knowledge on the part of students. He proposed a dispositional view of
knowledge transfer wherein teaching that nurtures the habit of thinking sci-
entifically or the value of acting according to moral principles.
Perkins and Ritchhart’s (chap. 13) exposition of dispositions rather than
capacity as critical for intellectual functioning is in line with Dewey’s con-
cern. In the same vein, Zimmerman and Schunk (chap. 12) discuss model self-
regulated, reflective learners, and Li and Fischer (chap. 14) discuss culturally
defined ideal learners. What is common among these chapters is that intellec-
tual functioning is treated at two levels: one is empirical, concerning what is
(i.e., its nature and manifestations); the other is normative, concerning what
ought to be (Simon, 1969). The former is descriptive and objective, and the
latter is prescriptive and value-laden, a matter of cultural desirability. Dewey
(1916) apparently thought that the education of minds capable of critical
thinking is crucial for a viable democracy. Thus, we can meaningfully discuss
how to inculcate intellectual values (D. Kuhn, 2002) and build intellectual
character (Bereiter, 1995; Perkins & Ritchhart, chap. 13; Ritchhart, 2002)
along the way of teaching subject matters.
We can conceptualize intellect as a two-fold phenomenon, with a knowl-
edge component (e.g., deep understanding of principles of a domain, be it ac-
ademic or practical, tacit or explicit) and a personal component (e.g., values,
dispositions, personal epistemologies, identity). Indeed, in an embodied
mind, these two dimensions are fully integrated and thus cannot be separated
(Polanyi, 1958). If education only focuses on the former, it is an incomplete
education, to say the least. Precisely because it is difficult to maintain such
habits of mind, the notion of a community of learners committed to a com-
mon goal of self-improvement in pursuing knowledge, and who push one an-
other to work at the edge of each’s competence, gains currency (Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1993; Brown, 1997).
Summary
Social and cultural contexts are not some additional factors to be reckoned
with on top of individual characteristics. Rather, they are an integral part of
individuals’ intellectual functioning and development. There are theoretical
differences as to whether personal factors and social-contextual factors can
be understood as separate constituent components of a complex person-
environment system. Whatever the case, cultural values and beliefs shared by
people of a community have a direct bearing on individuals’ intellectual func-
tioning and development. Education as a force of enculturation can have a
significant impact on the development of a person’s values, beliefs, and dis-
positions as well as knowledge and skills.
28 DAI AND STERNBERG