H.

Gardner's Theory of Multiple

Intelligences
And Its Effect on Curriculum Development
Galena Ojiem, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Oct 26, 2006 "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites. Start Here."

More:

Theory of Knowledge

Gardner's Multiple Intelligences

Howard Gardner

tweet

Print

Flag Post a comment

Many theories about education have influenced curriculum development throughout the
years. From Behaviorism to Cognitivism to Humanism, each has made its mark on education
and radically changed the way some schools operate across the globe. One more recent
theory whose effects have yet to be fully seen is also changing the way schools do business.
This theory is from the book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, by
Howard Gardner (1993). Although it has already made an impact, I believe Gardner's work
will come to have an even greater impact on curriculum development and teaching in the
future. Let's take a look at this theory and how it has affected the field of education today.
First of all, we need to understand the theory itself and the history behind its development.
Before Gardner's theory, the prevailing idea about intelligence was that intelligence was
singular. You could have a high intelligence, low intelligence or average intelligence, but
there was only one. Intelligence was usually measured by IQ tests which test person's ability
to perform on logic and math questions. People who performed well on these tests were said
to be highly intelligent, while people who perform poorly were said to be of low or less-thanaverage intelligence. Gardner saw something wrong with the logic behind these tests and the
logic of one intelligence. How people perform on math and logic tests is only one aspect of
their intelligence, he said. Gardner proposed a theory of multiple intelligences that stated that
people have more than one intelligence. He listed the following intelligences in Frames of
Mind: logical-mathematical, linguistic, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal and

interpersonal. He later added a naturalist intelligence and a spiritualist intelligence, which he

defined as a half-intelligence (Hopper & Hurry, 2000).
How does Gardner view his theory as pertains to educational use? He has stated that the list is
not intended to be complete, that the theory is constantly evolving, and that the idea of
multiple intelligences, rather than each specific one, is what should be focused on. He does
not believe that Multiple Intelligence Theory (MI) should necessarily be a curriculum or a
way to form a school (in fact, the book was not even written with education in mind), but
rather that it can be a tool to help schools more effectively serve all students (Hopper &
Hurry, 2000). Gardner explains the relevance of his theory to education by saying that "So
long as materials are taught and assessed only one way, we will only reach a certain kind of
child. But everything can be taught in several ways" (Gardner, as qtd in Hopper & Hurry,
2000, p. 28). Gardner later explains this same concept in different words:
Without a doubt, one of the reasons that MI theory has attracted attention in the educational
community is because of its ringing endorsement of an ensemble of propositions: we are not
all the same - we do not all have the same kinds of minds - education works most effectively
for most individuals if these differences in mentation and strengths are taken into account
rather than denied or ignored. I have always believed that the heart of the MI perspective - in
theory and in practice - inheres in taking extremely seriously the differences among human
beings. (Gardner, as qtd in Hopper & Hurry, 2000, p. 28)
Before we look practical attempts to put MI to use in the classroom, we should heed
Gardner's own caution about doing so. In a 1997 article titled "Multiple Intelligences as a
Partner in School Improvement" Gardner makes it clear that any curriculum needs to be well
thought through and not just designed around the latest movement in teaching or the latest
fad. He says that the considerations that need to be made when implementing MI concepts in
the classroom or curriculum are that "It takes time to absorb the full implications of the
theory, because it is more radical than most educators initially appreciate. It also takes time
for educators to work out specific practices." He continues: MI may be appealing, but it is not
for the faint-hearted, not for those in search of a quick fix" (Gardner, 1997, p. 20).
Now that we have seen how Gardner's Multiple Intelligences relate to the field of education
in theory, and read his cautions in applying the theory to the classroom, let's look at some
examples of how it has actually been applied. The first example involves sixteen classrooms
in two small elementary schools (kindergarten to year six). The study was called "Integrating
the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy with Multiple Intelligences: A Planning Tool for Curriculum
Differentiation" (Noble, 2004, p. 193). The term "curriculum differentiation" here refers to a
curriculum which caters to multiple types of students in one classroom, for example,
disabled, gifted, ESL etc. Noble, the author of the study, cites increasing amounts of
'different' students in classrooms, based on "the complexity of today's social and educational
contexts" (Noble, 2004, p. 193). With such a diverse population, and one that will no doubt
only become more so in the future, she believes, it is the responsibility of educators to design
curriculums that draw on the differing strengths and abilities available in this mixed group of
students. It is no longer acceptable to simply have a one-size-fits-all curriculum, she posits. It
is for this reason that Noble embarked on this study - to show how it might be done and to
analyze its success or lack thereof.
The study attempted to marry Gardner's MI theory with Anderson's revision of Bloom's
taxonomy of educational objectives. The taxonomy is a list of levels of thinking, from simple
to complex, which can be experienced in any given learning activity. The taxonomy (from

what is considered as a lower-level ability to a higher-level one) is as follows: "Remember,

Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create" (Anderson as quoted in Noble, 2004, p.
194). This taxonomy was placed on one axis of a graph, with Gardner's intelligences on the
other axis, to develop an integrated matrix. The matrix was then filled in with instructional
activities for each intelligence at each level. For example, the following set of activities are at
the apply level. For each activity, students are asked to explain volcanic processes through
one of the following:
-"Writing a report (linguistic intelligence)
-Following directions to conduct an experiment (logical-mathematical intelligence)
-Drawing and labeling a flow chart (spatial intelligence)
-Acting out the process (bodily-kinesthetic intelligence)
-Teaching a classmate about the process (interpersonal intelligence)
-Explaining the process to the tune of a well known song (musical intelligence)" (Noble,
2004, p. 195)
The purpose behind this method of teaching is to give students several different opportunities
to learn the material, hopefully capturing the way each particular student learns best with one
of the activities. Teacher comments on the end-of-study survey showed that the approach was
worthwhile in giving students more opportunities and avenues to grasp a certain topic than
would traditionally be available.
There were many benefits listed. Benefits were especially great in the area of students who
were previously struggling or who seemed shy and withdrawn from classroom activities.
Teachers also noted that the ESL students seemed to benefit more from this format as
opposed to traditional lessons (Noble, 2004). Perhaps the most beneficial aspect of the
courses developed with MI in mind was that students became more in tune with their own
learning styles or preferences; they began to notice how they learn best and gravitate toward
that method. When the awareness went up, students gained confidence and were then more
likely to want to try out other areas. A final benefit was that students were more likely to be
open to working with others under the MI classroom than the traditional class. The teachers
noted in their survey comments that students were very adept at noticing who was good at
what intelligence and would want to be in the group of someone who was strong in whatever
was being worked on. Peers became a powerful motivating factor: seeing other students
succeed in a particular area made those who didn't have a preference for that area want to try
it as well. In the end, "Ninety-one percent of the teachers wrote comments on the
questionnaire that indicated that they perceived that MI theory broadened their
conceptualization of how their students could be successful" (Noble, 2004, p. 199). The
extension into different levels of Bloom's taxonomy was also considered very beneficial. It
allowed teachers to take the lesson both down to the level of the lowest-ability student and up
to challenge the most gifted student, all in the same classroom (Noble, 2004).
The second example of classroom implementation of an MI designed curriculum occurred at
a K-5 elementary school with 520 students. Rather than being given a curriculum, teachers at
this school were taught the MI theory and told to implement this theory when making lesson
plans. As a result, some teachers utilized the theory more than others in their lessons. There
were some aspects that were the same for all students, however, for example, classes become
heterogeneous and self-contained. There was also a reorganization of the timing in the school.
Gym, music, library and activity room time were all done in two half-day sessions, leaving
the rest of the week free of these activities. This allowed teachers time to plan curricula and

collaborate, which was not previously possible. Activity room was a time for students to
engage in activities centered around each of the intelligences, and was supervised by teacher
aides (Mettetal, Jordan, & Harper, 1997). The students also had "enrichment clusters" which
"brought together children of all ages with a common interest for four 1-hr sessions on topics
ranging from folk dancing to storytelling" (Mettetal et al., 1997, The School, 4).
The data analysis of interviews and survey results about the program showed that most
parents liked the idea of multiple intelligences and thought that schools should teach to all of
them. One interesting part of the survey was the children's response to the question "why
were the activity room and clusters done?" While many of the older children said something
about learning multiple intelligences, many of the younger children said things like 'for fun.'
The children were unwaveringly positive toward these activities, whether they saw them as
learning or as fun, while some of the parents were skeptical. Many commented that the
activities offered were things that the children did at home and that these activities should be
offered only as an optional after-school program for those students needing them. The parents
felt that less learning was going on during these times than in the regular classroom. Both
parents and children reacted positively to the mixed-age groupings in the enrichment clusters
(Mettetal et al l, 1997). Was the shift effective? I think the following quote on teacher/student
attitudes after the shift shows that it was:
It was clear that learning about MI theory changed the thinking of teachers and students even
before there was significant classroom curriculum change. Many teachers told us that they
now thought of ability in an entirely different way. Students embraced the concept because it
celebrated their diverse talents. In multiple intelligences theory, the issue of ability
differences is reframed in a manner that accounts for diversity and promotes self-esteem.
(Mettetal et al, 1997, Discussion, 2 )
I think this is how MI theory will prove to be useful in 21st century education. It will be a
pillar to remind us that students are not machines, but people. People have differences and
they learn differently because of those differences. Educators need to remember this and to
always use a mixed approach, giving students multiple points of entry for new knowledge.
Gardner says, "A pluralist approach opens up the possibility that students can display their
new understandings well as their continuing difficulties in ways that are comfortable for them
and accessible to others" (as qtd in Noble, 2004, p. 206). I think this is what education needs
to strive towards being: comfortable and accessible. Gone are the days of memorizing drills,
and stale, uninteresting classrooms with boring rote activities. Gone are the days of
condemning all students who don't learn this way, or who don't have a natural propensity for
linguistics and math-logic to the dunce chair. In the 21st century we will have a new era of
more noisy, chaotic classrooms, different activities for different students, and above all,
valuing all students for what they do bring into the classroom rather than condemning them
for what they don't. MI theory recognizes that all students have strengths and weaknesses,
like all teachers, and that working together in a positive way is the only solution to learning
and growing and letting all students have a chance to shine.
References
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1997). Multiple intelligences as a partner in school improvement.

Educational Leadership, 55(1), 20-22.

Hopper, B. & Hurry, P. (2000). Learning the MI way: The effects on students' learning
of using the theory of multiple intelligences. Pastoral Care in Education, 18(4),
26-33.
Mettetal, G., Jordan, C., & Harper, S. (1997). Attitudes towards a multiple intelligences
curriculum. Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 115-122.
Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised Bloom's taxonomy with multiple
intelligences: A planning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record,
106(1), 193-211.