Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Student engagement



But wait --- I want to be clear: are we denying the existence of
"aptitude"? I teach (or have taught) each of the three levels of 1st year
physics my school offers. I see an amazingly wide spectrum of -- I want to
say aptitude here -- so that it astonished me that anyone who has teaching
experience would deny the existence of this trait. When I compare those who
I would say have the least of this trait to those who have the most, I see a
vast gulf between them, one that could never be bridged by properly designed
interventions of any kind. As we plan our teaching strategies and policies,
to ignore this gulf seems to me to be a combination of denial and hubris.
----------------------------------------------------------------
But what are you observing? You are seeing an individual who has both
genetic traits and developed traits. This is similar to the difference
between genes and oncogenes. The individual's development is a large
proportion of what might be called aptitude. So I would say that aptitude
can be developed. But how far it can be developed is an open question.

There are certainly barriers which are physical. If a person is totally
blind no amount of teaching can make them see. But the necessary thinking
skills to be able to think scientifically can be developed. Most elementary
teachers think at a low level on a Piagetian scale. But Arons reported in
his book the results of a study where it was possible to bring 85% up to the
formal operational level.

There are a lot of things that are assumed to be inborn, which clearly are
not. A good example here is perfect pitch. It is completely trainable.
Mandarin is a language which uses pitch to discriminate between words.
Testing has shown that Mandarin speakers usually have perfect pitch.

Aptitude is usually assumed to be an inborn trait. But at one time IQ was
considered to be inborn, and it has been shown that IQ is very modifiable.
Even Downs syndrome children need not always be low IQ. There are
interventions that can bring many of them up to normal. Aptitude is a
particular adaptation of the organism to the particular circumstances.
Piaget might have said this.

There is even evidence now that working memory can be expanded. They have
developed a computer program that helps the individual expand their working
memory. Now probably there is a physical limit on working memory but many
individuals have not gotten to the limit.

So I would say that aptitude can be somewhat developed. But the individual
often has mental barriers do doing this. Feuerstein has categorized the
various cognitive deficits at a microscopic level. Once one begins to think
along his lines one can clearly see these deficits in students holding them
back. Feuerstein has used his model of thinking to raise the IQ and
learning ability of many individuals. If the child (treated as late as
teenage years) improves to be able to go to college they usually become
psychologists, or at least study psychology. They came in with little
aptitude for anything and went out with an aptitude for psychology.

There is also the paradigm of learning. This also can hold students back,
and is very resistant to change. But sometimes it can be changed.

So Yes aptitudes do exist, but they are to an extent developed, not inborn.
People can have multiple aptitudes and just go with one or two. Einstein
was very good violinist according to accounts, but he had difficulty
counting. So he used that aptitude for recreation.

I would submit that conventional education is stifling students and killing
proclivities which could develop into aptitudes. Here I would put in a
theory that I have about intelligence. Since brain cells are developed when
you learn new things, young children who have strong innate curiosity will
develop even more brainpower and become much more intelligent. So families
who foster this trait will end up with more intelligent children. Being in
a minority tends to depress the self attitudes and as a result tends to
depress IQ development.

Read the many times referenced book by Shayer&Adey. It might provide some
food for thought.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX