This article is © Copyright 2000 Pilgrims Ltd.  The copyright owners reserve all rights to its reproduction

Multiple Intelligences : setting the record straight

	By Chaz Pugliese
	Paris, France
	chazpugliese@noos.fr

PART ONE
If you want to understand what the Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory is all about, go for a walk and keep your eyes and ears wide open. When you come to a square, stop and  take a good look around you: the chances are that you will come across some people having a conversation while sipping a drink, some other people will probably be  reading, or working on a crossword puzzle, while some others are engrossed in a game of chess or (if you ‘re in France) ‘boules’ . Further to the left overthere in the open space,  there’s a juggler doing her thing, while a Jimi Hendrix wanna-be is playing his battered electric guitar through a minuscule, battery-powered amplifier.  Right across the tables on the sidewalk, two young tourists are busy looking at a map, oh and look, here comes the clown !  
Two things on one recent such walk struck me:  one is the diversity of human skills at work. Another is how much of this diversity is centered on problem-solving. Puzzles, chess or ‘boules’ allow the players to pose problems for each other, while music performances and sports obviously require a solution of different problems. Howard Gardner defines intelligence as an individual’s ability to solve problems or to fashion products in a given culture.

Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory has been around since 1983. A plethora of books and articles have since been written about it by Howard Gardner, his colleagues at Harvard’s Project Zero, as well as by other educators and teachers all over the world. But while the theory has been applied with great results in many different settings -from primary to adult teaching-, myths about it still abound. In the first part of this article I aim to review the theory’s principal tenets, then I will look at a few MI misconceptions  and I will attempt to se the record straight. In the second and more practical part, I will describe a few MI-based activities I have tried in the classroom.

The facts

First though, a little background.  As HLT readers will know, at the core of the MI theory lies the assumption that we’re equipped with eight different intelligences. In the traditional view, long shared by many psychologists, intelligence is a human characteristic that varies from one individual to another, to the extent that the individual with a great deal of this trait is more apt to solving problems and fashioning products, regardless of the nature of the problem. To gauge this trait, psychologists have designed a large set of test problems and asked people to solve them.  From the test results, psychologists predict how well an individual will be able to solve any problem accurately. So in sum, the proverbial ‘man on the street’  would say that intelligence is testable, genetic and unitary. Intelligence is measured by a test, is inherited from your parents and you are born with whatever amount of it you will ever have, intelligence is one general capacity and can be measured against the same yardstick, plotted on a single line somewhere between ‘highly gifted’’ and ‘very stupid’’. This way of looking at intelligence presents us with some problems for when we try to apply it to human behavior, we find that many people with special talents do not test well on our measures of intelligence. That’s because human performance is way too complex and does not lend itself to being captured in a single dimension. The MI theory, while accepting the existence of a general intelligence (the so-called ‘g’ intelligence) takes a different stance, opposes a psychometric view of intelligence (at least in education), challenges this unitary view of intelligence and promotes a multi-dimensional approach.  The implications for us teachers are enormous : the theory says in a nutshell that although we’re all equipped with identical hardware as it were, our software differs somewhat. Hence, no two people learn the same way: this urges us to think of our learners as human beings first and foremost. As one of my mentors used to put it :’Forget the needs of a student, and you’ll get away with it. Forget the needs of the individual you’re dealing with, and you’ll be history’. That’s because every individual notices and attends to different aspects of an experience, and our job as teachers is ‘to catch them at their best’. 

The Intelligences

What are then the famous intelligences ? In the beginning they were seven, one more has been added to the list since 1983, while a ninth intelligence, existential, is being considered, but there doesn’t seem to be at present enough neurobiological evidence for it and it has not yet been included in the list. (Gardner jokes that his theory can now be discussed Fellinian style: 8 ½ intelligences). In short, Gardner says that in addition to thinking of intelligence as involving linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities, we ought to consider naturalist, bodily- kinesthetic, musical, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences as well.

The intelligences identified by Gardner present the following characteristics:

•	 They are innately endowed in all humans (but present in different degrees)
•	they are a product of nature and nurture
•	they are universal and autonomous 
•	they can be developed throughout an individual’s lifetime
•	they work in combination, not in isolation
•	they involve sub-abilities 

On top of that, one thing worth remembering is that the intelligences are valued differently in different cultures. For instance,  the linguistic intelligence, an innate and universal capacity in different cultures, can manifest itself in writing in some cultures,  public speaking in others, and a secret anagrammatic code in yet another. Or take musical intelligence, another faculty found in all societies : music, being a predominantly cultural artefact, is displayed and appreciated in different styles and forms in different cultures. 

Some common misconceptions about MI theory.

Like any new theory, the MI hasn’t been without its misconceptions and misapplications. As Gardner himself acknowledges, ‘I don’t expect that initial efforts to apply any new ideas are going to be stunning. Human experimentation is slow, difficult and filled with zigs and zags’. Misconceptions, however, distort reality and can be distracting. Of all the myths that surround MI, I’ve chosen to look at just a few, important ones. (For a more exhaustive and authoritative critique see Gardner 1999).

1.	An intelligence is the same as a learning style. 
Not quite. A learning style is an approach I take when trying to make sense of different kinds of content. So, if I’m a kinestesthetic learner, I will learn best using a hands-on approach no matter what the topic or skill is.  In contrast, the intelligences represent potentials or capacities that are geared to particular content. 
Let’s take a poem I’m experiencing for the first time as an  example: if I stop to consider which modalities I used to ‘take it in’, I’ll answer auditory and visual because I heard and read the poem.  But since I’m not a particularly good listener, I prefer reading a poem, so visual is my favorite style in this case. With MI theory, the questions are rather:  ‘Which Intelligences were engaged, and how ?’ How did I process the information and made sense of the poem ? The answer to these questions is: Linguistic, but also Musical as I was paying close attention to the rhythm and the scheme of the poem, and Spatial as well, as I was imagining the relationship between the characters in the poem. 
So, if I ask myself ‘Am I an auditory learner ?’ in many ways I am: when I was in school I had to use certain strategies to make sense of what my teachers/peers were saying.  But, alas, I am also  someone who tends to stray from a speaker. So, I suppose that doesn’t make me a very good auditory learner. However, if the information I’m exposed to is music, the scenario changes radically as listening to music is something I never grow tired of. So, the answer to the question ‘Are you an auditory learner’ is: it depends on the context, maybe on the intelligences engaged. 

2.	Is there a ‘sexual intelligence’ ?
Mind Maps ace Tony Buzan claims that not only there is one, but that it is also the ‘prime’ and ‘primal’ form of intelligence, the mother of them all, in a sense.  Incidentally, he also talks about a spiritual intelligence and throws in a sensual intelligence for good measure (Buzan, 2000).
This is undoubtedly a noble attempt to popularize MI theory, but nevertheless one that makes me cringe. The fact is that Gardner’s theory is based on empirical evidence, while  Buzan’s claims, although undeniably, well, sexy,  seem based on nothing but hunches.  What distinguishes  MI theory from a list of personal preferences is a set of eight criteria ranging from the study of prodigies, savants, and other exceptional indivduals, to localization of an intelligence in specific parts of the brain, to support from psychological tasks as well as psychometric findings.  The eight intelligences listed by Gardner have passed the test in terms of the criteria laid out: it seems to me that anyone suggesting the existence of other intelligences has the obligation to assess the candidates on the same criteria and publish the results of this investigation.  Anyone who fails to do so  will fuel clichés, generate a lot of confusion, and will run a serious risk of being called a quack.

3.	I have to teach everything in eight different ways.
It is certainly true that an MI-informed approach  leads to experimenting with a variety of teaching ways, in order to provide the learners with different entry points into learning. However, this does not mean that every lesson must be taught in eight different ways. Intelligences should not be the goal of the lesson, but the key to learning goals. Teaching in eight different ways puts all the spotlight on intelligences, to the detriment of learning goals. On top of that, not everything lends itself to being taught in eight ways: for instance, I see no particular pedagogic value in having my students sing a song about the lexical phrases they’ve just learned. I think there’s also a danger that teachers will burn out, students will burn out and the theory will end up looking like another teaching strategy out the window. Here’s a tip: if you find that you can teach something tapping  into two different intelligences, that’s fine. You might want to concentrate on different intelligences in the next lesson.  

4. Do you teach the MI way ?
There’s no such thing as the MI-way of teaching. MI is not a technique, is not an approach, nor is a teaching method. As such it does not prescribe any particular set of activities. Using MI as a ‘mind set’, as a ‘lens’ in the classroom,  means basically providing the students with the largest array of experiences : the job of an MI-informed teacher should be to always seek ways to engage the  students in a given skill and teach for deep understanding. How we go about it is pretty much up to us. 

PART TWO

In this section of the article, I would like to describe two activities I’ve used to introduce the theory to teachers and language learners I’ve worked with. The people in question had minimum or no knowledge of the theory: however, these exercises can be easily modified to suit the needs of learners with more than just a nodding acquaintance with it.

Building on strengths. 

Aim : to introduce MI. This awareness-raising exercise has never failed to provide a very smooth, natural sprigboard for a discussion on MI, especially at the beginning of a course. The activity helps learners reflect on, discover and put into work their particular strengths, interests, and problem-sloving strategies. 

Procedure :

A.	have learners choose a letter of the alphabet, shout out words beginning and ending with the target letter and write them up on the board.  (Make sure they’ve contributed at least 20 words before moving to B).
B.	Now ask them to choose two words they like and to tell each other the reasons for this. 
C.	The next task is for them to classify, rank, or otherwise sort out the words, choosing whichever criteria they prefer. Have them compare their work in pairs.
D.	Now tell them to quickly work out the average number of syllables (or length of the words,  number of adjectives, nouns, prefixes, suffixes, etc) on the board, and to compare their findings in pairs.
E.	Next the learners are to find connections between two or more words and check with their partners.
F.	Now tell them to take a look at the words on the flip-chart. Cover the words. Ask the learners to write the words on a piece of paper trying to reproduce their location on the board.  
G.	Now ask them to add two more words to the ones they chose in A. Their task is to choose between : incorporate the target words into a  haiku/poem/story, draw the words/story, set the words/poem/story to music. 
H.	Finally ask the learners to reflect on steps above  and answer the following questions :

1.	Which of these tasks did you feel most comfortable doing ? 
2.	Which did you feel least comfortable doing ? 

Learners inevitably come up with different answers to the questions above. This usually leads into a collective dialogue on people’s different strengths and weaknesses, and hence to MI. 

Music to soul to music

Aim: This activity can be used:
1.	To stimulate reactions based on a  work of art (music in this example). 
2.	To get people to think of different intellectual profiles
3.	To work on the participants’ musical intelligence

Materials required : any piece of instrumental music. I have used Duke Ellington’s ‘Mood Indigo’, Keith Jarrett’s solo work,  but Handel’s ‘Concerti grossi op.6’ is just as fine, and so is anything Bach has written. (And there’s every reason to believe that other genres would work equally well).   

Procedure : 

1. To help the learners tune into the topic and the lesson, show them the quote below, or choose your own. Have them comment on it. 
2. Give three minutes to think of three crucial moments in their life. As they note their thoughts down on a piece of paper, ask them to think of a piece of music/song that would be an appropriate soundtrack for each. Have them explain their choices in pairs/groups.

Tell your learners to sit comfortably or lay on the floor and play the recording. (Please note: the recording should be played before each task). 

A.	Listen carefully to the music: what colors do you see in it ? Take turns listing specific colors (when you run out of colors, move to B).
B.	What do you see in this work of art ? (List objects : for example, I see a triangle, I see an apple, etc.). 
C.	What’s going on in this piece of music ?
D.	Does anything you noticed about this music remind you of something in your own life?
E.	What ideas/emotions does this music express ? 
F.	Do you have a sense of how the artist felt while composing/performing this work of art?
G.	(How) does this piece of music reflect (Western) culture ?
H.	The title of this composition is (‘Mood Indigo’). What would you have called this piece of music if you had composed it yourself ? Does the title make sense to you ?
I.	If this piece of music were a painting, what would it look like ? 
J.	If this piece of music were a work of literature, would would it look like ?
K.	(Play different recording) Now listen to this : how do these compositions sound similar ? What differences have you noticed ?
L.	Now look back at your previous observations : what have you discovered ? Have you learned anything about yourself/others ? (Learners discuss in pairs, then with the whole group).

Acknowledgements
This activity is a variation of the Generic Game (Davis, 1993). A very unusual game because there are no winners or losers, the generic game was introduced in Project MUSE (Museums Uniting with Schools in Education) because it embodies an approach that focuses on the learner as opposed to the subject being taught. As a learning tool, it features an interesting approach that can be summed up like so :

1.	Inquiry :  asking open-ended questions, questions without right/wrong answers
2.	Access : catering for a range of intelligences (from musical to linguistic, to spatial, to inter/intrapersonal)
3.	Reflection : providing a framework within which the learners can reflect on their own thinking.

QUOTE: 
The man that hath no music in himself
Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds
Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils
The motions of his spirit are dull as night
And his affections dark as Erebus
Let no such man be trusted

(W. Shakespeare -  from The Merchant of Venice, Act. V Sc.1)

REFERENCES

Buzan, T. (2000) Head First. Thorsons.
Davis, J. (1996) The MUSE book (Building on our Knowledge). President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Gardner, H. (1993) Frames of Mind. NY: Basic Books. (Original work published in 1983)
Gardner, H. (1995) ‘Reflections on Multiple Intelligences: Myths and Messages ‘. Phi Delta Kappan.
Gardner, H. (1999) ‘Intelligences Reframed’. NY: Basic Books.