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.