[Yr7-10it] RE: Multiple intelligences - any evidence ???

[Costello, Rob R]

The problem of trying to make education, or teaching, research based
seems pretty chronic to me - (this is all fresh to me after my own
"summer school" on research methods)  - pretty big disconnects between
research and practice 

- and big question marks over the internal integrity of "educational
research" as a field - research can be cited in support of many
incompatible directions 

Eg a lot of so called quantitative studies are very context dependent -
even if one proves that an intervention "worked" in setting A, the huge
number of implicit variables makes it hard to generalise to setting B 

Another huge problem seems to be the status of underlying questions
(philosophy if you like) - eg what sort of knowledge/learning is most
valuable?   How do we relate to the others, the world etc? What is the
mind?  what is education "for"? what theory works here?  

All this affects research I think 

Brain science seems still inconclusive and not yet ready to tell us the
way forward, in spite of its useful insights 

(Ian mentions Geake as attacking the "neuromyth" of MI- and yet Geake
wrote this article criticising neuro-myths
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/156074.htm

and yet mentions insights from William James favourably:  
 
"The 'father' of modern psychology, William James, conceptualised
creative intelligence as analogy-making (1890/1950, p. 530)." 

And Geake stands by that assertion, including it in his conclusion -
without any apparent research base to the role of analogy  - which is at
least 50 years old and pre all brain scans etc - more in the nature of a
useful personal insight 

I don't mind that - I quite like the idea - but seems no-one can
consistently limit themselves to the empirically reliable research in
their approach 

I think MI is ok as far it goes in promoting the idea of diversity
(compared to the over use of IQ) 

a lot of MI use in education has morphed away from whatever Gardner had
in mind at the time (and he has moved on since then as well) 

He has aired some concerns about how it is used in some settings in
Australia  : 

"I learned that an entire state in Australia had adopted an educational
program based in part on MI theory. The more I learned about this
program the less comfortable I was. While parts of the program were
reasonable and based on research, much of it was a mishmash of
practices, with neither scientific foundation nor clinical warrant.
Left-brain and right-brain contrasts, sensory based learning styles,
"neurolinguistic programming", and MI approaches commingled with
dazzling promiscuity." 

(cited via Hargreaves here http://books.google.decenturl.com/google ) 

so either we tend to be promiscuous in our wanton abuse of MI (say
blocking it against Blooms taxonomy to make a Blooms Gardner grid of
activities - which I think often works due to the notion of choice and
diversity) 

or maybe practitioners have no choice but to take some promising leads
from research and move from there - can hardly wait for rigorous
research to sort it all out, given how slowly its inching its way
forward, and how contestable it all still seems to be 

Cheers 

Rob 

(and I would be inclined to think there was at least some evidence -
both of the hard physical brain-scan type, and the William James
inspired construct sort, in the original MI - but Gardner is now writing
on other categories) 

> From: yr7-10it-bounces at edulists.com.au on behalf of Ian Ross
> Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 11:11 PM
> To: Year 7 - 10 Information Technology Teachers' Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Yr7-10it] Multiple intelligences - any evidence ???
> 
> 
> Kevork,
> 
> I didn't see the SBS documentary as I am currently attending the
> Australian Government Summer School for Mathematics Teachers in
Armidale
> NSW with about 200 other teachers from around the country.
> 
> One of our guest speakers was Professor John Geake -
> http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/staffinfo/geake.html
> <http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/staffinfo/geake.html>
> 
> He is involved in UK research on the human brain and had many
interesting
> things to say about this rapidly changing area of study. He places
> multiple intelligences into the category of neuromythology (also
loosely
> referred to as "crap"). Gardners idea is 30 years old and has not been
> supported by the research since then.
> 
> John Geake's summary is that humans do not have multiple
intelligences. We
> have multiple applications of general intelligence. He seemed to
> acknowledge that people may have preferred ways of presenting their
> knowledge but trying to affect intelligence by modifying the form of
input
> to a highly interconnected system like a human brain will just not
work.
> 
> Regards,
> Ian Ross
> Canberra (when he's at home)
> http://ian-ross.blogspot.com/
> 
> 	----- Original Message -----
> 	From: Kevork Krozian <mailto:kevork at edulists.com.au>
> 	To: Year 7 - 10 Information Technology Teachers' Mailing List
> <mailto:yr7-10it at edulists.com.au>
> 	Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:33 PM
> 	Subject: [Yr7-10it] Multiple intelligences - any evidence ???
> 
> 	Hi Folks,
> 
> 	  Nothing like stirring the pot to start a good chin wag.
> 
> 	Just finished watching "Brain Power" or similarly titled
documentary
> on SBS ( Sunday 8:30 pm 13/1/08 ) where several very successful people
(
> fighter pilot, quantum physicist, artist, chess grandmaster, music
child
> prodigy etc ) were tested for intelligence.
> 
> 	 One comment caught my attention from an expert : " There is
little
> evidence to support the theory of multiple intelligences --  (1)
> linguistic intelligence; (2) musical intelligence; (3) logical-
> mathematical intelligence; (4) spatial intelligence; (5) bodily-
> kinesthetic intelligence; (6) interpersonal intelligence; and (7)
intra-
> personal intelligence) as proposed by Howard Gardner --  after which I
did
> a quick search on the subject.
> 
> 	I discovered the following link as the first hit basically
> supporting this position of lack of evidence of multiple intelligences
> which leads me to ask if we are just tinkering with a fad.
> 
> 	http://nswagtc.org.au/info/articles/McGuinessMultIntellig.html
> 
> 	Questions:
> 
> 	1.What do people think about the lack of evidence for multiple
> intelligences ?
> 	2. The same site claims talent is rewarded much more highly than
> intelligence. Wow !!  Should we be focussing more on devloping talent
in
> that case instead of intelligence if we are there to assist our
students
> with maximising their rewards in society ??
> 
> 	3.Do we believe intelligence can indeed be improved which would
mean
> with enough practice you can eventually qualify for Mensa ?? An
> exaggeration simply made to highlight a point.
> 	4. Does learning a set of skills or to apply it to a new
situation
> promote increasing intelligence ? Are students being "trained" as per
VET
> type subjects, or are they there to "learn" a body of knowledge/set of
> skills ? What exactly is learning in that case ?
> 	5. Does the ability to apply knowledge to a new situation mean
you
> are more intelligent than someone who is not able to do so ?
> 	6. Does successful learning and if that is tied to increasing
one's
> intelligence become redefined as society changes and new learning
tools
> are introduced ? If so, why are intelligence tests unchanged over the
last
> 100 years ?
> 
> 	One other conclusion from the documentary was that people who
were
> given the intelligence test at age 11 and again at age 79 tended to do
> better on the whole at age 79 than at 11. What does that mean ?  Why
does
> your intelligence necessarily increase with age ?
> 
> 	Another was a brain scan of the highest IQ score holder amongst
the
> group tested in the documentary. This fellow had an IQ of 162 which I
> think was 1 in a million yet he had a smaller brain. This was
described as
> an efficient sports car vs a larger sedan - less bulk needed due to
higher
> quality engine.
> 
> 	 Lots of issues here, but would be interested in people's
> perspective on the subject(s).
> 
> 	Best Wishes
> 
> 	Kevork Krozian
> 	Edulists Creator and Administrator
> 	www.edulists.com.au <http://www.edulists.com.au/>
> 	kevork at edulists.com.au
> 

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.