MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE THEORIES
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE THEORIES. GIVE A CRITIQUE OF THIS. BACK UP YOUR POINTS WITH REFERENCES AND EVIDENCE.
Much controversy surrounds the subject of intelligence. Intelligence tests were developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century to assess the intelligence of individuals and groups. However, criticisms quickly arose regarding tests due to results being used to justify discrimination between different groups and cultures. Theorists argued that the tests assess verbal, mathematical, and spatial capabilities, but they do not directly examine other abilities that seem to be inherent parts of intelligence: creativity, social understanding, knowledge of one's own strengths and weaknesses and so on. This perspective led Howard Gardner to formulate his theory of Multiple Intelligence. This essay will begin with a background of Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory and critique it.
Howard Gardner proposed that people have several kinds of intelligences that are independent of one another, each operating as a separate system in the brain according to its rules. The original seven of his proposed 'intelligences' were linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthentic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal.
There are many proponents of this theory, such as school teachers, children educators and physiotherapists. Perhaps the greatest utility of this theory is that it offers teachers a certain perspective into the different manner in which learners may absorb knowledge. The logical progression of this insight is that teachers should adjust their teaching styles so that it appeal to the maximum number of students ensuring thereby a more rapid understanding and retention of the information being taught.
Notwithstanding this eager following and great utility, criticisms of this theory abound. First, one needs to understand that Gardner's proposal is a theory and not a proven fact. As a result, after, much revision, he revised his listing of 'intelligences' from the original seven to include 'naturalist' and 'existential' 'intelligences'. Other scholars, such as Daniel T Willingham, professor of psychology at the university of Virginia, questions the rigorousness of the criteria that Gardner used to identify and formulate the listing of his 'intelligences'. In this regard, professor Willingham cites Rodden et. al (2003), Mc Ghee (1971) and Wyer ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Notwithstanding this eager following and great utility, criticisms of this theory abound. First, one needs to understand that Gardner's proposal is a theory and not a proven fact. As a result, after, much revision, he revised his listing of 'intelligences' from the original seven to include 'naturalist' and 'existential' 'intelligences'. Other scholars, such as Daniel T Willingham, professor of psychology at the university of Virginia, questions the rigorousness of the criteria that Gardner used to identify and formulate the listing of his 'intelligences'. In this regard, professor Willingham cites Rodden et. al (2003), Mc Ghee (1971) and Wyer & Collins (1992) and argues 'By these criteria I am also prepared to defend an 'olfactory intelligence', a 'spelling intelligence', and to sub divide Gardner's spatial intelligence into near-space intelligence and far-space intelligence.'
Researchers such as Burt (1949), Cattell(1971), Thurstone(1941) discussed many human abilities, including aesthetic, athletic, musical and so on. Notions such as bodily-kinesthetic or musical ability represent individual aptitude or talent rather than intelligence. Another criticism of Gardner's theory is that his use of the term 'intelligence' in defining these abilities, aptitudes or talents is misleading. This serves to 'hype up' or give undue prominence to what was basically previous knowledge and propositions put forward by earlier researchers. Those who criticise this theory rightly question the appropriate usage of 'intelligence, Are these intelligences or just 'abilities' and what is the difference? What Gardner calls 'intelligences' are primary abilities that educators and cognitive psychologists have always accepted.
To add further to the debate surrounding this issue, Gardner has not settled on a single definition of intelligence. He originally defined intelligence as the ability to solve problems that have value in at least one culture. However, he added a disclaimer that he has no fixed definition, and his classification is more of an artistic judgement than fact. M.I. theory lacks the rigor and precision of a real science. Gardner claims that it would be impossible to guarantee a definitive list of intelligences.
In fact, his appending the term 'intelligence' to the theory has served to re-open an old debate surrounding what constitutes intelligence. For example, M.I. theory states that one's culture plays an important role in determining the strengths and weaknesses of one's intelligences. Critics counter that intelligence is revealed when an individual must confront an unfamiliar task in an unfamiliar environment.
Gardner doesn't prove that all people are intelligent. Rather, he states this as his assumption, and redefines the word "intelligence" such that all people are equally intelligent by virtue of his definition.
Once someone adopts Gardner's position, the entire idea of studying intelligence is meaningless. Any ability is intelligence, thereby reducing the meaning of the word "intelligence" to "interest". In accord with this prediction, Gardner has repeatedly changed his theory; students who show an interest in nature are now deemed to have "Natural intelligence", and students interested in spirituality or religion are now deemed to have "Spiritual intelligence". The existence of students with any kind of handicaps proves that even in Gardner's scheme, many people cannot be equally intelligent. Sternberg and Frensch write "it seems strange to describe someone who is tone deaf or physically uncoordinated as unintelligent." ( http://www.answers.com/topic/theory-of-multiple-intelligences)
While there may some significant questions and issues around Howard Gardner's notion of multiple intelligences, it still has had utility in education. It has helped a significant number of educators to question their work and to encourage them to look beyond the narrow confines of the dominant discourses of skilling, curriculum, and testing. For example, Mindy Kornhaber and her colleagues at the Project SUMIT (Schools Using Multiple Intelligences Theory) have examined the performance of a number of schools and concluded that there have been significant gains in respect of SATs scores, parental participation, and discipline (with the schools themselves attributing this to MI theory). To the extent that Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences theory has helped educators to reflect on their practice, and given them a basis to broaden their focus and to attend to what might assist people to live their lives well, then it has to be judged a useful addition.
Herein lies the bonus for us within the teaching fraternity. We have to be aware of the strength and weaknesses of our teaching tools and be prepared to make the maximum use of them in an eclectic teaching approach. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Gardner's theory has the ability to offer teachers a varied teaching tool in their teaching approach.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.educationnext.org/unabridged/20043/willingham.pdf,
Website visited 15/05/05
Burt, C. (1949) The structure of the mind: A review of the results of factor anlaysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 19, 100-111. Cited from http://www.educationnext.org/unabridged/20043/willingham.pdf
Cattell, R. B. (1971) Abilities: Their structure, growth and action.
New York: Houghton Mifflin. Cited from http://www.educationnext.org/unabridged/20043/willingham.pdf
Thurstone, L. L. & Thurstone, T. G. (1941). Factorial studies of intelligence.Psychometric Monographs (No. 2). Cited from http://www.educationnext.org/unabridged/20043/willingham.pdf
Wild, B., Rodden, F. A., Grodd, W., & Ruch, W. (2003). Neural correlates of laughter and humor. Brain, 26, 2121-2138; Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1998). Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 87 - 115, Cited from http://www.educationnext.org/unabridged/20043/willingham.pdf
McGhee, P. E. (1971). Development of the humor response: A review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 328-348; Rovee-Collier, C (1999). The development of infant memory. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 8, 80-85, Cited from http://www.educationnext.org/unabridged/20043/willingham.pdf
http://www.answers.com/topic/theory-of-multiple-intelligences,
Website Visited 12-05-05
Gardner, H (1993) Frames of Mind, The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Publishhed by Fontana Press