Multiple Intelligences Newsletter, Vol 34, No 3

February 14, 2025

Hello to MI Fans,

Really, the salutation should be “Hello to people who see student potential.” After all, the basic premise of MI is that there are many different intelligences so educators should seek to recognize children’s strengths and use them in teaching. That is common sense that isn’t all that common as the next paragraphs indicate.

Still and again? Albert Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

His quote came to mind as I read about our students’ poor performance on standardized tests. According to the nation’s report card (NAEP, the National Association of Educational Progress) data, forty percent of fourth graders have “below basic” reading skills and thirty-three percent of eighth graders have below average reading skills (the largest percentage in the 30 years since the exam was initiated). It’s even worse in my City. In the St. Louis Public Schools, 14% of elementary students tested at or above the proficient level for reading, and 11% tested at or above that level for math. Also, 13% of middle school students tested at or above the proficient level for reading, and 8% tested at or above that level for math.

Too often, as the NAEP approach illustrates, we simply measure students’ skills in the 3R’s. Instruction, the curriculum, and pedagogy reflect that narrow focus. Guess what? How many students learn is discounted. The students with strong linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences do well; students with talents in other intelligences, well, not so much. Further, while the 3R skills are important, preparation for success in life cannot be captured on a standardized test. That is common sense. Indeed, according to Education Week, “… more than half of educators—nearly 60 percent—don’t believe that state standardized tests measure what students need to know and be able to do.” Noted in “Do State Tests Accurately Measure What Students Need to Know?” by Alyson Klein, January 30, 2025.)

Yet schools, by and large, respond by doing more of what hasn’t worked in the past. Sure, there are new curricula and there’s lots of talk about “the science of reading” (a good thing, to be sure), and perhaps AI can be a tool in student learning. But this adherence to old unsuccessful strategies flies in the face of common sense.

We need to recognize that we all have multiple intelligences. We need to reconsider how we measure student growth, then, logically, we need to drastically revise how we teach. Success in the real world requires more than scholastic proficiency. Consider, for example, the role of the Formative Five SEL skills: empathy, self-control, integrity, embracing diversity, and grit. By incorporating MI in our pedagogy, we enable students to learn with and develop these “other” (non-scholastic) intelligences.

As they learn by using all of their intelligences, students become engaged, learning becomes joyful, students learn more and, yes, this also translates to better standardized test scores. Students who are engaged and successful want to learn.

I saw this first-hand when I worked at the New City School. Students who were not particularly proficient readers became much more interested in reading after they created spatial timelines of the Civil War, after they created scripts for actors to talk about slavery, after they created Venn diagrams that compared themselves to characters in novels, after they acted out the Trail of Tears, and after they became museum docents. In each of these examples, pedagogy began with knowing how students learn. We asked ourselves which were our students’ strongest intelligences and found ways to incorporate them in instruction and assessment, while also working to help them develop their weaker intelligences.

We used MI to teach students how to learn, how to tap into their MI profiles in gaining knowledge and acquiring skills. We also focused on the MI personal intelligences to help students learn about themselves and how to work with others. Our students learned and they enjoyed learning. I think Albert Einstein would approve.

What do you think? I would be pleased to hear your questions or thoughts. Please mail me at trhoerr@aol.com.

Thanks for your interest in learning!

TOM
Thomas R. Hoerr, PhD
Facilitator of the MI Network

This newsletter, now thirty-four years old, originated from ASCD. You can learn more about ASCD and its offerings at www.ascd.org.