Spatial talent is common in dyslexics.
This is a must read, breakthrough book, not only for dyslexics but for everyone. It explains new paradigms describing the big differences between the way human brains work, regardless of whether they are dyslexic.
The Dyslexic Advantage by Eide
Sunday, July 28, 2013
How the suburbs steal your sight
I love big open spaces where you can strech your eyes and see for miles to the horizon, the mountains, the ocean, etc. Anyone in early America, or most of history, would have little problem finding vast spaces like this, for example the ocean, the coastal plain, the Shenandoah Valley, etc. Humans had not clogged up the landscape with strip malls and stoplights which cut off your ability to see far.
In Suburban Nation Andres Duany explains that suburban housing developments are deliberately designed with winding, curvy roads even when they are not necessary. Why? To hide the cookie-cutter landscape. If the roads were straight, you would see a long, endless street with scores of houses that look exactly the same. But by making the roads into a maze of one curve after the next, you can only see a few houses in front of you at any given place, so the redundancy on the landscape is less apparent.
The downside of this is that in the suburbs it is nearly impossible for your eyes to see a long distance. Everything is cut short, at a curve, a stoplight, a cul-de-sac. Anybody with eyes made for big vision will feel like they are boxed in.
In Suburban Nation Andres Duany explains that suburban housing developments are deliberately designed with winding, curvy roads even when they are not necessary. Why? To hide the cookie-cutter landscape. If the roads were straight, you would see a long, endless street with scores of houses that look exactly the same. But by making the roads into a maze of one curve after the next, you can only see a few houses in front of you at any given place, so the redundancy on the landscape is less apparent.
The downside of this is that in the suburbs it is nearly impossible for your eyes to see a long distance. Everything is cut short, at a curve, a stoplight, a cul-de-sac. Anybody with eyes made for big vision will feel like they are boxed in.
Good article on outdoor jobs
First line: "Not all of us are cut out for office jobs." That's an understatement. Who is cut out for an office job? In the history of humankind when was sitting immobile at a desk in front of a glowing computer looking at tiny characters all day a natural activity? I think some people are more aware of how awful the office life is, but that doesn't mean it's still not awful for those who are less aware. I think when we become less aware of how crappy office life is, we project or deflect the problems onto other factors, which only makes us forget the real problem. Sun, O2, exercise, walking, and being able to see the horizon go a long way.
Well-paying outdoor jobs
http://www.mnn.com/money/green-workplace/stories/well-paying-outdoor-jobs
Well-paying outdoor jobs
http://www.mnn.com/money/green-workplace/stories/well-paying-outdoor-jobs
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Why 3D spatial thinking is neglected in school: testing on text vs. images
We know that 3D spatial intelligence is highly neglected in school despite being highly useful in life. But why?
My personal theory: "text" testing is more convenient and traditional than "picture" testing
There is a real irony in the current norms of academic testing:
We live in a society full of images - TV, internet, movies, video games, etc.
Yet, our school tests mostly on printed text.
Why? I can think of many reasons
1. Curriculum standards and textbooks drawn up by committees are typically communicated as a set of written concepts, vocabulary, etc. They are easily "checked off" i.e. "covered that" when the teacher presents the material in words, verbally or in writing.
But there are far fewer standards for the way information is presented in images. For example, one AP Biology class may be using cutting-edge 3D diagrams, another class may be using old diagrams that the teacher hasn't updated since the 1980s.
In turn, tests mirror the image-less way standards are presented: you just word test questions to include the phrases and vocabulary in the curriculum standards, that way you can "check off" that you tested on that concept.
But what if test questions asked for pictures, not words? These sorts of 3D questions are harder to simply "check off":
-"draw the heart from four different major angles"
-"create a basic 3D cutaway diagram showing the interior of a stratovolcano"
-"draw a diagram illustrating the potential energy and kinetic energy of a catapult before, during, and after release"
All of a sudden testing becomes a lot more complicated than simply looking for vocabulary words and checking off "covered that." However, it is definitely possible to use images and drawing in testing and it should be done much more. The teacher simply has to create a rubric for what each image question has to include.
2. Most school tests are given on paper. It would take a lot of paper to add 15 or 20 images to a paper test. However, computerized testing is making images much easier.
3. For a teacher to even think to include 3D visualization concepts as an essential part of a class, the teacher typically would be a 3D thinker himself, which we know is not always the case, even in the sciences.
My personal theory: "text" testing is more convenient and traditional than "picture" testing
There is a real irony in the current norms of academic testing:
We live in a society full of images - TV, internet, movies, video games, etc.
Yet, our school tests mostly on printed text.
Why? I can think of many reasons
1. Curriculum standards and textbooks drawn up by committees are typically communicated as a set of written concepts, vocabulary, etc. They are easily "checked off" i.e. "covered that" when the teacher presents the material in words, verbally or in writing.
But there are far fewer standards for the way information is presented in images. For example, one AP Biology class may be using cutting-edge 3D diagrams, another class may be using old diagrams that the teacher hasn't updated since the 1980s.
In turn, tests mirror the image-less way standards are presented: you just word test questions to include the phrases and vocabulary in the curriculum standards, that way you can "check off" that you tested on that concept.
But what if test questions asked for pictures, not words? These sorts of 3D questions are harder to simply "check off":
-"draw the heart from four different major angles"
-"create a basic 3D cutaway diagram showing the interior of a stratovolcano"
-"draw a diagram illustrating the potential energy and kinetic energy of a catapult before, during, and after release"
All of a sudden testing becomes a lot more complicated than simply looking for vocabulary words and checking off "covered that." However, it is definitely possible to use images and drawing in testing and it should be done much more. The teacher simply has to create a rubric for what each image question has to include.
2. Most school tests are given on paper. It would take a lot of paper to add 15 or 20 images to a paper test. However, computerized testing is making images much easier.
3. For a teacher to even think to include 3D visualization concepts as an essential part of a class, the teacher typically would be a 3D thinker himself, which we know is not always the case, even in the sciences.
The misrepresentation of Science in school: neglecting 3D thinking
High school science curricula have largely sucked the essence and the fun out of science in school by neglecting the 3D nature of science. This allows
-3D spatial thinkers with the best aptitude for science often become disengaged because the essential 3D element of science is not even presented let alone explored
-Meanwhile, people without 3D spatial ability who don't really understand the science but mastered the jargon and the equations often get As (and even go on to become doctors because they "did well in science").
Where's the beef?
Remember this commercial from the 1980s? That's how I felt when I recently opened up an AP Study Guide to Biology. Inside were lots of vocabulary and concepts but hardly any diagrams--in Biology! Apparently you didn't have to know much about the shape of the heart, the brain, etc. to pass the AP Biology exam.
The AP Chemistry Study Guide was at least as puzzling. Chemistry is inherently about the funky traits of atoms, molecules, minerals, etc. which exist, move, and operate in 3D. Chemistry is about crazy reactions, stuff blowing up, heating up, lighting up, bubbling up, eroding away, dissolving, etc. But inside the AP guide was hardly any mention of this. There were also hardly any 3D diagrams of molecules and structures, it was mostly vocabulary and math equations. Chemistry was reduced to an unending array of vocabulary and calculations, similar to an accounting exam.
One could easily see
1. A student memorizing all these equations with absolutely no idea what the reactions would look like in real life. (That student may end up being a doctor.)
2. A student with 3D intelligence completely turned off by this barrage of calculations. He'll go spend his time playing video games and daydreaming. He could have been a great doctor--but he didn't get good grades in chemistry, and the essence of chemistry was never really presented to him.
Bring back the colored pencils
How should science be taught? One thing I am sure of: drawing should be involved. Simple drawing/sketching was a staple right of passage for medical and scientific trainees for centuries. I had a Coastal Geomorphology graduate class in which the project and the exams all involved drawing with colored pencils. And it was challenging--and I learned a lot. It's a totally different skill to draw a correct diagram of the ocean floor than it is to simply memorize a vocabulary list of ocean floor traits. Drawing the ocean floor inherently and fundamentally requires a spatial understanding of where the elements are and how they fit together. You have to navigate the ocean floor in your mind to draw it. The same is true of drawing the heart in biology or a pendulum or a cannon firing in physics. None of this spatial intelligence gets tested if the test is just vocabulary and equations.
At the end of the day, you simply should not be able to get an A in biology without being able to show that you can visualize cells, brains, organs, bone structures, etc. My feeling is that none of these visualization skills even comes up on many biology tests.
-3D spatial thinkers with the best aptitude for science often become disengaged because the essential 3D element of science is not even presented let alone explored
-Meanwhile, people without 3D spatial ability who don't really understand the science but mastered the jargon and the equations often get As (and even go on to become doctors because they "did well in science").
Where's the beef?
Remember this commercial from the 1980s? That's how I felt when I recently opened up an AP Study Guide to Biology. Inside were lots of vocabulary and concepts but hardly any diagrams--in Biology! Apparently you didn't have to know much about the shape of the heart, the brain, etc. to pass the AP Biology exam.
The AP Chemistry Study Guide was at least as puzzling. Chemistry is inherently about the funky traits of atoms, molecules, minerals, etc. which exist, move, and operate in 3D. Chemistry is about crazy reactions, stuff blowing up, heating up, lighting up, bubbling up, eroding away, dissolving, etc. But inside the AP guide was hardly any mention of this. There were also hardly any 3D diagrams of molecules and structures, it was mostly vocabulary and math equations. Chemistry was reduced to an unending array of vocabulary and calculations, similar to an accounting exam.
One could easily see
1. A student memorizing all these equations with absolutely no idea what the reactions would look like in real life. (That student may end up being a doctor.)
2. A student with 3D intelligence completely turned off by this barrage of calculations. He'll go spend his time playing video games and daydreaming. He could have been a great doctor--but he didn't get good grades in chemistry, and the essence of chemistry was never really presented to him.
Bring back the colored pencils
How should science be taught? One thing I am sure of: drawing should be involved. Simple drawing/sketching was a staple right of passage for medical and scientific trainees for centuries. I had a Coastal Geomorphology graduate class in which the project and the exams all involved drawing with colored pencils. And it was challenging--and I learned a lot. It's a totally different skill to draw a correct diagram of the ocean floor than it is to simply memorize a vocabulary list of ocean floor traits. Drawing the ocean floor inherently and fundamentally requires a spatial understanding of where the elements are and how they fit together. You have to navigate the ocean floor in your mind to draw it. The same is true of drawing the heart in biology or a pendulum or a cannon firing in physics. None of this spatial intelligence gets tested if the test is just vocabulary and equations.
At the end of the day, you simply should not be able to get an A in biology without being able to show that you can visualize cells, brains, organs, bone structures, etc. My feeling is that none of these visualization skills even comes up on many biology tests.
Spatial intelligence often completely neglected according to a new test
A recent test confirmed what we already knew, that spatial intelligence is badly neglected in our educational system.
Notice on the site quiz that in addition to 3D and 2D spatial intelligence they also include a separate "mechanical intelligence" which seems to involve not only 3D visualization but an ability to visualize motion in the 3D realm. Does that mean kinesthetic? I am emailing the study author to ask.
Kids Who Do Well On This Spatial Intelligence Test May Have Potential That's Going Completely Unrealized
from Business Insider
http://www.businessinsider.com/spatial-ability-predicts-future-success-2013-7#ixzz2Ztft2oCA
Notice on the site quiz that in addition to 3D and 2D spatial intelligence they also include a separate "mechanical intelligence" which seems to involve not only 3D visualization but an ability to visualize motion in the 3D realm. Does that mean kinesthetic? I am emailing the study author to ask.
Kids Who Do Well On This Spatial Intelligence Test May Have Potential That's Going Completely Unrealized
from Business Insider
http://www.businessinsider.com/spatial-ability-predicts-future-success-2013-7#ixzz2Ztft2oCA
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Natural farming
Work doesn't get anymore kinesthetic than real, natural farming. Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms shows how everything moves:
Grass is King on Livestock Farm
http://news.discovery.com/earth/videos/earth-grass-is-king-on-livestock-farm.htm
Talking about the dance and choreography on a farm
http://journal.wanderlustfestival.com/connect/blog/guest-scribe-joel-salatin-what-you-can-do
Elsewhere Salatin says he acts like a "stage manager" directing animals around the farm while the animals move on their own.
Along with kinesthetic intelligence, Salatin also has sky-high Naturalist Intelligence, he loves and is drawn to understand and distinguish the "patterns" of nature.
Grass is King on Livestock Farm
http://news.discovery.com/earth/videos/earth-grass-is-king-on-livestock-farm.htm
Talking about the dance and choreography on a farm
http://journal.wanderlustfestival.com/connect/blog/guest-scribe-joel-salatin-what-you-can-do
Elsewhere Salatin says he acts like a "stage manager" directing animals around the farm while the animals move on their own.
Along with kinesthetic intelligence, Salatin also has sky-high Naturalist Intelligence, he loves and is drawn to understand and distinguish the "patterns" of nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)