Howard Gardner and theories of Multiple Intelligences

[John Albert]

Harvard Professor Howard Gardner and his revolutionary concept of "Multiple Intelligences"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Gardner

I tend to like his ideas, but admittedly don't see the value of his approach over traditional IQ evaluation. Plus, it's pretty much untestable.

What do you guys think?

[Loss Leader]

If nothing else, it helps influence teachers to try several approaches to a subject instead of just repeating the same thing over and over. That alone makes the whole thing worth it, even if the categories of "intelligences" are completely unstructured, overlapping, inconsistent and ill-defined.

[John Albert]

Yeah that's why I like it. I think it has enormous social value despite being totally unscientific.

[athon]

Here's a nicely written article arguing why MI is probably bunk: http://chronicle.com/article/Not-Every-Child-Is-Secretly/48001/

It's a nice idea that simply isn't back by the evidence.

Athon

[John Albert]

Any standardized measure of intelligence is going to be inherently flawed.

[Augustus]

Well this is a great thread, and one that I am actually qualified to speak on. I actually attended a charter school that used the theory of multiple intelligences as part of a course, and I later on tutored history there.

For reference, here is said school: http://www.brightideasschool.com/ Please note that none of those pictures on the website are of the actual school. It is a very run down, prison-like facility in the middle of waves of brown grass and surrounded by truck stops. Likewise, most of the statistics presented on the site are nearly ten years old, so don't even bother reading through them.

Anyway, my opinion of the eight intelligences is that it does force the student to look at the ways people can learn. The eight intelligences were not used for actual course instruction (it was essentially a lecture/socratic method), but for a course we called 'Culture,' hence why the founding corporation was called 'Connections Between Cultures.' Every week, and at higher levels every two week, the students would have to pick a topic of cultural, social or historic significance and prepare a speech and presentation over the topic. They had to use at least four of the intelligences in their presentation, or risk failure.

I don't think that the intelligences made the children smarter; I do, however, think that it forced them to explore their creativity and ingenuity. I don't think you can qualify that, but I do think that it better prepares them for learning at a higher level as they're already attuned to that kind of presentation.

[themusicteacher]

Here's a nicely written article arguing why MI is probably bunk: http://chronicle.com/article/Not-Every-Child-Is-Secretly/48001/

It's a nice idea that simply isn't back by the evidence.

Athon

You know, the distinguished prof has a few good points but he doesn't offer any research, either. It is true that very little research has been done on the subject but Ferguson makes just as spurious of claims as he's trying to put to rest. Nobody ever claimed that that every child is some sort of "secret genius" (straw man) or that we should laud little Johnny because he "dances well" but is poor at math (though we have no problem lauding athletes who have "football/baseball/hockey smarts" but haven't read a book since 5th grade - Ferguson has a nice apologetic for this).

What we should give is opportunity to explore all the ways in which humans can achieve, not just those that are apparently the most economically lucrative. There is more to life than work and economic development and more ways to experience humanity than to be a mathematician or an engineer. Once again, nobody is saying that we should let kids explore their abilities in "dance or socializing" to the detriment of learning algebra and reading.

This guy is full of straw men. What people are talking about is a balanced curriculum and the evidence that gets cited about our rankings in subjects is likely skewed and irrelevant. These are the same conservative voices that don't mind us being around dead last in healthcare among industrialized countries but screams and shouts about how kids need to be doing math and science (but only church-approved science) until their ears bleed with no time for anything else. I can understand the alarm over underperforming schools and kids who know next to nothing but let's get real: success in school is predicated largely on a child's home life and socio-economic status. No school can outperform the kids who come completely unprepared to learn, period.

[athon]

Anyway, my opinion of the eight intelligences is that it does force the student to look at the ways people can learn. The eight intelligences were not used for actual course instruction (it was essentially a lecture/socratic method), but for a course we called 'Culture,' hence why the founding corporation was called 'Connections Between Cultures.' Every week, and at higher levels every two week, the students would have to pick a topic of cultural, social or historic significance and prepare a speech and presentation over the topic. They had to use at least four of the intelligences in their presentation, or risk failure.

The problem I've found is that even if this is what you've taken from Gardner's MI, it doesn't reflect the literature or how a lot of pedagogues have interpreted it. Many schools I've dealt with in my time have explicitly included curriculum references to Gardner's MI. I remember arguing this same point back when I first got into education a number of years ago - it's a 'nice idea' that simply isn't supported by anything more than warm feelings and post-modernist educational wishful thinking.

The problem is that MI oversimplifies the issue of epistemological development and the process of adopting new skills and knowledge. Communicating to teachers that you need to structure your lesson to include multiple forms of media is one thing (and a good thing at that), and vital for good learning practices. There is plenty of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of teaching the same thing using different media and teaching tools. Yet that is not the same as Gardner's MI, I'm afraid.

You know, the distinguished prof has a few good points but he doesn't offer any research, either. It is true that very little research has been done on the subject but Ferguson makes just as spurious of claims as he's trying to put to rest.

I can't see where he does more than offer opinion. I could accuse you of the very same, if not for the fact I'm aware that you're also writing an opinion. You'd be free to disagree based on your own experiences, of course, but based on my own experience he's hit the nail on the head. Outside of that, he's stating that the MI claims are without evidence - not a novel point by any stretch of the imagination.

Nobody ever claimed that that every child is some sort of "secret genius" (straw man) or that we should laud little Johnny because he "dances well" but is poor at math (though we have no problem lauding athletes who have "football/baseball/hockey smarts" but haven't read a book since 5th grade - Ferguson has a nice apologetic for this).You've never come across this? Seriously? Can I ask how many schools you've had experience with in your career?

Unless you're playing word games, it's not difficult to find evidence of MI being interpreted to claim that every child is indeed 'smart in their own way' or has an 'inner genius'. Whether it's worded as 'Multiple intelligences (http://www.childcareaware.org/en/subscriptions/dailyparent/volume.php?id=45) are a set of different ways to look at how children (and all people) are smart and skillful' or explicitly 'every child is a genius (http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/natural_genius.htm)', finding people who interpret MI just as the author describes is not all that hard.

What we should give is opportunity to explore all the ways in which humans can achieve, not just those that are apparently the most economically lucrative. There is more to life than work and economic development and more ways to experience humanity than to be a mathematician or an engineer. Once again, nobody is saying that we should let kids explore their abilities in "dance or socializing" to the detriment of learning algebra and reading.I'm not sure we read the same article, then. The author was addressing the fact that MI is often used - without evidence - to claim that there are many different forms of 'intelligence'. It simply doesn't seem to be so. He's not claiming that students should be forsaken their right to explore different skills or interests - just that it is nonsense that all such skills are forms of intelligence.

This guy is full of straw men.Oh, there is a straw man in the room. No doubt about it.

What people are talking about is a balanced curriculum and the evidence that gets cited about our rankings in subjects is likely skewed and irrelevant.While true, I'm not sure what that has to do with MI. If you're claiming that people commonly use MI as some sort of metaphor for balancing a curriculum with a range of skills, I think you're being quite selective. I'm not arguing that there aren't teachers who do give a rather dismissive nod to Gardner's MI as shorthand for differentiation or use of diverse learning tools. But that is not what MI itself is claiming, and there are plenty of people in the field - in Australia, the US and the UK (the three educational cultures I'm most familiar with...I can't comment on others unfortunately) - who readily refer to Gardner's MI in claiming that everybody is 'smart in their own way'.

I can understand the alarm over underperforming schools and kids who know next to nothing but let's get real: success in school is predicated largely on a child's home life and socio-economic status. No school can outperform the kids who come completely unprepared to learn, period.You seem to be having two different rants here. I can sympathise completely with your view (I'm assuming US here) of the impact of home background on education. There is plenty of research to back you up on that. But I seem to have missed your segue from the article's short-fallings to that.

Athon

[Augustus]

The problem I've found is that even if this is what you've taken from Gardner's MI, it doesn't reflect the literature or how a lot of pedagogues have interpreted it. Many schools I've dealt with in my time have explicitly included curriculum references to Gardner's MI. I remember arguing this same point back when I first got into education a number of years ago - it's a 'nice idea' that simply isn't supported by anything more than warm feelings and post-modernist educational wishful thinking.

The problem is that MI oversimplifies the issue of epistemological development and the process of adopting new skills and knowledge. Communicating to teachers that you need to structure your lesson to include multiple forms of media is one thing (and a good thing at that), and vital for good learning practices. There is plenty of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of teaching the same thing using different media and teaching tools. Yet that is not the same as Gardner's MI, I'm afraid.

I'm of the opinion that if it produces positive results even if they weren't expected by the original theory, it's still a positive result and should be seen as such.

[bpesta22]

There's a recent paper showing that different "learning styles" (visual versus auditory, e.g.) simply do NOT exist. If anyone's interested, I'll dig it up.

By this I mean that within-person differences on learning styles are always smaller than between person differences on amount learned.

[athon]

I'm of the opinion that if it produces positive results even if they weren't expected by the original theory, it's still a positive result and should be seen as such.

What an odd thing to come across on a skeptic's forum. :confused: It smacks of placebo education - so long as the idea seems to do good things, it should be left alone.

The thing is, MI seems to be make believe. That's NOT the same as saying teachers should not diversify their lessons with a range of media. It's saying (as Pesta noted) that this whole idea of a person being a 'visual' learner and another being an 'auditory' learner isn't validated by the evidence.

The risk of applying this conclusion is that students or teachers will adopt a learning style with the belief that it is the sole style that suits them (or that student).

I write educational resources for a living and have actually come across this mentality on occasion in teachers, where they state they 'don't use a lot of written material because they have a class of 'auditory' learners'. Diverse media work best when the same student deals with multiple media, not just the single one that 'suits them'.

Besides that, pedagogy should be taken seriously as a field of study and not as a 'whatever feels right' pseudoscience. Evidence-based educational practices have the potential to reduce poor teaching methods and improve student learning.

Athon

[LarianLeQuella]

There's a recent paper showing that different "learning styles" (visual versus auditory, e.g.) simply do NOT exist. If anyone's interested, I'll dig it up.

By this I mean that within-person differences on learning styles are always smaller than between person differences on amount learned.

Please dig up. :)

[Jeff Corey]

Please dig up. :)

Ok. http://medsci.indiana.edu/c602web/tbl/reading/Kratzig_learningstyles_edpsych_2006.pdf

[Cayvmann]

Here's a nicely written article arguing why MI is probably bunk: http://chronicle.com/article/Not-Every-Child-Is-Secretly/48001/

It's a nice idea that simply isn't back by the evidence.

Athon

Maybe not related, but he calls MI a theory and then says there is no evidence for it. I wish he would have said something alone the lines of the hypothesis of MI instead. This kind of stuff tends to water down the meaning of theory, and allows the ignorati to invent scientific conspiracies in pushing unfounded "theories", such as evolution, you know.

[Elaedith]

Although Gardner is a developmental psychologist he is based in a school of Education. Educationalists tend to have a somewhat different perspective as far as evidence is concerned. I had to complete a postgraduate certificate in higher education, and evidence didn't really feature in it. It was 'this is the best practice', rote learning lots of jargon, and 'try applying it and you'll see that it works'.

Lots of teachers apply MI in the classroom and are sure that it works (by which they mean it is popular with students and seems to make life easier), and often have no other concept of validity.

A more theoretical issue is whether skills and talents in particular areas should be defined as 'intelligence'.

[bpesta22]

Thanks JC-- I thought there was a more recent study (this year) but haven't yet found it.

Here's what I think is scary as hell. Google-scholar learning styles and look just at 2010. There's a sea of research on this crap. Learning style inventories predict all sorts of things, including leadership.

Something's seriously wrong here. I bet this happens in all areas of social science. There's a rat or lots of em! I'm not sure whether it's me or them though.

It's a contradiction that 100 years of research on general intelligence exists (the "law of positive manifold-- that within person differences on a math and verbal test will always be smaller than between person differences on those tests) and 100s of studies on learning styles presuming just the opposite. Some of this literature has to be fudged-- on one side, the other, or both.

The only thing saving humanity is that scientific contributions have to stand the test of time. If there's one thing I've concluded in about 20 years of doing social "science" it's that all scientists are people and so are biased (the trick is that bias varies randomly**, and natural selection takes care of what "truths" get to the next generation of biased scientists).

Who wants to write a paper on this!?

**unless it's biased in a politically correct direction. Then it takes decades of data versus perhaps 10 years.

[bpesta22]

Here it is. BTW, the authors here are highly elite-- doesn't mean they are correct, but they are indeed the shites (editors of APA journals and whatnot)!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091216162356.htm

[Jeff Corey]

Thanks JC-- I thought there was a more recent study (this year) but haven't yet found it.

Here's what I think is scary as hell. Google-scholar learning styles and look just at 2010. There's a sea of research on this crap. Learning style inventories predict all sorts of things, including leadership.

Something's seriously wrong here. I bet this happens in all areas of social science. There's a rat or lots of em! I'm not sure whether it's me or them though...

The authors answer your question.
"Nearly all of the studies that purport to provide evidence for learning styles fail to satisfy key criteria for scientific validity. Any experiment designed to test the learning-styles hypothesis would need to classify learners into categories and then randomly assign the learners to use one of several different learning methods, and the participants would need to take the same test at the end of the experiment. If there is truth to the idea that learning styles and teaching styles should mesh, then learners with a given style, say visual-spatial, should learn better with instruction that meshes with that style. The authors found that of the very large number of studies claiming to support the learning-styles hypothesis, very few used this type of research design. Of those that did, some provided evidence flatly contradictory to this meshing hypothesis, and the few findings in line with the meshing idea did not assess popular learning-style schemes."

[Jeff Corey]

Double post

[bpesta22]

Double post

You have a learn by repetition style?

[Jeff Corey]

Yes I do.

[Jeff Corey]

yes

[Jeff Corey]

I sure do.