Multi-intelligentsia and the Path to Greatness

Imagine your 20 years old, you walk into the tutoring center and one of the foremost psychoanalysts of the 20th century is your instructor. How do this happen? Howard Gardner did it with Erik Erikson. So here is my question. There are smart people in the world, right? No one is denying it, but how do they choose specializations? How do they become great?

I know, I know… I’m off chasing some rabbit – but here is my thinking. Did you choose to become an educator or did inertia choose that path for you? Did Erikson show Gardner a door he could not resist walking through, or was Gardner convinced that he was smart and could master any field, he saw the renown of Erikson and considered the possibility that the universe had presented him an opportunity to become great as well?

I keep asking myself why I am becoming an educator. As part of my career I have always trained people and I feel that I have become strong at working with adults, especially older adults that don’t typically care to understand the process, but simply want to reap the results of technology. At some point I felt the need to combine this skill with my passion for learning about art. That has always lead me to think that I have found myself here via inertia. Is that some how better or worse? I am not sure but it does make me feel more comfortable knowing that someone previously has found their calling and found “success” by stepping into a path presented to them by inertia.

Okay, okay – I’ll get back on track.

This week Elizabeth and I presented our introduction to Howard Garder’s multiple intelligences. The subject matter was great to research, it is a perfect match for our program (and I should probably have already have known this stuff). I really enjoyed the discussion of our individual types, though I must admit I was hoping someone would secretly turn-out to be an analytical learner. I have considered Heather’s question of “Does society value certain types of learners more then others?” and though I know we do, I am really not sure how much we might value (or not) certain types. For instance: Do we really value kinesthetic learners, like football players; or musical, as in rock stars? Is there really a learning type we don’t value in some way? Perhaps Intrapersonal learners are less respected in our culture?

Learning Styles

http://www.bbc.co.uk/learning/readytolearn/thinker_quiz/

Please click on the link above when asked to take the test in our Multiple Intellegences lesson.

Thank You,
Elizabeth and Nathan

Day #7 – Learn’n & Prep’n & Question’n

This past Thursday Elizabeth and I got together to prepare our learning theory presentation on Howard Gardner’s concept of multiple intelligences and I must say I am amazed at how in integrated in popular knowledge this idea has become in such a short period of time. Frames of Mind his book that introduced the foundation for the idea of multiple intelligences was originally printed in 1983. I was thinking about it and I think the first time I was formally introduced to the idea in Psych I in 1994, which means this idea went from unknown concept to one of the leading theories in thinking in under a decade? If the abstract expressionists had been so lucky.

Which brings me to another question I have been pondering. Is culture a top-down phenomenon? That is to ask – Are academics, and societal leaders sitting around determining how society should be molded? They send out a decries, and modify their friends business models to make sure that the masses have no choice but to take part in the appropriate choices? Or is this some crazy conspiracy theory, does culture still shift naturally without the influence of the rich and powerful?

Lastly, what do we all need to learn to be able to make our digital narrative pieces? I could use a video reminder session. I movie would be fine. Also as I have said previously I have no idea about audio but I am trying to figure out Garage Band and it seems fairly straight forward. Thoughts anyone?

Field Trip & Day #6

This week was crazy for all of us, so now I am a blog entry behind. I will try to make up for that a little this week. Are you ready?

Last Week – Art & Media House:

So I had been to the gallery of the LAYC’s Art & Media House once previously, but I did not recognize the expansiveness of the facilities or programming. It is wonderful to see art-centered activities happening for the youth in our community. I would have loved a program like this as a teenager, but instead all I had was time to get in trouble. I was most impressed with the quality of production value, and how the organization attempts to provide tools that give students skills, which are valued after their school experience. Our time there was valuable as well, as it provided good models for our upcoming digital narrative project. Before the trip I thought I had an understanding of digital narratives, afterwards I had a better understanding about the technical differences between this style of narrative and a video. The details about filming and the South by Southwest example were also very strong and provided a significant amount of information regarding the issues that we need to consider when creating our own visual work. Lastly, there is something so good about learning something outside of the classroom; it is not that I don’t learn in a class, there is simply a freshness about learning in a different space.

This Week – Back in the saddle:

Behavioral – I have to say some of this is still a little fuzzy. I think the general ideas we are discussing, but I don’t understand how a half-century of psychology would disregard individual cognition or perhaps even free will. Classical and operant conditioning make sense in theory, and I am confident that psychologist have a firm understanding of this conditioning occurs but it seems odd to me that from a behavioralist perspective they would not consider all of the other factors that go into that type of punishment or reinforcement for them to be successful. Again perhaps this is simply my novice understanding of the idea, also my understanding is that there are not too many pure behavioral scientists running around in the postmodern psychological world.

Freedman – I feel that the book itself gets better each week, or as my understandings of the concepts expand. I really like her perspective and the way she would describe and idea synchronizes well in my mind. I did particularly like the Conceptual Forms table (p.39) I feel it brings some insight into your teaching style and perhaps where you see your art going from an artist’s perspective. I of course also like the discussion on aesthetics; this is something I think about daily. I often wonder what and why we find things visually intriguing; currently I am on a huge Jessica Stockholder kick. I cannot stop asking myself why her art is considered “good”. Most of all I cannot figure out why I like looking at her work. Her work holds it’s on stylistically, and historically. I believe she is a formalist at heart; talking of her work in form, volume, depth, color, and line. However there is something some much more fresh about her work then a large abstract painting (though I know in my mind it isn’t really much different). How can this be, and how is it allowed in our world, where the currently approved aesthetic for fine art is about shock/awe, or is gross to the extent you no longer care to even look?

Thoughts?