Multiple Intelligences: A comment on Howard Gardner's ideas

The following partial coverage of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences theory is taken from an email reply by Keith McGuiness on the OG discussion list, and is republished with the author's permission.

What is the "Theory of Multiple Intelligences"

Howard Gardner proposes that we all have seven different kinds of intelligence.

He has suggested that there may be an eighth but has not formally integrated this into his theory yet. The seven he identifies are: (1) linguistic intelligence; (2) musical intelligence; (3) logical- mathematical intelligence; (4) spatial intelligence; (5) bodily- kinesthetic intelligence; (6) interpersonal intelligence; and (7) intra- personal intelligence. We will all differ in how much of each of these intelligences we have. And cultures may differ in their appreciation of these intelligences, and in the way they are expressed.

The identification of different intelligences is not particularly novel--other psychologists have "identified" up to 150--but Gardner claims (among other things) that each of his "intelligences" can be localised to a particular part of the brain, and that they are entirely separate entities. He explicitly denies the existence of any type of "general" intelligence (the thing that other psychologists often refer to as "g").

Why don't I (a humble ecologist) like this theory?

I am a pathologically skeptical individual. I become particularly skeptical when individuals, or groups, suddenly appear to be acting "out of character". The educational community seems (to me at least) to have embraced "multiple intelligence theory" (which I will call MIT) with uncharacteristic fervour.

I am NOT saying that this is, necessarily, a bad thing (see next section) BUT the translation of scientific theory into practice is usually a slow process. I did wonder why it happened so quickly in this particular instance; especially given that Gardner's theory is just ONE of SEVERAL theories about human intelligence.

* Perhaps, I thought, there might be a lot of evidence to support this theory?

It turns out that there isn't. In fact, judging by the number of publications about it, the psychological research community appears to have given Gardner's theory very little attention. Some of the evidence Gardner cited has been criticised or rebutted. And one of his claims--that there is no "general" intelligence--is very probably wrong.

Indeed, a study published in a recent issue of Gifted Child Quarterly (which I can't put my hands on at the moment) showed that children who scored highly on one "intelligence" tend to score highly on some others: this is exactly what you would expect if there was some kind of "general" intelligence and is what you would *not* expect if these "intelligences" were all separate and distinct. (Note that testing this idea was not the aim of the study.)

In fact, Sternberg (1996: Cognitive Psychology) concluded that "hard evidence for the existence of these separate intelligences has yet to be produced". So much for that idea.

* Perhaps, I thought, there might be studies showing that teaching to the "multiple intelligences" has educational benefits?

I found a *few* studies published in the last *few* years which suggest some benefits. Most publications, however, discuss *how* to integrate the "multiple intelligences" into the curriculum; not whether or not such integration has any greater benefits than traditional or alternative practices. So much for that idea.

* Well, if MIT doesn't have too much support from the research community and has not been comprehensively evaluated by the education community, perhaps there is some other agenda here?

This agenda is easy to identify: Gardner's MIT fits nicely into a philosophy in which *all* children are gifted, just in different ways. Also fitting nicely into this philosophy are Gardner's opposition to the concept of "general" intelligence, to practice of standard intelligence testing, and to the categorisation of individuals.

Elsewhere, I quoted Walter McKenzie from web site devoted to teaching the multiple intelligences saying: "we can now stop asking the divisive question 'How intelligent are you?' and instead ask the inclusive one 'How are you intelligent?' He adds that: 'MI Theory was not developed to exclude individuals, but to allow all people to contribute to society through there [sic] own strengths!' (see http://www.ozemail.com.au/~kmcguinn/kdoc/ideology.htm).

Indeed, Gardner himself had a specific reason for calling the qualities he identified "intelligences". He wrote: "In delineating a narrow definition of intelligence, however, one usually devalues those capacities that are not within that definition's purview: thus, dancers or chess players may be talented but they are not smart".

There are three points I would like to make about this statement. First, Gardner's conclusion is, obviously, incorrect: dancers and chess players can be talented AND smart. Second, in our society, talents seem to be valued (or at least applauded) more readily than intelligence. Third, as most people know, redefining a word to have a meaning at odds with current usage is a common practice in political or social debate: it is, in my experience, rarely done to enlighten, usually to confuse (eg killing civilians becomes "collateral damage").

Do I disagree with the use of MIT in education?

Oddly enough, perhaps, NO. Some studies do appear to show that it may have some benefits.

I don't think that this is because MIT is correct; rather I think it is a consequence of two things. First, people do have different strengths and weaknesses, different interests, and do learn in different ways. Teaching practices based on MIT are likely to cater to a wider range of children; but so could other teaching practices which were not explicitly linked to the "multiple intelligences". (Indeed, I suspect that some teachers who have routinely been employing a varied approach might well be wondering what all the fuss is about.)

Second, teaching the curriculum using a variety of approaches is simply likely to be more interesting; and this in itself will stimulate the children's (natural) enthusiasm for learning. BUT such an approach may not suit some gifted children--particularly, I suspect, the highly gifted--who might simply "want to get on with it" and who might regard some of the antics carried out in the name of "multiple intelligences" as a distraction. (This is, somewhat, off the topic of MIT but the standard "workshop" type approach used for much in- service training usually has me gritting my teeth inside the first hour: the approach, the pace, and the presentation all run counter to my preferred learning style.)

Further, an approach which required *all* children to practice *all* of the "multiple intelligences" might not suit those children with a "weakness" in some particular area, or some reason for not liking particular activities. For instance, a higher proportion of gifted children are introverted than is the case in the general population, and such children will often not be comfortable doing performance style activities in some situations.

Regards

Keith McGuinness

 © NSWAGTC 2007

Jump to... Top | Articles Index | Info Centre | NSWAGTC Home

Suggestions? | Like to Help? | Disclaimer | Webmaster | Site maintained for the NSWAGTC by Austega