Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary defines aptitude as:
"a natural or acquired capacity or ability; especially : a tendency, capacity, or inclination to learn or understand"
If you take the "natural" definition, I will argue that with you to my last breath.
If you take the "acquired" definition, I will agree with you. But the nice thing about students who lack an acquired capacity is that a good teacher can fix the lack of an acquired capacity. Whether the teacher has the time or resources to do that is another question completely.
If you agree with the "acquired" definition of aptitude, you can stop reading. If you believe that there is a natural aptitude, then read on.
Blaming a student's lack of success on their lack of aptitude is an incredibly harmful and dangerous road to go down. Pretty soon, every student who failed the class failed because they lacked the aptitude. Where in that scenario does that possibility that the teacher isn't doing a good job fall? Where does the possibility that the student had a weak background in the subject? Why would that teacher ever read any research, go to a workshop, or participate in a listserv if it is the student's lack of aptitude that keeps them from learning?
What you call aptitude in your students is very likely a result of their previous education, their attitude toward the subject, peer pressure, work ethic, and your teaching style. Fortunately, all of those things can be fixed. None are "natural."
If you believe that a student's natural aptitude determines how successful they will be, why don't we just give them an aptitude test at the beginning of the year and then send home the ones who have "low aptitude"? If the teacher has no effect whatsoever on a student's learning (it is all determined by "aptitude", then why do we have teachers? Why would we let a student choose a college major? Wouldn't we give them an aptitude test and put them in the major where they have the highest aptitude? At what age does this aptitude show up? Could we give 3-year olds an aptitude test and choose their college major when they are 3? How about 5? 7? Is aptitude genetic? Maybe we don't even have to test the child. Just test the parents to determine the college major of their child before the child is even born. The idea is ridiculous that a student is born with certain aptitudes.
Of course some students enjoy science more than others, some have a higher IQ than others, and some have better background in science than others. But those are not aptitude, those are enjoyment, general intelligence, and preparation.
Just because you teach 100 students the exact same way and they end up on a normal distribution, does not mean that the ones on the lower end had lower aptitude and the ones on the higher end had higher aptitude. The number of hours of studying would probably be the number one correlate at the university level.
With enough work, ANY student (besides the most severe special education needs) can learn ANY subject. This doesn't necessarily apply to physical skills like running the 100 meters in less than 10 seconds, but as far as learning goes, anybody can learn anything.
I DO NOT believe (and I challenge you to find any evidence of this) that some students' brains are wired for science, others are wired for math, others are wired for English, and others are wired for social studies. Are you saying that I could never have majored in social studies because I have an aptitude for physics?
Where you said, "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."
I would substitute for "I want to say aptitude here" one of the following words: readiness, preparation, interest, work ethic. I would NOT substitute "natural ability" or "natural aptitude."
Mike
Dec 7, 2009 05:20:18 PM, phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu wrote:
===========================================
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.