1. Traditionally, people have defined (and standardized tests have assessed) someone who is intelligent as an individual who can solve problems, use logic to answer questions, and think critically. But psychologist Howard Gardner has a much broader definition of intelligence. Compare the traditional idea about intelligence with Gardner's. Are there advantages to the traditional format of intelligence testing? How can Gardner’s ideas change the way we assess the strengths and weaknesses of people? I believe that there are uses for traditional form of testing intelligence, but to me this isn’t testing people fully. Now, on the Gardner’s idea I feel is extremely good. It has been said that people learn in different ways, so how could you test the intelligence of everyone the same way.
2. One criticism of Gardner's theory is that he classifies talents as a type of intelligence. Critics might say that a gifted artist or golf progeny is not necessarily smart. How would you reply to this criticism? I agree with Gardner on this. The reason would be that people aren’t born where they can hit a hole in one; it comes from learning and a lot of hard work. They have educated themselves in the area of golf or whatever and gained a high intelligence for it.
3. Gardner suggests that schools must develop assessments that better represent what people will have to do to survive in society. For example, rather than writing an essay about urban development, students studying structures might be asked to determine what kind of building is most appropriate for an urban, residential area. Give an example of an assignment (based upon Gardner’s theory) that could be assigned to and used to evaluate what students learn about a specific topic in Psychology. Well instead of writing an essay on what Psychology is, why not perform a study on how kids or teens act in certain situations dealing with peer pressure.
4. How does an understanding of...