![[Branton Shearer]](Library/Images/Assessment/Shearer.gif)
Theoretical Issues
Howard Gardner often introduces his reformulated concept of "intelligences" with a story that compares development of MI theory with the IQ-based roots of g (unitary or general intelligence). He makes a point of contrasting his multidisciplinary formula for canonizing each intelligence with the history of testing that has been used to substantiate g. The story of general intelligence follows a trail of testing that begins with Alfred Binet and then highlights the correlational work of Galton and Spearman's use of factor analysis to verify g's claim to fame as the sole definition of intelligence. The point of the story is that I.Q. while claiming to be "general and universal" is embedded in a specific set tests where success is contingent upon skill in the linguistic and logical intelligences.
In Frames of Mind and subsequent writings, Gardner has been a strong advocate for the use of alternative measures for the intelligences and what he terms "intelligence-fair" practices. There are several problems with the use of "tests" to measure skill in any of the intelligences. To highlight a few......
- Tests only measure the convergent "one right answer" aspect of an intellectual skill. The definition of intelligence that Gardner developed embraces both the convergent and the divergent / creative aspects of each intelligence, e.g., name the rhyming scheme in a poem vs. writing a poem with a unique use of rhyme and alliteration.
- Tests look indirectly at each intelligence through the lens' of the linguistic and logical intelligences so that people who are weak in either of these areas will be at a disadvantage during the "testing" situation.
- Tests are constructed to be "scientific measures" of factual knowledge and skills under decontextualized and formal conditions. The "real life" use of each MI assumes that people solve problems and create products in context-rich environments where speed of responding to short-questions with-short-answers often doesn't matter.
- The primary purpose of MI assessment is to provide the person with information that will be useful in attaining important goals in his/her life situation, .e.g., How shall I better learn Algebra or select a vocational direction based on my strengths? On the other hand, the overriding goal of test development has been the creation of scientific measures that are valid and reliable regardless of their purpose or context.
In sum, the definitional and epistemological conflicts between g and MI become painfully evident in the means we use to assess / measure / describe and test an individual's level of skill and ability.
Our Goals:
What this MI Assessment Interest Area would like to explore is how this conflict can be resolved so that assessment can become an active and positive force in the learning life of individuals and groups. It is my belief that this conflict is more "invented" rather than inherent in much the same way as we sometimes assume that the functions of the right side of the brain are in opposition to those of the left side. MI theory offers us the opportunity to make a creative synthesis (and appropriate 'intelligence-fair'use) of rigorous, standardized tests AND descriptive, performance-based, context-embedded assessment systems. The rub, of course, lies in the word 'appropriate.'
A Few Pointed Questions:
I will initiate this Assessment Interest Area by posing a few pointed questions to begin the process of unraveling this Assessment knot. I invite you to respond, share research, exemplar stories and pose other important questions of your own
1. Testing vs. MI Assessments?
Can we be bold and wise enough to reconcile these two points of view so as to provide individuals and schools with worthwhile information that is valid, reliable, "intelligence-fair" and useful? Is this being done somewhere?
2. MI Tests and Assessments?
What tests are in existence that can be used or adapted for an MI battery? Can we avoid the simplistic labeling associated with IQ testing?
3. Practical and Useful?
How can tests and performance measures be made to be both "teacher friendly" as well as useful to the individual to promote intellectual development?
4. Proficiency Testing: Boon or Bust?
Does the current wave of "proficiency testing" encourage, thwart or otherwise impact a school's adoption of MI teaching practices?
5. School Reform
Can high quality MI assessments be used to promote school restructuring and renewal?
6. Teacher Education and Lifelong Learning
How can MI assessments be used to select, educate and develop the Interpersonal skills of young teachers? Can veteran teachers learn about MI-inspired instruction through MI self assessment and the use of MI profiles of their students?
7. Career and Work Application?
How can MI-inspired assessments enhance career development and worker performance?