Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
20 Years
BRANTON SHEARER
Multiple Intelligences Research and Consulting, Kent State University
Very few theories in the history of education have had the impact of
multiple intelligences (MI) first articulated in 1983 by Howard Gardner in
his seminal book Frames of Mind. Like any powerful idea that has received
worldwide acclaim it also has its critics and skeptics. This is how it should be.
No new idea regardless of how compelling it may be should be received
whole cloth. The history of educational innovations is littered with halfbaked ideas that have withered in the heat of the classroom and soon faded
from the halls of academia. Some good ideas live on in spite of initial
resistance, while others are composted to feed the next generation of
theorists.
MI theory stands on the shoulders of theorists such as J. P. Guilford and
L. L. Thurstone and is also part of a recent crop of theorists (R. Sternberg,
D. Goleman, among many others) who reject the unitary concept of
intelligence. As MI theory comes of age at the turn of a new millennium, it is
a good time to assess its status as a full-fledged member of society growing
into the 21st century. The unitary concept of general intelligence ( g)
embodied in the IQ score has been with us for nearly 100 years as a
recognized theoretical and scientific verity. The continued presence of MI
theory in the minds of educators around the world demands a fundamental
reconsideration of the essential truth of the IQ concept. As MI theory turns
20 years old there are still many questions regarding its future. Does
accepting MI theory mean that we must abandon IQ or can it be
incorporated into our evolving understanding of the human mind/brain?
Will the academic community and cognitive psychologists recognize and
accept MIs scientific validity? Will educators support its further development and creative applications? Will the use of MI language continue to
work its way into the zeitgeist of daily life as IQ has done with such alacrity?
Critics of MI theory pose two important challenges to its viability. First, is
MI a valid representation of the human mind/brain? Second, how effective
is MI as a basis for improving educational outcomes, learning, and personal
achievement? Over the years, I have enjoyed a lively debate and dialogue
with many MI skeptics. Unfortunately, too often I have been dismayed to
Teachers College Record Volume 106, Number 1, January 2004, pp. 216
Copyright r by Teachers College, Columbia University
0161-4681
hear well-educated critics completely dismiss MI theory for a variety of illinformed reasons: Its fluff psychology, Its not real science, Theres
no empirical evidence, Its not compatible with general intelligence, Its
not testable, It dumbs down the curriculum, Its merely a literary
theory, Its too simplistic (or, conversely. Its too complex, or Gardner
keeps changing it, so it must not be valid).
When these critics are questioned about their knowledge of MI, I am too
often astonished to learn that many of them have either: read very little of
Gardners writing; have a distorted understanding of the theory itself;
or have no knowledge of the growing body of MI-related research.
Organizational research tells us that corporate CEOs often exercise poor
judgment for two main reasons: 1) failure to evaluate assumptions in light
of disconfirmatory information and 2) ignorance of the actual facts on the
ground. If our schools are to be led wisely into the new millennium they
need to be organized according to the most up-to-date and valid facts
about human intelligence. If academia is to educate future teachers and
school administrators effectively then theories assumed to be truth for 100
years need to be reconsidered in light of disconfirming perspectives and
evidence.
There are a few facts about MI theory that need to be clarified before a
reasonable debate regarding its merits can be conducted. It is fundamentally important to recognize that MI is a new kind of construct based on a
unique definition of intelligence. Gardner (1993a) defines intelligence as a
biopsychological potential to process information in certain ways, in order
to solve problems or fashion products that are valued in a culture or
community.
There are three points to this deceptively simple yet profoundly different
definition that are worth noting:
1. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems. This is the core feature
involved in IQ testsFproblem solving and logical reasoning to determine the one right answer.
2. Intelligence, however, is not limited to the capacity for rapid, logical
problem-solving and convergent thinking. Intelligence includes the
abilities to create products and to provide valuable services. This
expands our understanding of intelligence to include divergent thinking
and interpersonal expertise. While Gardner differentiates between the
terms intelligence and creativity, it is my reading of MI theory that in
everyday life people can display intelligent originality in any of the eight
intelligences. Original thinking outside the conventional, academic
realms can be easily overlooked, disparaged, and neglected in school, at
home, and in the workplace.
Musical intelligence includes sensitivity to pitch, rhythm, and timbre and the
emotional aspects of sound as pertaining to the functional areas of musical
appreciation, singing, and playing an instrument. A composer requires significant skill in many aspects of this intelligenceFespecially involving creative
musical thinking. Other musical careers (e.g., instrumentalist, vocalist) may
require more circumscribed abilities that emphasize technical skill rather
than creative output.
KINESTHETIC INTELLIGENCE
The kinesthetic intelligence highlights the ability to use ones body in differentiated ways for both expressive (e.g., dance, acting) and goal-directed
activities (e.g., athletics, working with ones hands). Well-developed kinesthetic
ability for innovative movement is required for success in professions such
as choreography, acting, and directing movies or plays. Precision, control,
and agility are the hallmarks of athletes such as karate masters, professional
soccer players, and gymnasts.
SPATIAL INTELLIGENCE
Spatial intelligence includes the ability to perceive the visual world accurately and to perform transformations and modifications based on ones
own initial perceptions via mental imagery. Functional aspects of spatial
intelligence include artistic design, map reading, and working with objects.
Visual artists and interior designers exemplify creative spatial thinking, and
a successful architect will need both the creative abilities as well as technical
accomplishment. An automobile mechanic or engineer, on the other hand,
does not need creative and artistic abilities to find the solution to a malfunctioning engine.
NATURALIST INTELLIGENCE
Musical
Spatial
Logical-mathematical
Linguistic
Intra and Interpersonal
Naturalist
Existential
Cerebral Systems
Cerebral motor strip
Thalamus
Basal ganglia
Cerebellum
Right anterior temporal
Frontal lobes
Right hemisphere, parietal
Posterior
Occipital lobe
Left parietal lobes and adjacent temporal
and occipital association areas
Left hemisphere for verbal naming
Right hemisphere for spatial organization
Frontal system for planning and goal setting
Left hemisphere, temporal and frontal lobes
Frontal lobes as integrating station between internal
and external states/people
Left parietal lobe (discriminating living from
nonliving things)
Hypothesized as specific regions in the
right temporal lobe
10
high school grades. The Key school integrates the MI perspective into its
organization and functioning along with several other compatible applications of education theories. Their thoughtful approach to school design is
summarized in an appendix to this article that shows each theory used by
the school. Although Pat and her colleagues intended to contribute an
article describing their effort to this section of Teachers College Record, Pats
untimely death following AERA precluded their doing so. I include the list
of applications used at the Key School in Pats honor and to demonstrate
that MI does not have to stand alone in a school but rather can provide a
foundation for other vital elements of a learning organization. For more
information on the Key Learning Community please visit the Indianapolis
Public Schools Web site (www.ips.k12.in.us).
Rene Diaz-Lefebvre informs us that the importance of MI-inspired
teaching isnt limited to the elementary or secondary schools. He shares the
story of how MI transformed teaching at Glendale Community College
after starting in one professors classroom as a pilot project. His practical
application of project-based teaching and authentic assessment clearly
demonstrates how many post-secondary students benefit from instruction
beyond the chalk-and-talk approach.
Silja Kallenbach provides evidence that MI can also help nontraditional
adult learners to develop literacy skills and academic knowledge. She
describes two categories of practiceFMI-inspired instruction and MI
reflectionsFthat were found to be effective in building adult literacy. A
unique finding of this study was that many adult learners hold negative selfimages and are at first quite resistant to using nonacademic learning
strategies. After experiencing success with MI-inspired activities and MI
reflections these adult learners (came) to see themselves as learners in a
more positive light and this profound change in self-concept contributed
to their academic success.
Over the years, educational reforms and innovative ideas have often
faced short-lived success due to superficial acceptance and limited support
by both practitioners and the authorities. Mindy Kornhaber provides a
summary of the outcomes reported by over 40 diverse schools that have
implemented MI approaches for 3 or more years. Her in-depth investigations clearly describe both the conditions required for success as well as the
roadblocks.
Gail Hickey provides a look inside several classrooms as teachers create
MI-inspired instructional units. She listens in as teachers create long-term
learning units as opposed to brief instructional lessons. The response to this
work by middle school students is an interesting mix of positive and
negative. Her findings echo other research results where successful MI
implementation requires several important ingredients: administrative
support, student choice in planning, and patience and persistence in
11
12
13
work places emphasis on the career-related aspects of both the intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences.
Toni Noble describes similar work in Australia that strives to enhance
teacher efficacy with an assessment matrix that combines MI with Blooms
taxonomy. This model provides teachers with powerful insights into students
so that instruction may be individualized and the curriculum differentiated.
Howard Gardner concludes our collection of papers with his reflections
and responses to the various topics and a look to the future challenges for
multiple intelligences theory.
We invite your participation in this discussion by posting your responses,
views, and comments on the Multiple Intelligences SIG Website at
www.aera.net/sigs/sigsites.htm.
I am delighted to offer this selection of papers to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the
publication of Frames of Mind by Howard Gardner. It is my hope that this special issue will
serve as an invitation for ongoing dialogue, thoughtful research and lively debate regarding the
mysteries of human intelligence. I would like to thank the members of the Multiple Intelligences
Special Interest Group (MI-SIG) of the American Educational Research Association for their
support and assistance as this MI symposium was being envisioned and assembled. I am
grateful to the authors for their permission to present their work here. Special thanks to Victoria
Schirduan for her insightful counsel and diligence during the selection of these papers. Many
people have contributed to this effort, but the final responsibility for the end product rests solely
with myself.
APPENDIX
Key Learning CommunityFTheory to Reality
14
! Mentor program
! Opportunities for service
! Exit-level performance criteriaFhigh school
! Multimedia portfolios
Developmental Continuum: David H. Feldman
! Universal
! Cultural
! Discipline-based
1. Novice
2. Apprentice
3. Journeyman
4. Craftsman
5. Expert
6. Master
! Idiosyncratic
! Unique
Authentic Assessment
! Projects
! Video portfolios of projects
! Developmental performance descriptors
! Quality exemplars
! Assessment in each area of intelligence
Learning Organization: Peter Senge
! Personal mastery
! Mental model
! Shared vision
! Team learning
! Systems thinking
15
16
Continuous Improvement
! Critical friends collaborative peers
! Professional development
! Teacher portfolios
! Academic achievement plan P.L. #221
! North central accreditation
References
Gardner, H. (1993a). Frames of mind (rev. ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993b). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books.
Goleman, D. (1985). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill.
Jones, J. (2003, April). Multicultural investigations into the factorial validity of the Multiple
Intelligences Developmental Assessment Scales (MIDAS). Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association annual conference, Chicago.
Shearer, B. (1994). The MIDAS: A Professional Manual. Kent, OH: MI Research and Consulting.
Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Handbook of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis: A development and expansion of the vectors of the
mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.