Többszörösen vitatott többszörös intelligenciák

Howard Gardner, a Harvard Egyetem 2020-ban centenáriumát ünnepelt Harvard Graduate School of Education kognitív- és neveléstudományok professzora alma materének e jeles évében nyerte el az Amerikai Nevelés- és Oktatáskutatók Egyesülete (American Educational Research Association, AERA) által évente kiosztásra kerülő, a neveléstudományi kutatások kiemelkedő közreműködőinek járó díjat (Distinguished Contributions to Research in Education Award). Az eredetileg pszichológusként kutató Gardner ezt az elismerést a neveléstudományok területén folytatott munkássága honorálásaként kapta, mivel az először csaknem négy évtizede publikált intelligencia-szemlélete (Gardner, 1983) világszerte számos tananyagfejlesztési műhelyre, valamint gyakorlati oktatási modellre hatott. Széleskörű ismertsége és sikerei dacára a többszörös intelligenciák (multiple intelligences) teóriája számos kritikába ütközött az évek során. Jelen tanulmányomban e kritikák áttekintését célzom – magyarul novuum értékkel azért, hogy az elméletet magyar nyelvterületen alkalmazók annak kritikáira vonatkozóan is tájékozódhassanak. Az elmélet születéséről (Dezső, 2020), jellemzőiről (Dezső, 2012, 2014, 2015), pedagógiai alkalmazhatóságáról (Dezső, 2011, 2015), aktualitásáról (Dezső, 2021) korábbi vonatkozó munkáimban részletesen szóltam, így magát a teóriát ebben az írásban vázlatosan sem tárgyalom. Gardner eredeti szándékának figyelembevételével elméletére vonatkozóan az intelligenciák kifejezést többes számban tudatosan használom. Elemzésemben a vonatkozó nemzetközi kritikai szakirodalom főbb elemeinek áttekintésére, rendszerezett megjelenítésére vállalkozom – terjedelmi korlátokra való tekintettel a teljesség igénye nélkül.

Students as Partners. Implementation of Climate Change Education Within the Harvard Graduate School of Education

This chapter notes the efforts of implementing a climate change curriculum within the Harvard Graduate School of Education that helps to build competencies for potential leaders in different education sectors so that they can collaboratively combat climate change. Literature points out the fruitful and productive partnerships of grassroots initiatives with large scale institutions and/or government organizations. The authors explore the conception of a climate change curriculum with explicit content knowledge and thoughtful pedagogy, designed by students and supported by faculty. The authors examine the design elements of the curriculum and then specify the implementation process of a curriculum at the Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE). The authors draw out the limitations and implications of “students as partners” in the co-creation of learning and teaching in the field of sustainable development education within higher education institutions.

Of Human Potential: A 40-Year Saga

Howard Gardner’s longtime interest in the range of human capacities and talents was facilitated by his leadership role in the Bernard Van Leer Foundation “Project on Human Potential” carried out at the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 1979–1985. In this reflective essay, Gardner describes his early studies of human potential and indicates how, in view of scientific and cultural trends, this line of research should be pursued in the period ahead.

Transformations: On Contingent Form in University Studio Teaching with Two Case Studies

This paper begins to ask by what means and in what form might the university studio functionsothatitcontributestoinflectingthebiases,limits, and reserves of architecture to allow it to better adapt to changing environmental and social challenges? More generally, the paper aims to contribute to debates concerned with the manner by which the university studio can be the site not just for training in design processes but for knowledge production as well. The paper frames an approach to these ambitions through a brief comparative analysis of a multi-yearstudiodeliveredbyPeterEisenman at the Harvard Graduate School of Design (1981-1985) and a limited cycle of studios completed under Colin Rowe in his Urban Design Studio, Cornell University, with a focus on urban-scale projects undertaken under Rowe’s direction in those same years. Two hypotheses underlie the paper. The first is that the Eisenman and Rowe studios extend and transform ideas and composition devices treating the contingent over the abstract and that such teaching systems might aid in development of a practice that begins to address changing complexities and the call for new forms of knowledge. The second hypothesis is that contingent form is a potentially innovative composition strategy and conceptual tool, one awaiting theorisation and resuscitation. The paper adds to scholarship on architecture education, makes a modest contribution to EisenmanandRowestudies,andaddressesaspectsofconferenceTheme3Education and Professional Practice Across Borders.

“Frankly It’s A Gamble”: What Happens When Middle School Students Compose their Own Schedules?

This article describes what happened when a group of middle school teacherresearchers at the International School of Billund (ISB), Denmark, joined university-based researchers from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, to engage in a new qualitative methodology called “Playful Participatory Research” or PPR (Baker & Davila 2018; Baker et al. 2016). The goal of the inquiry was to explore some of the tensions that exist between play and school—in particular the paradox between the timeless nature of play and the timetabled nature of school. The experiment was an example of one of the principles of a pedagogy of play proposed by the research team, which suggests that teachers’ collective and systematic study of artifacts of student learning (or “pedagogical documentation”) helps them to navigate such paradoxes. The teachers decided to replace two weeks of the standard school schedule with a ‘student-composed schedule’, in which students were free to design their own programme. Although the experiment got off to a shaky start, as it progressed, many students capitalized on the opportunity to choose where and with whom to work; they began to see each other as intellectual resources; and they started to take more responsibility for their own learning.