An Interview With Howard Gardner

This article first appeared in Mindshift Connection, a publication of Zephyr Press. Posted here by permission of the publisher.

by Ronnie Durie

Ronnie Durie (RD):
Some of our readers are only just now getting the word about the eighth intelligence -- the naturalist. How would you like to present this to the classroom teacher? Could you expand on its wider application? I am thinking here of your reference to youngsters exploiting this intelligence as they make acute discriminations among cars, sneakers, or hair styles.

Howard Gardner (HG):
The core of the naturalist intelligence is the human ability to recognize plants, animals, and other parts of the natural environment, like clouds or rocks. All of us can do this; some kids (experts on dinosaurs) and many adults (hunters, botanists, anatomists) excel at this pursuit.

While the ability doubtless evolved to deal with natural kinds of elements, I believe that it has been hijacked to deal with the world of man-made objects. We are good at distinguishing among cars, sneakers, and jewelry, for example, because our ancestors needed to be able to recognize carnivorous animals, poisonous snakes, and flavorful mushrooms.

RD:
Given that we all have horror stories about revolutionary educational theories that have been relayed and distorted like Gossip down to the classroom front line - my own concerns cooperative learning- if you could convey one message to teachers about using an MI approach in the classroom, what would it be?

HG:
One positive message: Pay attention to the differences among kids and try to use that knowledge to personalize instruction and assessment.

One negative message: Do not label kids as "spatial, but not linguistic" or, for that matter, "linguistic, but not spatial." The intelligences are categories that help us to discover difference in forms of mental representation; they are not good characterizations of what people are (or are not) like.

RD:
Along the same lines as the previous question, what is your greatest concern for the class
room application of your theory of multiple intelligences now and in the future?

HG:
Ail initial applications are necessarily somewhat superficial. I am not surprised if individuals initially apply the theory by placing kids into boxes such as those just noted. My fear is that individual educators will remain mired at this superficial level rather than using the system as a way to discover what is special about each child.

RD:
In closing, what is your greatest hope for what the Ml movement can bring to education ?

HG:
MI cannot be an educational end in itself. MI is, rather, a powerful tool that can help us to achieve educational ends more effectively. From my vantage point, Ml is most useful for two educational ends:

1. It allows us to plan educational programs that will enable children to realize desired end states (for example, the musician, the scientist, the civic-minded person);

2. It helps us to reach more children who are trying to understand important theories and concepts in the disciplines.

So long as materials are taught and assessed in only one way, we will only reach a certain kind of child. But everything can be taught in several ways. The more that we can match youngsters to congenial approaches of teaching, learning, and assessing, the more likely it is that those youngsters will achieve educational success.