The theory of multiple intelligences differentiates intelligence into specific 'modalities', rather than
seeing intelligence as dominated by a single general ability. Howard Gardnerproposed this model in
his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. According to the theory, an
intelligence must fulfill eight criteria:[1]
1. potential for brain isolation by brain damage,
2. place in evolutionary history,
3. presence of core operations,
4. susceptibility to encoding (symbolic expression),
5. a distinct developmental progression,
6. the existence of savants, prodigies and other exceptional people,
7. support from experimental psychology, and
8. support from psychometric findings.
Gardner proposed eight abilities that he held to meet these criteria:[2]
1. musical-rhythmic,
2. visual-spatial,
3. verbal-linguistic,
4. logical-mathematical,
5. bodily-kinesthetic,
6. interpersonal,
7. intrapersonal, and
8. naturalistic.
He later suggested that existential and moral intelligence may also be worthy of inclusion.[3]
Although the distinction between intelligences has been set out in great detail, Gardner opposes the
idea of labeling learners to a specific intelligence. Gardner maintains that his theory should
"empower learners", not restrict them to one modality of learning.[4] According to Gardner, an
intelligence is "a biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural
setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture."[5]
Many of Gardner's "intelligences" correlate with the g factor, supporting the idea of a single,
dominant type of intelligence. According to a 2006 study, each of the domains proposed by Gardner
involved a blend of g, cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, non-cognitive abilities or
personality characteristics.[6]
Intelligence modalities[edit]
Musical-rhythmic and harmonic[edit]
Main article: Musicality
This area has to do with sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, and music. People with a high musical
intelligence normally have good pitch and may even have absolute pitch, and are able to sing, play
musical instruments, and compose music. They have sensitivity to rhythm, pitch, meter, tone,
melody or timbre.[7][8]
Visual-spatial[edit]
Main article: Spatial intelligence (psychology)
This area deals with spatial judgment and the ability to visualize with the mind's eye. Spatial ability is
one of the three factors beneath g in the hierarchical model of intelligence.[8]
Verbal-linguistic[edit]
Main article: Linguistic intelligence
People with high verbal-linguistic intelligence display a facility with words and languages. They are
typically good at reading, writing, telling stories and memorizing words along with dates.[8] Verbal
ability is one of the most g-loaded abilities.[9] This type of intelligence is measured with the Verbal IQ
in WAIS-IV.
Logical-mathematical[edit]
Further information: Reason
This area has to do with logic, abstractions, reasoning, numbers and critical thinking.[8] This also has
to do with having the capacity to understand the underlying principles of some kind of causal
system.[7] Logical reasoning is closely linked to fluid intelligence and to general intelligence
(g factor).[10]
Bodily-kinesthetic[edit]
Further information: Gross motor skill and Fine motor skill
The core elements of the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence are control of one's bodily motions and the
capacity to handle objects skillfully.[8] Gardner elaborates to say that this also includes a sense of
timing, a clear sense of the goal of a physical action, along with the ability to train responses.
People who have high bodily-kinesthetic intelligence should be generally good at physical activities
such as sports, dance, acting, and making things.
Gardner believes that careers that suit those with high bodily-kinesthetic intelligence
include: athletes, dancers, musicians, actors, builders, police officers, and soldiers. Although these
careers can be duplicated through virtual simulation, they will not produce the actual physical
learning that is needed in this intelligence.[11]
Interpersonal[edit]
Main article: Social skills
In theory, individuals who have high interpersonal intelligence are characterized by their sensitivity to
others' moods, feelings, temperaments, motivations, and their ability to cooperate in order to work as
part of a group. According to Gardner in How Are Kids Smart: Multiple Intelligences in the
Classroom, "Inter- and Intra- personal intelligence is often misunderstood with being extroverted or
liking other people..."[12] Those with high interpersonal intelligence communicate effectively and
empathize easily with others, and may be either leaders or followers. They often enjoy discussion
and debate." Gardner has equated this with emotional intelligence of Goleman.[13]
Gardner believes that careers that suit those with high interpersonal intelligence include sales
persons, politicians, managers, teachers, lecturers, counselors and social workers.[14]
Intrapersonal[edit]
Further information: Introspection
This area has to do with introspective and self-reflective capacities. This refers to having a deep
understanding of the self; what one's strengths or weaknesses are, what makes one unique, being
able to predict one's own reactions or emotions.
Naturalistic[edit]
Not part of Gardner's original seven, naturalistic intelligence was proposed by him in 1995. "If I were
to rewrite Frames of Mind today, I would probably add an eighth intelligence - the intelligence of the
naturalist. It seems to me that the individual who is readily able to recognize flora and fauna, to make
other consequential distinctions in the natural world, and to use this ability productively (in hunting, in
farming, in biological science) is exercising an important intelligence and one that is not adequately
encompassed in the current list."[15]This area has to do with nurturing and relating information to
one's natural surroundings.[8] Examples include classifying natural forms such as animal and plant
species and rocks and mountain types. This ability was clearly of value in our evolutionary past
as hunters, gatherers, and farmers; it continues to be central in such roles as botanist or chef.[7]
This sort of ecological receptiveness is deeply rooted in a "sensitive, ethical,
and holistic understanding" of the world and its complexities – including the role of humanity within
the greater ecosphere.[16]
Existential[edit]
Main article: Spiritual intelligence
Gardner did not want to commit to a spiritual intelligence, but suggested that an "existential"
intelligence may be a useful construct, also proposed after the original 7 in his 1999 book.[17] The
hypothesis of an existential intelligence has been further explored by educational researchers.[18]
Additional intelligences[edit]
On January 13, 2016, Gardner mentioned in an interview with BigThink that he is considering adding
the teaching-pedagogical intelligence "which allows us to be able to teach successfully to other
people".[19] In the same interview, he explicitly refused some other suggested intelligences like
humour, cooking and sexual intelligence.[19]
Critical reception[edit]
Gardner argues that there is a wide range of cognitive abilities, but that there are only very weak
correlations among them. For example, the theory postulates that a child who learns to multiply
easily is not necessarily more intelligent than a child who has more difficulty on this task. The child
who takes more time to master multiplication may best learn to multiply through a different approach,
may excel in a field outside mathematics, or may be looking at and understanding the multiplication
process at a fundamentally deeper level.
Intelligence tests and psychometrics have generally found high correlations between different
aspects of intelligence, rather than the low correlations which Gardner's theory predicts, supporting
the prevailing theory of general intelligence rather than multiple intelligences (MI).[20] The theory has
been criticized by mainstream psychology for its lack of empirical evidence, and its dependence on
subjective judgement.[21] However research by Dweck (2006),[22] referred to as Growth Mindset
Theory, shows that individuals with low correlations can attain also high correlations through
intelligence growth. This challenges the notion of fixed or static intelligence levels that general
intelligence tests measure. More importantly, it challenges the notion that intelligence test scores are
an accurate predictor for future ability.
Definition of intelligence[edit]
One major criticism of the theory is that it is ad hoc: that Gardner is not expanding the definition of
the word "intelligence", but rather denies the existence of intelligence as traditionally understood,
and instead uses the word "intelligence" where other people have traditionally used words like
"ability" and "aptitude". This practice has been criticized by Robert J. Sternberg,[23][24] Eysenck,[25] and
Scarr.[26] White (2006) points out that Gardner's selection and application of criteria for his
"intelligences" is subjective and arbitrary, and that a different researcher would likely have come up
with different criteria.[27]
Defenders of MI theory argue that the traditional definition of intelligence is too narrow, and thus a
broader definition more accurately reflects the differing ways in which humans think and learn.[28]
Some criticisms arise from the fact that Gardner has not provided a test of his multiple intelligences.
He originally defined it as the ability to solve problems that have value in at least one culture, or as
something that a student is interested in. He then added a disclaimer that he has no fixed definition,
and his classification is more of an artistic judgment than fact:
Ultimately, it would certainly be desirable to have an algorithm for the selection of an intelligence,
such that any trained researcher could determine whether a candidate's intelligence met the
appropriate criteria. At present, however, it must be admitted that the selection (or rejection) of a
candidate's intelligence is reminiscent more of an artistic judgment than of a scientific assessment.[29]
Generally, linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities are called intelligences, but artistic, musical,
athletic, etc. abilities are not. Gardner argues this causes the former to be needlessly aggrandized.
Certain critics are wary of this widening of the definition, saying that it ignores "the connotation of
intelligence ... [which] has always connoted the kind of thinking skills that makes one successful in
school."[30]
Gardner writes "I balk at the unwarranted assumption that certain human abilities can be arbitrarily
singled out as intelligence while others cannot."[31] Critics hold that given this statement, any interest
or ability can be redefined as "intelligence". Thus, studying intelligence becomes difficult, because it
diffuses into the broader concept of ability or talent. Gardner's addition of the naturalistic intelligence
and conceptions of the existential and moral intelligences are seen as the fruits of this diffusion.
Defenders of the MI theory would argue that this is simply a recognition of the broad scope of
inherent mental abilities, and that such an exhaustive scope by nature defies a one-dimensional
classification such as an IQ value.
The theory and definitions have been critiqued by Perry D. Klein as being so unclear as to
be tautologous and thus unfalsifiable. Having a high musical ability means being good at music while
at the same time being good at music is explained by having a high musical ability.[32]
Neo-Piagetian criticism[edit]
Andreas Demetriou suggests that theories which overemphasize the autonomy of the domains are
as simplistic as the theories that overemphasize the role of general intelligence and ignore the
domains. He agrees with Gardner that there are indeed domains of intelligence that are relevantly
autonomous of each other.[33] Some of the domains, such as verbal, spatial, mathematical, and social
intelligence are identified by most lines of research in psychology. In Demetriou's theory, one of
the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, Gardner is criticized for underestimating the
effects exerted on the various domains of intelligences by the various subprocesses that define
overall processing efficiency, such as speed of processing, executive functions, working memory,
and meta-cognitive processes underlying self-awareness and self-regulation. All of these processes
are integral components of general intelligence that regulate the functioning and development of
different domains of intelligence.[34]
The domains are to a large extent expressions of the condition of the general processes, and may
vary because of their constitutional differences but also differences in individual preferences and
inclinations. Their functioning both channels and influences the operation of the general
processes.[35][36] Thus, one cannot satisfactorily specify the intelligence of an individual or design
effective intervention programs unless both the general processes and the domains of interest are
evaluated.[37][38]
Human adaptation to multiple environments[edit]
The premise of the multiple intelligences hypothesis, that human intelligence is a collection of
specialist abilities, have been criticized for not being able to explain human adaptation to most if not
all environments in the world. In this context, humans are contrasted to social insects that indeed
have a distributed "intelligence" of specialists, and such insects may spread to climates resembling
that of their origin but the same species never adapt to a wide range of climates from tropical to
temperate by building different types of nests and learning what is edible and what is poisonous.
While some such as the leafcutter ant grow fungi on leaves, they do not cultivate different species in
different environments with different farming techniques as human agriculture does. It is therefore
argued that human adaptability stems from a general ability to falsify hypotheses and make more
generally accurate predictions and adapt behavior thereafter, and not a set of specialized abilities
which would only work under specific environmental conditions.[39][40]
IQ tests[edit]
Gardner argues that IQ tests only measure linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities. He argues
the importance of assessing in an "intelligence-fair" manner. While traditional paper-and-pen
examinations favor linguistic and logical skills, there is a need for intelligence-fair measures that
value the distinct modalities of thinking and learning that uniquely define each intelligence.[8]
Psychologist Alan S. Kaufman points out that IQ tests have measured spatial abilities for 70
years.[41] Modern IQ tests are greatly influenced by the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory which incorporates
a general intelligence but also many more narrow abilities. While IQ tests do give an overall IQ
score, they now also give scores for many more narrow abilities.[41]
Lack of empirical evidence[edit]
According to a 2006 study many of Gardner's "intelligences" correlate with the g factor, supporting
the idea of a single dominant type of intelligence. According to the study, each of the domains
proposed by Gardner involved a blend of g, of cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, of
non-cognitive abilities or of personality characteristics.[6]
Linda Gottfredson (2006) has argued that thousands of studies support the importance
of intelligence quotient (IQ) in predicting school and job performance, and numerous other life
outcomes. In contrast, empirical support for non-g intelligences is either lacking or very poor. She
argued that despite this the ideas of multiple non-g intelligences are very attractive to many due to
the suggestion that everyone can be smart in some way.[42]
A critical review of MI theory argues that there is little empirical evidence to support it:
To date, there have been no published studies that offer evidence of the validity of the multiple
intelligences. In 1994 Sternberg reported finding no empirical studies. In 2000 Allix reported finding
no empirical validating studies, and at that time Gardner and Connell conceded that there was "little
hard evidence for MI theory" (2000, p. 292). In 2004 Sternberg and Grigerenko stated that there
were no validating studies for multiple intelligences, and in 2004 Gardner asserted that he would be
"delighted were such evidence to accrue",[43] and admitted that "MI theory has few enthusiasts
among psychometricians or others of a traditional psychological background" because they require
"psychometric or experimental evidence that allows one to prove the existence of the several
intelligences."[43][44]
The same review presents evidence to demonstrate that cognitive neuroscience research does not
support the theory of multiple intelligences:
... the human brain is unlikely to function via Gardner's multiple intelligences. Taken together the
evidence for the intercorrelations of subskills of IQ measures, the evidence for a shared set of genes
associated with mathematics, reading, and g, and the evidence for shared and overlapping "what is
it?" and "where is it?" neural processing pathways, and shared neural pathways for language, music,
motor skills, and emotions suggest that it is unlikely that each of Gardner's intelligences could
operate "via a different set of neural mechanisms" (1999, p. 99). Equally important, the evidence for
the "what is it?" and "where is it?" processing pathways, for Kahneman's two decision-making
systems, and for adapted cognition modules suggests that these cognitive brain specializations have
evolved to address very specific problems in our environment. Because Gardner claimed that the
intelligences are innate potentialities related to a general content area, MI theory lacks a rationale for
the phylogenetic emergence of the intelligences.[44]
The theory of multiple intelligences is sometimes cited as an example of pseudoscience because it
lacks empirical evidence or falsifiability,[45] though Gardner has argued otherwise.[46]
Use in education[edit]
Gardner defines an intelligence as "bio-psychological potential to process information that can be
activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a
culture."[47] According to Gardner, there are more ways to do this than just through logical and
linguistic intelligence. Gardner believes that the purpose of schooling "should be to develop
intelligences and to help people reach vocational and avocational goals that are appropriate to their
particular spectrum of intelligences. People who are helped to do so, [he] believe[s], feel more
engaged and competent and therefore more inclined to serve society in a constructive way."[a]
Gardner contends that IQ tests focus mostly on logical and linguistic intelligence. Upon doing well on
these tests, the chances of attending a prestigious college or university increase, which in turn
creates contributing members of society.[48] While many students function well in this environment,
there are those who do not. Gardner's theory argues that students will be better served by a broader
vision of education, wherein teachers use different methodologies, exercises and activities to reach
all students, not just those who excel at linguistic and logical intelligence. It challenges educators to
find "ways that will work for this student learning this topic".[49]
James Traub's article in The New Republic notes that Gardner's system has not been accepted by
most academics in intelligence or teaching.[50] Gardner states that "while Multiple Intelligences theory
is consistent with much empirical evidence, it has not been subjected to strong experimental tests ...
Within the area of education, the applications of the theory are currently being examined in many
projects. Our hunches will have to be revised many times in light of actual classroom experience."[51]
Jerome Bruner agreed with Gardner that the intelligences were "useful fictions," and went on to state
that "his approach is so far beyond the data-crunching of mental testers that it deserves to be
cheered."[52]
George Miller, a prominent cognitive psychologist, wrote in The New York Times Book Review that
Gardner's argument consisted of "hunch and opinion" and Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein
in The Bell Curve (1994) called Gardner's theory "uniquely devoid of psychometric or other
quantitative evidence."[53]
In spite of its lack of general acceptance in the psychological community, Gardner's theory has been
adopted by many schools, where it is often conflated with learning styles,[54] and hundreds of books
have been written about its applications in education.[55] Some of the applications of Gardner's theory
have been described as "simplistic" and Gardner himself has said he is "uneasy" with the way his
theory has been used in schools.[56] Gardner has denied that multiple intelligences are learning styles
and agrees that the idea of learning styles is incoherent and lacking in empirical evidence.[57] Gardner
summarizes his approach with three recommendations for educators: individualize the teaching style
(to suit the most effective method for each student), pluralize the teaching (teach important materials
in multiple ways), and avoid the term "styles" as being confusing.[58]
Multiple Intelligences
Howard Gardner of Harvard has identified seven distinct intelligences. This
theory has emerged from recent cognitive research and "documents the
extent to which students possess different kinds of minds and therefore learn,
remember, perform, and understand in different ways," according to Gardner
(1991). According to this theory, "we are all able to know the world through
language, logical-mathematical analysis, spatial representation, musical
thinking, the use of the body to solve problems or to make things, an
understanding of other individuals, and an understanding of ourselves. Where
individuals differ is in the strength of these intelligences - the so-called profile
of intelligences -and in the ways in which such intelligences are invoked and
combined to carry out different tasks, solve diverse problems, and progress in
various domains."
Gardner says that these differences "challenge an educational system that
assumes that everyone can learn the same materials in the same way and
that a uniform, universal measure suffices to test student learning. Indeed, as
currently constituted, our educational system is heavily biased toward
linguistic modes of instruction and assessment and, to a somewhat lesser
degree, toward logical-quantitative modes as well." Gardner argues that "a
contrasting set of assumptions is more likely to be educationally effective.
Students learn in ways that are identifiably distinctive. The broad spectrum of
students - and perhaps the society as a whole - would be better served if
disciplines could be presented in a numbers of ways and learning could be
assessed through a variety of means." The learning styles are as follows:
Visual-Spatial - think in terms of physical space, as do architects and sailors.
Very aware of their environments. They like to draw, do jigsaw puzzles, read
maps, daydream. They can be taught through drawings, verbal and physical
imagery. Tools include models, graphics, charts, photographs, drawings, 3-D
modeling, video, videoconferencing, television, multimedia, texts with
pictures/charts/graphs.
Bodily-kinesthetic - use the body effectively, like a dancer or a surgeon.
Keen sense of body awareness. They like movement, making things,
touching. They communicate well through body language and be taught
through physical activity, hands-on learning, acting out, role playing. Tools
include equipment and real objects.
Musical - show sensitivity to rhythm and sound. They love music, but they are
also sensitive to sounds in their environments. They may study better with
music in the background. They can be taught by turning lessons into lyrics,
speaking rhythmically, tapping out time. Tools include musical instruments,
music, radio, stereo, CD-ROM, multimedia.
Interpersonal - understanding, interacting with others. These students learn
through interaction. They have many friends, empathy for others, street
smarts. They can be taught through group activities, seminars, dialogues.
Tools include the telephone, audio conferencing, time and attention from the
instructor, video conferencing, writing, computer conferencing, E-mail.
Intrapersonal - understanding one's own interests, goals. These learners
tend to shy away from others. They're in tune with their inner feelings; they
have wisdom, intuition and motivation, as well as a strong will, confidence and
opinions. They can be taught through independent study and introspection.
Tools include books, creative materials, diaries, privacy and time. They are
the most independent of the learners.
Linguistic - using words effectively. These learners have highly developed
auditory skills and often think in words. They like reading, playing word
games, making up poetry or stories. They can be taught by encouraging them
to say and see words, read books together. Tools include computers, games,
multimedia, books, tape recorders, and lecture.
Logical -Mathematical - reasoning, calculating. Think conceptually,
abstractly and are able to see and explore patterns and relationships. They
like to experiment, solve puzzles, ask cosmic questions. They can be taught
through logic games, investigations, mysteries. They need to learn and form
concepts before they can deal with details.
At first, it may seem impossible to teach to all learning styles. However, as we
move into using a mix of media or multimedia, it becomes easier. As we
understand learning styles, it becomes apparent why multimedia appeals to
learners and why a mix of media is more effective. It satisfies the many types
of learning preferences that one person may embody or that a class
embodies. A review of the literature shows that a variety of decisions must be
made when choosing media that is appropriate to learning style.
Visuals: Visual media help students acquire concrete concepts, such as
object identification, spatial relationship, or motor skills where words alone are
inefficient.
Printed words: There is disagreement about audio's superiority to print for
affective objectives; several models do not recommend verbal sound if it is not
part of the task to be learned.
Sound: A distinction is drawn between verbal sound and non-verbal sound
such as music. Sound media are necessary to present a stimulus for recall or
sound recognition. Audio narration is recommended for poor readers.
Motion: Models force decisions among still, limited movement, and full
movement visuals. Motion is used to depict human performance so that
learners can copy the movement. Several models assert that motion may be
unnecessary and provides decision aid questions based upon objectives.
Visual media which portray motion are best to show psychomotor or cognitive
domain expectations by showing the skill as a model against which students
can measure their performance.
Color: Decisions on color display are required if an object's color is relevant to
what is being learned.
Realia: Realia are tangible, real objects which are not models and are useful
to teach motor and cognitive skills involving unfamiliar objects. Realia are
appropriate for use with individuals or groups and may be situation based.
Realia may be used to present information realistically but it may be equally
important that the presentation corresponds with the way learner's represent
information internally.
Instructional Setting: Design should cover whether the materials are to be
used in a home or instructional setting and consider the size what is to be
learned. Print instruction should be delivered in an individualized mode which
allows the learner to set the learning pace. The ability to provide corrective
feedback for individual learners is important but any medium can provide
corrective feedback by stating the correct answer to allow comparison of the
two answers.
Learner Characteristics: Most models consider learner characteristics as
media may be differentially effective for different learners. Although research
has had limited success in identifying the media most suitable for types of
learners several models are based on this method.
Reading ability: Pictures facilitate learning for poor readers who benefit more
from speaking than from writing because they understand spoken words; self-
directed good readers can control the pace; and print allows easier review.
Categories of Learning Outcomes: Categories ranged from three to eleven
and most include some or all of Gagne's (1977) learning categories;
intellectual skills, verbal information, motor skills, attitudes, and cognitive
strategies. Several models suggest a procedure which categorizes learning
outcomes, plans instructional events to teach objectives, identifies the type of
stimuli to present events, and media capable of presenting the stimuli.
Events of Instruction: The external events which support internal learning
processes are called events of instruction. The events of instruction are
planned before selecting the media to present it.
Performance: Many models discuss eliciting performance where the student
practices the task which sets the stage for reinforcement. Several models
indicate that the elicited performance should be categorized by type; overt,
covert, motor, verbal, constructed, and select. Media should be selected
which is best able to elicit these responses and the response frequency. One
model advocates a behavioral approach so that media is chosen to elicit
responses for practice. To provide feedback about the student's response, an
interactive medium might be chosen, but any medium can provide feedback.
Learner characteristics such as error proneness and anxiety should influence
media selection.
Testing which traditionally is accomplished through print, may be handled by
electronic media. Media are better able to assess learners' visual skills than
are print media and can be used to assess learner performance in realistic
situations.
The theory of multiple intelligences was developed in 1983 by Dr. Howard Gardner,
professor of education at Harvard University. It suggests that the traditional notion of
intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, is far too limited. Instead, Dr. Gardner proposes eight
different intelligences to account for a broader range of human potential in children and
adults. These intelligences are:
Linguistic intelligence (“word smart”)
Logical-mathematical intelligence (“number/reasoning smart”)
Spatial intelligence (“picture smart”)
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence (“body smart”)
Musical intelligence (“music smart”)
Interpersonal intelligence (“people smart”)
Intrapersonal intelligence (“self smart”)
Naturalist intelligence (“nature smart”)
Dr. Gardner says that our schools and culture focus most of their attention on linguistic
and logical-mathematical intelligence. We esteem the highly articulate or logical people
of our culture. However, Dr. Gardner says that we should also place equal attention on
individuals who show gifts in the other intelligences: the artists, architects, musicians,
naturalists, designers, dancers, therapists, entrepreneurs, and others who enrich the
world in which we live. Unfortunately, many children who have these gifts don’t receive
much reinforcement for them in school. Many of these kids, in fact, end up being labeled
“learning disabled,” “ADD (attention deficit disorder,” or simply underachievers, when
their unique ways of thinking and learning aren’t addressed by a heavily linguistic or
logical-mathematical classroom.
The theory of multiple intelligences proposes a major transformation in the way our
schools are run. It suggests that teachers be trained to present their lessons in a wide
variety of ways using music, cooperative learning, art activities, role play, multimedia,
field trips, inner reflection, and much more (see Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom,
4th ed.). The good news is that the theory of multiple intelligences has grabbed the
attention of many educators around the country, and hundreds of schools are currently
using its philosophy to redesign the way it educates children. The bad news is that there
are thousands of schools still out there that teach in the same old dull way, through dry
lectures, and boring worksheets and textbooks. The challenge is to get this information
out to many more teachers, school administrators, and others who work with children,
so that each child has the opportunity to learn in ways harmonious with their unique
minds (see In Their Own Way).
The theory of multiple intelligences also has strong implications for adult learning and
development. Many adults find themselves in jobs that do not make optimal use of their
most highly developed intelligences (for example, the highly bodily-kinesthetic individual
who is stuck in a linguistic or logical desk-job when he or she would be much happier in
a job where they could move around, such as a recreational leader, a forest ranger, or
physical therapist). The theory of multiple intelligences gives adults a whole new way to
look at their lives, examining potentials that they left behind in their childhood (such as a
love for art or drama) but now have the opportunity to develop through courses,
hobbies, or other programs of self-development (see 7 Kinds of Smart).
How to Teach or Learn Anything 8 Different Ways
One of the most remarkable features of the theory of multiple intelligences is how it
provides eight different potential pathways to learning. If a teacher is having difficulty
reaching a student in the more traditional linguistic or logical ways of instruction, the
theory of multiple intelligences suggests several other ways in which the material might
be presented to facilitate effective learning. Whether you are a kindergarten teacher, a
graduate school instructor, or an adult learner seeking better ways of pursuing self-
study on any subject of interest, the same basic guidelines apply. Whatever you are
teaching or learning, see how you might connect it with
words (linguistic intelligence)
numbers or logic (logical-mathematical intelligence)
pictures (spatial intelligence)
music (musical intelligence)
self-reflection (intrapersonal intelligence)
a physical experience (bodily-kinesthetic intelligence)
a social experience (interpersonal intelligence), and/or
an experience in the natural world. (naturalist intelligence)
For example, if you’re teaching or learning about the law of supply and demand in
economics, you might read about it (linguistic), study mathematical formulas that
express it (logical-mathematical), examine a graphic chart that illustrates the principle
(spatial), observe the law in the natural world (naturalist) or in the human world of
commerce (interpersonal); examine the law in terms of your own body [e.g. when you
supply your body with lots of food, the hunger demand goes down; when there’s very
little supply, your stomach’s demand for food goes way up and you get hungry] (bodily-
kinesthetic and intrapersonal); and/or write a song (or find an existing song) that
demonstrates the law (perhaps Dylan’s “Too Much of Nothing?”).
You don’t have to teach or learn something in all eight ways, just see what the
possibilities are, and then decide which particular pathways interest you the most, or
seem to be the most effective teaching or learning tools. The theory of multiple
intelligences is so intriguing because it expands our horizon of available
teaching/learning tools beyond the conventional linguistic and logical methods used in
most schools (e.g. lecture, textbooks, writing assignments, formulas, etc.). To get
started, put the topic of whatever you’re interested in teaching or learning about in the
center of a blank sheet of paper, and draw eight straight lines or “spokes” radiating out
from this topic. Label each line with a different intelligence. Then start brainstorming
ideas for teaching or learning that topic and write down ideas next to each intelligence
(this is a spatial-linguistic approach of brainstorming; you might want to do this in other
ways as well, using a tape-recorder, having a group brainstorming session, etc.). Have
fun!
