Multiple Intelligences and the Process of Teaching and Learning

Introduction by Howard Gardner

When I first proposed the theory of multiple intelligences nearly forty years ago, I viewed it as a contribution to cognitive psychology—a differentiated view of how the human mind is organized. While the book, Frames of Mind, included some educational thoughts, I was surprised that the book was picked up by educators of many stripes; at the same time, the major claims in the book have been critiqued over the years by psychologists—particularly psychometricians.

Since I myself had not proposed specific educational implications and applications of the theory, it was left to educators “in the trenches” to ferret out their own implications and applications. And so they did. Educators recommended schools devoted to MI, students categorized according to their strong intelligences, teachers teaching to the various intelligences, curricula organized by intelligences, and so on. I was content—indeed pleased—by these various and varying recommendations. Often I tried to lend a helping hand (see Chapter 8-9 of my recently-published memoir, A Synthesizing Mind). Only when I felt that the theory was being severely misinterpreted or misapplied did I speak out.

I’ve been conservative in adding further intelligences, though I have speculated that there may well be a “pedagogical intelligence”—the human capacity (one not shared with other species) to adjust a “lesson” in terms of the knowledge base and goals of the learner(s).

In the accompanying blog, long-time teacher, Barrie Bennett, puts forth his own thoughts about how teachers should make use of key ideas from “MI theory.”  As he sees it, the skilled teacher makes use of a variety of organizational frameworks and schemas, and “MI theory” constitutes a valuable addition to that toolkit. One advantage of a tool is that it can be used in various ways, depending on the content and the context. That perspective is quite congruent with my own perspective—and indeed with that of my fellow researcher, Mindy Kornhaber—see, for example, her co-authord book (click here for link).

Guest post by Barrie Bennett

I want to position Howard Gardner’s work on Multiple Intelligences (MI) as one key piece of science in the art of teaching and learning.

MI is not a strategy, it is a belief system related to how we think, how we solve problems and create products of worth. A teacher does not go into a classroom and “do ‘logical mathematical’” or “spatial.”  The purpose of MI, from my experience, is to increase teacher conceptual flexibility to continue to realize the need to extend their instructional repertoire. 

As part of my positioning of MI, I also argue that “teaching effectively” should be considered as an additional intelligence…an intelligence that equally respects all intelligences. I will position this “chat” into the multiple ways of being intelligent according to Gardner’s work into the delightfully complex process of teaching and learning. 

To start, I provide an argument for teaching being an additional intelligence. First, I’ll switch the idea of intelligence into the idea of “teaching expertise;” expert teachers understand the interactive/integrative nature of instructional methods and how to select those methods from an extensive repertoire of methods that most effectively meet the existing demands of the classroom (a diverse group of students with diverse ways of approaching learning). More effective teachers also develop an ever-increasing number of “lenses” that guide their thinking related to what methods to select and how to integrate them to maximize student learning. Multiple Intelligences is one of those many lenses that guide teacher thinking and action. 

In education, the skills might be framing questions, using wait time, responding to an incorrect response, suspending judgment, discussing the object and purpose of the lesson. Tactics might be Think Pair Share, Venn diagrams, Place Mat, Examining Both Sides of an Argument (EBS), Ranking Ladder, and Time Lines. Strategies might be Group Investigation, Mind Maps, Concept Maps, and Academic Controversy. Strategies are more complex, have steps or phases, and are usually developed from theories of learning. For example, Concept Attainment is based on information processing theory and Jigsaw on social theory and Mind Mapping on memory work from brain research.

So where do Multiple Intelligences fit? I classify instruction into three categories: skills, tactics, and strategies…all are concepts we can enact. Two more categories “sandwich” those three categories. The first is “instructional concepts.” Those are concepts we cannot actually directly “do” or “enact.” Examples are “safety,” “success,” “interest,” “accountability,” “and meaningful,” etc. You would not say, “Oh, look how that teacher safeties.” 

The other side of the “sandwich” are the “instructional organizers.” This category refers to those bodies of research or inquiry that provide the wisdom to make the wisest decisions about what skills, tactics, and strategies to select to maximize learning. Research on autism, the human brain, language acquisition, dyslexia, students at risk, gifted students, taxonomies of thinking, and Multiple Intelligences are all examples. 

In summary, the key piece to remember from my experience is that teachers do not “directly do” Multiple Intelligences any more than they would “directly do” brain research. Organizers are not strategies, they are guides to wisdom for action. Collectively, for me, the interface or interconnections between instructional concepts, skills, tactics, strategies, and organizers is key to teaching as an intelligence. Of course, developing that expertise in those areas requires high-quality, sustained, professional, learning opportunities over time and not one-day workshops or one-week workshops with no follow-up support (think professional learning communities/peer coaching).

Researchers looking to determine an effect size or impact of organizers such as MI on student learning are unwittingly naïve. One would not research the effect of hammers on cutting wood; hammers are not designed to cut wood. Why research the effect or impact of something when it was not designed to do what you incorrectly thought it was intended to do? If you understand research, that naivety represents a problem with validity. Validity refers to determining the extent to which something measures what it was intended to measure. If you want to measure something, measure what your students are learning—not the organizing concept of MI theory.

Barrie Bennett is in his 48th year of teaching and focuses on continuing to explore the delightful complexity of teaching and learning for students of all ages. He is a K-12 teacher and professor emeritus of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto.

Photo by Element5 Digitalon Unsplash

Chess and Multiple Intelligences

Interest in the game of chess has surged in the US recently with chess sets flying off the shelves thanks to the popularity of the Netflix series, The Queen’s Gambit. In a recent newsletter from the Multiple Intelligences Network, Dr. Thomas Hoerr reflects on chess, multiple intelligences, and education. An excerpt from his article is reproduced below.

Way back in the 1970s when I was teaching fifth grade, I was a chess aficionado. (That’s a fancy way of saying that I liked to play chess but wasn’t very good.) I taught chess to my students and we often played over lunch or at recess. More than being a fun game and an opportunity for many students to find success, I also felt that playing chess was a great way to teach kids to anticipate the consequences of their actions. The student who couldn’t understand why punching someone in the arm might cause a problem could see why moving a rook to this square might be a bad decision. And, hopefully, sometimes the logic used for rooks transferred to what to do and not do while standing in line.

Later, when I was leading New City School, we held various board-game tournaments to show kids that you didn’t need batteries to have fun, and chess was prominent among them (along with checkers, Boggle, and Othello). Each grade’s tournament produced winners and they all played an adult in a school-wide tournament. I simultaneously played the chess grade-level winners in the library. Once we began to have a chess club, I was pleased to win half of my games. This picture features the students who beat me eating their ice cream to celebrate their victory. (Notice the size of their group!)

Howard Gardner has said that skill in playing chess draws from both the logical-mathematical and spatial intelligences, and the latter was prominent in the recent Netflix series, “The Queen’s Gambit” as Beth Harmon envisioned chess moves on the ceiling. The series has given chess a boost of momentum and this issue of Intelligence Connection features some thoughts on chess. Dr. Google says, “Chess.com, the most-visited global website for online chess play, expects 10 years’ worth of site growth to occur within the next few months. It has gained more than 700,000 members over the past three weeks, according to figures provided to Sporting News, and last weekend elevated to 9.1 million games played per day.”

I regularly read Kristi’s Corner, a weekly column written by Kristi Arbetter, an instructional coach in the Hazelwood, MO school district. No matter how busy or tired I am, it always gives me joy and causes me to think. I thought you might enjoy her October 16 contribution, stemming from chess: https://www.smore.com/6kgw8

This article, “Story of Queen’s Gambit Raises Questions for Educators,” by Geoff Johnson, looks at Beth Harmon’s giftedness and questions whether we should be doing more for students with extreme talents.

https://www.timescolonist.com/geoff-johnson-story-of-queen-s-gambit-raises-questions-for-educators-1.24239656

Finally, continuing on the theme of exceptionally gifted children, I reprint a column by Ellen Winner, “A Rage To Learn” (which was also in the November 2018 issue of Intelligence Connections), now from Howard Gardner’s website: https://howardgardner.com/2018/12/10/a-rage-to-master-a-blog-on-gifted-children-by-dr-ellen-winner/

Thomas R. Hoerr is emeritus head of school at the New City School in St. Louis, Missouri. He is currently a Scholar In Residence at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, and teaches in the Educational Leadership program, preparing prospective principals.

Photo by skon Unsplash

Using MI Theory to Teach Sports

Howard Gardner recently received an inquiry from a ski instructor who is writing a teaching manual for professional ski instructors. They wrote:

You may or may not know this: your work on Multiple Intelligences has been a major contribution in the field of snowsports instruction; instructors everywhere incorporate these concepts in lessons.

In our section of our Teaching Manual on cognitive development, we refer to you and your work. We have 25,000 member instructors in our organization and, as you can imagine, understanding the ways our students process information, problem-solve, and store what they learn from us, is highly valuable—which is why our teaching manual includes your theory.

Dr. Gardner answered some questions which might be of interest to anyone teaching sports.

Why would it be important for snowsports instructors to understand the concept of multiple intelligences in our students?

Presumably individuals who come to you for instruction, want to learn how to ski well, and as non-problematically as possible. But we all have different potentials and different strengths— and these capacities did not evolve just for skiing. "MI" theory delineates eight different “mental computers” that all human beings have, but we differ in the strength of these several computers. The challenge for the ski instructor is to work together with each student to determine which “intelligences” are strong, which ones are less potent, and how to combine these intelligences for a smooth and successful learning experience. Think of it as a kind of mental “toolkit” on which both of you can draw as appropriate—and when one tool is not working effectively, try another, or a different combination.

Not all skiing and snowsports students are necessarily "body- or sport-smart" or "nature-smart". How can snowsports pros use our knowledge of Multiple Intelligences to help our students excel in areas that aren't necessarily areas of strength for them?

I am not “body-smart” but I have good linguistic, logical, and musical skills. If you as a teacher can approach the skiing lessons with these strengths and weaknesses in mind, it should make for a more positive experience AND better learning. Of course, your personal relation to the students (the personal intelligences) and their goals and motivations are important considerations as well.

Do you have any message to snowsports instructors—who are, after all, teachers?

You are skiing teachers, but you are also role models and mentors. So the kind of a person you are and how you interact with others is at least as important as knowing which intelligences to tap and how to tap them. And you may well be remembered more as a human being than as someone who coached students with a particular motion or balance technique.

The Theory of Multiple Intelligences: Support from a Most Unlikely Quarter

The IQ test was created in France at the beginning of the 20th century. It reached a highpoint in the United States around 1920: Psychometricians had taken Alfred Binet’s clinical methods and converted them into a set of test items that could be administered and scored efficiently. The IQ test had shown its usefulness in World War I and its aftermath—used as well in educational and clinical settings. When I give talks on the topic of intelligence, I often show two photos: Binet, the French originator, and Lewis Terman, the Stanford University standardizer.

Terman took the IQ very seriously—clearly he believed that it was the gold standard in psychological measurement. As a dedicated researcher with social goals, he sought to identify the brilliant students in California (more men, to be sure) and then to follow their trajectories throughout lifetime. The results were impressive, many of the individuals did well, but also disappointing—no geniuses emerged and some of the most productive and most notable Californians of the era did not make the cut. There’s an impressive literature on the 1500 or so who were so identified—often dubbed “the Termites.”

In the 1920s, Terman launched a set of volumes called “Genetic Studies of Genius.” I have been most interested in Volume 2, called “Early Mental Traits of 300 Geniuses,” with Catharine Cox as the senior author. Using biographical information and the concepts that undergirded the Stanford-Binet IQ test, Cox sought to determine the IQs of 300 extremely eminent individuals (mostly men) who lived in the 15th-19thcenturies.

 I have two diametrically opposed views of this work. On the one hand, Cox (and research assistants) did virtually super-human research to figure out the IQs of these individuals (and a comparison group.) They read primary sources in several languages, computing reliability scores, and laid out what they had read about and what inferences they had made. For their efforts they get a straight A.

 On the other hand…

The notion that one can compute an individual’s skills and knowledge, as well as areas of lesser competence, from reading biographies written decades, even centuries, after the childhood of these individuals is bizarre. And even if we had records far more detailed and accurate—including scores on IQ tests!—it’s hard to avoid the tendency of the biographers to look for, or even invent, signs of precocity in those who eventually left a mark on history. I consider this endeavor to be fundamentally misguided—at best, a Sisyphean task. If I were the grader, I would say “go back to the drawing boards and come up with a different dissertation.”

Of course, it’s easier to say this a century later—Cox submitted her dissertation on this topic to Professor Terman in 1925.

So why revisit this work, long forgotten except for those who work in this field?

In reviewing the work several decades after I first scanned it, what caught my eye was Cox’ effort to rank order professions in order of inferred IQ.

Here’s her list from lowest to highest IQ: At the bottom are soldiers; next come artists and musicians; then religious leaders and statesmen; and finally at the top of the list, writers, scientists, and—the queens or kings of intellect—the philosophers.

I have always maintained that IQ tests—or their cousins—standardized tests like the SAT or GRE—are a reasonable measure of who will succeed in a standard Western educational setting. In my terms, these tests tap linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence—the intelligences, I often quip, of the law professor. And the more that a person wants to remain in an academic setting, and to be judged by academic standards, the more useful these measures are. As are grades and class standing…

But once one leaves the academy, the IQ test proves far less useful. And here is where the other intelligences become relevant, even necessary.

And so, to go down the list:

• Religious leaders and statesmen need to have high personal intelligences

• Musicians need musical intelligence

• Graphic artists require spatial (and bodily-kinesthetic) intelligence

• Soldiers—especially in the pre-modern era—presumably rely on bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, as well as spatial intelligence.

By the way, you may be wondering which soldiers received sufficient eminence to make Cox and Terman’s roster. While I had heard of nearly all of the philosophers, scientists, writers, musicians and artists, many of the soldiers’ names were unknown to me. But when I did recognize names—like General Sherman of Civil War fame and Admiral Lord Nelson of the Napoleonic Wars—it was clear that such individuals had to do more than stay alive and shoot straight. They were planning large and complex operations and yet they may not have been able to solve verbal analogies or complete numerical sequences. The label should have been “military leaders,” not soldiers!

A thought experiment: If we could actually have observed Mozart, or Leonardo, or Shakespeare in their youth—or for that matter, Virginia Woolf, Martha Graham or Eleanor Roosevelt, three women whom I have studied, would they have stood out in terms of IQ? Or would their intelligences have manifested in other ways.

Two cheers for Catharine Cox, who clearly would have done well on her professor’s test. But I wonder how she would have responded to this blog post. Would it have seemed “folly” to her, as it does to celebrants of the IQ—or would it have caused her to rethink her data, methods and argument? I suspect that the answer would not depend on her intelligences, however defined, but on her personality, and particularly her openness to other perspectives.

 Photo by K. Mitch Hodgeon Unsplash 

How Does Distance Learning Affect Education?

I recently received the following question about distance learning and MI theory.

I am a graduate student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Since the pandemic has transformed many educational activities into distance learning, I am doing research about Multiple Intelligences (MI) in distance learning based on your MI theory. I have been wondering if distance learning would strengthen, weaken, or make a twist regarding MI. I am starting with musical and logical-mathematical intelligences.
Could you please offer some suggestions or related materials that I can use to guide my research?
Thank you

This is a good question. It's not really about MI per se, but rather about how distance learning affects education altogether. We are fortunate to live in a time when one can send all kinds of messages in various media over long distances—this would not have been possible even thirty years ago. What we don’t know is how much of learning, particularly for young children, depends on a more personal contact with elders and with peers. I suspect that for many young children, it will be difficult to sit in front of a computer or tablet and focus for significant periods of time. This would not be very difficult for most doctoral students!

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash