In a nutshell, the idea behind multiple intelligence theory (first proposed by Howard Gardner in the early 1990s) is that intelligence is not a unitary trait that you either have or do not have. Rather, there are multiple ways of being "smart"--multiple intelligences. Gardner originally suggested seven types of intelligence, and later expanded the list by adding an eighth:
- Linguistic intelligence - "word smart"
- Logical-mathematical intelligence - "math smart"
- Visual-spatial intelligence - "design smart"
- Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence - "body smart"
- Musical intelligence - "music smart"
- Interpersonal intelligence - "people smart"
- Intrapersonal intelligence - "self smart"
- Naturalist intelligence - "nature smart"
These descriptors above are my own, not Gardner's. This theory is appealing to me for several reasons. It does seem that there are different ways to make sense of the world, and people do seem to have various strengths and relative weaknesses in these different ways of being "smart." Used car salesman? Definitely "people smart." Nuclear physicist? Probably has "math smart" in spades. Concert violinist? I'm thinking "music smart" is an apt description. Add to this fact, my students have always had preferences for the kinds of assignments I asked them to do. And further, I like to think of myself as a unique individual with my own areas of strength to celebrate, so it's probably no wonder that parents see their kids that way, and teachers too, and likely even the kids themselves!
Early in my teaching career, I put a lot of stock into giving my middle school students self-assessments related to these multiple intelligences, with the intent of helping them understand their own gifts and talents, and helping me as their teacher to understand more about how they see the world. But more recently, I've wondered about whether this was worthwhile. Did I really use enough different teaching methods to help my "body smart" students learn science? Was I tapping into the strengths of "self smart" students in the learning opportunities they had?
And now, thinking about those quick self-checking surveys I had my students complete...how well did they actually indicate students' actual intelligence? Were they "good enough?" Or did they misdiagnose students' intelligences? Or worse, does this just give one more label to use--or an opportunity for excuses, because "I'm just not that 'word smart,' but I am 'people smart,' so if you would just teach me that way..."???
And then, I come across things like this tweet from Dr. Daniel Willingham...
Psychometricians celebrate as @BuzzFeed develops a reliable and valid measure of multiple intelligences, based on fast food preferences. https://t.co/S72AvaXYbB— Daniel Willingham (@DTWillingham) September 26, 2019
Wait...there's a BuzzFeed quiz...on multiple intelligences...based on your fast food preferences...???
So of COURSE I took it. (You can too: Believe It Or Not, Everyone Is A Type Of "Smart" Based On Their Fast-Food Choices.)
And the result?
Well, based on the fact that I think Papa John's pizza is tastier than the other options, and my willingness to never eat a Big Mac again, and my preference a DQ Blizzard for my dessert option...I am apparently "Numbers Smart."
(Screengrab from my results of the "assessment.")
And...as I'm reflecting on this...I mean, I guess I would describe myself as "math smart." But I also think of myself as "music smart," and "nature smart," and "word smart" as well.
So I took the quiz again a few more times, and began clicking more randomly and haphazardly each time.
And the results?
I got "people smart" and "visual smart" and "nature smart," and then "music smart" three times in a row, selecting different answers each time.
This has me wondering, just how arbitrary is this quiz? I mean, it's a BuzzFeed quiz, so of course I'm not going to put a lot of stock into it, right?
But how about that quick-and-dirty self assessment I used to give my middle school students? Was it just as arbitrary?
I guess I'm just wondering today whether the whole idea of multiple intelligences is mythical, if we can't accurate measure these constructs.
What do you think, fellow educators?
I have used multiple intelligences in my class for several years. I recognize the inaccuracy of a multiple intelligences test (or any other personality test) because the results can and will change based on the day you're having, what you did yesterday, and whether you had breakfast. However, I still do them, for several reasons:
ReplyDelete1. it is important for students to recognize that not everyone is like them - God created us each unique.
2. it is important to know that they are unique.
3. it gives them a start to know that they learn differently than their neighbours - flashcards may work for their neighbour because they are intrapersonal, but they need to talk out their study notes because they are interpersonal, or they need to sing their notes because they are musical, or they need to act out their notes because they are kinesthetic.
4. I do them to push them to try something different. There's a project with options of how to present: visual will create a poster, musical will try to find a song. The challenge I give them is to grow: if you're visual, try creating a song, if you're intrapersonal, try a oral presentation.
Talking about the results, reflecting with them on their results is an important start in a conversation about the body of Christ. A visual person can't say to the kinesthetic person - I don't need you. If all were interpersonal, where would the silence be? A musical person can't say because I am not naturalist I do not belong to the body.
Best part: Grade 4 "musical" students creating a song about the bones of the body. :)