I love critical pedagogy. I listen to the debates, follow the twitters, and read the articles; but I can't cover it all. When Dr. Roxana Marachi, my Edpsych professor at SJSU, said that Howard Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences is not empirically as sound as we assume--it was news to me! I took the time to investigate and here’s what I found:
Yes, the data on MI theory is not conclusive. As class progresses, I will be interested to learn what psychological are. However, as a cultural phenomenon, I believe MI theory has done more Good than Harm. Opponents argue that MI theory is a cashcow or a petty attempt to seem progressive (Willingham). I don't have a problem with people cashing in on a Harvard peddled product or trying to seem progressive. I trust Harvard more than the Koch or Shell, more than any single researcher for that matter. When schools are failing their students (at least based on PISA scores and higher degree earners) better to try something progressive than let schools whither and die.
I am attaching the most useful links I researched. I found a critical article (2005) by Education Next (an Education publication, journal?, out of Massachusetts) as well as Howard Gardner's reply to critic Visser et al. (2006), viciously tilted, “On failing to grasp the core of MI theory: A response to Viser et al.” The reply opens brutally, “Alas, while the intention [of critique] is praiseworthy, the actual effort recreates the very conditions that I sought to challenge.” Get ‘em Mr. G!
Gardner’s reply goes on to explain that the theory is based on a wide net of discipline analysis, “from neuroscience to anthropology.” (503) And that general intelligence (“g”) has its own problems with measurement. The point of his theory, Gardner defends, is hard to defend by its nature. It is not a “paper-and-pencil task which purports to measure intelligence” but rather a framework to change the way we think about general intelligence (see image below for models on “g” as taken from Education Next)
The conception of little “g” as explained in Education Next is as follows: “In the early 20th century, many psychometricians did in fact think of intelligence as a unitary trait…. thinking at that time was articulated by Charles Spearman, who suggested that a single factor (he called it g, for general) underlay all intelligent behavior. If you had a lot of g, you were smart; if you didn’t, you weren’t. However, by the 1930s some researchers (notably Louis L. Thurstone) were already arguing for a multifaceted view of intelligence.”
Take a look at the image I pulled from Education Next:
Here’s a little about Gardner’s bio. He studied under Erik Erikson at Harvard in 1965 and then went on to get his PhD there. From what I can tell, Gardner is the most notable person to scaffold an alternative to Diagram A’s model of intelligence. I assume that at the time he attended Harvard, many of the faculty still believed in Diagram A’s validity. In this regard, I couldn't find anything from his mentors Jerome Bruner, Nelson Goodman and Rodger Brown. If anyone is interested in research those figures I would love have you contribute to the blog.
But this leads me to my main point. For too long I have divided up the dinner check, much to my chagrin, because my friends “aren’t math people.” For too long, I have heard people parrot this self identification that they learned somewhere along their learning career. The cultural impact Spearman’s little “g” (Diagram A) explains away their childhood missteps—that they are just plain “not smart.” Now, because of the proliferation of Gardner's MI theory, we celebrate different learners. I believe this has had a great positive impact on our students today.
Gardner’s MI theory may be falling out of date in study but as a social movement I hope it has done enough good to offset, or at least present a counterpoint to, the entrenched “Diagram A” theories.
I’m curious as to how FMRI brain imaging research may help to prove Gardner’s theories. It is something I look forward to researching with my open topic/ technology group, let me know if you guys are interested @group!
Willingham, D. T. (2016, June 28). Reframing the Mind. Retrieved June 07, 2017, from http://educationnext.org/reframing-the-mind/
Gardner, Howard. “On failing to grasp the core of MI theory: A response to Visser et al.” Intelligence, Volume 34, Issue 5, September–October 2006, Pages 503-505