Howard Gardeners Multiple Intelligence Theory - Literature review Example

Howard Gardener’s Multiple Intelligence Theory Introduction Most people are familiar with three general categories in which people learn: auditory learners, visual, and kinesthetic learners. Apart from the categories mentioned most approaches and theories towards the potentiality of human have been developed. The approaches include the theory of Multiple Intelligence that was developed by Howard Gardner. He is a Professor of Education at Harvard University. Gardner’s earlier duties and work in psychology and later in human potential and cognition resulted in the development of the earlier six intelligences. Currently, there are nine intelligences, and the possibility of others would eventually expand the list. These intelligences relate to a person unique, set of capabilities and the means in which they might prefer to demonstrate intellectual abilities. Therefore, the paper attempts to provide the description of Howard Gardner, his theory and books he has written. The paper would also expose related studies that support his theory (Armstrong, 2010). Howard Gardner Biography Howard started as a psychologist and he was majorly influenced by structuralism who works at various fields, precisely in anthropology: ‘the structuralisms are distinguished by their powerfully held and ardent believe that there is something behind people mental functioning and behaviour (Gardner, 1972). The enthusiastic Howard mostly got involved with arts and music (Gardner, 2003). Because he was not satisfied by the rational of the Piagetian approach, he decided to do more research (Gardner, 1982). He noticed the structural list observation on people’s thought to be specifically challenging. Human thinking failed to justify creation and innovation. Howard noticed main idea to comprehending creativity in the notion of symbol systems. These symbol systems are the mechanism that human thinking can happen and by their originality it is open systems and creative. Through the application of symbols the human mind operates according to structural list principles, transform, it can revise, and produce new items, worlds of meaning and systems. Majority of what has been mentioned describes the symbol systems in Gardner’s early 1983 thoughts. Howard described his 1973 published work as fleshing development image proposed by Piaget (Gardner, 1973). Gardners Theory of Multiple Intelligences(MI) did a sample of 200 persons. For each of the hypothesized eight domains that include Linguistic, Spatial, Logical, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Musical, Bodily-Kinesthetic, and Naturalistic. Two was selected for tests based on Gardeners description of its contents. Factor analysis revealed a large factor having substantial loadings for tests assessing purely cognitive abilities Linguistic, Logical/Mathematical, Spatial, Naturalistic, Interpersonal–but lower loadings for tests of other abilities, especially Bodily-Kinesthetic. Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Howard Gardner’s theory that started with only seven Multiple Intelligences in the year 1980s have developed into eight (Gardner, 2006). Gardner provided suggestions that the brain have many capacities for learning that he termed as intelligences. The eight Multiple Intelligence he came up with included; • Linguistic: the heightened capacity for applying language as well as words. • Logical: it enhances the capacity for logical and numerical patterns. • Naturalistic: the ability to understand biology or nature well. • Spatial improves the manipulation and capacity of the visual-spatial. • Bodily: the well-developed skills of physical movement. • Musical: the heightened ability to discern patterns and rhythm. • Interpersonal improves the capacity to respond and understand others. • Intrapersonal: Understanding of ones emotional abilities and strengths. Studies that Support Multiple Intelligence Theory Multiple Intelligence theory was embraced by most parents and educators (Rettig, 2005). Gardners thoughts that children have diverse and unique ability was in line well with educators believes that school going children can study in very diverse ways. Multiple intelligence theory appear to stick that children who performed poorly, for instance in mathematics as well as reading, have high chances like anybody to be successful in arts, music, art, geography or even physical education. In other words, everyone could be smart in his way. During the time when standardized testing in United States schools had a lot of controversies, Gardner (1983) suggested that tests had little utility in order to predict successes outside school. However, Gottfredsons (2002) though they differed a little bit found out that no meta-analysis was reported apart from only generality of job performance predictability, with bright workers all the time doing better on average than fewer intelligent workers. Gardners Multiple Intelligences theory was as well examined in relations to the eight hypothesized intelligences, as well as their relationship with outside measures of general cognitive ability. Although Gardner was criticized for diluting Multiple Intelligence Theory somehow by incorporating and suggesting that the intelligences may not be throughout independent, other studies that have been carried out found out that the theory would still seem to give predictions that the tests of the eight intelligences should be entirely independent of each other. Gardner (1999) cautioned that there is a tendency of measuring verbal with non-verbal abilities, and this would result in artificially high correlations among the ability domains. Therefore, other studies suggested that there is the need to avoid measuring variance attributed to verbal ability by involving many non-verbal measures of the various intelligences that have been hypothesized. For instance, spatial, interpersonal, logical-mathematical, and musical intelligences were subjected to testing with at least one of the two measures being entirely non-verbal. In all other tests, with the exception of linguistic, reading was found to be minimally demanding, so verbal ability cannot be considered as a source of shared variance between these tests (Moran, Kornhaber, & Gardner, 2006). Additionally, a quantitative study was carried out that attempted to compare multiple intelligence (MI) and direct instruction (DI) approaches to learning. It was noticed that the Multiple Intelligence approaches made the education curriculum more comprehensive to most students. The Multiple Intelligence approach provided more motivation for students, assisted them to make a good and comprehensive personal connection to what they learn, as well as encouraging students and teachers to enjoy a more active studying approach (Douglas et al., 2008). Also, Multiple Intelligence assisted teachers and students alike to comprehend the diagnostic approach to challenges when they are learning. However, such research suggested that when teachers develop learning activities, they are supposed to keep in mind that every student would have diverse experience because each of them learns in a different way(Ozdemir, Guneyzu, & Tekkaya, 2006). It was found that majority of students and children would learn better with a direct intelligence approach, but more children are learning better with a Multiple Intelligence approaches because it assists all students to study in the way they learn best(Daz-Lefebvre, 2004). At almost the same time that Goleman developed his ideas, Sternberg developed the theory of successful intelligence. From that time, Sternberg has written more books in relation to successful intelligence theory to expand the understanding of Successful Intelligence and how it can affect teaching (Sternberg, 2003). Sternberg’s theory is a scheme of creative, analytical, and practical intelligences. Analytical intelligence involves basic cognition including mathematical and literacy or logic thinking when attempting to solve a problem. This intelligence is the one mostly used in learning and teaching, and it added more on what Gardeners had done. Creative intelligence entails the capability of the brain to locate special means of addressing a problem beyond a linear approach (Goleman, 2009). Finally, practical intelligence involves applying daily the intelligence to think through everyday challenges in order to reach an appropriate solution. Similar to Goleman’s work, K-12 educators would find less information about Sternbergs Theory of Successful Intelligence, because the study of his three-part theory mainly focused on higher education and was not translated into the educational system as a whole (Goleman, 2006). In a clear manner, the varied theories of Multiple Intelligences have similarities. For example, Sternberg analytical intelligence is the same as the Gardner’s linguistic, naturalistic, intelligence and logical-mathematical. In addition, Sternberg’s creative intelligences are the same as to Gardner’s musical, spatial, and bodily musical intelligences. Lastly, Sternberg’s practical intelligence is similar to Gardner’s intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences, which in turn is same as to Goleman’s. Conclusion In conclusion, the substantial of all purely cognitive tests in the current studies concur and partially contradict Gardners suggestions that there are at least eight independent intelligence domains. Although Gardner has acknowledged the existence of the eight intelligences, it may not be independent, his contention that correlations that are positive between various cognitive tasks are as a result of verbal demands was clearly unsupported in the study, in which those verbal demands were minimized. Instead, measures of Spatial, Linguistic, and Logical-Mathematical, Naturalistic, and Interpersonal intelligences showed a positive of correlations and substantial correlations with outside measures of general intelligence. The common component that saturates the extremely loaded tests mainly was the demand on reasoning capabilities, not their explicitly verbal content. In addition, it can also be concluded that the Gardeners Multiple Intelligence Theory is useful to children and students in learning institutions. This, however, has been confirmed by studies done by other scholars as well. Teachers also apply the intelligence during teaching sessions, and it added more on what Gardeners had done. In summary, apart from classes creative intelligence provides a means of addressing a problem beyond a linear approach. References Armstrong, T. (2010). Multiple intelligence, retrieved from http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm. Daz-Lefebvre, R. (2004). Multiple Intelligences, Learning for Understanding, and Creative Assessment: Some pieces to the Puzzle of Learning Teachers College Record, 106(3), 49–57. Douglas, O., Burton, K. S., & Reese-Durham, N. (2008). The Effects of the Multiple Intelligence teaching Strategy on the AcademicAchievement of Eighth Grade Math Students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(2), 182-187. Gardner, H. (1972). The Quest for Mind (London, Coventure). Gardner, H. (1973). The Arts and Human Development (New York, John Wiley). Gardner, H. (1982), Art, Mind and Brain (New York, Basic Books). Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York, NY: Basic Books/Perseus Books. Gardner, H. (2006). The development and education of the mind. New York, NY: Routledge. Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Goleman, D. (2009). Ecological Intelligence. New York, NY: Broadway Books/Crown Publishing. Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Highly General and Highly Practical. The General Factor of Intelligence: How General is it?, 331–380, Cambridge University Press Moran, S., Kornhaber, M., & Gardner, H. (2006). Orchestrating Multiple Intelligences. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 22-27. Ozdemir, P., Guneyzu, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Enhancing Learning through multiple Intelligence. Journal of Biological Education,40(2), 72-78. Rettig, M. (2005). Using the Multiple Intelligences to Enhance Instruction for Young Children and Young Children with Disabilities.Early Childhood Educational Journal, 32(4), 255-259. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New York, NY: Read More