• Previous message: croberts: "talent?"
• Maybe in reply to: seapearls: "What is talent? Part-2"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

The use of the word 'talent' seems to be the sticking point in regard to your
search for answers. I am most hesitant to use the term descriptively in that,
as noted, students without 'talent' have a built in reason not to try. This
is a good enough reason not use the word that has no specific quantitative
value... which makes me wonder about your reference to the notion " that we
can not allow ourselves to admit that someone is better at something than
someone else." I don't think this is the case with how I teach my students
and you sound like a wonderful teacher. I'm not sure that Gardner and MI is a
valid argument for or against the usage of the term "talent".... In fact,
while I don't get the point of monetary value either, this is just an
exercise in semantics... fun and informative. Peter

---

• Next message: John & Sandra Barrick: "Re:Straws Book"
• Previous message: croberts: "talent?"
• Maybe in reply to: seapearls: "What is talent? Part-2"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 19:17:52 PDT