“Neuromyths” and Multiple Intelligences (MI) Theory: A Comment on Gardner, 2020

Abstract

This is not an idiosyncratic case in the field (see Table 1). In another survey conducted in Spain, Ferrero et al. (2020) reported that teachers gave an average rating of 4.47 [on a 5-point scale, from 1 (definitely false) to 5 (definitely true)] to a closely similar neuromyth statement:Adapting teaching methods to the "multiple intelligences" of students leads to better learning.

Interventions to Dispel Neuromyths in Educational Settings—A Review

“…The strong persistence of neuromyth beliefs in educational settings is surprising, in light of a host of studies, conducted in the same time period, that failed to find evidence for positive learning outcomes gained from matching instruction to "learning style" preferences (Krätzig and Arbuthnott, 2006;Rogowsky et al, 2015Rogowsky et al, , 2020Knoll et al, 2017;Cuevas and Dawson, 2018;Husmann and O'Loughlin, 2019; for reviews, see Pashler et al, 2008;Aslaksen and Lorås, 2018;Rousseau et al, 2018), from matching instruction to multiple intelligences profiles (Ferrero et al, 2021;Rousseau, 2021), or from applying the Brain Gym R methods (Hyatt, 2007;Stephenson, 2009;Spaulding et al, 2010;Watson and Kelso, 2014;Cancela et al, 2015;Kroeze et al, 2016), and despite neuromyth "busting" efforts through national newspapers (e.g., Hood et al, 2017), professional journals in education (e.g., Willingham, 2005Willingham, , 2006Blanchette Sarrasin and Masson, 2015), Internet blogs/general audience electronic media (e.g., , and popular books (e.g., Adey and Dillon, 2012;De Bruyckere et al, 2015).…”

A Conceptual Analysis of the Semantic Use of Multiple Intelligences Theory and Implications for Teacher Education

“…Hornikx (2018) noted in their study testing the effect on participants' opinions using "high-quality" and "low-quality" anecdotal evidence that "contrary to theoretical expectations, readers were not found to be sensitive to the quality of anecdotal evidence: The similar and dissimilar variants were equally persuasive" (p. 333). Such a finding might offer further basis for why MI theory has been found to be popular with preservice teachers when considering the findings of Rousseau (2021). It also might underscore some of the concerns of critics of MI theory who suggest that MI theory lacks sufficient scientific basis for its claims regarding multiple intelligences (Waterhouse, 2006;Willingham et al, 2015).…”

“…Most preservice teachers seem to have a favorable opinion of Gardner’s MI theory ( Rousseau, 2021 ). This is despite the long-standing critical debate on the theory’s efficacy and validity from the technical perspectives of educational psychologists ( Schulte et al, 2004 ; Bordelon and Banbury, 2005 ; Visser et al, 2006 ; Waterhouse, 2006 ; McGreal, 2013 ; Rogowsky et al, 2015 ; Willingham et al, 2015 ; Rousseau, 2021 ). Additionally, a study by Luo and Huang (2019) of English as a second language (ESL) teachers’ self-perception of MI theory and the uses of the defined multiple intelligences found either ambiguity or no significant correlation between MI theory and its instructional strategies, further supporting the critics of MI theory based on it not having statistical validity.…”

“…Part of the answer for preservice teacher perception of MI theory may be in the perspectives they developed in either their teacher education program or in their school placement ( Rousseau, 2021 ). This may present as having heard about anecdotal success in applying MI theory, and then assuming it is beneficial in and of itself without critical evaluation of whether theories such as MI theory are supported in psychological science.…”

“…This influence has been promoted, at times, through professional development for in-service teachers and in teacher education programs for preservice teachers (see, for example, “Project Zero” from the Harvard Graduate School of Education; Multiple Intelligence Schools, 2022 ). The seven and then eight intelligences that comprise the theory that Gardner (1983 , 2006) posited have influenced teachers, students, and teacher educators across the world ( Brualdi Timmins, 1996 ; Rousseau, 2021 ). This influence has generated a long-standing debate among educational psychologists about the efficacy and validity of MI theory.…”