The Scaling of MI Theory

BY SHINRI FURUZAWA

When Howard Gardner first published Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences in 1983, he could not have predicted the reach and influence this work would have. MI theory has undoubtedly changed the way many people think of human intelligence; and its impact, particularly on the world of education, has been striking. 

 MI theory is based on evidence in support of the following propositions:

• Individuals can have many kinds of intelligences (one could call these talents, abilities, or skills) which may be useful to society.

• A single measure, such as an IQ test or SAT exam, is inadequate for determining an individual’s capabilities and potential.

The main implications for education:

• Any subject can be approached in many ways to access and take advantage of different intelligences (pluralization).

• Teaching can be tailored to a student’s intelligences (individuation).

The impact MI theory has had is different from other education research endeavors from Harvard Project Zero, the research organization at Harvard Graduate School of Education with which Gardner has been associated for almost 6o years. MI theory was not accompanied by educational frameworks and tools as with most Project Zero endeavors. In addition, there are no “Gardner-approved” tests, textbooks, or curricula based on the theory. The closest Gardner has come to developing such tools was the creation of Project Spectrum materials for children aged 3-7.

One measure of success for education research and practice is how specific ideas and approaches are brought to scale. In the article, The Multiple Meanings of Scale: Implications for Researchers and Practitioners, the authors Morel et al. explore a typology of scale: adoption, replication, adaptation, and reinvention. Through these conceptualizations, I propose to explore the scaling of MI theory. 

Adoption

Multiple Intelligences International School, Quezon City, Philippines

Adoption as a concept of scale defined by Morel et al. is when new ideas that may contradict the consensus opinion result in changing assumptions and practices. Even when adoption is superficial, there may be a “network effect” which can be cumulative and lead to wider spread adoption. 

There are thousands of educational institutions worldwide that have been influenced by MI theory. More impressive, there have also been numerous schools around the world founded on its principles. Prominent among them are the Indianapolis Key Learning Community under Pat Bolanos, and New City School in St Louis, Missouri, under Tom Hoerr. Just a few examples of MI schools outside the US include: Multiple Intelligences International School (Quezon City, Philippines), Golden Bells MI School (Delhi, India), Howard Gardner School (Cesar, Colombia), and Multiple Intelligence School (Fiji).

Policymakers around the world have promoted progressive approaches to education based on MI theory to varying degrees in England, Scotland, China, Korea, and Norway. The book, Multiple Intelligences Around the World, edited by Jie-Qi Chen, Seana Moran, and Howard Gardner includes chapters on how MI ideas have been adopted at schools, communities, and countries across the globe. The book coalesced in 2006 after Branton Shearer organized a symposium on global perspectives on MI with the American Educational Research Association. Several of the participants were asked to write about their experiences for the book.

In recent years, due to the leadership of Professor Rex Li, Hong Kong has become a center for MI educational practice and research. Li has published Research MI Magazine since 2021 and founded the Multiple Intelligences School Network. Li has also organized three International MI Education Forums, most recently in 2023, bringing together MI researchers and practitioners from around the world.

Importance of Context

Why has MI theory been adopted in some countries but not others? Gardner has analyzed the conditions required for adoption in terms of the metaphor of “fertile soil.” In some cases, the soil may be “unfertile”—as, for example when institutions are pursuing goals hostile to progressive education (e.g., focusing only on test scores). In other cases, the soil may be initially “resistant” to MI, but come eventually to absorb the ideas. And sometimes the soil may be fertile with interest in progressive ideas, but the system already in place is perceived to be working well.

The education landscape tends to be most fertile when policymakers are actively seeking new pedagogies. This may be due to reasons such as:

• Recognition that the education system has too narrow a focus e.g. on STEM at the expense of arts and humanities, or that it is not catering to certain students e.g. those who are gifted, or exhibit learning differences.

• Desire for more democratic values as a reaction to a repressive political context e.g. as in Argentina or Romania.

Replication

In terms of replication as a concept of scale, an education innovation is considered to have scaled when it is widespread and implemented faithfully with predicted results.

Frames of Mind in Romanian

Gardner’s words and ideas have certainly been replicated around the world, though whether those ideas have been implemented faithfully with expected results would be impossible to measure. Gardner’s books on MI theory have been translated into multiple languages, including: Arabic, Chinese, Czech, French, German, Georgian, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, and Vietnamese. He has been invited to visit many of these countries and is also in regular contact with educators from across the globe. However, Gardner is not and cannot be responsible for the appropriateness or the success of the implementations.

Books on MI theory and its application by other authors, such as Thomas Armstrong, Tom Hoerr, David Lazear, Mindy Kornhaber, and Linda and Bruce Campbell, have led to what Gardner has lightly dubbed an “MI industry.” There are also many books on MI written in other languages, especially Chinese. Hundreds—perhaps thousands—of doctoral theses and scholarly articles have also been written about MI theory.

Adaptation

Another conceptualization of scale is when an innovation is adapted or modified to meet local needs. As noted, Gardner has never prescribed a curriculum or test. He had no wish to micro-manage; rather he hoped to encourage people to implement MI theory in ways that made sense to them. As he explains,

“There is wisdom in not trying to control what people do with one’s ideas.” 

In the absence of an official MI test, many have developed their own measurement instruments, the best known of which is Branton Shearer’s MIDAS test. Some kind of assessment instrument is often sought by educators and policymakers. Gardner is not opposed to such measurements and often mentions them to educators. He advises the use of triangulation to make use of different sources of data e.g. teacher assessment, self-assessment, and parental input.

More generally, Gardner believes performance measures that involve demonstrating an intelligence (rather than written tests) are the most reliable, e.g. observing how individuals handle conflict to assess interpersonal intelligence, or how they learn routes in a new environment to assess spatial intelligence. Self-assessment by itself is not as reliable; people are not necessarily insightful about themselves and may confuse likes and preferences with their actual strengths.

In the absence of an official MI curriculum, many companies and institutions have developed their own. From a simple internet search, examples include Tutor Time, Positive Action, The Complete Daily Curriculum for Early Childhood, and many others. None are endorsed by Gardner—indeed Gardner never endorses any commercial project as a matter of principle.

Of course, many teachers incorporate the two educational principles of MI theory, individuation and pluralization, into daily practice without use of a particular curriculum. Some examples of the ways in which teachers have used MI theory to meet their student needs can be found here, here, and here. 

Reinvention

Reinvention is a concept of scale which denotes an innovation that transforms into other new ideas or innovation. When it comes to MI theory, perhaps the best example of this is Daniel Goleman’s idea of emotional intelligence. His book, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, was published in 1995, twelve years after Frames of Mind and is based on some of the same principles and findings as MI theory. A bestseller in multiple countries, Goleman’s book helped popularize the idea that there is more than one intelligence. “Emotional intelligence” can be described loosely as a combination of Gardner’s interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences with the addition of a value component. Goleman would claim that it’s necessarily good to have emotional intelligence, while Gardner would respond that any intelligence can be used constructively or destructively. Goleman’s later ecological intelligence can be linked to Gardner’s naturalist intelligence. Many people have suggested other intelligences over the years, such as digital intelligence, business intelligence, or humor intelligence. However, Gardner’s intelligences are based on strict criteria for what constitutes an intelligence. As detailed in Frames of Mind, an intelligence must have:

1. identifiable core operation(s);

2. evolutionary history and plausibility;

3. recognizable end-state and distinctive developmental trajectory;

4. existence of savants, prodigies and other individuals distinguished by the presence or absence of specific abilities;

5. potential isolation by brain damage;

6. support from experimental psychological tasks;

7. support from psychometric findings;

8. susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system.

Most suggested new intelligences would not meet these criteria.

Lethal Mutation

One potential issue mentioned by Morel et al. in their conceptualizations of scale is lethal mutation. In this case, an innovation is adopted but misapplied or misunderstood, often in such a way that it runs counter to the ideas behind the initial innovation. As Gardner writes in A Synthesizing Mind,

“Once you launch a meme in the wider world, particularly one that can be easily summarized if not synthesized, you simply cannot control its trajectories.” 

One example of this is dermatoglyphics, the erroneous (indeed ludicrous) idea that an individual’s fingerprints reveal their intelligences. Another example is the education program in Australia that used MI theory to classify ethnic groups according to which intelligences they may or may not have. Gardner appeared on television in Australia to publicly repudiate this idea.

Other misrepresentations of MI theory have recently been described in this blog post by Annie Stachura. Some examples include confusing MI with learning styles, including an intelligence that is not part of Gardner’s theory, thinking that intelligences are linked to stages of development, and thinking that all individuals excel in at least one intelligence.

Conclusion

While scaling can be an indicator of success, it is essential to look beyond expansion metrics. Success in education requires a balance between reaching more learners and ensuring that the quality of educational experiences are maintained or enhanced. In addition to the importance of pluralization and individuation, MI theory acknowledges intelligences that are not conventionally academic, such as interpersonal; this acknowledgement has in turn led to a greater emphasis on developing skills such as collaboration and critical thinking and has provided a strong foundation for inclusive education practices. By recognizing that students have different intelligences, educators are better equipped to support learners with different strengths and weaknesses. This inclusivity helps to ensure that all students have the opportunity to succeed in their own ways and on their own terms. 

The impact of MI theory is so widespread that many people accept its principles without knowing the name Howard Gardner or without having heard of the phrase “multiple intelligences.” And Gardner is happy with that outcome. He once explained the enormous impact of MI theory with typical modesty as, “an idea whose time had come.” 

I would like to thank Howard Gardner, Ellen Winner, and Annie Stachura for their valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this blog post.

References

Chen, J.-Q., Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (2009). Multiple intelligences around the world (1st ed.).

Jossey-Bass.

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2020). A Synthesizing Mind: A memoir from the creator of multiple intelligences

theory. The MIT Press.

Gardner, H., Feldman, D. H., Krechevsky, M., Chen, J.-Q., & Harvard Project Zero. (1998).

 Project Zero Frameworks for Early Childhood Education. Teachers College Press.

Morel, R. P., Coburn, C., Catterson, A. K., & Higgs, J. (2019). The Multiple Meanings of Scale:

Implications for Researchers and Practitioners. Educational Researcher, 48(6), 369–377.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19860531

Banner Photo by Koen Emmers on Unsplash

Multiple Intelligences—A Pre-historical Perspective: Thoughts Inspired by the Writings of David Geary

Howard Gardner © 2024

When I developed the theory of multiple intelligences over forty years ago, I garnered “data” from several disciplines: psychology, neuroscience, genetics, anthropology, and—though it was not emphasized—my own observations and reflections as a presumably educated person in modern society. The assertion that Homo sapiens could be described as a species that has a number of relatively distinct—I dubbed them “semi-autonomous”—capacities caught attention. I would now comment that the theory was accepted too uncritically by many educators, while it was rejected out of hand by too many psychologists (as well as some scholars from neighboring disciplines), who neither bothered to read what I had claimed nor to engage the “data” that I had culled.

The “theory of multiple intelligences” was clearly—if not self-consciously—a work of synthesis. I continue to be fascinated by the human capacity to synthesize large amounts of information and to present the resulting collation or amalgam in a comprehensible format. (See my blog dedicated to the topic).

That said, I did not consider two possibly informative perspectives. On one hand, while I wrote about informal, so-called “bush schools”—prevalent in earlier epochs—I focused primarily on education as it is practiced in modern times. Indeed, most of my successive writings about “MI” have assumed and addressed modern schools located primarily in what’s been termed the “global north.” On the other hand, while certainly aware of biological and cultural evolution, I was writing about human beings in the last few millennia—I did not consider the evolution of Homo sapiens, nor earlier instantiations of the hominin branch.

David Geary

Though familiar with his significant research on the development of mathematical knowledge and skills in young people, I did not know about a notable interest of psychologist David Geary. In a 2005 book of 450 pages, Geary surveyed The Origin of Mind: Evolution of Brain, Cognition, and General Intelligence. And then, in a shorter Cambridge Elements book (2024), Geary probed The Evolved Mind and Modern Education: Status of Evolutionary Educational Psychology.

In no way can I summarize the argument, findings, and claims of these two estimable writings, which are well worth study for those with the time and the interest. Here, I focus on how Geary’s work—and the hundreds of publications on which he draws—has affected my own thinking about “MI theory.”

If one were to have observed our hominin predecessors say, ten thousand years ago, one would presumably have observed manifestations of all of my stipulated intelligences. These hominins spoke and understood (linguistic); they could estimate numbers and exchange quantities (mathematical); they could indicate when an utterance made sense and when it was nonsensical or contradictory—including, presumably, jokes (logical); they could sing, appreciate music, and play on simple instruments (musical); they could walk, run, dance, climb, and play rough-and-tumble games (bodily-kinesthetic); they could distinguish species from one another (naturalist); they could figure out when other hominins liked them, disliked them, were trying to fool or trap them (interpersonal); and, at least to an extent, they knew what had happened to themselves (as opposed to other conspecifics including their own family members, how they felt about such events, and what they aspired to (intrapersonal).

For me, Geary’s work opens up a new vista: What does it take for members of our species to navigate in our modern schools, with their curricula and their mode of operations—a world where one is expected to read, to write, to carry out arithmetical and geometric computation, to sing from a score or produce a simple notation, to identify the logical flaws in an argument, to recognize, name, and classify a wide variety of plants and animals—as well as vehicles and commercial items—to be aware of the wide variety of human temperaments and motivations, deal with individuals who display unexpected combinations of these traits, and finally, to reflect on one’s own aspirations, defenses, gains and losses in the past, and one’s own future life course—especially apart from religious precepts and dictates which might deny one’s own individuality and/or that of other members of our species.

To pose these questions is to lay out an entirely different perspective on multiple intelligences. Instead of being solely synchronic (What do human intelligences look like in a modern schooled world?), we adopt a lens that is diachronic (How did our species evolve from the set of abilities and expectations of the parched regions of Africa, tens of thousands of years ago, to those needed in the two hundred or so countries today, most of them heavily reliant on formal education—at least for the first decade of life—and increasingly, continuing to a later age and to a higher degree?)

A number of possibilities emerge:

l. The human brain-and-body have been largely unchanged. Over time, groups of humans invented more complex operations, and our ancestors were gradually able to master them;

2. The brain-body has evolved, or selected for, certain traits that enabled the invention and implementation of notational systems and scholarly disciplines—and branches unable to handle them (e.g. Neanderthals) disappeared;

Aristotle

3. Certain exceedingly rare individuals (e.g. Aristotle, Newton) with atypical genes, or combinations of genes—and/or with rare talents and combinations of talents—took the lead in inventing notations and disciplines. Once invented, these new symbols—and  systems of symbols—gradually took hold even with less exceptional persons;

Plato

4. More formal ways of transmitting knowledge were created either gradually or by the rare genius (e.g. Confucius, Moses, Plato). These, in turn, led to the creation of institutions where those forms of knowing could be efficiently transmitted, mastered to some extent by most students—and built upon by the most able students.

No doubt, the actual story is far more complex than suggested here, or than can even be imagined. By his impressive syntheses, David Geary has opened up a whole world of study and inquiry which will hopefully lead both to new insights and to more effective and species-appropriate educational systems…ones that we will need as the Anthropocene continues to unfold.

For very helpful comments. I thank David Geary and Ellen Winner.

REFERENCES

Black, A., & Tylianakis, J. M. (2024). Teach Indigenous knowledge alongside science. Science (New York, N.Y.), 383(6683), 592–594. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi9606

Geary, D. C. (2005). The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10871-000

Geary, D. (2024). The evolved mind and modern education: Status of evolutionary educational psychology. Cambridge University Press.

The "Science" of Human Intelligence: A Skeptical View

Howard Gardner © 2024

Popping up on my desktop screen is a 2023 book, The Science of Human Intelligence (Second Edition). Given my decades-long interest in the topic, I decide to look at the book. Fortunately, since the purchase price is over $100, the Harvard Library has a copy and I am able to borrow it.

Having my share of vanity, I look for my name in the index. There is only one entry—pp. 18-19. After a brief paragraph, my ideas are dismissed as having “no objective scientific evidence.” There is no citation of my several books on the topic, including the perennial bestseller Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

Robert J. Sternberg

I say to myself, somewhat defensively, “I am not really a psychologist and don’t present myself that way. How about Robert J. Sternberg, another critic of the standard view of intelligence? He is a “real psychologist”—Bob was president of the American Psychological Association—does he get more air time?” Alas, no more lines in the book, though there is a reference to one short article by Sternberg in the journal Intelligence called “Teaching about the Nature of Intelligence.”

Interestingly, in the same short introductory chapter, more space is devoted to the late Stephen Jay Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man—indeed, to two editions of the book (1981, 1996). But going beyond sheer dismissal, the authors pick a fight: “Gould had many facts just plain wrong and worse, when confronted with detailed technical reflections of his key points…Gould declined to correct his mistakes or modify his opinions.” Alas, Steve Gould, who was a friend, died in 2022 and so, cannot defend himself.

Well, enough defensiveness. What do I make of this textbook of over 400 pages?

Alfred Binet

One of the great advances in psychology was the creation, well over a century ago by the French psychologist Alfred Binet, of a short test—one that could be given to young French students to indicate how they would likely fare in a school of that era. The IQ test, as it soon came to be called, accomplished this task reasonably well. And as all readers of these words know, the IQ test—and its relatives, like the SAT or the GRE or the Raven’s Progressive Matrices—have been used thereafter to classify individual test-takers in terms of their intellectual strength.

The text that I leafed through is an up-to-date report on what we know about the IQ test in its various forms—different models of intelligence, various approaches to administering and interpreting the tests, major cognitive factors contributing to intelligence, possible brain and genetic bases thereof. And, presumably of most interest to most readers: 1) the kind of life-success that can be predicted and 2) putative differences among populations (e.g. racial, ethnic, socio-economic groups), as reflected by their tested (psychometric) intelligence. So long as you are interested in this topic and these questions, this text will give reasonable up-to-date information on these issues.

So far, so good.

The line is drawn with the word “scientific.” By accident, or by intent, the authors of the text rule out-of-bounds any effort to write about intellect that does not follow their rules of carrying out science, or indeed any form of scholarship, on the topic of intellect.

And here is where I draw my line.

When I began to study human cognition a half-century ago, I had no intention to critique standardized tests—indeed, unlike Bob Sternberg, I did well on them. But I did not think that the only way to study the human mind was by creating short-answer tests and then documenting their correlations to various school and life outcomes. Instead, in what I now term a work of synthesis rather than of science, I drew on various kinds of information and forms of knowledge, ranging from neurology and genetics to anthropology and history, and tried to ascertain the spectrum of cognitive capacities that characterize our species.

Some of these “multiple intelligences” lend themselves to short-answer tests—linguistic, logical-mathematical, and spatial—and so, not surprisingly, those are the ones included in most tests of intelligence. Others, which I felt were equally important for a productive life in our world, are far more difficult to ascertain through paper-and-pencil instruments. These constitute the remaining intelligences—specifically musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, and perhaps 1-2 others.

Borrowing from the Bard, I was not trying to bury standard IQ intelligences, I was trying to praise the remaining ones. And as a bonus, rather than testing in order to classify and rank-order people (and alas, that’s the thrust of the text that I reviewed), I preferred to nurture the range of intelligences. I wanted to document what life opportunities might open up—in schools, where the bulk of my work has been, but also in the wider world—acknowledging that there is more to life than a certain kind of test and a certain kind of educational institution.

Now, of course, with increasingly intelligent large language instruments—notably ChatGPT—when it comes to assessment, placement, and life opportunities, almost all bets are off.

One last point.

If you are interested in what’s known about the factors involved in standard intelligence testing and the variables that correlate with the range of IQs, this text will answer your questions reliably. But if you want to know the sub-text of this text, let me quote for you two passages which receive headline attention therein:

Robert Plomin

Robert Plomin: “The most far-reaching implications for science, and perhaps for society, will come from identifying genes responsible for the heritability of g (general intelligence).”

Douglas Detterman: “Intelligence is the most important thing of all to understand, more important that the origins of the universe, more important than climate change, more important than cancer, more than anything else.”

Douglas Detterman

Forty years ago, I wrote about intelligences, but ever since, my colleagues and I have been studying what it means to be a good person and to do “good work” (see thegoodproject.org and the many books, articles, and technical reports listed there).

The world is not going to be saved by smarter people—if it is to be saved, it will be saved by persons who are trying to use their wits for the sake of others.

REFERENCES

Haier, R. J., Colom, R., & Hunt, E. (2023). The Science of Human Intelligence (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Singapore Education Scholar Founds MI Pre-School

A recent profile in Central News Asia (link here) brought our attention to a remarkable early childhood education scholar, Dr. Khoo Kim Choo, who started the Preschool for Multiple Intelligences (PMI), which is comprised of three centers in Singapore. After a long career spent working in early childhood education, often in leadership positions, Dr. Khoo opened the first branch of PMI at the age of 60. She was inspired by Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences and felt it could be a strong foundation for quality preschool education.

Dr. Khoo watches as two students explore an activity at a PMI center (Photo from CNA)

In the interview with CNA, Dr. Khoo said, “the starting point should be that every child is intelligent.” She structures these schools around students discovering and developing their different intelligences, and building their confidence along the way. At these PMI centers, children are encouraged to explore their interests, and instructors are trained to motivate them to pursue different specializations – nature, music, drama, etc.

Now 77-years-old, Dr. Khoo stays actively engaged at PMI and offers support to her staff whenever needed. We found her work incredibly impressive and are glad to learn that Gardner’s theory is being used in yet another early childhood education setting. Around the world, there are many schools inspired by MI theory – examples can be found in Colombia, the Philippines, India, as well as the United States. We are encouraged to see the theory applied in a way that promotes student learning and provides the opportunity to explore and strengthen different intelligences from a young age.

MI and Capoiera

How MI theory can enhance the teaching of martial arts

We recently heard from Venceslau Augusto de Oliveira, who is a social worker and teacher of capoeira to at-risk youth in Brazil. Capoeira is a form of Brazilian martial art combined with dance and music. It originated in around the 16th century when West African slaves were brought to Brazil by Portuguese colonialists. Forbidden from practicing martial arts, they were able to continue their cultural practices in the guise of dance. Capoeira thus became a form of dance and self-defense, but also a way of preserving cultural identity.

Drawing upon these traditions, Oliveira sees capoeira as a means of empowerment and transformation. He encourages his students to explore and develop their intelligences using capoeira in the following ways.

Linguistic intelligence: Children practice self-expression using song lyrics and stories, expanding their vocabularies and improving their communication skills.

Spatial intelligence: Capoeira involves learning to be aware of one’s own body space and how physical positions are affected by movement.

Musical intelligence: Children learn instruments and songs, understanding rhythm and developing musical expression. 

Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence: Capoeira teaches complex physical movements involving acrobatics, strength, and balance. 

Intrapersonal Intelligence: Children are encouraged to explore their own emotions and become self-aware which leads to greater self-knowledge and confidence. As they overcome challenges and improve their ability, they come to recognize their own strengths.

Interpersonal Intelligence: As capoeira is a group activity, children must know how to be part of a team, cooperating with others, valuing diversity, and learning mutual respect.

Existential Intelligence: Teaching children about the history and traditions of capoeira stimulates questions about their own identity and culture. Oliveira encourages children to reflect on their values and role in society, asking themselves the big questions of life. 

Naturalist Intelligence: When capoeira is practiced outdoors, children learn to appreciate and be aware of the environment around them. 

Logical-mathematical intelligence: Oliveira argues that children also use logical-mathematical intelligence to analyze movements, calculate distances, and work together to coordinate their actions. However, these skills require more spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and interpersonal intelligence than logical-mathematical.

Through awareness of MI theory, Oliveira demonstrates how one subject: capoeira, can provide opportunities to develop multiple skills.  

Oliveira teaches in deprived areas, such as Belo Horizonte, where children face the challenges of social inequality and violence in their communities, with limited access to education. He believes that helping children develop their multiple intelligences through capoeira will lead to empowerment. As he says,

“ children can discover their potential, develop social and emotional skills, strengthen their cultural identity and build a better future for themselves and for society as a whole”

We wish Oliveira the best in his endeavors and applaud his efforts to nurture multiple intelligences in his students through the art of capoiera.

Photos provided by Venceslau Augusto de Oliveira