Note: While this debatable issue isn't necessarily a direct issue with politics or religion, it has to do with an institution that is largely controlled and organized by the government, hence why I put it in this forum.
I've heard and read a good deal about Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences and about the Kolbe Index developed by Kathy Kolbe, and they both lead strong arguments to say that there is a fundamental flaw in the structure of the educational system of America.
The
Theory of Multiple Intelligences essentially states that there are many different forms of intelligence (as if you couldn't glean THAT from the title of the theory) that occur
outside of the normal reading/writing (called "verbal-linguistics intelligence") and mathematics (or "logical-mathematical intelligence"). It criticizes our current school system for saying that these are the only two intelligences worth any merit and that anyone who happens to be strong in
other intelligences are just "stupid" or "not as smart." The thing is, it's not a question of how smart or stupid someone is, but what TYPE of smart that person is.
Are you one of those people who are really sociable and can easily start a conversation with a total stranger? Then you've got a great amount of Interpersonal Intelligence.
Or maybe you're an excellent athlete and know how to get the most out of diet and exercise? Then you're definately a genius in Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence.
The bottom line is that just because someone is a genius in areas other than words and math and reasoning doesn't mean that they're going to be a failure in life, or that they're less intelligent overall, or that they should be treated as such.
The other main point of this argument stems from the
Kolbe Index, which states that people also LEARN in different ways. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences shows how people can be smart in different areas, where the Kolbe Index focuses on HOW those people develop their smarts and learn the most efficiently.
If you look at newborn children, they are entirely full of curiosity concerning the world around them. They WANT to learn. They LOVE to learn. By the time they get into a few years of school, however, most kids are suddenly somehow robbed of that desire to learn. Is it because they have ADHD or something? Or is it because the education system is trying to fit square pegs into round holes concerning how the children learn and are taught?
The Kolbe Index divides people into four large groups (Fact Finder, Follow Thru, Implementor, and Quick Start), each with three general subdivisions of aversion to, willingness to go along with, or desire to initiate that specific style of learning.
Fact Finders like to research data, reading documentation of a specific topic to learn more about it. They draw analogies, seek historical examples, and like to put their results in writing.
Follow Thru learners like to seek order and draw together details of entire concepts. They generally like to create and use diagrams, charts, and graphs.
Quick Start people are the risk-takers. They like to jump in head first and truly learn best through their own personal experiences of trial and error instead of just reading about how it's been done in the past. They are innovative and instinctual.
Implementors are generally physical learners. They like creating and playing with physical models with which they can learn. They might be the people who create prototypes of an invention. They're great with anything mechanical and spatial.
Looking at the American public school system, it is clear that so much of the emphasis of learning takes place in the Fact Finder mode, with a good bit of Follow Thru also used. Those poor Quick Starts and Implementors probably loved Kindergarten where they got to play with blocks, but then got the blocks taken away by 1st grade and suddenly got bored. Their boredom probably eventually led to them acting up in class, getting in trouble with the teacher who probably pleaded with the parents that they "have so much potential, if only they would apply themselves." Then they might get put on medicine for ADD when they don't have ADD or any sort of learning problem at all--instead, it's a TEACHING problem in America.
To wrap it all up, if we recognized these developed theories as being a ground for how children should be treated in school, then the issue now would be to recognize what sort of strengths different children have and how they learn, and then to try to develop different learning environments for the different children.
Sorry for the long post...but I wanted to get this all out so I could ask to hear everyone else's thoughts on all this. Do you think Howard Gardner and Kathy Kolbe are onto something? Should the education system in America be totally revamped? Or do you disagree and think this is all a bunch of hogwash?
Log in
Wiki
FAQ
Search
