Multiple intelligence, learning styles and the like.

I have always considered theories of multiple intelligence and differential learning styles to to be unconvincing. We have differing aptitudes and different tastes, but I know what intelligence is, and I think that our brains learn in essentially the same way. Here are two articles that support this view.

Multiple intelligences

Learning styles bunk

The fact that these theories are so popular, definitely mainstream, among education theorists and teachers makes me suspicious, since these people are very fad oriented. On the other hand these articles from doubters within the education community are refreshing. Independent thought exists!

Comments

[Aaron@PhraseMix]

Agreed. Steve. I had to hear a lot about "Multiple Intelligences" going through a teacher preparation curriculum in the late 90's / early 00's. It always struck me as very intellectually lazy and arbitrary.

[Max]

Steve, I'm not quite sure I understand what exactly you find unconvincing about multiple intelligences. It seems to me that all the theory is saying is that people have different talents - only because someone excels at engineering does not mean that that he will be good at writing newspaper articles. And good engineering can be as beneficial for society as good newspaper article writing...

In my eyes this idea is a good one as it implies that the school system has in the past focussed unduly on certain skills at the expense of others.

Now, of course, one doesn't have to agree with the specific intelligences postulated by Gardner, but the main thrust of the theory seems to me to be quite true. Or perhaps I misunderstand the theory?

[Steve Kaufmann]

To me intelligence means one thing, talent is another.

[Melissa]

Hey Steve, long time watcher/reader, first time commentor, and while generally I love it when you critique the education system, you've got the science slightly wrong here.

I'm a psych undergrad, so while I'm not terribly qualified I think I know a little bit more in-depth about this than the average reader of this blog. Basically what the real, scientifically supported theory says is that different senses process information in different ways. That much is non-controversial.

That being said, though, the specific spectrum of auditory/kinesthetic/visual is generally considered pseudoscience by psychologists. We tend to back up your view and say it's mostly context that determines effective teaching, not the senses. There's no evidence that the sense the information appeals to affects learning in any significant way.

There's also no evidence, as far as I can tell, that it's the learner's innate ability that is at fault when they do not learn. It's either a lack of interest by the learner or a lack of competence by the teacher. Of course, teachers don't like to hear that, which is why they come up with these pseudoscientific fads.

Multiple intelligence is correct, though. Intelligence is an obnoxious thing to define, and any type of generalized intelligence is a fairly useless measure. I often use mathematicians as an example of this; their intelligence for doing math is incredibly high, their intelligence for explaining it is incredibly low.

In a psychological sense, a talent is just an applied intelligence, so they're close to synonymous with each other. It's one of those annoying words where the jargon meaning is different from the colloquial meaning.

[Steve Kaufmann]

Thanks Melissa. I guess what I object to is

a) the tendency to overcomplicate teaching for the gratification of pedantic pedagogues, and

2) the idea that slow learners in the usual sense, people who have trouble understanding new subjects and new concepts, may be as intelligent as the brightest kid in the class, but their intelligence is just different! I think it is more important to find out why they have trouble picking up the new subjects and concepts. It may have to do with their interests, or how the subject is taught or, heaven forbid, different levels of intelligence as most people understand it.

I believe that language learning is influenced far more by attitude than by intelligence, bu the way.

[John Fotheringham]

Very convincing points here, Steve. I vehemently support your premise that "language learning is influenced far more by attitude than by intelligence." This underpins my work to both learn and teach languages effectively, though I increasingly believe that languages cannot be "taught" at all. As you said in our interview, you can only try to motivate students, provide access to good L2 content, and provide limited feedback on output AFTER (not during) production.

With regard to the debate on multiple intelligences, I find myself conflicted. During my linguistics and TESOL studies, a strong case was made for different ways of learning (and by extension) teaching languages. I agree wholeheartedly agree that many teachers and language academics tend to "overcomplicate teaching for the gratification of pedantic pedagoguesthough." That said, I think there still is something to basic concept. People certainly do have different learning "preferences" and natural aptitudes, but it is hard to say whether these constitute actual differences in "intelligence."

Taking myself as an example, I have a hard time doing arithmetic in my head and remembering explicit information (dates, facts, phone numbers, figures, etc.) Pundits of Multiple Intelligence theory would say I have "low logical-mathematical intelligences." On the other hand, I have an uncanny ability to remember faces and music despite the briefest encounters with either, and even as a young child, I could visualize and draw 3-dimensional objects while my peers drew stick figures (what would be called "high musical and visual-spatial intelligences). I have used my visual and musical sense to great success in learning languages, but again, I am still not sure whether this just fits my "personality" or underlying differences in "intelligence".

Regardless, my basic contention is that ANYONE can learn a foreign language well if they are properly motivated and have sufficient access to L2 input. They can then apply whatever "intelligences" (or "interests" if you prefer) to the task.

[Steve Kaufmann]

John, We do have different aptitudes, but that is not intelligence. In my experience, those students in school who were good at math, were also above average in language arts and vice versa, even though they may have preferred the one over the other. The same was not true for music or athletics which seemed to require a skills, but not a skill that I would call intelligence. I think those skills were unevenly distributed but attitude was a major factor, as is the case with language learning.

[John Wills Lloyd]

Mr. Kaufmann, thanks for the kind words about my posts on Teach Effectively about my doubts regarding learning styles and multiple intelligences. Your notes are wonderfully sensible, and I'm glad to learn that at least one other person thinks like I do!

I don't harbor doubts that people think they learn differently. I also don't doubt that some folks are better at some things (running, eating, thinking, computing, etc.) than am I nor that there are some folks who do those things less well than I.

What gives me pause is that we should extrapolate from these differences to the instruction that we provide for naive learners. If I don't know how to cross a street, it hardly matters whether I have a certain intelligence or style. I have to learn how to get across the street without getting maimed or killed.

If I don't know how to read, it hardly matters whether I say "I'm visual" or someone calls me "high in logical-mathematical intelligence." I still have to learn how to convert these squiggles we call letters into spoken equivalents, do so fluently, make the conversion sound like speech, and match my conversions to existing understanding of language.

Instructionally, we need to focus more on the task to be learned and less on the task-irrelevant characteristics of the learner. To be sure, the characteristics of the learner are important, but those that matter are what the learner knows about the task itself, not the person-type features.

I could go on...and on.

Thanks for the forum!