(AFA - 2017)Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences

(AFA - 2017)

Howard Gardner: ‘Multiple intelligences’ are not ‘learning styles’ by Valerie Strauss

The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized 30 years ago when we now world- renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests.

Gardner’s theory initially listed seven intelligences which work together: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal; he later added an eighth, naturalist intelligence and says there may be a few more. The theory became highly popular with K-12 educators around the world seeking ways to reach students who did not respond to traditional approaches, but over time, ‘multiple intelligences’ somehow became synonymous with the concept of ‘learning styles’. In this important post, Gardner explains why the former is not the latter. 

It’s been 30 years since I developed the notion of ‘multiple intelligences’. I have been gratified by the interest shown in this idea and the ways it’s been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and that’s the tendency of many people, including persons whom I cherish, to credit me with the notion of ‘learning styles’ or to collapse ‘multiple intelligences’ with ‘learning styles’. It’s high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight.

First a word about ‘MI theory’. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how human capacities are represented in the brain, I developed the idea that each of us has a number of relatively independent mental faculties, which can be  termed our ‘multiple intelligences’. The basic idea is simplicity itself. A belief in a single intelligence assumes that we have one central, all-purpose computer, and it determines how well we perform in every sector of life. In contrast, a belief in multiple intelligences assumes that human beings have 7 to 10 distinct intelligences.

Even before I spoke and wrote about ‘MI’, the term ‘learning styles’ was being bandied about in educational circles. The idea, reasonable enough on the surface, is that all children (indeed all of us) have distinctive minds 45 and personalities. Accordingly, it makes sense to find out about learners and to teach and nurture them in ways that are appropriate, that they value, and above all, are effective.

Two problems: first, the notion of ‘learning styles’ is itself not coherent. Those who use this term do not define the criteria for a style, nor where styles come from, how they are recognized/ assessed/ exploited. Say that Johnny is said to have a learning style that is ‘impulsive’. Does that mean that Johnny is ‘impulsive’ about everything? How do we know this? What does this imply about teaching? Should we teach ‘impulsively’, or should we compensate by ‘teaching reflectively’? What of learning style is ‘right-brained’ or visual or tactile? Same issues apply.

Problem #2: when researchers have tried to identify learning styles, teach consistently with those styles, and examine outcomes, there is not persuasive evidence that the learning style analysis produces more effective outcomes than a ‘one size fits all approach’. Of course, the learning style analysis might have been inadequate. Or even if it is on the mark, the fact that one intervention did not work does not mean that the concept of learning styles is fatally imperfect; another intervention might have proved effective. Absence of evidence does not prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: ‘back to the drawing boards’.

Here’s my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But we signed out, as a strong intelligence, an area where the person has considerable computational power.

Style or learning style: A hypothesis of how an individual approaches the range of materials. If an individual has a ‘reflective style’, he/she is hypothesized to be reflective about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in one’s interaction with the others.

Senses: Sometimes people speak about a ‘visual’ learner or an ‘auditory’ learner. The implication is that some people learn through their eyes, others through their ears. This notion is incoherent. Both spatial information and reading occur with the eyes, but they make use of entirely different cognitive faculties. What matters is the power of the mental computer, the intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up.

These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about ‘an impulsive style’ or a ‘visual learner’, that’s their prerogative. But they should recognize that these labels may be unhelpful, at best, and ill-conceived at worst.

In contrast, there is strong evidence that human beings have a range of intelligences and that strength (or weakness) in one intelligence does not predict strength (or weakness) in any other intelligences. All of us exhibit jagged profiles of intelligences. There are common sense ways of assessing our own intelligences, and even if it seems appropriate, we can take a more formal test battery. And then, as teachers, parents, or self- assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information.

(Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet)

 

Glossary:

K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects.

 

The text