Theories can be useful even if not yet proven and perhaps even if wrong, eg. Santa Claus, Christianity<br><br>I think study of learning theory is generally useful provided we don't become dogmatic about particular theories and understand the meta issues ourselves
<br><br>ie. MI can be used as an argument against too much emphasis on maths and science, for a balancing of the curriculum, treating all subject domains as equal. That might be a luxury that a wealthy country like Australia could afford up until recently but might mean that we will end up lagging behind Asian countries that put more culturally importance on maths / science - seems to be evidence that this has happened already
<br><br>So the educational theory works within a wider context of what we value socially in education<br><br>Nevertheless, just about all the theories, even if wrong, do offer something. eg. Gardner has written eloquently about language for example offering insights into the nature of language intelligence. That doesn't mean his overall theory is correct but we can still learn from him
<br><br>So by critically studying learning theory we learn bits and pieces that are useful along the way as well as learning that there is not yet a unified learning theory, that its OK to cherry pick the good bits from a variety of theories
<br><br>-- <br>Bill Kerr<br><a href="http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/">http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/</a><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 14, 2008 8:07 PM, Costello, Rob R <<a href="mailto:Costello.Rob.R@edumail.vic.gov.au">
Costello.Rob.R@edumail.vic.gov.au</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">The problem of trying to make education, or teaching, research based
<br>seems pretty chronic to me - (this is all fresh to me after my own<br>"summer school" on research methods) - pretty big disconnects between<br>research and practice<br><br>- and big question marks over the internal integrity of "educational
<br>research" as a field - research can be cited in support of many<br>incompatible directions<br><br>Eg a lot of so called quantitative studies are very context dependent -<br>even if one proves that an intervention "worked" in setting A, the huge
<br>number of implicit variables makes it hard to generalise to setting B<br><br>Another huge problem seems to be the status of underlying questions<br>(philosophy if you like) - eg what sort of knowledge/learning is most
<br>valuable? How do we relate to the others, the world etc? What is the<br>mind? what is education "for"? what theory works here?<br><br>All this affects research I think<br><br>Brain science seems still inconclusive and not yet ready to tell us the
<br>way forward, in spite of its useful insights<br><br>(Ian mentions Geake as attacking the "neuromyth" of MI- and yet Geake<br>wrote this article criticising neuro-myths<br><a href="http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/156074.htm" target="_blank">
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/156074.htm</a><br><br>and yet mentions insights from William James favourably:<br><br>"The 'father' of modern psychology, William James, conceptualised<br>creative intelligence as analogy-making (1890/1950, p. 530)."
<br><br>And Geake stands by that assertion, including it in his conclusion -<br>without any apparent research base to the role of analogy - which is at<br>least 50 years old and pre all brain scans etc - more in the nature of a
<br>useful personal insight<br><br>I don't mind that - I quite like the idea - but seems no-one can<br>consistently limit themselves to the empirically reliable research in<br>their approach<br><br>I think MI is ok as far it goes in promoting the idea of diversity
<br>(compared to the over use of IQ)<br><br>a lot of MI use in education has morphed away from whatever Gardner had<br>in mind at the time (and he has moved on since then as well)<br><br>He has aired some concerns about how it is used in some settings in
<br>Australia :<br><br>"I learned that an entire state in Australia had adopted an educational<br>program based in part on MI theory. The more I learned about this<br>program the less comfortable I was. While parts of the program were
<br>reasonable and based on research, much of it was a mishmash of<br>practices, with neither scientific foundation nor clinical warrant.<br>Left-brain and right-brain contrasts, sensory based learning styles,<br>"neurolinguistic programming", and MI approaches commingled with
<br>dazzling promiscuity."<br><br>(cited via Hargreaves here <a href="http://books.google.decenturl.com/google" target="_blank">http://books.google.decenturl.com/google</a> )<br><br>so either we tend to be promiscuous in our wanton abuse of MI (say
<br>blocking it against Blooms taxonomy to make a Blooms Gardner grid of<br>activities - which I think often works due to the notion of choice and<br>diversity)<br><br>or maybe practitioners have no choice but to take some promising leads
<br>from research and move from there - can hardly wait for rigorous<br>research to sort it all out, given how slowly its inching its way<br>forward, and how contestable it all still seems to be<br><br>Cheers<br><br>Rob<br>
<br>(and I would be inclined to think there was at least some evidence -<br>both of the hard physical brain-scan type, and the William James<br>inspired construct sort, in the original MI - but Gardner is now writing<br>on other categories)
<br><br>> From: <a href="mailto:yr7-10it-bounces@edulists.com.au">yr7-10it-bounces@edulists.com.au</a> on behalf of Ian Ross<br>> Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 11:11 PM<br><div class="Ih2E3d">> To: Year 7 - 10 Information Technology Teachers' Mailing List
<br></div>> Subject: Re: [Yr7-10it] Multiple intelligences - any evidence ???<br><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">><br>><br>> Kevork,<br>><br>> I didn't see the SBS documentary as I am currently attending the
<br>> Australian Government Summer School for Mathematics Teachers in<br>Armidale<br>> NSW with about 200 other teachers from around the country.<br>><br>> One of our guest speakers was Professor John Geake -<br>
> <a href="http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/staffinfo/geake.html" target="_blank">http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/staffinfo/geake.html</a><br>> <<a href="http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/staffinfo/geake.html" target="_blank">
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/staffinfo/geake.html</a>><br>><br>> He is involved in UK research on the human brain and had many<br>interesting<br>> things to say about this rapidly changing area of study. He places
<br>> multiple intelligences into the category of neuromythology (also<br>loosely<br>> referred to as "crap"). Gardners idea is 30 years old and has not been<br>> supported by the research since then.<br>
><br>> John Geake's summary is that humans do not have multiple<br>intelligences. We<br>> have multiple applications of general intelligence. He seemed to<br>> acknowledge that people may have preferred ways of presenting their
<br>> knowledge but trying to affect intelligence by modifying the form of<br>input<br>> to a highly interconnected system like a human brain will just not<br>work.<br>><br>> Regards,<br>> Ian Ross<br>> Canberra (when he's at home)
<br>> <a href="http://ian-ross.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://ian-ross.blogspot.com/</a><br>><br></div></div><div class="Ih2E3d">> ----- Original Message -----<br>> From: Kevork Krozian <mailto:
<a href="mailto:kevork@edulists.com.au">kevork@edulists.com.au</a>><br>> To: Year 7 - 10 Information Technology Teachers' Mailing List<br></div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:yr7-10it@edulists.com.au">
yr7-10it@edulists.com.au</a>><br>> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:33 PM<br>> Subject: [Yr7-10it] Multiple intelligences - any evidence ???<br>><br>> Hi Folks,<br>><br>> Nothing like stirring the pot to start a good chin wag.
<br>><br>> Just finished watching "Brain Power" or similarly titled<br>documentary<br>> on SBS ( Sunday 8:30 pm 13/1/08 ) where several very successful people<br>(<br>> fighter pilot, quantum physicist, artist, chess grandmaster, music
<br>child<br>> prodigy etc ) were tested for intelligence.<br>><br>> One comment caught my attention from an expert : " There is<br>little<br>> evidence to support the theory of multiple intelligences -- (1)
<br>> linguistic intelligence; (2) musical intelligence; (3) logical-<br>> mathematical intelligence; (4) spatial intelligence; (5) bodily-<br>> kinesthetic intelligence; (6) interpersonal intelligence; and (7)<br>
intra-<br>> personal intelligence) as proposed by Howard Gardner -- after which I<br>did<br>> a quick search on the subject.<br>><br>> I discovered the following link as the first hit basically<br>> supporting this position of lack of evidence of multiple intelligences
<br>> which leads me to ask if we are just tinkering with a fad.<br>><br>> <a href="http://nswagtc.org.au/info/articles/McGuinessMultIntellig.html" target="_blank">http://nswagtc.org.au/info/articles/McGuinessMultIntellig.html
</a><br>><br>> Questions:<br>><br>> 1.What do people think about the lack of evidence for multiple<br>> intelligences ?<br>> 2. The same site claims talent is rewarded much more highly than
<br>> intelligence. Wow !! Should we be focussing more on devloping talent<br>in<br>> that case instead of intelligence if we are there to assist our<br>students<br>> with maximising their rewards in society ??<br>
><br>> 3.Do we believe intelligence can indeed be improved which would<br>mean<br>> with enough practice you can eventually qualify for Mensa ?? An<br>> exaggeration simply made to highlight a point.<br>
> 4. Does learning a set of skills or to apply it to a new<br>situation<br>> promote increasing intelligence ? Are students being "trained" as per<br>VET<br>> type subjects, or are they there to "learn" a body of knowledge/set of
<br>> skills ? What exactly is learning in that case ?<br>> 5. Does the ability to apply knowledge to a new situation mean<br>you<br>> are more intelligent than someone who is not able to do so ?<br>> 6. Does successful learning and if that is tied to increasing
<br>one's<br>> intelligence become redefined as society changes and new learning<br>tools<br>> are introduced ? If so, why are intelligence tests unchanged over the<br>last<br>> 100 years ?<br>><br>> One other conclusion from the documentary was that people who
<br>were<br>> given the intelligence test at age 11 and again at age 79 tended to do<br>> better on the whole at age 79 than at 11. What does that mean ? Why<br>does<br>> your intelligence necessarily increase with age ?
<br>><br>> Another was a brain scan of the highest IQ score holder amongst<br>the<br>> group tested in the documentary. This fellow had an IQ of 162 which I<br>> think was 1 in a million yet he had a smaller brain. This was
<br>described as<br>> an efficient sports car vs a larger sedan - less bulk needed due to<br>higher<br>> quality engine.<br>><br>> Lots of issues here, but would be interested in people's<br>> perspective on the subject(s).
<br>><br>> Best Wishes<br>><br>> Kevork Krozian<br>> Edulists Creator and Administrator<br></div></div>> <a href="http://www.edulists.com.au" target="_blank">www.edulists.com.au</a>
<<a href="http://www.edulists.com.au/" target="_blank">http://www.edulists.com.au/</a>><br>> <a href="mailto:kevork@edulists.com.au">kevork@edulists.com.au</a><br>><br><br>Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.
<br><br>_______________________________________________<br><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><a href="http://www.edulists.com.au" target="_blank">http://www.edulists.com.au</a> - FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe<br>
Year 7 - 10 IT Mailing List kindly supported by<br><a href="http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au" target="_blank">http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au</a> - Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority and<br><a href="http://www.vitta.org.au" target="_blank">
http://www.vitta.org.au</a> - VITTA Victorian Information Technology Teachers Association Inc<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br><br>