Howard Gardner, the Hobbs Research Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, is best known for his theory of multiple intelligences, which—despite the qualms of skeptics like me—has profoundly shaped schooling for decades. He’s authored 30 books, translated into 32 languages, and been named one of the world’s 100 most influential public intellectuals by both Foreign Policy and Prospect. Howard and I have known each other for more than 30 years, and he recently reached out to genially take issue with my contention that AI really doesn’t change what students need to know. What followed was a robust back-and-forth about what AI means for schooling. Here’s what he had to say.
—Rick
Rick: Howard, I’ve contended that AI doesn’t change the knowledge students need to learn. You disagree. I want to get into your take, but let’s start with a bit of context. When did you first start thinking about what AI means for education?
Howard: My interest in AI was sparked by an unexpected connection with Anthea Roberts, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, who was intrigued by my describing myself as having a “synthesizing mind.” We both love absorbing huge amounts of information and synthesizing it. Anthea discovered how adeptly AI could assist with synthesizing and showed me. With her guidance, my research team began using AI to code lengthy interviews with college students and alums. Watching AI do in moments what takes a human many hours got me thinking about its educational implications.
Rick: You may be most famous for your work developing the theory of multiple intelligences. I imagine you approach AI through that lens. So, how do the insights from that work inform your thinking on AI?
Howard: When I first presented my ideas on multiple intelligences 45 years ago, it never occurred to me to consider the relation between human and computational cognition. I was simply trying to pluralize the traditional view of intelligence as a single IQ score. But AI systems have since demonstrated remarkable cognitive capacities. In 2024, my colleagues and I wrote an essay titled “Who Owns Intelligence?” We discussed animal, plant, and artificial intelligence. Scholars, including educators, must now reflect on how these forms of intelligence relate to one another.
Rick: You’ve suggested that AI is likely to be so effective at cognitive tasks—what you term “the disciplined mind, the synthesizing mind, and the creative mind”—that whether humans continue to do them “will be optional.” That’s a heck of a statement. Can you unpack it?
Howard: In Five Minds for the Future, published over two decades ago, I called for cultivating those three forms of cognition. I now believe AI will handle them so well that pursuing them will become optional for our species. Of course, anyone who wants to master a discipline, or to synthesize or create, has my complete respect and admiration. In that same book, I also called for cultivating the “respectful mind” and the “ethical mind.” I think those both need to stay distinctly human.
Rick: I’m going to put a pin in my skepticism for the moment, as I want to be sure to let you play this out. If cognitive tasks were offloaded to AI, what would that mean for education?
Howard: In the scenario that I envision, individuals can and should pursue their interests throughout their lives, whether that’s cooking or ancient history. It won’t matter if AI can do it faster or better than us. We will use our own minds because it brings pleasure to us and to others. Perhaps we’ll even discover or create new knowledge, entities, or experiences beyond AI’s reach—maybe even poetry or stories no AI could write. But that will only happen if individuals are intrinsically motivated to stretch their abilities.
Rick: A Harvard publication quoted you as saying that by 2050, due to advances in AI, students won’t need more than a few years of schooling in “reading, ’riting, ’rithmetic, and a little bit of coding.” You’ve made clear to me that your take is more nuanced than that. How much schooling do you think children will actually need in the age of AI?
Howard: Every child should still master reading, writing, math, and basic coding, learning alongside peers and skilled educators in a schoollike setting. But around age 10, once the “3 Rs” are in hand, students should be free to pursue their own interests with the help of AI, peers, and appropriate coaches. Well-designed AI, I believe, will outperform even the most gifted instructor. Education should continue but not by corralling young people in classrooms for a dozen years to explore the same issues the same way, especially when many could learn more effectively on their own with AI.
Rick: That’s a lot to digest. Can you provide a sense of what that might look like in practice?
Howard: Students’ initial interests can anchor exploration across academic disciplines. In a recent blog post, I show how an interest in genes can guide students across disciplines. In another, I show how mathematics can be approached through the range of human intelligences. The best progressive education grows out of students’ interests while grounding them in a broader community—as in the environments John Dewey envisioned, and that I’ve seen firsthand in schools from the Boston area to Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Rick: As you well know, skeptics like me will say, “We’ve heard grand claims about the transformative promise of ed tech before. From the radio to the internet to the laptop, they’ve always disappointed. Indeed, there’s reason to think that screens have been bad for students and learning.” What’s your response? Why do you expect that AI will change everything?
Howard: I agree that many earlier claims about ed tech were hyperbolic, as Justin Reich and Larry Cuban have documented. But I’m confident this time is different. The question isn’t whether to use AI but how and with what benefits and costs.
Rick: Scholars like Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge have suggested that phones, social media, and ubiquitous screens have had devastating impacts on youth. The result is a generation with fewer social ties and fragile mental health. Schools may be one of the few places where children still get sustained, in-person interaction with peers and mentors. Are you at all concerned about the consequences of AI-driven shifts that shrink the amount of in-person education?
Howard: As a five-time grandparent, I share these concerns. Even after “the basics” are mastered, young people should still spend considerable time with peers, especially those with different backgrounds, interests, and beliefs. Models for this kind of social learning could range from the Boy Scouts to Sunday school; updated versions for today remain to be developed. What matters is that young people learn to work together, particularly on challenging ethical and moral issues.
Rick: As you know, I’ve made the case that a deep, broad academic grounding is more valuable than ever in a world stripped of institutional gatekeepers. Others, of course, have argued that “mere” content knowledge is now mostly obsolete. Where do you come out on academic knowledge in the age of AI?
Howard: I am all in favor of a deep, broad academic grounding. But clearly, it has not been achieved in this country. As you know, Rick, it was once the case that more American teens knew the names of the Three Stooges than the names of the three branches of government. If we don’t thoughtfully rethink education, we will be completely unable to deal with the not-always-brave-new-world that technology has ushered in.
Rick: If you have one piece of advice for educators when thinking about the implications of AI, what would it be?
Howard: Learn about AI, including the good, the bad, and the unknown. Experiment with it, watch others experiment, and discuss what you’ve learned. And, in the best Dewey democratic manner, decide what to “gift” or “consign” to AI and what to do yourself. Above all, keep an open mind.
This post originally appeared on the blog Rick Hess Straight Up at Education Week on August 18th.
Humans have depended on social learning, and deliberate teaching, for most of our history. It seems a misguided fantasy to expect that students will independently discover what they need to learn, sustained by motivation, curiosity and an AI.
Perhaps, when Gardner imagines the “ideal” curious, self-directed student, he imagines himself, or his Harvard students.
Perhaps he needs to spend a few years teaching in a public high school.
Sounds like Gardner would love Alpha Schools.