Unfortunately, IMHO, his work has received more attention than it deserves, while more serious empirically based research on the structure of intelligence (e.g., psychometrcally-based CHC theory) is ignored by the popular press and public. I understand many of the reasons for the differential treatment of these two different approaches, and will not delve into this controversy in this post. I've previously posted the essence of my thoughts re: Gardner's work--which I believe does have some heuristic merit if properly conceptualized (see my prior post for my ruminations)
I just skimmed Arthur "g" Jensen's review of the book (click here)--"Howard Gardner Under Fire: The Rebel Psychologist Faces His Critics)"
As one would expect, Jensen does not have many favorable comments regarding Gardner's work nor this supposed "critique" by others. Jensen feels that the reviewers who comment on Gardner's work were largely self-selected "like-minded" folks. The significant criticism that Jensen (and most other intelligence scholars from a more empirical/psychometric tradition) have for Gardner's work is captured in the following quote (from the review):
- " Probably many educationists with little interest in acquiring a clear understanding of scientific psychology and psychometrics have uncritically embraced Gardner's psychology out of desperation. The persistent frustration of the educational system's dealing realistically with the wide range of scholastic aptitude in the nation's schools creates a fertile ground for seemingly attractive educational nostrums. Gardner's invention of the term “multiple intelligences” capitalizes on the high valuation the public accords to the word “intelligence.” The appeal of Gardner's terminology has been parodied as the Marie Antoinette theory of schooling: if the people have no bread, let them eat cake."
Powered by ScribeFire.