Introduction by Howard Gardner
When I first proposed the theory of multiple intelligences nearly forty years ago, I viewed it as a contribution to cognitive psychology—a differentiated view of how the human mind is organized. While the book, Frames of Mind, included some educational thoughts, I was surprised that the book was picked up by educators of many stripes; at the same time, the major claims in the book have been critiqued over the years by psychologists—particularly psychometricians.
Since I myself had not proposed specific educational implications and applications of the theory, it was left to educators “in the trenches” to ferret out their own implications and applications. And so they did. Educators recommended schools devoted to MI, students categorized according to their strong intelligences, teachers teaching to the various intelligences, curricula organized by intelligences, and so on. I was content—indeed pleased—by these various and varying recommendations. Often I tried to lend a helping hand (see Chapter 8-9 of my recently-published memoir, A Synthesizing Mind). Only when I felt that the theory was being severely misinterpreted or misapplied did I speak out.
I’ve been conservative in adding further intelligences, though I have speculated that there may well be a “pedagogical intelligence”—the human capacity (one not shared with other species) to adjust a “lesson” in terms of the knowledge base and goals of the learner(s).
In the accompanying blog, long-time teacher, Barrie Bennett, puts forth his own thoughts about how teachers should make use of key ideas from “MI theory.” As he sees it, the skilled teacher makes use of a variety of organizational frameworks and schemas, and “MI theory” constitutes a valuable addition to that toolkit. One advantage of a tool is that it can be used in various ways, depending on the content and the context. That perspective is quite congruent with my own perspective—and indeed with that of my fellow researcher, Mindy Kornhaber—see, for example, her co-authord book (click here for link).
Guest post by Barrie Bennett
I want to position Howard Gardner’s work on Multiple Intelligences (MI) as one key piece of science in the art of teaching and learning.
MI is not a strategy, it is a belief system related to how we think, how we solve problems and create products of worth. A teacher does not go into a classroom and “do ‘logical mathematical’” or “spatial.” The purpose of MI, from my experience, is to increase teacher conceptual flexibility to continue to realize the need to extend their instructional repertoire.
As part of my positioning of MI, I also argue that “teaching effectively” should be considered as an additional intelligence…an intelligence that equally respects all intelligences. I will position this “chat” into the multiple ways of being intelligent according to Gardner’s work into the delightfully complex process of teaching and learning.
To start, I provide an argument for teaching being an additional intelligence. First, I’ll switch the idea of intelligence into the idea of “teaching expertise;” expert teachers understand the interactive/integrative nature of instructional methods and how to select those methods from an extensive repertoire of methods that most effectively meet the existing demands of the classroom (a diverse group of students with diverse ways of approaching learning). More effective teachers also develop an ever-increasing number of “lenses” that guide their thinking related to what methods to select and how to integrate them to maximize student learning. Multiple Intelligences is one of those many lenses that guide teacher thinking and action.
In education, the skills might be framing questions, using wait time, responding to an incorrect response, suspending judgment, discussing the object and purpose of the lesson. Tactics might be Think Pair Share, Venn diagrams, Place Mat, Examining Both Sides of an Argument (EBS), Ranking Ladder, and Time Lines. Strategies might be Group Investigation, Mind Maps, Concept Maps, and Academic Controversy. Strategies are more complex, have steps or phases, and are usually developed from theories of learning. For example, Concept Attainment is based on information processing theory and Jigsaw on social theory and Mind Mapping on memory work from brain research.
So where do Multiple Intelligences fit? I classify instruction into three categories: skills, tactics, and strategies…all are concepts we can enact. Two more categories “sandwich” those three categories. The first is “instructional concepts.” Those are concepts we cannot actually directly “do” or “enact.” Examples are “safety,” “success,” “interest,” “accountability,” “and meaningful,” etc. You would not say, “Oh, look how that teacher safeties.”
The other side of the “sandwich” are the “instructional organizers.” This category refers to those bodies of research or inquiry that provide the wisdom to make the wisest decisions about what skills, tactics, and strategies to select to maximize learning. Research on autism, the human brain, language acquisition, dyslexia, students at risk, gifted students, taxonomies of thinking, and Multiple Intelligences are all examples.
In summary, the key piece to remember from my experience is that teachers do not “directly do” Multiple Intelligences any more than they would “directly do” brain research. Organizers are not strategies, they are guides to wisdom for action. Collectively, for me, the interface or interconnections between instructional concepts, skills, tactics, strategies, and organizers is key to teaching as an intelligence. Of course, developing that expertise in those areas requires high-quality, sustained, professional, learning opportunities over time and not one-day workshops or one-week workshops with no follow-up support (think professional learning communities/peer coaching).
Researchers looking to determine an effect size or impact of organizers such as MI on student learning are unwittingly naïve. One would not research the effect of hammers on cutting wood; hammers are not designed to cut wood. Why research the effect or impact of something when it was not designed to do what you incorrectly thought it was intended to do? If you understand research, that naivety represents a problem with validity. Validity refers to determining the extent to which something measures what it was intended to measure. If you want to measure something, measure what your students are learning—not the organizing concept of MI theory.
Barrie Bennett is in his 48th year of teaching and focuses on continuing to explore the delightful complexity of teaching and learning for students of all ages. He is a K-12 teacher and professor emeritus of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto.
Photo by Element5 Digitalon Unsplash