Home Articles Reader Opinion Editorial Book Reviews Discussion Writers Guide About TCRecord
transparent 13
Topics
Discussion
Announcements
 

Multiple Intelligences Theory After 20 Years


by Branton Shearer - 2004

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.


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 half-baked 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 MI’s 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 hear well-educated critics completely dismiss MI theory for a variety of ill-informed reasons: ‘‘It’s fluff psychology,’’ ‘‘It’s not real science,’’ ‘‘There’s no empirical evidence,’’ ‘‘It’s not compatible with general intelligence,’’ ‘‘It’s not testable,’’ ‘‘It dumbs down the curriculum,’’ ‘‘It’s merely a literary theory,’’ ‘‘It’s too simplistic’’ (or, conversely. ‘‘It’s 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 Gardner’s 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 tests-problem 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.


 3. Intelligence isn’t 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 person’s 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, logical- mathematical, 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 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 person’s 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 intelligence-especially 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 one’s body in differentiated ways for both expressive (e.g., dance, acting) and goal-directed activities (e.g., athletics, working with one’s 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 one’s 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, 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 individual’s 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 individual’s sense of satisfaction and success. A core function of this intelligence is guiding a person’s 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 person’s 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 distinguished this capacity from spiritual awareness and defines it as follows:


The capacity to locate oneself with respect to the furthest reaches of the cosmos-the infinite and the infinitesimal-and 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 year’s 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.


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


Intelligence

Cerebral Systems

Kinesthetic

Cerebral motor strip

Thalamus

Basal ganglia

Cerebellum

Musical

Right anterior temporal

Frontal lobes

Spatial

Right hemisphere, parietal

Posterior

Occipital lobe

Logical-mathematical

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

Linguistic

Left hemisphere, temporal and frontal lobes

Intra and Interpersonal

Frontal lobes as integrating station between internal and external states/people

Naturalist

Left parietal lobe (discriminating living from

nonliving things)

Existential

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.


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 Gardner’s 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 school’s long history of implementing MI approaches in the elementary, middle, and 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, Pat’s untimely death following AERA precluded their doing so. I include the list of applications used at the Key School in Pat’s 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 isn’t limited to the elementary or secondary schools. He shares the story of how MI transformed teaching at Glendale Community College after starting in one professor’s 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 practice-MI-inspired instruction and MI reflections-that were found to be effective in building adult literacy. A unique finding of this study was that many adult learners hold negative self- images 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 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 Case’s 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 classroom-spatial 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 student’s unique MI gifts.


Teachers often mistakenly think of MI as being synonymous with learning styles in spite of Howard Gardner’s 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 learner’s 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 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 Wu’s approach uses a common-sense model that integrates MI with Robert Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence to better describe a young person’s intellectual profile. This 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 Bloom’s 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 Community-Theory to Reality


Multiple Intelligences: Howard Gardner


Linguistic


Musical


Logical/Mathematical


Spatial


Bodily/Kinesthetic


Interpersonal


Intrapersonal


Curriculum and Instruction

Flexible scheduling


Integrated curriculum


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


Mentor program


Opportunities for service


Exit-level performance criteria-high 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


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.



Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record Volume 106 Number 1, 2004, p. 2-16
https://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 11504, Date Accessed: 12/7/2021 10:41:20 AM

Purchase Reprint Rights for this article or review
 
 
Member Center
In Print
This Month's Issue

Submit
EMAIL

Twitter

RSS