There are a number of myths, mistaken ideas, and misinformed assumptions about multiple intelligences that prevent its implementation. These negative influences impact a wide range of people involved in our schools. Many people have reported that The MIDAS™ can be an effective tool to correct these erroneous perceptions. This page offers an overview of some of these errors and how The MIDAS addresses them in a practical way.
Teachers think . . .
. . . MI is too complicated, time consuming or difficult to implement
. . . MI is only for people interested in the arts and to enhance creative thinking
. . . if I use MI then there is no time to build students’ academic abilities
Teachers are wise to guard their time and curriculum fiercely so that classroom activities are focused on the students and their learning. There are any number of activities that will distract from this focus from fire drills to pep assemblies. A fundamental goal for using MI is to promote student engagement through the use of their strengths. The MIDAS helps to personalize instruction through the identification of strengths and limitations. A class profile provides information for the effective design of curricular projects that provide multiple entry points. When students are taught how to use their strengths to study and self-regulate their learning then academic achievement can improve. Strength-based learning is also more motivating and will likely reduce behavioral problems.
The following papers describe how teachers are using MI and the MIDAS:
Counselors think . . .
. . . MI is only for teachers
. . . there is no validated assessment for MI
. . . MI does not apply to my work counseling troubled students
. . . MI is not helpful to enhance students’ career planning
Guidance counselors in schools and career counselors have difficult jobs as they must work with a great many students for brief periods of time. It is unfortunate that too many are unaware that the MIDAS exists and that MI can be used to enhance both emotional counseling and career advising. Counselors in Ireland have been in the forefront of adopting The MIDAS to meet the needs of students. The MIDAS has been used for years with high school students and also university students to enhance both self-understanding and career awareness planning. Counselors often have to deal with students’ behavioral problems. The example described in Dealing with Anger demonstrates how an MI perspective can make a big difference in a student’s life.
The following papers describe how counselors are using MI and the MIDAS:
Psychologists think . . .
. . . MI is incompatible with IQ
. . . that there is no empirical evidence supporting MI
. . . there is no valid test for MI can be used for doing evaluations
. . . neuroscience evidence does not support MI
. . . research proves that teaching to learning style is ineffective
Too often a psychologist (or school psychologist) fails to understand the value of a MIDAS profile because of a negative attitude and misunderstanding of MI. I am often surprised by their superficial knowledge of MI and distorted ideas about its educational implications and effectiveness. I wonder if this is willful ignorance as they resist a change in perspective? Are they defending the superiority of the Linguistic and Logical-mathematical intelligences (combined to produce IQ) for theoretical or practical reasons? Given that the system where they work is structured around IQ, it is understandable that it would take some time and effort to begin using an MI assessment as part of their toolkit. Guidelines are provided here to guide that transition. It really is not all that difficult given that every educational plan should have a clear description of the student’s strengths as well as strength-based interventions suggestions. Each of the MIDAS scales and subscales are matched with study strategies and learning activities.
The following papers describe how psychologist can use MI and the MIDAS:
School administrators think . . .
. . . MI is anti-academic achievement
. . . MI is only for arts educators or the very best teachers
. . . brain-based teaching is not MI
. . . MI was a fad whose time has come and gone
. . . there is no research that proves MI to be effective in the classroom
As mentioned above many educators have figured out how to link MI to reading and math skills. Unfortunately, in the minds of many school administrators MI is not linked to the teaching of academic knowledge. MI was one of the first educational theories to bridge between the brain and classroom learning. There has been a wealth of neuroscience research that demonstrances that MI theory is accurate in both its description of brain systems as well as effective pedagogy. There have been a number of different researchers who have shown that MI schools and classrooms make a positive difference in student learning.
The following papers describe how MI and the MIDAS are used to promote high quality education school-wide:
MI Around the World – a collection of essays about MI schools and classrooms. ed. JieQi Chen, et al
Best Ideas from Research and Practice – A review of MI classrooms by Mindy Kornhaber, et al