Intervention in School and Clinic http://isc.sagepub.

com/

Multiple Intelligence for Every Classroom

Pokey Stanford
Intervention in School and Clinic 2003 39: 80
DOI: 10.1177/10534512030390020301

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://isc.sagepub.com/content/39/2/80

Published by:
Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Intervention in School and Clinic can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://isc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://isc.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Nov 1, 2003

What is This?

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at Oranim Academic College of Education on February 27, 2013
 Multiple Intelligence for
Every Classroom
P O K E Y S TA N F O R D

This article presents an overview of multiple intelligence (MI)

theory along with practical applications of the model. In par-
ticular, three basic aspects of the theory (teaching strategies,
curricular adaptations, and student assessment) are described
relative to the infusion of MI theory in general education
classrooms to ensure appropriate inclusion for students with
mild to moderate disabilities.

80 I NTERVENTION IN S CHOOL AND C LINIC VOL . 39, N O. 2, N OVEMBER 2003 ( PP. 80–85)

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at Oranim Academic College of Education on February 27, 2013
M
ultiple intelligence (MI) theory has received
much attention over the past 20 years
(Campbell, 1997; Silver, Strong, & Perini,
1997). Almost 80 years after the first intel-
ligence tests were developed, Howard
Gardner challenged the notion that intelligence is some-
thing that can be objectively measured and reduced to a
single quotient or score. Maintaining that our culture
has defined intelligence too narrowly, Gardner proposed
in Frames of Mind (1983) the existence of at least seven
basic intelligences; since then an eighth has been added
(Checkley, 1997; Roper & Davis, 2000). Gardner’s work
has encouraged educators and parents to view children as
equals regardless of a quotient produced from an intelli-
gence exam or of academic areas for which they develop
competence. Practitioners of MI understand that chil-
dren do not fit a single prototype.
Gardner sought to broaden the perception of human
potential beyond the confines of traditional IQ scores,
seriously questioning the validity of determining an indi-
vidual’s intelligence through the practice of taking the
person out of his or her natural environment and asking
him or her to attempt isolated tasks never done before—
and probably never to be done again. Thus, Gardner sug-
gested educators view intelligence as the capacity for
solving problems and fashioning products in context-rich
and naturalistic settings (Armstrong, 1994) rather than
place the traditional importance on the ability to produce
a large quotient.
Defining the Intelligences
Gardner (1997) defined the various intelligence areas as
follows:
Verbal/linguistic intelligence: the production of
language, abstract reasoning, symbolic thinking, concep-
tual patterning, reading, and writing.
Logical/mathematical intelligence: the capacity to
recognize patterns, work with abstract symbols (e.g., num-
bers, geometric shapes), and discern relationships or see
connections between separate and distinct pieces of infor-
mation.
Visual/spatial intelligence: visual arts, navigation,
mapmaking, architecture, and games requiring the ability
to visualize objects from different perspectives and angles.
Bodily/kinesthetic intelligence: the ability to use
the body to express emotion, to play a game, and to cre-
ate a new product.
Musical/rhythmic intelligence: capacities such as
the recognition and use of rhythmic and tonal patterns and
sensitivity to sounds from the environment, the human
voice, and musical instruments.
Interpersonal intelligence: the ability to work co-
operatively with others in a small group, as well as the
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at Oranim Academic College of Education on February 27, 2013
ability to communicate verbally and nonverbally with
other people.
Intrapersonal intelligence: the internal aspects of
the self, such as knowledge of feelings, range of emo-
tional responses, thinking processes, self-reflection, and a
sense of intuition about spiritual realities.
Naturalistic intelligence: the ability to recognize
patterns in nature and classify objects, the mastery of tax-
onomy, sensitivity to other features of the natural world,
and an understanding of different species.
Existential intelligence: the human response to being
alive in all ways (Gardner is still not satisfied that he has
enough physiological brain evidence to conclusively es-
tablish this as an intelligence).
Beyond the descriptions of the eight intelligences,
certain aspects of the theory are important to remember,
especially when working with individuals with disabili-
ties. For example, Armstrong (1994) suggested that four
elements be considered. First, each person possesses all
eight intelligences. Each person has capacities in all eight
intelligences. Of course, the eight intelligences function
together in ways unique to each person. Some people ap-
pear to possess extremely high levels of functioning in all
or most of the eight intelligences, yet others appear to
lack all but the most basic aspects of the intelligences.
Most fall somewhere in between highly developed in
some intelligences, modestly developed in others, and rel-
atively underdeveloped in the rest. Students with learn-
ing disabilities often exhibit deficits in verbal/linguistic
or logical/mathematical intelligences but show strengths
in other areas. Unfortunately, schools put more emphasis
on verbal/linguistic and logical/mathematical.
Practices to Emerge
MI theory is perhaps more accurately described as a phi-
losophy of education or an attitude toward learning
(Armstrong, 1994), in the spirit of John Dewey’s ideas
(1916, 1938) on progressive education, rather than a set
program of fixed techniques and strategies. As such, it of-
fers educators a broad opportunity to creatively adapt its
fundamental principles to any number of educational set-
tings. Implications for school reform and classroom ap-
plication include expanded teaching strategies, curricular
adaptations, and expanded student assessment. Indeed
unsuccessful, unmotivated students have experienced aca-
demic growth when exposed to multifaceted interventions
and techniques principled by MI theory (Janes, Koutso-
panagos, Mason, & Villaranda, 2000).
The teacher’s role in an MI classroom contrasts sharply
with that of a teacher in a traditional classroom (Gardner,
1997). In the traditional classroom, the teacher lectures
while standing at the front of the classroom, writes on the
board, questions students about the assigned readings or
VOL . 39, N O. 2, N OVEMBER 2003 81

handouts, and waits as students finish written work. In
comparison, in the MI classroom, the teacher continually
shifts method of presentation from linguistic to spatial to
musical, and so on, often combining intelligences in cre-
ative ways. Next, we will look at some practical aspects of
MI theory.
Teaching Strategies
MI makes its greatest contribution to education by sug-
gesting that teachers expand their repertoire of tech-
niques, tools, and strategies beyond the typical linguistic
and logical ones predominantly used in U.S. class-
rooms (Campbell, 1997). According to John Goodlad’s
pioneering “A Study of Schooling” project, which in-
volved researchers’ observing more than 1,000 classrooms
nationwide, nearly 70% of classroom time was consumed
by teacher talk—mainly teachers talking at students (giv-
ing instructions, lecturing). The second, most widely ob-
served activity was students’ doing written assignments.
According to Goodlad (1984), “Much of this work was in
the form of responding to directives in workbooks or on
worksheets” (p. 230). In this context, the theory of mul-
tiple intelligences functions not only as a specific remedy
to one-sidedness in teaching but also as an organizational
tool that facilitates and synthesizes existing educational
pedagogy. In doing so, it provides s broad range of stim-
ulating curricula to awaken the slumbering brains that
Goodlad fears populate our nation’s schools.
MI theory provides an avenue for accomplishing what
good teachers have always done: Reach beyond the text
to provide varied opportunities for students to learn and
show evidence of learning. MI theory provides a frame-
work for teachers to reflect on their best teaching meth-
ods and to understand why these methods work (or why
they work well for some students but not for others). It
also helps teachers expand their teaching repertoire to in-
clude a broader range of methods, materials, and tech-
82 I NTERVENTION IN S CHOOL AND C LINIC
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at Oranim Academic College of Education on February 27, 2013
niques for reaching an ever-wider and more diverse range
of learners.
MI theory opens the door to a wide variety of teach-
ing strategies that can easily be implemented in the class-
room. In many cases, these are strategies that have been
used for decades by good teachers. In other cases, the
theory of MI offers teachers an opportunity to develop
innovative teaching strategies. In either case, MI theory
suggests that no one set of strategies will work best for all
students at all times. All children have different pre-
dispositions in the eight intelligences, so any particular
strategy is likely to be highly successful with one group of
students and less successful with other groups (Silver et
al., 1997). For example, teachers who use rhythms, raps,
and chants as a pedagogical tool will probably find that
musically inclined students respond enthusiastically to this
strategy but nonmusical students remain unmoved. Sim-
ilarly, the use of pictures and images will reach students
who are more spatially oriented but perhaps have a dif-
ferent effect on those who are more physically or verbally
inclined (see Figure 1).
Because of individual differences among students,
teachers are best advised to use a broad range of teaching
strategies. As long as instructors shift their intelligence
emphasis from presentation to presentation, there will al-
ways be time during a day when a student’s most highly
developed intelligence is actively involved in learning.
Currently, for students with disabilities, it is often only
their weakest area that is used for most of the day. Bal-
ancing strategies gives equal opportunity to the individ-
ual student who struggles with obtaining information
through one intelligence and allows the student to use
the strengths he or she possesses for learning. Figure 2
shows how teachers can reach all learners by using a the-
matic approach with concept development and MI.
Expanding Assessment
Effective assessment is in alignment with instructional
practices (Bellanca, Chapman, & Swartz, 1994). Chang-
ing teaching strategies and curricula without changing
assessment methods will not bring about the full benefit
of MI theory for teaching and learning. Thus, if MI the-
ory is to be used in classrooms, teachers must change the
way they assess student learning (Chapman, 1993). Tra-
ditional assessment limits learners to a pencil-and-paper
test as the primary means of demonstrating knowledge
and skills. 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, rub-
rics, miscue analyses, and portfolios. Such alternative forms
of assessment offer students the potential to demonstrate
learning content in a variety of ways. An example is a
 Figure 1. Multiple intelligence activites related to the topic of fractions.

math lesson or unit in which the teacher assesses cooper-
ative groups (interpersonal intelligence), hands-on ma-
nipulative (bodily/kinesthetic intelligence), or reflection
logs (intrapersonal intelligence).
To facilitate the use of multiple assessments for the
multiple intelligences, teachers will need to rethink how
students can show what they know. The multiple intelli-
gences strengths self-checklist (see Figure 3) allows learn-
ers to begin to self-identify where their strengths are
within the differing intelligences. Authentic assessment
offers opportunities for students with learning disabilities
by allowing an alternative means of measuring growth
and development. When a learner can help with the iden-
tification of a strength, assessments can be focused on

VOL . 39, N O. 2, N OVEMBER 2003 83

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at Oranim Academic College of Education on February 27, 2013
 reaching the learner’s full potiental. Miscue analysis, for
example, allows teachers to focus specific and intensive
instruction on an individual basis by identifying the need
of the learner in the context of strengths (Reutzel &
Cooter, 2003).
New assessments should not focus on whether or not
students can acquire knowledge but on whether or not
they can acquire the disposition to use skills and strategies
appropriately. Recent studies have suggested that poor
thinkers and poor problem solvers may possess the skills
they need but fail to use them in certain tasks (Burke,
1994). Integration of learning, motivation, collaboration,
and metacognition all contribute to lifelong learning. As-
sessments that move beyond measuring knowledge and
skills and begin measuring the disposition of using the
knowledge/skills will better meet the needs of learners.
In the MI classrooms, the possibilities for assessing
student learning are as numerous as the options for orga-
nizing curricula and teaching strategies (Bellanca et al.,
1994). In the traditional classroom, assessment drives in-
struction. In the multiple intelligence classroom, assess-
ment and instruction are partners. The MI classroom
provides the environment for teachers to use varied
teaching strategies, expanded curricula, and authentic as-
sessment to provide creative and active learning that en-
gages all students (especially those with disabilities) in the
construction of their own learning.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Pokey Stanford, EdD, is an assistant professor of education at
William Carey College. Her current interests include MI the-
ory and technology as intervention tools to further facilitate in-
clusive environments for all learners. She was a classroom
teacher for 7 years. Address: Pokey Stanford, William Carey
College, 498 Tuscan Ave., WCC Box 3, Hattiesburg, MS
39401-5461; e-mail: Barbara.Stanford@wmcarey.edu

Figure 2. Multiple intelligence activities related to the topic of
patriotism across grade levels.
REFERENCES
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Bellanca, J., Chapman, C., & Swartz, E. (1994). Multiple assessments for
multiple intelligences. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylights Publishing.
Burke, K. (1994). The mindful school: How to assess student learning. Pala-
tine, IL: IRI/Skylights Publishing.
Campbell, L. (1997). Variations on a theme—How teachers interpret
MI theory. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 14–19.
Chapman, C. (1993). If the shoe fits: How to develop multiple intelligences
in the classroom. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylights Publishing.
Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven . . . and the eighth: A conversation
with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 8–13.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Toronto: Macmillan.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.
New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1997). Multiple intelligence as a partner in school im-
provement. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 20–21.

84 I NTERVENTION IN S CHOOL AND C LINIC

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at Oranim Academic College of Education on February 27, 2013
 Figure 3. Multiple intelligences strengths.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Janes, L. M., Koutsopanagos, C. L., Mason, D. S., & Villaranda, I.
(2000). Improving student motivation through the use of engaged learn-
ing, cooperative learning and multiple intelligences. Chicago: Master’s
action research project, Saint Xavier University and Skylight field-
based master’s program.
Roper, B., & Davis, D. (2000). Howard Gardner: Knowledge, learning
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at Oranim Academic College of Education on February 27, 2013
and development in drama and arts education. Research in Drama
Education, 5(2), 234.
Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B., Jr. (2003). Strategies for reading assess-
ment and instruction: Helping every child succeed (2nd ed.). Upper Sad-
dle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Silver, H., Strong, R., & Perini, M. (1997). Integrating learning styles
and multiple intelligence. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 22–27.
VOL . 39, N O. 2, N OVEMBER 2003 85