This is the fourth and final part of my transcribed lecture presenting PASS theory.
The first part discusses psychologists’ and clients’ beliefs about
intelligence and intelligence tests and can be found here.
The second part discusses theories of intelligence and presents PASS theory.
The third part discusses the effects of the PASS systems on a child’s functioning.
In this fourth and final part, we will move beyond the boundaries of the brain with the help of three theorists: Robert Sternberg, Andy Clark, and David Chalmers.
Robert Sternberg is
an American researcher in the field of intelligence. He developed a
complex—overly complex, in my opinion—theory of intelligence, but one of his
central arguments is particularly compelling. Sternberg coined the term successful intelligence. He argues that people
possess a high degree of successful intelligence when they recognize their
strengths and make the most of them, while also recognizing their weaknesses
and finding ways to correct or compensate for them.
According to
Sternberg, intelligence is not merely the ability to adapt oneself to one’s
environment. It also includes the ability to change and shape the environment
so that it suits one’s abilities and, at times, the ability to seek out or
choose a new environment that is better suited to one’s abilities, values, or
wishes.
In my view, this idea
brings the concept of intelligence closer to the concept of wisdom and may
include components that are not exclusively cognitive. According to this
perspective, a person’s level of functioning is the product of an interaction
between the person’s cognitive and emotional abilities and the environment in
which the person operates.
Robert Sternberg
The philosophers Andy
Clark and David Chalmers also examine the interaction between cognitive
abilities and the environment, as well as the role of the environment in
shaping conscious experience. They coined the terms extended mind and extended cognition.
Clark and Chalmers argue that when people think, they tend to rely on
and make use of environmental supports. For example, we use paper and pencil to
perform long multiplication. Writing down and formulating ideas helps us think
about them and understand them more clearly. Rearranging letter tiles on a rack
helps us retrieve words when playing Scrabble.
Clark and Chalmers make an interesting and somewhat unusual argument: when we are performing a
particular task, if part of the external world functions in a way that, had it
occurred inside the head, we would unhesitatingly recognize as part of the
cognitive process, then that part of the world should indeed be regarded as
part of the cognitive process.
In other words,
cognitive processes do not take place solely inside the head or brain. When
a person with Alzheimer’s disease relies on written lists, those lists form
part of that person’s cognition.
Andy Clark
Andy Clark can be seen explaining and demonstrating this idea here in a 13-minute video, and David Chalmers explains it here in a 5-minute video. Here you can find the 1998 article in which Clark and Chalmers present their position in 13 pages.
This idea initially encountered considerable opposition, but it is now
fairly widely accepted and has influenced thinking in fields such as artificial
intelligence and the development of future devices designed to support
cognition.
It may be argued that human intelligence has always been collective
rather than individual. We acquire language through interaction and within an
environmental context. Most of our intellectual achievements as human beings
have emerged through people’s interactions with culture, repositories of
knowledge, and communities of other people.
We will now return to PASS theory.
If intelligence is
not located solely within the brain, perhaps we can discuss the interaction
between the PASS characteristics of the educational system in which a child
studies and the child’s own PASS characteristics.
With regard to the
planning system, we can ask how effectively the school allocates its resources
and to what extent it operates through planning, regulation, and monitoring.
With regard to the
attention system, we can ask to what extent the school is able to inhibit
irrelevant stimuli and remain focused on its central task.
With regard to
simultaneous processing, we can ask to what extent the school is able to
perceive the overall picture and focus on what is central rather than becoming
preoccupied with details. We can also ask to what extent it is able to perceive
the relationship between the details and the whole and between the different
subsystems—the homeroom teachers, subject teachers, teaching assistants,
children, parents, therapeutic staff, and others—and the educational system as
a whole.
With regard to
successive or sequential processing, we can ask to what extent routines exist
within the school system, how they contribute to the system, and how
efficiently they are carried out. Such routines may include the daily schedule,
as well as traditions and ceremonies that become part of the system’s identity.
We can now
consider how a child with a weakness in planning functions within an
educational system that has strong planning abilities, as compared with a
system that has weak planning abilities. Similarly, we can consider how a child
with a weakness in attention functions in a school whose attention mechanisms
are weak, as compared with a school in which the attention mechanisms function
effectively—and so forth.
Further Reading
Carroll, S. (2017). The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning,
and the Universe Itself. Penguin.
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. J. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis,
58(1), 7–19.
McCrea, S. M. (2009). A review and empirical study of the composite
scales of the Das–Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System. Psychology Research
and Behavior Management, 2, 59.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3218775/
Naglieri, J. A. Using PASS Theory and the CAS2 Comprehensive
Assessment System: From Evaluation to Instruction.
http://www.schoolneuropsych.com/pdf/Naglieri.pdf
Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (2005). Planning, attention,
simultaneous, successive (PASS) theory: A revision of the concept of
intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison, Contemporary
Intellectual Assessment (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Naglieri, J. A. (2003). Current advances in assessment and intervention
for children with learning disabilities. Advances in Learning and Behavioral
Disabilities, 16, 163–190.
http://www.munkholm.cc/fileadmin/user_upload/munkholm/filer/CAS/Naglieri_-_intervention-1.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment