Educators need better intelligence about the importance of intelligence

One of the most fundamental implications of MI theory is that schooling as carried out in the past and present is unjustifiably narrow in both curriculum and methodology. Of Gardner’s eight intelligences (and there is the likelihood that at least one more will be added before long), two are the main focus of IQ tests – linguistic intelligence and logical-mathematical intelligence. The traditional concept of intelligence has thus bolstered the conviction that language (mainly written) and logical-mathematical reasoning comprise the chief concern of formal education, especially in primary schools. Gardner’s camp would have us elevate the other six intelligences to equal status. This would mean giving equal amounts of time and assessment-weighting to fostering musical ability, inter-personal and intra-personal understanding, spatial thinking (like drawing and maintenance of machinery), understanding of the natural environment, and kinaesthetic abilities (as in dance and sport).

MI theory also suggests that, whatever is being taught, as many as possible of the eight intelligences should be used as components in the teacher’s methodology. Thus, a unit of learning about trees, for example, could include reading information about trees, problems about trees to solve by measurement and analysis, drawing many aspects of trees, learning or composing songs about trees, quiet reflection on one’s experience of trees, group discussions and formal debates about trees, and so on. In this way, say the theorists, each student will find their strong intelligences brought to bear on the subject and learning will be optimised.

Proponents of special education for gifted and talented children are inclined to use an IQ greater than about 130 as the most objective and reliable indicator of a candidate for a separate programme at school. Meanwhile MI theory claims that traditional education, by so heavily concentrating on verbal, mathematical and analytical skills, unfairly suppresses the strongest intelligences of many students. Are schools and the rest of society in an ethical minefield?

And then there is another grave issue presented by the g-camp. They say research has shown that, as a rule, g does not change from adolescence onwards; even in early childhood heredity has a strong hold on general intelligence. No one, they say, has found a reliable, ethical way to raise or equalise g-levels. Considering the huge amount of rigorous research that has led to this conclusion over decades, we cannot take the assertion lightly. If g-theory is correct, the implications for education are gargantuan.

Are educators in a state of denial with respect to this issue? Are they desperately seizing theories like MI and EI as a means of avoiding hard facts about the nature of human beings? Must we accept that education cannot give students equal opportunity to become successful as adult citizens? Are we trying to conquer biology with ideology? Or are theories of intelligence like Gardner’s solid enough to be the foundation for a more effective education system?

So, Mr Nelson, as the Federal Minister for Education you have done well to give national prominence and funding to research into some pressing issues like education of boys. Now wouldn’t it be great to do the same for something as fundamental as our understanding of intelligence and all the implications of that for Australian society?