25th Anniversary of Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory
February 23rd, 2008 by Erich ViethThe Wall Street Journal has published a short article commemorating the book in which psychologist Howard Gardner announced his theory of the ”multiple intelligences”: Frames of Mind (1983). [I'd recommend starting with Gardner's 2000 sequel: Intelligence Reframed].
This WSJ article is light-hearted, though it makes some serious points along the way. It reads as though the writer had an epiphany when he finally realized that multiple intelligence theory does not hold that every child is a genius. Gardner’s theory doesn’t hold that all children are equally capable. Rather, MI theory holds that there are many ways to measure intelligence (at least nine major ways, according to Gardner) and that these multiple intelligences don’t meaningfully meld into any sort of all-purpose single score. Gardner’s main point is that the traditional alleged all-purpose intelligence rating (think of the score of an old-fashioned IQ test) that many educators have traditionally labelled general intelligence is a real world fiction that stigmatizes many children who are brilliant in many ways that society values highly, though they might not excel at math or reading.
In sum, there are a variety of ways in which children (and adults) excel or flounder, and we are better off recognizing a reality-based multi-scale spectrum rather than jamming all of our children under a single scale that measures only few of the well-substantiated intelligences recognized by Gardner:
[Gardner] noted that, while some parents might recoil from an intelligence theory that brings so many into the fold, others might dislike that it opens up new vistas in which their children prove to be below average. I hadn’t thought about that. Contrary to popular misperception, Mr. Gardner explained, MI [multiple intelligence] theory doesn’t mean that every child is outstanding at something. Some children can be below average at everything. My heart sank. . . Alas, here was the kindly Harvard psychology professor hinting that, while there are more avenues to genius, there are also more opportunities to prove oneself stupid.
[Note: There is an excellent grade school in my city (St. Louis, Missouri) that utilizes a curriculum based on Howard Gardner's multiple intelligence theory: New City School. ]
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I’ve read bits and pieces of the theory, heard interviews with him and some other supporters from Harvard, and I think it’s a terrific advance that’s been far too slowly adapted. Sure, some parents will balk at their children being labeled in any way that doesn’t make him look like a shining star, but knowing his strengths and weaknesses will allow more targeted teaching that will work better for the child. I know that some early-learning teacher training programs already include information on how to identify different learning styles to help teachers direct their lessons more effectively. Add in an understanding of different intelligence types, and classes can be more effective and orderly. Plus, instead of children failing over and over because they can’t overcome an inherent weakness, they’ll be able to take pride in succeeding in their strong areas.
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
The problem with assessing children is that there are distinct and basic physiological mental changes that occur with
That might all belie early aptitude/intelligence test results. Unless, of course, the results are used to carefully control what a child has access to; limiting him (it? him/her?).
If the tests are used to detect special abilities for advanced education/training, fine.
If the tests are used to decide who not to bother with, not so good.
Brooke McEldowney (author of comics such as Pibgorn and 9 Chickweed Lane) recently published a strip defining “Public Education” as The bureaucratic process of replacing an empty mind with a closed one.
(See the original before March 22, ‘08)
I’d hate to have multiple intelligence testing used as a tool in this process.