Defining Intelligence

How many times have you used the word smart to describe students in your classrooms, wondering if they might be just a bit smarter than you or at least may become so sooner than you would like? What do we mean by smart? Does it mean intelligent, witty, creative, or just clever? It may well be just the ability to adapt to one’s environment as in street smart. Does smart mean the same thing as intelligent? Cleverness may refer to the ability to cleverly adapt to changing circumstances.

There seem to be great differences in interpretation among all these words. There is little consensus among professionals on an operative definition of intelligence. For example, when two dozen prominent theorists from the American Psychological Association were asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen different definitions (1995). The concept is wide open to interpretation. We who are educators should understand some basics. For the sake of the intellectual rigor that upholds our profession, let’s explore the intelligence dilemma together and examine three prominent theories explained by Rafi Feuerstein (1997).


Theory One: Cast Building
It has long been held that there is a measurable general intelligence factor common to all people. Intelligence quotients (IQ’s) have been widely used in educational, business, and military settings. This first theory assumes that there is one basic factor responsible for thinking, or a general mental energy known as “g.” This one factor “g” is presumed to be related to all thinking abilities. Because of its rigidity, this theory could be referred to as “cast building,” as in building a concrete wall. Intelligence is seen as a global capability that
causes an individual to respond similarly in all situations, or to all concepts or ideas. Those holding to this theory conclude that intellectual capacity is a relatively easy thing to measure and one that remains fairly consistent across an individual’s lifetime. Is this your belief?

Theory Two: Brick Building
A second theory is a bit more flexible. Rather than cast building, it could be described as brick building. This theory refers to intelligence that has a number of factors responsible for various thinking abilities, and these factors are separate from one another, like bricks in a wall. Separation is due to the content involved in the thinking processes, as in Gardner’s (1993) multiple intelligences theory.

This separation of process and content implies different ways of thinking relative to different subject areas. For example, you may have a spatial intelligence that helps you design buildings and find your way in a strange city but not be able to read very well. A problem, according to Feuerstein, in considering intellectual ability as separate areas, or “bricks,” is that one area of intellectual competence presumably has nothing to do with any other areas of cognitive strength or weakness. That is, this second theory presumes that the systems that support the ability to design a building or read a book have no overlap. Nevertheless, it does introduce some flexibility into the intelligence dilemma. Have you landed on a specific position yet? Can you be supersmart in one area and really dumb in another? Or are there supporting systems such as flexibility of thinking that underlie both?

Theory Three: Mosaic Model
A third theory could be called the mosaic model. This model resembles a colorful, creatively designed mosaic tile as opposed to a concrete or brick wall. The theory is more flexible than the cast building theory and more general than the brick building one. The mosaic model integrates the features of the other two by proposing:
• Intelligence is built from many factors within an individual, both cognitive and experiential.
• These many factors are general and can be related to all cognitive behaviors (like designing or reading).
• Intelligence can be described as either fluid or crystallized (Cattell, 1987).

You could picture fluid intelligence as being the background on which the mosaic tiles are placed. Fluid intelligence consists of thinking strategies that are separate from the content being learned. In other words, it is how one thinks, not what. Crystallized intelligence, in contrast, is the specific knowledge learned by the individual or the content or body of knowledge that the individual has mastered. It is the mosaic tiles themselves that represent functional cognitive systems.

In other words, this theory assumes intelligence that is separate from the knowledge learned or content measured by many IQ tests. Fluid intelligence the how to learn—can cross over into many content areas and is open to constructive change. For example, strengthening visual processing could contribute to greater fluency in reading, thereby improving comprehension skills. In fact, improvement in fluid intelligence can contribute to content mastery or crystallization of knowledge. This is great news for all educators. It means that limits that were previously set now have a skylight—a window in the ceiling formerly imposed by intelligence predictions.

Let’s return to our skylight analogy. According to Holmes (1993), there are one-story intellects, two-story intellects, and three-story intellects with skylights. Those who only collect facts are one-story individuals. Two-story individuals compare, reason, and generalize, based on the facts of the fact collectors. Three-story individuals idealize, imagine, and predict. Their best illumination comes from above, through the skylight. If we can begin to understand that intelligence is wonderfully open to change throughout a lifetime and that, as teachers, we can influence intellectual development though our teaching, then the how to learn will take new priority over the what.
Read More : Defining Intelligence

The Root Of Intelligence

To define intelligence we must first consider the theories and the research done by the individuals who proposed the theories. We have already examined three prominent ones. In addition, the word itself should be analyzed. The root of the word intelligence is intellegere, Latin for “to understand.” Intelligence implies a general mental capacity that varies from person to person and fluctuates over a lifespan.

Different individuals have particular propensities or deficits in the areas of reasoning, planning, problem solving, comprehending abstract ideas, and learning from experience. Innate abilities or disabilities in these areas, however, should never be seen as permanent or unmodifiable. All learners can improve their ability to recognize connections as well as develop the capacity to think strategically, thereby laying the groundwork for new knowledge.

Clearly, individuals vary in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to their environments, to engage in different kinds of reasoning, and to overcome obstacles by creative thought. In addition, a given individual’s intellectual performance will vary greatly on any given day and when judged by different criteria. Here is one simple definition that incorporates many of the qualities mentioned:


Intelligence is the ability to recognize and make connections.

This simple definition is extremely relevant to us as we explore learning how to learn in a classroom setting. It may even represent a benchmark for you and your students. How well do you recognize and make connections? Can you teach this skill to your students to enhance their intellectual competency?


Intellectual Potential?
If you ever took an IQ test, you were placed in a category that perhaps “boxed you in” for life. You may have believed that your intellectual potential was measured, when actually your score was merely a predictor of how well you would do in school. The inventors of IQ tests reportedly never believed they were measuring fixed intelligence, yet in practice many educators have translated the scores into biological realities that can never change. Binet, the author of one of the first intelligence tests, is reported to have said, “If it were not possible to change intelligence, why measure it in the first place?” (cited in Campioni, 1989, p. 155).

For example, one look at a child with Down’s syndrome assures many that any attempt to improve on this child’s intellectual functioning would be futile. Yet how many enlightened teachers would declare, “Chromosomes do not have the last word” (Feuerstein, 2006). Many children who have Down’s syndrome today are achieving far more than anyone believed they could fifty years ago. Perhaps the most important quality of intelligence that Feuerstein’s mosaic theory presents is modifiability—that is, the belief that intelligence is not constant or static, but wonderfully open to constructive change for all learners throughout a lifetime.

Mediated Learning
As we enter the arena of intellectual dynamic unpredictability, or the realization that learning is not a lockstep, highly predictable process, we learn to expect change in our students. Embracing the “mosaic model” means that the teacher should believe in the reversibility of poor academic performance, not doubt it. Intellectual skills can be developed by both teachers and students. However, such change does not happen by chance or without understanding the mediator’s role in the process.



The good news for teachers is that all minds can be stretched, inherent abilities unmasked, and thought processes developed—even our own! The secret lies in unwrapping the amazing concept of mediated learning. Mediated learning, in brief, relies on the guidance of an adult, whose role is to help interpret the complex world of input from the environment so that the child can focus, frame, and consider relationships. An extra bonus is that in the process of teaching a child to learn, the teacher too becomes better able to learn and think and make those all important connections.

Read More : The Root Of Intelligence