Gardner

Multiple Intelligences: Why They Matter

Piaget believed that intelligence was a fluid construct born of continued development – an ever-evolving flux of knowledge. As a result, knowledge and intelligence to him was not rooted only in biology but also in logic: which for most if not all is wired in the way we interact with our environment. Or, how we interact with stimuli outside of ourselves based on who we are. “In other words, the operative activity of the human mind results in the construction of more and more complex relations (spatial, causal, logical, etc.) between person and world” (Müller U. et al., p. 142).

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences

According to Gardner there are eight ways of learning, ie, multiple intelligences: “[m]ost people think that there is but a single intelligence; MI theory holds that we each have eight or more intelligences, and we can use them to carry out all kinds of tasks” (Gardner H. E., 2008, p. 26). This idea or theory might seem familiar in this day and age; a somewhat natural trajectory in our evolving understanding of intelligence and human ingenuity, its significance ever pervasive in the educational system and yet, at times, this idea of multiple intelligences gets overlooked. The intelligence quotient (IQ) test, which came about in the 1900s – a product of Binet’s work – created this singular way of viewing intelligence; which we now reject based on Gardner’s theories. The IQ was a way for people to categorise and measure someone based on a set standard – regardless of their cultural background, their environment, their learning style or abilities. It was a way to quantifiably define everyone in one dimension, using the same instruments of judgement (for all) without regard for external factors and how they interacted with an individual’s biological development. We see this now in the US and other countries with the SATs , ACTs and GREs – all standardised tests, all considered irreproachable because of their quantifiability. A student goes through school, studies, is expected to then regurgitate what was taught in a linear fashion following linear guidelines that do not account for their multiple intelligence spectrums. (Gardner H. E., 2008, pp. 3-4).

And so, because Gardner’s multiple intelligences show how learning is not a singular endeavour, but one that encompasses multiple abilities that may be accessible on various levels for different people-- meaning, no two people think alike -- how can we expect them to learn the same way? There exists (1) linguistic – word smart (2) logical-mathematical – number/logic smart (3) spatial – picture smart (4) bodily-kinesthetic – body smart (5) musical – music smart (6) interpersonal intelligence – people smart (7) intrapersonal intelligence – self smart and (8) naturalist – nature smart intelligence (Armstrong T., 2017, p. 4). The belief by Gardner and others that we nurture all intelligences and not omit any at the expense of one in particular, is important in assessing student’s needs in the classroom. If we can create the learning environment students are engaged in to reflect the varied intelligences and the levels of abilities to access these intelligences per individual student, teachers have a better chance of reaching all their students and guaranteeing success for all of them – no matter their aptitude for learning. Gardner posits that we not label these MIs as “aptitudes” or “talents” but see them for what they truly are and approach each student or individual from that basis without alienating them by elevating one more than the other (Armstrong T., 2017, p. 4). Gardner says it succinctly: “the uniform school sounds fair—after all, everyone is treated in the same way…but to the extent that your mind works differently—and not many of us are cut out to be law professors—school is certainly not fair to you” (Gardner H. E., 2008, p. 5; emphasis mine).

References

Armstrong, T. (2017). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom . Alexandria: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. article

Gardner, H. E. (2008). Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice . New York: Basic Books. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca

Müller U., Ten Eycke K. & Baker L. (2015). Piaget’s theory of intelligence. In Goldstein S. et al. (eds.), Handbook of Intelligence: Evolutionary Theory , Historical Perspective, and Current Concepts (pp. 137–151). Springer Science+Business Media.

Csikszentmihalyi

The Ebb and Flow of Student Engagement

It all goes back to Csikszentmihalyi’s flow model.

Source: Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology The Collected Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8

What is the flow model?

Csikszentmihalyi describes it as the optimal experience a person engaged in an activity has. This activity, whilst challenging, is not beyond their capabilities, allowing them to find value and pleasure in the process. The person becomes completely absorbed in the activity and flow is achieved through intrinsic motivation.

What does this mean to me?

If we can get students to access their flow, we can fully engage them and draw on their intrinsic motivation. We must look at students as the sentient beings they are with thoughts, feelings, emotions, anxieties and stresses. And recognise that there is an ebb and flow to how students perceive learning and their role in it. Sometimes they are highly motivated because of how much they value the task as it relates to their self-interests, at other times they are demotivated by how the teacher values their work and their efforts and at other times they become unmotivated if they are not fulfilled in some way by the task at hand.

Flow and Multiple intelligences

Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura (2014) states when “we encounter human activity that requires concentrated investment of psychic energy, we assume that this event is not random but the product of conscious effort. Motivation is what makes such effort possible” (p. 180).

We must nurture the multiple intelligences of our students so that motivation is intrinsic and pleasurable.

References

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (2014). The dynamics of intrinsic motivation: a study of adolescents. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), Flow and the foundations of positive psychology: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. (pp. 175-197). Springer.