In 2006, Lynn Waterhouse published her critical review of theories of MI, ME, and EI, claiming that teaching these theories harmed both educators and students, as well as the field of education. She showed that they lacked empirical evidence and reviewed relevant research findings. In the case of Gardner’s MI theory, she posited that research pointed to multiple information processing systems, and the adapted cognition theory, concluding there was not enough support for MI. Regarding the Mozart Effect, she cited findings that temporary emotional arousal produced by listening to a “brisk, upbeat Mozart sonata” may improve performance, but the mechanism behind this effect is not the one proposed by ME authors. Finally, she argued that problem with Emotional Intelligence theory is that it is not differentiated from personality plus general intelligence IQ (perhaps with the exception of one EI trait of emotional regulation skill). She also argued that Goleman’s conclusions about EI and real-world success were mistaken.
The intriguing aspect about these theories was how widely they spread online and in some institutional settings – even prior to corroborating scientific evidence (with ME having less of an impact). Waterhouse refers to Shermer (1997) to suggest three major reasons for this popularity of the theories: credo consolans (an unproven idea may be comforting if it predicts a good outcome or makes us feel in control), immediate gratification (an unproven idea may be attractive if it offers instant solutions for difficult problems), and easy explanations (“an unproven idea may be accepted if it offers a simple story about something that is difficult to understand.”).
In his response, Gardner argued that Waterhouse missed the core of MI theory “by limiting her synthesis to the singular disciplinary frames of psychometrics and experimentation.” He rejected the assertion that MI is not empirical, claiming instead that Waterhouse did not understand that he synthesized the empirical findings of others. This surfaced the methodological question whether synthesizing others’ findings can serve as empirical support for a new theory. Synthesis is a legitimate tool but does not exempt a theory from direct empirical testing. To the objection of lack of testing, Gardner expressed his “personal decision not to become directly involved in testing.” In his response, he did confirm that MI theory would continue to be assessed, including whether practices informed by MI theory encourage student engagement and learning.
Waterhouse’s review and Gardner’s response show how educational theories promising easy understanding of complex phenomena may have strong gravitational pull to practitioners. Popularized and theorized concepts, albeit unsupported by cognitive research, can speak to teachers and parents who expect new tools to boost learning even before there is consensus in the academic debate. Imagining a teacher who designs her lessons for multiple intelligences, the premature application of contested theory comes at a cost – the hoped-for effect may not have scientific backing despite the teacher’s possible personal resonance with the theory.
List of citations:
Gardner, H., & Moran, S. (2006). The science of multiple intelligences theory: A response to Lynn Waterhouse. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_2
Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1
