Michael K. Meyerhoff, Ed.D.
One of the more intriguing ‚ and in my opinion, more enlightening ‚ theories making the rounds in the world of education today concerns the notion of multiple intelligences. Although its originator, Harvard University researcher Howard Gardner, has been delineating it for decades, it has only recently made its way into mainstream awareness through occasional conference presentations by a handful of enthusiastic adherents.
The premise of the theory is quite simple. It concerns the notion that "intelligence" traditionally has been conceptualized, assessed, and addressed by school systems in much too narrow a fashion. If you happen to be among the fortunate ones whose strength is in the areas of "language ability" and/or "logical-mathematical" ability, you will respond well to the standard academic curriculum, you will do well on standardized tests, and be regarded as "smart" within the context of the standard classroom.
However, the "real world" is far less restrictive. Gardner points out that we actually respect, cherish, and reward intelligence in at least six other dimensions: musical ability, visual-spatial ability, bodily-kinesthetic ability, intrapersonal ability, interpersonal ability, and naturalistic ability. Unfortunately, if you happen to be strong in these areas, it is likely you will have difficulty learning, will score relatively low on exams, and will be regarded as relatively "stupid" while in school.
Let's take a brief look at the "real world" value of these other intelligences. Composers and performers from Beethoven and Mozart to Stevie Wonder and Bruce Springsteen have routinely been referred to as "geniuses." Professionals in fields such as architecture and ergonomics have always been appreciated for their special capacity to see things in special ways. Athletes like Michael Jordan have been hailed as "geniuses" as well ‚ in fact, Julius Erving, the first knock-your-socks-off superstar of the National Basketball Association was nicknamed "Dr. J" because "he had a Ph.D. in basketball."
People who know themselves well and are able to effectively maximize their strengths while carefully compensating for their weaknesses tend to become highly effective counselors, therapists, and managers. Those who excel in social matters turn out to be our best leaders as well as our master salespeople ‚ the kind who can sell sand to the Arabs and ice to the Eskimos. And then there are those who amaze us with their wilderness and survival skills ‚ who can be parachuted into the middle of a desert with nothing more than a quart of water, a compass, and a pocketknife yet still find their way back to civilization (unlike me, who would sit down in the sand and cry until I was rescued or died).
It is obvious that intelligence along these other dimensions is highly regarded in our society. Yet again, unless we are talking about language ability or logical-mathematical ability, it seems like the schools don't want to discuss it. And it isn't merely a matter of drastic budget cuts causing districts to eliminate "extras" such as art, music, sports, etc. so they can save the "basics" of reading, writing, and arithmetic. It is about accuracy in assessment and effectiveness in instruction.
With regard to assessment, consider the case of the star high school quarterback. He is barely passing in most subjects and requires extensive tutoring so he can remain eligible to play football. Well, what do you expect? He's just a "dumb jock." Meanwhile, out on the field, this "dumb jock" has easily memorized the entire play book. He can take a quick look at the defense, analyze it instantly, call precisely the right play to take advantage of whatever the opposition has overlooked, then execute the play with commensurate precision. Not bad for a "dumb jock."
With regard to instruction, consider the case of the South American songbird. Years ago, a famous bandleader from that continent who spent most of his time touring the United States married a young singer from Argentina. The girl decided she wanted to become an American citizen. She studied the branches of government, state capitals, presidents, etc.
But she was a high school dropout who had never done well in school, and she failed the citizenship test miserably. So, the bandleader sat down at his piano and composed a special song for his wife. It was a song about the branches of government, the state capitals, the presidents, etc. She had no trouble learning the song, waltzed into her retest humming, and passed the second time with a perfect score.
The implications of this are both fascinating and frustrating to consider. It has always amazed me that we use musical intelligence to teach all sorts of things ‚ from the alphabet to the days of the week ‚ to preschoolers, yet we abruptly abandon this successful strategy as soon as the kids enter first grade.
And with all due respect to my high school geometry teacher, I know I was able to master the Pythagorean theorem not because I was the only student following her instructions in class, but rather because I was the only one who could recall Danny Kaye singing a funny song about it in an old movie called "Merry Andrew."
Furthermore, I could never understand why my teachers insisted on labeling me an intellectual "failure" despite my success on the baseball diamond, when sages like Yogi Berra were pointing out that "ninety percent of this game is half mental." And I doubt they could explain why it was impossible for me to memorize the various Shakespearean sonnets I was obligated to regurgitate on various exams, but to this day I can still recite the starting line-up of the 1961 New York Yankees.
Now I'm not recommending that limitations in logical-mathematical or language ability should be ignored. Students who are not particularly strong along these dimensions certainly should be encouraged and assisted to improve. But to define a student's capabilities and formulate his instruction solely according to these two dimensions is both unfair and inappropriate. If we are going to help maximize every individual's potential, we need to expand our conceptualization of intelligence when we design our classrooms, create our curricula, and conduct our examinations. Otherwise, in the long run, we will be shortchanging our society by forcing students with strengths in the other areas to develop their special powers strictly on their own and to struggle with self-esteem issues that arise from being improperly labeled "stupid."
During the past few years, I have seen the concept of multiple intelligences being implemented in several schools and individual classrooms across the country. Regrettably, I think it will be many more decades before it is embraced on a widespread basis. Moreover, the implementations I've seen often have been superficial and/or inappropriate. It may be that people who are drawn to the field of education tend to be people who are strong in the dimensions valued by the school system, and as a result, they have trouble truly grasping the theory.
Therefore, I continually recall my mother's adage that "education is far too important to be left in the hands of the schools." It is up to parents to take a good look at their kids, see what the system may be missing, then provide experiences that compensate for the system's shortcomings and shortsightedness. So if your child is struggling in school and suffering self-image problems as a result, I strongly urge you to get on the internet, put "multiple intelligences" into a search engine, and read more about the subject. You and your child will have a much more pleasant and productive time awaiting his entrance into the real world once you realize how capable he actually is of learning and just how "smart" he really is.
Michael K. Meyerhoff, Ed.D., is executive director of The Epicenter, Inc., "The Education for Parenthood Information Center," a family advisory and advocacy agency located in Lindenhurst, IL. He may be contacted via e-mail at epicntrinc@aol.com.
May not be reproduced in any format without written permission.