Graphics Programs Reference
In-Depth Information
that a new Digital Intelligence has emerged. By
acknowledging the existence of a new digital
intelligence and all of the implications that may
be created for education and communication, we
increase our ability to develop effective strategies
to accommodate and guide the development of
this new intellectual style.
McLuhan (1964) told us “the medium is the
message” (p.2), meaning our intellectual style is
shaped by the communication media we employ.
That was true with the television generation and
is even more critical to recognize as our digital
media take on more abilities to create virtual en-
vironments that mimic real environments but do
not seek to understand the implications this has for
society as a whole. Negroponte (1995) contends
“the medium is not the message in a digital world…
it is the embodiment of it” (p. 71). If this is true,
then virtual environments are becoming our real-
ity-and we must inquire what this means for our
global society and work to insure this new reality
is a complete reality rather than a partial reality.
The observed but unclassified characteristics of
changing intellectual style as a result of interac-
tion with digital communication technologies are
definite signs of an emerging digital intelligence.
Healy (1990, 1999) speaks of similar concerns
when she contends that changing lifestyles may
be altering children's brains in subtle but critical
ways and spoke of the development of a new
intellectual style. Her observations are outlined
especially as they relate to the changing commu-
nication patterns developed with young children
who interact with digital technologies (1999).
Levinson (1999), in his discussion of McLuhan's
ideas observes “if multiplicity is the spirit of the
digital age…as a vehicle for education not only
formal but more importantly via living, the Web
has obsolesced the seven liberal arts in favor of
a curriculum with boundaries far less rigid, and
populated by thousands of subjects constantly
under revision” (p194). Palfrey and Gasser (2008)
contend that “The educational establishment is ut-
terly confused about what to do about the impact
of technology on learning” (p. 238). The multiple
intelligences theoretical framework developed
by Gardner (1983, 1993) has been widely ac-
cepted as a guide for instructional consideration
in classrooms around the world. Gardner (1999)
acknowledges and identifies new evidence that
did not fit easily into the original intelligences
he described; this evidence, along with other
considerations is used to argue that yet another
of the multiple intelligences, digital intelligence,
has emerged (Adams, 2004). Acknowledgement
of this change in intellectual and communication
style could be a beginning step for educators and
educational practice. Gardner (2009), developer
of the Multiple Intelligences framework, seems
to call for this acknowledgement as he observes
that “the world of the future-with its ubiquitous
search engines, robots, and other computational
devices-will demand capacities that until now
have been mere options. To meet this new world
on its own terms, we should begin to cultivate
these capacities now” (p.2).
kNOWLeDge, WAYS OF
kNOWINg AND INTeLLIgeNCe
Information may be viewed as a fluid that often
takes on no form until a pattern is discovered that
appears to take into consideration that many pos-
sibilities for assemblage exist, but settles on the
most accommodating. As with most strong models
and theories, Multiple Intelligence Theory has
defined rules for organization of information that
will accommodate new evidence in such a way that
will further extend the organization and therefore
substantiate existing understanding and work to
create new knowledge. To facilitate a discussion
of intelligence one must posses an understanding
of the relationship between knowledge, modes of
knowing and intelligence. While each has a distinct
definition, all exist in an interactive relationship
as shown in Figure 1.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search