Part 1: A Discourse on Differences in Educational Approaches

Howard Gardner, developer of the theory of multiple intelligences, approaches the topic of the disciplined mind from an abstract and ethereal viewpoint: that any education intended for everyone must teach the realms of truth, beauty, and goodness. In the process of trying to explain how to achieve this idealistic approach, Gardner covers vast territories of theories posed by psychologist, sociologist, biologist and anthropologists, as well as touching base with the pedagogical approach. With all these “-ists” imposing themselves, the first several chapters of his book become a continual comparison of opposing theories which causes the reading to be alternately fascinating and tedious. His coverage of this broad spectrum is excellent, given the limited space. He uses concrete examples from diverse fields of study and cultures, but the end product of those chapters is that educational approaches and goals are dependent on the cultural setting, their physical resources, and the adaptation which “should be” a moderation of left and right wing approaches. Though I enjoyed (and trudged through) the examples of the Reggio Emilia preschool in Italy, the Singaporean focus on hard work, and the KEY School in Indianapolis, I found myself asking, “When are you going to get the ‘meat and potatoes’ about what it means to have a disciplined mind?”

Part 2: Outlining Approaches to a Disciplined Mind

Finally after 114 pages, Chapter 6 begins to delineate Gardner’s perception of teaching a disciplined mind. He believes that the surface coverage of numerous topics leads to shallow understanding and that to create true understanding, schools should focus on fewer topics in greater depth. Gardner uses the three examples of Mozart’s Marriage of Figaro, Darwinian Evolution, and the Nazi regimes’ answer to the “Jewish problem” to show how to teach the concepts of beauty, truth, and goodness (or the lack thereof).

I found his “Framework That Facilitates Understanding” a little more concrete and within my knowledge base. He calls for the Pedagogical Approach of 1) delineation of “understanding goals”, 2) identification of “generative topics” or “essential questions”, 3) identification and promulgation of performances of understanding (basically that students know what they have to do and are familiar with the way in which they will be asked to perform their understanding), and 4) an ongoing assessment with continual feedback from teachers and discussion of evaluation among students, which should lead eventually to self-assessment.
He goes on to delineate three way of using the multiple intelligence theory to enhance understanding. Gardner calls for lessons which provide 1) powerful entry points, 2) apt analogies, and 3) multiple representations of the central or core ideas of the topics. All of this made good sense and was familiar to me through educational courses I have taken and other readings I have done. He proclaims that those powerful entry points may approach any subject by using an introductory example (Darwin’s finches), the entire topic (the theory of evolution), or a general consideration (scientific methodology) and delineates entry points that use multiple intelligences as narrative, numerical, logical, existential, aesthetic, hands-on, and interpersonal. Gardner then calls for the use of those powerful analogies to bring students into full contact with the principles of rich topics and to follow-up with multiple representations of the core ideas. I liked his measure for success of understanding these key concepts. He claims the only way to truly gauge the students’ level of understanding is to give them many different opportunities to perform their understanding under varying conditions. One of the reasons he specifies varying conditions is that the context in which students learn (a classroom) needs to be applicable to the real world they will face (work, home, etc.) and varying conditions will help make this possible. I also liked that he calls for “useful feedback”, not only from teachers and experts, but from peers and from themselves. Self-assessing is the one thing we can teach our students that will carry them through the changing conditions of the modern world.

Of necessity, I’ve cut short a lot of what Gardner said, and though it was tedious at times, it was also useful. His very specific examples of lesson approaches for Figaro, evolution, and the Nazi attempt to exterminate Jews offered an insight into his meaning of in-depth coverage of a topic. I’m not sure how well his tied that to his goal of teaching beauty, truth, and goodness, but at least his approach allows students to pose these questions and try to answer them. In the final analysis, as Gardner himself says, “there is [no] single best representation for any core idea or set of ideas…our search should be for the family of representations that can convey the core ideas in a multiplicity of ways at once accurate and complementary.” As one who approaches most things in life from a holistic standpoint, I must agree.