A Critique of the Use of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences in the American Education System
The author uses logical appeal and emotional appeal to support the claim that the education system in the US needs MI theory to teach all students effectively. Firstly, the ethical appeal that the author uses to indicates a strong impact on students. According to Chris Kunkel, vice principal, the Key Learning Community- the first school built around the MI theory, the MI theory is so amazing for children to help them understand if they are not good at math or English, they are still good students and still intelligent in other fields. This evidence represents a logical appeal because children are encouraged to study to seek and develop their strengths besides their weaknesses in class.
Therefore, MI theory is an effective method to teach students in US education. In addition, the author uses an emotional appeal to argue this claim. In other words, the MI theory is revolutionary because intelligence was defined by traditional psychologist more narrowly. The writer uses word “revolutionary”, “traditional”, “narrow” to describe how successful the MI theory compared to traditional methods in the US education system as well as create the sense among the readers that the MI theory is useful to recognize the different types of intelligence to nurture student’s abilities in US schools.
The article “Staying power” is biased for multiple intelligence theory as the best tool for teaching because of quality of evidence and the information left out. To begin with, the quality of evidence that the writer uses indicates a strong bias against the impact of MI theory on teaching.
The author uses speeches of Mindy L.Kornhaber, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, multiple intelligence theory gave teachers a way to sort through their teaching closet and organize to recognize what is missing during teaching. While the writer refers general point that some skeptics show that lack of experiment that students are or not learned more when teachers try to capitalize their individual strengths from MI theory. In addition, the author of this article has intentionally left out any information about the benefits of traditional theory in teaching in school. Undoubtedly, there are still values that traditional schools provide quality and standard for teaching methods.
However, there is no mention of teachers as well as students benefit or are satisfied with their standard education. Therefore, based on these two criteria, there is a clear bias for the MI theory is the best effective method in education system.