Andrés-Pueyo A

Language: Spanish
References: 7
Page: 128-132
PDF size: 163.20 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Larivée’s comments (2010) on the model of Multiple Intelligences (MI), by H. Gardner (1983), brings together a series of arguments leading to a critique of the multiple intelligences model based on the following paradox. The MI theory has had a significant impact in the field of education, where its ideas have been applied extensively. However, this theory has not shown enough internal consistency to justify its ambitious approach to be an alternative model of the classical psychometric and factorial models of the structure of human intelligence. This paradox is underpinned by the lack of rigorous validation of Gardner’s model. In my opinion, in line with that of S. Larivée’s, the main problems are: the MI model does not distinguish between its basic elements, and has not been built by the accumulation of knowledge available. In the next pages, I will follow these two lines of reasoning reaching the conclusion that this model could be a good taxonomy of cognitive skills but not a psychological model of intelligence.

REFERENCES

1. Andres-Pueyo, A. (1997). Manual de Psicologia Diferencial. Madrid, España: McGraw Hill.

2. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. Cambridge, GB: Cambridge University Press.

3. Deary, I. (2001). Intelligence. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.

4. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Nueva York, EUA: Basic Books.

5. Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Highly general andhigly ptractical. En R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? (pp. 331-380). Mahwah, EUA: Erlbaum.

6. Larivée, S. (2010). Las inteligencias múltiples de Gardner. ¿Descubrimiento del siglo o simple rectitud política? Revista Mexicana de Investigación en Psicología, 2, 115-126 .

7. Sternberg, R. (1982). Human abilities: an information processing approach. Nueva York, EUA: Freeman.