Multiple Intelligence Theory and Its Educational Impact - Literature review Example

Multiple Intelligence” Theory and its Educational Impact Intelligence: Poorly Defined and Politically Loaded Most people would agree that some people are “smarter” than others: that is to say, that there is some kind of mental ability of which some of us have more, and others less. Beyond this very basic observation, however, consensus breaks down. Intelligence is something that we all sense exists, and yet it is extraordinarily difficult to define precisely. What, exactly, is intelligence? And—perhaps even more importantly—how can it be measured? Intelligence is a key component of our identity as humans. We are, after all, not the fastest creatures on Earth, nor the strongest, nor even the best looking; but we are by far the smartest species on our planet. To be more intelligent, then, is to be in some way more human; and conversely, to be less intelligent is to be less than fully human—to be, to some degree, an “animal”. It is unsurprising, then, that intelligence has long been used as a means of ranking people—both individually and collectively. The topic of intelligence has thus become not only a scientific and philosophical question, but also a highly political one. Traditional Views of Intelligence Since we firmly believe that “smarter” is “better”, and since we are endlessly obsessed with comparing ourselves to others in order to establish hierarchies of merit (preferably with ourselves and our peers at the top), it is only natural that we seek some way of systematically measuring intelligence. Further, a meaningful way to measure mental ability would be very useful to our modern, large-scale, bureaucratized educational systems. But until one hundred years ago, when Alfred Binet designed the first test of what eventually became known as “IQ”, there was no convenient means of quantifying intelligence (Reingold). Before Binet’s innovation, scientists attempted to measure intelligence through physical means; for example, they measured brain sizes by pouring lead shot into skull cavities, or measured the heads of living people. In some cases these researchers were attempting to validate supposed differences in the intelligence of various races and between men and women; they expected, of course, that white males would be shown to be the people with the largest brains, and thus, “obviously”, the most intelligent. In other cases—including Binet’s own attempts to quantify intelligence by physical means, before he began to create performance-related tests—racism and sexism were not involved. In any case, none of these efforts yielded meaningful results (Gould, p. 146; see also Chapters 2-4). The French government commissioned Binet to create a practical means of testing intelligence in 1904, in order to identify at a young age those children who were likely to have problems mastering school subjects, so that they could receive special education. Having already determined that physical testing was worthless for this purpose, Binet created what evolved into modern IQ testing. It is perhaps worth noting that IQ was invented in the service of an educational system that—since Napoleon’s day—has been known for a high degree of intellectual regimentation and inflexibility. From its early days, IQ has been associated with a hereditarian view of intelligence—in part, perhaps, simply because IQ tests yield such nicely numerical results without requiring researchers to handle skulls. IQ is also strongly associated with the belief that there is such a thing as “general intelligence”—that is, that there is indeed some single factor that can be measured and used to rank people as more or less intelligent. (It is worth noting, though, that Binet himself considered his tests as strictly empirical, and made no claim that they measured “intelligence”—see Gould, p. 151.) At our most dismissive, we could say that IQ tests really measure only the ability to do well on IQ tests. However, this is somewhat unfair: in fact, IQ does correlate strongly with performance in a traditional educational environment, which is not surprising when we remember that IQ testing was invented as a way of predicting precisely that. The question remains, though: is what IQ tests measure really “intelligence” (Gardner, 1995)? An Alternative View: Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Psychologist Howard Gardner dismisses the idea of “general intelligence” (or “g”, as it is sometimes called); from his study of the literature (including analyses of idiot savants and people with various forms of brain damage), he identified seven (now expanded to eight) separate “intelligences”: Linguistic Logical-mathematical Musical Bodily-kinesthetic Spatial Interpersonal Intrapersonal (i.e. the capacity for introspective insight) Naturalist (added later) Each of these “intelligences” is presumed to be a more or less independent ability to solve useful problems, although obviously many real-world situations require the operation of multiple “intelligences” (Smith). Certain “intelligences” are particularly closely connected to others; for example, “interpersonal intelligence” and “intrapersonal intelligence” are closely linked, and are often referred to jointly as “personal intelligence” (Smith, quoting Gardner). Gardner’s theory (typically abbreviated as “MI”, for “Multiple Intelligences”) has not gained wide acceptance with the psychological community, but has had a substantial influence on educators. Psychologists and brain researchers find the theory less than fully scientific. Among their other complaints, they decry the theory’s lack of experimental verification and its rather imprecise definitions. In particular, it is difficult to define precise boundaries for Gardner’s idea of an “intelligence”: how is it different from a talent or an interest? While there is ample evidence that various abilities are indeed localized in the brain—and nobody has ever found a brain locus for “g”—it is far from clear that any of the localized abilities qualifies as a genuine “intelligence”. Many educators, on the other hand, have found Gardner’s ideas useful. Whether Gardner’s “intelligences” are real or not—whatever “real” means in this context—his theory validates what they had realized all along: Each child is different, with his/her own set of skills, interests, and abilities. No single measurement of “intelligence” can capture the true diversity encountered in any classroom. Another Alternative: Robert Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence Robert Sternberg, a colleague of Gardner, agrees that IQ is an overly simplistic measurement. However, instead of postulating multiple intelligences along the subject-related lines Gardner used, Sternberg bases his theory on different styles and applications of thought (OTEC, Wikipedia): Analytical intelligence consists of “abilities involved in analyzing, evaluating, critiquing, and comparing and contrasting things”; it is the ability to deal with academic and similar problem-solving tasks that require finding a single correct answer. Analytical intelligence is essentially similar to what is measured by IQ tests, SAT’s, and the like. Creative intelligence includes abilities involved in “creating, exploring, discovering, inventing and imaging”—the use of existing knowledge and skills to deal with new situations. Creative intelligence uses the imagination to come up with new thoughts and approaches; it concerns the generation of ideas rather than selecting a single “right” answer. Practical intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge and skills to the challenges of the real world—in Sternberg’s words, “applying, using, implementing and putting into practice”, or simply “street smarts”. It is far from clear that there is any biological basis for Sternberg’s three “intelligences”; but certainly they correspond very well to empirical observations of how people cope with the various challenges of life. For example, intelligence agencies (since long before Sternberg’s work) test prospective field agents for their “practical intelligence”, since they know that the ability to cope with new and challenging environments is something quite apart from anything that can be measured by an IQ test. Multiple Intelligence Theory in Action: Literacy and Primary Education It would appear that the main contribution of the various MI theories to the field of education is not so much in their specifics; rather, it is in their realization that “intelligence” is not a single, unitary phenomenon that has the same characteristics for everyone, differing only in the quantity of “intelligence” possessed. It is not necessarily important whether Gardner’s MI theory or Sternberg’s Triarchic theory is “correct”; what is important and useful is the realization that different children (and, for that matter, different teachers) bring different sets of abilities and predilections to school with them; and that a successful educational program will build on each child’s particular strengths and attempt to shore up each child’s particular weaknesses, rather than attempting to deal with all children as if the only variable was a single factor like IQ (Guignon). MI theories can easily be applied to broad subjects like history. For example, in a project dealing with a particular time and place, some children may be encouraged to build models of the relevant culture’s artifacts and buildings, while others might investigate its arts or its music, while still others will do best dealing with the subject in more traditionally academic ways. Literacy itself, however, presents more of a challenge to MI-influenced educators; after all, reading skills are what they are, and no amount of development of other intelligences will substitute for literacy. However, there are ways in which MI theories can be helpful even in dealing with a seemingly inflexible educational requirement: Reading subject matter can be chosen individually, with sensitivity to each child’s particular strengths and interests. By harnessing children’s other “intelligences”, teachers can increase their student’s motivation to read. Understanding how the various intelligences interact can give teachers new tools for teaching reading as well as other subjects. For example, programs to help children develop their “personal intelligences” may help them to focus more effectively on traditional school subjects like reading (Baker). When confronted with a child who has difficulty developing reading skills (or other skills), an MI-trained teacher is less likely than traditionally-trained teachers to brand the child as “stupid” and give up on him/her. MI theory encourages teachers to appreciate each child’s particular strengths while dealing constructively with his/her weaknesses (McKenzie). In practice, then, multiple-intelligence theory promotes “individual-centered education”, as opposed to the classic single-curriculum classroom. If the MI approach helps more children to receive a better education than traditionally-structured classrooms, the theory will have proven its usefulness even if scientists remain unconvinced that multiple intelligences really exist. References Baker, Linda (2006), “Quiet Time: An environment for school success”. Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, , downloaded April 2, 2007. Howard Gardner (1995), “Cracking Open the IQ Box”, The American Prospect vol. 6 no. 20, December 1, 1995. Gardner, Howard (2003). “Multiple Intelligences After Twenty Years”. Chicago, American Educational Research Association, . Gould, Stephen J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York, W. W. Norton & Co. Guignon, Anne (1998). “Multiple Intelligences: A Theory for Everyone”. Education World, , downloaded March 25, 2007. McKenzie, Walter (2000). “Multiple Intelligences: It's Not How Smart You Are, It's How You're Smart!”. Education World, < http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr207.shtml>, downloaded March 25, 2007. Oregon Technology in Education Council (OTEC), undated. “Theories of Intelligence”. , downloaded March 25, 2007 Reingold, Eyal (undated). “Human Intelligence”. University of Toronto, , downloaded March 25, 2007. Smith, M. K. (2002) “Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences”, The Encyclopedia of Informal Education, . Last updated: January 28, 2005. Wikipedia: “Robert Sternberg”, . Last updated: March 16, 2007. Wikipedia: “Theory of Multiple Intelligences”, . Last updated: March 16, 2007. Read More