My thoughts on Intelligence Reframed, by Howard Gardner

Howard Gardner revisits and updates his theory of multiple intelligences, and addresses how to use the theory to improve learning and education.

The first half of the book reviews and updates the theory. The rest of the book is on education.

Gardner says that multiple intelligence theory is not the basis for an education, but should remind us of three key ideas: "We are not all the same, we do not all have the same kinds of minds (that is, we are not all distinct points on a single bell curve), and education works most effectively if these differences are taken into account rather than denied or ignored." The theory also "suggests that any uniform educational approach is likely to serve only a small percentage of children optimally."

On critial thinking, Gardner makes a point that critical thinking should be taught in context, not as a seperate skill, but as part of analysis of a subject or domain.

A key point repeated is that multiple intelligence theory is not an end or a goal of an education. The ideas behind MI can only be used after the goals of an education are decided. That is, once a community decides what should be learned MI can be used to enhance the learning process.

In a section on schools is the concept of an "Individually Configured Education.' The key result of applying MI theory to learning should be using the MI to make sure the education is relevant to each individual.

Goals of education is a recurring theme in this book. Gardner states that basic literacy skills are not really an educational goal, but just tools to enhance understanding of the real goals of an educations.

On technology, he makes the point that technologial means must have human ends. Technology should be used to enhance understanding, just as the other tools of learning, such as books, pencils etc. This reminds me of another concept I learned about recently regarding productivity of the classroom educational system. Productivity of education cannot increase as long as there is one teacher in front of 30 students. The best focus for techonolgy would be to increase productivity, and learning, by enhancing the delivery of individualized education. [todo find link to teacher salary/productivity]

Gardner says that one use of MI can be to improve understanding. That is instead of just learning facts, learners should gain real understanding of what they are learning. He says this understanding can be used to make the world a better place. This also ties into the educational goals idea. We need to understand what schools and education are for. What are the goals. Same thing with technology in schools. Do we want kids to learn basic office programs that will be obselete in 5 years? Or can we make a better use of technology to enhance learning and understanding?

Gardner talks about learning occuring outside schools, in places like children's museums, art museums, and the business world. The point of this is that these places offer alternative viewpoints and approaches. He mentions Project MUSE (museums uniting with schools in education) programs which allow examination of art from a range on entry points

1. Narrative (e.g., Tell the story of what you see and hear.)
2. Quantitative (e.g., Figure out the cost of the materials and how that relates to the selling price.)
3. Logical (e.g., Share your theory about why this object is important.)
4. Aesthetic (Describe the colors and shapes and how they fit together.)
5. Hands On (e.g., Design a dance about what you see.)

Next I found a reference to credentials, and the changing role of them in the workplace. He suggests, and I quite agree, that credentials will not be the only way to judge an individuals suitability for a particular job. This is already changing, I have not special computer degrees, but I definitely have learning and experience necessary to do the programming jobs I have. It is not clear that goings through the steps necessary to gain credentials is the best way to gain the necessary skills to do a job.

I think it is clear that this book coincides with my feelings on learning and education. I didn't talk about his ideas on assessment. Basically he thinks standardized tests don't assess understanding, and the goals of testing must relate to the goals of the learning. If MI supports the idea of individualized learning, it also must support individualized assessment. Assessment for understanding is most important. This leads to a very interesting article I recently read. State Learning Standards as Productive Curricular Objectives subtitled, SOLs (standards of learnign) Aren't Destroying Teaching and Learning, the Tests Are. This article addresses the standards of learning that were introduced in one state. The author thinks the standards of learning, that is the decision on what needs to be learned, and a good foundation for educating children. His takes issue with the standardized tests, and their irrelevance to the learning standards. One interesting point is that the students and teachers have no idea what will be on the tests. This seems to be opposite to the goals of the standards of learning. If there are standards of what should be learned, it should be clear what students should understand at the end of a year.