Criticism of MI Theory ( back back to outline) outline)
When reviewing criticism of Multiple Intelligences theory, addressing the historically everpresent !uestion of whether intelligence is one thing or many things is unavoidable" The fundamental criticism of MI theory is the belief by scholars that each of the seven multiple intelligences is in fact a cognitive style rather than a stand alone construct (Morgan, #$$%)" Morgan, (#$$%) refers to &ardner's approach of describing the nature of each intelligence with terms such as abilities, sensitivities, sensitivities, skills and abilities as evidence of the fact that the theory is really a matter of semantics rather than new thinking on multiple constructs of intelligence and resembles earlier work by factor theorists of intelligence like "" Thurstone who argued that a single factor (g) cannot e*plain the comple*ity of human intellectual activity" activity" +ccording +ccording to Morgan (#$$%), identifying these various abilities and developing a theory that supports the many factors of intelligence has been a significant contribution to the field" urthermore, he believes that MI theory has proven beneficial to schools schools and teachers and it may may help e*plain why students students do not perform well on standardi-ed standardi-ed tests but it in Morgan's Morgan's opinion it it does not warrant the complete re.ection of g" &ardner (#$$/) admittedly avoided addressing criticism of his theory for nearly a decade after the publication of rames of Mind" 0owever, in a #$$/ article that appeared in 1hi 2elta 3appan he responds to several myths about the Theory of Multiple Intelligences" These myths provide a summary of the ma.or commentary on and criticism of &ardner's theory" The The first myth is that if there are seven intelligences we must be able to measure them with seven specific tests" &ardner is vocal about his disdain for a singularly psychometric approach to measuring intelligence based on paper and pencil tests" 4econdly, 4econdly, he responds to the belief belief that an intelligence is the same as a domain or a discipline" &ardner reiterates his definition of an intelligence and distinguishes it from a domain which he describes as a culturally relevant, organi-ed set of activities characteri-ed by a symbol system and a set of operations" or e*ample, dance performance is a domain that relies on the use of bodily kinesthetic and musical intelligence (&ardner, #$$/)" 5ther criticisms include the notion that MI theory is not empirical, is incompatible with g, heritability, and environmental influences, and broadens the construct of intelligence so widely as to render it meaningless" &ardner (#$$/) staunchly defends the empiricism of the theory by referring to the numerous laboratory and field data that contributed to its development and the ongoing reconceptuali-ation of the theory based on new scientific data" data" 6egarding the claim that that Multiple Intelligences Intelligences theory cannot accommodate g, &ardner argues that g has a scientific place in intelligence
theory but that he is interested in understanding intellectual processes that are not e*plained by g" In response to the criticism that MI theory is incompatible with genetic or environmental accounts of the nature of intelligence, &ardner states that his theory is most concerned with the interaction between genetics and the environment in understanding intelligence" inally, the notion that MI theory has e*panded the definition of intelligence beyond utility produces a strong reaction from &ardner" 0e argues passionately that the narrow definition of intelligence as e!ual to scholastic performance is simply too constrictive" In his view, MI theory is about the intellectual and cognitive aspects of the human mind" &ardner is careful to point out that MI theory is not a theory of personality, morality, motivation, or any other psychological construct (#$$/, #$$$a, #$$$b)"
