Spearman VS. Gardner Essay Example for Free

Spearman VS. Gardner EssayCharles Spearman (1904) defined and developed a unilinear testing approach to general intelligence (g), which is based on a positive correlation among change subjects like math, earth sciences and vocabulary. Gardner (1983) proposed there were multiple intelligences (MI), or seven areas of intelligence, linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal, and that each person has more than one of these skills. While testing of g intelligence is settle down used to assess overall IQ, universities and corporations look at the wider consideration offered by Gardner. Spearmans theory creates an environment that places strong emphasis on getting a eminent IQ score and high scores on a number of placement tests useful for inculcateing. However, as Gardner has said, these place too high an emphasis on IQ and test scores, and in ignores certain intelligences and abilities that people canister bring to the workforce. Relying solely on IQ test scores not only can exclude an single with superior a talent (g) from getting a proper education in the area of expertise, but can eliminate the individual from the education and professional arena altogether. We are all endowed with multiple, genetically determined forms of intelligence that can be enhanced through practice and learning, thus far this is ignored in the process of rewarding individuals for high IQ according to Spearman.Unfortunately, MI theory is only just being put into practice at the educational level. Wallace Shilkus, a middle school technology education teacher in Illinois, wanted to know how relevant technology education was to middle school students whether his methods of instruction made a difference in the classroom and whether Gardners multiple intelligences had a role to play in the classroom. (Merrill, 2004, 6). Shilkus tied the in-class study to action query to papers his teaching methods and benefits to his stu dents in 2001, and found (using CO2 cars as the activity) that his students demonstrated most of the intelligences. Throughout this process, Shilkus noticed differences in himself as the teacher and his students as the learners. Moreover, Shilkus notice that by presenting the material and requirements of the CO2 car activity in different forms, the students excelled. (Merrill, 2004, 6).Spearmans theory still reigns, as Gardners theories are just being put into practice, qualification one wonder what would happen to IQ testing and educational systems if, based on Shilkuss success, Gardners MI were put into practice on a scale glide slope that of Spearman. Apparently, Gardners theory that students are being held back is supported and if his theory were put into practice, all students could excel and increase their chances for success in the workplace.I believe that Gardners ternary Intelligence in more inline with society today. Knowledge cannot be put into just two types and test ed that way. There are umteen different types of knowledge and if you included more of them into tests and stopped timing people on tests there would be a clearer understanding of why there are so many people failing the tests. You would know exactly what is wrong and could teach them more in-depth on that subject. Common sense is also a type of intelligence that demand to be tested if testing for the perfect IQ. A person could be a genius when it comes to academics, but study no understanding of common sense. You would have to be a genius in both to truly be a genius. IQ tests are not very accurate and do not go in depth enough on subjects. There may not even be a way to fully test to canvass if someone is a true genius. It would be a challenge to come up with a test to see if someone is an all around genius.ReferencesGardner, H. (1983). Frames of creative thinker The theory of multiple intelligences. New York Basic Books.Merrill, C. (May 2004). Action research and technology education. The Technology Teacher, 63, 8, 6.Shepard, R Fasko, D, Jr Osborne, FH. (2004). Intrapersonal intelligence affective factors in thinking. Education. Available http//elibrary.bigchalk.com/libweb/elib/do/document?set=searchgroupid=1requestid=lib_standardresultid=1ts=BA95D521D01A59E9BB67234C183BF7B4_10891053177