The Theory of Multiple Intelligence - Research Paper Example

The Theory of Multiple Intelligences The research contained herein examines the theory of multiple intelligences. This theory, which contends that ‘intelligence’ cannot simply labeled under a single term, instead presents a multitude of different aptitudes. The research has explored the theoretical background of this theory, linking its most prominent incarnation to Howard Gardner. The research considers prominent objections to Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. The research argues that the main objections levied against multiple intelligence theory are from cognitive psychology. Evidence from Neo-Piagetian theorists are presented who argue Gardner ignores general processing efficiency, an aspect of mental functioning that directly supports notions of a general intelligence. Other criticism from cognitive theorists is presented that argues the theory of multiple intelligences misunderstands maturity in that it considers intelligence as an end-point and not a dynamic process. Criticisms of multiple intelligence theory are also considered in terms of the means that the theory has been implemented. One such criticism argues that its implementation in education has neglected the necessary development of comprehensive mental functioning for focus on single area skills. Furthermore, objections are levied by cognitive-neuroscientists. These individuals have conducted parts of the brain and argue that the research attests to a shared set of genes associated with subjects Gardner attributes to multiple mental functioning, including mathematics and reading. Support of multiple intelligence theory is then considered. Gardner’s own contention that his theory properly considers the nature of previously labeled abilities as intelligence is noted. Theorists who argue that those who believe Gardner’s theories of multiple intelligence are merely abilities, use tautologies rather than empirical support establish support for Gardner’s perspective on this distinction. The research then works towards establishing more empirical methods of support for Gardner’s theory. In these regards, action research and scales that implement Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences successful are considered as they attest to the potential existence of an underlining neurophysiology along the lines that Gardner has argued. Finally, the research concludes arguing that while there is strong indirect evidence supporting Gardner his theory may ultimately not have enough empirical support. Introduction One of the major theories that have had an impact on educational approaches is Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. Gardner’s theory, as articulated in a variety of texts, argues that rather than there being a single intelligence, different individuals have different types of intelligences. The ramifications such a perspective holds for education both for students and in the business context is that teachers should devise multiple ways of training and instructing material, as students and employees understand and access this material in different ways. Even as Gardner’s theories have had a tremendous impact on contemporary instruction a number of theorists have argued that Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence in invalid. This essay examines the validity questions of multiple intelligence theory through the implementation of modern psychological perspectives and research. Multiple Intelligence Theory Howard’s Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is founded upon a number of foundational elements. Gardner proposed the theory in 1983 as a criticism of pervading views of a general intelligence. Conversely, Gardner’s perspective considered that human mental functioning was divided into a series of domain specific functions. While Gardner works within cognitive modes of understanding, he disregards Piaget or other comprehensive perspectives on intelligence. Instead Gardner believes that what is referred as human intelligence in actuality is cognitive abilities that are only moderately related. One considers that these multiple intelligences are perhaps most prominently recognized when viewed in terms of learning behavior; indeed, Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences has gained the most widespread acceptance in educational establishments. For instance, in the context of reading skills it would be possible for one child to learn to read before another child, while the child that lagged in reading abilities actually have higher cognitive functioning in that realm. For Gardner then, it is differing modes of instruction that are required for different individuals. In establishing his theory Gardner notes that there are eight different types of intelligences. These intelligences are as follows: spatial, linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. Even as the theory of multiple intelligences has gained popular support, one recognizes that there is minimal empirical support for its underlining validity. Additionally, outside critics have argued that rather than constituting a viable theory on human intelligence, it merely is a catch-all for teachers and education professionals interested in making all students feel valued. Criticisms of Multiple Intelligence Theory Even as Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences has made a significant impact on contemporary thought, a number of objections have emerged. As noted above one of the major challenges to the theory of multiple intelligences is a lack of empirical evidence. In fact, there is empirical evidence that seems to directly contradict Gardner’s notion of multiple intelligence. The most notable such evidence contradicting Gardner’s theory is the notion of the g factor. The g factor is a tool developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities. Specifically the g factor is a statistical correlation between that demonstrates all positives between scores on intelligence tests that examine one dimension with success on other tests. Consistently g factor scores have attested to notions of a single intelligence correlating with such success on other cognitive tests. The ultimate recognition being that such positive correlations must correlate to intelligence in terms of mental processing rather than multi-dimensional cognitive traits. IQ tests are firmly situated in a category that is decidedly anti-Gardner. While the background and historical development of the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is extensive and would require a research essay unto itself, the large-scale social and institutional acceptance of this theory attests to its functional validity at some level. Indeed, multiple theorists have firmly embraced the notion of such scales to effectively demonstrate correlations tested intelligence and life success. Gottfredson (2006) is one of the most prominent critics in these regards. Gottfredson has argued that numerous studies have supported the correlation between intelligence tests that measure intelligence as a single unit and such life success and other life outcomes. Gottfredson contrasts this substantial amount of correlation with a relative dearth of empirical evidence supporting non-g intelligences (multiple intelligences). Gottfredson (2006, p. 292) argues, “To date there have been no published studies that offer evidence of the validity of the multiple intelligences. In 1994 Sternberg reported finding no empirical studies. In 2000 Allix reported finding no empirical validating studies, and at that time Gardner and Connell conceded that there was "little hard evidence for MI theory." Ultimately, it seems that at least within the confines of these theoretical investigations the empirical evidence firmly supports Gottfredson’s perspective over Gardner’s. Some of the other most prominent objections have emerged from the area of cognitive psychology. Neo-Piagetian perspectives on cognitive development have made some of the most comprehensive objections against Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory. For instance, Demetriou & Christou (2002) argue that while separate domains of functioning are recognizable, multiple intelligence theory underestimates the general principals of processing efficiency and working memory that directly contribute to all levels of intelligence. Other criticisms have been made by White (2011) who raised objections against the theory based on cognitive theories of maturation. In these regards, he indicates, “We do not use our senses. We cannot see a person’s intellectual maturity as we can see that he or she is physically fully grown” (White 2011, pg. 214). The main point here is that while Gardner’s theory is highly contingent on the notion of an ‘end-state’ of maturity, the extent that this is a readily definable element of cognitive functioning is not as objective as Gardner presents. Other objections to this theory have been raised along functional levels. In these regards, it’s been indicated that the designation of the multiple intelligences within human cognition is actually a disruptive means of approaching human development. Jones (2009) has argued that Gardner’s approach to multiple intelligences has the propensity to be implemented to advance student skills in one area rather than assuming a broad range approach. The main understanding within this context is derived from cognitive theories of learning. One such example in this context of understanding was proposed by Baddeley & Hitch (1974) who indicated that rather than learning being based on a dichotomy of competing intelligences was derived from cognitive processes that relied heavily on memory. Research in the field of cognitive neuroscience has also raised objections to Gardner’s theory of intelligences based on empirical grounds. Waterhouse (2006, pg. 213) noted, “the human brain is unlikely to function via Gardner’s multiple intelligences…the evidence for a shared set of genes associated with mathematics, reading…suggest that it is unlikely that each of Gardner’s intelligences could operate ‘via a different set of neural mechanisms.” In these regards, both cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience has presented significant objections to the viability of multiple intelligences. Still, other objections have been levied against the theory of multiple intelligences on through more qualitative dimensions. General investigations into Gardner’s own work by a number of theorists have resulted in arguments that there is little to no substantial empirical or hard scientific evidence supporting Gardner’s own writings. Such meta-critical investigations have emerged as a new criticism of multiple intelligence theory. One of the main such critics has been Kevin Kavale. While Gardner claims to have conducted empirical research that attests to the efficacy of his intelligence theory, Kevin Kavale has contended that these findings are based on erroneous assumptions. For instance, Stahl argued that research conducted by Marie Carbo, a firm supporter of Gardner’s, which claimed to have positive results in actuality is highly contestable. Kavele (1995, p. 45) states, … Carbo claims that her learning styles work is based on research…But given the overwhelmingly negative findings in the published research, I wondered what she was citing, and about a decade ago, I thought it would be interesting to take a look. Reviewing her articles, I found that out of 17 studies she had cited, only one was published. Fifteen were doctoral dissertations and 13 of these came out of one university—St. John’s University in New York, Carbo’s alma mater. None of these had been in a peer-refereed journal. When I looked closely at the dissertations and other materials, I found that 13 of the 17 studies that supposedly support her claim had to do with learning styles based on something other than modality While Kavale’s criticism of Carbo’s claims to positivism constitute a single example they represent a microcosm of broader ranging perspectives on the theory of multiple intelligences. Namely these perspectives have formulated a vision of this paradigm as relying on pseudo-scientific evidence that is more effective as a public relations tool than as a means of truly diagnosing the cognitive functions that underline the human condition. Such notions of a pervasive disregard of multiple intelligence theory among individuals who embrace a firm scientific perspective is supported by the recognition that many public school institutions have failed to adopt multiple intelligence theory scales or testing methodology. One of the most notable such institutional rejections of multiple intelligence theory can be witnessed in the Federal government’s own No Child Left Behind Act. The testing conducted through the No Child Left Behind Act does not implement any of the multiple intelligence scales in its methods (Rothstein & Jacobson 2006). Still, as is noted later, multiple intelligence theory has been widely accepted by teaching professionals, as well as an instructional tool in many charter and private environments. Response to Criticism of Multiple Intelligence Theory While cognitive theory has prominently criticized multiple intelligence theory, there exists a strong amount of research that supports the theory. One considers that many of the current individuals that have criticized multiple intelligence theory have done so within a traditional dialectic such that considers ‘intelligence’ within the very same space as the means of analysis. Within this context of understanding one considers that individuals such as Gottfredson view the very nature of life outcomes and success in antiquated ways. Rather supporters of multiple intelligence theory counter that the very notion of equating such IQ success with life success is structured so as to correlate the two outcomes. Gardner himself has upheld his theory of multiple intelligences on a number of grounds. One such response is to criticisms (Gottfredson, 2006) that have been levied against his theory on the grounds that he is merely attributing the term ‘intelligence’ to things that have been previously referred to as ‘abilities’. Gardner argues, “I balk at the unwarranted assumption that certain human abilities can be arbitrarily singled out as intelligence while others cannot" (Gardner 1998, pg. 101). Gardner’s argument of this crucial distinction of intelligence vs. abilities has been supported by individuals such as Klein (1998) who argues that Gardner’s critics rely on tautologies, such that it is impossible to every correctly label something a true intelligence. While in a philosophical context these theories make are substantial one recognizes that to a great extent that lack empirical support. In working to establish empirical support of Gardner’s theories of multiple intelligence recognition of the validity of multiple intelligence theory can be recognized in indirect ways. Still, such evidence is at best tangential and qualitative. Perhaps the most notable has occurred in its implementation in education. Massive support has emerged for multiple intelligence theory among teaching professionals, and institutions such as Waldorf schools have implemented this theoretical perspective to gain relative student success (Tupper 2002). Other support for this theory has emerged from a multitude of aptitude scales that have implemented it tenants. Indeed, this theory has influenced numerous scales and tools for explication that have subsequently demonstrated effectiveness. YeŞİl & Korkmaz (2010, p. 8) examined the effective of the Multiple Intelligence Perception Scale and argued that the, “that 143-item Multiple Intelligence Self-Perception Scale consisting of eight subscales is a valid and reliable instrument used to determine individual intelligence profiles.” This attests that the study consistently indicated feelings and recognitions of multiple intelligences among the participants. Conclusion In conclusion, this essay has examined the theory of multiple intelligences from a variety of perspective. The research begins with a background consideration of the subject rooting it in Howard Gardner’s original 1983 theory. The essay further considered Gardner’s eight specific stages. Major criticisms of Gardner’s theory are then examined. Within this context of investigation it’s noted that much cognitive research criticizes the multiple intelligence theory. The essay argues that it appears evident that there are some invalid elements within Gardner’s articulation of these cognitive facilities, specifically from criticism from cognitive neuroscientists. Additionally, the essay argues that a general pervasive understanding has emerged that casts the theory of multiple intelligences less as rooted in hard empirical science and instead a tool implemented by teachers and educational professionals to promote equality among all students. Still, Gardner and a number of individuals that have implemented multiple intelligence theory attest to the efficacy of the theory. Ultimately, it appears that more empirical support is needed to definitely establish the theory of multiple intelligences as the proper perspective. References Baddeley. Hitch, G.J.L. (1974). G.A. Bower. ed. The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory (8 ed.). New York: Academic Press. pp. 47-89. Demetriou, A., Christou, C. (2002). The development of mental processing: Efficiency, working memory, and thinking. Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development, 67, Serial Number 268. Gardner, Howard (1998). "A Reply to Perry D. Kleins Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight". Canadian Journal of Education 23 (1): 96–102. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433–456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. Jones, Davis. (2009) Education: Context and Approach. New York: Templeton Kavale, K, 1995. "Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching", Exceptional Children 54:228–239. Rothstein, R., & Jacobsen, R. (2006). "What Is Basic?". Principal Leadership 7 (4): 14– 19. Klein, Perry D. (1998). "A Response to Howard Gardner: Falsifiability, Empirical Evidence, and Pedagogical Usefulness in Educational Psychologies". Canadian Journal of Education 23 (1): 103–112. Tupper, K.W. (2002). "Entheogens and Existential Intelligence: The Use of Plant Teachers as Cognitive Tools". Canadian Journal of Education 27 (4): 499–516. Waterhouse, Lynn. (2006). Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), Fall 2006, pp. 207–225. White, John. ‘Is the Theory of Multiple Intelligences a Myth?’ YeŞİl, R., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2010). Reliability and Validity analysis of the Multiple Intelligence Perception Scale. Education, 131(1), 8-32. Read More