Howard Gardner’s theory of “multiple intelligences” (MI) has been making the rounds for over 20 years now and, despite the absence of strong scientific evidence showing that students derive benefits from receiving instruction putatively based on it, it appears to be continuing to gain strength. I wondered if I’d missed something showing clear evidence of benefits, so I went to the library. I checked the not-so-researchy ERIC data base and then the more-scholarly PsycINFO to see how often MI was mentioned—sort of a buzz score. The accompanying table shows the number of citations in each data base.
| Source |
All years |
2000- 2005 |
| ERIC |
123 |
48 39% |
| PsycINFO |
53 |
29 55% |
I didn’t take the time to analyze the literature, but I skimmed the titles. Only a few of them appeared, from their titles, to be straight-ahead assessments of whether MI-based instruction benefitted students who received it. The bulk of the literature appeared to be opinion papers, but others are welcome to disconfirm that estimation. Of the titles that appeared to refer to a study about effects of student learning, the vast majority appeared to be doctoral or masters theses. I found none of these that had subsequently made their way into the peer-reviewed literature, leading me to wonder about the rigor of the research they report.
That got me thinking about what’s on the Internet. I found plenty of citations, including lots of sites explaining how to apply MI theory, as if it was proven effective. Also, as I discovered when I searched for the term using scholar.google, those who disucss MI often use rhetoric about experience-based learning, constructivism, learning styles, student-centered learning, critical thinking, and so forth.
My analysis doesn’t amount to much. It just shows that the number of citations in the literature appears to be increasing. To the extent that this is true, MI remains mostly theory and theory generally floats but doesn’t have the anchors provided by predictive validity. For those who are interested, I created a list of critical examinations of MI theory. Those follow.
- Klein, P. D. (1997). Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight: A critique of Gardner’s theory. Canadian Journal of Education, 22, 377-394.
- Morgan, H. (1996). An analysis of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence. Roeper Review, 18, 263-269.
- Sternberg, R. J. (1986). GENECES: A framework for intellectual abilities and theories of them. Intelligence, 10, 239-250.
- Willingham, D. (2004, summer). Reframing the mind. Education Next. Download from http://www.educationnext.org/20043/18.html.
Sphere: Related Content
Dyslexia questions
Under the title, Education Matters: Dyslexia: The Hidden Learning Difference,” Jayne Matthews of the Baltimore Times describes her son’s difficulties in learning to read. Thanks to help from a private center, the boy learned to read after three years of troubles.
Following her account of this story, Ms. Matthews turns the remainder of the column over to Thea Medvetz of the Dyslexia Tutoring Program so that Ms. Medvetz can discuss dyslexia and warning signs of dyslexia.
The intentions of Ms. Matthews and Ms. Medvetz are certainly laudable, and they give some good information. However, I found several statements published there to be of concern; I want to respond to them in hopes of helping others understand dyslexia and Learning Disabilities better.
National Institutes of Health research shows that dyslexia affects at least 1 out of 5 children in the United States.
I’ve seen the 1-in-5 figure many places, but I’m still not sure of it’s veracity. If dyslexia is one form of LD and LD is identified in ~5% of the population of school children, as documented in the Annual Reports to Congress, how could 20% of school children have dyslexia?
Difficulty decoding or sounding out words, or getting letters in the wrong order. For example, these children may read, “left” as “felt” or “form” as “from”.
I can go along with this one, as it’s presented. I hope, however, that people don’t misunderstand it as illustrating the diagnostic value mirror-reading; the reversals-are-diagnostic idea is a myth.
Difficulties with math.
It’s true that some children with reading problems also have math problems. But, not all children with math problems have reading problems.