Download The appeal of multiple intelligences to educators

The theory of multiple intelligences was developed in 1983 by Dr. Howard Gardner, professor of
education at Harvard University. It suggests that the traditional notion of intelligence, based on I.Q.
testing, is far too limited. Instead, Dr. Gardner proposes eight different intelligences to account for a
broader range of human potential in children and adults. These intelligences are:
Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):
Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
Musical intelligence ("music smart")
Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")
Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")
Dr. Gardner says that our schools and culture focus most of their attention on linguistic and logicalmathematical intelligence. We esteem the highly articulate or logical people of our culture. However, Dr.
Gardner says that we should also place equal attention on individuals who show gifts in the other
intelligences: the artists, architects, musicians, naturalists, designers, dancers, therapists, entrepreneurs,
and others who enrich the world in which we live. Unfortunately, many children who have these gifts don’t
receive much reinforcement for them in school. Many of these kids, in fact, end up being labeled "learning
disabled," "ADD (attention deficit disorder," or simply underachievers, when their unique ways of thinking
and learning aren’t addressed by a heavily linguistic or logical-mathematical classroom. The theory of
multiple intelligences proposes a major transformation in the way our schools are run. It suggests that
teachers be trained to present their lessons in a wide variety of ways using music, cooperative learning,
art activities, role play, multimedia, field trips, inner reflection, and much more (see Multiple Intelligences
in the Classroom). The good news is that the theory of multiple intelligences has grabbed the attention of
many educators around the country, and hundreds of schools are currently using its philosophy to
redesign the way it educates children. The bad news is that there are thousands of schools still out there
that teach in the same old dull way, through dry lectures, and boring worksheets and textbooks. The
challenge is to get this information out to many more teachers, school administrators, and others who
work with children, so that each child has the opportunity to learn in ways harmonious with their unique
minds (see In Their Own Way).
The theory of multiple intelligences also has strong implications for adult learning and development. Many
adults find themselves in jobs that do not make optimal use of their most highly developed intelligences
(for example, the highly bodily-kinesthetic individual who is stuck in a linguistic or logical desk-job when
he or she would be much happier in a job where they could move around, such as a recreational leader, a
forest ranger, or physical therapist). The theory of multiple intelligences gives adults a whole new way to
look at their lives, examining potentials that they left behind in their childhood (such as a love for art or
drama) but now have the opportunity to develop through courses, hobbies, or other programs of selfdevelopment (see 7 Kinds of Smart).
How to Teach or Learn Anything 8 Different Ways
One of the most remarkable features of the theory of multiple intelligences is how it provides eight
different potential pathways to learning. If a teacher is having difficulty reaching a student in the more
traditional linguistic or logical ways of instruction, the theory of multiple intelligences suggests several
other ways in which the material might be presented to facilitate effective learning. Whether you are a
kindergarten teacher, a graduate school instructor, or an adult learner seeking better ways of pursuing
self-study on any subject of interest, the same basic guidelines apply. Whatever you are teaching or
learning, see how you might connect it with
words (linguistic intelligence)
numbers or logic (logical-mathematical intelligence)
pictures (spatial intelligence)
music (musical intelligence)
self-reflection (intrapersonal intelligence)
a physical experience (bodily-kinesthetic intelligence)
a social experience (interpersonal intelligence), and/or
an experience in the natural world. (naturalist intelligence)
For example, if you’re teaching or learning about the law of supply and demand in economics, you might
read about it (linguistic), study mathematical formulas that express it (logical-mathematical), examine a
graphic chart that illustrates the principle (spatial), observe the law in the natural world (naturalist) or in
the human world of commerce (interpersonal); examine the law in terms of your own body [e.g. when you
supply your body with lots of food, the hunger demand goes down; when there's very little supply, your
stomach's demand for food goes way up and you get hungry] (bodily-kinesthetic and intrapersonal);
and/or write a song (or find an existing song) that demonstrates the law (perhaps Dylan's "Too Much of
Nothing?").
You don’t have to teach or learn something in all eight ways, just see what the possibilities are, and then
decide which particular pathways interest you the most, or seem to be the most effective teaching or
learning tools. The theory of multiple intelligences is so intriguing because it expands our horizon of
available teaching/learning tools beyond the conventional linguistic and logical methods used in most
schools (e.g. lecture, textbooks, writing assignments, formulas, etc.). To get started, put the topic of
whatever you’re interested in teaching or learning about in the center of a blank sheet of paper, and draw
eight straight lines or "spokes" radiating out from this topic. Label each line with a different intelligence.
Then start brainstorming ideas for teaching or learning that topic and write down ideas next to each
intelligence (this is a spatial-linguistic approach of brainstorming; you might want to do this in other ways
as well, using a tape-recorder, having a group brainstorming session, etc.). Have fun!
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm
Theory of multiple intelligences
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The theory of multiple intelligences was proposed by Howard Gardner in 1983 to more
accurately define the concept of intelligence and to address the question whether methods which
claim to measure intelligence (or aspects thereof) are truly scientific.
Gardner's theory argues that intelligence, particularly as it is traditionally defined, does not
sufficiently encompass the wide variety of abilities humans display. In his conception, a child
who masters multiplication easily is not necessarily more intelligent overall than a child who
struggles to do so. The second child may be stronger in another kind of intelligence and therefore
1) may best learn the given material through a different approach, 2) may excel in a field outside
of mathematics, or 3) may even be looking at the multiplication process at a fundamentally
deeper level, which can result in a seeming slowness that hides a mathematical intelligence that
is potentially higher than that of a child who easily memorizes the multiplication table.
In theory, people who have bodily-kinesthetic intelligence should learn better by involving
muscular movement (e.g. getting up and moving around into the learning experience), and are
generally good at physical activities such as sports or dance. They may enjoy acting or
performing, and in general they are good at building and making things. They often learn best by
doing something physically, rather than [by] reading or hearing about it. Those with strong
bodily-kinesthetic intelligence seem to use what might be termed muscle memory - they
remember things through their body such as verbal memory or images.
Careers that suit those with this intelligence include: athletes, dancers, musicians, actors,
surgeons, doctors, builders, police officers, and soldiers. Although these careers can be
duplicated through virtual simulation, they will not produce the actual physical learning that is
needed in this intelligence.[1]

[edit] Interpersonal
This area has to do with interaction with others. In theory, people who have a high interpersonal
intelligence tend to be extroverts, characterized by their sensitivity to others' moods, feelings,
temperaments and motivations, and their ability to cooperate in order to work as part of a group.
They communicate effectively and empathize easily with others, and may be either leaders or
followers. They typically learn best by working with others and often enjoy discussion and
debate.
Careers that suit those with this intelligence include sales, politicians, managers, teachers, and
social workers.[2]
[edit] Verbal-linguistic
This area has to do with words, spoken or written. People with high verbal-linguistic intelligence
display a facility with words and languages. They are typically good at reading, writing, telling
stories and memorizing words along with dates. They tend to learn best by reading, taking notes,
listening to lectures, and discussion and debate. They are also frequently skilled at explaining,
teaching and oration or persuasive speaking. Those with verbal-linguistic intelligence learn
foreign languages very easily as they have high verbal memory and recall, and an ability to
understand and manipulate syntax and structure.
Careers that suit those with this intelligence include writers, lawyers, philosophers, journalists,
politicians, poets, and teachers.[citation needed]
[edit] Logical-mathematical
This area has to do with logic, abstractions, reasoning, and numbers. While it is often assumed
that those with this intelligence naturally excel in mathematics, chess, computer programming
and other logical or numerical activities, a more accurate definition places emphasis on
traditional mathematical ability and more reasoning capabilities, abstract patterns of recognition,
scientific thinking and investigation, and the ability to perform complex calculations. It
correlates strongly with traditional concepts of "intelligence" or IQ.
Careers which suit those with this intelligence include scientists, mathematicians, engineers,
doctors and economists.[3]
[edit] Intrapersonal
This area has to do with introspective and self-reflective capacities. People with intrapersonal
intelligence are intuitive and typically introverted. They are skillful at deciphering their own
feelings and motivations. This refers to having a deep understanding of the self; what are your
strengths/ weaknesses, what makes you unique, can you predict your own reactions/ emotions.
Careers which suit those with this intelligence include philosophers, psychologists, theologians,
marine biologists, lawyers, and writers. Also prefer to work alone.
[edit] Musical
This area has to do with rhythm, music, and hearing. Those who have a high level of musicalrhythmic intelligence display greater sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, and music. They
normally have good pitch and may even have absolute pitch, and are able to sing, play musical
instruments, and compose music. Since there is a strong auditory component to this intelligence,
those who are strongest in it may learn best via lecture. Language skills are typically highly
developed in those whose base intelligence is musical. In addition, they will sometimes use
songs or rhythms to learn and memorize information.
Careers that suit those with this intelligence include instrumentalists, singers, conductors, discjockeys, orators, writers and composers.
[edit] Use in education
Traditionally, schools have emphasized the development of logical intelligence and linguistic
intelligence (mainly reading and writing). In fact, IQ tests (given to about 1,000,000 students
each year) focus mostly on logical and linguistic intelligence. While many students function well
in this environment, there are those who do not. Gardner's theory argues that students will be
better served by a broader vision of education, wherein teachers use different methodologies,
exercises and activities to reach all students, not just those who excel at linguistic and logical
intelligence.
Many teachers see the theory as simple common sense. Some say that it validates what they
already know: that students learn in different ways. On the other hand, James Traub's article in
The New Republic notes that Gardner's system has not been accepted by most academics in
intelligence or teaching.
George Miller, the esteemed psychologist credited with discovering the mechanisms by which
short term memory operates, wrote in The New York Times Book Review that Gardner's argument
boiled down to "hunch and opinion" (p. 20). Gardner's subsequent work has done very little to
shift the balance of opinion. A recent issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law devoted to the
study of intelligence contained virtually no reference to Gardner's work. Most people who study
intelligence view M.I. theory as rhetoric rather than science, and they're divided on the virtues of
the rhetoric.
The application of the theory of multiple intelligences varies widely. It runs the gamut from a
teacher who, when confronted with a student having difficulties, uses a different approach to
teach the material, to an entire school using MI as a framework. In general, those who subscribe
to the theory strive to provide opportunities for their students to use and develop all the different
intelligences, not just the few at which they naturally excel.
A Harvard-led study of 41 schools using the theory came to the conclusion that in these schools
there was "a culture of hard work, respect, and caring; a faculty that collaborated and learned
from each other; classrooms that engaged students through constrained but meaningful choices,
and a sharp focus on enabling students to produce high-quality work."[4]
Of the schools implementing Gardner's theory, the most well-known is New City School, in St.
Louis, Missouri, which has been using the theory since 1988. The school's teachers have
produced two books for teachers, Celebrating Multiple Intelligences and Succeeding With
Multiple Intelligences and the principal, Thomas Hoerr, has written Becoming a Multiple
Intelligences School as well as many articles on the practical applications of the theory. The
school has also hosted four conferences, each attracting over 200 educators from around the
world and remains a valuable resource for teachers interested in implementing the theory in their
own classrooms.
Thomas Armstrong considers that Waldorf education organically engages all of Gardner's eight
intelligences.[5]
[edit] Questions
Questions raised about Gardner's theory include:



What kind of correlations exist between the intelligences, or are they completely
independent?
Should schools be focusing on teaching to students' strengths or on remediating where
they are weak?
To what extent should students be aware of their profile in the various intelligences?
[edit] Opposing views
[edit] The definition of intelligence
As one would expect from a theory that redefines intelligence, one of the major criticisms of the
theory is that it is ad hoc. The criticism is that Gardner is not expanding the definition of the
word "intelligence"; rather, he denies the existence of intelligence, as is traditionally understood,
and instead uses the word "intelligence" whenever other people have traditionally used words
like "ability". This practice has been criticized by Robert J. Sternberg (1983, 1991), Eysenck
(1994), and Scarr (1985).
Defenders of MI theory argue that the traditional definition of intelligence is too narrow, and
thus broader definition more accurately reflects the differing ways in which humans think and
learn. They would state that the traditional interpretation of intelligence collapses under the
weight of its own logic and definition, noting that intelligence is usually defined as the cognitive
or mental capacity of an individual, which by logical necessity would include all forms of mental
qualities, not simply the ones most transparent to standardized I.Q. tests.
Some of these criticisms arise from the fact that Gardner has not settled on a single definition of
intelligence. He originally defined it as the ability to solve problems that have value in at least
one culture, or as something that a student is interested in. However, he added a disclaimer that
he has no fixed definition, and his classification is more of an artistic judgment than fact:
Ultimately, it would certainly be desirable to have an algorithm for the selection of an intelligence, such
that any trained researcher could determine whether a candidate's intelligence met the appropriate criteria.
At present, however, it must be admitted that the selection (or rejection) of a candidate's intelligence is
reminiscent more of an artistic judgment than of a scientific assessment. (Gardner, Frames of Mind: The
Theory of Multiple Intelligences, 1985)
Gardner argues that by calling linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities intelligences, but not
artistic, musical, athletic, etc. abilities, the former are needlessly aggrandized. Many critics balk
at this widening of the definition, saying that it ignores "the connotation of intelligence...[which]
has always connoted the kind of thinking skills that makes one successful in school."[6]
Gardner writes "I balk at the unwarranted assumption that certain human abilities can be
arbitrarily singled out as intelligence while others cannot"[7] Critics hold that given this
statement, any interest or ability is now redefined as "intelligence". Thus, by adopting this
theory, studying intelligence becomes difficult, because it diffuses into the broader concept of
ability or talent. Gardner's addition of the naturalistic intelligence and conceptions of the
existential and moral intelligences are seen as fruits of this diffusion. Defenders of the MI theory
would argue that this is simply a recognition of the broad scope of inherent mental abilities, and
that such an exhaustive scope by nature defies a simple, one-dimensional classification such as
an assigned IQ value. They would claim that such one-dimensional values are typically of
limited value in predicting the real world application of unique mental abilities.
Andreas Demetriou suggests that theories which overemphasize the autonomy of the domains are
as simplistic as the theories that overemphasize the role of general intelligence and ignore the
domains. He agrees with Gardner that there indeed are domains of intelligence that are relevantly
autonomous of each other. In fact, some of the domains, such as verbal, spatial, mathematical,
and social intelliegence are identified by most lines of research in psychology. However, in his
theory, one of the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, Gardner is criticized for
underestimating the effects exerted on the various domains of intelligences by processes that
define general processing efficiency, such as speed of processing, executive functions, and
working memory, and hypercognitive processes underlying self-awareness and self-regulation.
All of these processes are integral components of general intelligence that regulate the
functioning and development of different domains of intelligence. In fact, a recent study by
Visser and colleagues which was designed to test the autonomy of Gardner's intelligences
showed clearly that most of them are heavily dependent on the general factor of intelligence.[8]
Thus, it is argued that the domains are to a large extent expressions of the condition of the
general processes. At the same time, the domains may vary because of their constitutional
differences but also differences in individual preferences and inclinations. Moreover, their
functioning both chanellizes and influences the operation of the general processes.[9][10] Thus,
one cannot satisfactorily specify the intelligence of an individual or design effective
interventions programs unless both the general processes and the domains of interest are
evaluated (Demetriou & Kazi, 2006; Demetriou, Mouyi, & Spanoudis, 2010).
[edit] Lack of empirical evidence
Some critics argue that many of Gardner's "intelligences" actually correlate with the g factor,
supporting the idea of single dominant type of intelligence. For example, Carroll (1993) argued
that verbal comprehension, auditory processing, visual perception and ability in logic and
mathematics all correlate with each other and are actually subsets of global intelligence. This
gives further support for a theory of a single type intelligence.
A critical review of MI theory argues that there is little empirical evidence to support it:
"To date there have been no published studies that offer evidence of the validity of the multiple
intelligences. In 1994 Sternberg reported finding no empirical studies. In 2000 Allix reported finding no
empirical validating studies, and at that time Gardner and Connell conceded that there was "little hard
evidence for MI theory" (2000, p. 292). In 2004 Sternberg and Grigerenko stated that there were no
validating studies for multiple intelligences, and in 2004 Gardner asserted that he would be "delighted
were such evidence to accrue" (p. 214), and he admitted that "MI theory has few enthusiasts among
psychometricians or others of a traditional psychological background" because they require
"psychometric or experimental evidence that allows one to prove the existence of the several
intelligences" (2004, p. 214)." (Waterhouse, 2006a, p. 208).
The same review presents evidence to demonstrate that cognitive neuroscience research does not
support the theory of Multiple Intelligences:
"the human brain is unlikely to function via Gardner’s multiple intelligences. Taken together the evidence
for the intercorrelations of subskills of IQ measures, the evidence for a shared set of genes associated with
mathematics, reading, and g, and the evidence for shared and overlapping “what is it?” and “where is it?”
neural processing pathways, and shared neural pathways for language, music, motor skills, and emotions
suggest that it is unlikely that that each of Gardner’s intelligences could operate “via a different set of
neural mechanisms” (1999, p. 99). Equally important, the evidence for the “what is it?” and “where is it?”
processing pathways, for Kahneman’s two decision-making systems, and for adapted cognition modules
suggests that these cognitive brain specializations have evolved to address very specific problems in our
environment. Because Gardner claimed that that the intelligences are innate potentialities related to a
general content area, MI theory lacks a rationale for the phylogenetic emergence of the intelligences."
(From Waterhouse, 2006a, p. 213).
A number of articles have surveyed the use of Gardner's ideas and conclude that there is little to
no academically substantiated evidence that his ideas work in practice. Steven A. Stahl found
that most of the previous studies which claimed to show positive results had major flaws:
Among others, Marie Carbo claims that her learning styles work is based on research. {I
discuss Carbo because she publishes extensively on her model and is very prominent in the
workshop circuit...} But given the overwhelmingly negative findings in the published
research, I wondered what she was citing, and about a decade ago, I thought it would be
interesting to take a look. Reviewing her articles, I found that out of 17 studies she had cited,
only one was published. Fifteen were doctoral dissertations and 13 of these came out of one
university—St. John’s University in New York, Carbo’s alma mater. None of these had been
in a peer-refereed journal. When I looked closely at the dissertations and other materials, I
found that 13 of the 17 studies that supposedly support her claim had to do with learning
styles based on something other than modality.[11]
To date, the current No Child Left Behind high-stakes test legislation does not encompass the
multiple intelligences framework in the exams' design and/or implementation.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
May Goodrell
Traditional Plus Middle School
At May Goodrell the class lessons often use teaching and learning strategies that are
based on the multiple intelligences theory. These lessons would include activities that
have students work with more than just paper and pencil. A math class may use music
to learn fractions. You may hear science students reciting poems they compose about
an element. In reading class you may find students playing marbles after reading a
story about the game .
We believe that students can learn in more than one way. In fact, we believe students
learn better if they learn something in several ways. Hence, the use of the multiple
intelligence theory of Howard Gardner is central to the way lessons are taught. A brief
description of the intelligences follows.
Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences
Theory and Practice
Howard Gardner's work in, Frames of Mind introduces the theory of Multiple
Intelligences. Howard Gardner is a cognitive psychologist currently affiliated with
Harvard University, Boston University of Medicine, and the Boston Veterans
Administration Medical Center. Frames of Mind is a study of eight distinct
intelligences.
The following is a list of these intelligences as identified by Howard Gardner:
1. Linguistic Intelligence - language, speech, reading, and writing.
2. Logical-Mathematical Intelligence - this intelligence is found in the confrontation
with the world of objects. Through the manipulation of the objects one works into the
realm of pure abstraction which is science and logic.
3. Spatial Intelligence - the capacity to perceive the visual world accurately-to
transform, modify, and recreate aspects of one's visual world.
4. Bodily-Kinesthetic - the ability to think in movement-one who is skilled with one's
body.
5. Musical Intelligence - the ability to think in sound-to hear without auditory stimulito be able to manipulate and combine elements of music without necessarily expressing
them on a musical instrument.
6. Interpersonal Intelligence - the capacity to notice and make distinctions among
other individuals-how you relate to others.
7. Intrapersonal Intelligence - the knowledge of self-the ability to draw upon your
own feelings to guide your own behavior.
8. Naturalist Intelligence - the appreciation of the natural world of the natural world.
9. Existentialist Intelligence - the appreciation of context of where humankind stands
in the "big picture" of existence. This intelligence is seen in the discipline of
philosophy.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dmps.k12.ia.us/schools/2Goodrell/Multiple_I
ntelligences_diagram3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dmps.k12.ia.us/schools/2Goodrell/MI.htm&usg=_
_qctNPPAvp0IByMCa9tr7W9BeMY=&h=418&w=594&sz=54&hl=en&start=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=k0qzMaC2MqyJM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmultiple%2Bintelligences%26um%3D1%26hl%3D
en%26sa%3DX%26rlz%3D1W1ADFA_en%26tbs%3Disch:1
Howard Gardner on multiple intelligences - the initial listing
{ttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm}
Howard Gardner viewed intelligence as 'the capacity to solve problems or to fashion products
that are valued in one or more cultural setting' (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). He reviewed the
literature using eight criteria or 'signs' of an intelligence:
Potential isolation by brain damage.
The existence of idiots savants, prodigies and other exceptional individuals.
An identifiable core operation or set of operations.
A distinctive development history, along with a definable set of 'end-state' performances.
An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility.
Support from experimental psychological tasks.
Support from psychometric findings.
Susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system. (Howard Gardner 1983: 62-69)
Candidates for the title 'an intelligence' had to satisfy a range of these criteria and must include,
as a prerequisite, the ability to resolve 'genuine problems or difficulties' (ibid.: 60) within certain
cultural settings. Making judgements about this was, however, 'reminiscent more of an artistic
judgement than of a scientific assessment' (ibid.: 62).
Howard Gardner initially formulated a list of seven intelligences. His listing was provisional.
The first two have been typically valued in schools; the next three are usually associated with the
arts; and the final two are what Howard Gardner called 'personal intelligences' (Gardner 1999:
41-43).
Linguistic intelligence involves sensitivity to spoken and written language, the ability to
learn languages, and the capacity to use language to accomplish certain goals. This intelligence
includes the ability to effectively use language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically; and
language as a means to remember information. Writers, poets, lawyers and speakers are among
those that Howard Gardner sees as having high linguistic intelligence.
Logical-mathematical intelligence consists of the capacity to analyze problems logically,
carry out mathematical operations, and investigate issues scientifically. In Howard Gardner's
words, it entails the ability to detect patterns, reason deductively and think logically. This
intelligence is most often associated with scientific and mathematical thinking.
Musical intelligence involves skill in the performance, composition, and appreciation of
musical patterns. It encompasses the capacity to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones,
and rhythms. According to Howard Gardner musical intelligence runs in an almost structural
parallel to linguistic intelligence.
Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence entails the potential of using one's whole body or parts of
the body to solve problems. It is the ability to use mental abilities to coordinate bodily
movements. Howard Gardner sees mental and physical activity as related.
Spatial intelligence involves the potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and
more confined areas.
Interpersonal intelligence is concerned with the capacity to understand the intentions,
motivations and desires of other people. It allows people to work effectively with others.
Educators, salespeople, religious and political leaders and counsellors all need a well-developed
interpersonal intelligence.
Intrapersonal intelligence entails the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's
feelings, fears and motivations. In Howard Gardner's view it involves having an effective
working model of ourselves, and to be able to use such information to regulate our lives.
In Frames of Mind Howard Gardner treated the personal intelligences 'as a piece'. Because of
their close association in most cultures, they are often linked together. However, he still argues
that it makes sense to think of two forms of personal intelligence. Gardner claimed that the
seven intelligences rarely operate independently. They are used at the same time and tend to
complement each other as people develop skills or solve problems.
In essence Howard Gardner argued that he was making two essential claims about multiple
intelligences. That:
The theory is an account of human cognition in its fullness. The intelligences provided 'a new
definition of human nature, cognitively speaking' (Gardner 1999: 44). Human beings are
organisms who possess a basic set of intelligences.
People have a unique blend of intelligences. Howard Gardner argues that the big challenge
facing the deployment of human resources 'is how to best take advantage of the uniqueness
conferred on us as a species exhibiting several intelligences' (ibid.: 45).
These intelligences, according to Howard Gardner, are amoral - they can be put to constructive
or destructive use.
The appeal of multiple intelligences to educators
Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences has not been readily accepted within
academic psychology. However, it has met with a strongly positive response from many
educators. It has been embraced by a range of educational theorists and, significantly, applied
by teachers and policymakers to the problems of schooling. A number of schools in North
America have looked to structure curricula according to the intelligences, and to design
classrooms and even whole schools to reflect the understandings that Howard Gardner
develops. The theory can also be found in use within pre-school, higher, vocational and adult
education initiatives.
This appeal was not, at first, obvious.
At first blush, this diagnosis would appear to sound a death knell for formal education. It is hard
to teach one intelligence; what if there are seven? It is hard to enough to teach even when
anything can be taught; what to do if there are distinct limits and strong constraints on human
cognition and learning? (Howard Gardner 1993: xxiii)
Howard Gardner responds to his questions by first making the point that psychology does not
directly dictate education, 'it merely helps one to understand the conditions within which
education takes place'. What is more:
Seven kinds of intelligence would allow seven ways to teach, rather than one. And powerful
constraints that exist in the mind can be mobilized to introduce a particular concept (or whole
system of thinking) in a way that children are most likely to learn it and least likely to distort it.
Paradoxically, constraints can be suggestive and ultimately freeing. (op. cit.)
Mindy L. Kornhaber (2001: 276), a researcher involved with Project Zero, has identified a
number of reasons why teachers and policymakers in North America have responded positively
to Howard Gardner's presentation of multiple intelligences. Among these are that:
... the theory validates educators' everyday experience: students think and learn in many
different ways. It also provides educators with a conceptual framework for organizing and
reflecting on curriculum assessment and pedagogical practices. In turn, this reflection has led
many educators to develop new approaches that might better meet the needs of the range of
learners in their classrooms.
The response to Howard Gardner is paralleled by the adoption of Kolb's model of experiential
learning by adult and informal educators. While significant criticism can be made of the
formulation (see below) it does provide a useful set of questions and 'rules of thumb' to help
educators to think about their practice. The way in which Howard Gardner's theory of multiple
intelligences has been translated into policy and practice has been very varied. Howard Gardner
did not, initially, spell out the implications of his theory for educators in any detail.
Subsequently, he has looked more closely at what the theory might mean for schooling practice
(e.g. in The Unschooled Mind, Intelligence Reframed, and The Disciplined Mind). From this
work three particular aspects of Gardner's thinking need noting here as they allow for hope, and
an alternative way of thinking, for those educators who feel out of step with the current,
dominant product orientation to curriculum and educational policy. The approach entails:
A broad vision of education. All seven intelligences are needed to live life well. Teachers,
therefore, need to attend to all intelligences, not just the first two that have been their tradition
concern. As Kornhaber (2001: 276) has noted it involves educators opting 'for depth over
breadth'. Understanding entails taking knowledge gained in one setting and using it in another.
'Students must have extended opportunities to work on a topic' (op. cit.).
Developing local and flexible programmes. Howard Gardner's interest in 'deep
understanding', performance, exploration and creativity are not easily accommodated within an
orientation to the 'delivery' of a detailed curriculum planned outside of the immediate
educational context. 'An "MI setting" can be undone if the curriculum is too rigid or if there is
but a single form of assessment' (Gardner 1999: 147). In this respect the educational
implications of Howard Gardner's work stands in a direct line from the work of John Dewey.
Looking to morality. 'We must figure out how intelligence and morality can work together',
Howard Gardner argues, 'to create a world in which a great variety of people will want to live'
(Gardner 1999: 4). While there are considerable benefits to developing understanding in
relation to the disciplines, something more is needed.
Are there additional intelligences?
Since Howard Gardner's original listing of the intelligences in Frames of Mind (1983) there has
been a great deal of discussion as to other possible candidates for inclusion (or candidates for
exclusion). Subsequent research and reflection by Howard Gardner and his colleagues has
looked to three particular possibilities: a naturalist intelligence, a spiritual intelligence and an
existential intelligence. He has concluded that the first of these 'merits addition to the list of the
original seven intelligences' (Gardner 1999: 52).
Naturalist intelligence enables human beings to recognize, categorize and draw upon certain
features of the environment. It 'combines a description of the core ability with a characterization
of the role that many cultures value' (ibid.: 48).
The case for inclusion of naturalist intelligence appears pretty straightforward, the position with
regard to spiritual intelligence is far more complex. According to Howard Gardner (1999: 59)
there are problems, for example, around the 'content' of spiritual intelligence, its privileged but
unsubstantiated claims with regard to truth value, 'and the need for it to be partially identified
through its effect on other people'. As a result:
It seems more responsible to carve out that area of spirituality closest 'in spirit' to the other
intelligences and then, in the sympathetic manner applied to naturalist intelligence, ascertain
how this candidate intelligence fares. In doing so, I think it best to put aside the term spiritual,
with its manifest and problematic connotations, and to speak instead of an intelligence that
explores the nature of existence in its multifarious guises. Thus, an explicit concern with
spiritual or religious matters would be one variety - often the most important variety - of an
existential intelligence.
Existential intelligence, a concern with 'ultimate issues', is, thus, the next possibility that
Howard Gardner considers - and he argues that it 'scores reasonably well on the criteria' (ibid.:
64). However, empirical evidence is sparse - and although a ninth intelligence might be
attractive, Howard Gardner is not disposed to add it to the list. 'I find the phenomenon
perplexing enough and the distance from the other intelligences vast enough to dictate prudence
- at least for now' (ibid.: 66).
The final, and obvious, candidate for inclusion in Howard Gardner's list is moral intelligence.
In his exploration, he begins by asking whether it is possible to delineate the 'moral domain'. He
suggests that it is difficult to come to any consensual definition, but argues that it is possible to
come to an understanding that takes exploration forward. Central to a moral domain, Howard
Gardner suggests, 'is a concern with those rules, behaviours and attitudes that govern the
sanctity of life - in particular, the sanctity of human life and, in many cases, the sanctity of any
other living creatures and the world they inhabit' (ibid.: 70). If we accept the existence of a
moral realm is it then possible to speak of moral intelligence? If it 'connotes the adoption of any
specific moral code' then Howard Gardner does not find the term moral intelligence acceptable
(ibid.: 75). Furthermore, he argues, researchers and writers have not as yet 'captured the essence
of the moral domain as an instance of human intelligence' (ibid.: 76).
As I construe it, the central component in the moral realm or domain is a sense of personal
agency and personal stake, a realization that one has an irreducible role with respect to other
people and that one's behaviour towards others must reflect the results of contextualized
analysis and the exercise of one's will.... The fulfilment of key roles certainly requires a range of
human intelligences - including personal, linguistic, logical and perhaps existential - but it is
fundamentally a statement about the kind of person that has developed to be. It is not, in itself,
an intelligence. 'Morality' is then properly a statement about personality, individuality, will,
character - and, in the happiest cases, about the highest realization of human nature. (ibid.: 77)
So it is, that Howard Gardner has added an eighth intelligence - naturalist intelligence - to his
list. He has also opened the door to another possibility - especially that of existential intelligence
- but the court is out on that one.
Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences - some issues and problems
There are various criticisms of, and problems around, Howard Gardner's conceptualization of
multiple intelligences. Indeed, Gardner himself has listed some of the main issues and his
responses (1993: xxiii-xxvii; 1999: 79-114). Here, I want to focus on three key questions that
have been raised in debates. (There are plenty of other questions around - but these would seem
to be the most persistent):
Are the criteria Howard Gardner employs adequate? John White (1997) has argued that
there are significant issues around the criteria that Howard Gardner employs. There are
questions around the individual criteria, for example, do all intelligences involve symbol
systems; how the criteria to be applied; and why these particular criteria are relevant. In respect
of the last, and fundamental question, White states that he has not been able to find any answer
in Gardner's writings (ibid.: 19). Indeed, Howard Gardner himself has admitted that there is an
element of subjective judgement involved.
Does Howard Gardner's conceptualization of intelligence hold together? For those
researchers and scholars who have traditionally viewed intelligence as, effectively, what is
measured by intelligence tests - Howard Gardner's work will always be problematic. They can
still point to a substantial tradition of research that demonstrates correlation between different
abilities and argue for the existence of a general intelligence factor. Howard Gardner (1993:
xxiv) disputes much of the evidence and argues that it is not possible, as yet, to know how far
intelligences actually correlate. More recent developments in thinking around intelligence such
as Robert Sternberg's (1985, 1996) advancement of a 'triarchic model' have shared Gardner's
dislike of such standard intelligence theory. However, in contrast to Howard Gardner, Robert
Sternberg does not look strongly at the particular material that the person is processing. Instead
he looks to what he calls the componential, experiential and contextual facets of intelligence. A
further set of criticisms centre around the specific intelligences that Howard Gardner identified.
For example, it can be argued that musical intelligence and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence are
better approached as talents (they do not normally need to adapt to life demands).
Is there sufficient empirical evidence to support Howard Gardner's
conceptualization? A common criticism made of Howard Gardner's work is that his theories
derive rather more strongly from his own intuitions and reasoning than from a comprehensive
and full grounding in empirical research. For the moment there is not a properly workedthrough set of tests to identify and measure the different intelligences.
I once thought it possible to create a set of tests of each intelligence - an intelligence-fair version
to be sure - and then simply to determine the correlation between the scores on the several tests.
I now believe that this can only be accomplished if someone developed several measures for
each intelligence and then made sure that people were comfortable in dealing with the materials
and methods used to measure each intelligence. (Gardner 1999: 98)
Howard Gardner himself has not pursued this approach because of a more general worry with
such testing - that it leads to labelling and stigmatization. It can be argued that research around
the functioning of the brain generally continues to support the notion of multiple intelligence
(although not necessarily the specifics of Howard Gardner's theory).
There are further questions around the notion of selfhood that Howard Gardner employs something that he himself has come to recognize. In the early 1990s he began to look to the
notion of distributed cognition as providing a better way of approaching the area than focusing
on what goes on in the mind of a single individual (Hatch and Gardner 1993) (see the discussion
of social/situational orientations to learning).
Conclusion
While there may be some significant questions and issues around Howard Gardner's notion of
multiple intelligences, it still has had utility in education. It has helped a significant number of
educators to question their work and to encourage them to look beyond the narrow confines of
the dominant discourses of skilling, curriculum, and testing. For example, Mindy Kornhaber
and her colleagues at the Project SUMIT (Schools Using Multiple Intelligences Theory) have
examined the performance of a number of schools and concluded that there have been
significant gains in respect of SATs scores, parental participation, and discipline (with the
schools themselves attributing this to MI theory). To the extent that Howard Gardner's multiple
intelligences theory has helped educators to reflect on their practice, and given them a basis to
broaden their focus and to attend to what might assist people to live their lives well, then it has
to be judged a useful addition.
Project SUMIT (2000) uses the metaphor of Compass Points -'routes that educators using the
theory have taken and which appear to benefit students'. They have identified the following
markers that characterize schools with some success in implementing practices that attend to
multiple intelligences theory.
Culture: support for diverse learners and hard work. Acting on a value system which
maintains that diverse students can learn and succeed, that learning is exciting, and that hard
work by teachers is necessary.
Readiness: awareness-building for implementing MI. Building staff awareness of MI
and of the different ways that students learn.
Tool: MI is a means to foster high quality work. Using MI as a tool to promote high quality
student work rather than using the theory as an end in and of itself.
Collaboration: informal and formal exchanges. Sharing ideas and constructive suggestions by
the staff in formal and informal exchanges.
Choice: meaningful curriculum and assessment options. Embedding curriculum and
assessment in activities that are valued both by students and the wider culture.
Arts. Employing the arts to develop children's skills and understanding within and across
disciplines.
Informal educators can usefully look at this listing in respect of their projects and agencies. The
multiple intelligences themselves also provide a good focus for reflection. Arguably, informal
educators have traditionally been concerned with the domains of the interpersonal and the
intrapersonal, with a sprinkling of the intelligences that Howard Gardner identifies with the
arts. Looking to naturalist linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences could help enhance
their practice.