Howard Gardner (1995a) professes to be "as surprised as anyone" by the education community's intense interest in his theory of multiple intelligences. When he first published Frames of Mind in 1983, he intended to challenge the traditional view of intelligence as a single capacity, not to write a book about education. But educators have embraced his theory, perhaps in large part because he has put a name to what many teachers have known all along—students have different capacities for learning in different areas.
The Strong Pull of Tradition
Research has confirmed that teachers are indeed cognizant of and responsive to students' diverse intelligences. Guskin and colleagues (1992) gave 158 teachers and prospective teachers student profiles and asked them to evaluate each student in terms of traits and outcomes. The profiles consisted of demographic characteristics (gender, race, and social class) and types of intelligence (analytic, verbal, social, creative, and motor).
The results: The teachers placed more weight on intelligences than on demographic characteristics when predicting success. Further, they were more positive about students with strong verbal, analytic, or social skills than those with strong creative or motor skills. Thus, the more traditional conceptions of intelligence—including the verbal and analytic skills that are so often the focus of standardized tests—appeared to most strongly influence the teachers' perceptions of their students—and likely their curricular planning.
This leads us to one of the challenges in adopting an MI-based curriculum: the need to find ways to liberate teachers, parents, and students from the constraint of viewing performance primarily through the narrow lens of verbal and analytical aptitude. To be sure, these intelligences are important; as Hoerr (1994) points out, for better or worse, standardized testing is our society's "educational gatekeeper." But while students must hone these two intelligences, their cultivation should not come at the price of excluding or de-emphasizing others.
Hoerr's New City School (see p. 43), for example, arrives at a rich and comprehensive student profile using portfolios, a multiple intelligences profile form, and progress reports, as well as more traditional measures. Moreover, teachers invest time in relevant professional development, and the school communicates with parents about students' multiple intelligences. The research literature is filled with other examples of schools and teachers who have found multiple intelligences to be a powerful theory for guiding their work, in settings ranging from a 1st grade health curriculum (Liess and Ritchie 1995) to a high school English class (Smagorinsky 1995).
MI's Myths and Traps
Such practical examples are informative, but should not be seen as rigid or prescriptive. Gardner (1995b) himself is quick to stress that "educators are in the best position to determine the uses to which multiple intelligences theory can and should be put"; he would prefer that educators engage in thoughtful, exploratory, trial-and-error reform, not blindly accept some established MI-based norm. In fact, rather than prescribing steps for success, Gardner, Hoerr (1996), and other MI proponents more frequently point out how the theory has been misused or share their own failed experiences.
Gardner debunks seven myths that have arisen in the name of multiple intelligences, while Hoerr identifies his own user traps. The number one myth and the number one trap are the same: teachers believing they need to shoehorn all seven intelligences into every lesson plan, regardless of whether it makes sense to do so. Both Gardner and Hoerr emphasize that multiple intelligences theory should catalyze ideas, not impose an inflexible structure.
Gardner urges users of his theory to creatively adhere to three tenets: (1) cultivate skills that are valued in the community and society, (2) approach new concepts and subjects in a variety of ways, and (3) personalize instruction as much as possible.
No Proof in Standardized Tests
But what of the bottom line: Does multiple intelligences theory improve test scores? Strahan and colleagues (1996) attempted to quantify the gains of 129 middle school students on GOALS Assessments, which provided norm-referenced grade equivalent scores in reading and math. The school's Mindful Learning curriculum relied heavily on MI-based activities. The researchers found that math and reading scores increased substantially, but because they used no control group for comparison, we can draw no general conclusions from the test scores. Of more significance were the researchers' analysis of the teachers' methods and their interviews to get students' reactions to the new curriculum. Using standardized scores in isolation to quantify students' gains would have been antithetical to the whole purpose of the theory.
A more appropriate question to ask is, Does multiple intelligences theory prove useful in the classroom? How people answer that depends on what they want to accomplish. If they simply want to improve test scores, multiple intelligences may work no better or worse than other theories. But if the goal is to reach as many students as possible and to acknowledge, celebrate, and refine their talents, then multiple intelligences appears to hold great promise.
