Waterhouse Lynn
The College of New Jersey, Ewing Township, NJ, United States.
Front Psychol. 2023 Aug 28;14:1217288. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1217288. eCollection 2023.
A neuromyth is a commonly accepted but unscientific claim about brain function. Many researchers have claimed Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences (MI) theory is a neuromyth because they have seen no evidence supporting his proposal for independent brain-based intelligences for different types of cognitive abilities. Although Gardner has made claims that there are dedicated neural networks or modules for each of the intelligences, nonetheless Gardner has stated his theory could not be a neuromyth because he never claimed it was a neurological theory. This paper explains the lack of evidence to support MI theory. Most important, no researcher has directly looked for a brain basis for the intelligences. Moreover, factor studies have not shown the intelligences to be independent, and studies of MI teaching effects have not explored alternate causes for positive effects and have not been conducted by standard scientific methods. Gardner's MI theory was not a neuromyth initially because it was based on theories of the 1980s of brain modularity for cognition, and few researchers then were concerned by the lack of validating brain studies. However, in the past 40 years neuroscience research has shown that the brain is not organized in separate modules dedicated to specific forms of cognition. Despite the lack of empirical support for Gardner's theory, MI teaching strategies are widely used in classrooms all over the world. Crucially, belief in MI and use of MI in the classroom limit the effort to find evidence-based teaching methods. Studies of possible interventions to try to change student and teacher belief in neuromyths are currently being undertaken. Intervention results are variable: One research group found that teachers who knew more about the brain still believed education neuromyths. Teachers need to learn to detect and reject neuromyths. Widespread belief in a neuromyth does not make a theory legitimate. Theories must be based on sound empirical evidence. It is now time for MI theory to be rejected, once and for all, and for educators to turn to evidence-based teaching strategies.
神经迷思是一种关于大脑功能的被普遍接受但不科学的观点。许多研究人员称霍华德·加德纳的多元智能（MI）理论是一种神经迷思，因为他们没有看到任何证据支持他提出的针对不同类型认知能力的基于大脑的独立智能。尽管加德纳声称每种智能都有专门的神经网络或模块，但他也表示自己的理论不可能是神经迷思，因为他从未宣称这是一种神经学理论。本文解释了缺乏支持多元智能理论的证据。最重要的是，没有研究人员直接寻找智能的大脑基础。此外，因素研究并未表明这些智能是独立的，而且多元智能教学效果的研究没有探究积极效果的其他原因，也未采用标准科学方法进行。加德纳的多元智能理论最初并非神经迷思，因为它基于20世纪80年代关于认知的大脑模块化理论，当时很少有研究人员关注缺乏验证性大脑研究这一问题。然而，在过去40年里，神经科学研究表明大脑并非由专门负责特定认知形式的独立模块组成。尽管加德纳的理论缺乏实证支持，但多元智能教学策略仍在世界各地的课堂中广泛使用。至关重要的是，对多元智能的信念以及在课堂上对多元智能的使用限制了寻找基于证据的教学方法的努力。目前正在进行关于尝试改变学生和教师对神经迷思信念的可能干预措施的研究。干预结果各不相同：一个研究小组发现，对大脑了解更多的教师仍然相信教育神经迷思。教师需要学会识别并摒弃神经迷思。对神经迷思的广泛相信并不会使一个理论变得合理。理论必须基于可靠的实证证据。现在是时候彻底摒弃多元智能理论了，教育工作者应转向基于证据的教学策略。
