Multiple Intelligences Research: History, Validity, and Popularity

About Multiple Intelligences

Abstract

Howard Gardner's multiple intelligence theory (MIT) has been controversial since its 1983 inception; and yet, educators continue to embrace MIT fervently within the twenty-first century classroom. This review of literature suggests that MIT is deeply, methodologically flawed, with the very criteria through which Gardner evaluates an intelligence being outdated by neurobiological innovation. In short, while the field of neurobiology has made significant strides in recent decades, MIT has only modestly evolved during the same timeframe. MIT's popularity with teachers stems, however, from the success of the theory's practical application. Likely is it that the success of MIT, however, is birthed from the provision of diverse learning experiences to an equally diverse student population.

Table of Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Review of Literature
Birthing the Theory
The Original Seven Intelligences and Classroom Application
Initial Success of MIT
Initial Criticism of MIT
Synthesis: MIT during the 1980s and 1990s
Amending the Theory
Outcomes of MIT in the Twenty-First Century Classroom
Current Criticism of MIT
Criticism of Classroom Application of MIT
Neurological and Biological Criticism of MIT
Ongoing Popularity of MIT with Educators
Conclusions
References

Introduction

Nearly three decades since its inception, Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences continues to be significantly popular in American schools. While there is, consequently, a wealth of literature regarding the theory, there is a converse dearth of empirical evidence that supports Gardner's assertions. This inquiry delves into the evolution of multiple intelligence theory (MIT), affording particular respect to the disparity between the theory's empirical validity and its popularity.

Though the theory has changed somewhat over time, MIT remains largely similar to its original state (Gardner). In his text entitled Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century, Gardner writes that "over the past few centuries, particularly in Western societies, a certain ideal has become pervasive: that of the intelligent person. The exact dimensions of that ideal evolve over time and setting.... At the beginning of the twentieth century, the intelligent person was one who could be dispatched to the far corners of an empire and who could then execute orders competently." Gardner's earlier text in which he first articulated MIT sought to define intelligence as variable and cognition as diverse (Allix; Gardner).

The principle argument of MIT was and continues to be that general intelligence theories are far too narrow to accurately measure human potential. Gardner argued that higher forms of intelligence, such as creativity, are impossible to measure via traditional methods. MIT asserts that conventional IQ perceptions of intelligences are one-dimensional and not conducive to the classroom. In recognizing a broader set of competencies, Gardner acknowledges the existence of intelligences to which most intelligence assessments do not cater, such as musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, existential, and naturalist intelligences. However, MIT continues to recognize the traditional forms of intelligences as well; those being logical-mathematical and verbal-linguistic. The pluralistic view of intelligence offers an alternative to the comparatively narrow profiles of human cognition and mental competence that predated Gardner's work.

MIT revolutionized curriculum by charging teachers to recognize that students could not be rank-ordered according to some predetermined view of mind and intellect (Allix). By recognizing that each student has various strengths and weaknesses, teaching strategies must then be varied considerably to suit the diverse needs of the student population. Undoubtedly, MIT would seem to have placed greater burden on educators by construing most forms of traditional assessment outdated or not conducive to most students, but academic circles have been the ones most supportive of Gardner's work.

Much of the criticism of MIT stems from the psychology profession. Cognitive science research literature is inconclusive and mixed when it comes to MIT, and empirical validation of the theory has proved impossible. In his article entitled "The Theory of Multiple Intelligences," Allix writes that "assessing the virtues of a conceptual framework such as MI theory requires more than hard evidence, or mere empirical adequacy alone, for recent developments in the philosophy of science have shown that the epistemological basis for theoretical virtue in any domain requires considerably more than this." The author argues that while a dearth of empirical evidence surrounding MIT is problematic, there are few instruments that exist which could validate or disconfirm the theory.

In 2011, over a decade since Allix asserted the need for a manner in which to measure the validity of MIT, the theory remains controversial and no concrete methodology has been developed through which to measure the validity of MIT. It remains, however, that the theory is significantly popular among Western academia and has raised important questions regarding learner diversity. While Gardner recognized the merit in a single dimension of intelligence, he has cited that students are marginalized by narrow teaching strategies. More saliently, Gardner contended that while a single form of intelligence is convenient, it is grossly inaccurate.

Review of Literature

Gardner contended in his Frames of Mind text that his works extends that of the ancient philosophers who shared his belief that the intellect can be parceled. He recognized that his work was and would continue to be controversial, as he cited theories of the mind have always been: "I doubt that topics like free will or the conflict between faith and reason will ever be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. But, in other cases, there may be hope for progress.... The time may be at hand for some clarification about the structure of human intellectual competence." Gardner begins his text by citing that previous theories regarding independent intelligences, such as those asserted by Piaget and other pedagogical psychologists and those asserted by IQ test creators, have been unconvincing because they are narrowly drawn. MIT is different, by extension, because of the methodology employed whilst originating the theory.

Birthing the Theory

Gardner birthed his theory by synthesizing a myriad of data, much of which was neurological in nature. He critically investigated evidence regarding brain development, affording particular attention to autistic and brain damaged children, seeking out a better classification of human capabilities. Gardner recognized, for instance, that autistic children would have a range of abilities similar to those of a gifted child, and thus categorizing these individuals merely according to an IQ was far too limiting.

The theorist argued that traditional IQ tests reflect only knowledge garnered from living in a specific, cultural context (Gardner). The tests employed in schools test only knowledge and not skill in arriving at new knowledge or solving problems and were thus bound to the test-taker's educational background. Among Gardner's chief issues with the IQ test is the instrument's failure in revealing anything about an individual's potential for future growth and learning.

Piaget, according to Gardner, was revolutionary in his perceptions of human cognition. Piaget contended that all human beings were in a constant state of sense-making, constructing hypotheses in an unabating attempt to generate new knowledge. Piaget's work was perhaps the most significant informant of MIT initially, as Gardner sought to extend Piaget's work to the specific realm of intelligence. In short, Piaget believed that every individual's cognition process was different, and Gardner asserted that, if this was so, then intelligences must vary as well.

Gardner recognized that scientific methods for orchestrating his theory would be useful, but, without such a process available he needed to apply methods that were less than empirical. Allix specifies that "although some sort of algorithm for optimally sorting out the details or factors from the mass of available data would have been desirable, the unavailability of such a procedure meant that Gardner had to resort more to an artistic judgment than a scientific assessment, by performing a kind of `subjective' factor analysis, to arrive at his map of the intelligences." Gardner contended that appropriate observation of the intelligences was a sufficient methodology through which to birth the theory.

Gardner's specific methods applied to the theory's development were, in essence, to identify potential intelligences and then evaluate those intelligences against specific criteria. If the intelligence held up against the criteria, then he deemed it worthy as being a legitimate category of intelligence. Some of Gardner's criteria for evaluating potential intelligences were as follows: a distinct, developmental history within the human brain; experimental support in the psychology field; potential isolation by brain damage. Gardner required there be biological and neurological evidence to support the existence of a specific form of intelligence, such as a noticeable pattern of breakdown in brain-damaged individuals.

Moreover, each intelligence needed to be triggered by either an internal or external stimulus. Musical intelligence, for example, is evident in the individual's sensitivity to pitch relations. Each of the seven, original intelligences and the nine, current intelligences recognized by MIT operate according to their own rules, however, with subtle variations according to required stimulus and other characteristics.

Gardner asserted that a fundamental shift in assessment philosophy was needed in order to accurately measure intelligence, as culture played a key role during intelligence measurement, according to Gardner. In short, competency in a cultural domain could be accurately assessed only by social structures that make up that same domain. Gardner defines an intelligence as "a psychobiological potential to solve problems or to fashion products that are valued in at least one cultural context." Intelligence then holds cultural significance in that cognitive performance is a set of culturally significant abilities.

The Original Seven Intelligences and Classroom Application

The original intelligences articulated by Gardner were linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Linguistic intelligence refers to the capacity to use language for both personal expression as well as social interaction (Fasko). Logical-mathematical intelligence upholds the ability to make sense of underlying patterns and principles of a causal system, while spatial intelligence is the ability to represent the spatial world internally. Spatial intelligence is unique in that it is applicable to both art and science, with sculptors and engineers using spatial intelligence in their work. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is the ability to use parts of the body in order to solve a particular problem or to create something; athletes, dancers, and actors usually bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. Musical intelligence refers to one's ability to hear and recognize patterns in music, and interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand and empathize with others. Finally, intrapersonal intelligence is having a solid understanding of one's self, including skills and talents.

Gardner contended that teaching strategies should cater to the intelligences equally, and that educators should be cognizant of the intelligences that manifest in their classrooms. Logical intelligence, for instance, refers not just to the ability to understand math operations, but to a wide range of skills such as deductive reasoning and pattern detection (Nolen). Alternatively, spatial intelligence affords an individual the ability use mental images to solve problems and to perceive the visual world accurately even without physical stimuli; visual art caters to this intelligence in the classroom. The personal intelligences, interpersonal and intrapersonal, are social intelligences, with the former related to the ability to understand and distinguish between people's moods and sensitivities and the later dealing with the interworkings of the self. Teachers cater to interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence, respectively, by using collaborative and individually based exercises in the classroom.

Initial Success of MIT

In 1983, Gardner's work began to generate as much criticism as it did positive acknowledgement. Teachers recognized that classroom application of MIT had an empowering effect on students, particularly those who were perceived as at-risk or struggling in school (Rubado). Researchers cited that the array of teaching strategies promoted by MIT encouraged students to build upon their strengths without feeling defeated by their weaknesses (Rubado). While some critics initially contended that testing students according to their intelligence-strengths would pigeon-hole them into one of the seven categories, teachers recognized that encouraging students to apply all seven intelligences into their work allowed for more comprehensive, effective teaching methods.

Initial Criticism of MIT

Initial criticism of MIT stemmed from academic psychologists who questioned, among other things, Gardner's use of the word intelligence (Helding). While Gardner's methodology was and continues to be condemned by psychologists, others questioned the theorist's entire premise, arguing that it was not intelligence that Gardner was measuring but talents and abilities. A general lack of scientific rigor was the most frequent criticism of MIT, though this criticism rarely came from teachers, parents or students.

Synthesis: MIT during the 1980s and 1990s

The ten years that spanned the release of Gardner's Frames of Mind and the second edition of the same text saw a definite trend among educators to fervently accept and rally behind MIT. With as much vigor, however, the psychology realm rejected Gardner's theory. While teachers asserted that MIT corroborated directly with what they experienced in terms of various learning styles, the science world rejected the lack of empirical evidence to support MIT.

Irrefutably, however, MIT catalyzed an unprecedented paradigm shift in the academic world, through which a Harvard psychologist validated what teachers and curriculum developers had been beginning to notice since the 1970s; student intelligence is not limited to the realms of language and mathematics. In adamantly rejecting the idea that general intelligence (g) exists, Gardner single-handedly overhauled perceptions of the role of schools, teachers, and students. He asserted that "know-how" should always trump "know-that," birthing increased emphasis on higher-order and critical thinking, two salient elements of modern school reform efforts.

Amending the Theory

Following the release of the second edition of Frames of Mind in 1993, Gardner articulated his earlier shortcomings, responding to his critics. While he has never contended that his use of the word "intelligence" is improper or incorrect, Gardner has cited repeatedly that he failed in defending his use of the term immediately following MIT's original publication. During the 1980s, Gardner responded to his critics by citing that his use of the word, instead of talent or ability, was a "minor, lexical substitution" which he largely shrugged off as minor. He later stated, however, that he was wrong in not distinguishing intelligence from other concepts that might be perceived as closely related to intelligence, clarifying that an intelligence is a "biopsychological potential that is ours by virtue of our species membership" : " I am often asked whether an intelligence is the same thing as a talent or an ability . . . I have no objection if one speaks about eight or nine talents or abilities, but I do object when an analyst calls some abilities (like language) intelligences and others (like music) "mere" talents" (Gardner qtd. in Helding). The theorist has concluded that misconstruing intelligence for talent is birthed from a desire to instill a sort of cognitive hierarchy on people that does not exist (Helding).

The classroom outcomes of MIT's popularity among teachers during the first ten years were many and varied, with positive manifestations of the theory related to educator perceptions of students as equals. Gardner had expanded the view of human potential beyond the singly intelligent prototype, and suggested that teachers relinquish lecture-and-drill instruction and standardized assessments for more context-rich instruction (Stanford). MIT was particularly integral to special needs instruction, with educators perceiving students as possessing all seven intelligences at varying levels.

Gardner continued to evaluate and amend his theory throughout the 1990s and into the twenty-first century, adding naturalistic intelligence formally in 1999. Naturalistic intelligence refers to an individual's ability to categorize and evaluate elements and aspects of the natural world. Gardner later added existential intelligence, or the ability to think infinitely and beyond sensory perception. Gardner described existential intelligence as "the appreciation of spirituality and understanding questions about life. This intelligence relates to exploring human existence in the universe." The contemporary incarnation of MIT holds nine intelligences, with moral intelligence still being evaluated as a possible tenth intelligence.

Outcomes of MIT in the Twenty-First Century Classroom

Despite the criticism that exists surrounding the theory, MIT continues to manifest in the modern classroom. MIT has played a significant role in a myriad of school reform efforts, including recommendations for assessment alternatives. Educators who have embraced MIT most fervently assert that changing perceptions of intelligence and teaching strategies can only go so far if assessment methods remain the same. Traditional, standardized assessments, similar to the narrow IQ tests Gardner condemned, are now widely perceived as limiting learners. In his article entitled "Multiple Intelligences for Every Classroom," Stanford writes that "MI theory brings about an awareness of many assessment strategies that allow students to show they understand and can use new information in unique ways. Assessment alternatives include logs and journals, graphic organizers, observational checklists, video samples, rubrics, miscue analyses, and portfolios." By allowing students to demonstrate learning through a variety of channels, alternative assessments are more inclusive of the diverse learning needs of the student population.

Non-traditional assessments are more authentic in measuring learning for students with special needs (Stanford). Learning disabled students, for example, may struggle with written, timed exams, and MIT recognizes that not being able to succeed on an exam does not mean that a student lacks intelligence. Educators generally rallied against the No Child Left Behind Act, which heavily promoted standardized testing and detrimentally linked school funding to student achievement on standardized tests, and cited MIT as theoretical evidence against the employment of the legislation.

NCLB advocated use of direct instruction, or traditional lecture-and-drill instruction, in schools beginning as early as kindergarten. Researchers Douglas, Burton, and Reese-Durham compared student achievement in mathematics when direct instruction was applied to that when multiple intelligence teaching was applied, concluding that students faired far better under multiple intelligence methods. The authors studied the differences in learning within the context of an eighth grade mathematics classroom using the same, standardized assessment. Those learning in accordance to MIT, with a wide range of teaching strategies offered to cater to the class' cognitive diversity, scored an average of twenty-five points higher than those who learned via direct instruction methods. A salient limitation of this study, however, was a narrow explanation of the methodology, as there were few distinctions between direct instruction methods and those corresponding to MIT.

While undoubtedly popular throughout K-12 classrooms, MIT has had a less weighted effect on higher education. Griggs et al. writes that "the traditional way of thinking about college was the suit and tie wearing professor strolling in, setting down his worn leather satchel, and retrieving notes to be placed on the lectern. He would settle in to a long winded monologue about a certain topic and students would write down the pertinent pieces of information. A week or so later, there would be a written exam." The same authors contend that such strategies would be laughable in a lower education classroom during the twenty-first century, and this is attributable directly to Gardner's MIT. However, instruction in higher education institutions has been comparatively untouched by Gardner, with lectures that cater primarily to verbal-linguistic learners still being inordinately popular over collaborative and discovery-based learning (Griggs et al.). The same authors conducted a quantitative study of over 100 college students, evaluating them according to an MIT measurement tool and concluding that only twenty-three percent of learners held verbal-linguistic intelligence as a top-three strength; this would suggest that MIT-based teaching can benefit college students inasmuch as it does younger learners.

The advent of e-learning has reframed MIT to be possibly conducive to the online learning environment for students of all ages (Osciak and Milheim). Applying MIT to e-learning, specifically, expands the learning experiences to support greater collaboration between students and diversified learning experiences through the use of listservs and chatrooms. Electronic portfolios exist as a form of alternative assessment conducive to online learners and encourage cumulative, visual representations of work. However, there are intelligences that remain more limited within the context of e-learning, particularly interpersonal intelligence.

Current Criticism of MIT

While the theory has evolved somewhat since its 1983, common criticisms of MIT have remained largely the same since its inception. While educators generally support the outcomes of MIT in the classroom, there are researchers who condemn even the practical application of the theory. More frequently, however, criticism of MIT stems from the realms of neurobiology and psychology.

Criticism of Classroom Application of MIT

While MIT does not support the idea that different races or cultural groups would perform differently than others, some researchers have contended that MIT can support stereotyping. Rigidly profiling students according to their strengths and weaknesses is as problematic as using a traditional IQ score to determine the learning needs of a student. Along similar lines, MIT has the potential to limit students who begin to define their potential according to MIT. For instance, a student who scores low in the logical-mathematical category may assume that s/he is simply incapable of performing well in science or math and essentially give up in these subject areas (Gray and Viens).

More controversially, Gardner's work as it manifests in the classroom has been criticized for unfairly negating the potential of gifted students (Henshon). In essence, MIT argues that all children are equal and gifted, and thus special programs for gifted students are not necessary if MIT is properly applied to the classroom (Henshon). Gardner has defended himself and his theory against this criticism, however, citing that his "background is in psychology-cognitive development and neuropsychology. I wasn't focused in education or giftedness and I wrote about the different types of intelligence. I saw that as a contribution to psychology but people who took it up were much more interested in education." Gardner has also cited that giftedness is different than intelligence, though he fails to articulate precisely what accounts for these differences.

Neurological and Biological Criticism of MIT

More complex criticism of the theory surrounds its most basic premises (Allix). The nature of human competency as it manifests in the proverbial real world is not narrowed by a single form of intelligence but a combination of many intelligences. Allix writes "an example here is tool manufacture and use, where both human and non-human creatures are known to be capable of making or deploying various objects to remedy problems.... Such skills require not only visual-spatial, but also bodily-kinesthetic competence." Even more intelligence-combinations are demanded by complex activities, such as engineering for instance, and thus intelligence is generally encountered smoothly. By extension, MIT may be useful in the classroom but is less relevant in the greater context of society. Moreover, if school is meant to prepare students for the professional world, in which intelligence is measured and encountered as a seamlessly functioning entity, then MIT may not be serving students in the academic world

MIT falls short in other areas as well. Allix writes in his aforementioned article that Gardner struggles to explain cognitive experiences such as commonsense and metaphorical capacity, having no specific intelligence umbrella under which these experiences could fall, and only superficially explains the existence of the nine intelligences. The same author questions Gardner's methodology at defining an intelligence, suggesting that verbal-linguistic intelligence, in particular, does not meet Gardner's criteria for an intelligence because it is formed via interwoven components, only some of which are strictly linguistic in nature. Moreover, the failure to have a concrete methodology in place for validating the theory, according to Allix, undermines the integrity of MIT altogether.

Gardner's methods of identifying a possible intelligence and then applying that intelligence to a set of subjectively decided upon criteria is problematic, as it was Gardner himself that posited the nine intelligences and then upheld them to his own criteria. Gardner's defense of his methodology has been fairly weak, with the theorist rightfully contending that it would be impossible to scientifically test every aspect of MIT. Gardner defended his theory against accusations that criticized it for neglecting the interconnected nature of intelligence, writing that the intelligences were not mutually exclusive but were autonomous.

Additional condemnation of the theory has frequently surrounded the personal intelligences. Intrapersonal intelligence is an internal capacity to access one's own feelings and emotions, but psychologists are particularly skeptical of such ability being deemed a form of intelligence. Interpersonal intelligence is the capacity to evaluate the moods and feelings of others. Both personal intelligences demand an end result in order to be effectively evaluated, a characteristic not as evident in the other seven categories. The personal intelligences are, in fact, largely conceptual and changeable, according to MIT's critics, and Gardner has been ambiguous at describing why the personal intelligences diverge so drastically from his other categories. Gardner's defense of the personal intelligences, specifically, has been to cite the union between personal and interpersonal intelligence as a second-level regulator, or an emerging, higher self.

While such flaws identified in MIT could be, and indeed have been, cited as minor, the combination of these flaws calls into question the validity of MIT. If Gardner admits that the personal intelligences do differ fundamentally from the other seven intelligences but fails to be able to explain why these differences exist, then the entire methodology supporting MIT is problematic at best and downright invalid at worst. Allix synthesizes that Gardner's weak defense of certain aspects of his theory- namely, the personal intelligences and the lack of attention afforded to interconnectivity of intelligence- raises "questions about the overall coherence of MI theory, since anomalies concerning the status of some intelligences vis-a-vis other identified types, suggests that there are inconsistencies in how the criteria for identifying an intelligence are applied." Moreover, neurobiological research supports a less compartmentalized perception of knowledge, increasingly indicating that connections exist between the areas of the brain which Gardner has long asserted to be separate and distinct from one another. Because Gardner lacks the methodological capacity to empirically support his theory, the holes in MIT are gaping ones, as a flaw in Gardner's criteria for arriving at an intelligence would compromise the integrity of the entire theory.

Ongoing Popularity of MIT with Educators

Strides in the neurobiology field have rendered MIT increasingly, empirically flawed; and yet, the theory remains popular in the classroom and has demonstrated success in fostering student achievement. MIT was embraced fervently by educators during the 1980s and 1990s due to an increasingly evident void in traditional education. MIT stepped in to fill the gap left by traditional assessment and a narrow perception of students as fundamentally unequal. Gardner cited in his article entitled "On the Three Faces of Intelligence" that "it is misleading to think of humans as possessing but a single intellectual capacity, which almost always amounts to an amalgam of linguistic and logical-mathematical skills. Rather, examined from an evolutionary perspective, it makes more sense to conceptualize human beings as having several relatively autonomous mental faculties." Gardner's chief problem with general intelligence is that it negates the potential of humans to be intelligent in areas outside of verbal-linguistics and logical-mathematics.

For educators, MIT provided an avenue to cater to a diverse student population. The critics of MIT do not usually fundamentally condemn the classroom application of MIT. Rather, they cite that the theoretical framework is problematic. By extension, while MIT may be methodologically flawed, that is not to say that the theory is not beneficial to students. Gardner has consistently condemned the semantic criticism of his theory, contending that arguing over the proper definition of intelligence negates his entire premise.

The empirical evidence suggests that MIT does benefit the contemporary classroom, but these benefits could stem from a wide range of elements and are not necessarily attributable to MIT. For instance, the aforementioned study in which MIT-based instruction was compared to direct instruction in a middle school classroom could have been significantly informed by the educators' presentation of multiple channels for learning to all students, rather than tailoring the instruction to a particular intelligence (Douglas, Burton, and Reese-Durham). The success of MIT in the classroom could simply stem from its encouragement of educators to be more sensitive to learner diversity and provide an array of opportunities for learning. Moreover, the provision of alternative assessments, collaborative learning, and other ways in which MIT has informed curriculum could simply be engaging to students who have tired of traditional instruction methods.

While traditional instruction does indeed work well for some types of learners, it undoubtedly does not bode well for others (McClellan and Conti). Educators acknowledged the existing gaps in the system and MIT provided a possible way in which to tailor instruction to student needs. The popularity of the theory has continued in the twenty-first century because MIT's practical application does seem to support learning for students in a way that traditional methods do not.

Conclusions

Gardner contended that the purpose of school is to develop intelligences and aid students in reaching professional goals that are conducive to their specific, intelligence spectrum. Such a definition does not account the unfragmented manner in which intelligence manifests in the real world, however. Perhaps more saliently, though, the realm of academia is already fragmented, broken down into specific subjects that will likely not be applied in the same compartmentalized fashion after students graduate. MIT could then be exacerbating an existing problem in the education system by further segmenting that which should be more cohesive.

The methodological framework for MIT, as evidenced in the literature, is deeply flawed. Problems stem primarily from poor definitions of that which constitutes an intelligence, increasingly countered by innovations in the neurobiological field (Allix). Despite a range of updates in the study of the human brain since MIT's 1983 inception, the theory has evolved only moderately and will likely be viewed as largely outdated in the coming years. Nevertheless, cognitive diversity is a mainstay of the modern classroom, and one that Gardner's work unprecedentedly highlighted.

References

Allix, N. M. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences: A Case of Missing Cognitive Matter. Australian Journal of Education, 44(3), 272.

Campbell, L., & Campbell, B. Multiple Intelligences and Student Achievement: Success Stories from Six Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Douglas, O., Burton, K. S., & Reese-Durham, N. The Effects of the Multiple Intelligence Teaching Strategy on the Academic Achievement of Eighth Grade Math Students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(2), 182-193.

Fasko, D. J. An Analysis of Multiple Intelligences Theory and Its Use with the Gifted and Talented. Roeper Review, 23(3), 126.

Gardner, H. Frames of Mind The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (2nd ed.). New York: BasicBooks.

Gardner, H. Intelligence Reframed Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. On the Three Faces of Intelligence. Daedalus, 131(1), 139-173.

Gray, J. H., & Viens, J. T. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences: Understanding Cognitive Diversity in School. National Forum, 74, 22-47.

Griggs, L., Barney, S., Brown-Sederberg, J., Collins, E., Keith, S., & Iannacci, L. Varying Pedagogy to Address Student Multiple Intelligences. Human Architecture, 7(1), 55-88.

Helding, L. Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Journal of Singing, 66(2), 193-205.

Henshon, S. E. The Evolution of Creativity, Giftedness, and Multiple Intelligences: An Interview with Ellen Winner and Howard Gardner. Roeper Review, 28(4), 191-216.

Hoerr, T. R. Becoming a Multiple Intelligences School. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Martin, G. P., & Burnette, C. Maximizing Multiple Intelligences through Multimedia: a Real Application of Gardner's Theories. MultiMedia Schools, 7, 28-46.

McClellan, J. A., & Conti, G. J. Identifying the Multiple Intelligences of Your Students. Journal of Adult Education, 37(1), 13-44.

Nolen, J. L. Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Education, 124(1), 115-134.

Osciak, S. Y., & Milheim, W. D. Multiple Intelligence and the Design of Web-Based Instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(4), 355-371.

A Primer on Multiple Intelligences. NEA Today, 15, 17.

Rubado, K. Empowering Students through Multiple Intelligences. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 10(4), 233-248.

Simmons, S. Multiple Intelligences at the Middle Level: Models for Learning in Art and across the Disciplines. Art Education, 54, 18-31.

Stanford, P. Multiple Intelligence for Every Classroom. Intervention in School & Clinic, 39(2), 80-105.