In recent years, the idea that Gardner’s
(1983,1993) theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) might
contribute something valuable to English Language Teaching in
general and ESP in particular by providing a more
learner-centered approach to materials design and methodology has
become fashionable among teachers and course directors, who are
nevertheless at a loss as to how to implement it.
Here is just one enquiry that was published recently in
an ELT journal on the Internet:
"What is the
difference between MI theory and the other componential
theories of intelligence? After all, they are also
multiple.
When we want to
apply MI in language teaching, we are neglecting the innatist
theories of language, aren't we?
I am currently
doing research on the application of MI and CBI, together, to
our local ELT syllabus. I try to include all the first 7
intelligences in each unit lesson. But, it is hard to integrate
all of them in an experimental setting. Therefore, I try to
take care of them one by one. How much do you think this
detracts from the validity of my work?"
This enquiry is perhaps typical of those from teachers
who succumb to "psychobabble" and fashion, of which MI is one of
the most recent, without understanding the implications of what
is being put forward.
Firstly, MI is not a theory of first or second
language acquisition although it is "innatist" (i.e. nativist) in
the sense that it attempts to explain how learning in different
areas is facilitated or hindered by (supposedly) innate
individual differences (ID’s) in brain physiology. Nor is
MI a theory of learning style. It does not state that different
learners acquire the same skills in different ways, simply that
different people learn the same things at different
rates.
Secondly, not all componential theories of intelligence
are nativist. For example, Sternberg’s (1984) model of
analogical reasoning, which explains ID’s in IQ scores in
terms of the different amounts of time that individuals spent on
encoding analogies, makes no such claim. On the contrary,
Sternberg and his associates have shown that people’s
scores on IQ tests improve with training (Richardson,
1994).
Thirdly, this teacher, who claims to be "doing
research on the application of MI and CBI, together (…) in
an experimental setting", obviously does not understand even
the basic principles of experimentation and evidence, which would
require a researcher to test for the
influence of MI and CBI separately in order to establish a
baseline before testing them in combination (otherwise, how could
he or she know whether learning is enhanced by a combination of
the two?).
As I shall show, the whole idea of applying MI theory to
ELT is misguided and is based on a misunderstanding of
Gardner’s theory. Moreover, Gardner’s theory is,
itself, contentious in the claims it makes about giftedness. But
before considering Gardner’s theory in more detail, it is
worth clarifying the notion of "learning style".
The emphasis on adapting teaching materials and methods
to the preferred learning styles of different learners has, of
course, been around for a long time. Learning style is a broad
concept that attempts to encompass the totality of psychological
functioning as this affects learning (Willing 1988) and can be
seen as the interaction of personality – i.e. a person’s
motivations and habitual cognitive, emotional and behavioural
responses to the environment – with cognitive style, which refers
typically to a person’s preferred modality of information
processing (kinaesthetic, visual or auditory).
However, problems arise when we attempt to define
personality or cognitive style in terms of fixed, inherited
traits or characteristics, or to classify people into types.
There is a large body of research that shows that at, any given
time in their lives, people sometimes react quite differently in
different situations (the Person-Situation Debate) while
the whole question of personality continuity and change over time
is fraught with difficulties. Similarly, concepts of cognitive
style based on perception take no account of the role of social
and metacognitive strategies, which can be learnt (see Brown and
Palincsar, 1982).
What, then, does
Gardner’s theory actually say?
Although avoiding the mechanistic nature of componential
theories such as those of Fodor (1993), Gardner's (1983, 1993)
theory of MI suggests quite clearly that there are discrete
information processing operations within the
cognitive/neurobiological system that deal with specific kinds of
information. Thus, there are separate intelligences or "modules"
that deal with musical, mathematical, kinesthetic or
interpersonal information independently of one another.
Among these different "modules" Gardner includes verbal /
linguistic intelligence, which does not, by definition, interact
with other modules, although it passes on the products of
linguistic processing to a central processor.
Within such a theory there is no way in which different
activities can directly influence language acquisition.
Now, the irony is that those who defend the idea of a separate
linguistic intelligence and hence – by default – the notion
that language acquisition is radically different from other types
of skill acquisition, forget that this theory originated with
Chomsky, who also claimed that the brain is "hard-wired" for
learning language (remember Chomsky’s LAD – Language
Acquisition Device?). However, Chomsky (1965) also claimed that,
as a result, the type of input a learner received was almost
irrelevant.
Consequently, if we accept any "strong" form of Gardner's theory,
then MI approaches to language learning are nonsense. We might
just as well claim that ballet enthusiasts will solve algebra
equations more efficiently if they are encouraged to dance around
the blackboard or that keen linguists will develop a better sense
of pitch if given songs to sing in their favourite foreign
language. Indeed, proponents of task-based approaches to language
learning point out that while easier tasks tend to lead to more
fluent speech, more complex tasks result in less fluent but more
complex and accurate production, which would seem to imply that
students do not have to be good at a particular activity to
benefit from it linguistically.
Of course, most ESP teachers already know this from
personal
experience.
How many times does a teacher find that CFO’s, who
deal with figures in English on a daily basis and who obviously
have a high degree of mathematical intelligence in
Gardner’s sense of the term, continue to come out with
mistakes such as * "fifteen millions of pesos / dollars" even at
intermediate level, while Human Resources Managers, accustomed to
dealing with people in their own language, find it more difficult
to make small talk than to discuss more technical matters such as
downsizing,
out-sourcing and other aspects of company policy.
On the other hand, if we merely wish to say that people
develop – or fail to develop – different talents for reasons that
may or may not have anything to do with the distinctiveness of
their genetic make-up (and the whole issue of inherited talent is
an extremely contentious one) and that most people enjoy doing
what they are good at, then it seems fairly obvious that by
encouraging students to do in the foreign language what they
enjoy and are good at (singing, solving logic problems or
whatever) teachers will motivate students more and get more
mileage out of language learning activities.
In the case of ESP students, many activities may not be
appropriate – for example, it is unlikely that many
corporate managers would feel comfortable singing "Money makes
the world go round" in their offices within earshot of their
subordinates. However, many ESP learners are motivated by
materials that offer intellectual stimulation and the possibility
of professional advancement even though the latter is unlikely to
materialize in the near future. For example, Hutchinson and
Waters (1987) mention an ESP course for nurses that came to life
when the focus was changed from nursing to medicine. The reason
was that many of the students secretly wanted to become doctors.
Thus, teachers would do better to concentrate on getting to know
their students as individuals with subjective as well as
objective needs instead of trying to fit students into
"types"
Here is the crux of the matter: the problem with nativist
theories of intelligence is that they lead to stereotyping and
self-fulfilling prophesies– weaker students are expected to
learn less than stronger students because of their "genetic
make-up" rather than because they simply lack the prior knowledge
and range of strategies that stronger students have, and so, of
course, they learn less.
A further danger is that such theories may serve as a
justification for an unbalanced approach to teaching and
learning, encouraging fossilization in so-called "social" or
"communicative" learners, while so-called "analytical" learners
are not challenged enough to get involved in social situations,
to take risks, etc.
As mentioned earlier, even Gardner’s claim that
the rate of learning is mainly determined by genetic factors is
contentious. As evidence for his theory, Gardner leans heavily on
the selective achievements shown by child prodigies and "idiots
savants" (mentally handicapped people with remarkable musical,
artistic or mathematical gifts). However, Gardner’s theory
remains underspecified and there is equally good evidence for the
role of environmental factors – and in particular quality
instruction – in the development of giftedness, with the current
consensus among psychologists being that giftedness is more about
nurture than about nature (Lee 1995).
In conclusion,
the main attraction of MI is that it seems to offer teachers a
simple framework for understanding differences in language
ability and learning style, and a commercial catchphrase or
gimmick that can be readily understood (or rather misunderstood)
by large sections of the general public. However, the mistake is
to assume that simple, ready-made recipes can be "lifted" from
psychology and applied in the classroom.
Brown, A.L. and Palincsar A.S. (1982) "Inducing
strategic learning from texts by means of informed
self-control", Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities.
Vol. 2, 1 – 17.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of a theory of Syntax
Cambridge (Ma.): MIT Press
Fodor, J.A. (1983) The Modularity of Mind.
Cambridge (Ma.): MIT Press
Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of mind: The theory of
multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993) Multiple intelligences: The theory
in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987) English for
Specific Purposes. Cambridge: CUP.
Lee, V. (1996) ED209 Child Development:
Giftedness. The Open University
Richardson, K. (1994) "The Development of
Intelligence" in Children’s Cognitive and Language
Development, (eds.) Lee, V. and Das Gupta, P. The Open
University.
Douglas A. Town
has a BSc in Psychology and an MA in English Language
Teaching as well as a postgraduate diploma in English and Spanish
translation. He has worked for many years as an academic
consultant and ESP teacher in Spain. He has also taught English
for Academic Purposes at Manchester University and is currently
living in Buenos Aires
where he is a lecturer in English at the University of Belgrano.
He has done research in adult learning strategies, second
language acquisition and needs analysis.