Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Multiple Intelligence Theory















I made reference to Multiple Intelligence Theory in my last post. If you've not heard of it, and I'm always surprised at the number of people that have not, you can go here - http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html

The reason that I say I'm surprised at the number of people that are not familiar with it is because it is one of the most profound concepts to come out of psychology in some time. Everyone knows about useless Freudian ideas like the Oedipus Complex or Penis Envy, but not the important stuff! Basically, Multiple Intelligence Theory states that our western way of thinking that intelligence is limited to verbal/quantitative is wrong. That in fact, there are other types of intelligences that don't readily show up on IQ tests. Now, before we get going down this path let me just make the disclaimer that my IQ has been tested and I'm in the 115-120 range. Einstein? No. But I'm above average, so this isn't some attempt fueled by bitterness to discredit IQ tests. And personally, I'm more of a traditional learner, what Gardner would call Logical-Mathematical. However, I also score very high in Gardner's Intrapersonal category and this too makes sense to me given my 15+ years of studying psychology now.

You may know of someone that maybe isn't good with numbers, but they are very good orators - Gardner would classify this type of intelligence as Linguistic. Although Linguistic is measured by traditional IQ tests (as is Logical-Mathematical). Some of his other categories include Visual-Spatial and Kinesthetic. Kinesthetic learners are those that learn better by moving or touching things - like an athlete, dancer or even surgeon.

The important thing to remember here is that we all are capable of learning given any of these methods, but we will have a preference or two when it comes to learning styles. Teachers, trainers and the like should be aware of these possible differences and not expect students (including adult students) to conform to one traditional standard.

No comments: