Multiple Intelligences Theory After

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

Multiple Intelligences Theory After 20 Years

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.

Teachers College Record

3. Intelligence isnt something that only happens in your head, but it

also includes the materials and the values of the situation where and how
the thinking occurs. The availability of appropriate materials and the
values of any particular context or culture will thus have a significant
impact on the degree to which specific abilities will be activated,
developed, or discouraged. This is sometimes referred to as situated or
distributed intelligence or contextual thinking.
For these reasons, MI cannot be directly compared with g because this
would be like comparing a whole tree (MI) to one of its branches ( g). To
understand the multiple intelligences we need think beyond the eight
names of the intelligences and go deeper into the specific aspects of each
intelligence and also wider to understand how they function in a culture.
Within each intelligence there are clusters of skill sets (e.g., for linguistic;
reading, writing, and speaking) that form domains (prose, poetry, rhetoric)
that get expressed and recognized in cultural fields (contemporary poetry,
novel writing, presidential debates, etc.). When speaking of a persons
intelligence, then, it is not enough to merely make general statements that a
person is high or low in, say, the linguistic intelligence. It is necessary to
describe how well developed he or she is in specific skills or domains (Her
persuasive speaking skills are exemplary in word choice and expression,
but her writing requires improvement in sentence structure and logical
organization).

RESEARCH TO DATE IDENTIFIES EIGHT INTELLIGENCES

Howard Gardner uses eight criteria (see Jie-Qi Chen, this issue) to determine which sets of human capacities should and should not be identified
as a distinct form of intelligence. The eight intelligences that currently
meet these criteria to be included in MI theory are linguistic, logicalmathematical, visual-spatial, kinesthetic, musical, naturalist, interpersonal,
and intrapersonal. Each intelligence is thought to have its own semiautonomous memory system with cerebral structures dedicated to processing its
specific contents (Gardner, 1993a).
LINGUISTIC AND LOGICAL-MATHEMATICAL INTELLIGENCES

Linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences are most often associated

with academic accomplishment. The core features of linguistic intelligence
include the ability to use words effectively for reading, writing, and
speaking. Linguistic skill is important for providing explanations, descriptions, and expressiveness. Gardner describes the poet as the epitome of
linguistic ability. Other career fields requiring skill in this area include

Multiple Intelligences Theory After 20 Years

teaching, journalism, and psychology. Convergent aspects of linguistic

intelligence assessed by standard intelligence tests include vocabulary and
reading comprehension. Activities requiring divergent thinking include
story telling, persuasive speech, and creative writing.
Logical-mathematical intelligence involves skill in calculations as well as
logical reasoning and problem solving. People strong in this intelligence are
usually the ones who are described as being smart (e.g., mathematicians,
philosophers, logicians). Logical-mathematical intelligence is required for
multistep, complex problem solving and mental math. Most IQ tests assess a
persons ability to reason and problem solve quickly, but do not examine
divergent and reflective aspects of logical-mathematical intelligence, such as
the identification of novel problems or the generation of new and worthy
questions.
MUSICAL INTELLIGENCE

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,

Teachers College Record

does not need creative and artistic abilities to find the solution to a malfunctioning engine.
NATURALIST INTELLIGENCE

A person strong in the naturalist intelligence displays empathy, recognition,

and understanding for living and natural things (e.g., plants, animals,
geology). Careers requiring strong naturalist skills include farmer, scientist,
and animal behaviorist. Skilled scientists use pattern recognition to identify
an individuals species classification, create taxonomies, and understand
ecological systems. Empathic understanding is a related ability that allows
people to care for and manage the behavior of living entities.
PERSONAL INTELLIGENCES

Unique contributions of the MI model to educational theory are the

personal intelligences. The intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences are
presented as separate yet related functions of the human brain (especially
the frontal lobes). They are described as two sides of related capacities,
where intrapersonal emphasizes self-knowledge and interpersonal involves
understanding other people.
Vital functions of intrapersonal intelligence include accurate self-appraisal,
goal setting, self-monitoring/correction, and emotional self-management.
Results of research have highlighted the importance of metacognition for
learning in the basic academic skills of reading and mathematics.
Intrapersonal intelligence is not the same as self-esteem, but it may be a
strong factor in promoting self-confidence and effective stress management.
Well-developed intrapersonal intelligence may well be essential to an individuals sense of satisfaction and success. A core function of this intelligence is
guiding a persons life-course decisions. Careers that require skills in
intrapersonal self-management include pilots, police officers, writers, and
teachers.
Interpersonal intelligence also plays a vital function in a persons sense of
well-being. It promotes success in managing relationships with other
people. Its two central skills, the ability to notice and make distinctions
among other individuals and the ability to recognize the emotions, moods,
perspectives, and motivations of people, are known to be critical factors in
successful employment. The ability to manage groups of people is required
for managerial or leadership positions. Good teachers, counselors, and
psychologists need to be adept at understanding a specific individual and
then managing that relationship.
Gardner has considered adding existential intelligence to the list but has
not because it does not yet meet the criteria sufficiently. He has clearly

Multiple Intelligences Theory After 20 Years

distinguished this capacity from spiritual awareness and defines it as

follows:
The capacity to locate oneself with respect to the furthest reaches of
the cosmosFthe infinite and the infinitesimalFand the related
capacity to locate oneself with respect to such existential features of
the human condition as the significance of life, the meaning of death,
the ultimate fate of the physical and psychological worlds, and such
profound experiences as love of another person or total immersion in
a work of art. (1999, p. 60)
MI THEORY DOES NOT DENY THE EXISTENCE OF G OR
GENERAL INTELLIGENCE
Howard Gardner describes the relationship between MI and g in his book,
Multiple Intelligences: Theory and Practice:
I do not deny that g exists; instead, I question its explanatory importance outside the relatively narrow environment of formal schooling.
For example, evidence for g is provided almost entirely by tests of
linguistic or logical intelligence. Since these tests measure skills that
are valuable in the performance of school-related tasks, they provide
reliable prediction of success or failure in school. So, for that matter,
do last years grades. The tests are not nearly as reliable in predicting
success outside of school tasks. (Gardner, 1993a, p. 39)
EACH INTELLIGENCE IS ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIFIC
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
In response the question, Does brain research continue to support your
theory? Howard Gardner responded in this way in 1999:
The accumulating neurological evidence is amazingly supportive of
the general thrust of MI theory. Research supports the particular
intelligences that I have described and provides elegant evidence of
the fine structure of such capacities as linguistic, mathematical, and
musical processing. At the same time, this research calls into some
question an effort to localize each intelligence at a specific point in the
brain. It makes more sense now to speak of several brain areas
involved in any complex intellectual activity, and to highlight the
extent to which different individuals may carry out a certain function
using different portions of their respective brains.

Teachers College Record

Table 1. Cerebral systems associated with each of the multiple intelligences

Intelligence
Kinesthetic

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

From Gardner (1993a, 1999).

It is sometimes argued that MI theory is questionable because the

brain is a very flexible organ subject to the events of early experience.
This remark is not pertinent, since neural plasticity is independent
of the issue of different intelligences. MI theory demands that
linguistic processing, for example, occur via a different set of neural
mechanisms than does spatial processing. The fact that the processing
may occur in somewhat different regions of the brain for different
people, because of their early experiences, is interesting but irrelevant
to the identification of intelligences per se. (p. 99)
The question also arises how closely linked are the intelligences to cerebral structures. While there are specific neural structures that are closely
and undeniably linked to the core components of each intelligence, it is
better to think of the brain as having sets of cerebral systems that are primarily responsible for processing the specific contents associated with each
intelligence. It is a task for future researchers to describe these links in
greater detail and to provide a general neurological framework for better
interpreting neuroscientific data and understanding the multiple intelligences.

Multiple Intelligences Theory After 20 Years

The brief list in Table 1, first cited by Gardner in 1983, provides an

incomplete framework to guide investigations that will extend and test our
understanding of the relationship between MI and the functions of various
cerebral systems.
AN MI SYMPOSIUM
The articles gathered in this collection address questions regarding the
status of MI theory and its educational efficacy, and they provide a basis to
further the dialogue and discussion. Most of these works were presented as
part of the symposium titled 20 Years of Multiple Intelligences: Its Impact
on Quality Education and Future Directions at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association (AERA) in 2003. This symposium was organized by the MI-SIG (Special Interest Group) of AERA as part
of its mission to provide a forum for the dissemination and discussion of
MI-related research. We invite you to join us in this informed discussion.
The symposium begins with papers that discuss MI theory from several
perspectives. In the first article Jie-Qi Chen explains how the unique MI
construct poses a challenge to the assumptions of traditional scientific
methodology. Her paper makes explicit several critical distinctions between
the basis of MI and conventional cognitive psychology. These differences
are key to resolving the MI versus IQ conflict. Michael Posner then
discusses current neuroscience evidence, individual assessment, and the
multiple intelligences. His knowledge of recent neuroscientific research and
insights into the importance of assessing individual differences are especially relevant to MI theory.
MI theory has its origins in Howard Gardners investigations in the
1980s into the problem of art education. In this symposium, Elliot Eisner
describes his understanding of the important role that MI plays in the
continuing struggle of school reform and arts education. He describes the
great challenge that education in the arts (and MI theory) face in a society
that rewards technological/scientific efforts over artistic pursuits and
sensibility.
Several successful MI-inspired schools are profiled here. Thomas Hoerr,
principal of New City School in St. Louis, describes the journey that he and
his school have taken to maximize student motivation and achievement.
This private elementary school promotes learning by placing special
emphasis on the development of the personal intelligences. Teacher
involvement and ownership of this unique curricular approach play an
important part in the successful implementation of MI.
Patricia Balanos, principal of the Key Learning Community in
Indianapolis, Indiana, described at the MI symposium her schools long
history of implementing MI approaches in the elementary, middle, and

10

Teachers College Record

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

Multiple Intelligences Theory After 20 Years

11

working through initial resistance to MI activities by both students and

colleagues.
One promise of MI theory in the schools is that the unique intellectual
profiles of all students will be recognized, supported, and developed.
Victoria Schirduan and Karen Cases article describes how schools can
better understand and adapt to the MI characteristics of students typically
diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This paper
helps us to understand how MI can be used to get beyond a psychiatric label
for better educational planning that can focus on building strengths rather
than merely managing deficits. Their research found that many ADHD
students have intellectual strengths in areas that are not usually valued in
the classroomFspatial and naturalist. The obvious challenge then is to
figure out how to enlist these MI strengths to build academic limitations, to
manage problematic behaviors, and to maximize the development of each
students unique MI gifts.
Teachers often mistakenly think of MI as being synonymous with
learning styles in spite of Howard Gardners words to the contrary
(Gardner, 1999). Learning styles theories have been with us since the
1950s, and many versions are available to help teachers to describe the
unique learning preferences of students. Learning style theories usually
refer to personality characteristics or preferences in the process of learning,
while MI emphasizes the skill of creating a product, providing a service, or
problem solving. Steven Denig proposes that the 21 characteristics of the
Dunn and Dunn learning styles model can be mapped onto each of the
multiple intelligences as a comprehensive way to understand a learners
strengths, limitations, and preferences.
The adoption of an MI perspective can have a profound effect on
teaching, curriculum design, and school organization. Larry Cuban describes some of the reasons for the broad yet limited impact of MI on teaching
and the culture of the contemporary school. His lucid account illuminates
key areas for organizational development of the school institution if MI is to
continue to move from the Ivory Tower of theory into the dusty classroom
of daily practice.
This question often arises: If we are to have MI-inspired schools, then
how can we educate and develop MI-inspired teachers? Jane Shore gives us
a fascinating glimpse into the thinking of teacher educators as they design
an MI-inspired curriculum for preservice teachers. This work reveals the
importance of choice in the learner-centered curriculum and the need for
teachers to be self-reflective practitioners as they themselves learn in
nontraditional ways.
It is axiomatic that good teachers make good schools and MI schools
rarely have the luxury of hiring a faculty that is already adept at MI
teaching. So what can they do to assist practicing teachers to incorporate

12

Teachers College Record

MI-inspired approaches into their classrooms? To create and maintain an

MI-inspired school requires ongoing and meaningful professional development of the faculty. New teachers need to be brought on board from the
start and the skills of all teachers (and administrators) need to be continually
expanded so that they can deal with real problems in ways that are
theoretically consistent. Teachers daily wrestle with a broad range of
problems in the classroom, and I believe they need powerful tools if they
are to realize their own power as MI-inspired teachers.
Many educators, psychologists, and administrators are resistant to
adopting MI because they question both its validity and its efficacy. In
short, they question its power to describe real intelligence as well as its
power to enhance teaching. My own journey with MI began in 1986 when I
launched a long-term project to address both of these questions though the
creation of a valid and reliable MI assessment (Shearer, 1994). This work
has recently culminated in a multinational, multicultural study reported at
the AERA MI symposium ( Jones, 2003) that examined the factor structure
and construct validity of the eight intelligences in over 10 different cultures
around the world.
Teaching is probably more of an art than it is a science, and it has been a
privilege for me to listen to the insights of many teachers into how a process
approach to MI assessment can benefit their students as well as their own
personal and professional development. My article in this symposium
summarizes the psychometric basis of this MI assessment and some of the
benefits reported by teachers.
Another frequently asked question is, does MI instruction actually
enhance learning and promote greater achievement by students? This
question is dealt with directly by Marjorie Haley in her investigation of the
impact of MI teaching on second language learners. While her results are
preliminary and incomplete, they are nonetheless provocative and in my
mind spark several important follow-up questions, such as what kind of
teacher training is necessary for quality MI-inspired teaching? What type of
assessment is best used to understand students MI profiles beyond superficial labeling? How can students enthusiasm for learning be translated into
higher accomplishment? Do students need to be taught MI study strategies
to enhance achievement?
If MI has construct validity internationally then it should also
demonstrate educational efficacy in other countries. The results of MI
research and pilot projects from eight countries were reported at the AERA
symposium. In this collection, Wu-tein Wu describes an ambitious multisite
project in Taiwan to promote better career planning through the use of a
unique assessment system. Professor Wus approach uses a common-sense
model that integrates MI with Robert Sternbergs triarchic theory of
intelligence to better describe a young persons intellectual profile. This

Multiple Intelligences Theory After 20 Years

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

Multiple Intelligences: Howard Gardner

! Linguistic
! Musical
! Logical/Mathematical
! Spatial
! Bodily/Kinesthetic
! Interpersonal
! Intrapersonal
Curriculum and Instruction
! Flexible scheduling
! Integrated curriculum

14

Teachers College Record

! Teamwork and collaboration

! Authentic pedagogy
! Culminating activity
Intrinsic Motivation: M. Csikszentmahalyi
! Clear goals
! Challenges relatively matched with skill level
! Immediate feedback
! Concentration without fear of being interrupted
! No external time constraints
Collaborative Environment
! Multiage, multiability groups
! Projects developed in high interest area
! Choices offered for pod class
! Flow activity room
! Opportunities for students and staff to focus on strengths
Human Commonalities: Ernest Boyer
! Shared life cycle
! Shared use of symbols
! Shared membership in groups and institutions
! Shared sense of producing and consuming
! Shared relationship with nature
! Shared sense of time and space
! Shared values and beliefs
! Share sense of the aesthetics
Theme-based Integrated Curriculum ( James McDonald) Organizing Center
! Human commonalities:
! School compact
! Weekly program related to theme

Multiple Intelligences Theory After 20 Years

! 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

Teachers College Record

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.