Comments on: 25th Anniversary of Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory

By: Dan Klarmann

Dan Klarmann — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:04:09 +0000

The problem with assessing children is that there are distinct and basic physiological mental changes that occur with

Puberty
Adolescence
Education
Maturity

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.

By: Alison

Alison — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:46:33 +0000

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.