Learning Styles in Higher Education, Part I

Continuing on the theme I began yesterday, I want to begin a series of posts on the subject of learning styles and/or multiple intelligences.

The pedagogical underpinnings of yesterday's post was that different students (and different skills) need to be taught differently, but that there is a range of both information and skill sets that do, in fact, comprise an "educated person."

While the notion of "learning styles" and "multiple intelligences" has gained far more traction among the K-12 grades, there are implications for higher education.

In an article last spring reporting upon the 25th anniversary of Gardner's theory, the journal Inside Higher Ed reported: [emphases mine]

“Multiple intelligences” is the view that there is not a single measure of intelligence (like the traditional IQ), but rather a range of intelligences present in different ways in everyone. Gardner also challenged the notion that intelligence is largely inherited. While he does not discount the role of genetics and parenting in intelligences, Gardner focuses as much on the nurture part of parenting as nature and also holds that people can work to improve their intelligences. (Detailed explanations of his work can be found on Gardner’s Web site.)

At the time he published his book, he had seven intelligences: musical, kinesthetic, logical/mathematical, spatial, linguistic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. He has since added an eighth, naturalist, and his is mulling a ninth. While there are rumors that he is thinking of adding a spiritual intelligence, Gardner has been calling it “existential” intelligence, which will focus on skills related to asking the “big questions.” Gardner stressed that an intelligence is defined both by the skills and the way they are learned and used, not just an individual interest or passion. He also stressed that he does not view intelligences as necessary good, and that he disagrees with those who — in a twist to his work — talk about “emotional intelligence” as if it is only a good thing. Gardner said it can be used for good or evil.

Looking ahead, Gardner sees considerable interest in his work, and expects it to lead in new directions. Among topics that interest him right now are how intelligences change with aging. His theory is that there are changes, but that intelligences do not disappear.

In terms of education, Gardner said he saw influence all over the place, from a few schools that have formally embraced his ideals to many teachers and professors who are inspired to change their modes of instruction. (Based on his own work, Gardner said, his courses no longer feature lectures.)

While he applauded the way many groups have criticized colleges that rely too much on the SAT, Gardner said he wasn’t encouraging the development of a “multiple intelligence” based replacement. Gardner said that the problem isn’t just the SAT, but the belief that measurement of that sort is valuable. “I don’t believe one should go around and assess people’s intelligences,” he said. The only reason he said that he finds compelling to measure intelligence is to help someone who is having difficulty learning by identifying his or her problems.

As for the SAT, he said it might be useful – because of the way it is set up – in identifying people who have the skills to become law professors, but not much else.

In fact, Gardner said that one of his criticisms of the AERA is that so many researchers are on the quest for “the perfect test,” without thinking that they might be on “a fool’s errand.” Although Gardner could no doubt benefit from developing a test of educational ideas following his ideas, he said he would not do so. He said that it was antithetical to his ideas to have a “seal of approval” from him, so he is content to watch many efforts based on his ideas, even if some go in directions he might suggest.

Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of education at Stanford University, called Gardner her “personal hero,” said that it’s easy from today’s vantage point to underestimate the influence of his book. Many teachers have of course for years felt that there was not a single “entry point” for student learning, and they had talked about ideas that are consistent with Gardner’s theories. But Darling Hammond said that he “validated” these views and gave them a research framework.

In terms of his “big conceptual breakthroughs,” she said that the idea that “intelligence is not fixed and not a single measure” has changed the way most teachers are trained. Likewise, the idea that education isn’t about memorizing information to spit it back at the teacher, but is about “problems solving and performing tasks” is largely accepted today because of Gardner’s work.

Both professors and students should, in my opinion, embrace the "multiple intelligences" framework; for it allows the student to embrace his/her own uniqueness, and to then interact with different materials in self-validating ways.

True, the allied health student will still need to memorize the names of anatomical parts; but one student's apparent ease vs. another's struggle may be offset by differences in "bedside manner," which is just as important in the practice of the medical arts.

Tomorrow, I'll introduce a simplified "learning styles" paradigm I developed some years ago, and update it for collegiate use.