Howard Gardner: ‘Multiple intelligences’ are not ‘learning styles’
Howard Gardner: ‘Multiple intelligences’ are not
‘learning styles’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/16/howard-gardner-multiple-intelligences-are-not-learning-styles/?utm_term=.4439a67c1a29
The
fields of psychology and education were revolutionized 30 years ago when the
now world-renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published
his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences,” which
detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional
view that there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests.
(You can read his account of how he came up with the theory here.)
Gardner’s theory initially listed seven
intelligences which work together: linguistic, logical-mathematical,
musical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, interpersonal and
intrapersonal; he later added an eighth, naturalist intelligence and says there
may be a few more. The theory became highly popular with K-12 educators
around the world seeking ways to reach students who did not respond to
traditional approaches, but over time, “multiple intelligences” somehow became
synonymous with the concept of “learning styles.” In this important post,
Gardner explains why the former is not the latter.
Gardner
now teaches at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He is the author
of numerous books on intelligence and creativity. His new book “The App Generation,” co-authored with Katie Davis, explains
how life for young people today is different than before the dawn of the
digital age, and will be published on Oct. 22 by Yale University
Press.
By Howard Gardner
It’s been 30 years since I developed the
notion of “multiple intelligences.” I have been gratified by the interest shown
in this idea and the ways it’s been used in schools, museums, and businesses
around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to
distraction—and that’s the tendency of many people, including persons whom I
cherish, to credit me with the notion of ‘learning styles’ or to collapse
‘multiple intelligences’ with ‘learning styles.’ It’s high time to relieve my
pain and to set the record straight.
First a
word about “MI theory.” On the basis of research in several disciplines,
including the study of how human capacities are represented in the brain, I
developed the idea that each of us has a number of relatively independent
mental faculties, which can be termed our “multiple intelligences.” The basic
idea is simplicity itself. A belief in a single intelligence assumes that we
have one central, all-purpose computer—and it determines how well we
perform in every sector of life. In contrast, a belief in multiple intelligences
assumes that we have a number of relatively autonomous computers—one that
computes linguistic information, another spatial information, another musical
information, another information about other people, and so on. I estimate that
human beings have 7 to 10 distinct intelligences (see www.multipleintelligencesoasis.org).
Even before I spoke and wrote about “MI,” the
term “learning styles” was being bandied about in educational circles. The
idea, reasonable enough on the surface, is that all children (indeed, all of
us) have distinctive minds and personalities. Accordingly, it makes sense to
find out about learners and to teach and nurture them in ways that are
appropriate, that they value, and—above all—that are effective.
Two problems. First, the notion of
“learning styles”’ is itself not coherent. Those who use this term do not
define the criteria for a style, nor where styles come from, how they are
recognized/assessed/exploited. Say that Johnny is said to have a learning style
that is ‘impulsive.” Does that mean that Johnny is “‘impulsive” about everything?
How do we know this? What does this imply about teaching—should we teach
“impulsively,” or should we compensate by “teaching reflectively?” What of a
learning style that is “right-brained” or visual or tactile? Same issues apply.
Problem #2. When researchers have tried to
identify learning styles, teach consistently with those styles, and examine
outcomes, there is not persuasive evidence that the learning style analysis
produces more effective outcomes than a “one size fits all approach.” Of course,
the learning style analysis might have been inadequate. Or even if it is on the
mark, the fact that one intervention did not work does not mean that the
concept of learning styles is fatally flawed; another intervention might have
proved effective. Absence of evidence does not prove non-existence of a
phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: ‘back to the drawing
boards.’
Here’s my considered judgment about the best
way to parse this lexical terrain:
Intelligence: We
all have the multiple intelligences. But we single out, as a strong
intelligence, an area where the person has considerable computational power.
Your ability to win regularly at a game involving spatial thinking signals
strong spatial intelligence. Your ability to speak a foreign language well
after just a few months of ‘going native’ signals strong linguistic
intelligence.
Style or Learning Style: A style is a
hypothesis of how an individual approaches the range of materials. If an
individual has a “reflective style,” he is hypothesized to be reflective about
the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing
necessarily signals reflectiveness in one’s interaction with others. But if
reflectiveness truly obtains across the board, educators should take that style
seriously.
Senses:
Sometimes people speak about a “visual” learner or an “auditory” learner. The
implication is that some people learn through their eyes, others through their
ears. This notion is incoherent. Both spatial information and reading occur
with the eyes, but they make use of entirely different cognitive faculties.
Similarly, both music and speaking activate the ears, but again these are
entirely different cognitive faculties. Recognizing this fact, the concept of
intelligences does not focus on how linguistic or spatial information reaches
the brain—via eyes, ears, hands, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the power
of the mental computer, the intelligence, that acts upon that sensory
information, once picked up.
These
distinctions are consequential. My goal here is not to give a psychology or a
physiology or a physics lesson but rather to make sure that we do not fool
ourselves and, as important, that we do not short change our children. If
people want to talk about ‘an impulsive style’ or ‘a visual learner,’ that’s
their prerogative. But they should recognize that these labels may be
unhelpful, at best, and ill-conceived at worst.
In
contrast, there is strong evidence that human beings have a range of
intelligences and that strength (or weakness) in one intelligence does not
predict strength (or weakness) in any other intelligences. All of us exhibit
jagged profiles of intelligences. There are common sense ways of assessing our
own intelligences, and if it seems appropriate, we can take a more formal test
battery. And then, as teachers, parents, or self- assessors, we can decide how
best to make use of this information.
As an educator, I draw three primary lessons for
educators:
1. Individualize your teaching as much as possible.
Instead of “one size fits all,” learn as much as you can about each student,
and teach each person in ways that they find comfortable and learn effectively.
Of course this is easier to accomplish with smaller classes. But ‘apps’ make it
possible to individualize for everyone.
2. Pluralize your teaching. Teach important
materials in several ways, not just one (e.g. through stories, works of art,
diagrams, role play). In this way you can reach students who learn in different
ways. Also, by presenting materials in various ways, you convey what it means
to understand something well. If you can only teach in one way, your own
understanding is likely to be thin.
3. Drop
the term “styles.” It will confuse others and it won’t help either
you or your students.
Σχόλια
Δημοσίευση σχολίου