Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Urban Legend: Multiple Intelligences
With apologies in advance to Howard Gardner, the creator of multiple intelligence theory...
In the book that is my resource of the month on my website (www.lisavangemert.com), Made to Stick, the authors discuss how urban legends spread and become "sticky" - meaning that people remember them and they go viral. The same thing happened with Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory - 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 morphed into educational theory that 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.
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 that, "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.
Believe me, visual learner or no, if someone yells "Fire!" I'm learning. I don't need a picture.
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.
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. Where were you on 9-11? Did you need to pantomime the planes to remember?
Here's professor Daniel Willingham from the University of Virginia explaining it in a video for all you visual learners...
In the book that is my resource of the month on my website (www.lisavangemert.com), Made to Stick, the authors discuss how urban legends spread and become "sticky" - meaning that people remember them and they go viral. The same thing happened with Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory - 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 morphed into educational theory that 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.
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 that, "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.
Believe me, visual learner or no, if someone yells "Fire!" I'm learning. I don't need a picture.
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.
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. Where were you on 9-11? Did you need to pantomime the planes to remember?
Here's professor Daniel Willingham from the University of Virginia explaining it in a video for all you visual learners...