Thursday, October 31, 2013
Intelligence
This week's discussion of Gardner's theories of multiple intelligence really made me question current teacher education. I have been taught Gardner's theory in nearly every education class I've had at Santa Clara. Some of my professors have even included addressing the intelligence's in lesson plan templates. However, after yesterday's discussion, my acceptance of multiple intelligence has changed. As I've been reflecting, I feel I know believe that people can have many skills but not intelligence. Being good at something does not necessarily mean one has an intelligence. I am a singer but I would not say that I therefore have musical intelligence. This theory seemed to be a way to make anyone feel like they were good at something, which is a foundational element of American schooling. This idea I have really been questioning. As a future teacher, I want to believe that everyone has intelligence or the potential for intelligence. I do no want to accept the idea that some kids are smarter than others. This is why I struggle with the idea of general intelligence. This week I have also been reflecting on teacher education itself. I feel that current programs like we discussed last week are too heavy in history and methods. There is not enough "clinical experience". I also feel that teacher education now is a bit opportunistic. If Gardner's theory isn't true, why am I learning it. Should I accept a theory that claims everyone is smart when this may not be true? I wish that teaching programs would be more honest about the field and what we as future teachers should know about the difficulties of reaching every student and keeping them motivated. This class has really helped me reflect on my own education and especially what I want from a teacher education program.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello, Michelle. First, I'm glad the course has you thinking and reflecting about your beliefs and goals for your own education. That is my primary goal for this course.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not agree with Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, I think the implications of his theory can lead to good teaching. The danger of calling something an "intelligence" is that we tend to think of intelligence as innate and fixed. So if someone is not particularly quick to learn an instrument, we might be inclined to say "You lack musical intelligence, so put your efforts into math instead." I think the more appropriate response, and Gardner agrees with this, is to say "You may not have a natural inclination toward music, but you can certainly become a good musician if you practice." This is confusing for many people, including teachers, so I try to encourage them to think of all of these things as skills rather than intelligences. Help students develop their skills, in many areas, and using multiple methods. That's the goal.