Multiple Intelligence Theory has little or no place in the classroom, and teachers should stop using multiple intelligence theory and avoid inventories that purport to tell learners what “type” of learner they are.
Now that I’ve made all the hair on your neck stand up, please allow me to explain.
The legend begins
In the book Made to Stick,the authors discuss how urban legends spread and become “sticky” – meaning that people remember them and they go viral. This is what happened with Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory. It morphed from his original idea (which few actually know) into the idea that we are all somehow “gifted” in different ways and can only learn when taught (or learn most effectively when taught) in that way.
The idea stuck to educational theory (some may say it was hijacked by pedagogy) and has become so rampant that you literally cannot avoid it. Teachers were made to feel that if they didn’t reach all their “kinesthetic learners” then they were somehow sub-standard.
The legend unravels
Not that long ago, however, an interesting paper appeared in Educational Psychologist. This paper, published by Lynn Waterhouse, began the conversation whose essential idea was “The emperor has no clothes.”
Enter Christopher Ferguson, a professor at Texas A&M, who, after looking at the research, agreed with Waterhouse. In his view (read an article here), the MI theory is more philosophical than research-based. Even more, it makes people feel good. So what if I can’t read – my interpersonal skills are out of this world!
But what’s the harm? Even if Waterhouse, Ferguson, and others clearly demonstrate that MI is pedagogical snake oil, so what? The harm is that teachers and school districts spend precious resources trying to make instruction fit a false model. Does that mean that MI techniques are useless?
No, but it means that you cannot say that because a teacher has one style that only appeals to so-called “auditory learners” that that teacher is somehow inferior. You also can’t say that because a teacher does use them that he or she is effective. It’s not good neuroscience, which means it’s not good pedagogy.
Believe me, visual learner or no, if someone yells “Fire!” I’m learning. I don’t need a picture.
The crux of the matter
This, then is the true crux of it: Focusing on MI takes teachers away from the things that truly do make for effective teaching.
It is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic for an ineffective teacher to incorporate a bunch of MI theory when the core teaching is lacking.
Howard Gardner himself says this: “Sometimes people speak about a “visual” learner or an “auditory” learner. The implication is that some people learn through their eyes, others through their ears. This notion is incoherent…[T]he concept of intelligences does not focus on how linguistic or spatial information reaches the brain—via eyes, ears, hands, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the power of the mental computer, the intelligence, that acts upon that sensory information, once picked up.” (You can read more of what he said here.)
The lessons:
Beware of theory. Read the research yourself. And don’t think that because they didn’t act it out they aren’t going to remember it.
Introduce students to information in lots of ways because allows for review without boredom, not because some “naturalist” learner is going to drop out of school because you didn’t spell out Emily Dickinson’s poems in twigs.
Here’s professor Daniel Willingham from the University of Virginia explaining it in a video for all you visual learners…
Note: Sometimes I use affiliate links, which means that if you click through and buy something, I get a few pennies (to buy more books!). It will never cost you anything extra.
While I quite agree with you when you cite Gardner in explaining the none of use are specifically auditor or visual learners, you have certainly distorted Gardner’s intention. The neurological research being conducted worldwide indicates that people to have strengths that are not recognized by traditional intelligence testing. If you have been associated with gifted learners, you too, must recognize specific leaning modes that facilitate learning better for individual students. I understand the fear among the gifted community that education of gifted students could somehow become extinct if we view everyone as being gifted in some way or other. I have been in gifted education and special education all my career and love teaching and coordination programming for those students. I cannot afford to bury my head in the sand and ignore current research. Might I suggest you attend the Learning and Brain conferences when giftedness is the topic. I think you will glean more information and will expand your understanding of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. By the way Howard Gardner often speaks at those conferences, giving all of us lay people an opportunity to question him. Robert Sternberg is another researcher who delves into this idea. He always seems willing to discuss his ideas and his research.
Cathy,
You’re assuming I haven’t read that literature or haven’t attended those conferences. I have, and I am extremely familiar with Sternberg’s work as well. Knowing doesn’t require agreement…
I think the flaw with your commentary is that it has an “all or nothing”, condescending approach. You seem to have a great disdain for the MI thoughts that you seem pretty closed off to the possibilities. Maybe this is to an insecurity, that in fact all students have potential and not just through a number on a piece of paper. Even in the video that you presented the professor indicated that people can be, in a sense, more bent toward auditory than to visual. For example, if a child takes in much of his information through auditory, he may find it best to take all of the notes prior to hearing the teachers explanation of the notes in order that he may devote his full attention to the oral/auditory mode of teaching. It would be the teacher that did not believe in MI that would deliver he material in just an auditory or visual fashion, instead of realizing that people learn differently. If you honestly think that all brains are wired as genius or non-genius…well that makes me sad thinking of the students with hidden potential that you will never have the opportunity to know.
Ah, but I would disagree that a child “takes in much of his information through auditory,” as you said. You misinterpreted Dr. Willingham’s statements. It’s not that some people learn that way, it’s that some have better ability to do that. We can all learn in all ways. I would gently suggest that you read what Howard Gardner himself wrote about MI in the classroom (essentially: it’s not for the classroom). I don’t know why you think that I think brains are “wired as genius or non-genius.” That’s not the only alternative to rejecting the idea of MI theory. I do have a disdain for MI – I think it’s overused, wielded as a weapon against teachers, and is ineffective. I get the feeling you’re trying to insult me by saying I’m insecure and that you’re sad for my students, but that dog won’t hunt. MI is bad pedagogy, and I stand by that. Do the research – real research – and then let me know what you think. Feel free to leave out personal attack – it weakens your argument.
Hi Lisa,
I am not sure I agree with Dr. Willingham. Perhaps you can shed some light on this for me. Do you believe he is also then saying that teaching in these modalities does not help students to make stronger connections to concepts? I can tell you from personal experience working with students who have learning disabilities that when I have them work on increasing vocabulary the ones that tend to do best are the ones who use multiple modalities to store the information. For example, if you are learning the word gregarious I usually have them put down a synonym (talkative), an antonym (quiet), use the word in a sentence that relates to their own life and then have them draw a picture. I would even show a slide show of pictures that I use for that word as well. I believe this helps students to build several connections to the word and multiple access points for retrieval.
Hi,
First, let me just say gently that it’s not about agreement or disagreement. It’s about neuroscience. Something can sound great, but if it’s not true, then it doesn’t matter how great it sounds. Okay, so to the theory. Sure, repetition is helpful, and because the brain likes novelty, different kinds of repetition are even better. The point is that it’s not that students are visual or auditory or whatever learners. That part is fake. We are all all kinds of learners. What Dr. Willingham (and every other researcher) says is that the idea that if you’re a visual learner, you can only learn visually is bogus. In fact, we’re all visual learners. We can all learn in all sorts of ways (which your example actually supports). The problem is that teachers are fed a load of garbage masquerading as pedagogy that in order to teach well, we have to teach our kids in exactly the way they learn. Simply not true.
I have to say that I agree completely Lisa.
Let us focus on teaching kids to work hard and to aspire for their dreams, instead of teaching them that the reason they can’t multiply is that they were just born that way. Tis’ a silly notion.
Could not agree more!