Career Development and The MIDAS Assessment

C. Branton Shearer, Ph.D.

December, 2004

1316 S. Lincoln St. Kent, Ohio 44240

sbranton@kent.edu

www.MIResearch.org 

What does it mean to be an intelligent person? Philosophers, psychologists and everyday people have answered this question using a wide variety of definitions for intelligence since time immemorial. This question has particular significance for someone seeking a career path where the chances for success and satisfaction will be maximized.

In his landmark book, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983), Howard Gardner provided extensive research to support his contention that human intelligence is multifaceted rather than singular. Gardner (1999a) redefined intelligence 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” (p. 34). To qualify as an intelligence in Gardner’s multiple intelligences (MI) theory, each ability has to satisfy a range of criteria: the potential for isolated breakdown of the skill through brain damage; the existence of savants, prodigies, and other exceptional individuals with this ability; support from psychological training studies and from psychometric studies, including correlations across tests; evolutionary plausibility; and a distinct developmental history culminating in a definable set of endstate performances. In addition, each intelligence has to have an identifiable core operation or set of operations, as well as susceptibility to coding in a symbol system (e.g., language, mathematics, picturing, or musical notes) (Feldman, 1998).

Gardner uses eight basic criteria to identify several different intelligences that all humans have as part of their cerebral endowment. Of course, given that the normal human brain consists of approximately 100 billion neurons and each individual is exposed to an infinite variety of environmental stimuli influencing the course of intellectual growth, each person possesses his / her unique profile of strengths and limitations.

The eight intelligences identified by MI theory are Linguistic, Logical-mathematical, Spatial, Kinesthetic, Musical, Naturalist, Interpersonal and Intrapersonal.  Each intelligence has its own memory system with cerebral structures dedicated to processing its specific contents (Gardner, 1993).

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 multi-step, 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 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.  On the other hand, musical careers (e.g., instrumentalist, vocalist) generally require more circumscribed abilities that emphasize technical skill rather than creative output.

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 includes the ability to perceive the visual world accurately and to perform transformations and modifications upon 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 expertise.  An automobile mechanic or engineer, on the other hand, does not need creative and artistic abilities to find the solution to a malfunctioning engine.

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.

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 the same coin, 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.  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.

Career Implications of MI Theory

There are four very practical implications for applying MI to career planning, selection and development. First, the chances for maximum career development are increased when there is a good match between the job tasks and an individual’s MI strengths. Second, the strength and development of Intrapersonal intelligence is a key factor in positive career selection and advancement. Third, career development will be enhanced when the person’s significant others (parents, teachers, counselors, supervisors, peers, co-workers, etc.) are aware and supportive of the growth of and individual’s particular strengths. Fourth, the negative impact of the person’s weaknesses on career success will be minimized when strengths are emphasized and employed to bridge over any significant deficits.

The MIDAS Assessment

            The Multiple Intelligences Developmental Assessment Scales (MIDAS) were developed in 1987 to provide an efficient means for obtaining a rich and descriptive understanding of a person’s multiple intelligences profile. Since then extensive research around the world has established its reliability and validity along with its practical applications. It has been used for the past 10 years at the university level to assist confused college students to decide upon a major course of study and clarify career options best suited to one’s MI strengths. The MIDAS is also being used widely to assist high school students with enhancing self-knowledge, study skills and career awareness. Teachers also use the MIDAS to better understand the unique educational needs of “at risk”, typical and high ability students.

Further Readings and References

Gardner, H. (1983, 1993).  Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.

            New York:Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: Theory into practice. New York:

            Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages.

            Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 200-209.

Gardner, H. (1999a). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21^st century.

            New York: Basic Books.

Shearer, C. B. (1994). The MIDAS: Professional manual. Kent, Ohio: MI Research and

             Consulting, Inc. www.MIResearch.org

Shearer, C. B., & Jones, J. A. (1994, April). The validation of the Hillside Assessment of

            Perceived Intelligences: A measure of Howard Gardner’s theory of

            multiple intelligences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

            American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Shearer, C.B. (1999). The challenge!  A MIDAS guide to career success. Kent, OH: MI

            Research and Consulting, Inc.

Reliability, Validity and Utility of a Multiple Intelligences Assessment for Career Planning

C. Branton Shearer, Ph.D.

Multiple Intelligences Research and Consulting

1316 S. Lincoln St.      Kent, Ohio 44240    330-673-8024

sbranton@kent.edu     www.MIResearch.org

Presented at 105th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association

Chicago, Illinois. August 15, 1997

This paper describes validity, reliability and utility regarding The Multiple Intelligences Developmental Assessment Scales (MIDAS). The MIDAS is a self (or other) completed instrument based upon the theory of multiple intelligences.  It consists of seven main scales and 24 subscales to provide a descriptive summary of a person's intellectual disposition in the areas of linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal.  The MIDAS has been included in the curriculum of a college career exploration class for four years and has been found to increase students' self-awareness to assist in career decision making and major selection.

Reliability

Internal Consistency, Test-Retest, Inter-rater

- Alpha Cronbach (m=.85 range .76 to .87)

- Two rater agreement rates (40% exact, 80% + one category)

- Test - retest (n104)  m=.85 range .76 - .92)

- Few sig. diff. between African-American and Caucasian students

Validity

Factor, Concurrent and Criterion Groups

- Field test: in-depth interviews

- Expert item review, scale content

- Item clarity, readability (appx. 6th grade)

- Appropriate correlations with cognitive, achievement and interests tests

- Linguistic & Log-math with Full Scale I.Q. r=.60

- Exploratory Principal Components with Equamax Rotation (8 factors identified)

- Significant differences between contrasted college groups

- Appropriate pattern of MI scores for adult criterion groups

Career Exploration, Counseling and Classroom Programs

- 73% of college students benefit from MIDAS Profile

- Intrapersonal awareness development

- Study Skills development

- Engage "at risk" students

- Vocational education programs

-Teacher self MI assessment

Howard Gardner defines intelligence as...

"...an ability or set of abilities that allows a person to solve a problem or create a product that is valued within one or more cultural settings..."

The Multiple Intelligence Developmental Assessment Scales (MIDAS) provides an efficient method of obtaining a descriptive assessment of a student's multiple intelligence profile. The MIDAS is a self report measure of intellectual disposition and may be completed by either the child or a parent. Classroom materials are available that can be used to enhance study skills, self knowledge, instructional approaches, curriculum planning and career development.

"To my knowledge The MIDAS represents the first effort to measure the multiple intelligences, which has been developed according to standard psychometric procedures. Branton Shearer is to be congratulated for the careful and cautious way in which he has created his instrument and offered guidance for its use and interpretation."

Howard Gardner

Harvard University

"I want to let you know how great The MIDAS workshop was!  It made me more aware of my

students' abilities.  As everyone knows there are always new theories coming out, but I do think The MIDAS is the most complete, reasonable and applicable tool yet developed!  Thanks for a great

(and eye-opening) course, and I promise to continue to becoming a better & better MI teacher. "

Chemistry Teacher

Stow High School, Ohio

THE MIDAS consists of . . .

- 119 descriptive questions

- completed via self report or by a family member

- appropriate for ages above 14 (MIDAS-for-KIDS for children)

- 8 main scales

- 23 qualitative subscales

- 3 intellectual style scales (Leadership, Innovative, General Logic)

- easy-to-use scoring service or computer program

- qualitative and quantitative Profile Reports

Interpretative Books and Materials available for classroom and counseling use.

- The MIDAS: Professional Manual                 - The MIDAS Teacher's Handbook: MI in the Classroom

- Stepping Stones: A Teacher's Workbook       - Stepping Stones: A MIDAS Workbook for MI

- The Challenge! A Guide to Career Success   - Common Miracles in the Classroom           

- Creating ExtraOrdinary Teachers: MI in the Classroom   www.continuumbooks.com/Books .

- MIndful Education for ADHD Students        http://store.tcpress.com

- MI At 25: Assessing the Impact of Multiple Intelligences   www.tcpress.com

Can MI be an Effective Tool in the Classroom

Anna Munger, Amanda Sanders, and Teri Smith

Brigham Young University-Idaho

Introduction

It wasn’t until the age of four that the boy every spoke an understandable word. And it wasn’t until the age of seven that the boy first began to read. His parents considered him “sub-normal” and even a teacher of his thought him “mentally slow, unsociable, and adrift forever in foolish dreams.” This student was even expelled from school. Even more remarkable, however, was that in 1921 this boy, whose name has shaped the world of science as we know it, won the Noble Peace Price. His name? Albert Einstein.

            So many students, like Einstein, struggled in school until they found their specialties. It is vital to realize that a student’s capability can’t solely be judged according to the student’s academic performance. It is the duty of educators, parents, and others who work with the youth in our schools to understand that a student’s capability should be based upon their individual learning style. This learning style is affected and determined by many factors in a student’s life; one of them however, is the unique and individual make-up of one’s brain.

            For this reason, many educators have looked to Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences to help them meet the individual learning styles of students in their classroom.

The Human Mind

            Sitting in the classroom staring into space, the child looks like he or she is paying attention but really is off in their own world. Why is that? Most of the other students are participating in the lesson. Sometimes lessons are just boring. But there was a lot of effort and time put into that lesson. How can it be boring? The lesson might be interesting and engaging for some and not for others. Why? It is widely accepted that every person learns differently. Some learn with their hands, by doing, others by listening, and others visually. Still others require a combination of teaching methods. Howard Gardner categorizes the different ways of learning are categorized in a method called Multiple Intelligences.  He has done extensive research and posits that there are seven different learning styles. A child not paying attention to a lesson may have a different learning style than the one being used.  It is important, as a teacher, to know the Multiple Intelligence theory so that teachers can cater their teaching to students’ individual learning styles.   

            The different learning styles are important for the teachers to know so all students can understand the material covered in the classroom. Howard Gardner identifies these learning styles as follows: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal (Raedurn, 1999). Individual learning styles exist because each person’s brain is “programmed” differently.

            The human brain is made up of two hemispheres: the right and the left. There is a saying by left-handed people: “if you are right handed you are not in your right mind.” That statement is true to a point. The left half of the brain controls the right half of the body and the right half of the brain controls the left half of the body. But learning works differently.  Each hemisphere has its specialties, and the two hemispheres also work together as a whole to accomplish the learning (Brain Hemispheres).

            Each hemisphere has its own responsibilities. The left hemisphere is responsible for learning from part to whole, is stimulated by function, phonetic reader, likes words, symbols, letters, unrelated factual information and detailed orderly instructions, prefers to read about it first, prefers internal focus, wants structure, and predictability. The right hemisphere is responsible for learning whole first, then parts, is stimulated by appearance, whole language reader, wants pictures, graphs, and charts, would rather see it or experience it first, finds relationships in learning, spontaneous, go with the flow, likely external focus, likes open-endedness and surprises (Brian Hemispheres). People who are left handed generally follow that learning pattern.  So do right handed people follow the other learning pattern.

            Walbolt (1997) finds that the brain hemispheres are not the only part of the brain connected with learning. For instance the brain stem controls breathing and circulation. The cerebrum handles the memory, learning, speech, and conscious control of movement. Those parts of the brain are important to learning and keeping memory. There is a process that the brain follows when trying to commit something to memory. A thought or memory is an electrical impulse that is sent through billions of nerve cells to be processed and is put into the brain’s memory.  This is what happens:

            “A thought, in the form of an electrical impulse, travels to the synaptic knob of a nerve cell.  The electrical current causes vesicles to move to the synapse’s surface and release chemicals known as neurotransmitters.  Specialized sites at the receiving nerve cell absorbs the neurotransmitters.  A chemical signal is sent down the dendrite to the cell body.  The chemical change in the cell body around the nucleus causes an electrical signal to shoot down the cell’s axon and off to another nerve cell” (Walbolt, 1991, para. 2).

When the electrical impulse, or the thought, hits the cells in the brain, chemicals have to change for the electrical impulse to take effect and become a memory. The brain chemical that helps determine what we remember and what we forget during the memory process is called CREB.  

more...

The 25th anniversary

The 25^th anniversary of the publication of Howard Gardner’s Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Copyright 2008 Howard Gardner. All rights Reserved.

In 1983, psychologist Howard Gardner published Frames of Mind, the book in which he introduced his ‘theory of multiple intelligences’ (MI theory).  Gardner wrote this book as a psychologist and thought that he was addressing principally his colleagues in psychology.  He devoted little of the book to educational implications and never expected that his ideas would be picked up by educators, first in the United States and then, eventually, in many countries across the globe.  During this year, when Gardner turns 65, he will be making a number of presentations in which he reflects on the course of his thinking over the years, as well as his speculations about the future course of work in this tradition.

While many individuals believe that Gardner set out to dislodge IQ and standard intelligence theory, in fact he did not have this target in mind when he began the research that led to the theory.   Indeed, as one who had done well on standardized tests and had been trained in the Piagetian tradition, he had devoted little thought or study to theories of intelligence altogether.  Rather, it was his empirical work with normal and gifted children, on the one hand, and with brain-damaged patients on the other, that convinced him that the standard view of a ‘single, unitary, undecomposable intelligence’ could not be correct.  The work of synthesizing that led to MI theory consisted of surveying a whole set of literature and disciplines that might yield a more comprehensive and more veridical notion of human intellect.

The most important steps taken by Gardner involved arriving at a working definition of ‘an intelligence’ and devising a set of criteria of what counts as an intelligence. As he describes it, an intelligence is a biological and psychological potential to solve problems and/or create products that are valued in one or more cultural contexts. Armed with this definition and these criteria, Gardner identified seven relatively autonomous capacities that he named the multiple intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal.  In more recent writings, Gardner added an eighth (naturalist) intelligence and continues to speculate about a possible ninth (existential) intelligence.

The two most important scientific implications of the theory are complementary. On the one hand, all human beings possess these 8 or 9 intelligences—that is what makes us human.  On the other hand, no two human beings—not even identical twins—exhibit precisely the same profile of intelligences. That is because even when genetics are controlled for (as is the case with monozygotic twins), individuals have different life experiences and are also motivated to differentiate themselves from one another.

In part because he had not thought of himself as an educator, Gardner did not lay out—and indeed never has laid out-- a program for the education of multiple intelligences. He was amazed when, shortly after the book was published, a group of elementary school teachers from Indianapolis approached him and said that they wanted to start an “MI School.” For over twenty years, Gardner has been an informal adviser to the Key Learning Community; but he has always stressed that the teachers are the educators, the school people, and his views should be take as advisory only.  He has assumed the same low-key stance toward the many other educators around the world who have approached him with requests for help in setting up an “MI school.”

For the same reason, Gardner kept silent for a decade when individuals approached him for comments on various implementations of his ideas. Only when he saw his ideas radically abused, as happened in Australia in the early 1990s, did he intervene. (Gardner objected strenuously to a statewide educational intervention that described major racial and ethnic groups in Australia in terms of the intelligences that they purportedly had and the ones that they purportedly lacked). 

Spurred by this “wake up call”, Gardner did write about the various myths and misunderstanding of MI theory—for example, confusing an intelligence with a learning style, or asserting that all children are strong in at least one intelligence.  Moreover, he now believes that any serious application of MI ideas should entail at least two components;

1. An attempt to individuate education as much as possible.  The advent of personal computers should make this goal much easier to attain.
2. A commitment to convey important ideas and concepts in a number of different formats.  This activation of multiple intelligences holds promise of reaching many more students and also demonstrating what it means to understand a topic thoroughly and deeply.

Looking toward the future, Gardner expects MI theory and practice to expand in a number of directions:

1. Application of these ideas in institutions other than schools—for example, museums, government, the workplace;
2. Devising of computer software and virtual realities that present or teach the same topics via the activation of several intelligences;
3. Exploration of the genetic bases for the various intelligences.  When Gardner began his work, almost nothing was known about the genetics of various abilities.  This situation should change dramatically in coming years.
4. Refinement of our understanding of the neural bases of intelligences and the ways that they develop and interact.  Gardner’s original theory was based in significant part on the knowledge of brain specialization available around 1980.   There has been an explosion of knowledge about neural networks and connections since this time, as well as the emergence of many new techniques for assessing brain structure and functioning in vivo. This knowledge can and will lead to a superior delineation of human capacities, and, in all probability, to a more authoritative statement of the boundaries between and across different human intelligences.
5. Study of how MI theory has been implemented around the world.  While MI ideas have been picked up in a broad range of developed and developing societies, the ways in which these ideas have been used, and the obstacles that they have encountered, differ dramatically and at times in unexpected ways.  To document this trend, Gardner and colleagues Jie-Qi Chen and Seana Moran, are editing a book that contains over two dozen essays by theorists and practitioners from a wide gamut of countries and institutions.  Among the most striking is the Explorama at Danfoss Universe in Denmark, an entire theme park based on MI theory. Many of the authors gathered at the March 2008 meeting of the American Educational Research Association; it is expected that the edited book, to be published by Jossey-Bass, will appear in 2009. 
   In addition to the question of how MI theory has been understood and fashioned in different soils,  the book will also address the more general issue of how ‘educational memes’ travel.
6. Synthesis of MI theory with other work currently being undertaken by Gardner and colleagues. Over the last dozen years, Gardner and a team of researchers have been studying ‘good work’ (goodworkproject.org).  This work focuses on the benevolent uses to which human intelligence, creativity, and leadership can be (but are not necessarily) applied.  More recently, Gardner’s research group has also begun to examine how the current generation of young people is being affected by the new digital media—another area ripe for investigation in terms of MI theory.   Finally, Gardner has ventured into the policy arena, as in his recent book Five Minds for the Future.   Gardner is pondering the relationships – as well as the tensions—between how human beings are understood by scientific study (as in MI theory) and how they should be nurtured by educational institutions.

April 2008

Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Summary of a Presentation at the IVU World Vegetarian Congress,

July 27-August 2, 2008, Dresden, Germany

by

George Jacobs

Vegetarian Society (Singapore)

www.vegetarian-society.org

Acknowledgements

The basic ideas presented here come from the work of Howard Gardner (www.howardgardner.com) , a professor of Cognition (thinking and perceiving) and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and from the works of these other educators:

• Thomas Armstrong www.thomasarmstrong.com
• David Lazear, New Dimensions in Learning: www.multi-intell.com
• Spencer and Miguel Kagan, Kagan Publications: www.KaganOnline.com.

Introduction

This presentation includes a very brief history of Multiple Intelligences (MI), an explanation of what is meant by MI and each of the eight currently identified intelligences, and an opportunity for readers to reflect on their own MI profile. Then, the final and most important part of the presentation involves consideration of how to apply MI in vegetarian education work.

Briefly, MI can be summarized in the following rhyme adapted from Kagan and Kagan:

The more ways we teach, the more people we reach

And, the more ways we reach each

And, the more deeply what we teach will reach

In other words, by teaching the what, why and how of vegetarianism in a variety of ways, we are more likely to connect with more people, and each person is likely to better grasp and remember the ideas presented.

A Brief History of MI

The first IQ (Intelligence Quotient) test was developed about 1900. For many years thereafter, the concept of a single measure of intelligence was widely accepted in education and psychology. Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, cognitive theories became dominant in psychology and education. In education, cognitive theories highlight the internal workings of each person’s brain, rather than the external workings of teachers and education materials.

Another aspect of cognitivist theories that is particularly relevant to MI is their emphasis on diversity: while all humans share many similarities and everyone is entitled to the same rights and opportunities, all humans are also different based both on their genetic makeup, as well as their unique individual experiences. This diversity, when understood and appreciated, provides a great source of strength.

In the 1980s, Howard Gardner, a proponent of cognitivist perspectives, developed MI theory based on eight criteria for deciding what constitutes an intelligence:

              i.      Potential isolation by brain damage.

            ii.      The existence of idiot savants, prodigies and other exceptional individuals.

          iii.      An identifiable core operation or set of operations.

          iv.      A distinctive development history, along with a definable set of 'end-state' performances.

            v.      An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility.

          vi.      Support from experimental psychological tasks.

        vii.      Support from psychometric findings.

      viii.      Susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system.

Other theorists, such as Robert Sternberg, have developed other theories involving a variety of intelligences.

What MI Theory Says

MI is a very optimistic intelligence theory. It states that intelligence is not a unitary construct, that instead there are many ways to be smart. Indeed, everyone is smart, and in different ways. On another optimistic note, Gardner claims that intelligence is not fixed, and that we can all, even adults, become smarter.

Exactly what constitutes an intelligence is a matter of some debate. Nonetheless, it should be understood that ‘intelligence’ is not a synonym for ‘skill’ or ‘ability’.  Intelligences are also about preferences, how people enjoy doing things, what their favourite modes of learning are. Furthermore, intelligences seldom work alone; almost any task involves two or more intelligences.

An MI Survey

One excellent way to understand MI is to take the MI survey found in Armstrong’s book Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom (second edition), 2001, published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia, USA. Below is a much-shortened and somewhat modified version of the survey, with three questions for each of the eight intelligences currently identified by Gardner. Answer Yes (1) or No (0) to each of the questions (if you must, you can answer .5).

1. Verbal/Linguistic Intelligence

1. Do you enjoy putting thoughts on paper or in the computer?
2. Do you enjoy playing with words, such as rhymes, puns and word games?
3. Do you enjoy reading books and magazines?

2. Logical/Mathematical Intelligence

1. Do you enjoy chess, checkers, or other strategy games?
2. Do you ask questions about how things work?
3. Do you feel more comfortable when something has been measured or quantified in some way?

3. Interpersonal Intelligence

1. Do you enjoy teaching others?
2. Do you enjoy doing things as part of a group?
3. Are you good at seeing the points of view of others?

4. Intrapersonal Intelligence

1. Would you be described as someone who in well-organized and in control of yourself?
2. Do you often set goals and reach them?
3. Do you feel good about who you are?

5. Naturalist Intelligence

1. Are you good at recognizing patterns, similarities, differences, anomalies?
2. Do you enjoy spending time with nature, including animals
3. Do you have keen sensory skills - sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch - and notice things that others often miss? 

6. Musical/Rhythmic Intelligence

1. Can you play a musical instrument?
2. Do you enjoy listening to music?
3. Do you sometimes do things in a rhythmic way?

7. Visual/Spatial Intelligence

1. Do you like maps, charts and diagrams better than words?
2. Do you have a good sense of direction?
3. Do you often doodle and draw?

8. Bodily/Kinaesthetic

1. Are you good at some sports?
2. Do you like working with your hands?
3. Do you enjoy being on the go - running, moving around, walking - instead of sitting or standing still

Two points should be noted when interpreting this survey. First, this is a shortened version of an unvalidated instrument. Another point is that, as can be seen even from this abbreviated survey, each intelligence has many facets. Thus, it would be inaccurate to say someone is high or low in a particular intelligence. For instance, with Bodily/Kinaesthetic Intelligence, someone might enjoy and be good at racquet sports but dislike and be rather poor at sports that demand a great deal of strength, such as weightlifting, or sports that require great accuracy, such as basketball.

The Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Why is this of any import in the current clime? Of late, the most popular theory of human abilities has been the Multiple Intelligence (MI) view of Gardner (1983). The original presentation of the theory of multiple intelligences artfully combined information from a half dozen fields into an engaging set of essays on the initial set of seven intelligences. Each account was liberally illustrated with events from the lives of famous individuals or clinical cases. Indeed, insightful psychobiography seems Gardner’s particular forté.

MI theory has always been more popular with lay readers and practitioners than with either cognitive or differential psychologists. Cognitive psychologists were troubled by the theory’s extreme modularity, particularity the claim that a central working memory was unnecessary (Messick, 1992). Rather, each “intelligence” was seen as having its own working memory. This may sound like a relatively minor point, but it is not. Working memory is a pivotal construct in all models of cognition. Theorists debate how working memory functions, and what sort of modality-specific slave systems it might have. But most do not debate whether it is a useful or needed construct.

Differential psychologists, on the other hand, were troubled by Gardner’s dismissal of 80 years of research on the organization of human abilities (Carroll, 1993; Gustafsson & Undheim, 1996). The reason given is that, as Gardner sees it, evidence for G is provided almost entirely by short-answer multiple choice, paper-and-pencil tests of the sorts of linguistic and logical intelligence that are at best useful for predicting success in the narrow domain of conventionally structured schools (Gardner, 1993, p. 39). Yet even the most cursory examination of human abilities literature shows that every one of these claims at best overstates and at worst is simply false. But there is enough truth to them, and enough dissatisfaction with standardized tests of all sorts that even those who were troubled by the claims were willing to wait and see what sort of evidence would be produced by the new assessment procedures Gardner advocated. They are still waiting.

Lessons learned from performance assessments in other areas of education will probably hold here. We have found that so-called authentic tests have a beneficial effect on the curriculum and can measure aspects of knowledge and skills not tapped by surrogate measures. But we also have discovered that there is vastly more overlap with conventional tests than difference from them, that performance measures are less reliable, more time consuming to administer and score, and vastly more expensive. Most importantly, there is little reason to think that performance assessments show no overlap with each other, and thus support the notion of an independent set of intelligences.

Gardner’s theory appeals to teachers and parents because it reinforces the idea that at root all children are special, and that giftedness is a multidimensional—not undimensional—affair. Surely both of these are noble goals. However the theory also appeals the perverse human tendency to think categorically rather than probabilistically. To see two types or seven types of people in the world is surely an advance over seeing one type. But typologies mislead more than they lead when the underlying structure in the domain is not categorical. Indeed, the critical failure of Gardner’s theory is not just that it fails to acknowledge or explain why abilities are correlated, but why this correlational structure is implies a hierarchy. In other words, it does not explain why some “intelligences” are more intelligent than others.