful for my Kumon lessons that my mathematical abilities were gradually developed since then. I am also thankful to my patient Grade 7 teachers who prepared us for what was to come in first year high school. While these experiences eased my feeling of insecurity, I also feel vindicated upon becoming enlightened about the nature of intelligence(s). This feeling of vindication comes from knowing that (a) anyone who was not accelerated is NOT stupid and (b) intelligence(s) can be nurtured and developed. In fact, as a university language teacher, I keep these crucial points in mind.

Intelligences: An Informed Personal Perspective

I have always thought of intelligence as a fixed characteristic relating to our knowledge, skills, and abilities. It turns out that this notion is not correct, because it is much more complex. In reality, intelligence can take many forms (i.e., through different intelligences) and changes over time as we grow, learn more things, and gain experiences. When we start learning, we can say that we have intelligence(s) that can be sharpened and nurtured. Hence, the skills and abilities we witness in person (e.g., when we see a colleague solve problems live efficiently) or through test results are only snapshots of intelligence at a certain moment.

As you might be aware, mathematics has long been my waterloo; in fact, my aversion to it is why I pursued an English language degree. I also was still scarred by the low scores and the unfair remarks of my peers about my intelligence that my mindset was fixed that I would not be good enough when it comes to mathematics. True enough, I still struggled with mathematics despite my diligence, especially in third year geometry: I found it tremendously challenging and daunting to complete proving tables. To this day, I still cannot prove whether a rhombus, for example, is a rectangle.

At that same year, we also did statistics; in the following year, we did trigonometry and basic calculus simultaneously. They were all rigorous, but there was a difference: Unlike my experience with other math classes, I was successful in these three that I obtained high marks. When I completed high school, I felt fulfilled in realizing that I can also be good in some areas of mathematics. It somehow changed my own perception that I am less intelligent when dealing with numbers.

Further, when I entered college, I was shocked to find that my major has a substantial amount of mathematics involved in certain areas such as language assessment and corpus linguistics. At the same time, I realized that my own writing and speaking skills were inadequate for my coursework, but through diligence, practice and careful guidance from my own professors, my communicative competence when I graduated college was improved when I entered.

It is thus unproductive - and even harmful - to treat intelligence as something fixed. We can also say the same when intelligence is used as an argument for cultural or ethnic supremacy or even to stereotype a student or an entire class for what they can and cannot do. When we uphold such problematic beliefs, it becomes reflected how we learn and teach and inflict harm on the learners we serve as teachers.

On the other hand, when we accept that intelligences evolve and are diverse, we could perhaps understand why and accept how each classroom is diverse. Our learners are not only diverse in terms of their sociocultural and economic background, but also in their current knowledge and capabilities. In addition, we embrace not only the need for further development for the learners, but also for ourselves. When we accept the complexity of intelligences, we could perhaps become friendly to the idea of learning as a lifelong process.

Implications

As alluded to above, the way we see intelligence impacts the way we teach and how we perceive learning and the act of educating. As a language teacher, my syllabus and classroom materials vary heavily depending on the level of learners (based often on diagnostic assessments and past learner data). Last January 2022, I taught a research writing course for international graduate students for the first time. That class was similar to my previous (undergraduate) research writing classes in the sense that these students lack experience in both the practice of writing research and information literacy - that is, they struggle to identify and distinguish an edited book from a refereed article. But they were different from my past classes in one crucial respect: They have years of professional experience as nurses.

As I did not have sufficient time to create new materials, I adapted many of my teaching materials based on their past documented performance and a diagnostic writing task of writing a short data commentary. The diagnostic task made me realize what these graduate students could do (e.g., describe trends on a line graph) and could not do (e.g., write a coherent paragraph and using the APA citation style). The materials and assessments I created were aimed to help them support what they lack while reinforcing what they already have and know.

If my view of intelligence was different, perhaps I would have not adapted my materials at all based on their current capabilities. That would probably have led to a low success rate, and more crucially, maybe those graduate students would not be able to obtain their higher degrees at all. This different view implies that learning is determined by whether you make or break it, which is detrimental for learners’ welfare.

Such a difference has important implications for our collective interests. In my view, education must help learners become competent, responsive, and socially responsible citizens for the 21st century. To achieve this goal, it is crucial to have education policies that do not just impose standards for students to attain, but to also acknowledge the diversity of learners’ intelligences and embrace learning as a lifelong effort.