I have been tasked with answering this question, “What is Smart?” for my short TEDxWestVancouverED talk today. The essay that is a basis for the talk is a final collaboration I wrote with my dad this past July. The slides are at the bottom and I am sure the video will be up in a couple of weeks.
‘Smart’ just isn’t what it used to be. It is actually becoming passé.
In a world of knowledge scarcity, being smart was very important. Those who were smart were the people with knowledge. Others would seek out those who were smart. Smartness was in the hands of the few. This is not just the world of centuries ago, but this was the world I grew up in.
We know who the smart people were:
- Political leaders
- Professors
- Doctors, Lawyers and Teachers
- And Jeopardy Champions – I am sure “Who is Ken Jennings” is the answer many would have given when asked about someone who was smart
Largely, these were the people who were the keeper of the facts, the smart ones with the information who would share it with others.
In school, it was those who could recall the facts, and particularly those who could recall them quickly. If you could memorize your multiplication tables you were quickly labelled as “smart”. Smart was a product of a system based on sorting – some kids were smart, and the other kids were . . . well, we didn’t really call them anything aloud, but the implication was that they were less than smart. And in the traditional school smart hierarchy – the matching of provinces and capital cities along with the ability to memorize weekly spelling words was the apex of smartness.
Of course, the last 20 years have moved us away from a world of knowledge scarcity to knowledge abundance; now, all manner of information is available to everyone. For better or worse, we no longer look to our political and intellectual leaders for their all-knowing guidance, we quickly check what they have said with what we read on Wikipedia, Web Doctor MD or other online information available to us.
And even our leader of smarts, Ken Jennings, was outsmarted by a computer. . . . Damn you Watson!
Really, the value of smart is not only about the move from a world of knowledge being scarce to it being abundant . . . . we are devaluing the word ourselves. We have:
- Smart phones
- Smart cars
- Smart Meters
- And even a Smart Planet.
The word “smart” was reserved for the few, for the special, and now we attach it to the objects in our pockets. When we say someone is smart it ends a conversation, it doesn’t start one. The word has become greasy. Smart has become fast food.
We are actually at a turning point in the history of smart. We either need to abandon the word for newer, more apt descriptions of the qualities and traits we value, or come to a new understanding of the word that is reflective of what we now value as smart.
And, in our schools, especially if we listen to Psychology Professor Carol Dweck, we need to get away from so often using the word, to rather encourage effort, continual improvement and a growth mindset and abandon ranking and sorting.
So, there is a good question – what is smart? But there is also another good question, Is being smart relevant and does it still matter?
cultureofyes.ca 
Interesting! Smart phones and smarts. A couple of things:
1) Yes, effort matters. Which government/ministry took the effort grade out of reporting cards? Maybe some of you are too young to know, but teachers needed to give an effort mark for every subject. Now, it is supposed to be factored in or integrated in the marks that we give students. Now, it is true that many teachers struggled to put a mark, but there were tricks (are tricks). During group work, you could ask students to “grade” each others’ effort in a project, according to pre-specified criterias, given by teachers and/or students. For tests, you could have a pre-test (that counted somewhat towards final grades, if not students could fake not knowing something) and a final test. Of course, THIS does demand more marking and I am not sure the ministers and other leaders get that this is demanding on teachers.
2) Recall: There are quick methods to learn and memorize times tables, but how many teachers know? It is still an advantage to teach and know them. Are you really going to use your phone when you are trying to negotiate a price on a car, estimating prices,… Learning to spell and read in English demands rote memorization since there are so many irregularities (probably in the neighbourhood of 100,000 words are misspelled in the English dictionary.) [1) If we were to regularize those words, I figure we could save 4.5 billions dollars in Canada per year. How? Why? Consider that Finnish is a language which has a very regular spelling system. Is it any coincidence that Finnish students can start school at age 7 (not a typo) and be top-performers on PISA tests? (2) True, Canadian and BC students are right up there, as educational gurus and ministers would lead you to believe, but how much does an additional 1.5 year of education costs? At, say, $6K/year and 5 million students, that amounts to a cool 45 BILLIONS divide by 12 (grades) or 4.5 billions! Furthermore, in order to mitigate the learning problems that arise when learning to read and spell English words, many Commonwealth countries must spend a lot more time (away from other subjects, if those are tackled at all) and must spend a lot more money (in the form of extra teachers and resources). Let’s not forget about the additional tutoring costs borne by some parents as well. We could talk also about human costs as well: the kid who is labeled learning disabled, where –in truth– it is the language that is or the kid who will join gangs because choices are limited when one is illiterate! So, here is the proposal! Have a few linguists spell words like they should be (have them follow the spelling rules of English, at a minimum), employ a few programmers to make a free transcoding program for all publishers to transcode paper books into digital files, teach young teachers to spell and read all of those newly recoded words, and in a few years start teaching the first cohort of kids at age 7 and do so for the next 12 years, phasing in this for all kids. Problems (2) will arise, for sure, but 4,5 Billions/year can buy a lot of fixes. No? For one, an ipad or an e-reader per kid can hold lots of books (all gr. 1 to gr. 12 books). Now that’s a saving, isn’t it? For sure, teachers unions will lose teachers, but teachers do retire. Still, with 4,5 billions, change would be available to pay them like their counterparts in Finland! Parents might not like it, but how about having a universal childcare system in lieu? As for the rest of us, rest assured, you will still be able to read those old books like I will! They won’t burn! Publishing houses? E-readers exist. Incidentally, the saving of $4.5 billions is a very conservative figure! Right? Ahhhhh! Change! Come on! There is a “can” in Canada! A “kan”? Can our Canadian leaders do it? (For sure, they would need to talk to the big US elephant in the room. Surely, elephants and dinosaurs have smart phones. No?)
1) http://englishspellingproblems.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/english-spelling-system.html?view=sidebar
2) http://reforming-english.blogspot.ca/p/finglish.html
Good final questions posed… To foster a culture of problem solvers and critical thinkers and growth – mindedness is what I would be aiming for! Great reflective post!
Thank you Judi. Thinking about it more, it does come down to how broadly one defines “smart” as to whether it is still relevant. I appreciate the engagement.
Great post! I would say that, at least with the students I teach and my own children,my use of the word is more concerned with shifting the definition’s current usage (which implies that some are, and some aren’t) towards informed choices in i)how one applies what one knows and ii) the ways in which you’ll curate your own content and process.
A worthy, but polarizing discussion and a drum that Will Richardson has been beating for years.
Yes! Great response. This makes me want to search out the Omega 3 Fatty Acids, Polyunsaturated and Monounsaturated fats in the greasy word that is smart.
Thanks Dan – and wonderful to make the face-to-face connection with you.
[…] Source: cultureofyes.ca […]
Having taught a couple of decades of children – being ‘smart’ is alive and well. Smart is not just about memorization of facts and figures, as referenced in this post, but about rather insight, synthesis and articulation of ideas, and intellectual engagement with material. I have stood in awe at the capability of a number of my very ‘smart’ students who stood head and shoulders above the pack. However, the question posed that is pertinent is: ‘Is smart relevant and does it matter’? Being smart doesn’t necessarily get a child ahead in life to be successful (whatever that means!).
The different ‘smart’ which is relevant and does matter I believe is social-emotional capability (including grit, resilience, growth mindset, social awareness…) ensuring the ability to negotiate relationships and uncertainty in a constantly changing world.
Hear! Hear!
Thank you Elizabeth. And yes, for the purpose of this post I took a very narrow and simple definition of smart. Your suggestions around the different kind of ‘smart’ are the areas that so many schools are now trying to find ways to nurture and are far more difficult to do than the traditional “smarts”.
I still think there is a place for recall of facts and data. Mastery still requires an ability to recall information, not access it via technology. My wife works in medicine and professionals there are expected to ‘just know’ a lot of factoids. That being said I feel the role of a teacher is to scaffold meaning, and the scaffold needs content.
Thanks Spencer. No doubt there are still many jobs that require master of certain facts. And, I actually think knowing my times tables, being able to quote Shakespeare and quickly name the Capital cities of all Canadian provinces is still healthy for life.
We are seeing that shift in the role of teacher from the provider of content to helping students scaffold and make meaning of rich content.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Yes intelligence matters – I just believe we need an expanded view such as emotional, social and cognitive intelligence. Put physical intelligence in there too so people develop respect for theirs bodies, health and impacts of poor physical on self and others. While you can find facts and opinions in abundant places, we still need possibility thinking to invent the future. That requires unique insights, perspective, cognitive disciple, problem solving, collaboration, use of relevant technology and influencing. Many more….
Thanks Heather. I think you are right on. Just as our view of “literacy” has expanded to include physical literacy, digital literacy, artistic literacy etc. we have a growing view of what intelligence means. And of course it seems it is even more about application than ever before.
Effort or grid? Same concept, different words: The Key to success is grit: http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit
That’s grit not grid! 🙂
The marshmellow experiment: Walter Mischel says his famous ‘Marshmallow Test’ shows self-control can be learned
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2014/09/23/the-marshmallow-test-of-almost-50-years-challenging-will-power-shows-self-control-can-be-learned/
marshmallow
[…] this fall I shared a post Does Smart Still Matter? That was the script I had built for a TEDx Talk answering the question “What is Smart?” […]