ManishChand:ROUSSEAU'S THOUGHT ON EDUCATION

Rousseau (1712-1778) was a distinguished French philosopher. Emile (1966) is famous work on education. He was deeply influenced by French Revolution. He believes that social institutions are the cause of the all evils. He also thinks that everything is good but after coming in hand of human it becomes evil. He preferred freedom in everything and opposed against all kind of restriction, rules and principles. He is of view that ‘human beings are born free but chained by society’. I found this very interesting citation in his ‘Emile’. He is disillusioned by city and society. He remarks that city is the graveyard of human being.

Basically, his thought about child centered in education. He considers that life is education. He goes saying that education is natural process, not mechanical. It is internal development not collection of information. He gives emphasis that children should be given education according their interest and ability. He says that child should be considered as child during delivering education. He has given reinforcement towards children’s natural development. Moreover, he believes that external knowledge (books) should not be imposed over child.

In Emile, he has personified Emile as boy and Shopie as girl. He wants to give both different kinds of educations. Rousseau thinks that Emile would do productive work whereas Sophie would do reproductive work.  According to Rousseau, curriculum should be consists of Human, nature, and things. Curriculum should be made according child’s interest and ability.

Rousseau’s approach to education is learning by doing, observing and experiencing. He hates books because books teach what he does not know. He believes that our first teacher is our hand, legs and eyes. He gives stress on visual training method. He asserts that leave child alone and let child explore the truth and truth not to be told. He has absolute faith in nature so he views that lap of nature is good school. He put individual importance for education on the basis of children’s interest, capability and ability so girls and boys should not be given same education. In this way Rousseau thinks to give different education to women. According to Rousseau, boy should be taught health education, philosophy and natural.  On the other hand, girl should be taught religious, traditional education (culinary skills). Girl should be obedient, humble, nurture the child.

He gives child primary importance and teacher is secondary. He says that knowledge and ideal should not be imposed. He thinks that teacher should be friendly, guide and as facilitator. Teacher treatment should be affectionately, lovely towards children. School should be located in natural atmosphere and away from society and city.

He believes that leave child free, child will become disciplined. He thinks that discipline should be internally by love, affection and sympathy. Discipline must not be external force. Child will learn by nature, what is good and bad. Children from 1-12 year, theoretical and oral knowledge is meaningful.

Loophole of Rousseau’s education:

i-                   Stereotype thinking against women education

ii-                 Against society

iii-               Against lecture method

iv-               Against bookish knowledge till 1-12 years.

ManishChand:INTELLIGENCE - ITS THEORIES AND MEASUREMENT WITH PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING

This paper is an effort towards understanding the adults’ perceptions of intelligence, an intelligent person and intelligent behavior and comparison with theories which are propounded by theorists. With the objective in view, first of all, I have taken the interview and collected their responses. The same questions were asked to all the participants. Questions are given along with appendix. The study participants were 10 college students and research scholars. Their ages ranged from 20 to 30 years. There was an even division of gender: 5 of the 10 students were boys, the other 5 students were girls who participated in this study for open -interview. 2 students from M.Phil , 3 students from MSW (1^st yr) , 1 students from DS(2^nd yr),1 student from DSA(2^nd yr), 2 students from MPH(2^nd yr), 1 student from DM out of 10. The students were confronted with three questions. Their reply was chosen after open-interview with the students of different-2 courses. They all spoke in English as their first language.  .They is following;

Intelligence	Intelligent person	Intelligent behavior
(A)-male.1-Perform  according to situation	Who can deal with sort of problems	Who is supportive always with interest& listen patiently
2- Conscience mind with practical experience	Who Takes rational decision	Who behave according to time and situation
3-Awareness of fact and surrounded things.	Person having full confident and act boldly.	Who does not underestimate others& respect equally.
4-Who is well educated & know theoretical knowledge	Smart person, who uses opportunity in his favor	Using appropriate knowledge at appropriate time.
5-Taking rational decision which helpful in your overall development	Who gives best suitable answer to my question	Acting on rational decision while anticipating on consequences.
(B)-female.6-who takes instance action & useful action	Who is capable to take useful decision	Who can mix up with everyone without hurting anyone.
7-Using presence of mind to solve the situation	Who reflects with experience to resolve the problem	Respecting equally with balancing& convincingly
8-Thinking right at the right moment.	Who make informal decision with logic	Who behaves according to situation in mature way.
9-Intervene with societal decision	who is able to make herself /himself understand a theory or situation etc, in own way,	To make a decision or an argument which is explaining our understanding at a present situation/time, something which you can do or argue 4 confidently according to our understanding
10-To make strategy or work according to the way that social situation is demanding	Who is wise and act consciously all time.	Who takes others in her/his confident and deals with them nicely.

Now, I will look at how theorists have given their definition of intelligence. And what they say about it. After that I will compare and make connection whether they are similar or difference.

According to Binet   “Intelligence is the ability to judge well, understand well and reason well.”

Oxford Dictionary explains “Intelligence as the power ofperceiving, learning, understanding, and knowing.’’

According to Gardner and Hatch(1989:433)  ‘’Intelligence is a biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture"   

Sternberg,( 1985 )” mental activity directed towardpurposive adaptation to, selection and shaping of, real-world environments relevant to one’s life” 

H.G. Wells defines ‘’It is general mental and behavioral adaptability to new problems and condition of life’’

Perkins (1995) “Intelligence is not only multiple but includes aspects of values and personality as well as cognitive skill.’’ 

According to Wechsler ‘’ Intelligence is global and aggregate capacity of an individual to think rationally, act purposefully, and deal effectively with her/his environment.’’

Comparative study

Literally speaking, individual variations in definitions are common within and across all species. So this comparative study may not be exception one and cannot escape from that variations. If I first look at psychological notions of intelligence, find many similarities from the common people notion of intelligence. Except Gardner, above mentioned all the theorists’ ( Binet, Stern, Wells, Perkin, Wechsler and Oxford Dictionary) definitions seem to be quite at hand. If I compare one what Stern says ‘’ Intelligence is a general capacity of an individual consciously to adjust his thinking to new requirements’’ is giving to great extent same meaning as a student said ‘’ To make strategy or work according to the way that social situation is demanding.’’  By and large, what similarities I figured out in (Wells, Perkin, Wechsler, Binet. Oxford dictionary with adults’ definitions ) seem that both are saying intelligence in one respect is intended to a ability, to change maker, take decision at right time , capability to think rationally in course of time, to change the course of events and, in turn, change an unfavorable potential future into a more favorable actual one.

On the other hand, when dealing with the dissimilarities what exactly I find in Gardner's definition seems to be somewhat dissimilar.“Intelligence is a biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture” does not fit and suit anywhere with students’ lay definition of intelligence. In this respect, the work of Howard Gardner seems to be one of the most arguable since his multiple intelligence theory, being new, has already provoked numerous discussions as for its reliability. In fact, the Gardner’s definition (multiple theory of intelligence) emphasize that each kind of intelligence is closely related to a definite sphere of life or human activity and, in such a way, individuals with different kinds of intelligence dominating may be more or less successful in different fields respectively to their kinds of intelligence. But no single student talked that intelligence is ability which is built in cultural setting.

                                                      

Looking at critically and going into deep, intelligence is a key construct employed to know how individuals differ from one another. In fact, intelligence is ability, no doubt but evaluating intelligence is about more than merely determining whether it is right or wrong.  Even Sternberg has never made a final definition. For an example, Sternberg says “to my knowledge, every investigator who actually studies the behavior genetics of human intelligence believes that there is some role both for heredity and environment in intelligence.’’ But later he seems not to be stick with his own opinion that and gives controversial statement.  He says again “I personally am not enthusiastic about to attempts to assign percentages to heredity and environment because what percentages are assigned depend on so many factors including geographic, temporal, and educational point of view’’ page 14. So it has become ample clear that his definition of intelligence is different from adults and not universal.

It seems that, definition variability is a fact of nature (heredity) and nurture (environment), and individuals are no exception to this. Above definitions vary from one another, may be because of its geographical location (rural or urban), cultural, educational level, and gender and so on. They also may vary along with psychological dimensions. Their definitions may be considered as best or dull, reasonable, satisfactory, good enough or not good, etc. Therefore, one can maintain by saying that why not theorists and adults definitions may similar and differ from each other. The list of variations can be endless.  For an example, there is a reason to believe that vocabulary is good measure of intelligence because it measures directly children’s ability to acquire information in context and in can be seen through their writings.  As some psychologists claim “It is well known that vocabulary is one of the best predictors, if not the best single predictor; of overall IQ score (Jensen, 1980; Metarazzo, 1972)

I find that many psychologists have defined intelligence differently in the articles. One of the interesting argument in favor of the role played by inherited characteristics which is given by Vernon (1979). He points that “Children in most cases receive same similar environment, but their measured intelligence can differ by 10, 20 or 30 IQ points on the same tests. Genetically it is found that each child would draw a different combination of genes from his or her parents’’ pp. 99 .On the other hand if we see environmentally, it does not happen what we expect.  This genes carried by parents which do not affect their behavior but can become and appear dominant in children in form of hair and facial shape. 

During the middle Ages, it was believed that one’s social status was determined by one’s parentage. If you were born a noble, a noble you remained. If you were born a serf, so you remained. But during 21th century, it has changed and become clear that one’s ability is regarded by her/his achievement. Now, there is more cognitive abilities required for various kinds of school and job success than measured by IQ and related constructs (such as NET, SET, CAT, SAT, GMAT,). For an example it is proved by Ceci and Liker (1986) “Persons who are successful in making bets at the race track and who use highly complex mental algorithms are intelligent.”

Moving ahead, talking about intelligent behavior if I do compare psychologists’ with students above mentioned, who believe that our behaviors are influenced by our personal traits, on the contrary, some others hold the view that our behaviors are influenced more by situational factors. This latter view is known as situational context, which states that situations and circumstances in which one is placed influence one’s behavior which may change into aggressive, or may behave in a submissive, respectful manner with others.  For an instance, all psychologists agree by saying “At the level of definition that intelligence behavior involves adaptation to the environments and might not apply as well in nonwestern ones (Cole, 1990; Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 1982).” 

 It means that individual intelligence behavior also differ one another. That is why I find that theorists & adults' understandings are quite different about intelligent behavior. According adults, intelligent behavior is something supportive, respect others view equally, behaves politely according to time. It appears that, intelligence provides an understanding of how people adapt their behavior according to the environment they live in. If we watch an intelligent person’s behavior, we are likely to see in her/him attributes like mental alertness, ready wit, quickness in learning, and ability to understand relationships. To support my statement one psychologist saying may be helpful. Kamin (1974) claims “There is no credible evidence for any hereditary effects at all on intelligence behavior. The heritability of intelligence will depend, how intelligence is defined.’’

Conclusion

Finally, in light of my observation, what I understand as of now, that there could be no fix demarcation of intelligence. Intelligence answer depends on a number of factors, including how you define the construct compare to context. As Gardner (1983) who argues that “Intelligence is not one thing but many factor influences.” By and large I found some similarities which both (theorists& adults) are reinforcing that intelligence in one respect is intended to ability,  decision maker, to take rational decision and action at right time ,use of presence of mind(general ability) to change the course of events and, in turn, change an unfavorable potential future into a more favorable actual one.  On the other hand, theorists who defined intelligence as heredity and cultural built vary from adults’ definition. But theorists’ papers have enlightened, sensitized and strengthened my understanding on multi-factorial issues which are interwoven. Moreover, I cannot draw conclusions about individuals from sample because intelligence is not something that can be directly observed, like a person’s height or weight.  We can only infer its presence by watching people’s behavior. Eventually, to me, what I can assume as my understanding about those basic thrusts behind Intelligence that I have got, they are various factors that function such as heredity, socio-culture environment, educational level, geographical setting. These all aspect gets impinged in giving a shape to individual’s ability, behavior and perspectives in every walk of life. 

                                     REFERENCES

Robert J. Sternberg. Myth, Counter Myths and Truth about Intelligence

Moghaddam. F.M (2005) Great Ideas in Psychology, Cultural and Historical Introduction. Oxford   Publication.

Robert J. Sternberg. The Holy Grail of General Intelligence. Published by American Association for the Advancement of Science (2000)

Gardner ,H. ( 1983) . Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York :

 Kamin,L.(1974) The Science and Politics of IQ. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jensen ,A.R. (1980).  Bias in Mental Testing. New York: Free Press.

Ceci , S.J.,& Liker,J. ( 1986). Academic and nonacademic intelligence: An experimental  separation. In R. J. Sternberg & R.J. Wagner (Eds.), Practical Intelligence: Nature and Origin of Competence in the Everyday World (pp. 119-142). New York: Cambridge University, Sapporo,japan.

Cole,M.(1990). Mind as a Cultural Achievement : Implications for IQ testing. Unpublished manuscript. Hokkaido University, Sapporo Japan.

NCERT text book. Variation Psychological Attributes.

‘Evaluating Intelligence’ by Kristan Wheaton,Mercyhurst College and Diane Chido,McManis and Monsalve Associates.

Clark, Robert M. (2004). Intelligence analysis :   A  Target –Centric Approach. CQ Press, Washington, DC.

Fonatana,D. (1988) . Psychology for Teachers. London;BPs Books.

And others article given on’ Creativity’ , ‘Intelligence.’

APPENDIX A-   Questions

1-     According to you, what will be a definition of intelligence?

2-     Whom will you consider as a intelligent person?

3-       What is intelligent behavior?