Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences has appealed to me ever since I encountered his theory in Dr. William Gray's Ed. Psych course. In essence, Gardner theorizes that we each possess different intelligences in varying degrees and that each of us learn more efficiently with respect to those intelligences. But Gardner's theory has also proven to be transformative in the way that we now think of intelligence. We are of course aware of standardized I.Q. tests. These had their origins in France (Binet) and are better known as the Stanford-Binet. The earliest tests were problematic in that they favored upper class whites and as such, because of ethnic bias, were not a fair measure of intelligence. In fact, these same tests were contributing factors in the United States in determining that immigrants were ineducable! When the tests were given in the speaker's native language, the results were more accurate in terms of determining intelligence. But, I.Q. tests possess inherent problems - chief among them being that the only intelligence that can be measured is that which is quantifiable. Looking at Bloom's taxonomy for instance, one readily recognizes that knowledge and comprehension can be easily measured. Later along the continuum when attempting to measure higher order learning such as synthesis and evaluation the measurement becomes problematic. However, the real question when we speak about intelligence with respect to Gardner is that intelligence manifests itself in different ways. What had been commonly referred to as "talent" is seen as intelligence according to Gardner.
To continue with the I.Q. test example we may ask a simple question to see if there is any truth in Gardner's theory. However, the question must be asked within the paradigm that there is only one type of intelligence: that which is quantifiable. So for instance, how does one measure the intelligence of two different writers or painters or composers? If the old quantifiable theory of intelligence prevails then the astute reader will quickly come to the conclusion that the above question is unanswerable and even if an answer could be provided, that answer would have to be based upon the assessor's own sense of aesthetics.
Gardner postulates seven differing intelligences: linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, body-kinesthetic, intrapersonal (e.g., insight, metacognition) and interpersonal (e.g., social skills) (http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/multiple-intelligences.html). What is important to note here is that there is not an hierarchy of intelligences implied or inferred according to Gardner. Rather, each intelligence is as valid as the others. Talent is not separate from intelligence. This may seem obvious to my readers but there was a time not so long ago when the two were thought of as separate; "gifted" children were those students classified as having performed well on standardized I.Q. tests and in accomplishing high grades in quantifiable categories.
As the reader has already guessed, when dealing with multiple intelligences easy quantification - read standardization - breaks down and is no longer an accurate nor complete picture of one's intelligence. As already stated the old paradigm gave favor to quantifiable results in mathematics and to subject questions that largely confined answers to knowledge and comprehension - the first two steps of Bloom. I am for instance rather lacking in mathematics. I may not score well on a standardized I.Q. test, but, being a musician, does the I.Q. test evaluate my musical intelligence? Hardly. While I may be able to recall information about The Beatles and/or Beethoven, all that tells the assessor of my intelligence is that I have good recall (knowledge in Bloom) concerning musicians. However, this information does not measure my intelligence as a composer of music. Gardner argued and I agree with his assessment that we need to measure intelligence(s) beyond the relatively narrow and certainly incomplete confines of mathematic/logical and linguistic measurements to encompass other modalities.
Gardner also included an important anthropological aspect in that he argued that different cultures emphasize different intelligences. It seems then that we have come full circle in that culturally biased I.Q. tests are indeed meaningless in a metacultural discussion.
Gardner stressed that each individual should be encouraged to develop the intelligences she possesses. Furthermore, learning occurs according to Gardner along these different modalities. Now we reach the crux of the discussion of Gardner and how his theory relates to our use of the internet in the classroom - and outside of it.
Think for a moment about all of the tools we have discussed and explored thus far this semester. Reflect on how each takes an integrative process and no matter how you slice it, Gardner is there - intentionally or not. Virtually all of the applications we have studied have held to Gardner's maxim that assessment of learning should measure multiple forms of intelligence. Mashups for instance act as multi-pronged learning tools which can and do facilitate learning through a number of modalities. So, the logical/mathematic intelligence is essentially on the same level playing field with the visual/auditory learner. We have seen already that virtual worlds, augmented reality, and even gaming have shown to be effective learning platforms. I will relate a personal experience with regard to this. As many of you know, I am a recent emigre to The Netherlands. My partner's son is 10 years of age and his language of origin is Dutch. However, except for his accent, his English is beyond even many of his American and British peers. While this may not seem remarkable, consider the following: he has only begun formal English training this school year - it is mandatory in The Netherlands. Dutch is the language spoken at home. So how does this child speak speak, understand, and write English so well? He learned English through gaming! America and Britain dominate the gaming industry especially in terms of "A" list games such as Skyrim and Assassin's Creed. This kid has not only achieved proficiency in English that his elder sister has yet to achieve, but has shown significant progress in the areas of synthesis and evaluation: the two highest forms of Bloom's taxonomy. I am working with him now and having him write original stories based upon his time spent in these other worlds. His sense of structure in a story format - in traditional textuality - rivals what I have read from many 10 year old - and OLDER - students in America.
While some might debate whether the lack of empirical evidence of Gardner's theory proves that it is in fact mere hypothesis, can we debate that intelligence is only meaningful when math/logic and linguistic skills are concerned? I think one would be hard pressed to provide a compelling argument against Gardner. But I ask you, if Gardner is wrong, then why have we found so many of these tools so effective and exciting?




Best,
Joe