The latest from dougbelshaw.com/blog
- #uppingyourgame v0.4 now available!
- Things I Learned This Week – #11
- A brief history of infographics.
- You’re doing it wrong.
- Seven types of ambiguity and new literacies
- Wednesday Wisdom #10: Application and ability
- HOWTO: Create iTunes audiobooks from MP3s
- #uppingyourgame: an audio preview
- Things I Learned This Week – #10
- How I put together ‘Things I Learned This Week’ [visualization]
-
Do Multiple Intelligences add up?
67 CommentsYesterday we looked at what the Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) was and, briefly, what it means for educators. Today, in order to have a balanced view of the theory, we’re going to have a look at what criticisms have been levelled at MI…
One of the leading critics of MI is Prof. John White of the London Institute of Education. He sees the theory as a sop to policy-makers:
It is not difficult to see why [the theory of Multiple Intelligences] should appeal to policy-makers working in deprived areas and faced with underachievement. Many children in these areas are held back by a low self-concept. They see themselves as dim or thick. But this is within the framework of the traditional version of intelligence – they are poor at the kind of abstract logical thinking that IQ tests target. Broaden the picture and their perceptions are transformed.
J. White, Do Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Add Up? (1998) – quoted in P. Ginnis, The Teachers’ Toolkit (2002), p.47 The word ‘intelligence’ is a loaded word – it carries connotations with it that can be powerful in the realm of self-image and self-esteem. In my experience, when students see the outcomes of MI tests they regard them as ‘being-good-at’ something rather than ‘a-tendency-to-learn’ in a certain way (despite my exhortations). MI may be useful in seeing the worth in oneself and others, Prof. White states, but that doesn’t mean that the theory is true.
But then what is truth in this regard? Could we ever explain the intricacies and nuances of the human brain in a way that can be explained in a few sentences? Just what is ‘intelligence’? At the end of the day it’s a human construct, a shorthand way of getting across meaning and/or communicating talent(s) a particular person has in a given area. Dividing a blanket term of ‘intelligence’ into constituent parts doesn’t matter, therefore, so long as the educational community sees benefit in it. This would be the pragmatic approach.
Another problem that Prof. White raises is the quasi-scientific nature of MI. Whilst presenting the theory as a rigorous scientific theory, Gardner nevertheless states:
…it must be admitted that the selection (or rejection) of a candidate intelligence is reminiscent more of an artistic judgment than of a scientific assessment.
H. Gardner (1983) quoted in J. White, The Myth of Multiple Intelligences So if Gardner’s theory is not empirically valid, it can be used only as a guide by teachers, not as a definitive statement of ability in a given area. Each ‘intelligence’ can be rated only through the administration of a test or through observation, both of which can be challenged on subjective grounds. Given that we are used to thinking of intelligence as being an ‘objective’ standard of measurement, Gardner’s use of the term ‘multiple intelligences’ seems to be spurious. Gardner himself admits that,
..nothing much turns on the particular use of this term [‘intelligences’], and I would be satisfied to substitute such phrases as “intellectual competences,� “thought processes,� cognitive capacities,� “cognitive skills,� “forms of knowledge,� ….
H. Gardner (1983) quoted in J. White, The Myth of Multiple Intelligences Much of Gardner’s theory, as with most thinkers, can be understood better with some reference to his early adult life. Gardner was very interested in the arts whilst a psychology student, and was a ’serious pianist’:
No surprise, then, that when I first began to study developmental psychology, I was soon struck by certain limitations in the field. The child was seen by nearly all researchers as an exclusively rational creature, a problem-solver ….While a first-year graduate student, I elected to direct my own research toward a developmental psychology of the arts.
H. Gardner (1982) quoted in J. White, The Myth of Multiple Intelligences It would seem that what drove Gardner to develop his theory in the first place was a perceived discrepancy between his understanding of what it means to be human, and how humans are described and understood through the lens of psychology. This helps us to understand how the MI should be understood. As educators, instead of ascribing objective ontological reality to the seven, eight, or however-many ‘intelligences’ that are posited, we should instead view them as providing a way of gaining a handle on tendencies or capacities that our students may exhibit. As with learning styles, if we use them as one of many heuristic tools in our toolkit of teaching and learning methods, we are all the more likely to improve the motivation and performance of learners. :D
Related Links
- Gardner responding to ‘myths’ r.e. MI (903KB PDF)
- John White – myth of multiple intelligences (114KB PDF)
- Howard Gardner, Multiple Intelligences and Education
Published on February 14, 2006 · Filed under: Uncategorized;
67 Responses to “Do Multiple Intelligences add up?”
-
SUOVav uptpfrztvzkr, [url=http://zyyizwbrtyam.com/]zyyizwbrtyam[/url], [link=http://ewevfzicqkow.com/]ewevfzicqkow[/link], http://docsnftjjnum.com/
-
dV5QBA llzpiwibydct, [url=http://ouiwujimmrhr.com/]ouiwujimmrhr[/url], [link=http://bkcvgkscbrmr.com/]bkcvgkscbrmr[/link], http://xwzxlskfotan.com/
Leave a Reply
