TEXT
Howard Gardner: ‘Multiple intelligences’ are not ‘learning styles’ by Valerie Strauss
The fields of psychology and education were
revolutionized 30 years ago when we now worldrenowned
psychologist Howard Gardner published his
1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple
[5] Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human
intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that
there was a single kind that could be measured by
standardized tests.
Gardner’s theory initially listed seven intelligences
[10] which work together: linguistic, logical-mathematical,
musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and
intrapersonal; he later added an eighth, naturalist
intelligence and says there may be a few more. The
theory became highly popular with K-12 educators1
[15] around the world seeking ways to reach students who
did not respond to traditional approaches, but over time,
‘multiple intelligences’ somehow became synonymous
with the concept of ‘learning styles’. In this important
post, Gardner explains why the former is not the latter.
[20] It’s been 30 years since I developed the notion of
‘multiple intelligences’. I have been gratified by the
interest shown in this idea and the ways it’s been used in
schools, museums, and business around the world. But
one unanticipated consequence has driven me to
[25] distraction and that’s the tendency of many people,
including persons whom I cherish, to credit me with the
notion of ‘learning styles’ or to collapse ‘multiple
intelligences’ with ‘learning styles’. It’s high time to
relieve my pain and to set the record straight.
[30] First a word about ‘MI theory’. On the basis of
research in several disciplines, including the study of
how human capacities are represented in the brain, I
developed the idea that each of us has a number of
relatively independent mental faculties, which can be
[35] termed our ‘multiple intelligences’. The basic idea is
simplicity itself. A belief in a single intelligence assumes
that we have one central, all-purpose computer, and it
determines how well we perform in every sector of life. In
contrast, a belief in multiple intelligences assumes that
[40] human beings have 7 to 10 distinct intelligences.
Even before I spoke and wrote about ‘MI’, the term
‘learning styles’ was being bandied about in educational
circles. The idea, reasonable enough on the surface, is
that all children (indeed all of us) have distinctive minds
[45] and personalities. Accordingly, it makes sense to find out
about learners and to teach and nurture them in ways
that are appropriate, that they value, and above all, are
effective.
Two problems: first, the notion of ‘learning styles’ is
[50] itself not coherent. Those who use this term do not
define the criteria for a style, nor where styles come
from, how they are recognized/ assessed/ exploited. Say
that Johnny is said to have a learning style that is
‘impulsive’. Does that mean that Johnny is ‘impulsive’
[55] about everything? How do we know this? What does this
imply about teaching? Should we teach ‘impulsively’, or
should we compensate by ‘teaching reflectively’? What of
learning style is ‘right-brained’ or visual or tactile? Same
issues apply.
[60] Problem #2: when researchers have tried to identify
learning styles, teach consistently with those styles, and
examine outcomes, there is not persuasive evidence that
the learning style analysis produces more effective
outcomes than a ‘one size fits all approach’. Of course,
[65] the learning style analysis might have been inadequate.
Or even if it is on the mark, the fact that one intervention
did not work does not mean that the concept of learning
styles is fatally imperfect; another intervention might
have proved effective. Absence of evidence does not
[70] prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to
educational researchers: ‘back to the drawing boards’.
Here’s my considered judgment about the best way
to analyze this lexical terrain:
Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But
[75] we signed out, as a strong intelligence, an area where
the person has considerable computational power.
Style or learning style: A hypothesis of how an individual
approaches the range of materials. If an individual has a
‘reflective style’, he/she is hypothesized to be reflective
[80] about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that
reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals
reflectiveness in one’s interaction with the others.
Senses: Sometimes people speak about a ‘visual’
learner or an ‘auditory’ learner. The implication is that
[85] some people learn through their eyes, others through
their ears. This notion is incoherent. Both spatial
information and reading occur with the eyes, but they
make use of entirely different cognitive faculties. What
matters is the power of the mental computer, the
[90] intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once
picked up.
These distinctions are consequential. If people want
to talk about ‘an impulsive style’ or a ‘visual learner’,
that’s their prerogative. But they should recognize that
[95] these labels may be unhelpful, at best, and ill-conceived
at worst.
In contrast, there is strong evidence that human
beings have a range of intelligences and that strength (or
weakness) in one intelligence does not predict strength
[100] (or weakness) in any other intelligences. All of us exhibit
jagged profiles of intelligences. There are common sense
ways of assessing our own intelligences, and even if it
seems appropriate, we can take a more formal test
battery. And then, as teachers, parents, or selfassessors,
[105] we can decide how best to make use of this
information.
(Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet)
Glossary:
1. K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary
curriculum and methods for teaching with objects.
In the fragment “why the former is not the latter” (line 19), the highlighted words refer to
