Simple huh? When you add in what we know about personal belief and confidence it all begins to make even more sense. Develop people through their strengths and we not only stimulate their development - we also make them happy because everyone enjoys working in their strength areas - and we also grow their confidence and lift their belief because they see they are doing well, and they get told they are doing well too.
Developing a person's strengths will increase their response to the learning experience, which helps them to develop their weaknesses as well as their strengths. Having illustrated that sensible use of a person's natural strengths and types of intelligence is a good thing it's important to point out that intelligence in itself is not a measure of good or bad, nor of happy or sad.
The different intelligences - in Gardner's context and normally in most other interpretations and definitions of the term - are not a measure or reflection of emotion type. Intelligences are emotionally neutral. No type of intelligence is in itself an expression of happiness or sadness; nor an expression of feeling good or good or bad.
In the same way, the multiple intelligences are morally neutral too. No type of intelligence is intrinsically right or wrong. In other words intelligences are amoral, that is, neither moral nor immoral - irrespective of a person's blend of intelligences.
Intelligences are separate to the good or bad purposes to which people apply whatever intelligences they possess and use. Intelligences are not in themselves good or bad. The types of intelligences that a person possesses are in themselves no indication or reflection - whatsoever - of whether the person is good or bad; happy or sad, right or wrong.
People possess a set of intelligences - not just one type and level of intelligence. This was a primary driver of Gardner's thinking; the fact, or assertion, that intelligence is not a single scalable aspect of a person's style and capability. Gardener has demonstrated that this notion is ridiculous. Intelligence is a mixture of several abilities Gardner explains seven intelligences, and alludes to others that are all of great value in life.
But nobody's good at them all. In life we need people who collectively are good at different things. A well-balanced world, and well-balanced organisations and teams, are necessarily comprised of people who possess different mixtures of intelligences.
This gives the group a fuller collective capability than a group of identically able specialists. Incredibly many schools, teachers, and entire education systems, persist in the view that a child is either intelligent or not, and moreover that the 'intelligent' kids are 'good' and the 'unintelligent' kids are 'bad'.
Worse still many children grow up being told that they are not intelligent and are therefore not of great worth; the "you'll never amount to anything" syndrome is everywhere. Schools aren't the only organisations which, despite all that Gardner has taught us, commonly still apply their own criteria for example IQ - 'Intelligence Quotient' - tests to judge 'intelligence', and then label the candidate either worthy or not.
Adult people in work in organisations and business are routinely judged by inappropriate criteria, and then written off as being worthless by the employer. This type of faulty assessment is common during recruitment, ongoing management, and matters of career development and performance review. The most brilliant scientific professor may well have exceptional intelligence in a number of areas probably Logical-Mathematical, and one or two others but will also be less able in other intelligences, and could well be inept in some.
By the same token a person who struggles with language and numbers might easily be an excellent sportsman, or musician, or artist. A hopeless academic, who is tone-deaf and can't add up, could easily possess remarkable interpersonal skills.
Many very successful business-people were judged to be failures at school. They were of course judged according to a very narrow definition of what constitutes intelligence.
Many very successful and fulfilled people in life were also judged to be failures at school - brilliant scientists, leaders, writers, entertainers, sports-people, soldiers, humanitarians, healers, religious and political leaders - all sorts of happy, fulfilled remarkable people - they too were judged according to a very narrow definition of what constitutes intelligence.
Each one of us has a unique and different mix of intelligence types, and commonly the people with the least 'conventional' intelligence as measured using old-fashioned narrow criteria , actually possess enormous talent - often under-valued, unknown and under-developed.
Gardner, and others of course, pointed out that managing people and organising a unique mixture of intelligence types is a hugely challenging affair.
It starts however with the recognition that people have abilities and potential that extend far beyond traditional methods of assessment, and actually far beyond Gardner's seven intelligences, which after all are only a starting point. Gardner was one of the first to teach us that we should not judge and develop people especially children, young people, and people at the beginnings of their careers according to an arbitrary and narrow definition of intelligence.
We must instead rediscover and promote the vast range of capabilities that have a value in life and organisations, and then set about valuing people for who they are, what they can be, and helping them to grow and fulfil their potential. Gardner said from the beginning that there could be additional intelligences worthy of inclusion within the model, and I certainly agree. Notably Gardner discussed Naturalist Intelligence perception of and relationship with the natural environment ; Spiritual or Existential Intelligence as would concern one's relationship with the universe or God, depending on one's personal philosophy ; and Moral Intelligence one's relationship with other living things and their well-being.
Thus the model is extendable to modern ideas beyond those listed in the seven basic intelligences. As already discussed, defining additional intelligences is not easy. But they do exist, and people do possess capabilities, potential and values far beyond the seven original 'multiple intelligences'. Gardner knew - as we can now see - that his multiple intelligences theory left some room to grow, however, while so many are still stuck on IQ and the 'Three R's' the hackneyed 'Reading Writing and Arithmetic' - I ask you - how can so many buy into a framework that has so effortlessly assumed such a ridiculous description?
If first we concentrate on encouraging schools and industry to think beyond IQ and the bleeding three R's - then perhaps soon we'll be ready for morality and spiritualism.
Occasionally well-intentioned people will write that the use of such models and tests can be problematical. This is true of course of any tool if undue reliance is placed on the methodology, or if the results of tests are treated as absolute and exclusive of other styles and considerations in the overall mix of a person's personality and needs. As with any methodology or tool, use VAK and other learning styles concepts with care.
The concepts are an aid, not a dogma to be followed and applied rigidly. The explanation and understanding of Gardner's Seven Intelligences can be further illuminated and illustrated by looking at another classical intelligence and learning styles model, known as the Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic or Kinaesthetic - either is correct learning styles model or 'inventory', usually abbreviated to VAK.
The VAK multi-sensory approach to learning and teaching was originally concerned with the teaching of dyslexic children and other learners for whom conventional teaching methods were not effective. The early VAK specialists recognised that people learn in different ways: as a very simple example, a child who could not easily learn words and letters by reading visually might for instance learn more easily by tracing letter shapes with their finger kinesthetic.
The VAK theory is a favourite of the accelerated learning community, and continues to feature - although not nearly as strongly as it should do - in the teaching and education of young people. The Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic learning styles model does not overlay Gardner's multiple intelligences; rather the VAK model provides a different perspective for understanding and explaining a person's preferred or dominant thinking and learning style, and strengths.
Gardner's theory is one way of looking at thinking styles; VAK is another. According to the VAK model, most people possess a dominant or preferred learning style, however some people have a mixed and evenly balanced blend of the three styles. A person's learning style is a reflection of their mix of intelligences. It is also a reflection of their brain type and dominance, for which a wonderful perspective is provided by Katherine Benziger's brain dominance model.
It is also helpful to look at Kolb's learning styles model. The VAK learning styles model provides a very easy and quick reference inventory by which to assess people's preferred learning styles, and then most importantly, to design learning methods and experiences that match people's preferences :. Visual learning style involves the use of seen or observed things, including pictures, diagrams, demonstrations, displays, handouts, films, flip-chart, etc. Auditory learning style involves the transfer of information through listening: to the spoken word, of self or others, of sounds and noises.
Kinesthetic learning involves physical experience - touching, feeling, holding, doing, practical hands-on experiences. The word 'kinesthetic' describes the sense of using muscular movement - physical sense in other words. Educationally oriented. The feedback delivered by this instrument is based on the work of Ph. Statistical controls. Statistical analysis of the test is conducted to ensure maximum accuracy and validity of the test scores.
Made by professionals. The present test has been made with the input of people who work professionally with psychology and individual differences research. This test is also available in the following languages:.
Question 1 of 45 I am good at reading maps and finding my way around unfamiliar places. Why Use This Test? I sound out a word when trying to spell it. I enjoy listening to people talk on radio shows, audio recordings, etc. My favorite memories involve action or physical activity. I start doing things before reading the instructions. I am expressive and use a many gestures. Lectures capture my attention. When spelling, I try to picture how a word looks.
I need charts and diagrams to help me understand information. Visual aids and handouts make learning easier for me. I enjoy learning by reading and looking at books. If asked, I can add numbers without writing them down. I am quick at finding my way with a map. When I can't figure something out, my instinct is to ask someone to explain it. When having trouble with something, I experiment until I get it right.
I am good at remembering people's names. I learn a lot from discussions. I visualize characters and settings when I read a story. I like to shake hands, hug or pat others on the back.
I am good at taking things apart and putting them back together. I can easily follow written directions. Doing work with my hands is satisfying. I refine my ideas by talking and "thinking out loud". I prefer talking on the phone over e-mail. I tap my foot, fidget or eat while I read or study. I need to take breaks from sitting and re-energize by moving around. I enjoy crafts and making things. I enjoy being read to. I am distracted by sounds. I get excited about learning through hands-on experience.
I am good at following verbal directions. Instructions that consist mostly of illustrations are helpful to me. I remember people's faces. Movement around me is distracting.
My thinking is random. I am vividly imaginative. For something to be credible, it needs to be logical. I look for the most practical way of doing things. I have hunches and I follow them. I study better with background music. I need a totally quiet setting to study.
My desk is neat and organized. I prefer realistic stories instead of fantasy. I enjoy classes where I can move around and try things. I am good at laying out a step-by-step plan. I am happiest when I am creating or expressing myself. I like information that is precise and measurable. I am an effective communicator. I like fantasy and make believe. I keep my feelings controlled. I am good at understanding feelings and expressing emotion. I like filling in details. I am more interested in facts than theories.
I am more pt, TF. I make new friends pt, EI. I am more likely to measure things with pt, JP. I usually leave for appointments pt, JP. I am most comfortable being pt, JP. My thoughts are on pt, SN. I consider myself to be pt, SN. When judging others, I am pt, TF. When in a one-on-one situation, I usually do more pt-4, EI. I am more likely to invest in pt, SN.
Others might perceive me as pt, JP. I consider myself to be pt, EI. I prefer to pt, SN. When in conversation, I pt, TF. I prefer speakers that communicate pt, SN. I would classify myself as a pt, EI. A quiet weekend at home is pt-9, EI. More often than not, I pt, JP. On a free night, I like to pt-2, EI.
When dealing with problems, I focus on the pt, TF. After a social gathering, I feel pt-5, EI. I prefer to work pt-1, EI. When paying at a store, I often pt-3, EI. I am more concerned with pt, EI. I am drawn to pt, SN. I dislike it when people are too pt, TF. I am more likely to have my pt, SN. I leave things pt, JP. When I have a task to complete, I usually pt, JP. I am governed by my pt, TF.
I enjoy time spent pt, EI. When around other people, I pt-8, EI. It is worse to be pt, JP.
0コメント