User:BrantonShearer/sandbox

Proposed "Criticism and reponses"section in Theory of multiple intelligences

Validity

Critics argue that MI cannot be taken seriously as a scientific theory of intelligence for a number of reasons that have kept it marginalized from mainstream psychology despite worldwide influence among educators. It is understandable that psychologists in the normal science tradition question the validity of an idea that challenges one of its core concepts – IQ – without providing a wealth of psychometric evidence. While there are a variety of specific criticisms, the most common are discussed here.  First, it is not scientific as in "a body of knowledge acquired by performing replicated experiments in the laboratory". Second, there is conceptual confusion for determining exactly what intelligence is and what it isn’t, e.g., MI conflates personality and talent with intelligence. MI devalues reasoning and academic skills. Third, there are no empirical, experimental studies using psychometrics to establish validity. The proposed intelligences are not sufficiently independent to warrant separate identification. Fourth, there is no evidence for educational efficacy and its use may undermine school effectiveness.

Linda Gottfredson has argued that thousands of studies support the importance of intelligence quotient (IQ) in predicting school and job performance, and numerous other life outcomes. In contrast, empirical support for non-g intelligences is either lacking or very poor. She argued that despite this, the ideas of multiple non-g intelligences are very attractive to many due to the suggestion that everyone can be smart in some way.

Gardner and colleagues respond in the following ways to these criticisms.  

First, it is not scientific as in a body of knowledge acquired by performing replicated experiments in the laboratory.

Kornhaber explains "MI was not constructed through formal hypothesis testing and experimental design. Instead, it is what Einstein called a constructive theory, one that offers a reasonable model for understanding a given phenomenon (e.g., variation in human intelligence as manifested in domains across cultures) versus a principle theory, which is built on confirmed, empirical generalizations." Gardner and Moran further describe the difference between conventional science and the basis for MI theory this way, "science progresses not only through experimentation but also by synthesizing the experimental, observational, and theoretical work of others to build a foundation for future research".

This distinction accords with the process of scientific development described by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions where it is an error to believe that scientific progress is a simple process of accumulating evidence until the puzzle picture is fully realized. Instead, there are "paradigm shifts" where the limits of "normal science" are challenged by theories that more fully account for anomalies that don’t fit. These shifts are often strongly resisted by normal science until the competing model comes to be recognized for its value through further investigation and practice.

The widely disparate views of the value of MI between educators and psychologists mirror this process as described by Kuhn. Teachers perceive the limitations of ranking students in their classrooms according to IQ scores and reach for more comprehensive explanations of their differences (notably in terms of aptitudes, talents or Learning Styles). Psychologists question the value of non-IQ models as being "not scientific" as teachers explain that teaching is a creative, humanistic endeavor that is under-served by science.

Second, there is conceptual confusion for determining exactly what intelligence is and what it isn’t, e.g., MI conflates personality, talent and learning styles with intelligence. MI does not value reasoning and academic skills.

The harshest critics of MI theory comes from conventional psychologists rooted in the tradition of a unitary general intelligence that emphasizes abstract reasoning and logical problem-solving. This criticism is mirrored by school psychologists who must use I.Q. scores along with academic skills test scores to document the existence of a "learning disability" as a discrepancy between a student’s IQ and academic achievement. However, psychologists cannot come to agreement on a precise definition of general intelligence.  Every theorist has their own particular definition. A review by Legg and Hutter (2007) found more than 70 different definitions. Instead of beginning with a foundational definition as did Howard Gardner, the I.Q. tradition began with a test developed by Alfred Binet in 1911.This resulted in a mental age calculation score which later evolved into a statistical Intelligence Quotient obtained from the average scores on a variety of sub-tests. As noted historian of psychology E.G. Boring stated, "Intelligence is what intelligence tests measure." Ulric Neisser surveyed leading psychologists to determine an exact definition of intelligence and found "…their answers reflected little agreement and had little practical influence…" regarding this "magical essence" that is the subject of so many varied psychometric tests. Neisser wrote "… many of the relevant characteristics [of intelligence] are simply impossible to measure". This leads to the conclusion that I.Q. tests may be measuring some components of intelligence but that there is more to it. MI theory is a model that strives to capture more of our human ability repertoire through both quantitative and qualitative methods.

Much of the debate about the nature of intelligence revolves around how general or specific of a capacity it is. Is there one intelligence (I.Q.) or can it be divided into two main components Fluid and Crystallized or perhaps three dimensions Triarchic? Or are there 120 or more different types. The definition of this essential human capacity is very slippery. Even theorists of other multi-intelligence theories such Robert Sternberg argue with Gardner’s definition that intelligence is the ability or set of abilities that allows a person to solve problems or create products that are of value in at least one culture. This definition has three key aspects that make it unique, difficult to test and open to much criticism. It includes both convergent problem-solving as well as divergent thinking. Third, intelligence is "distributed" beyond the mind-brain of the person and has a dialectical correspondence with what is valued in a particular context or culture. This is quite different from the typical short-answers to paper-and-pencil tests relied upon by psychologists to determine a person’s I.Q. score. While there are a myriad of definitions for intelligence that get operationalized in hundreds of different tests, basically they all must include information that can be counted and problems that can be scored. At their core, most intelligence tests involve verbal responses and logical problem-solving. By design these core abilities are those that are most closely correlated with academic success in traditional classrooms, e.g., readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmetic coined at the beginning of the 19^th century.

Gardner’s definition of intelligence broadens what constitutes intelligent behavior to include non-academic abilities including creativity, craftmanship, and everyday thinking. However, it must be noted that MI also includes and values equally the core congruent thinking abilities associated with general intelligence so the debate between MI and IQ is not an either-or-choice. MI includes IQ as described by the logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligences, primarily, but also the problem-solving aspects of visual-spatial.

The inclusion of creative thinking and the making of things (and provision of valued services) complicates the making of tests to measure each of the multiple intelligences. MI tests need to survey a wide range of behaviors beyond convergent problem-solving to include the making, fashioning and creation of products or services. This can be especially difficult in the decontextualized setting where standardized tests are usually administered. Gardner and colleagues advocate for the use of "intelligence – fair" performance tests that use the actual materials pertaining to each intelligence. The Explorama at Danfoss Universe in Denmark is noted as an example of such experiential assessment model.

As described above, Gardner strives to make clear the distinctions between the intelligences and learning styles and personality attributes. However, according to MI theory there may be no differences between an intelligence and related talents or aptitudes. Gardner’s only caveat is that all of these abilities should be categorized by the same nomenclature and not reserve intelligence for supposedly "higher cognitive processes" associated with IQ while implying that an aptitude or talent is of lesser importance to the person, in the classroom and in life. In MI theory, skills associated with each of the eight intelligences can be ranked from basic to higher level cognitive abilities.

The third criticism of MI theory is there are no empirical, experimental studies using psychometrics to establish validity. The proposed intelligences are not proven to be sufficiently independent to warrant separate identification.

MI theory has been rejected by psychologists since it was first introduced in 1983 mainly because of a perceived lack of empirical tests of its validity. The validity of a unitary intelligence has long been supported by a countless number of statistical analyses of various psychometric investigations. Gardner employed a different scientific method to formulate MI theory in the early days, but since then there have been systematic studies of its validity from several different perspectives, as is recommended to distinguish between a hypothetical framework and a validated scientific theory.

MI theory posed several challenges to traditional psychologists beyond its unique definition and criteria used by Gardner to identify several intelligences comparable with general intelligence. As Kornhaber explained (see above, and reference) MI is a constructive theory that requires various forms of empirical evidence to confirm validity. So Gardner went beyond psychometric evidence to include fields as diverse as neuroscience, cognitive science, anthropology, evolutionary science and genetics. Of course, psychologists did not appreciate the value of including other scholarly domains that expanded beyond their dominance in the field of intelligence and its measurement. This contention fits into Kuhn’s description of how novel ideas are actively resisted by "normal science" in its earlier stages of formulation. For a new hypothesis to "spark a paradigm shift", an extended exploration of how a new theory accounts for anomalies better than an existing model is necessary.

In 2023 Waterhouse renewed her criticism on MI theory by claiming it is a neuromyth which is "... a commonly accepted but unscientific claim about brain function . . ." and MI qualifies because there is "no evidence supporting his (MI) proposal for independent brain-based intelligences". This criticism was rejected by MI authorities because it represents a distortion of the theory in two fundamental ways. First, neuro-evidence is only one of eight lines of research supporting the validity of MI theory. Waterhouse fails to acknowledge the importance of many other scholarly fields upon which MI rests. Second, Waterhouse claims that MI validity requires "independent brain-based" abilities for each intelligence. Instead, MI theory postulates that there are relatively independent "neural architectures" consisting of designated structures working in concert to support the culturally appropriate intelligences. Note that MI is not a strictly "brain-based" hypothesis but instead is a careful description of how the brain supports culturally important skills and abilities.

Empirical bases of MI theory

Origins

The initial critique that MI theory was not conceived using "empirical evidence" has been found to be inaccurate. Gardner has frequently responded that MI theory is in fact based on "at least 500 empirical studies" cited in Frames of Mind.  A review of the reference lists in Frames for two intelligences – kinesthetic and visual-spatial – reveals the following results. For kinesthetic intelligence, there are about 70 citations of scholarly books and articles in authoritative journals. These citations cover a range of sources including neuroscience (n= 14), evolution and developmental biology (n= 6), anthropology (n= 7), cultural and social psychology (n= 20) and cognitive psychology (n= 14). For visual-spatial intelligence, there are about 75 citations of scholarly books and articles in authoritative journals. These citations cover a range of sources including neuroscience (n= 13), evolution and developmental biology (n= 2), anthropology (n= 9), cultural and social psychology (n= 20) and cognitive and experimental psychology (n= 30).  A quick review of five other intelligences in Frames shows that the citations tally for each would be nearly equal to or greater than these data. The range of data sources considered by Gardner are substantial and aligned with the essential definition so calling MI a framework or "reasonable hypothesis" in 1983 supported by empirical evidence was not unwarranted.

Scientific evidence investigating MI Theory

Even as Gardner has repeatedly explained how empirical studies could test MI, he has also stated,

"I’ve never felt that MI theory was one that could be subjected to an "up and down" kind of test, or even series of tests. Rather, it is and has always been fundamentally a work of synthesis; and its overall fate will be determined by the comprehensiveness of the synthesis, on the one hand, and its utility to both scholars and practitioners, on the other"

This view of a scientific theory is not dissimilar to Einstein’s fundamental hypotheses about physics and Darwin’s concept of evolution. Over time a "reasonable hypothesis" can be tested and evaluated for its ability to make accurate predictions. Conventional psychologists are correct in arguing that a novel idea needs to be thoroughly tested before it can claim to be scientific and not merely "pop psychology" with unproven validity and reliability. The field of psychology has worked hard to differentiate itself from ephemeral fads (see phrenology) and false beliefs (humans are born with a "blank slate" brain) or harmful opinions (immigrants from underdeveloped countries are less intelligent). Starting with Freud and continuing with the behaviorism of B.F. Skinner, cognitive psychology, information processing and currently neuroscience; psychologists are diligently working to establish its scientific credentials.

Another main argument against MI as a scientific theory is that the intelligences are not sufficiently coherent and independent from each other and so general intelligence accounts for their shared correlations and thus is a more powerful predictor of human behavior. This hypothesis has been tested in several ways since 1983 and found to be only partially true but the relationship between them is complicated and not as simple as MI vs. IQ.

Educational Efficacy

The fourth criticism of MI theory is that there is no evidence for educational efficacy and that the use of MI may undermine school effectiveness. In other words, even if MI can describe an accurate map of the mind-brain, does this map help people (teachers, counselors, psychologists, parents, students) to achieve educational goals? Criticisms of the educational applications of MI theory break into three general types: questions about efficacy, theoretical disagreements and fear of consequences for large scale application.

In the early days, there was no evidence for the efficacy of MI theory to enhance instruction in classrooms and the design of curriculum in schools, but there was an abundance of enthusiasm and MI-inspired projects beyond counting. As James Taub stated in a debate with Gardner, "Frames of Mind landed in the school world with the force of revelation. Gardner had offered a theoretical framework, and a scientific explanation, for an intuition shared by many teachers: that children have different ways of learning, and each must be approached with different kinds of teaching. Gardner had also validated progressive education’s focus on the learner, rather than on the knowledge being imparted . . .". This proved to be both a blessing and a curse. "Normal science" psychologists were suspicious that "irrational exuberance" by teachers would be deceptive and merely good marketing for yet another false promise of a cure for what ails contemporary education. They were right to be concerned and skeptical because numerous other progressive ideals to reform education had failed to deliver what they promised.

It is worth noting that Gardner has never offered a detailed plan for exactly how MI should be implemented in a classroom or school. Instead, as is aligned with a theory of mind-brain that highlights each person’s unique neural capacities, he has long advocated that education can be improved through individualization and pluralization of instruction in 1983. These are also ideals for many forms of progressive education that critics take issue with, especially when implemented in mass education of public schools. According to Ravitch’s review, 100 years of innovative school reforms may have been distractions from intensive academic education that critics like Traub worry about. "I fear the effect it will have on the world" as MI is ineffectually implemented by educators who do not share Gardner’s commitment to rigor. The use of MI is definitely not intended to lower standards but instead to accentuate strengths for students’ development as well as "bridges" into the curriculum.

According Ravitch’s review of school reform, not all progressive school initiatives were failures because, "Surely, the elementary schools were more joyful places, yet there was no good reason to pose a dichotomy between children’s well-being and the thoughtful study of school subjects". The problem that remains is how to build practical bridges in the daily classroom between the forces of traditional academics and recognizing individual differences? Can the theory of multiple intelligences help? Near the end of Ravitch’s examination of American schools’ struggle to achieve the dream of providing high quality education for all students regardless of status, she notes,  

"Howard Gardner became a national leader of an effort to reclaim the strain of progressivism that championed students’ joy in learning without denying the importance of academic disciplines and to cleanse progressivism of its earlier association with IQ testing, curricular differentiation, anti-intellectualism, and life adjustment education".

Investigations into Educational Efficacy

Critics who complain that there have been no large-scale, rigorous experiments to test the effectiveness of an MI inspired education are mostly right. The problem is that MI is not an explicit, exacting set of practices that can be implemented and tested in a standard experimental model. Instead, it is more of an inspirational framework that teachers and schools adopt and adapt to fit their own particular needs and circumstances. Again, it serves as a constructive theory for both teachers and students. The goal is to empower all stakeholders with personalized knowledge to maximize learning. Perhaps most importantly, a primary objective is to increase students’ motivation and engagement with the curricular content. There have been a large number of small-scale tests of the impact of MI on teaching and learning in classrooms with mixed results. After 40 years of use, educators around the world continue to demonstrate that an MI designed curriculum is worthwhile and effective.

Kornhaber, Chen, Krechevsky, Viens, and Isberg, leading authorities on public policy and MI, agree that There is little doubt that implementations of the theory are widely variable. There are no permissions needed to adopt the theory and no clearing house for reporting how the theory is implemented. This raises questions about whether the theory can be associated with any particular practices among teachers or with any changes among students. These issues have been most extensively investigated during the "Schools Using MI Theory" (SUMIT) study (Kornhaber, Fierros, & Veenema, 2004). As part of SUMIT, researchers conducted qualitative interviews among an intentional sample of forty-one public schools with diverse populations in eighteen US states and one Canadian province that used MI for three or more years. Of these schools, 49 percent associated improved test scores with MI; 54 percent associated improvements in student discipline with MI; 60 percent reported improvement in parent participation associated with MI; 78 percent associated the theory with improvements for students with learning disabilities; and 2 percent reported improvements for that population not associated with MI".

Another small study of six MI-inspired schools by Campbell and Campbell found that MI provided teachers with a strong basis to personalize their instruction and also to better understand the MI strengths of a whole classes for enhanced lesson planning. An interesting finding is that the recognition of students’ strengths enhanced their intrinsic motivation for learning.

MI theory has not yet passed the test required for a principle theory where empirical generalizations can be considered to be proven. Perhaps as MI critics Ravitch and Traub note, it should not be an either / or choice of MI or IQ to understand intelligence. From an educational perspective, because MI includes IQ-type skills, the challenge is to create curriculum and instruction that is both rigorous and personalized. While teaching methods have increasingly become a subject for scientific investigation, the daily act of teaching is also an art or craft. The same framework can be applied to the understanding of human nature. Some behaviors and forms of cognition can be measured in terms of logical units, levels of abstraction and bits of knowledge while other parts of the intellect are imaginative, improvisational, and descriptive.