Gardner Interview on MI Theory During COVID-19

Howard Gardner was recently interviewed by educationpostonline.com. He gave his opinion on questions such as the future of education post COVID-19, the benefits of online education, and learning at home. To learn more, see here.

The interview is also reproduced below:

INTERVIEW: EVERY INTELLIGENCE IS VALUE-NEUTRAL, SAYS HOWARD GARDNER

“Every intelligence is value-neutral. It can be used constructively or negatively,” says renowned developmental psychologist Howard Gardner

By Dipin Damodharan | July 19, 2020 

Howard Gardner needs little introduction. One of the most admirable intellectual cult heroes of our times, this renowned American developmental psychologist happened to be the correction of a faulty tilt in the very concept of human intelligence. We were not at all bothered about judging our children as smart and dumb, given their varying dimensions of general intelligence.

As far as intelligence and teaching are concerned, Gardner provided ample signs that there was something terribly wrong with the so-called conventional method, and it was only going to crash sometime, slowly but surely. Because, we–from the teachers and parents to policy makers and administrators–only thought of maintaining ourselves with our grim take on everything related to intelligence. 

The so-called bright child with conventional intelligence belongs to one line. And others belong to the other line. That is the reason why some students find themselves in limbo despite doing many things right in their schooling.

Gardner has shattered the myth of intelligence being a singular concept and proved that there are multiple intelligences within a human being. He describes human beings as the ones having several relatively independent information processing capacities (Read more about Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences here) . Branded as the founding father of the universally acclaimed Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory, Howard Gardner is the Hobbs Research Professor of Cognition and Education at Harvard Graduate School of Education. 

In an exclusive interview with the Education Post Online Chief Editor and Co-founder Dipin Damodharan, Gardner says that he has moved on to study the way that intelligences are used–positively and negatively– in the real world. Excerpts…

How do you look at the future of education in the backdrop of Covid-19 pandemic?

Of course I hope that we return to regular in-person classes, especially for young students. We will have learned a lot about what topics, approaches, and ages work well online, which can be boosted, and which have to be done in person. Whether and how we apply those learning is an open question. I’d bet more on some countries and regions (northern Europe) than on others (The United States, Brazil).

What do you think of the relevance of the theory of Multiple Intelligences in the new scenario?

MI (Multiple Intelligences) is a theory about how the mind is organized and how it operates. That is not affected by COVID in itself. But to the extent that more education takes place at home, with parents and students working side by side, the more crucial it will be to know about the mind of each student, how it works, what helps it work well, what is frustrating or counterproductive. This requires intrapersonal intelligence (what works for me and how) and interpersonal intelligence (how can I help my child, my sibling, my friends, etc).

As the educational institutions are still closed, how educators can teach students about survival skills using MI theory?

MI theory is very relevant since it features the personal intelligences. We need to learn more about how each of us learns, what works, etc and to make use of that knowledge– that’s intrapersonal intelligence.  And to the extent that we are working with others– peers, parents, children– we need to understand how the other person learns, what works etc.

Of course, the other intelligences are relevant as well– including what I call ‘pedagogical intelligence”– how do we teach someone else?  – and ‘existential intelligence’– what are the big issues in life, and how can we think well about them and make progress in understanding them?

And depending on the topic, we also make use of other intelligences– spatial intelligence in learning geometry or geography, musical intelligence in the arts, and so on.

In countries like India, online education is gaining momentum. What should be the educators keep in mind to not repeat the ‘one size fits all’ mistake of the past?

Online education has become more important in the COVID era. Also, there is every reason to think it will improve, if we study carefully what works and why, and if we also reflect on what doesn’t work, and why not.

I have always felt that online education provides an invaluable opportunity for personalized learning. In a class of 30 or 50 students, it’s very difficult to personalize. But there is no reason in the world why a good online educational system cannot individualize to a great extent. An AI system should be able to custom fit each learner. “One size fits all’ could and should end up in the grave yard— that’s always been an aspiration of MI theory and practice!

Could you tell us how MI theory will evolve further, from a futuristic perspective?

With all due respect, I am no longer working actively on MI. Through the Good Project (thegoodproject.org) I have moved on to study the way that intelligences are used–positively and negatively– in the real world. That’s because, in and of itself, every intelligence is value-neutral– it can be used constructively (the way that South African leader, Nelson Mandela, used his interpersonal intelligence to bring a warring country together) or negatively (the way that Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, used his interpersonal intelligence to promote hatred and ‘ethnic cleansing.’)

While I am not working actively on MI, I do monitor the findings about the brain and also about artificial intelligence. I no longer think that I have identified correctly all of the intelligences and how they work, but I feel strongly that an appreciation of the multi-faceted nature of the mind will be with us from now on. 

I write about this in my forthcoming memoir A SYNTHESIZING MIND, to be published in September 2020, by the MIT Press.

Gardner Wins Education Research Award

The American Educational Research Association (AERA) has honored Howard Gardner with the 2020 Distinguished Contributions to Research in Education Award. It is AERA’s premier honor, granted for outstanding achievement and success in education research.

Howard Gardner writes:

I am very honored — and also humbled — to receive this recognition from my colleagues in education. In turn, I want to thank my colleagues in research over the decades — and especially the dozens of individuals at Harvard Project Zero with whom I have collaborated and learned from since I began there as a researcher 53 years ago.

While I am best known for developing the theory of multiple intelligences, that was basically a work of intellectual synthesis, it’s our teams’ empirical work — experimental and qualitative — over many years on the development and expression of artistic cognition, the creation of innovative forms of assessment (including the assessment of intelligences in young children), the nature of understanding and creation in and across the disciplines, the experiences and understandings of contemporary secondary school and college students, and, especially, the understanding and the pursuit of ‘good work’ that is being recognized by this award. My fondest hope is that, going forward, individuals the world over will draw on their profile of intelligences to carry out work that is excellent, engaging, and ethical — the intertwined virtues of good work.

Read more in these articles from the Harvard Gazette here and the Harvard Graduate School of Education here.

The AERA press release is reproduced below.

Distinguished Contributions to Research in Education Award 2020 Award Recipient 

Howard Gardner
Harvard University

Howard Gardner is John H. and Elisabeth A. Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Education at Harvard Graduate School of Education and co-founder and senior director of Project Zero.  He is internationally known for his theory of multiple intelligences, which profoundly transforms the field of education in authentic assessment, teacher development, human potential, and curriculum design and implementation.  His interdisciplinary research program, including Project Zero and the Good Project, has advanced groundbreaking understanding on student creativity and engagement.  His research contributions have been recognized by the MacArthur Prize Fellowship, the John S. Guggenheim Memorial Fellowship, and numerous prestigious fellowships and awards.  

This award is given to honor a meritorious contributor to educational research; its purpose is to publicize, motivate, encourage, and suggest models for educational research at its best.

Teaching Interpersonal Intelligence During a Pandemic

Readers might be interested to see this article by Linda Blair, published in The Telegraph earlier this month. She describes how parents can help their children develop interpersonal intelligence, something which does not only happen in school.

You can read the full article below:

The Telegraph

By Linda Blair | July 6

How to Teach Children Empathy and Social Skills

As children face even more time out of school, Linda Blair offers advice on how to develop their sense of empathy at home

Many children will not be returning to school until autumn, and none will resume normal social activities any time soon. This has worried parents, who fear their children will not only lose out academically, but may also fail to develop good social and emotional skills.

Parents are right to recognise the importance of the latter. Daniel Goleman at Rutgers University has established a link between success at school and work, and well-developed emotional intelligence (EQ). EQ allows us to maintain fulfilling relationships and enjoy greater life satisfaction.

EQ is composed of two parts, self-understanding (the ability to recognise our own emotions and deal with them effectively) and a sensitivity to others. Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner defines this second aspect of EQ as the "ability to understand other people, what motivates them and how to work cooperatively with them". Empathy is the ability to understand others; social skills are what enable us to work cooperatively. It's arguable whether we need people around us to develop self-understanding, but it's hard to imagine how empathy and social skills can be acquired in isolation.

Does it follow that lockdown has caused many children to become less socially skilled and less empathetic? Although the answer depends on several factors - age, personality, personal circumstances, and the extent of social isolation - I'm convinced almost all children will show resilience and regain lost ground once we can feel less self aware and awkward when interacting with others. After all, children have continued to interact socially with their parent(s) - and any siblings - throughout the restrictions.

None the less, because EQ is so vital to well-being, it's important to encourage your children to work on their social and emotional skills.

Here's how:

1. Show interest in their emotions and be a good role model: Ask how they are feeling and respond appropriately. For example, if they're sad, ask if they would like you to give them a hug or read them a story.

2. Talk about how others are feeling: Read to them, and watch TV together. Ask them to guess characters' moods and why they might be feeling that way.

3. Manage conflict well: Use arguments with siblings as opportunities to teach selfregulation (everyone has to sit alone and cool down for three minutes), empathy (each child must try to understand how the other is feeling), and compromise (each child must offer two resolutions).

4. Awaken their inner thespian: Encourage them to write and act out plays or sketches, imagining the world through others' eyes.

5. Use games and apps: There are a number of apps to teach empathy - try www.educationalappstore.com.

6. Demonstrate empathy when explaining current restrictions: When you answer questions about why they can't socialise just now, explain with regard to those they will help, the frail and vulnerable (perhaps a grandparent) and our health and care workers.

Linda Blair is a clinical psychologist and author of Siblings: How to Handle Rivalry and Create Lifelong Loving Bonds.

Review of Howard Gardner Memoir

Howard Gardner’s intellectual memoir, A Synthesizing Mind, is due to be published in September, 2020. Those interested may like to see this review from the Kirkus Reviews magazine.

The full article is reproduced here:

A SYNTHESIZING MIND

A MEMOIR FROM THE CREATOR OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES THEORY

BY HOWARD GARDNER ‧ RELEASE DATE: SEPT. 29, 2020

The latest view of intelligence combined with a compelling autobiography.

Gardner, professor of cognition and education at Harvard Graduate School of Education, has made groundbreaking contributions to cognitive psychology, and this lively memoir includes an extensive yet accessible introduction to his work. The son of refugees from Nazi Germany, he was a bright, curious child with enough musical talent to teach piano. Breezing through Harvard, he sampled the humanities, but psychoanalyst Erik Erikson piqued his interest in the study of human intellectual development. After these early life details, the author delivers a lucid account of the life of a successful academic: thinking, investigating, teaching, and arguing about unanswered questions and then communicating his ideas in hundreds of blog posts, articles, and several dozen books, many for a popular audience. Dismissing the controversy over whether psychology is a “hard” science, Gardner explains that he avoids laboratory experiments, preferring to examine existing ideas to see where they lead. Possessing a “synthesizing mind,” he prefers to “take in a lot of information, reflect on it, and then organize it in a way that is useful.” Although not shy about describing other contributions, his fame rests on theories of how humans process information. Unhappy with the standard measure, the IQ test, which stresses language and logic, Gardner absorbed the massive literature on cognitive psychology and concluded that humans possess seven distinct techniques for acquiring knowledge, which he called “intelligences.” Besides the two IQ standards, he added musical, spatial (navigation, chess playing), kinesthetic (athletics, dancing), interpersonal (leadership, salesmanship), and intrapersonal (self-knowledge, wisdom), which he introduced in his 1983 book, Frames of Mind. He later added several more. Gardner admits that he “would not have achieved a certain degree of notoriety if I had chosen some other noun: seven capacities; or seven competences; or seven kinds of minds” or talents, gifts, or learning styles. “Intelligence” caught everyone’s attention.

An insightful memoir from an eminent psychologist.

Existential Intelligence: Why now?

By Howard Gardner

Recently, I have noticed an interesting phenomenon: an uptick in the number of inquiries I receive about “existential intelligence” (which I’ve abbreviated as Ex I). I have become intrigued by the reason for this phenomenon and how to respond to it. 

Let me explain.

A dozen years after I introduced the theory of multiple intelligences (1983), I speculated about the possibility of a 9th “existential intelligence.” As I described it at the time, “existential intelligence” is the cognitive capacity to raise and ponder “big questions”—queries about love, about evil, about life and death— indeed, about the nature and quality of existence. I quipped that these are the questions that nearly every child raises—but most young people are more engaged in asking the question than in pondering the possible answers. “Existential questions” are the particular purview of philosophers and religious leaders, but most of us ponder them from time to time, and they are raised regularly in works of art and literature.

At the time I hesitated to anoint this candidate as a “full-fledged intelligence.” I was uncertain about some kind of brain or neurological basis for this capacity (one of the criteria I had proposed for an independent intelligence); whether it was a universal capacity or one that only emerged in a post-Socratic society; and, most fundamentally, whether it might genuinely be considered a separate intelligence, or just an amalgam of several already identified intelligences—perhaps linguistic, logical-mathematical, and the personal intelligences. Also, I insisted that existential intelligence was not in and of itself a religious or spiritual or sacred capacity; as I quipped, “If I announced a spiritual intelligence, it might please some of my friends, but it would also delight my enemies.”

In the intervening period, though much of my correspondence still concerns “MI” theory, I have gone on to other pursuits (see the thegoodproject.org). In particular, I am no longer in the business of announcing or denouncing candidate intelligences. Of course, individuals have always been free to describe other intelligences—and, on the basis of some intriguing evidence from developmental psychology, I myself sometimes speculate about a “pedagogical” or “teaching intelligence.”

Back to the correspondence: some writers want to know whether “Ex I” has passed the test and is now officially an intelligence. (Answer: “Sorry, no, It’s still in limbo.) Some writers want a test for “Ex I,” or claim that they have already created a test. (Answer: “No test from me, but if you send me your sample test, I’ll give you some feedback.”) And whether explicitly or implicitly, some writers assume that existential intelligence has been established—it is a genuine phenomenon—and that it is the same as “spiritual” or “religious” intelligence. (Answer: “the candidate intelligence features the raising and pondering of big questions; these can certainly include spiritual or religious issues thought they need not—pondering the universe or a grain of sand qualify as well. And please do not assume that I am promoting any specific religion, or religion in general—though it’s fine if you do so in your own name.”)

Of course, the raising of questions about existential intelligence might just be a fluke or a coincidence—perhaps next year, it will be bodily intelligence or musical intelligence or computer intelligence (a favorite some years ago). But I suspect that there is another phenomenon at work in others and in myself.

Almost no one in the world was prepared for the COVID-19 pandemic. Suddenly, immediate and long-term plans have had to be scuttled; daily routines have been substantially altered for months, with no end in sight; we need to protect ourselves and others every waking hour; and, alas, many have lost their livelihoods and their security and some have lost their lives. Except for those on the front lines (to whom we will always be indebted) many of us have additional time available. And while we can and of course do while away the time in many ways, some of that time may well be devoted to the pondering of Big Questions—the kinds of questions that many of us pondered as children, or at times of change or crisis—but are now confronting most of the conscious world. I suspect that some of my correspondents may well be devoting significant amounts of time to pondering such life-and-death issues and wondering about the ontological status of this capacity—more concretely, whether it draws on existential intelligence.

As I reflect on my own preoccupations, I find evidence for this trend. In my case, it began in 2016 with the election of Donald Trump and my worries about the threats to democracy, decency, and to other values that I hold dear. I began to read books (e.g. 1984, The Plot Against America, It Can’t happen Here) and watch movies (A Face in the Crowd, All the King’s Men, Casablanca)that deal with the delicate state of democratic institutions and values at a time of nationalism, xenophobia, the rise of fascism, loss of status, and the like.

The advent of COVID-19 constituted an additional whammy. I should say, at the start, that my wife and my immediate family are fortunate—far more fortunate than most—in that we have been safe and secure to this point. And I have been able to continue much of my work in my home and in daily—sometimes hourly—online conversations with colleagues. But of course, much of the world is not in that protected situation. Moreover, I’ve been personally shocked by the number of individuals, particularly in the United States, who do not take the pandemic seriously and openly defy advice and even mandates to protect themselves and—more importantly—to protect others.

The combination of threats, on the one hand, and time to think, on the other, has also affected the timing of my thinking and what I think and read about. Each morning, at the crack of dawn, I walk around the neighborhood for the better part of an hour—and each evening before I go to sleep—I recline in bed for a comparable length of time—and simply think about things—including the themes of this blog post. I had never engaged in either of these activities before. And much of the unstructured time is spent pondering big questions—including ones that deserve to be called existential. Of course, some of this cognitive wandering may simply reflect my age and point in the life cycle—I am 77 years old and have had significant health challenges. As my mentor the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson put it, this last stage of life is a time to weigh feelings of integrity versus feelings of despair. But some of this mental meandering seems to be tied more closely to the events in the world. I’ve been reading “big books” about Western and Eastern philosophy and watching many American and British movies from the 1930s and 1940s, a time similar to ours in some ways. 

Most directly related to the topic of this blog, recently my wife and I have been re-reading Albert Camus’ famous novel La Peste (usually translated as The Plague). Camus describes the sudden eruption of a plague in a North African city and the way in which this epidemic disrupts all the lives of the city’s inhabitants and causes many deaths. The novel can be read simply as the account of a terrible disease and its expected as well as its surprising sequelae.

But in my view, The Plague is fundamentally an essay on the essential meaninglessness of life and the need, accordingly, for all of us to seek to make meaning. The plague itself has no meaning. This message comes out most dramatically in the vignette of the Jesuit priest, Paneloux, who castigates his congregation for not behaving well enough and having been accordingly punished by God with the deadly disease. But before he himself succumbs to the plague, as he watches the cruel suffering of a young boy, the priest comes to realize that there is no hidden message of reward or revenge in the plague—as we might say today, “it is what it is.” Camus’ message: plagues never go away. They erupt, then hide, and can fester and reappear at any time in our lives. Hence, our only choice is to make meaning out of the brief time we have on earth. Perhaps the most important meaning is decency towards our fellow humans.

There is a name for this perspective—existential philosophy. Though one can find roots of existentialism in the Greeks, particularly the Stoics, it is generally attributed to the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, and to the 20th century French writers Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. And while many other writers (and other artists and even, occasionally, political leaders) across the world and across topics now reflect an existential perspective, I find it best captured in Camus’ brief novel.

And so even if I had not noticed an uptick in my mailbox, I would still have been engaged in using (and pondering the nature of) my existential intelligence. I thank my correspondents for bringing this latent motive into my consciousness—and I am pleased to have the opportunity to share it with you.