Human Growth And Lifespan Development: Theories On Multiple Intelligences, Parenting Styles, And Implications

Theory of Multiple Intelligence

Discuss about the Human Growth and Lifespan Development.

The theory of multiple intelligences proposes that a person has eight or more relatively autonomous intelligences. According to Gardner, intelligence is not dominated by a single general ability but rather different specific modalities (Gardner, 1983). People do draw on these intelligences on both individual and corporate levels in creating materials and also solving problems which are relevant to their situations. (Gardner, 2006: Gardner, 2007). The eight intelligences identified by Gardner were interpersonal, intrapersonal, linguistic, spatial, logical-mathematical, naturalistic, musical and bodily-kinaesthetic (Slavin, 2009: Gardner, 199).

According to Gardner, these intelligences have to meet a certain criterion before making it to the list. As outlined by Gilman, (2001) and Katie Davis, Christodoulou, Seider, and Gardner, (2011), the intelligence had to fulfil this criteria: should have a distinct developmental progression, had a place in evolutionary history, could be supported by experimental psychology, could be seen in relative isolation in savants, prodigies and other exceptional individuals,  had the potential for brain isolation by brain damage, could be encoded, should exhibit a distinct neural representation, and could demonstrate core operations.

Despite detailing out the differences between the intelligences, Gardner opposes the idea that learners should not be labelled to a particular intelligence. He suggests that the theory ought to empower them and not confine them to a single form of education (McKenzie, 2005). Gardner further claims that only logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligences are held as of value and hence tested in current education systems. The multiple intelligence theory conceives intelligence as a multiple and not unitary in nature, hence outlining a different perspective of intelligence, different from those outlined in the 1900s, studied in detail by Piaget and other notable psychologist, and which are also measured in current times using IQ tests (Katie Davis et al., 2011).

Some scholars have asserted that intelligence is influenced by environmental factors and for others, it is an inborn trait hence individuals have little capacity to change it. On the other hand, Howard conceives that intelligence results from a combinational of heritable potential and skills which undergo development in different ways as influenced by experiences (Gardner, 1983). This can be illustrated by an example whereby an individual could be born with outstanding intellectual potential in the musical-rhythmic sphere which enables him to quickly learn the elaborate steps of playing a musical instrument such as a piano on a much easier scale. Whereas, for the second individual, to attain such expertise, he has to study and practice for a much longer duration. Both individuals have the potential of exemplary performance in playing the piano, which is a sphere that draws on their musical-rhythmic intelligence, the paths are taken by either to make it to good performers differs both qualitatively (the process), and also quantitatively (speed). Educational pedagogies are tapping into multiple intelligence as a way of understanding the specific abilities and uniqueness of every person. As such, this draws on the idea that in the process of growth and development, each person is capable, and also has a purpose.

Comparing the Theory of Multiple Intelligence with other Concepts of Intelligence in Middle and Late Childhood

Different form Howard Gardner’s definition of intelligence as a multiple and not unitary in nature, Robert Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence state that intelligence is defined in an individual’s capability of succeeding in life based on his/her individual values and within a particular sociocultural context (Sternberg, 1987). According to Sternberg, an individual’s ability to be successful depends on his or her ability to capitalise on his or her strengths, whereas compensating for his or her weakness. The theory proposes that success is as a result of balancing analytical, creative and practical abilities. For a start, this differs from the multiple intelligences theory which posits that an individual can attain success in whatever sphere as it all depends on the level of efforts put into refining a particular trait.

Contrary to Gardner’s eight components of intelligence, the triarchic theory proposes only three aspects. They include analytical intelligence, creative intelligence and practical intelligence (Sternberg, 1988). Analytical intelligence is involved with an individual’s ability perform an analysis, conduct an evaluation, judge, or conduct a comparison and contrast. Creative intelligence is applied in creating, designing, inventing, originating and imagining. Whereas, practical intelligence entail those components applied when an individual implements, and puts ideas into practice (Haghighi, Zemestani, & Samavi, 2013).

Multiple intelligences theory offers a better way of understanding intelligence in human beings. The theory tends to address vital elements of intelligence not captured by other theories such as triarchic theory and emotional intelligence. It emphasises on the domains and not just the process as outlined in triarchic theory, and it also does not view emotions as a distinct intelligence.

Naturalistic intelligence has influenced my roles in functions relating to the natural world, such as being a chef or even a botanist. Further. This form of intelligence is applicable when discriminating products as a consumer. Enhancing my logical-mathematical intelligence has improved my ability to solve arithmetic problems, logic puzzles, strategy games and experiments. Likewise interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence are applicable in my leadership roles. To be a fair dancer, I had to refine body-kinaesthetic intelligence. On the other hand, the sphere of linguistic intelligence has enabled my ability to appoint complex meanings and also express them using language. Lastly, refining spatial intelligence skills have enhanced my ability to draw and paint through the enhancement of the dynamic imagination, image manipulation and spatial reasoning capacities.

The four parenting styles identified by Diana are based on two aspects of parenting; warmth and control. Warmth is the measure to which parents accept and respond to the children’s behaviours. control, on the other hand, control is the degree to which parents manage the children’s behaviours. Combining these two aspects results into four parenting styles. The styles are authoritative, authoritarian, permissive and involved (Baumrind, 1971).

Implications of the Intelligences on my Personal Life

Authoritative parents are warm but firm. They encourage a sense of independence in their children, while at the same time controlling their actions and maintaining limits. Under authoritative parenting, parents do engage their children in discussions and debates, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the parents. Authoritative parents direct the activities of a rationally and in a manner that’s issue-oriented. They do encourage verbal give and take, explains to their children the reasoning that accompanies the policies, and asks the children’s objections when they do not conform. The authoritative parent exerts firm control at points where he or she diverges with the child but also recognises a child’s particular interests and ways (Kopko, 2007). Children raised under this style are bound to be autonomous, more responsible and socially competent.

Under authoritarian parenting, parents are more controlling and display little warmth. Such parents are strict disciplinarians, and uses restrictive, punitive styles, and insists that the children follow their directions. No discussions are held between the parent and the children and family rules and standards are not debatable. The belief held by authoritarian parents is that children ought to accept, without question, the rules and practices that the parent establishes (Kopko, 2007: Baumrind, 1971). The main instrument for child discipline is threats and punishment. The parents’ attempts to shape, control and evaluate the children’s behaviours and attitudes according to an established set standard of conduct may lead to either rebellious or dependent children.

Permissive parents are undemanding and also very warm. Parents are indulgent and passive, and they have a belief that giving in to the children’s wishes is a way of demonstrating love to them. They do not say ‘no’ as they wouldn’t want to upset their children. The result is that the children do make most of the decisions without the involvement of the parent. Under this style, parents perceive themselves as a resource which children may opt to seek their advice, and not as active participants in shaping the child’s actions (Baumrind, 1967). Children brought up under this style often have difficulties in self-control and also exhibits egocentric tendencies.  Lastly, uninvolved parents are neither warm nor do they exhibit any demands on the kids. The time in which the parents and children interact is quite is limited, and in other instances, they are uninvolved, with the risk of being neglectful. Such parents are indifferent to the children’s needs, whereabouts or experiences. These parents give minimal consideration to the child’s input in decisions and often do not want to be bothered by them. As a result, children grow up to exhibit impulsive behaviours which are as a result of having issues with self-regulation.

Brought up under authoritarian parenting style where the parent’s expectation was that as children we should adhere to a set rules, intelligence also had to be prescribed by the parent. Due to their dominating style and a great deal of control, whatever sphere that parent considered, as a child, that is what I had to develop. However, true to the multiple intelligence theory, there are multiple intelligences at home. So, whatever sphere that parent triggers is bound to nature a given intelligence. So, the parent ends up being right in choosing the capacity of intelligence that the children thrive. In most cases, it’s more than one as the parent likewise expect the child to put in both qualitative and quantitative efforts to nature whatever sphere.

References

Baumrind, D. (1967). Diana Baumrind’s (1966) Prototypical Descriptions of 3 Parenting Styles. Psychology, 37(1966), 1967–1967. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126611

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Richmond, Va.: American Psychological Assn.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: BasicBooks.

Gardner, H. (2007). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Gilman, L. (2001). Human Intelligence: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20121125220607/www.indiana.edu/~intell/mitheory.shtml

Haghighi, S., Zemestani, M., & Samavi, S. A. (2013). Study of Emotional Intelligence from Childhood to Middle Age. Journal of Life Sciences and Biomedicine, 3(3), 189–192.

Katie Davis, Christodoulou, J., Seider, S., & Gardner, H. (2011). The theory of multiple intelligences. The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, 2138(617), 485–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648057

Kopko, K. (2007). Parenting Styles and Adolescents. Cornell Univesity Cooperative Extension, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.100.3.731-745

McKenzie, W. (2005). Multiple intelligences and instructional technology. Eugene, Or: International Society for Technology in Education.

Slavin, R. E. (2009). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon Publishers.

Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge [u.a.: Univ. Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York, N.Y.: Viking.