Download In the article Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect and

Reflection paper 1 EPSY 640 P.Menconeri
In the article Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect and Emotional Intelligence: a
critical review, Lynn Waterhouse outlined an argument against incorporating the
aforementioned theories into educational curriculum. In the article, The Science of
Multiple Intelligences Theory, the originator of the theory, Howard Gardner countered
her assertions and stated that incorporating Multiple Intelligence (MI) principles into
education theory is more effective than many current practices such as standardized IQ
testing. Reviewing these arguments can be useful to help determine how effective it
would be to incorporate them into educational practice.
Waterhouse stated that MI theory is being increasingly accepted by the educational
community despite the fact that there is little data to substantiate it. She suggested that
other learning theories based in cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience are
supported better by evidence. She believed that employing education theories that are not
supported by evidence can be detrimental to students and the field of education in
general.
Waterhouse restated Gardners’s MI theory including seven intelligences and two
additional concepts of Laser Light and Search Light application. She wrote of his claims
that the theory is based on biological and neurological evidence, is not the case. She
stated that proponents of Mi theory feel there is no need for empirical evidence from
testing or experiments because of some positive results when it was implemented into
practice.
Waterhouse asserted that MI theory requires new measurement techniques that have
not been developed by its proponents and without empirical testing the theory can not be
considered scientifically valid. She claimed that theories arising from the fields of
cognitive psychology or cognitive neuroscience have been developed, tested and proven
to be effective. Three core ideas coming from these disciplines include General
Intelligence theory, Multiple Information Processing and Adapted Cognition Theory. She
mentioned positive correlations between larger brain mass ad higher IQ scores in the
heritability of intelligence and other dual pathway theories in decision making that are
not separate intelligences but complicated interactions of many cognitive pathways and
processes. She felt that these theories not only better explain phenomena surrounding MI
theory, but have also been backed up with testing and data.
Waterhouse examined theories of The Mozart Effect and Emotional Intelligence in a
similar fashion with similar results. She stated that unproven theories such as these are
merely pop psychologies, popular because they offer a simple solution to a complicated
issue. She felt they can be harmful to students if teachers base their teaching on
ineffective methods, and that the field of education can lose integrity if unproven theories
are utilized.
Howard Gardner responded to Waterhouse in an article stating that she had many
misconceptions, terminology errors, and over simplifications, to the point that he felt she
did not understand the theory well enough to critique it. He felt that standardized testing,
IQ and sensory perception tests do not accurately reflect intelligences, or predict future
lifetime success. They are used because they are easy to understand and administer. He
stated that Mi theory requires a change of mindset, interdisciplinary perspective,
multicultural awareness, individual assessment and are not easy to measure. Mi theory is
drawn from synthesizing a broad base of other people’s studies over a wide range of
disciplines, not from specific testing on the theory itself. He stated that MI theory better
explained the wide Varity of performance depending on innate predispositions, cultural
context and performance criterion. He clarified that Laser Light and Spot Light theories
are not intelligences but a certain way several intelligences work together. He felt she
confused intelligence with skills. He defined intelligence as a person’s biophysiological
information processing capacity, and a skill as cognitive performance under specific
environmental constraints.
Gardner stated that MI theory is not an educational practice but a general implication for
using multiple entry points for learning. He asserted that MI theory has not been
detrimental but shown positive results when implemented in classroom. He concedes that
there has been little work done to test the theory. He explains that developing testing on
the effectiveness of MI theory would be time consuming and that ranking, scoring and
labeling are concerns he would rather leave to others as the results they bring might be of
dubious value.
In contrasting the two arguments, it is clear that Waterhouse has made some valid
points. Before a teaching practice is accepted and implemented as curriculum it should be
tested with proven results. Other theories are as plausible as MI theory for explaining
learning pathways and can be equally valid. Some of Gardner’s assertions are equally
valid. It has been shown that IQ tests are biased and standardized test are unreliable as
being reflective of intelligence. He stated clearly that MI theory is not a practice but an
implication that approaching material from multiple areas of input might be effective.
It is clear that all of these theories are merely observations of behavior. When treated as
such they can be useful. When treated as defining the mechanisms of the brain they seem
like mid-evil age explanations. We are still just beginning to understand how the brain
works. The complicated interaction of neurons, neruroplastisity and activity mapping is
still being unraveled. The pathways through which neurotransmitters are made, used and
re-synthesized is not a separate action but also involves reuptake pumps that are coded
for by genes we are sill trying to map, and a multitude of feedback mechanisms.
What is clear is that cognition and learning is a very complicated interaction involving
all parts of the body, hundreds of chemicals millions of neurons so interconnected and
interdependent that they cannot function alone. We are many years away from fully
understanding exactly how people learn and think. To say that one area of the brain
controls math, one reading, one section for emotion, or the cognitive theories put forth of
“what is it? where is it?” is too simplistic to be valid. Without a truly scientific model that
can be traced from the body’s production of chemicals, though the web of neurons to the
action impulse in the resulting behavior, we are left with only observations of trail and
error to determine the most effective learning practices. In this sense, all of these theories
can be useful.
Questions
1. Should educational psychologists try to determine how the brain works, or on
what is effective in learning?
2. Can a truly complete scientific understanding of how the brain thinks be attained?
3. Should unproven educational techniques be used in practice as part of a trail and
error search for best practices?