Reframing the Mind

Education Next Issue Cover

Howard Gardner and the theory of multiple intelligences



By DANIEL T. WILLINGHAM

13 Comments | Print | PDF |

Summer 2004 / Vol. 4, No. 3

Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences
(Basic Books, 1983)

Multiple Intelligences: The Theory into Practice
(Basic Books, 1993)

Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century
(Basic Books, 1999)

By Howard Gardner

Checked by Daniel T. Willingham

What would you think if your child came home from school and reported that the language-arts lesson of the day included using twigs and leaves to spell words? The typical parent might react with curiosity tinged with suspicion: Is working with twigs and leaves supposed to help my child learn to spell? Yes, according to Thomas Armstrong, author of Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, especially if your child is high in “naturalist” intelligence–one of eight distinct intelligences that Harvard University scholar Howard Gardner claims to have identified. However, if your child possesses a high degree of what Gardner terms “bodily-kinesthetic” intelligence, Armstrong suggests associating movement with spelling. For example, a teacher might try to connect sitting with consonants and standing with vowels.

Armstrong is far from alone in placing faith in Gardner’s theory of “multiple intelligences.” Gardner’s ideas have been a significant force in education for the past 20 years–significant enough that they bear close study. How does the scientific community regard the theory of multiple intelligences, and what impact should the theory have on education?

Central Claims

Gardner first proposed his theory in 1983. Since then, it has undergone incremental but not fundamental change, including the addition of one intelligence (bringing the total to eight), the rejection of others, and consideration of the theory’s applications. The theory rests on three core claims:

• Gardner says that most psychometricians, those who devise and interpret tests as a way of probing the nature of intelligence, conceive of intelligence as unitary. In Intelligence Reframed, Gardner’s most recent restatement of his general theory, he writes, “In the ongoing debate among psychologists about this issue, the psychometric majority favors a general intelligence perspective.”

This is not an accurate characterization of the position taken by most psychometricians. As will be shown, the vast majority regard intelligence not as a single unified entity, but as a multifaceted phenomenon with a hierarchical structure.

There are multiple, independent intelligences. There are three parts to this claim, and it is important to appreciate all three. First, Gardner offers a new definition of intelligence, describing it as “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.” Previous definitions were limited to cognition or thought; one was intelligent to the extent that one could solve problems and adapt effectively to one’s environment using thinking skills. Gardner self-consciously broadens the definition to include effective use of the body and thinking skills relevant to the social world. He also extends the functionality of intelligence to include the crafting of useful products, not just the solving of problems. Second, Gardner claims to have identified some (but not all) of the several types of intelligence, which I describe below. Third, he claims that these multiple intelligences operate independently of one another.

The multiple intelligences theory has applications to education. Gardner has been careful to say that he has proposed a scientific theory that should not be mistaken for a prescription for schooling. He makes clear that the educational implications of children’s possessing multiple intelligences can and should be drawn, but he believes that many possible curricula and methods could be consistent with the theory. The sole general implication he supports is that children’s minds are different, and an education system should take account of those differences, a point developed in diverse ways by his many followers.

One Intelligence or Many?

Let’s evaluate each of Gardner’s claims in turn, beginning with how psychometricians view intelligence. In the early 20th century, many psychometricians did in fact think of intelligence as a unitary trait, just as Gardner now claims. The thinking at that time was articulated by Charles Spearman, who suggested that a single factor (he called it g, for general) underlay all intelligent behavior. If you had a lot of g, you were smart; if you didn’t, you weren’t. However, by the 1930s some researchers (notably Louis L. Thurstone) were already arguing for a multifaceted view of intelligence. One might be intelligent in the use of words, for example, but unintelligent mathematically. From the 1950s on, many psychometricians proposed hierarchical models, which may be thought of as a mixture of the single-factor and multiple-factor models. Except for a few holdouts, most psychologists now favor the hierarchical model.

How can one use data from tests of cognitive ability to evaluate the number of intelligences? A straightforward approach entails administering a number of separate tests thought to rely on different hypothesized intelligences. Suppose tests 1 and 2 are different tests of verbal ability (for example, vocabulary and spelling), and tests 3 and 4 are different tests of mathematical ability. If there is one intelligence, g, then g should support performance on all four tests, as shown in diagram A of Figure 1 (this page). A high score on test 1 would indicate that the test-taker is high in g, and he or she should perform well on all of the other tests.

Suppose, however, that there are two intelligences–one verbal and one mathematical, as shown in diagram B of Figure 1. In that case, a high score on test 1 would predict a high score on test 2, but would tell us nothing about the individual’s performance on the math tests, 3 and 4. Performance on those tests would depend on mathematical intelligence, which is separate and independent of verbal intelligence.

The data support neither of these views. To continue with our hypothetical example, the data show that all of the test scores, 1 through 4, are somewhat related to one another, which is consistent with the existence of g. But scores from tests of math ability are more related to one another than they are to verbal scores; the same goes for verbal scores. A hierarchical model, shown in diagram C of Figure 1, fits this pattern. In this model, g influences both mathematical and verbal cognitive processes, so performance on math and verbal tests will be somewhat related. But mathematical competence is supported not just by g, but by the efficacy of a mathematical intelligence that is separate and independent of a verbal intelligence. That’s why math scores are more related to each other than they are to verbal scores. It also explains how it is possible for someone to be quite good in math, but just mediocre verbally. This logic applies not only to the restricted example used here (math and verbal) but also to a broad spectrum of tests of intellectual ability.

The hierarchical view of intelligence received a strong boost from a landmark review of the published data collected over the course of 60 years from some 130,000 people around the world. That massive review, performed by the late University of North Carolina scholar John Carroll, concluded that the hierarchical view best fits the data. Researchers still debate the exact organization of the hierarchy, but there is a general consensus around the hierarchical view of intelligence. Thus Gardner’s first claim–that most psychometricians believe that intelligence is unitary–is inaccurate.

What Are the Intelligences?

Gardner’s second claim is that individuals possess at least eight independent types of intelligence. The following list includes a definition of each along with examples Gardner has provided of professions that draw heavily on that particular intelligence.

Linguistic: facility with verbal materials (writer, attorney).

Logico-mathematical: the ability to use logical methods and to solve mathematical problems (mathematician, scientist).

Spatial: the ability to use and manipulate space (sculptor,

architect).

Musical: the ability to create, perform, and appreciate music (performer, composer).

Bodily-kinesthetic: the ability to use one’s body (athlete, dancer).

Interpersonal: the ability to understand others’ needs, intentions, and motivations (salesperson, politician).

Intrapersonal: the ability to understand one’s own motivations and emotions (novelist, therapist with self-insight).

Naturalist: the ability to recognize, identify, and classify flora and fauna or other classes of objects (naturalist, cook).

Gardner claims that everyone has all eight intelligences to some degree, but each individual has his or her own pattern of stronger and weaker intelligences. Gardner also argues that most tasks require more than one intelligence working together. For example, the conductor of a symphony obviously uses musical intelligence, but also must use interpersonal intelligence as a group leader and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence to move in a way that is informative to the orchestra. The claim of separate and independent intelligences is, of course, central to Gardner’s theory. How do we know that these intelligences are independent?

It is important to bear in mind that the hierarchical model described in the previous section is not a theory, but a pattern of data. It is a description of how test scores are correlated. A theory of intelligence must be consistent with these data; the pattern of data is not itself a theory. For example, the data do not tell us what g is or how it works. The data tell us only that there is some factor that contributes to many intellectual tasks, and if your theory does not include such a factor, it is inconsistent with existing data. Gardner’s theory has that problem.

Setting g aside, the claim of independence among the eight intelligences is also a problem. Data collected over the past 100 years consistently show that performances on intellectual tasks are correlated. Even if Gardner’s theory did not include some general factor, it should at least provide a way to account for this correlation. The theory did not, and it was widely criticized for this failure. In some later writings, Gardner has said that he questions the explanatory power of g, not whether it exists–in other words, he doubts whether g makes much of a contribution to abilities Gardner deems important. He has also deemphasized the importance in his theory of whether the intelligences are truly independent.

Let’s allow, then, that the intelligences Gardner has identified are not independent, but that there are a number of distinguishable (but correlated) intellectual capabilities in addition to g. Has Gardner done a good job of cataloguing them? It is instructive to examine the criteria by which Gardner determines whether an ability is an intelligence. The criteria are shown in the table on page 22.

Gardner’s eight criteria appear to be quite rigorous: the psychometric criterion described in the previous section and seven others that span different domains of investigation. But Gardner weakens them by demanding that only a majority be satisfied, and some are rather easy to satisfy. The psychometric criterion is the most rigorous of the eight, but Gardner has largely ignored it. The remaining criteria are so weak that they cannot restrain a researcher with a zest for discovering new intelligences.

For instance, a humor intelligence and a memory intelligence certainly meet a majority of the criteria. Humor and memory can be used to solve problems and create valued products in many cultures and so meet Gardner’s definition of intelligence. Both can be isolated by brain damage, each has a distinct developmental history, and there is evidence for the psychological separability of each. Some individuals show exceptional memory or sense of humor but no other remarkable mental abilities. The evolutionary plausibility of each intelligence is easy to defend as well. Humor would certainly be adaptive in a social species such as ours, and the adaptive nature of memory should be self-evident.

By these criteria I am also prepared to defend an olfactory intelligence and a spelling intelligence and to subdivide Gardner’s spatial intelligence into near-space intelligence and far-space intelligence, thus bringing the total number of intelligences to 13. (Gardner, for reasons that are not clear to me, excludes sensory systems as potential intelligences, but not action systems such as bodily-kinesthetic.)

The issue of criteria by which new intelligences are posited is crucial, and it is in the selection of criteria that Gardner has made a fundamental mistake. Gardner’s criteria make sense if one assumes extreme modularity in the mind, meaning that the mind is a confederation of largely independent, self-sufficient processes. Gardner argues that neuroscience bears out this assumption, but that is an oversimplification.

For example, suppose that mathematical and spatial intelligence have the structure depicted in Figure 2, where each letter represents a cognitive process. Mathematical reasoning requires the cognitive processes A through E. Spatial reasoning requires the processes B through F. Are math and spatial reasoning separate?

Most people would agree that they are not identical, but they are largely overlapping and don’t merit being called separate. By Gardner’s criteria, however, they likely would be. If we assume that each process (A through F) is localized in a different part of the brain, then if the part of the brain supporting process A were damaged, math ability would be compromised, but spatial ability would not, so the brain criterion would be met. If process A or process F had a different developmental progression than the others, the developmental criterion would be met. If A and F differ in their need for attentional resources, the experimental psychological criterion would be met. The criteria that Gardner mentions can be useful, but they do not signal necessarily separate systems. In fact, the one criterion that Gardner has routinely ignored–the psychometric–is the one best suited to the question posed: Are cognitive processes underlying a putative intelligence independent of other cognitive processes?

Gardner’s second claim–that he has described multiple, independent varieties of intelligence–is not true. Intellectual abilities are correlated, not independent. Distinguishable abilities do exist, but Gardner’s description of them is not well supported.

Should Theory Become Practice?

For the educator this debate may be, as Shakespeare wrote, sound and fury, signifying nothing. What matters is whether and how the theory inspires changes in teaching methods or curriculum. The extent to which multiple intelligence ideas are applied is difficult to determine because few hard data exist to describe what teachers actually do in the classroom. Even statements of schools’ missions are of limited usefulness, although dozens of schools claim to center their curriculum on the theory. An administrator might insert multiple intelligences language in an effort to seem progressive. Or an administrator’s enthusiasm may be sincere, but if the teachers are not supportive, the classroom impact will be minimal.

We are left with indirect measures. Textbooks for teachers in training generally offer extensive coverage of the theory, with little or no criticism. Furthermore, the ready availability of multiple intelligences classroom materials (books, lesson plans, and activities) leaves the impression that there is a market for such materials. The applications they suggest generally fall into two broad categories: curricular expansion and pedagogical stratagem.

Curriculum expansion suggests that schools should appeal to all of the intelligences. Some educators have called for a more inclusive approach that does not glorify any one of the intelligences at the expense of the others. The theory has also been viewed as providing a pedagogical stratagem–namely, to teach content by tapping all of the intelligences. For example, to help students learn punctuation, a teacher might have them form punctuation marks with their bodies (bodily-kinesthetic intelligence), assign an animal sound to each punctuation mark (naturalist intelligence), and sort sentences according to the required punctuation (logical-mathematical intelligence). The motive may be that students will most enjoy or appreciate the material when it is embedded in an intelligence that is their strength. In this sense, intelligences may be translatable. The student who is linguistically weak but musically strong may improve his spelling through a musical presentation.

Gardner has criticized both ideas. Regarding curriculum, Gardner argues that the goals of education should be set independently of the multiple intelligences theory, and the theory should be used to help reach those goals. In other words, he does not believe that status as an “intelligence” necessarily means that that intelligence should be schooled. This objection is doubly true if you doubt that Gardner has categorized the intelligences correctly.

On the subject of pedagogy, Gardner sees no benefit in attempting to teach all subjects using all of the intelligences. He also expresses concern that some educators have a shallow understanding of what it takes to really engage an intelligence. Gardner writes, “It may well be easier to remember a list if one sings it (or dances to it). However, these uses of the ‘materials’ of an intelligence are essentially trivial. What is not trivial is the capacity to think musically.” It is therefore surprising that Gardner wrote the preface for Thomas Armstrong’s book, Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, which includes many such trivial ideas, such as singing spellings and spelling with leaves and twigs, as mentioned earlier. In the preface Gardner says that Armstrong provides “a reliable and readable account of my work.” The inconsistency in Gardner’s views is difficult to understand, but I believe he is right in calling some applications trivial.

Gardner also writes that intelligences are not fungible; the individual low in logico-mathematical intelligence but high in musical intelligence cannot somehow substitute the latter for the former and understand math through music. An alternative presentation may serve as a helpful metaphor, but the musically minded student must eventually use the appropriate representation to understand math. Gardner is on solid ground here. There is no evidence that subject-matter substitution is possible.

Gardner offers his own ideas of how multiple intelligences theory might be applied to education. Teachers should introduce a topic with different entry points, each of which taps primarily one intelligence. For example, the narrational entry point uses a story (and taps linguistic intelligence), whereas the logical entry point encourages the use of deductive logic in first thinking about a topic. Entry points are designed to intrigue the student via a presentation in an intelligence that is a particular strength for him or her. Gardner also believes that a thorough understanding of a topic is achieved only through multiple representations using different intelligences. Hence significant time must be invested to approach a topic from many different perspectives, and topics should be important enough to merit close study.

How effective are Gardner’s suggested applications? Again, hard data are scarce. The most comprehensive study was a three-year examination of 41 schools that claim to use multiple intelligences. It was conducted by Mindy Kornhaber, a long-time Gardner collaborator. The results, unfortunately, are difficult to interpret. They reported that standardized test scores increased in 78 percent of the schools, but they failed to indicate whether the increase in each school was statistically significant. If not, then we would expect scores to increase in half the schools by chance. Moreover, there was no control group, and thus no basis for comparison with other schools in their districts. Furthermore, there is no way of knowing to what extent changes in the school are due to the implementation of ideas of multiple intelligences rather than, for example, the energizing thrill of adopting a new schoolwide program, new statewide standards, or some other unknown factor.

What is perhaps most surprising about Gardner’s view of education is that it is not more surprising. Many experienced educators probably suspected that different materials (songs, stories) engage different students and that sustained study using different materials engenders deep knowledge.

Multiple Talents

One may wonder how educators got so confused by Gardner’s theory. Why do they believe that intelligences are interchangeable or that all intelligences should be taught? The answer is traceable to the same thing that made the theory so successful: the naming of various abilities as intelligences.

Why, indeed, are we referring to musical, athletic, and interpersonal skills as intelligences? Gardner was certainly not the first psychologist to point out that humans have these abilities. Great intelligence researchers–Cyril Burt, Raymond Cattell, Louis Thurstone–discussed many human abilities, including aesthetic, athletic, musical, and so on. The difference was that they called them talents or abilities, whereas Gardner has renamed them intelligences. Gardner has pointed out on several occasions that the success of his book turned, in part, on this new label: “I am quite confident that if I had written a book called ‘Seven Talents’ it would not have received the attention that Frames of Mind received.” Educators who embraced the theory might well have been indifferent to a theory outlining different talents–who didn’t know that some kids are good musicians, some are good athletes, and they may not be the same kids?

Gardner protests that there is no reason to differentiate–he would say aggrandize–linguistic and logico-mathematical intelligences by giving them a different label; either label will do, but they should be the same. He has written, “Call them all ‘talents’ if you wish; or call them all ‘intelligences.’” By this Gardner means that the mind has many processing capabilities, of which those enabling linguistic, logical, and mathematical thought are just three examples. There is no compelling reason to “honor” them with a special name, in his view.

Gardner has ignored, however, the connotation of the term intelligence, which has led to confusion among his readers. The term intelligence has always connoted the kind of thinking skills that make one successful in school, perhaps because the first intelligence test was devised to predict likely success in school; if it was important in school, it was on the intelligence test. Readers made the natural assumption that Gardner’s new intelligences had roughly the same meaning and so drew the conclusion that if humans have a type of intelligence, then schools should teach it.

It is also understandable that readers believed that some of the intelligences must be at least partially interchangeable. No one would think that the musically talented child would necessarily be good at math. But refer to the child as possessing “high musical intelligence,” and it’s a short step to the upbeat idea that the mathematics deficit can be circumvented by the intelligence in another area–after all, both are intelligences.

In the end, Gardner’s theory is simply not all that helpful. For scientists, the theory of the mind is almost certainly incorrect. For educators, the daring applications forwarded by others in Gardner’s name (and of which he apparently disapproves) are unlikely to help students. Gardner’s applications are relatively uncontroversial, although hard data on their effects are lacking. The fact that the theory is an inaccurate description of the mind makes it likely that the more closely an application draws on the theory, the less likely the application is to be effective. All in all, educators would likely do well to turn their time and attention elsewhere.

-Daniel T. Willingham is a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia.




Comment on this article
  • L. Hack says:

    Have you ever taught in an elementary school? I find your article (as I search for scholarly peer reviewed material for my paper) insulting to educators. Your review of others “100,000 studies” doesn’t make you experienced in the ways children learn in classrooms. Your favor of conventional IQ tests most of which are detested with education practioners with which I work and study is deplorable. At least MI gives educators and parents another tool that is useful. IQ tests created by psychologists are NOT indictative of school success as soon as they are given in pencil and paper format ( now they are a reading/writing test) or as soon as they given 1:1 outside of a classroom because you have taken the child out of the precise setting for which you are trying to predict success. Your insights are not completely objective and your article, unuseable to me as peer reviewed & objective, due to the emtional nature of your writing.

    Sad.

  • Brian Spencer says:

    I have been trying to do two things: locate empirical testing done on MI theory, and a reason that it has not been thrown out as a transparent attempt to copy Thurstone’s Primary Abilities Theory (1938).
    To date, I have found one empirical study and the results of that study (by Visser,Ashton and Vernon, 2006) echoes the study that caused Thurstone to change his view on HIS theory. Why is MI still being defended, instead of dropped?

  • Patrick Smith says:

    Professor Willingham, I found your article to be insightful, thoughtful, and well-written. Thanks very much for sharing your thoughts on this topic.

  • R. Schultz says:

    I personally feel that there are many aspects that both, the concepts this article represents, and the writing in itself that should be taken into further consideration. Each point in the mind works as one, as does the environment around these points, and furthermore spread past that. We each seek knowledge on a natural standard as that is currently what is taught, to seek knowledge. If we only seek knowledge in order to further our knowledge, and place a greater span of intelligence on how to seek more knowledge, would we then forever be placed in a struggle for more said knowledge? A long time I have struggled with learning and it was not single factors, nor as were the reasons I lacked certain motivations or the ability to ‘feel’. We are taught in specifics that even the teachers do not comprehend to the fullest extent, and mostly it is a very competitive field of study; knowledge in itself. If you speak in terms that a person may not fully understand, you might feel at a higher level intelligence, or you may not see why that person does not understand. Thus the insult used towards people, when calling them “stupid”. In those cases people would fear of how that effects a person, taking into consideration the behavorial levels of analysis rather than cause and effect in itself. Truthfully, if a person is raised expected to have intelligence, taught that they need to learn to become successful, they may look at others and feel that they should already have that intelligence. So instead of allowing the maturity and growth in the natural brain to form, and entirely developing the human ego, the base stress of emotion at even such a young age can take a very hard toll on a person for the entirety on their life. So if the cognitive science is in terms showing the base levels of analysis, or if teachers feel that repetition, or group structural foundations are effective ways of teaching how to learn and develop specific skills, maybe we should not only take into consideration these possible tools but also the invidual effects they place on specific minds, at say the level of the child.
    If Gardner was not entirely accurate with his findings or beliefs, or if Willingham has sought new breakthroughs in child learning, or if someone feels everyone is wrong about what they say, what difference is pointing that out going to make? The best to do is to move on in respects of the other’s belief, as to be honest each point someone has to make is more valuable than no point at all. Use each finding to create the most efficient form of intelligence, taking into consideration of all levels of analysis at the same time; there’s your critical thinking.

    So much more than just one point should be implemented into a valid statement, thus creating a higher level of difficulty to communicate those findings or to fully comprehend it one’s self. It was said that people find motivation to learn or research based on a surge of success or pleasure from achieving what was seeked. With that said, would people only be seeking out this feeling rather than respectfully doing their best to make this world a better place? Is it all just then “A Game of Thrones”?How is someone to differentiate successfully between these abstract thoughts and what the reality is behind all of this knowledge that is tossed around like the flavor of the month? With being said that critical thinking is not easy, I find this more of a given rather than the high point of all that needs to be said. I feel after long examining improvements in my own mental health, based on perspectives of those around me and changes in my environment for what is the “normality” of a sixteen years old male, critical thinking is not so very difficult as is to communicating what I wish to explore, or being capable of doing so.

    TLDR: Respect, listening, and patience for understanding goes a long way in teaching. No matter who you are, where you are or what you say, if you come in contact with another person you in one way or another to any extent change their life. Every person is different, the mind is deep and complex and all points should be taken into consideration and used in one way or another, no matter the tone or success of which they are presented.
    I say this all not as a studied fact nor my only direct opinion, but how I have experienced schooling and the different effects each ‘point’ has placed on me.
    And as my not-so-final-thought, maybe Gardner’s ‘g’ theory could be placed in a more abstract thought with it being the general but it holding ‘p’, points; in time, in mind, in self, in environment. Intelligence can be thought of as translated, or taught, or enherited, but it will always be the same concept in each person, judged by another based on biased or taught beliefs, as everything we know is taught to us through history and the specifics of the past believers.
    And to prove that very point wrong, I was not taught this format of words I am communicating, I created it using what I have been taught in the past. Thus understanding the process of creation more-so than I did, and this being the first time I have felt accomplished of doing so. I may not be accurate on everything as I do not claim to be, but there is so much to learn and I should not have to feel as though I am wrong for having to, for we all have to learn.

    TLDR again: Play well with others.

  • anna says:

    I wish articles like this were discussed more often in education classrooms. I just finished a semester of ‘Teaching Methods’ that involved emphasis on MI – the instructor said, “Do this, because it’s engaging,” except that we never got to find out why it might work, or what kind of data supports MI, if any. THANKS, D. WILLINGHAM! I want to read your book.

  • [...] both in terms of scientific rigor and in terms of producing measurable differences in learning.http://educationnext.org/reframi…In short, Gardner's theory is not rigorous. It does a poor job of defining what makes something [...]

  • e-reck says:

    Everyone that is involved in writing education policy should be aware of this information. It is unfortunate that as a teacher, part of my evaluation is based on my ability to modify my teaching based on different learning modalities or itelligences. It shoud be the content that drives the modality. Thank you for this article!

  • T. Taylor says:

    Who’s Right? Who’s Wrong? The landscape is fill with so such information until it is quite confusing. It would be great to have a person (Organization) who to do the research, and give a definitive answer, about how the brain correlates to teaching and learning. It seems as if everyone trying prove a point and get paid in the process.

    This is too important for the future of education.

  • [...]  I have been looking through many articles, but one of the best things I’ve found is an elaborated blogpost by Daniel T. Willingham, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. Do take your [...]

  • jullanar adnan says:

    I am so sorry to say that your article is very bias and you are far away from scientific objectivity . Besides, you presents so many decisions that lack evidence – the thing you severely criticize Gardner for- and this is not right, you know!

  • Peter Lydon says:

    Excellent take down of MI. I suspect most teachers quote it because it’s hip and trendy not to mention PC but in fact haven’t read it, don’t understand it and can’t critique it. I am a teacher and have always been suspicious of MI. Good not to be alone.

  • Ame hamri says:

    Article is very interesting

  • [...] research and shown that learning styles do not exist; on multiple intelligences, ‘for scientists, this theory of the mind is almost certainly incorrect’: ‘The fact that the theory is an inaccurate description of the mind makes it likely that the more [...]

  • Comment on this Article

    Name ()


    *

         13 Comments
    Sponsored Results
    Sponsors

    The Hoover Institution at Stanford University - Ideas Defining a Free Society

    Harvard Kennedy School Program on Educational Policy and Governance

    Thomas Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence and Education Reform

    Sponsors