1

 

2

 

WIKI Authors: Gabriela L. Pesantes, Amal Bukhari, C. Danielle Goldsby

---

 

Definition

 

Howard Gardner proposed the Multiple Intelligence Theory (MIT) through his book, Frames of Mind, in 1983.  This theory emerged as a conclusion to his question about whether intelligence is a single unit or various intellectual faculties. Gardner started thinking about the different possible dimensions of intelligence when he worked with stroke victims as part of Harvard’s Project Zero. He came to the conclusion that our minds are more separate than whole.  This means that the separate machines in our mind are working together to achieve tasks rather than working as one single, solid brain. 

 

3  

 

Gardner suggests through his MIT that human intelligence has to do with an individual’s “capacity for (1) solving problems and (2) fashioning products in a context-rich and naturalistic setting” (Armstrong, 1994, p.2).  Gardner (1983) states, “A moment’s reflection reveals that…individuals [are] attaining a high level of competence in a challenging field and should ... be viewed as exhibiting intelligent behavior … Only if we expand and reformulate our view of what counts as human intellect will we be able to devise more appropriate ways of assessing it and more effective ways of educating it” (p. 4).  He proposes that our definition of intelligence should not be limited to one type but instead, it should expand to encompass different types of competencies, abilities, and capabilities as intelligences.   Gardner identified the seven different ways to demonstrate intellectual ability. He groups these intelligences into “seven comprehensive categories”: “Linguistic Intelligence, Logical-Mathematical Intelligence, Spatial Intelligence, Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence, Musical Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, and Intrapersonal Intelligence” (Armstrong, 1994, p.2-3).

 

   

4 (Please click on the number "4" to be redirected to a link which will provide this picture in a larger format so that the text is easier to explore.)

 

Gardner emphasizes that individuals are not limited to one type of intelligence.  They possess all the different types to some degree.  They might be more developed in a specific area but they “can [also] develop each intelligence to an adequate level of competency” (Armstrong, 1994, p.11).  The different intelligences can be used together in order to work towards a specific goal.  Armstrong (1994) uses the great example of cooking a meal.  In order to cook the meal, different intelligences must be used such as the linguistic intelligence to read the directions in the recipe, the mathematical-logical intelligence to calculate the right ingredient amounts, the interpersonal intelligence in order to gage other individuals’ interest in the meal, and intrapersonal intelligence to understand that the particular recipe satiates their own appetite (p. 12).  

 

Snowman & McCown (2012) clarify some common misconceptions with regards to MIT:

1. Misconception: A person who has a strength in a particular intelligence will excel on all tasks within that domain. This is not true. For example, a person with a high linguistic intelligence may be able to write good quality essays but be unable to produce a good poem.
2. Misconception: Ability is destiny. This is not true. Intelligences change over time and career decisions are not always related to high levels of one particular intelligence.
3. Misconception: Every child should be taught every subject in eight different ways to develop all of the intelligences. This is not necessary and there isn’t enough time in the day to do it. In fact it may be counterproductive.

 

---

What does MI "look like" in the F2F classroom?

 

The Multiple Intelligences theory is not limited to F2F classroom settings.  WIKI authors, Gabriela L. Pesantes and Amal Bukhari, have extensively researched and discussed this theory in the DL classroom setting and compared this setting to the traditional F2F environment.  This information can be be found in the MIT Based Language Classroom in F2F and DL Settings page.

 

Arnold and Fonseca (2004) perfectly articulate MIT in the classroom when they state, “It enables teachers to organize a variety of contexts that offer learners a variety of ways to engage meaning and strengthen memory pathways” (p. 120).  The key with MIT in the classroom is to incorporate a dynamic classroom setting through lesson plans and the physical set up of the room so that different types of intelligences are represented and accommodated.  A classroom community which incorporates MIT will be one which includes activities varying in nature.  Gardner (1983) states, “In the normal course of events, the intelligences actually interact with, and build upon, one another from the beginning of life” (p. 278).  Therefore, the classroom environment should be one which encompasses opportunities for all of the different intelligences to be exhibited, built upon, etc. 

 

The following image is adopted from Gabriela Pesantes' work in Classroom Management ESE 5433, and it serves as a great example for a possible physical classroom which was purposefully set up to specifically accommodate Multiple Intelligences.  It has been successfully implemented for three years in a foreign language, F2F, high school classroom.     

 

 

Andriotis (2010) challenges teachers, both in the face to face and distance learning settings, to use diverse vehicles to accommodate different modalities (p. 128).  Andriotis (2010) points out how humor, technology, and the application of the MIT can be used in several different types of disciplines.  For every type of the eight intelligences, she offers suggested activities that can be created to enrich the learning of all learners' intellects. 

 

The list below was adopted from Andriotis' article and the book, Techniques & Principles in Language Teaching, co-written by Diane Larsen-Freeman and Marti Anderson:

1. For the verbal/linguistic: desktop, web-based publishing, e-mail, journals, portfolios, debates
   
2. For the logical/mathematical: use of search engines to analyze data, run queries, or various online platforms to solve problems, puzzles and games, sequential presentations
   
3. For the visual/spatial: technological tools-PowerPoint presentations, charting, graphing, digital animation, online platforms and editors, drawings or paintings
   
4. For the bodily/kinesthetic: technology and web-based applications-videoconferencing, diagramming, virtual group simulations-using Elluminate or Skype, hands-on activities, field trips, pantomime
   
5. For the musical/rhythmic: adding sound to PowerPoint, using digital media to video and audio projects, playing music, singing
   
6. For the intrapersonal: Blackboard, WebCT-reflecting and answering guided questions in discussion groups, self-evaluation, journal keeping
7. For the interpersonal: collaborative discussion and projects-F2F or DL, (via synchronous (chat-rooms- Elluminate or Skype), and asynchronous (e-mail, discussion boards) venues)
   
8. For the naturalistic: organized databases and semantic mapping-where information can be organized and analyzed, nature exploration and collection of environmental artifacts
   
9. An added as a ninth intelligence, Andriotis suggest, for the existentialist: all virtual learning communities that surpass the classroom setting, offering opportunity to explore "the big picture", virtual field trips that help experience the surrrounding beauty of nature and the world
   

 

Quoting Gardner, Andriotis (2010) explains that the MI answer the question "How am I smart?" not "How smart am I?".  Curriculum must be transformed to provide a more authentic learning environment, nurturing and strengthening students' intelligences.  As an English Composition DL and F2F professor who taught writing, Andriotis had to change her perspectives and methods; from teaching "technique" and boring mechanics and usage of language in isolation, known as grammar, she realized that a richer, content-based, deeper "integrated body of language", which Diane Larsen-Freeman refers to as "grammarizing,"  resulted in culturally-infused, illuminating, insightful, and individually-intellectual pieces of students' writing. 

 

The following video features the Enota Multiple Intelligences Academy in Gainesville, Georgia offering a great example of the MIT applied in an F2F classroom setting; it compliments Andriotis' work by building a curriculum based on the question she quoted from Gardner, "How am I smart?"

 

 

---

Why do teachers need to know about MI?

 

MIT largely impacts teachers because it requires them to set up their classrooms and to adjust their lesson plans so that their students’ different intelligences are both addressed and developed.  Teachers are dealing daily with different students who have different  identities and “learning profiles” which need to be acknowledged and  recognized (Arnold and Fonseca, 2004, p. 120).  Arnold and Fonseca (2004) claim that teachers must provide a “variety of ways to deal with the subject” or content area because students have these different  “learning profiles” (p. 120). These varied tasks need to “use [the students’] areas of strength (i.e. the intelligence) to master the material,” and in return, this leads to a “genuine understanding” of the material (p. 121).

 

These varied tasks, which  appeal to particular intelligences and lead to genuine understanding, serve as motivational stimuli encouraging the student to repeat the action.  Repetition paired with internal motivation activates the students’ memory pathways which lead to internalized, “sustained deep learning” (Arnold & Fonseca, 2004, p.130).  Varied tasks enable the teacher to motivate students to learn by meeting their specific needs. Also, these varied activities help to expose students to new intelligences which they might not have been pre-disposed.  Arnold and Fonseca (2004) claim that “their (i.e the different types of intelligences) creation is mainly driven by experiences” (p.122).  It is important for the teacher to provide these varied experiences in the classroom.  Additionally, teachers can use cooperative learning strategies in their daily lessons.  This will enable the students to learn the different intelligences from and through one another.  This will make the students the experts which in turn will further motivate the students.

 

On a final note, Annstrong, Kennedy, and Coggins (2002) claim that MI skills can be, “related to the culture nurturing that domain” (p.11).  It is important for teachers to acknowledge all the different types of intelligences so that students’ identities are completely recognized in the classroom.  Teachers who do this are in a sense showing sensitivity to the students’ home cultures where these “intelligences” are valued.  By ignoring a particular intelligence by not offering the varied activities, teachers could be ignoring a part of the students’ home cultures and thus partially losing the students' interest and internal motivation to participate in the class.

 

A note from one of the page's authors: As a Foreign Language (FL) high school and English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) adult teacher, this is how Gabriela Pesantes implements MI in the F2F classroom:

• Physical environment of my class-F2F setting would honor all intellects

• Write lesson plans that encompass all MI's and thereby, learning styles, best instructional practices, & methods; i.e.., cooperative learning groups, learning circles, Socratic Seminars, and jigsaw puzzle activities

• Plan a minimum of 4 activities in lessons where students could demonstrate their learning by using their "smarts" in dynamic ways, i.e., by creating, performing/acting, designing, writing, managing/directing, or organizing. 

• Provide different technologies in lesson delivery

• Through assignments, provide different software and methods where students could demonstrate content mastery; i.e., PPT, websites, videos, skits, poems, brochures, pamphlets, and a variety of individual and/or cooperative-type activities

• Display exemplary student work

• Connect learning to real-life issues, making connections among cultures and other languages
  

• Set up a website for parents or create a newsletter to inform them of what and how their children is doing in class

• Establish relationship with parents - to get to know my students' personalities at home.  This insight can be of great help in assessing behavior, skills, and modes of learning

 

An Important Consideration

 

Whether in a F2F or a DL environment, an MI assessment may offer teachers and professors a good baseline on who the students are and allow them to modify their teaching methods to fit the intellects of their students.  Whether online or in the traditional setting, Andriotis encourages her students to find their strengths, by taking a Multiple Intelligence assessment,  at the beginning of the course.  The assessment offered through the Literacy Works website http://literacyworks.org/mi/intro/index.... is one of the best.  (Andriotis, p. 131).                                                                            

 

---

Why do parents need to know about MI?

 

Although educating children is a collaborative effort, it does begin at home.  Parents are children’s first educators.  In his 2011 State of the Union speech on Education, President Obama emphasized the importance of parent involvement in children's education.  Children's experiences in the first developmental years while in their family environments begin to form their perceptions and characters.   Once they reach school age and enter society, they are individuals with young defined personalities, unique intellect, and very individual learning styles.

 

Why not have parents assess their children's intellects, perhaps through the MI assessment, and evaluate how they learn, what they like or don't like, and what would be the best learning environment that fits their types of intellects.  Providing this information to schools, administrators, guidance counselors, and teachers, can be an asset in really getting to know students and assessing "How am I smart?" as stated by Gardner and quoted by Andriotis.

 

The Family Education and CaseCanda sites below, provide templates of test questions that could help parents find which is the best learning style for their kids.  The questions are based on Gardner's Multiple Intelligence theory; they can help parents determine which statements apply to their children, thereby determining which intellect/s they use to learn.

 

 http://www.casacanada.com/howcan.html

http://school.familyeducation.com/multiple-intelligences/learning-styles/childs-special-gifts/66373.html?detoured=1

---

How does MI concern students?

 

When teachers apply Multiple Intelligences to the classroom, it causes the classroom dynamics to shift from a teacher centered classroom to a student centered classroom.  Multiple Intelligences Theory illuminates the fact that students have different identities or "greatly different learning profiles" (Arnold and Fonseca, 2004, p.120).  As teachers, we are striving to prepare our students to be autonomous thinkers, and a way to train students how to think on their own is to make them aware of how they learn best.  This can be accomplished by helping students to self-assess which intelligences they are most inclined to use to solve a problem.  Reid (1999) comments that this learning styles awareness leads to, "higher interest and motivation in the learning process, increased student responsibility for their own learning, and greater classroom community.  These are affective changes, and the changes have resulted in more effective learning" (p. 300).

 

A Personal Note from one of the authors: In her years of teaching in a high school under restructuring, Gabriela Pesantes administered a Personality, Getting to Know You, or some other form of an MI assessment.  Analyzing the data offered in these assessments, was extremely involved, BUT it proved to be an invaluable tool for her in designing rich MI theory-based language activities!

---

Great MI Resources at Your Fingertips:

 

• Concept to Classroom-A Series of Workshops

• http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/index.html

   

• Family Education.com

• http://www.familyeducation.com/quiz/0,1399,3-2740,00.html

• On this site, parents test their child's intelligence. Results are informative and concise.

 

• Gabriela Pesantes' curriculum Platform

• http://www.wix.com/gabylorena31/curriculum-platform

 

 

• Gabriela Pesantes' pamphlet incorporating MIT

• Gaby's Pamphlet-Study Group Synthesis.doc

 

• M.I. Smart! Program

• http://www.chariho.k12.ri.us/curriculum/MISmart/mi_smart.htm

• Linked to the Sands of the World site, this site illustrates all nine of the intelligences.

 

• MITA (Multiple Intelligence Teaching Approach)

• http://www.houghton.edu/personnel/eweber/ellen.html

• This site presents Ellen Weber's MITA for school reform for high school as well as higher education, including a lesson bank and assessment tasks.

 

• Multiple Intelligences

• http://www.chariho.k12.ri.us/curriculum/MISmart/MImapDef.HTM

• A helpful graphic on Jane Carlson-Pickering's M.I. Smart! Program Web site that clarifies all of the multiple intelligences.

 

• Multiple Intelligence: 

•   http://www.casacanada.com/howcan.html

 

• Parental Involvement & Engagement in public Schools/Project Appleseed in Education

• http://www.projectappleseed.org/

 

• Teaching to the Seven Multiple Intelligences and Lesson Plans

• http://www.mitest.com/

• Educators will likely be eager to assess their own learning preferences. Interactive quizzes for adults and students give both groups an opportunity to discover which of the intelligences they use the most.

 

 

---

Further reading about MI (Parenthetical citations)

 

 

Reference List

 

Andriotis, K. (2010). The Use of Multiple Intelligence, humor, and technology in the college composition classroom: A Practical approach. Social Applications for Lifelong Learning

     (pp. 127-135). Patras: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, Lifelong Learning Programme.

 

Annstrong, T.A., Kennedy, T.J., & Coggins, P. (2002). Summarizing concepts about teacher education, learning and neuroscience. Northwest Passage: NWATE Journal of Education Practices, 2(1),      9-13.

 

Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences: Seven ways to approach curriculum. Retrieved from www.thomasarmstrong.com/articles/7_ways.php. (Oct18,2011).

 

Arnold, J., & Fonseca, M.C. (2004). Multiple intelligence theory and foreign language learning: A brain–based perspective, International Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 119-136.

 

Beck, R. H. (2009). The three r's plus: What today's schools are trying to do and why. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.  

 

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: BasicBooks.

 

Gilam, Lynn (2001). The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Retrieved from: http://www.homeeddirectory.com/blog/multiple-intelligences-visualspatial-learner. (Nov. 4, 2011).

 

Howard, R., & McGrath, I. (1995). Distance Education for Language Teachers : A UK Perspective. Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

 

Kang, H. & Gyorke, A. (2008): Rethinking distance learning activities: a comparison of transactional distance theory and activity theory. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 23(3),      203-214.

 

Lazear, D. G. (1991). Seven ways of teaching: The artistry of teaching with multiple intelligences. Palatine, IL: Skylight Pub.

 

Pesantes, G. L. (Producer). (2011). My curriculum platform. [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.wix.com/create/my-account.

 

Reid, J. (1999).  Affect in the classroom: problems, politics, and pragmatics.  In J. Amold (Ed.) Affect in language learning (pp.297-306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Schiro, M. S. (2008). Curriculum theory: conflicting visions and enduring concepts. Boston, MA: Sage Publications.

 

Smith, G. (2002). The web versus the classroom: Instructor experiences in discussion-based and mathematics-based disciplines. Journal of Educational Computing  Research, 29(1), 29-59.

 

Wartowski, (2011). President Barack Obama on Education: from the State of the Union 2011 [Web].  Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7Y40KHd2Rg&NR=1