The Importance Of Teaching MI Theory in Conjunction with the Good Project: Lessons from Greece

Introduction by Howard Gardner

I’m pleased to be able to post this guest contribution from my colleague, Georgios Flouris. Professor Flouris has been instrumental in bringing “MI” theory to the attention of his educational colleagues in Greece. He has just published a book on the educational implications of multiple intelligences theory.

The posted essay touches on two very important points. First of all, while “MI” theory was developed as a theory of the human mind, with certain educational implications, it has been used in many places—indeed, in too many places—as a quick way to make a profit, even when the claims cannot possibly be substantiated.  

Second, and relatedly, intelligences are not benign in themselves—they can be developed and mobilized for positive or for destructive purposes. Accordingly, “MI” theory should be wedded to a conception of good work.

In some sense, these ideas are new ones, but they can be traced all the way back to ancient Greece, where interest in the mind and in ethics were first written about, by Plato, Artistotle, and their students. And, of course, no one embodies the ethical and reflective life more than Socrates, whose courageous example has inspired human beings over the millennia.

Guest Post by George Flouris

I welcome the earlier blogs about BLACK LIVES MATTER, the GOOD PROJECT and COVID 19 as well as the linking of MI THEORY with the GOOD PROJECT. Congratulations to Howard Gardner and associates for the above blogs and links; there is an urgent need for all of them.

I share Howard Gardner’s frustrations regarding malpractices of MI theory. There have also been some not so good uses of MI theory in Greece. The most common malpractices that I have noticed include the following:

1. Some agencies charge students for testing their intelligences. The tests used to tap students’ profiles numbered 9, 10, or even 11 types of intelligences; no source is indicated for this proliferation of intelligences.

2. Some private organizations test students to match their intelligences with a prospective profession—MI theory is used as a counseling, career guidance, and job orientation tool.

3. Tutoring based on MI theory is claimed to prepare students for entrance to tertiary education.

4. Claims are also made to enhance students’ intelligences in order that they perform better in various school tests, in learning foreign languages, etc.

Note: all these malpractices require payment to private organizations.

There is no doubt that MI theory has the potential to develop all types of intelligences in students; the theory has been a great contribution for people across the whole planet. Gardner’s original work has persuaded people around the world that “we are all intelligent in different ways.” This plurality of intelligences is based on several values, including equality, justice, freedom, rights, democracy, etc., and has brought many positive changes and benefits in the educational systems of different countries.

In addition to helping us to think more broadly about human intellectual capacities, MI theory has created a new vision for future schools. Thus, it is of utmost importance to safeguard the theory and keeps it intact—protecting it from candidates who aspire to put it into untested or unethical uses in order to make profit. 

All these reasons lead to the conclusion that MI theory ought to be taught in conjunction with the “Good Project,” as well as Gardner’s work “the five types of mind for the future.” Being intelligent does not give one the right to apply his/her intelligences to engage in unethical or immoral practices. Parents, schools and society need to develop an “ethical” and “respectful mind” in children of all ages. In addition, educators have to explore new ways of cultivating individuals holistically by emphasizing values and character so that individuals may become balanced. In this respect I agree with the Good Project’s “ethics of roles” as well as its views on “dilemma, discussion, debate, decision, and debriefing.”

In parallel to teaching values to students, we ought to revamp the philosophy of “Character education” in order to socialize and educate youth meaningfully and ethically. Other educators have joined Gardner’s efforts to support MI at another level by emphasizing the concept of “intelligent schools” (McGilchrist, B., Myers, K., Reed, J., 2004)[1]. According to these educators, schools will be “intelligent” if teachers enhance their own intellectual profiles. To this end, such scholars propose several types of intelligences for teachers—including “pedagogical intelligence,” “emotional intelligence,” “reflective intelligence,” “spiritual intelligence,” and “ethical intelligence,” etc.

Educators around the world ought to put an emphasis on the subjects of humanities and humanistic values. These types of values are exemplified in the stance Socrates kept while in prison. Even though his disciples could have helped him escape, he freely and deliberately chose to stay. He wanted to support the “truth” and face the judges of ancient Athens—thereby exemplifying his obedience to the Athenian laws. His death taught the world that there are eternal values such as truth, commitment, and obedience to laws. In this manner, Socrates set a memorable example: his physical existence was less important than the truths that he valued and wanted to preserve. As Emerson has stated—and Gardner wholeheartedly agrees—“Character is higher than intellect.” Socrates also demonstrated that character is above intellect, even though he possessed both of these properties.

Kazamias (2020) endorses the above views and supports that education should shift from the model of forming an entrepreneurial, market-driven, profit–driven, homo economicus or homo barbarus, to the formation of a homo humanus with a cultivated mind and soul. To this end, liberal arts education, aesthetic knowledge, ethical dimensions, civic virtues and “Paideia of the soul,” a quintessential attribute of being “wholly human” are needed (Kazamias, 2020)[2]. This type of education and living leads to what Aristotle called “eudemonia” or “euzein”—the “good life.”

 © George Flouris

George Flouris is an Emeritus professor of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Athens in Greece. He has written extensively on education on topics including curriculum theory and development, instructional design, teaching strategies, teacher education, and conceptions of the self improvement of educational practices, and many others.  His most recent book is entitled: Multiple Intelligences and Education: Theory-research-applications. Athens: Grigoris, (2020).

 [1]McGilchrist, B., Myers, K., Reed, J. (2004). The Intelligent school. London: Sage Publications.

 [2]Kazamias, A. (2020).O Sokrates kai he Anthropistike Paideia stin Neoterikotita: Krise Paideias kai Demokratias (Socrates and Humanistic Education in Late Modernity). Athens: Ion Publishing Company. 

Photo by Matt Artzon Unsplash

Howard Gardner Appears on Economist Radio

Howard Gardner was recently interviewed by Kenneth Cukier on The Economist podcast, Babbage. He answered questions on his latest book, A Synthesizing Mind, the success or failure of MI theory, what MI theory means for education today during the pandemic, whether we will lose our intelligences because of technology/AI, and whether synthesizing could be considered one of the multiple intelligences.

To hear Howard Gardner’s answers to these questions and more, listen to the podcast (click here for link).

Kenneth Cukier unravels the inner workings of the human mind with psychologist, Howard Gardner... If there are multiple intelligences, what happens when they work together?

Babbage is a weekly podcast on technology and science from Economist Radio.

Kenneth Cukier is a Senior Editor at The Economist.

Photo by Josh Riemeron Unsplash

Multiple Intelligences and the Process of Teaching and Learning

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

Chess and Multiple Intelligences

Interest in the game of chess has surged in the US recently with chess sets flying off the shelves thanks to the popularity of the Netflix series, The Queen’s Gambit. In a recent newsletter from the Multiple Intelligences Network, Dr. Thomas Hoerr reflects on chess, multiple intelligences, and education. An excerpt from his article is reproduced below.

Way back in the 1970s when I was teaching fifth grade, I was a chess aficionado. (That’s a fancy way of saying that I liked to play chess but wasn’t very good.) I taught chess to my students and we often played over lunch or at recess. More than being a fun game and an opportunity for many students to find success, I also felt that playing chess was a great way to teach kids to anticipate the consequences of their actions. The student who couldn’t understand why punching someone in the arm might cause a problem could see why moving a rook to this square might be a bad decision. And, hopefully, sometimes the logic used for rooks transferred to what to do and not do while standing in line.

Later, when I was leading New City School, we held various board-game tournaments to show kids that you didn’t need batteries to have fun, and chess was prominent among them (along with checkers, Boggle, and Othello). Each grade’s tournament produced winners and they all played an adult in a school-wide tournament. I simultaneously played the chess grade-level winners in the library. Once we began to have a chess club, I was pleased to win half of my games. This picture features the students who beat me eating their ice cream to celebrate their victory. (Notice the size of their group!)

Howard Gardner has said that skill in playing chess draws from both the logical-mathematical and spatial intelligences, and the latter was prominent in the recent Netflix series, “The Queen’s Gambit” as Beth Harmon envisioned chess moves on the ceiling. The series has given chess a boost of momentum and this issue of Intelligence Connection features some thoughts on chess. Dr. Google says, “Chess.com, the most-visited global website for online chess play, expects 10 years’ worth of site growth to occur within the next few months. It has gained more than 700,000 members over the past three weeks, according to figures provided to Sporting News, and last weekend elevated to 9.1 million games played per day.”

I regularly read Kristi’s Corner, a weekly column written by Kristi Arbetter, an instructional coach in the Hazelwood, MO school district. No matter how busy or tired I am, it always gives me joy and causes me to think. I thought you might enjoy her October 16 contribution, stemming from chess: https://www.smore.com/6kgw8

This article, “Story of Queen’s Gambit Raises Questions for Educators,” by Geoff Johnson, looks at Beth Harmon’s giftedness and questions whether we should be doing more for students with extreme talents.

https://www.timescolonist.com/geoff-johnson-story-of-queen-s-gambit-raises-questions-for-educators-1.24239656

Finally, continuing on the theme of exceptionally gifted children, I reprint a column by Ellen Winner, “A Rage To Learn” (which was also in the November 2018 issue of Intelligence Connections), now from Howard Gardner’s website: https://howardgardner.com/2018/12/10/a-rage-to-master-a-blog-on-gifted-children-by-dr-ellen-winner/

Thomas R. Hoerr is emeritus head of school at the New City School in St. Louis, Missouri. He is currently a Scholar In Residence at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, and teaches in the Educational Leadership program, preparing prospective principals.

Photo by skon Unsplash

Using MI Theory to Teach Sports

Howard Gardner recently received an inquiry from a ski instructor who is writing a teaching manual for professional ski instructors. They wrote:

You may or may not know this: your work on Multiple Intelligences has been a major contribution in the field of snowsports instruction; instructors everywhere incorporate these concepts in lessons.

In our section of our Teaching Manual on cognitive development, we refer to you and your work. We have 25,000 member instructors in our organization and, as you can imagine, understanding the ways our students process information, problem-solve, and store what they learn from us, is highly valuable—which is why our teaching manual includes your theory.

Dr. Gardner answered some questions which might be of interest to anyone teaching sports.

Why would it be important for snowsports instructors to understand the concept of multiple intelligences in our students?

Presumably individuals who come to you for instruction, want to learn how to ski well, and as non-problematically as possible. But we all have different potentials and different strengths— and these capacities did not evolve just for skiing. "MI" theory delineates eight different “mental computers” that all human beings have, but we differ in the strength of these several computers. The challenge for the ski instructor is to work together with each student to determine which “intelligences” are strong, which ones are less potent, and how to combine these intelligences for a smooth and successful learning experience. Think of it as a kind of mental “toolkit” on which both of you can draw as appropriate—and when one tool is not working effectively, try another, or a different combination.

Not all skiing and snowsports students are necessarily "body- or sport-smart" or "nature-smart". How can snowsports pros use our knowledge of Multiple Intelligences to help our students excel in areas that aren't necessarily areas of strength for them?

I am not “body-smart” but I have good linguistic, logical, and musical skills. If you as a teacher can approach the skiing lessons with these strengths and weaknesses in mind, it should make for a more positive experience AND better learning. Of course, your personal relation to the students (the personal intelligences) and their goals and motivations are important considerations as well.

Do you have any message to snowsports instructors—who are, after all, teachers?

You are skiing teachers, but you are also role models and mentors. So the kind of a person you are and how you interact with others is at least as important as knowing which intelligences to tap and how to tap them. And you may well be remembered more as a human being than as someone who coached students with a particular motion or balance technique.