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

[Russell Edwards]

On 13/01/2008, at 10:33 PM, Kevork Krozian wrote:
>
> 1.What do people think about the lack of evidence for multiple  
> intelligences ?

One could say the the same thing about most education "theories". Have  
a look here for a critical review of MI and 70 other "learning styles"  
type theories. They found that very few were supported by robust  
studies providing sufficiently reliable and valid empirical evidence  
with clear implications for practise.

http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1543.pdf

I'm fond of an expression I'm not sure whether I coined or pinched:  
that most education theories are 80% common sense and 20% bulldust.  
(Well, that's the sanitised version.) That is, the bulk of any theory  
just re-states empirically-based generalisations that are generally  
already widely held among teachers. Then the extra 20% is tacked on as  
a supposed theoretical underpinning. Usually it has no basis (after  
all there can never be "laws of social science" in the way that there  
are "laws of physics") but it is used nevertheless to extrapolate to  
new conclusions that may or may not be valid. And worse, it's often  
used to prop up someone's ideology.

In the case of MI, supposedly Gardner himself concedes that there's no  
empirical evidence for the theory. (I don't have the reference to hand  
but from memory there's a reference to it on Wikipedia.) And yet all  
kinds of people use the theory to support an ideology opposed to the  
prominence of linguistic and logical-mathematical ability-- despite  
the fact that these undoubtedly are highly valued for society for good  
reasons.

Russell Edwards
Whittlesea Secondary College