UC Berkeley School of Information & Center for New Media
week 8
Project proposal presentations in class.
One thought on “week 8”
My breakdown in high to low: 1. Linguistic 2. Naturalistic 3. Interpersonal 4. Intrapersonal 5. Musical 6. Visual/Spatial 7. Kinetic
Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is a little dated but served to dramatically realign how the notion of “intelligence” was thought about and discussed. Historical notions of singular intelligence was rooted in subjectivity, sociocultural contexts (and, often, was also racialized and gendered). This theory of multiple intellignecnes conscientiously strives to move away from these biases (Gardner references his “sensitivity to cultural values” p. 3). The theory of MI also steps back to more carefully analyze the whole learner and makes adjustments for different strengths. MI finds itself incorporated into any teaching program these days and teachers are encouraged to think of developing curriculum that will allow students with different strengths to be able to learn through myriad ways. In this, the emphasis MI places on the importances of experiences and context in affecting individuals intelligences also manifests itself in other educational theory, including notions of funds of knowledge or out of school literacy practices. I agree with Gardner’s caution that MI is not an educational goal but rather a tool. Use as a tool has lead to other applications that have real value and weight in classrooms.
I have often heard critiques of MI within education based on the absence of emphasis on tests and the straw man of “how to apply to real classrooms” is set up to be quickly set alight. However, developing forms of assessment (portfolios, presentations, room for creative/artistic demonstration of competency) do allow teachers to asses student learning and progress while simultaneously allowing them the freedom to rely on their own strengths. Gardner’s “reggiao” approach includes heavy use of art, emphasis on symbolic language and student creativity with the goal of developing students into citizens who will contribute to society. The individual student is seen as having his/her own valued and authentic knowledge that is acquired. This knowledge can be shared with a group but it is still highly individualistic.
The fact that the Birmingham Grid of intelligence was based on a test/survey does seem to undermine some of Gardner’s argument. The test itself is problematic and results would easily vary based on participant mood and doesn’t take into account personal predilections (for example, I am a person who tends to favor “extremes” so my answers tend to fall on far ends of either spectrum, even if more careful analysis would yield a more moderate answer). Assessment of student intelligences should be undertaken in a more holistic manner.
My breakdown in high to low: 1. Linguistic 2. Naturalistic 3. Interpersonal 4. Intrapersonal 5. Musical 6. Visual/Spatial 7. Kinetic
Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is a little dated but served to dramatically realign how the notion of “intelligence” was thought about and discussed. Historical notions of singular intelligence was rooted in subjectivity, sociocultural contexts (and, often, was also racialized and gendered). This theory of multiple intellignecnes conscientiously strives to move away from these biases (Gardner references his “sensitivity to cultural values” p. 3). The theory of MI also steps back to more carefully analyze the whole learner and makes adjustments for different strengths. MI finds itself incorporated into any teaching program these days and teachers are encouraged to think of developing curriculum that will allow students with different strengths to be able to learn through myriad ways. In this, the emphasis MI places on the importances of experiences and context in affecting individuals intelligences also manifests itself in other educational theory, including notions of funds of knowledge or out of school literacy practices. I agree with Gardner’s caution that MI is not an educational goal but rather a tool. Use as a tool has lead to other applications that have real value and weight in classrooms.
I have often heard critiques of MI within education based on the absence of emphasis on tests and the straw man of “how to apply to real classrooms” is set up to be quickly set alight. However, developing forms of assessment (portfolios, presentations, room for creative/artistic demonstration of competency) do allow teachers to asses student learning and progress while simultaneously allowing them the freedom to rely on their own strengths. Gardner’s “reggiao” approach includes heavy use of art, emphasis on symbolic language and student creativity with the goal of developing students into citizens who will contribute to society. The individual student is seen as having his/her own valued and authentic knowledge that is acquired. This knowledge can be shared with a group but it is still highly individualistic.
The fact that the Birmingham Grid of intelligence was based on a test/survey does seem to undermine some of Gardner’s argument. The test itself is problematic and results would easily vary based on participant mood and doesn’t take into account personal predilections (for example, I am a person who tends to favor “extremes” so my answers tend to fall on far ends of either spectrum, even if more careful analysis would yield a more moderate answer). Assessment of student intelligences should be undertaken in a more holistic manner.