Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences/Archive 1

Peer Review & Research

What research has been done to support/refute this theory? Peer reviews are good, nice and useful. But until someone is willing to attach data, it's just a thesis. Uberhill 14:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

Google Scholar gives about 17,700 results (0.08 sec) for Howard Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligence, indicating that a plethora of data is available to those willing to search. In 2013, Howard Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligence is widely known and treated as common knowledge in some academic circles. Stmullin (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be looking for actual sources, not a Google Scholar search result, before we could add it to the article. "Flying saucer" gives 29,900 hits and "yeti" gives 27,300 hits. A plethora of sources exists on these topics too, even though they are pseudoscience. --John (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious or just messing with me . . . the work of Howard Gardner is a major pillar in education and deserves much better treatment than he is receiving on these pages. Learning theory is not Instructional theory, they are complimentary but not the same and the distinction needs to be drawn.Stmullin (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am serious. Your opinion is not a source. We need scholarly sources that say what you want us to say. Come back when you find them. --John (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the call out on the template page so that this article can be rescued by someone who understands the topic. It is important information and needs to be treated with respect.Stmullin (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tags and the see alsos; there's nothing actionable here. If you wanted there to be, the first step would be to find some sources. I invite you once again to do so. --John (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking this to the Tea House . . . the article is not mine, I have stated no personal opinions in this article, and your treatment of my valid critique is way off base. 65.190.196.45 (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your critique is not a valid one unless you can provide some sources. Please log in to edit. --John (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source is provided, this is not a Fringe theory, and if you continue to harass people who truly do understand the material the chances of Wikipedia surviving is very slim because those who understand the material will not waste time arguing over common knowledge. To repeatedly say cite sources when the problem is NPOV is insane. Especially when there are thousands of sources.Stmullin (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are thousands of sources it should be easy to cite the best 10. Can you do so, please? --John (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove off topic material

This is unrelated, sorry about putting it in this section. The Steven Wiltshire drawing of the "Tokyo Skyline" looks an awful lot like Paris, including the Eiffle Tower. Maybe it was mislabeled? I'm just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.90.25 (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo has a broadcast tower that looks very much like the Eiffel Tower; the drawing is likely ok. Uberhill 14:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

Peer review & content

Mainly: An entry on a theory like this is meant to present the theory concisely, clearly, coherently and comprehensively. Secondarily: It may present a little discussion or comparison on related or contrary theories, but only to point out main differences. Falcon is right. RK is irrelevant.

There is no place for any peer review, no matter how brilliant or supported by a thousand research. That peer review belongs elsewhere. Otherwise, I can come up with a peer review if I don't agree with your theory, and when will it end?

In like manner, disputes or doubts about the whole or parts of the theory, including how it was derived and how it can or cannot be applied, should not be part of this page, or we will never get past discussion. User:Frank A Hilario 0850, 27 January 2006

On the contrary I believe that whether or not you agree is very realavent! If you convince somone that it is bogus, or that it is a good system by giving your point of view, then poeple can decide whether to depend on it or disregard it. After all, isn't the article for the facts and the discussion for your own opinion?(I'm very sorry if I put this in the wrong place i'm new and not sure where would be best.)

There are numerous factual errors and omissions, which suggest this wikipedia entry is in desperate need of review and editing by more knowledgeable individuals. For example, there is no mention of the dozen-plus criteria, some rather specific, that Gardner uses to distinguish whether something is an intelligence. Similarly, it is false to report that Gardner claims people are equally intelligent. I don't have particular feelings about the theory, but the scope of accuracies is painful. I suggest this page be closed down until it is clarified or rewritten.

I agree that this article needs to have omissions filled in and further review and editing. Have you heard that Wikipedia is written by human beings such as yourself, who don't have the time to write a complete, well-written encyclopedic article about this article? (If I am incorrect, and you do have the time to re-write the entire article without omissions, please do so).

If you can help fill in at least one of the omissions, please do so.

If you can specifically point out a particular omission, please do so. ("Another important part of this theory is ..."). The two omissions you mentioned have now been filled in. (Well, it only mentions "8 criteria". Are there others?). Any other omissions?

If you can point out a particular sentence in error or misleading, but don't have time to re-write it to clearly state verifiable facts, please tag the end of the sentence with {{fact}}.

If you can point out a particular structural error, please tag with one of the tags mentioned at Wikipedia:Cleanup resources.

While certainly it is unfortunate that this article currently has problems, other now-excellent Wikipedia articles have shown that it is possible for fallible and time-limited human beings to grow a tiny stub into a complete article and refine it into a excellent article. With your help, dear reader, I have high hopes the same will happen to this article.

--68.0.120.35 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. . . and this one needs a lot of work. Stmullin (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other theories

Whilst Gardner's theory presumably is correctly called the theory of multiple intelligences, he is not the only one to indicate that there might be aspects of intelligence which aren't covered by basic intelligence tests. Such tests are primarily concerned only with reasoning. Charles Handy, in his book The Hungry Spirit, covers several kinds of what he calls intelligence, and his list is not identical to Gardner's. I'd be interested to know whether Handy's ideas were derived from Gardner or arrived at independently. The following list is lifted from http://www.dbu.edu/graduate/newsletter/2001_march.html:

Factual Intelligence - encyclopedic knowledge
Analytic Intelligence - reasoning and conceptualizing
Numerate Intelligence - mathematical skill
Linguistic Intelligence - verbal and communication skill
Spatial Intelligence - an ability to see patterns in things
Athletic Intelligence - physical coordination
Intuitive Intelligence - aptitude for sensing and seeing what is hidden from most others
Emotional Intelligence - self-awareness, self-control, persistence, zeal, and self-motivation (based on the book Emotional *Intelligence by Daniel Goleman)
Practical Intelligence - common sense
Interpersonal Intelligence - social and leadership skills
Musical Intelligence - the creation, production or performance of music (as defined by Webster's dictionary)

In another book by Handy, Understanding Organisations, he provides another list which (from memory) includes:

Mechanical intelligence - that which for example enables some people to disassemble and re-assemble a motorcycle without using a manual. This might be the same as Practical intelligence, though the definition is somewhat different - a mechanically intelligent mechanic doesn't necessarily have great common sense, particularly if he rides his bike too fast!
Physical intelligence - what Beckham has, enabling him to out wit as well as out-kick other footballers, and some might quip that this is the only form of intelligence that he has. Presumably this is identical to Athletic intelligence above
Interpersonal intelligence - such as what good salespeople have - might be the same as Emotional intelligence, though again the emphasis is different
Intrapersonal intelligence - such as what poets have - might be the same as Intuitive intelligence, though yet again I think it's slightly different, since someone who is deeply in tune with their inner self isn't necessarily particularly intuitive when it comes to the external world
Visual intelligence - such as is possessed by artists, and enables them to see in such a way as to be able to produce art. This is definitely an attribute that can be trained, as anyone who had been to life drawing classes might testify. I think this is quite different from Spatial intelligence, also I think called non-verbal reasoning, because it's not about observing patterns - rather it's about seeing the nature of objects and their juxtaposition, which is subtly different. I'd hazard that a brilliant artist won't necessarily be any good at non-verbal reasoning tests.

Handy also makes the observation that musical and numerate intelligence often go together, i.e. that people who are good at music are often good at maths, and there may be other correlations and negative correlations between the various types of intelligence.

I would also add another type, which may be covered elsewhere, and that is the type posessed by autistic savants, whose abilities in certain respects often confound the experts. I'm thinking of the ability to discern large prime numbers, which was observed by Oliver Sacks, and eidetic memory, which can also lead to astounding achievements. Sacks's studies of brain-damaged people (covered in his article The President's Speech) also indicate that there is a type of intelligence to do with aphasia (or was it agnosia? - I get the two muddled) that is discernible in stroke victims (who have lost the ability to understand the spoken word) and, he claims, dogs!

It's aphasia, but aglossia is the loss of speech, also common. Eidetic memory isn't intelligence, it's just a trait, like absolute pitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.178.98 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Since there is evidently much material about on this subject, I'm wondering whether the Theory of multiple intelligences page should be expanded to include others' ideas on this subject, or whether this theory is really Gardner's preserve and hence that there should be a different page to cover others' ideas. Thoughts anyone? Matt Stan 19:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a cue from other articles on controversial theories, I think it would be best to keep the theory itself and criticisms on a single page. Perhaps an organization like 1.introduction (balanced) 2.theory (Gardner's position only) 3.criticism & defense 4.significance, such as use and acceptance in practice.

On an unrelated note, I know the primary and seconday schools I attended used Gardner's theory and a few of my teachers actually taught it. When it was taught, it was always presented as uncontroversial fact (much to my annoyance). I would be interested in seeing information on how widespread this phenomenon is. Is it unique to United States public schools? Is it even that common in United States schools? CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 08:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Whilst Gardner's theory presumably is correctly called the theory of multiple intelligences, he is not the only one to indicate that there might be aspects of intelligence which aren't covered by basic intelligence tests."

You are missing the point, and seem to have fallen for Gardner's deliberate misrepresentation of critiques made against his pseudo-scientific claims. All legitimate scientists already agree that IQ tests only test some parts of human ability to think. Gardner's "rebuttals" are shameful strawman attacks against criticisms that no actual scientist has made in the last 50 years. Gardner's model, designed to increase his personal cash flow, is that anything a student happens to be interested in is now relabeled as a form of "intelligence". Nothing Gardner has written in the last 10 years has actually addressed the substance of the many, many critiques made against him. His rebuttals are hand-waving redefinitions of words.—Preceding unsigned comment added by an-unknown-user (talk • contribs)

It's disappointing you would use such personal attacks in this forum; clearly your objectivity on this matter is very much in question. You also seem to be missing the key logical point. You are classifying everything that does not meet the traditional interpretation of "intelligence" as "interest", when clearly the inherent cognitive precondition of the person has strong bearing on even the most atraditional "intelligence".

Clearly the biggest problem with recognizing these different kinds of intelligence is the difficulty in assessing what portion is inherent mental predisposition/ability and what is environmentally produced. As science grows, its likely these limitations will be resolved.

Still, since that equation has by no means even been erased from the limited conceptions of intelligence espoused by traditionalists (as the racist conclusions of these test illustrate), that should not be an inpediment toward accepting the inherent logical and social utility of it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.75.68.130 (talk • contribs)

Well since an overarching characteristic of Gardner's theory is that it is idea-rich, yet data poor; it seems very necessary to include a section that discusses the arguments against this theory. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to include other theories/philosophies in this page, since the 'theory of multiple intelligences' specifically relates only to Gardiner's body of work. This page is only meant to reflect Gardiner's point of view, and so it might be better for you to write a page about your other collected 'theorists,' one to represent each of their own unique bodies of work.

As far as the use of Gardiner's theory in your school, this actually surprises and concerns me. Currently, the use of Gardiner's theory in pedagogy is of limited efficacy, at best, and could actually represent a negative effect to students when their teacher's turn from a better supported curriculum to one designed with Gardiner's ideas in mind. As it stands now, any clinical or academic use of Gardiner's theory 'gets by' only based on the perception of its intuitive validity, rather than being well-supported by the body of research on the subject of intelligence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by an-unknown-user (talk • contribs)

By this notion, any rational idea which makes a great deal of sense from a standpoint of assessing social utility would be nulled until such time that the inherently conservative scientific community catches up. The world would be a better place if it made determinations from logical social utility rather than the painstaking eons it often takes the general scientific community to accept a notion whose validity is logically apparent from the beginning and when the social utility is great is accepting it immediately. An appropriate analogy would be global warming.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.75.68.130 (talk • contribs)

Ned Herrmann's Four Quadrant Model

Herrmann_Brain_Dominance_Instrument is another related theory which four different types of thinking skill analytical, sequential, interpersonal, imaginative. --Pfafrich 15:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PoV Dispute

What precicely is the PoV dispute over? If there is not dispute, please remove the tag. Falcon 20:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The criticisms of the theory cloud the representation of the actual theory. Many of the criticisms, even those correctly referenced, are aimed at applications that the actual theory does not address.Stmullin (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category (Response)

It belongs to both, the theory of multiple intelligenes relates to cognitive development; this then could be related to human development, since it is implausible for human development without the development of human cognition.

74.184.100.154 (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other models

There are other models that subscribe to multiple intelligence, besides Garderner's. This article makes it seem that Gardner is the only one.whicky1978 15:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, a balanced article should at least also refer to the theories of Thurstone and in particular Guilford. Lambiam 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article on Gardner's Theories of Multiple Intelligences. That is the title OF HIS THEORY , and that is what this article is written about.

Pov Dispute (cont.)

It seems that the argument here is that Gardner's MI theory is unproven or that it receives more attention than it deserves. I personally find value in his theories in terms of explaining to learners the prestige of professions associated with being intellectual versus more blue collar occupations.

Why not mention the additional, associated theories at the bottom of the page? It seems to me that someone just has a bug about Gardner. The MI theory is his, it remains as equally valid as the others that were mentioned; perhaps, they each deserve their own page.

On this debate, Gardner (2004) himself notes, "As one who has thought intensively about multiple intelligences, I am more aware than most of the defiencies in that theory; yet, I am far from declaring that my own theory has been refuted or that I have adopted a new holistic, unitary, or genetically determined view of the human intellect."

Gardner, H. (2004) Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people's minds. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. p. 196.

Here is the POV dispute, it comes from the [archive]: "This article seems rather one-sided. It is almost uniformly critical of the theory, and the single contributor who has written most of it seems fond of rhetorical flourishes that have no place in a neutral source. This article needs to be cleaned up by someone more persistent and knowledgeable than myself. ":Seems to me that what it needs is an advocate for the theory. As it stands, the POV is pervasive, but mere copy editing wouldn't do enough to improve it.Dandrake 08:39, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) ":Also could do with the "To do with..." sentences being turned into full sentences. ··gracefool |☺ 09:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

Steven McCrary 17:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article struck me as very critical from a distinctly antithetical pov. There are many in the gifted 'community' that do support this theory, as well as other intelligence theories. One of the main functions of the intelligence 'community' is to research intelligence, its causes/effects, its types, its strengths/weaknesses, etc. so that gifted children (and adults) may be given the support they need. Whatever their 'type of' intelligence. It does not strike me as a white-collar/blue-collar debate, because the perception that there are fewer intelligent, blue-collar people and fewer unintelligent, white-collar people is a fallacy. The theory should be presented neutrally and the support/criticism should be presented also, neutrally.

NPOV for lede

The first two sentences of the lede are correctly formatted. The remainder involves information structured for debate in a particular discipline and needs to be moved to a section where debate is permitted, which is not the lede.Stmullin (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness and Wisdom

I believe sections for social awareness or perhaps, awareness in general as an intelligence as well as wisdom be included in the "types" of intelligence.

those are interpersonal, and intrapersonal, respectively. Prometheuspan 02:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the multiple "?" as it was implicit that the statement was in fact a query.*

206.40.119.252 14:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"interest", stereotypes about the disabled, original research

Thx for the article, and i write from a general psych background, not as an expert in this area, nor invested in the theory at hand. But there are problems here, which lead me to suspect the no-no of original research.

I edited the criticism (in opposing views, paragraph 1) that Gardner equates intelligence with "interest", changing that to "ability", because it's clear that people can have interests in things that they aren't or can't seem to be good at, and ability is probably the part of "interest" that's meant. I haven't read in the area in a long time, so it's possible that Gardner is this sloppy -- but i'm not writing the article, and there's no citation for this. I am familiar with the criticisms mentioned, but they fit the equation of intelligence with ability/talent/etc.
Then i read down and saw more specifically on "interest", but the problems with the article were getting bad enough that i frankly don't trust it's accuracy. So i still challenge and ask for citation supporting that gardner says that interest itself (apart from its correlation with ability) = intelligence.

As for problems:

One bullet read "Once someone adopts Gardner's position, the entire idea of studying intelligence is meaningless." This is obviously false, since gardner adopts gardner's position and gardner studies intelligence. And many others, since this view, even if fatally flawed, is admittedly popular. I'll wait for citation re interest before removing that. Hopefully i got the rewrite of the above sentence right.
I removed the paragraph on the disabled: "The existence of students with any kind of handicap proves that even in Gardner's scheme, many people cannot be equally intelligent. Sternberg and Frensch write "it seems strange to describe someone who is tone deaf or physically uncoordinated as unintelligent." In Gardner's system, people not interested in nature have zero natural intelligence, people who are deaf have zero musical intelligence, etc."

Problems are (and again, cite away if you think i'm wrong):

1] "any kind of handicap" would include folks who play basketball better using a wheelchair than most people who can walk/run/etc. The point here is that being "physically uncoordinated" is not the same thing as being "handicapped". Note that once again the actual criticism cited does make sense: it critiques poor ability (uncoordinated) = unintelligent.

2] "tone deaf" is also a valid criticism because in its narrow sense (inability to distinguish pitches) it is a lack of one kind of musical ability; likewise there is a broader lack of ability in its far more widely used sense, because very few people described as "tone deaf" are actually unable to distinguish pitches; they are typically just very lacking in musical appreciation/etc. But, "[...] people who are deaf have zero musical intelligence [...]" is another completely false stereotype. (Pardon me: it's getting very late and i just want to finish this and i am bugged by it...I'll try to chill.) People who are "deaf" (which commonly and legally incl people who may have some hearing with or without amplification) can in fact be quite musical: even those completely without hearing may be very accomplished at rhythmic music making, and enjoy the vibrations they can feel from their own and others' music, incl pitch differences.

Beethoven was an accomplished composer who had a progressive hearing loss. His deafness disability (a preferable term to "handicap") did not have any negative impact on his obvious musical intelligence Doctorgail 18:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Doctorgail[reply]

Why is disability preferable to handicap? They mean the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.178.98 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4] "In Gardner's system, people not interested in nature have zero natural intelligence [...]". I ask for a citation. I bet this is not true; it's just too stark and silly. "Zero" again. Zero?

Oh, and please site "This article, by Steven A. Stahl".

So once again, i suspect original research = winging it. This article deserves more. Thx for the good parts, hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you don't like that reductio ad absurdam, how about this one? In Gardner's model, a person who is paralyzed and must use a wheelchair is less intelligent than someone who can bounce a rubber ball on the floor and throw it through a hoop. When Kobe Bryant comes up with a Unified Field Theory, I will accept that he's more intelligent than Steven Hawking. Until then, Gardner's book is ludicrous politically motivated pop psychology, nothing more.

Expert tag?

Something i forgot last night: before i found more problems (and got triggered about the disability stereotypes) and wrote the post above, i had changed Relationship to Education paragraph 2: "This line of argument has infuriated those in the Gifted and Talented community because" as a false/POV generalization. Now i'd like to add (related more to original research) that this paragraph does not mention the significant support for gardner in the gifted advocacy community becuase the theory highlights how there are more ways to be gifted (vs the more narrow "intelligent") than just IQ/g/etc.

Perhaps an expert tag would be appropriate for this article, since it seems to be an issue of knowledge of the area, and not just POV (which seems to have been worked on somewhat). Sorry i'm not that expert, but hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like this source: intrapersonal = not really an intelligence

so i read this : "Others question whether Intrapersonal intelligence can really be considered an intelligence, and claim that it instead should be considered more a personality trait, and a set of desires."

I think it is a great statment. I would really appreciate if the user or any user having these same feelings would be willing to hook me up with a refrence or two. I would appreciate it. I am interresteding who specifically, their famous, or well known scientific names, question whether II can be really called an intelligence.

thanks! I really need some authoritative names! Just for me, i dont much care about the article heh lol. serious. jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 09:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 00:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Intrapersonal is definitely a form of intelligence, uniquely seperated from other types of mental functioning, and specifically related to accessing altered states of consciousness, handling emotions, knowing the difference between the self as is and the self as related to, and other such things. People with high levels of intrapersonal intelligence are the common cure fro groupthink. Prometheuspan 00:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a general, layperson level review of multiple intelligences and the place of intrapersonal intelligence, Gleitman (1999) should tell you everything you need. --Davril2020 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—→== Multiple Intelligences vs. Learning Styles == What I find particularly of note in this MI entry is the fact that the article quote by Stahl is about learning styles and not multiple intelligences - a completely different theory altogether - making for a confusing line of logic. user KS 11:17, 27 February 2006

Ah, well, you see, a person with a high score in a specific types of intelligence would have a learning style skewed to that type of intelligence. Prometheuspan 02:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This distinction has always confused me. I'd love to see this destinction expanded in the article. --Salix alba (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gardner explained it this way in his FAQ (which anyone editing this article should probably read first): "Speak of styles, speak of intelligences, but don't conflate the two if you can help it." --68.251.254.90 04:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheuspan, that is not the definition of a "learning style": for reference, see, Dunn and Dunn's model of 'learning styles'. Learning styles are based more on the environment in which the individual is learning and their interaction with it . . . is it too warm? Do they need to move around while they are intaking information? Do they work better with peers than alone? THAT is a learning STYLE - completely different than a Multiple Intelligence. user KS (MEd in Educational Psychology, PhD candidate in same) 6:14, 5 May, 2006

KS, environmental factors influence a learners preference. It there anything to distinguish between a learner's preference and his/her learning style? Or are they the same? tonypelle

Tony, I think that the performance is what determines what their learning style is. Most of my students would prefer to learn in groups, because it is funner, but that doesn't mean that will be the best for them. I think it is funner to learn in groups but I learn better when I learn alone. Lindsy Thomas

Tony ... Learning styles are as varied as learning abilities. Given each of us on and given day will learn differently than we might have the week before. Individual background, 'noise' during the transfer of information, lack or availability to verify information content, etc., all lends to preference and style of learning. Varied levels of transfermation of information to be learned is the key to teaching a 'group' of different levels, whether the group is two or twenty two. Preference is the learners choice, if they are aware of how they choose to learn. Style is determined by the teachers conclusion of how a particular student learns best. CapriFaulkner

Tony, Interesting discussion going on here, I use wikipedia all the time but I had no idea that this was going on at the bottom of the pages! I will be checking back. Ronda

Tony, I think a students preference and learning style is determined by what is being studied. A learning style is the ability to learn through doing something, listening, seeing, moving, doing or touching. As I think of my own preference and learing style I find myself doing all of the learning styles depending on what I am studying or learning. And yes some environmental factors (TV, music, people talking) definetly affect my preference for learning depending on what I am trying to learn. I feel this would be similiar for most students. Gisele

Unsupported basis

This theory is not supported by professional psychologists specializing in the field of intelligence. Specifically it is seen as pop-psychology. At best it is viewed as a marginally developed theory of learning styles, as KS stated, at worst it is seen as unscientific, politically motivated egalitarianism primarily for the purposes of justifying affirmative action, mainstreaming of mentally retarded individuals, or both. previous edits made on 11:24, April 11, 2006 by user:72.161.141.188. please sign posts, thanks, SteveMc 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion and its biases have been duly noted. The last time i was playing the game, I recall types of intelligence being well covered in no less than 5 or 6 textbooks. An interesting thing about Psychology, it is allmost all of it "Theoretical". The classical objections to the Theories do not generally consist of any of the things you mentioned. Prometheuspan 02:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC) please place signature at the end of posts, thanks SteveMc 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It also seems as if the initial poster was working to further a specific personal agenda (ironically, a bias). His notions of egalitarianism and "pop-psychology" are not cited and are thus circumstantial personal leanings, it seems. Whether he agrees with the direction and internal "motivation" of the theory is unimportant; Gardner's ideology is widely accepted and practiced by many educators. Moreover, all of science is premised on observable theories which are all inherently biased (see, among others, Cophenhagen Convention Effect).

Just an addendum; well noted SteveMc Thanks, Aaron 12.8.2006 206.40.119.252 14:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

It doesn't matter whether the *content* article is accepted as truth or completely valid, only that the theory be presented from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a peer review system; it is an encyclopedia. It's not the job of people (who are not masters of the field) to attempt to refute a theory that are not completely familiar with. Rather, take out the massive negative bias, and make a note at the top saying "this is a theory, this is only a theory, it is not literal truth, do not take it as such" or something. Just a note that this is not being presented as 'fact' but as a report on the theory 'x'. I don't believe creationism is real, but I don't demand that the wikipedia article on creationism be pulled!

Remember, folks, Wikipedia is not a web forum for debate, it's an encyclopedia. Please treat it as such.

previous edits made on 02:31, April 24, 2006 by user:64.105.36.31. please sign your posts, thanks, SteveMc 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one would separate a theory from its scientific basis and evidence, or lack thereof, then one runs the risk of any uninformed person to embrace that theory without understanding the ramifications. Gardiner should be commented upon for his lack of scientific support and many detractors, because to leave this information out could cause improper decisions to be made. For example, a teacher may base his or her entire lesson plan around a theory they read in wikipedia without realizing how limited the evidence of efficacy for this theory really is! previous edits made on May 5, 2006 by user:71.64.200.214. please sign your posts, thanks, SteveMc 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a teacher really "base[d] his or her entire lesson plan around a theory they read in wikipedia", or any other encyclopedia, this teacher can't be helped. I also don't hold teachers in high esteem, but i at least believe they have more than one source for their eductational program, and, even more important, that they are not confined to an ENCYCLOPEDIA. An encyclopedia, in most if not all cases, is used by a layman in the particular field, as a professional is bound to have some more specialised publication at hand. I agree that the criticism should remain in the article, but your exemplification is entirely the product of your imagination.----83.189.52.78 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original content?

Although I have not read widely in Gardner, neither have I ever seen him refer to "Thought", "Sensate", and "Communicational" groupings. Is this from his work or a bit of original content? --65.146.234.98 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you are right, as i also have never heard these words in Gardners writings. As i also have not read all his works, especially the newer ones, this remains a suspicion.----83.189.52.78 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I have never heard the definitions of extropersonal and interpersonal intelligence referred in Gardner's writing. It was my understanding that interpersonal intelligence, as described, was originally intrapersonal intelligence. Have there been recent changes to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.106.179 (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Proposing a major rewrite for this article for those very reasons is this RfC? I have never done RfC but now looks like a good opportunity.Stmullin (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see any opposition, just go for it (but don't be reckless if/when opposition does show up). Too much up front discussion can be a bad thing, and is disctinctly un-wiki. See also WP:BRD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logical/mathematical in reading or writing

I was just classified in school as logical mathematical( I got six out of ten tied with verbal linguistal, but there was only 1 person in mathematical so they sent me there) ANyway it is in reading class and the suggested types of studying in my group is doing word problems,calculating things etc. I was just wondering what that would help with reading?( I just realized that it also said logical so maybe would sit around and try to find plotholes.) Logical/mathematical, UNITE!

To whom it may concern

The part where people think that he was wrong to his categories them as "intelligences" is wrong. I strongly feel that it was right of him to eliminate the general 2 category view: Smart, not so smart. Although I think that it was a little exaggeration to say everyone is smart at something, he has got the right idea. There is more to being smart than getting good grades i mean hey, can you sove complex anagrams in 10 seconds flat? If you can than good for you! But does that mean you get good grades in history or social studies or social science or what ever your school calls it? NO! Because although when you hear the word genius the first names that come to mind are probably einstein, edison, or steven hawking, you are forgetting picasso, and mozart,and beethoven. Look the point is that although I think that being good at sports meaning you're smart is a stretch, his system helps people find their best way to study everywhere.

You "strongly feel?" Learn to think, and get back to us.

Hi, I'm just a random surfer. I think you should move the criticisms of the theory to a separate page and link to it. Currently, there are so many criticisms embedded that it is hard to grasp what the theory is! It is incredibly distracting to read a sentence, and then have the very next sentence say essentially, "but this isn't so!"

I agree that the theory needs to be the focus of the article, not the criticisms, and that debate should occur on this talk page not in the article.Stmullin (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually take the moderate view on things, but I agree with the theory to some extent. Take me and my brother, for example. I am an excellent writer, and can delve into politics and world history.

Yet he can't, and his writing is sub-standard. Of course, his mathematical abilities are much higher than mines. I

I once took an IQ test (actual, 8 hour long test) and found that my mathematical abilities are VERY poor, yet my reading and writing abilities are incredible. Soo.....yeah. There's a hint of truth into his theory.68.160.238.103 (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just made extensive revision

I came across this article, read the comments here, and edited as best I could to address most of them.

Full disclosure: I went to a school that used MI as the cornerstone of its teaching for 10 years. I'm not a blind supporter of it, since like most things there are both good and bad aspects, so I tried to give the article a bit more balance. I've read Frames of Mind, Multiple Intelligences: Theory into Practice, and Intelligence Reframed, so I think I have a pretty good handle on the theoretical side. There are definitely problems there, but most of them seemed to be included already, which is why I focused on some of the responses proponents of MI make, so as to give both sides of the debate.

A few times the criticisms were based on just plain misunderstanding the theory, though. I tried to clarify those sections without being too clearly biased against them, but I'm not sure I succeeded.

Regarding the intelligences versus learning styles, while I think it's important to differentiate them, most of Gardner's criteria for describing each intelligence include different ways of learning or approaching new information, so I did include that.

As a side note, the thing that really surprised me about the article as a whole was the underlying assumption that you fit into one type of intelligence and that's it. There's a huge amount of overlap between the intelligences-- Gardner himself said you use several at once for most activities-- and most applications of the theory in schools advocate developing those intelligences you aren't as naturally strong in. Which gives me semi-unpleasant memories of having to study for spelling tests by making up songs, but that's beside the point.

At any rate, I hope this fixes some of the problems others have noted, and doesn't cause a whole bunch of new ones.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calente (talk • contribs)

Recent work on opening section

I want to thank Calente and Hgilbert for your contributions, which greatly improved the opening section of the article. The article was sorely in need of that sort of work, but I was disinclined to take it on myself. It was a real pleasure building on what you accomplished with your edits -- I think the article is really shaping up nicely now.

Question for Hgilbert: I haven't read Gardner recently and don't have any of his books at hand. When you say "symbolic formulation of the area treated by each proposed intelligence", is that taken straight from Gardner, or is that your own phrasing? Whichever, I don't think it's entirely clear what is meant by that phrase. It might benefit from either rephrasing or elaboration (or both). Cgingold 13:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This passage was indeed unclear; I have attempted to clarify the wording. Hgilbert 01:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only a theory?

Can we be very careful in our use of language please. A theory is a very high level of scientific idea which is supported by experimental evidence. Gardner's Multiple Intiligences are no more than a hypoothesis as there is no real evidence to support the assertions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.131.112.58 (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A theory is a model. There are some good theories and some bad ones. The word is not an epistimological claim, positive or negative, despite some people's attempts to say that it does ("Evolution is just a theory"). A "hypothesis" is not a "model unsupported by evidence", it's a word that's only really used in experimental contexts and you clearly do not understand what it means.71.12.226.62 (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a theory ? Wye can’t ‘those theory’s put together’ not establish an ‘understanding’ that is also developed together, ‘as one’?

Some autistics, as a matter of fact, do have that kind of ’oneness’, and actually can develop their ‘missing connections’ (compensate) till they understand all information (signs) they notice by senses. Senses often are extremely developed (not have bin subjected to an ‘explicit (conscious) awareness’), and a un-conscious but also complete 'recognision' automaticly senses 'new information' (signs, not-known or in terms of 'clues').

From ‘insiders’ point-of-view, it is just a matter of not-controlling, but to make the crucial changings possible inside consciousness, without ‘obstructions of thinking’ (blockings).

To get in control of consciousness, logically consciousness most not ‘control’ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeXY (talk • contribs) 13:00 14 January 2007

uncited material

I have excised the following: An article in The New Republic notes that Gardner's system has not been accepted by most academics in intelligence or teaching.

George Miller, the esteemed psychologist credited with discovering the mechanisms by which short term memory operates, wrote in The New York Times Book Review that Gardner's argument boiled down to "hunch and opinion" (p. 20). And Gardner's subsequent work has done very little to shift the balance of opinion. A recent issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law devoted to the study of intelligence contained virtually no reference to Gardner's work. Most people who study intelligence view M.I. theory as rhetoric rather than science, and they're divided on the virtues of the rhetoric.^{[citation needed]}

as uncited:Hgilbert 12:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Interesting bit of Research on successful use of MI theory

I'm just an Elementary Ed student and I am not claiming that MI is the end all be all of intelligence theories but it certainly has its place in education. (I personally consider it more 'a means of knowing') This is an interesting article about research in integrating MI and Bloom's Taxonomy for differentiation of instruction

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. Retrieved from EBSCO host April 2007

72.201.30.253 07:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Joolz[reply]

Merger from Naturalist Intelligence

There was a separate page on "Naturalist Intelligence" at the Wikipedia page of that name. Lots of redundant information, and only about three paragraphs long, so I've merged it into this article. --Jackson 15:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synonym?

"Gardner identifies kinds of intelligences based upon eight criteria. His eight criteria for describing something as an independent kind of intelligence (rather than merely one of the skills or abilities included in a kind of intelligence, or a synonym for, or combination of other kinds of intelligence) include"

This sentence, in the beginning of the article, slightly puzzles me. What on earth does "a synonym for" have to do with various kinds of intelligences? What I'm trying to say is that a synonym deals with WORDS, so I think it is inappropriate to compare mere words with various intellectual labels; it's like comparing apples and oranges. I don't know If what I'm saying is making much sense to anybody, but I think a more appropriate word would be analogue, not synonym.

What do you guys think?--71.135.180.9 (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual relativism

This is mentioned twice, and the second time without any references. The second mention should be removed. It's redundant. --Deleet (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Intelligence Theory and Test .

Is there any way to instill these multiple skills among the people (youth/adolescent/secondary education level students etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirmanie (talk • contribs) 14:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logical-Mathematical: Citations?

Don't you think this paragraph needs citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.141.51 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article (as of 25 Dec 2008) is mechanically substandard.

I quote a section of the article that needs repair:

They require fine motor skills that require dancing, athletics, surgery, craft and other movement functions. In artificial Intelligences programs are being developed to mimic the movement of athletics through games and other computer related items but they will not take the place of the actual movement of this intelligence physically. Careers which suit those with this intelligence include athletes, dancers, actors, surgeons, builders, 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.

The task of repairing text like this is difficult; "They require fine motor skills that require dancing, athletics, surgery, craft and other movement functions..." is likely beyond repair by anyone other that the author.

By the way, I personally find great value in Gardner's multiple intelligence hypothesis; "proving" and/or "disproving" the hypothesis in whole or in part leads to more knowledge about intelligence. Unfortunately, this article, as it exists today, is so egregiously substandard mechanically that I can only totally distrust its decipherable factual content.

GrouchyDan (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean GrouchyDan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.93.25 (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC) edited to add that i see the quote now. yes it is not the clearest wiki text, but i don't see why it is beyond repair or why you claim that it was in such an unclear mana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.93.25 (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Main Intelligences Listed

Please somebody add existentialism in the list of intelligences.

It's one of the main intelligences he talks about, but I do not know enough to write about it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.185.4 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Existentialism (Response)

There is no such thing as this type of intelligence [in Gardner's theory]. He only talks about the eight types that are written about in everyone of his books; never does existentialism appear. 74.184.100.154 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IQ comments

I guess Gardener was right.but we must put a defintion for intelligance frist and then we will be able to standars to messure people intelligance.I think the way that make gardener put his theory based on a diffrenet diffention of intelligance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.91.34.33 (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bobo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.243.41 (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible Writing

Much of this article has overly complicated language that seems to have more to do with sounding intelligent than giving a clear explanation of the concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) 11:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree:

"Visual-spatial; This area deals with the ability to visualize with the mind's eye, so to speak and spatial judgement.Careers which is suit those with this intelligence include, architects. "

Writing is substandard. Also the text says there are eight basic types of intelligence, while it then elaborates on nine. 86.80.116.169 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stahl Quote/Citation

The quote from Steven A. Stahl in the subsection labeled 'lack of empirical evidence' is actually referring to learning styles research, not MI. MI is mentioned in the article, but it is not the focus of the quote as it's been applied here. This needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.247.14.222 (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC) 203.247.14.222 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "theory" ?

The article announces a theory. What it describes is just a mere arbitrary decomposition, just like somebody could say : "this pole is made of three parts : the first, the second and the third". OK. Why not as well 5 or 7 or 27 ? A theory allows predictions. Where are the predictions ? Saying that if you have a good aptitude to organize space could make you a good architect is not a prediction : it is a tautology.

Why not rename this article, more honestly, "Possible decompositions of intelligence" ? 212.198.145.112 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word Theory was part of the title of Howard Gardner's 1983 book - "Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences" - where he introduced these ideas to the world. Perhaps that could be better explained early in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I agree it should be presented just as the title of the book. As title of an article, it is really misleading. Just because an author chooses to call some remarks a theory does not make it a theory. The Rolling Stone magazine is not a stone. 212.198.145.112 (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare/link to "Learning Styles?"

Hello I'm new here. I hope I'm doing this right.

There is a wikipedia article for Learning Styles, which are defined there as "educating methods, particular to an individual, that allow that individual to learn best" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles As I understand it, Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is connected to the concept of learning styles, and could even be considered as a mini-theory within the umbrella of learning styles. The two are compared at this site: http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Multiple_Intelligences_and_Learning_Styles and the terms "Multiple Intelligences" and "learning styles" are used almost interchangeably in this peer-reviewed research paper http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ845172&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ845172

I think it would be a good idea for us to find a way to connect the two articles. Perhaps by adding a section to "learning styles" that talks briefly about Gardner's "multiple intelligences" and then links to the main article here, and vice-versa. It would make the encyclopedia more interconnected, and it would also help clarify some of the issues that seem to be cropping up in terms of how to manage the "criticism" section. Some criticisms against Multiple Intelligences are criticisms aimed at Gardner's work specifically, while others are aimed at the concept of heterogenous learning styles in general. Information could be imported from the other article to this one and vice-versa.

At the moment I'm going to go ahead and add the articles to each other's respective "see also" sections, but I think there ought to be more done. What do you folks think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasBones (talk • contribs) 05:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even traditional IQ tests which give subscores for many abilities could be used for a learning style program. So in principle I do not think Gardner's theory is necessarily more linked to learning styles than other intelligence theories. However, it may be that in practice Gardner's theory is very popular in learning style applications. Then both articles could mention this if there were reliable source supporting this.Miradre (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede section

In the lead section it is said:

Gardner argues that the concept of intelligence as traditionally defined in psychometrics (IQ tests) mistakenly suggests that the wide variety of cognitive abilities measured in a battery of tests used to assess general intelligence factor are uncorrelated with each other, or at least only very weakly correlated.

This is a strange claim, because perhaps the most replicated finding in psychology is that all tests of cognitive ability are correlated with each other. Contemporary psychometric theories, such as Carroll's three stratum theory, the CHC theory, and the VPR theory, all argue that all tests are correlated with each other (=general intelligence), and, in addition to that, the correlations between tests tapping similar abilities are higher than other correlations (i.e., there are specific cognitive abilities).

It is in fact mainstream psychometric research that argues what is attributed to Gardner in in the lead section, whereas it is Gardner who denies these correlations. Perhaps whoever wrote that sentence meant to say something else, but I don't understand what it could be.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what is needed is some clear quotes: the article currently has it that there is a general factor, but that this does not "dominate" and then that people are "no more likely" to be similarly able on other abilities. the theory clearly does not say that g sits over a large number of primary abilities: Otherwise it is Spearman, or Vernon's theory. The unique claim is that there is no g factor, or that it is significantly smaller than the 50% claimed for g. This is argued to be shown by broadening the ambit of intelligence into realms unrelated or very weakly related to g. Need to make that clear throughout, and document the tests of the model.

Yes - this needs clarification. Incidentally, in the lead it is important to use terms accessible to the lay reader, e.g. explaining the general spectrum claim for intelligence rather than using the term "g factor" without explanation. hgilbert (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Use in Education Section... I feel that this could be added to help support the content. (This is for a class so please excuse me if I have no idea what I am talking about.) Another important fact to understand is that multiple intelligences research and materials to back up this learning style is growing by the minute. According to Gardner this learning method, “has the strongest scientific support and the greatest utility for the next millennium” (Gardner 25). What Gardner is saying is that this type of learning style has a lot of potential to help enlighten the people of tomorrow. Reference Gardner, Howard (1993). The Theory in Practice. Multiple Intelligences, III. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=MMQDgUxu910C&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=multiple+intelligences&ots=7UTNAM84H0&sig=v1bJo7Vw5EqM9ttkpJ_cWdwgkSM#v=onepage&q=multiple%20intelligences&f=false Dwright7861 (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gardner is lying.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lede needs to be rewritten to a more concise summary of the theory which is elaborated in the article and from a neutral point of view.Stmullin (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Education

There are no citations given to the sources of the adoption of the theory in the education field for the given examples. Since this is a debated issue, it it necessary to keep the examples lacking citations?

Rdcrow (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

"A dimension on which human beings differ (no two people- not even identical twins- possess exactly the same profile of intelligence.)" This is a quote from Garnder, that I think could be helpful in the introduction when talking about how children learn in different ways.

Gardner, H. Frames of mind, the theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1993. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connolre (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to agree that this will help show the idea of individual differences. How about even adding a reference to MI being as unique as fingerprints? just a suggestion.Malphrut (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Intelligence!

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.

from "The Distance Learning Technology Resource Guide," by Carla Lane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.18.129 (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is clearly biased aginst MI

I think the article needs major revision. MI is supported best from the simple fact that subtests scores (on conventional IQ TESTS) show variance. That is very strong evidence for MI, and the only evidence that's necessary for it to be a viable theory. Whether the current academic community shows acceptance for it or not, may be (but probably is) the result of personal and political views. The same criticism of tautology has been used against conventional IQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "show variance"? The big problem for MI is that all cognitive tests show substantial covariance, i.e., they are not independent of each other. MI is rejected by psychometricians because it is not supported by data. Politics and personality have nothing to do with it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look up the definition of theory. A theory needs evidence, and MI has none.114.72.174.154 (talk)

On the contrary, the article is far too generous to this piece of outdated pseudoscience. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now cleaned up the article by removing much uncited material, adding a few references and neutralising the writing a bit. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting compendium of MI-debunking, though some of the links are out-of-date or subscription-only. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes for comment/feedback

The first thing that I personally feel needs to be added to this page is that there needs to be more information under the sections Logical-mathematical, spacial, and linguistic. Another thing that I personally feel needs a few changes would be each category needs under multiple intelligences could use a brief discription of what it truly means, an example of this would be linguistic would be using spoken or written words. Finally, since the page talks about the use of this learning theory in education, maybe put the downside of how the school system does or does not utilize this theory and the faults of not utilizing this theory.

Mrbigdogg90 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC) SongBird 91 (talk) 05:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC) --Mustanglj (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable sources we could use for these? My feeling is that the former suggestion is worth more than the latter. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PBS website http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/education/ed_mi_overview.html seems to have some good information regarding examples for the types of intelligences. --Mrbigdogg90 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ok source, but let's remember this is an encyclopedia. Language like "People who have strong musical intelligence don't just remember music easily, they can't get it out of their minds, it's so omnipresent" isn't the right tone for an encyclopdia article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Revision of Multiple Intelligences article

For years, people believed there was only one type of intelligence; people were either intelligent or stupid. Howard Gardner did not agree with this theory. Using his background in neuropsychology, he created the Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Bjorklund, 2012). The theory was first proposed in his book, Frames of Mind, written in 1983. This theory proposed the idea that there is not one type of intelligence, but multiple frames of mind. Gardner initially believed there were seven types of intelligence:

Linguistic - the ability to learn, and be sensitive to both written and spoken languages Logical-mathematical - the ability to analyze problems logically, solve mathematical problems, and investigate topics scientifically Musical - skill in performance, composition, and appreciation of music patterns Spatial - ability to recognize and manipulate problems in space Bodily-kinesthetic - using the whole or parts of the body to solve problems Interpersonal - being able to understand other peoples’ intentions, motivations, and desires and being able to work effectively with them Intrapersonal - a person’s ability to understand his or herself and to use the information effectively in regulating one's life (Furnham, 2002.)

Soon after these intelligences were established, naturalistic thinking, the ability to make distinctions in the natural world, was added to the list of intelligences. Currently, the idea of spiritual and existential intelligence is being discussed (Bjorklund, 2012). One reason Gardner believed it was so important to define these multiple intelligences was that different cultures require higher degrees of different types of intelligences to be successful in that particular society.

When a person is considered intelligent based on an IQ test, that person has high levels of linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence, not all intelligences overall. For something to be classified as an intelligence, it must have the following criteria; the potential isolation by brain damage, the existence of savants and prodigies, an identifiable core operation or set of operations, a distinctive developmental history, along with a definable set of expert end-state performances, an evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility, support from experimental psychology tasks and from psychometric findings, and susceptibility to encoding in a system (Bjorklund, 2012). Gardner knew that most intelligence tests were just used to test “normal” people. Gardner’s theory allows all types of people, such as savants, prodigies, and people with learning disabilities, to be considered intelligent in various forms (Neisser, 1996).

Some scientists do not agree with Gardner’s theory. Morgan (1996), believes that these different intelligences as Gardner classifies them are really just cognitive styles. Another criticism found with Gardner’s theory is that the multiple intelligences are difficult to test. Without empirical research for each intelligence, this theory is hard to justify. Teachers on the other hand, support Gardner’s theory. Gardner himself responded to critics making note that psychology does not directly dictate education, “it merely helps one to understand the conditions within which education takes place” (Smith, 2008). Education extremely focused on math and english, followed by science and history. The creation of these other intelligences provides teachers of other disciplines, like music, arts, physical education, and technology a more scientific way to advocate for their program.

References

Bjorklund, D. (2012). Children's Thinking: Cognitive Development and Individual Differences. (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. (514-528).

Furnham, A., Tang, T., Lester, D., O'Connor, R., & Montgomery, R. (2002). Estimates of ten multiple intelligences: Sex and national differences in the perception of oneself and famous people. European Psychologist, 7(4), 245-255. doi:10.1027//1016-9040.7.4.245

Morgan, H. (1996). An analysis of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence. Roeper Review 18, 263-270.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. R., Boykin, A., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., & ... Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77

Smith, Mark K. (2008). Howard Gardner, Multiple Intelligences, and Education. Infed. 12/17/12. http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hask1432 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you are a fan of Gardner; this account of his theories does not give due weight to the majority of psychologists who criticise his work. To take an example, it is more than "some" scientists who disagree with them, and most teachers and school systems do not take account of his work. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gardners theories because everyone is unique in their own way whether it be through being extremely smart, or knowing how to something extraordinary, or just being a good mom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iveline (talk • contribs) 16:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

I am part of the Wikipedia Initiative Team. I made a minor grammar change.Villasa4 (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit needed

Having read this Talk page, I suggest that someone move Section 2 of the Article to this talk page since it is wrought with POV problems and is a debate inconsistent with encyclopedic writing. The discussion is interesting but clutters the essence of the theory and shrouds it with bias. Stmullin (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It makes clear that scientists tend not to give the theory much credence, and neither do most educators, but that a few educators do. It is well-referenced. Why would you wish to remove it? --John (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not instructional theory and when people attempt to use it as instructional theory the consequences are not good . . . it is learning theory which is valuable when forming a strategy for individual learners. The controversies on this page stem from misapplication and misunderstanding of the theory and compounds the confusion. MI is a way to organizes information about learning, about how people learn. The scientific support will come from Neuroscience which is just beginning to define how people learn.Stmullin (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archive with MiszaBot

Much of this discussion has already been addressed . . . would anyone object to archiving this page with MiszaBot?65.190.196.45 (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agree . . .Stmullin (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

It is evident that the author of the article is a supporter of the MI theory.Still,the article has maintained intellectual honesty by incorporating opposing views.

More opinions of the practitioners or supporters of the theory can be added to present a broader spectrum of opinion. At present,only the Harvard led study of New City School and other institutions provide some opinions in support from the sphere of practical application.Senthil km 08:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a school of thought that suggests sequential development of intellect beginning with visual spatial, musical rhythmic intelligence which is sensual learning Behaviorism (philosophy of education), moving to verbal linguistic, mathematical logical intelligence which is cognitive learning Cognitivism (philosophy of education); then interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence which is humanistic learning Humanism (philosophy of education); and culminating in metacognitive learning Constructivism (philosophy of education). Please know that it is difficult to get an IRB (Institutional Review Board) to approve educational research with children so attempting to apply this or any other theory in a classroom would not be wise. The information is for classification and offered to guide educational thought about Learning theory . . . it is not prescriptive Instructional theory.Stmullin (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 15:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)