Chapter II THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS ON INTELLIGENCE- GENESIS ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/99775/1/10_chapter2.pdf · Theoretical Constructs on Intelligence- Genesis,

Chapter II

THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS ON INTELLIGENCE-

GENESIS, THEORY, DEVELOPMENT AND PRACTICE

Theoretical Constructs on Intelligence- Genesis, Theory, Development and Practice 26

THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS ON INTELLIGENCE-

GENESIS, THEORY, DEVELOPMENT AND PRACTICE

Intelligence in Historical Perspective

Intelligence generally is conceived to be the ability to acquire knowledge, to

think and reason effectively, and to deal adaptively with the environment. The skills

required to adapt successfully to environmental demands may differ from culture to

culture suggesting to some theorists that intelligence is somewhat culture specific in

nature.

Francis Galton is the pioneer to quantify mental abilities. In his book

‘Heredity Genies’ (1869), Galton showed through the study of ‘family trees’ that

eminence and genius seemed to occur within certain families, suggesting that

intelligence is an inherited capacity.

Galton’s research convinced him that the eminent people had inherited

mental constitutions that made them more fit for thinking than the successful

counterparts. Galton even attempted to demonstrate a biological basis for eminence

as efficiency of the nervous system. He measured the size of the skulls, believing

that skull size reflected brain volume and hence intelligence.

It was Alfred Binet, who developed the first intelligence test to assess the

mental skills of French school children. Binet’s Test is the pioneer of all modern

intelligence testing movements. In developing his tests, Binet made two assumptions

about intelligence: first mental abilities developed with age; second the rate at which

people gain mental competence is a characteristic of a person and is a fairly constant

over time.


The concept of Mental Age of Binet was subsequently expanded by the

German psychologist William Stern, to provide the relative score a common

yardstick of intellectual attainment of people of different chronological ages. It was

Lewis Terman who imported the intelligence test developed by Binet to the USA

and revised it as Stanford- Binet Scale. The Stanford-Binet Scale became the

standard for future individually administered intelligence tests and it still used today.

The Stanford-Binet contains mostly verbal items and it yield a single IQ score.

At about the same time, the Stanford - Binet test was introduced in 1916, the

USA entered the First World War. One of Terman’s students at Stanford, Authur

Otis had been working on group administered test of intellectual ability. This test

became the prototype for Army Alpha Test, a verbally oriented test, that was used to

screen large number of Army recruits for intellectual fitness. Because some recruits

were unable to read, a non-verbal instrument using mazes, picture completion

problems, and digit- symbol task was also developed and given the name Army

Beta.

David Wechsler (whose definition of intelligence is universally accepted)

believed that the Stanford-Binet relied too much on verbal skills. He thought that

intelligence should be measured verbal and non-verbal abilities. He therefore

developed intelligence tests for adult and for children that measured both verbal and

non-verbal intellectual skills.

In 1939, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) appeared, followed

by Wechsler’s Intelligence Scale for Children in 1955 and the Wechsler’s Pre-school

and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) in 1967. The Wechsler Scale has

undergone several revisions. Today, the Wechsler Tests WAIS III and WAIS IV are


the most popular individually administered tests. The WAIS-IV was standardized on

2,200 people ranging from 16 to 90 years of age. It consists of 15 different tasks,

each designed to assess intelligence, including working memory, arithmetic ability,

spatial ability, and general knowledge about the world. The WAIS-IV yields scores

on four domains: verbal, perceptual, working memory, and processing speed. The

reliability of the test is high (more than 0.95), and it shows substantial construct

validity.

History of Intelligence Testing

During the era of psychometrics and behaviorism, intelligence was thought

to be a single, inherit entity. The human mind was believed by some to be “tabula

rasa " a blank slate that could be educated and trained to learn anything if taught in

the appropriate manner. However, contrary to this notion, an increasing number of

researchers and psychologists now believe that the opposite is true; that is,

individuals are born with and possess different levels of ability. The development

and use of intelligence tests have been one way that researchers and psychologists

have attempted to support their argument. Gardner (1993) expresses this view quite

elegantly, stating that "there exists a multitude of intelligences, quite independent of

each other; that each intelligence has its own strengths and constraints; that the mind

is far from unencumbered at birth; and that it is unexpectedly difficult to teach

things that go against early 'naive' theories that challenge the natural lines of force

within intelligence and its matching domains."

The study of intelligence has a rich history in cognition, and it was long

held that the arousal state of emotion caused disorganization of cognitive

activity (Massey, 2002). Charles Darwin challenged this notion when he wrote


The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals in 1872. Darwin's work recognized

the emotional system as important to survival across species. According to Darwin's

theory, emotions served as an important signalling system that served as being

highly adaptive (Darwin, 1872).

Charles Spearman was one of the earliest psychologists to propose a factor

analytic approach of intelligence testing. His theory stated that there was one general

factor (g) and one or more specific factor (s) that accounted for an individuals'

performance on intelligence tests. Spearman conceptualized the g factor as general

mental energy. This factor is involved in deductive reasoning and is linked to the

"skill, speed, intensity, and extent of intellectual output." (Sattler, 2001). Spearman

believed that general mental ability represented the 'inventive' aspect to mental

ability rather than the 'reproductive' aspect. The cognitive abilities associated with

general mental ability might include being able to describe how the two concepts are

related or being able to find a second idea that is related to one that has already been

proposed.

Figure 2.1 Spearman’s – Two Factor Theory


Tests with high g loading are complex and include tasks that involve

reasoning and hypothesis testing (Sattler, 2001). Tests with low g loadings are less

complex and include tasks that involve recognition, recall, and speed (Sattler, 2001).

The American psychologist Louis L. Thurstone (1887-1955) disagreed with

Spearman’s theory, arguing instead that there were seven factors, which he

identified as the ‘primary mental abilities’. These seven abilities were verbal

comprehension, verbal fluency, spatial visualization, inductive reasoning, memory,

and perceptual speed (Thurstone, 1938).

Although the debate between Spearman and Thurstone has remained

unresolved, other psychologists have suggested that both were right in some

respects. Vernon and Cattel, viewed intellectual abilities as hierarchical, with ‘g’, or

general ability, located at the top of the hierarchy. But below ‘g’ is levels of

gradually narrowing abilities, ending with the specific abilities identified by

Spearman. According to Cattel general ability can be subdivided into two further

kinds ‘fluid’ and ‘crystallized’. Fluid intelligence refers to the ability to understand

and reason with nonverbal (culturally free) information. Fluid intelligence is thought

to gradually increase during childhood and it peaks in adolescence. After peaking,

fluid intelligence is thought to gradually decrease over the rest of an individual's life

due to the degeneration of physiological brain structures. Crystallized intelligence

refers to the acquired skills and knowledge that an individual possess. Contrary to

fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence is not culture-free, but rather it is

dependent on being exposed to culture. This type of intelligence involves "over

learned and well established cognitive functions and is related to mental products

and achievements."


Figure 2.2 Cattel & Horn’s Theory of intelligence

(Sattler, 2001, 140).The American psychologist John L. Horn suggested that

crystallized abilities more or less increase over a person’s life span, whereas fluid

abilities increase in earlier years and decrease in later ones (Horn & Cattel, 1967).

Most psychologists agreed that Spearman’s subdivision of abilities was too

narrow, but not all agreed that the subdivision should be hierarchical. The American

psychologist, Joy Paul Guilford proposed a structure-of-intellect theory. This in its

earlier versions postulated 120 abilities. In The Nature of Human Intelligence

(1967), Guilford argued that abilities can be divided into five kinds of operation,

four kinds of content, and six kinds of product. These facets can be variously

combined to form 120 separate abilities. Guilford later increased the number of

abilities proposed by his theory to 180.


Figure 2.3 Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Model (SI Model)

There are six kinds of operations (cognition, convergent thinking, divergent

thinking, evaluation, recording memory, retention memory) six kinds of products

(units, classes, relations, systems, transformations, and implications), and five kinds

of contents (visual, auditory, symbolic, semantic, behavioral).

Modern Theories of Intelligence

Sternberg (1999) holds that individuals who excel in all areas of the triarchic

intelligence test may be considered to have successful intelligence, which he defines

as the ability to achieve success in accordance with one's personal standards and

within one's socio-cultural context. Individuals with high levels of successful

intelligence tend to be better equipped for success and are able to adapt well to their

socio-cultural context.


Figure 2.4 Sternberg’s Triarchic theory

Sternberg’s (1999) construct of successful intelligence may be applied to

educational settings with the aim of increasing student learning while bridging gaps

among socio-economic and ethnically diverse groups. In addition, the theory of

successful intelligence offers researchers, psychologists, and educators an

opportunity to redefine intelligence, and educational opportunity.

The three-stratum theory is a theory of cognitive ability proposed by the

American psychologist John B Carroll in 1993, is based on a factor-analytic study of

the correlations of individual differences. Variables from data such as psychological

tests, school marks and competence ratings. These analyses suggested a three-

layered model where each layer accounts for the variations in the correlations within

the previous layer.

The three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities is an expansion and extension

of previous theories. It specifies what kinds of individual differences in cognitive

abilities exist and how these kinds of individual differences are related to one

Theoretical Constructs on Intelligence

another. It proposes that there are a fairly large number of

differences in cognitive ability, and that the relationships among them can be

derived by classifying them into three different strata: stratum I, 'narrow' abilities;

stratum II, 'broad’ abilities; and stratum III, consisting of a singl

(Carroll, 1997).

Figure

* Stratum III - the general level; general intellectual ability, similar to

* Stratum II - the broad level; eight factors

crystallized intelligence, general memory and learning, broad visual

perception, broad auditory perception, broad retrieval ability, broad cognitive

speediness, and processing speed

* Stratum I - the specific level; more specific factors

abilities) grouped

cal Constructs on Intelligence- Genesis, Theory, Development and Practice

It proposes that there are a fairly large number of distinct individual

cognitive ability, and that the relationships among them can be


abilities; and stratum III, consisting of a single 'general' ability

Figure 2.5 Carroll’s Three-Stratum Theory

the general level; general intellectual ability, similar to

the broad level; eight factors, including fluid intelligence,



speediness, and processing speed.

the specific level; more specific factors (about 70 narrow

grouped under the Stratum II factors.

Genesis, Theory, Development and Practice 34

distinct individual

cognitive ability, and that the relationships among them can be


e 'general' ability

the general level; general intellectual ability, similar to g

including fluid intelligence,



(about 70 narrow


Bio-ecological Theory recognizes the role of society and the environment in

shaping human intelligence. In fact, intelligence may be a biological disposition

which develops within the environment, Stephen Ceci’s (1950). Bio-ecological

Theory of Intelligence discusses how society shapes intelligence and how

intelligence is just as developed in non-Western societies.

Figure 2.6 Ceci’s Bio-ecological Theory

Ceci (1996) has proposed a bio-ecological model of intelligence, according

to which multiple cognitive potentials, context, and knowledge are all essential bases

of individual differences in performance. Each of the multiple cognitive potentials

enables relationships to be discovered, thoughts to be monitored, and knowledge to

be acquired within a given domain. Although these potentials are biologically based,

their development is closely linked to environmental context, and hence it is difficult

if not impossible to separate cleanly biological from environmental contributions to


intelligence. Moreover, abilities may express themselves very differently in different

contexts. For example, children given essentially the same task in the context of a

video game and in the context of a laboratory cognitive task performed much better

when the task was presented in the context of the video game. Part of this superiority

may have been a result of differences in emotional response, which brings us to the

last broader conception we consider.

Howard Gardner challenged the traditional notion of IQ in his day by

introducing the world to new intelligences, proposing that individuals have much

intelligence in a variety of abilities. His famous book titled Frames of Mind: The

Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1983) outlined seven new intelligences

with highly adaptive properties. Two aspects of his theory, interpersonal and

intrapersonal intelligences, correspond to some aspects of EQ abilities. They are

defined as ability in using one’s intelligence in gaining empathy toward others and

in understanding the self and using this knowledge effectively (Gardner, 1983).

Although Gardner is against the concept of emotional intelligence, his work has

precipitated research in the areas of interpersonal relations and self-understanding-

components of EQ.

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory can be used for curriculum

development, planning instruction, selection of course activities, and related

assessment strategies. Instruction which is designed to help students develop their

strengths can also trigger their confidence to develop areas in which they are not as

strong. Students’ multiple learning preferences can be addressed when instruction

includes a range of meaningful and appropriate methods, activities, and assessments.


Theoretical Constructs on Multiple Intelligences

Human potential can be tied to one’s preferences to learning; thus, Gardner’s

focus on human potential lies in the fact that people have a unique blend of

capabilities and skills (intelligences). This model can be used to understand “overall

personality, preferences and strengths”. Gardner asserts that people who have an

affinity toward one of the intelligences do so in concert with the other intelligences

as “they develop skills and solve problems”.

People have different strengths and intelligences. A well-balanced world, and

well-balanced organizations and teams, are necessarily comprised of people who

possess different mixtures of intelligences. This gives that group a fuller collective

capacity than a group of identical able specialists”.

Multiple Intelligences refers to a learner-based philosophy that characterizes

human intelligence as having multiple dimensions that must be acknowledged and

developed in education. Gardner regarded it “as a pluralistic view of mind which

recognizes many different and discrete facets of cognition and acknowledges that

people have different cognitive strengths and contrasting cognitive styles” (Cahill,

1999).

MI theory provided a philosophical framework that helped teachers make

sense of the vast range of individual differences that they encounter daily in their

classroom, as well as a structural framework to help them develop programmes

which might better meet the diverse needs of students. Since then, educators have

become so interested to apply this theory as a means through which they can

improve teaching and learning in a multiplicity of ways. The theory represents new

orientations towards the nature of intelligences (Goodnough, 2000).


In 1983, when Gardner first published his Theory of Multiple Intelligences in

his book “Frames of Mind”: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, he had no ideas

of the tremendous impact it was to have on the field of education (Gardner, 2004).

Written primarily for psychologists as a critique of standard intelligence theory, the

book was provocative and, as expected, generated criticism, particularly from the

psychometric community (Fasko, 2001; Klein, 1997; Willingham, 2004). What was

not expected, however, was that MI theory struck a chord with teachers across the

world. Twenty years later, Frames of Mind had been translated into 13 languages,

with over 300,000 copies sold world-wide (Viadero, 2003).

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex

ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage

in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although

these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a

given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different

domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to

clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena.

Eight Criteria for Intelligence

The eight criteria establish whether intelligence can be classified as an actual

intelligence, and brings forth the factors that indicate otherwise. Gardner (1993)

used the eight criteria as a tool to nominate a set of intelligences that seemed general

and genuinely useful. His effort was to sample as widely as possible among various

criteria to include in his chosen intelligences those candidates that faired the best.

1. Potential isolation by brain damage. This criterion has considerable evidence

from neuropsychology that shows how a lesion or damage to a specific area


of the brain isolates that faculty or ability from other human faculties. The

consequences of brain injury indicate how those distinctive abilities lie at the

core of a human intelligence.

2. The existence of idiots’ savants, prodigies, and other exceptional individuals

who exhibit a highly uneven profile of abilities and deficits such as mental

retardation and autism, show the isolation of one particular human ability

against a background of mediocre or retarded performances in other

domains. Genetic factors and/or specific affected neural regions provide

evidence for a specific intelligence. As well, a selective absence of an

intellectual skill provides a confirmation-by-negation of intelligence.

3. An identifiable core operation or set of operations. This criterion shows the

existence of one or more basic information-processing operations or

mechanisms that manages specific kinds of input. For example, sensitivity to

pitch relations as one aspect of Musical Intelligence, or the ability to imitate

movement by others as one aspect of Bodily Intelligence, shows an

identifiable core operation.

4. A distinctive Developmental history, along with a definable set of expert

“end-state” performances. This criterion determines that both normal and

gifted individuals possess an intelligence with an identifiable developmental

history. The intelligence will not develop in isolation, except in an unusual

person; therefore, the focus is on roles or situations where the intelligence

occupies a central place.


5. An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility. This criterion attempts

to locate the evolutionary antecedents of intelligence, including capacities

that organisms share with one another. It also attempts to detect specific

computational abilities that seem to operate in isolation in other species but

have joined with one another in human beings. For example, aspects of

musical intelligence may appear in several species, but only join in human

beings.

6. Support from experimental psychological tasks. This criterion uses

experimental psychology to show the operation of candidate intelligences.

For example, a cognitive psychologist studies detail of linguistic or spatial

processes with specificity on each area. The autonomy of an intelligence

shows in studies of tasks that interfere (or fail to interfere) with each other,

and of tasks that either transfer or not across different contexts. Such studies

provide support for claims that particular abilities either are or are not

expressions of the same intelligences.

7. Support from Psychometric Findings. Psychological testing such as I.Q. tests

is helpful in determining intelligence to the extent that the tasks for the

purpose of assessing one intelligence relate highly with one another.

8. Susceptibility to Encoding in a Symbol System. This criterion measures the

ability of intelligence to naturally gravitate towards embodiment in a

symbolic system such as language, pictures, or mathematics. Although

intelligence can proceed without a special symbol system, a primary

characteristic of human intelligence is its “natural gravitation” towards a

symbolic system.


Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences

In the heyday of the psychometric and behaviorist eras, it was generally

believed that intelligence was a single entity that was inherited; and that human

beings – initially a blank slate – could be trained to learn anything, provided that it

was presented in an appropriate way. Nowadays an increasing number of researchers

believe precisely the opposite; that there exists a multitude of intelligences, quite

independent of each other; that each intelligence has its own strengths and

constraints; that the mind is far from unencumbered at birth; and that it is

unexpectedly difficult to teach things that go against early ‘naive’ theories of that

challenge the natural lines of force within an intelligence and its matching domains.

(Gardner 1993: xxiii)

Dr. Howard Gardner, a psychologist and Professor of neuroscience from

Harvard University, developed the Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) in 1983.

The theory challenged traditional beliefs in the fields of education and cognitive

science. Unlike the established understanding of intelligence - people are born with a

uniform cognitive capacity that can be easily measured by short-answer tests, MI

reconsiders our educational practice of the last century and provides an alternative.

According to Howard Gardner, human beings have nine different kinds of

intelligence that reflect different ways of interacting with the world. Each person has

a unique combination, or profile. Although we each have all nine intelligences, no

two individuals have them in the same exact configuration-similar to our

fingerprints.

Gardner defines intelligences as the “ability to solve problems or to create

fashion products that are valued within one or more cultural settings” (Gardner,


1983, p.81). This definition challenged the traditional psychological view of

intelligence as a single capacity that drives logical and mathematical thought. In the

same direction, Gardner (1999) redefined intelligence as, “a bio-psychological

potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve

problems or create products that are of values in a culture” (Gardner, 1999, p.34).

Gardner (1999) emphasizes the impact which the cultural forces have on the

human intellect. That is why some intelligence are developed in some person, while

others are not developed in the same person. The environment, in which the

individual lives, and the culture which he acquires, and the surrounding people, with

whom he interacts, play a great role in shaping his intelligences.

Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences has not been readily

accepted within academic psychology. However, it has met with a strong positive

response from many educators. It has been embraced by a range of educational

theorists and, significantly, applied by teachers and policymakers to the problems of

schooling. A number of schools in North America have looked to structure curricula

according to the intelligences, and to design classrooms and even whole schools to

reflect the understandings that Howard Gardner develops. The theory can also be

found in use within pre-school, higher, vocational and adult education initiatives.

Gardner’ Multiple Intelligences Theory can be used for curriculum

development, planning instruction, selection of course activities, and related

assessment strategies. Instruction which is designed to help students develop their

strengths can also trigger their confidence to develop areas in which they are not as

strong. Students’ multiple learning preferences can be addressed when instruction

includes a range of meaningful and appropriate methods, activities, and assessments.


Table 2.1 Traditional view of Intelligence vs. MI Theory

Intelligence can be measured by short-

answer tests: Stanford-Binet Intelligence

Quotient, Wechsler Intelligence Scale

for Children (WISC IV), Woodcock

Johnson test of Cognitive Ability,

Scholastic Aptitude Test

Assessment of an individual's Multiple

Intelligences can foster learning and

problem-solving styles. Short answer

tests are not used because they do not

measure disciplinary mastery or deep

understanding. They only measure rote

memorization skills and one's ability to

do well on short answer tests.

People are born with a fixed amount of

intelligence

Human beings have all of the

intelligences, but each person has a

unique combination, or profile.

Intelligence level does not change over a

lifetime.

We can all improve each of the

intelligences, though some people will

improve more readily in one intelligence

area than in others.

Intelligence consists of ability in logic

and language.

There are many more types of

intelligence which reflect different ways

of interacting with the world

In traditional practice, teachers teach the

same material to everyone.

MI pedagogy implies that teachers teach

and assess differently based on

individual intellectual strengths and

weaknesses

Teachers teach a topic or "subject." Teachers structure learning activities

around an issue or question and connect

subjects. Teachers develop strategies that

allow for students to demonstrate

multiple ways of understanding and

value their uniqueness.


Professor Howard Gardner has identified eight different types of

intelligences that each individual has the capacity to possess. The idea of Multiple

Intelligences is important because it allows for educators to identify differing

strengths and weaknesses in students and also contradicts the idea that intelligence

can be measured through IQ. In researching about genius, we found that Howard

Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences provides a great alternative to the

popular measurable IQ method.

1. Verbal-Linguistic Intelligence (“Word smart” or “book smart”)

This intelligence involves the knowing which comes through language;

through reading, writing, and speaking. It involves understanding the order and

meaning of words in both speech and writing and how to properly use the language.

It involves understanding the sociocultural nuances of a language, including idioms,

plays on words, and linguistically-based humor. If this is a strong intelligence for

you, you have highly developed skills for reading, speaking, and writing and you

tend to think in words. You probably like various kinds of literature, playing word

games, making up poetry and stories, engaging in involved discussions with other

people, debating, formal speaking, creative writing, and telling jokes. You are likely

precise in expressing yourself and irritated when others are not! You love learning

new words, you do well with written assignments, and your comprehension of

anything you read is high. People with strong rhetorical and oratory skills such as

poets, authors, journalists, radio announcer, speech pathologist, typist, novelist,

comedian, politician, orator, actor, and curator exhibit strong Linguistic Intelligence.


Figure 2.7

Characteristics of Linguistic Intelligence

Campell, Campell and Dickinson in their book Teaching & Learning through

Multiple Intelligences, have identified twelve characteristics that a person with well

developed Verbal-Linguistic

• Listen and responds to the sound, rhythm, colour and variety of the spoken

word

• Imitates sounds, language, readings and writing of others.

• Learns through listening, reading, writing and discussing.

• Listens effectively, comprehends paraphrases, interp

what has been read.

• Reads effectively, comprehends, summarizes,

remembers what has been read.


Figure 2.7 Verbal-Linguistic Intelligence

Characteristics of Linguistic Intelligence



Linguistic intelligence usually exhibits:

Listen and responds to the sound, rhythm, colour and variety of the spoken

Imitates sounds, language, readings and writing of others.

Learns through listening, reading, writing and discussing.

Listens effectively, comprehends paraphrases, interprets, and remembers

what has been read.

Reads effectively, comprehends, summarizes, interprets and explains and

remembers what has been read.




Listen and responds to the sound, rhythm, colour and variety of the spoken

rets, and remembers

interprets and explains and


• Speaks effectively to a variety of audiences for a variety of purposes and

knows how to speak simply, eloquently, persuasively or passionately at

appropriate times.

• Writes effectively, understand and applies rules of grammar, spelling,

punctuation and uses an effective vocabulary.

• Exhibits ability to learn other languages.

• Uses listening, speaking, writing and reading to remember, communicate,

discuss, explain, persuade, create knowledge, construct meaning and reflect

upon language itself.

• Strives to enhance his or her own language usage.

• Demonstrates interest in journalism, poetry, storytelling, debate, speaking,

writing, or editing.

• Creates new linguistic forms or original works of writing or oral

communication.

2. Mathematical-Logical Intelligence (“Math smart” or “logic smart”)

This intelligence uses numbers, math, and logic to find and understand the

various patterns that occur in our lives: thought patterns, number patterns, visual

patterns, color patters, and so on. It begins with concrete patterns in the real world

but gets increasingly abstract as we try to understand relationships of the patterns we

have seen. If you happen to be a Logical-Mathematically inclined person you tend to

think more conceptually and abstractly and are often able to see patterns and

relationships that others miss. You probably like to conduct experiments, to solve

puzzles and other problems, to ask cosmic questions, and analyze circumstances and


people’s behavior. You most likely enjoy working with numbers and mathematical

formulae and operations, and you love the challenge of a complex problem to solve.

You are probably systematic and organized, and you

rationale or argument for what you are doing or thinking at any given time. This

intelligence can be seen in professionals like mathematicians, philosophers,

physicists, scientists, computer programmers, accountants, lawyers, bankers,

auditors, bookkeepers, businesspersons, doctors, economists, legal assistants,

science researchers, purchasing agents, statisticians, technicians and under writer.

Figure 2.

Characteristics of Mathematical

Following are the qualities of

suggested by Campell:

• Perceives objects and their function



and operations, and you love the challenge of a complex problem to solve.

You are probably systematic and organized, and you are likely to




rs, businesspersons, doctors, economists, legal assistants,


Figure 2.8 Mathematical-Logical Intelligence

Characteristics of Mathematical-Logical Intelligence

Following are the qualities of Logical Mathematical Intelligence

Perceives objects and their functions in the environment.



and operations, and you love the challenge of a complex problem to solve.

to have a logical




rs, businesspersons, doctors, economists, legal assistants,


Logical Mathematical Intelligence as


• Is familiar with the concepts of quantity, time and cause and effect.

• Uses abstract symbols to represent concrete objects and concepts.

• Demonstrates skill at logical problem solving.

• Perceives patterns and relationships.

• Poses and tests hypotheses

• Uses diverse mathematical skills such as estimating, calculating algorithms,

interpreting statistics and visually representing information in graphic form.

• Enjoys complex operations such as calculus, physics, computer programming

or research methods

• Thinks mathematically by gathering evidence, making hypotheses,

formulating models, developing counter examples and building strong

arguments.

• Uses technology to solve mathematical problems.

• Expresses interest in careers such as accounting , computer technology, law,

engineering and chemistry

• Creates new models or perceives new insights in science or mathematics.

3. Visual-Spatial Intelligence (“Art smart” or “picture smart”)

We often say “A picture is worth a thousand words!” or “Seeing believes!”

This intelligence presents the knowing that occurs through the shapes, images,

patterns, designs, and textures we see with our external eyes, but also includes all of

the images we are able to conjure inside our heads. If you are strong in this

intelligence you tend to think in images and pictures. You are likely very aware of


object, shapes, colors, textures, and patterns in the environment around you. You

probably like to draw, paint, and make interesting designs and patterns, and work

with clay, colored markers, construction paper, and fabric. Many, who are strong in

Visual-Spatial Intelligence

way around new places. You probably have definite opinions about colors that go

together well, textures that are appropriate and pleasing, and how a room should be

decorated. And, you are likely excelle

with the mind’s eyes,” such as visualizing, pretending, imagining, and forming

mental images. Engineers, surgeons, sculptors, painters, architect, advertising

agents, cartographer, computer graphic designer, deco

art critic, graphic designer, fashion designer, chess player, interior designer,

photographer, videographer, surveyor, urban planner and navigators without

instruments demonstrate highly developed

Figure 2.





Spatial Intelligence, love to work jigsaw puzzles, read maps and find their



decorated. And, you are likely excellent at performing tasks that require “seeing



agents, cartographer, computer graphic designer, decorator, drafter, fine artist, pilot,



instruments demonstrate highly developed Spatial Intelligence.

Figure 2.9 Visual-Spatial Intelligence





love to work jigsaw puzzles, read maps and find their



nt at performing tasks that require “seeing



rator, drafter, fine artist, pilot,




Characteristics of Visual-Spatial Intelligence

The likely attributes of a person with well developed Visual-Spatial

Intelligences are

• Learning by seeing and observing, recognizes faces, objects, shapes, colors,

details and scenes.

• Navigates self and objects effectively through space as when moving one’s

body through apertures, finding one’s way in a forest without a trial , moving

a car through traffic or padding a canoe on a river.

• Perceives and produces mental imager thinks in pictures and visualizes

detail, uses visual images as an aid in recalling information.

• Decodes graphs, charts, maps, and diagrams. Learn with graphic

representation or through visual media.

• Enjoys doodling, drawing, painting, sculpting, or otherwise reproducing

objects in visible forms.

• Enjoys constructing three-dimensional products, such as original objects,

mock bridges, houses, or containers. Is capable of mentally changing the

form of an object such as folding a piece of paper into a complex shape and

visualizing its new form, or mentally moving objects in space to determine

how they interact with other objects, such as gears, turning parts of

machinery.

• Sees things in different ways or from “new perspectives” such as the

negative space around from as well as the form itself or detects one form

“hidden” in another.


• Perceives both obvious and subtle patterns.

• Creates concrete or visual representation of information.

• Is proficient at representational or abstract design.

4. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence ("body smart" or "movement smart")

We often talk about “learning by doing.” This way of knowing happens

through physical movement and through the knowing of our physical body. The

body “knows” many things that are not necessarily known by the conscious, logical

mind, such as how to ride a bike, how to parallel park a car, dance the waltz, catch a

thrown object, maintain balance while walking, and where the keys are on a

computer keyboard. If you have strength in this intelligence area you tend to have a

keen sense of body awareness. You like physical movement, dancing, making and

inventing things with your hands, and role playing. You probably communicate well

through body language and other physical gestures. You can often perform a task

much better after seeing someone else do it first and then mimicking their actions.

You probably like physical games of all kinds and you like to demonstrate how to

do something for someone else. You may find it difficult to sit still for long periods

of time and are easily bored or distracted if you are not actively involved in what is

going on around you. This intelligence personifies harmony between mind and body

and this harmony can be seen in the work of athletes, dancers, sculptors, surgeons,

actors, carpenters, choreographers, craftsman’s, farmers, forest rangers, inventors,

jewelers, massage therapists, mechanics, mime creators, physical education teachers,

physical therapists and recreational directors.


Figure 2.

Characteristics of Bodily

An individual with highly developed

exhibit the following attributes:

• Explores the environment and objects through touch

to touch, handle or manipulate what is to be learned.

• Develops coordination and a sense of timing.

• Learn best by direct involvement and participation. Remembers most clearly

what was done, rather than what was said or observed.

• Enjoys concrete learning experiences such as field trips, model building, or

participating in role play, games, assembling objects, or physical exercise.

• Shows dexterity in working by means of small or gross motor movements.

• Is sensitive and responsive to

• Demonstrates skill in acting, athletics, dancing


Figure 2.10 Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence

Characteristics of Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence

An individual with highly developed Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence

exhibit the following attributes:

Explores the environment and objects through touch and movement. Prefers

to touch, handle or manipulate what is to be learned.

Develops coordination and a sense of timing.

Learn best by direct involvement and participation. Remembers most clearly

what was done, rather than what was said or observed.

concrete learning experiences such as field trips, model building, or


Shows dexterity in working by means of small or gross motor movements.

Is sensitive and responsive to physical environments and physical systems.

Demonstrates skill in acting, athletics, dancing, sewing, carving, keyboarding.


Kinesthetic Intelligence may

and movement. Prefers

Learn best by direct involvement and participation. Remembers most clearly

concrete learning experiences such as field trips, model building, or


Shows dexterity in working by means of small or gross motor movements.

physical environments and physical systems.

sewing, carving, keyboarding.


• Demonstrates balance, grace, dexterity and precision in physical tasks.

• Has the ability to fine-tune and perfect physical performance through mind

and body integration.

• Understands and lives by healthy physical standards.

• May express interest in careers such as those of an athlete, dancer, surgeon,

or builder.

• Invents new approaches to physical skills or create new forms in dance,

sports, or other physical activities.

5. Musical-Rhythmic Intelligence (“music smart” or “sound smart”)

This is the knowing that happens through sound and vibration. In the original

research on the Theory of Multiple Intelligences, this intelligence was called

Musical-Rhythmic Intelligence. However, it is not limited to music and rhythm so

I’m calling it auditory-vibration, for it deals with the whole realm of sound, tones,

beats, and vibrational patterns as well as music. If you are strong in this intelligence

area, you likely have a love of music and rhythmic patterns. You are probably very

sensitive to sounds in the environment; the chirp of cricket, rain on the roof, varying

traffic patterns. You may study and work better with music in the background. You

can often reproduce a melody or rhythmic pattern after hearing it only once. Various

sounds, tones, and rhythms may have a visible effect on you-others can often see a

change in facial expressions, body movement, or emotional responses. You probably

like to create music and you enjoy listening to a wide variety of music. You may be

skilled at mimicking sounds, language accents, and others’ speech patterns, and you

can probably readily recognize different musical instruments in a composition.


Possible carriers like song writer, performing musician, piano tuner, singer, studio

engineer, sound engineer,

actor, rapper, advertising agent, conductor, disc jockey, film maker, instrument

maker, music composer, music teacher , critics and music therapist.

Figure 2.

Characteristics of Musical

A person with a well

et al., 1996:135)

• Listens and responds with interest to a variety of sounds including the human

voice, environmental sounds, and music and organizes such sounds into

meaningful patterns.

• Enjoys and seeks out opportunities to hear music or environmental sounds in

the learning environment.

• Responds to music kinesthetically by conducting, performing, creating, or

dancing; emotionally through responding to the moods and tempos of music.



engineer, sound engineer, instrument manager, instrumentalists, musical theater


maker, music composer, music teacher , critics and music therapist.

Figure 2.11 Musical-Rhythmic Intelligence

Characteristics of Musical-Rhythmic Intelligence

A person with a well-developed Musical Intelligence most likely (Campbell

Listens and responds with interest to a variety of sounds including the human


meaningful patterns.

Enjoys and seeks out opportunities to hear music or environmental sounds in

the learning environment.

Responds to music kinesthetically by conducting, performing, creating, or




instrument manager, instrumentalists, musical theater


most likely (Campbell

Listens and responds with interest to a variety of sounds including the human


Enjoys and seeks out opportunities to hear music or environmental sounds in

Responds to music kinesthetically by conducting, performing, creating, or



• Intellectually through discussing and analyzing music

• Recognizes and discusses different musical styles, genres, and cultural

variations. Demonstrates interest in the role music has and continues to play

in human lives.

• Collects music and information about music in various forms, both recorded

and printed, and may collect and play musical instruments including

synthesizers.

• Develops the ability to sing and /or play an instrument alone or with others.

• Uses the vocabulary and notations of music.

• Develops a personal frame of reference for listening to music.

• Enjoys improvising a playing with sounds, and when given a phrase of

music, can complete a musical statement in a way that makes sense.

• May offer his or her own interpretation of what a composer is

communicating through music. May also analyze and critique musical

selections.

• May create original compositions and/or musical instruments.

6. Interpersonal Intelligence (“people smart” or “group smart”)

This is the person-to-person way of knowing. It is the knowing that happens

when we work with and relate to other people, often as part of a team. This way of

knowing also asks use to develop a whole range of social skills that are needed for

effective person-to-person communication and relating. If this person-to-person way

of knowing is more developed in you, you learn through personal interactions. You


probably have lots of friends, show a great deal of empathy for other people and

exhibit a deep understanding of other

activities of all kinds and are a good team member

often much more! You are sensitive to other people’s feelings and ideas, and are

good at piggy backing your ideas on

drawing others out in a discussion. You are also probably skilled in conflict

resolution, mediation, and finding compromise when people are in radical

opposition to each other. Group members, political and r

teachers, counsellors, administrators, anthropologists, man

personnel directors, public relations, sales persons, school principals, sociologists,

therapists, travel agents, psychologists and skille

developed Interpersonal Intelligence

Figure 2.



anding of other’s points of view. You probably love

nds and are a good team member-you “pull your own weight” and


backing your ideas on others’ thoughts. And you are likely skilled at



opposition to each other. Group members, political and religious leaders, politicians,

lors, administrators, anthropologists, managers, arbitrators, nurses,


therapists, travel agents, psychologists and skilled parents typically have highly

Interpersonal Intelligence.

Figure 2.12 Interpersonal Intelligence



points of view. You probably love, team

you “pull your own weight” and


others’ thoughts. And you are likely skilled at



eligious leaders, politicians,

gers, arbitrators, nurses,


d parents typically have highly


Characteristics of Interpersonal Intelligence

Campbell et al. list the following characteristics of a person with highly

developed Interpersonal Intelligence (196:160)

• Bonds with parents and interacts with others.

• Forms and maintains social relationships.

• Recognizes and uses a variety of ways to relate to others.

• Perceives the feelings, thoughts, motivations, behaviors, and lifestyles of

others.

• Participates in collaborative efforts and assumes various roles as appropriate

from follower to leader in group endeavors.

• Influences the opinions or actions of others.

• Understands and communicates effectively in both verbal and nonverbal

ways.

• Adapts behavior to different environments or groups and from feedback from

others.

• Perceives diverse perspectives in any social or political issue.

• Develops skills in mediation, organizing others for a common cause, or

working with others of diverse ages or backgrounds..

• Expresses an interest in interpersonally-oriented careers such as teaching,

social work, counselling, management, or politics.

• Develops new social processes or models.


7. Intrapersonal Intelligence

At the heart of this intelligence are our human self

we can step outside of ourselves and think about our own lives. This is the

introspective intelligence. It involves our uniquely human propensity to want to know

the meaning, purpose, and significance of things. It involves our awareness of the

inner world of the self, emotions, values, beliefs, and our various quests for genuine

spirituality. If this intelligence is one of your strong points

alone and sometimes you may shy away from others. You are probably self

and self-aware and thus you tend to be in tune with your inner feelings, values, beliefs,

and thinking processes. You are frequently bearers of creative wisdom and insight, are

highly intuitive, and you are inwardly motivated rather than needing external rewards

to keep you going. You are often strong willed, self

thought out opinions on almost any issue. Other people will often come to you for

advice and counsel. The possible carriers are clergyman,

psychology teachers, theologians, spiritual counsel

philosophers, researchers,

Figure 2.


7. Intrapersonal Intelligence (“self smart” or “introspection smart

At the heart of this intelligence are our human self-reflective abilities by which



meaning, purpose, and significance of things. It involves our awareness of the


spirituality. If this intelligence is one of your strong points, you may like to work

e and sometimes you may shy away from others. You are probably self

aware and thus you tend to be in tune with your inner feelings, values, beliefs,



to keep you going. You are often strong willed, self-confident, and have definite, well


advice and counsel. The possible carriers are clergyman, programme planner,

psychology teachers, theologians, spiritual counsellors, entrepreneurs, psychiatrists,

philosophers, researchers, and psychologists.

Figure 2.13 Intrapersonal Intelligence


(“self smart” or “introspection smart”)

reflective abilities by which



meaning, purpose, and significance of things. It involves our awareness of the


you may like to work

e and sometimes you may shy away from others. You are probably self-reflective

aware and thus you tend to be in tune with your inner feelings, values, beliefs,



confident, and have definite, well-


programme planner,

entrepreneurs, psychiatrists,


Characteristics of Intrapersonal Intelligence

Campbell, et al. provides the following list of characteristics that may be

possessed by a person with a highly developed Intrapersonal Intelligence:

• Is aware of his range of emotions.

• Finds approaches and outlets to express his feelings and thoughts.

• Develops an accurate model of self.

• Is motivated to identify and pursue goals.

• Establishes and lives by an ethical value system

• Works independently.

• Is curious about the “big questions” in life: meaning, relevance and purpose.

• Manages ongoing learning and personal growth.

• Attempts to seek out and understand inner experiences.

• Gains insights into the complexities of self and the human condition.

• Strives for self-actualization.

• Empowers others.

After the original listing of the intelligences in Frames of Mind, which was

published in 1983, a great deal of discussion began about possible additional types

of intelligences. After subsequent research, Gardner and his colleagues presented

three particular possibilities: a Naturalist Intelligence, Existential Intelligence and

Spiritual Intelligence.


8. Naturalistic Intelligence (“nature smart” or “environment smart”)

The Naturalist Intelligence involves the full range of knowing that occurs in

and through our encounters with the natural world including our recognition,

appreciation, and understanding of the natural environment. It involves such

capacities as species discernment, communion with the natural world and its

phenomena, and the ability to recognize and classify various flora and fauna. If the

Naturalist Intelligence is one of your strengths, you have a profound love for the

outdoors, animals, plants, and almost any natural object. You are probably

fascinated by and noticeably affected by such things as the weather, changing leaves

in the fall, the sound of the wind, the warm sun or lack thereof, or an insect in the

room. At a young age you were likely nature collectors, adding such things as bugs,

rocks leaves, seashells, sticks, and so on to your collections. You probably bring

home all manner and kinds of stray animals and today you may have several pets

and want more. You tend to have an affinity with and respect for all living beings.

Environmentalist, nature lovers, pet lovers, botanists, zoologists, veterinarians,

farmers, forest guard/ rangers, ornithologists, museum curators, naturalists,

geneticists, rancher, astronomer, wild life illustrator, meteorologists, chef, geologist

and landscape architect.


Figure 2.

Characteristics of Naturalistic Intelligence

• Enjoys nature

• Caring for pets.

• Likes to be outdoors rather than indoors.

• Knows all the names and differences of dinosaurs.

• Collects rocks, shells,

• Likes boating, rock climbing, hiking.

• Understands different weather patterns.

• Fascination with the stars, moon, and galaxy.

• Likes to build volcanoes.


Figure 2.14 Naturalistic Intelligence

Characteristics of Naturalistic Intelligence

Likes to be outdoors rather than indoors.

Knows all the names and differences of dinosaurs.

Collects rocks, shells, and insects and knows the differences.

rock climbing, hiking.

Understands different weather patterns.

Fascination with the stars, moon, and galaxy.

Likes to build volcanoes.



9. Existentialistic Intelligence

A new intelligences, it is concerned with ‘ultimate issues’. It is chiefly a 20th

century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on

analysis of individual existence in a deep universe and the dilemma of individual

who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of freewill without any certain

knowledge of what is right or wrong or food or bad. The people with these

intelligences learn best through seeing the “big picture” of human existence by

asking philosophical questions about the world.

Figure 2.15 Existentialistic Intelligence

Characteristics of Existentialistic Intelligence

• Learns through deep questioning.

• Can place self within time and space.

• Sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence.

• Total immersion in a work of art.


• Capacity to locate oneself with the cosmos.

• Capacity to locate oneself with existential features of the human condition.

• Identifying the significance of life.

• Imbibing the meaning of death.

• Identifying the ultimate fate of the physical and psychological worlds.

10. Spiritual Intelligence

Spiritual Intelligence as, “the ability to behave with compassion and wisdom

while maintaining inner and outer peace (equanimity) regardless of the

circumstances.” Compassion and wisdom together form the manifestation of Love.

“Behave” is important because it focuses on how well we maintain our center, stay

calm, and actually treat others with compassion and wisdom. The statement of

“regardless of the circumstances” shows that we can maintain our peaceful center

and loving behaviors even under great stress.

The world is facing growing concerns related to overpopulation, food and

water shortages, sustainable energy, climate change, and environmental degradation.

How people respond and deal with these pressures is of increasing importance for

future generations.

It may require a transformation in the way that people perceive their role and

position in relationship to the world around them. Specifically, making a shift from

one of egocentrism to one of collective well-being for all of life, which includes

families, communities, humanity and the planet. This could come from taking a

more spiritually orientated viewpoint and worldview, one where people seek self-


transcendence and find a more actualized and altruistic relationship to self, others,

and the planet.

A spiritual inclination offers a deeper connection to life as a whole and how

we are all “one” in a metaphysical sense. This understanding or the capability to

interpret the world around us in this way could be a catalyst for more virtuous and

principled behavior.

This means the achievement of a state of being a sense of purpose, which has

a spiritual effect of others. This type of intelligence can be observed in priests and

spiritual and religious leaders.

Recently Gardner (2004) has proposed two more additional intelligences: the

mental searchlight intelligence and the laser intelligence.

Among the ten proven intelligences and latest two proposed multiple

intelligences of Gardner, the investigator presently has selected only eight

intelligences in this study.

Table 2.2 Summary of Nine Intelligences

Intelligence Area

Strengths Preferences Learns best

through Needs

Verbal/ Linguistic

Writing, reading, memorizing dates, thinking in words, telling stories

Write, read, tell stories, talk, memorize, work at solving puzzles

Hearing and seeing words, speaking, reading, writing, discussing and debating.

Books , tapes, paper diaries, writing tools, dialogue, discussion, debated, stories etc

Mathematical/ Logical

Math, logic , problem solving, reasoning, patterns

Question, work with numbers, experiment, solve problems.

Working with relationships and patterns, classifying, categorizing, working with the abstract.

Things to think about and explore, science materials, manipulative, trips to the planetarium and science museum etc


Visual/

Spatial

Maps, reading charts, drawing, mazes, puzzles, imagining things, visualization

Draw, build, design, create, daydream, look at pictures.

Working with pictures and colors , visualizing , using the mind’s eye , drawing

Video, movies, slides, art, imagination games, mazes, puzzles, illustrated book, trips to art museum, etc

Bodily/

Kinesthetic

Athletics, dancing, crafts, using tools, acting

Move around, touch and talk, body language

Touching, moving, knowledge through bodily sensations, processing

Role- play, drama, things to build, movement, sports and physical games, tactile experience, hands-on learning etc.

Musical/ Rhythmic

Picking up sound, remembering melodies, rhythms, singing

Sing, play an instrument, listen to music, hum

Rhythm, singing, melody, listening to music and melodies

Sing- along time, trips to concerts, music playing at home and school, musical instruments etc

Interpersonal

Leading, organizing, understanding people, communicating, resolving conflicts selling

Talk to people , have friends , join groups

Comparing, relating, sharing, interviewing, cooperating

Friends, group games, social gatherings, community events, clubs, mentors/apprenticeships etc

Intrapersonal

Recognizing strengths and weaknesses, setting goals, understanding self.

Work alone, reflect pursue interests

Working alone, having space, reflecting, doing self-paced projects

Secret places , time alone, self-paced projects, choices etc

Naturalistic

Understanding nature, making distinctions, identifying flora and fauna

Be involved with nature, make distinctions

Working in nature, exploring living things, learning about plants and natural events.

Order, same/different, connections to real life and science issues, patterns

Existentialistic

Sense about planes and cosmos, total immersion in a work of art

Reflect about existential features, capacity to tackle deep questions

Learns through deep questioning

Time alone, debate, colloquium , things to think about and explore


Key Points in Multiple Intelligences Theory

a) Each person possesses all intelligences

It is the theory of cognitive functioning and shows that each person has

capacities in all the intelligences function together in ways unique to each person.

Some people appear to possess extremely high levels of functioning in all or most of

the intelligences. Most of us fall in somewhere in between these two poles- being

highly developed in some intelligences, modestly developed in others, and relatively

underdeveloped in the rest.

b) Most people can develop each intelligence to an adequate level of competency

According to Gardner most of the people can develop each intelligence to an

adequate level of competency, if sufficient and appropriate encouragement,

instruction and enrichment are provided with them.

c) Intelligence usually works together in complex ways

No intelligence exists by itself in life, actually is a ‘fiction’. Intelligences are

always interacting with each other. To cook meal, one must need the recipe

(linguistic) possibly divide the recipe into half (logical intelligence), develop a menu

that satisfies all the members of a family and placate one’s own appetite as well

(interpersonal). So intelligences usually work in complex ways.

d) There are many ways to be intelligent within each category

There is no standard set of attributes that one must have to be considered

intelligent in a specific area. Multiple Intelligences Theory emphasizes the rich

diversity of ways in which people show their gifts within intelligences as well as

between intelligences. For example a person may not be able to read, yet be highly

linguistic because he can tell a terrific story or a large oral vocabulary.


Table 2.3 Multiple Intelligences: Classroom Application

MI Teacher Centered Student Centered

Verbal/ Linguistic

* Present content verbally

* Ask questions aloud and look for student feedback

* interviews

* Students present material

* Students read content and prepare a presentation for his classmates

* Students debate over an issue

Mathematical/ Logical

* Provide brain teasers or challenging questions to begin lessons.

* Make logical connections between the subject matter and authentic situations to answer the questions. why?”

* Students categorize information in logical sequences for organization.

* Students create graphs or charts to explain written information

* Students participate in web quests associated with the content.

Visual/

Spatial

* When presenting the information, use visuals to explain content: power point slides, charts, graphs, cartoons, videos, overheads, smart boards.

* Have students work individually or in groups to create visuals pertaining to the information:

* Posters, timelines, models, PowerPoint, slides, maps, illustrations, charts, concept mapping

Bodily/

Kinesthetic

* Use props during lecture

* Provide tangible items pertaining to content for students to examine

* Review using sports related examples

* Students use computers to research subject matter.

* Students create props of their own explaining subject matter

Musical/ Rhythmic

* Play music in the classroom during reflection periods

* Shows examples or create musical rhythms for students to remember things

* Create a song or melody with the content embedded for memory

* Use well known songs to memorize formulae, skills or test content

Interpersonal

* Be aware of body language and facial expressions

* Offer assistance whenever needed

* Encourage collaboration among peers

* Group work strengthens interpersonal connections.


* Encourage classroom discussion * Peer feedback and peer tutoring

* Students present to the class

* Encourage group editing

Intrapersonal

* Encourage journaling as a positive outlet for expression

* Introduce web logging (blogs)

* Make individual questions welcome

* Create a positive environment

* Journaling

* Individual research on content

* Students create personal portfolios of work

Naturalistic

* Take students outside to enjoy nature while in learning process

* Compare authentic subject matter to natural occurrences

* Relate subject matter to stages that occur in nature.

* Students organize thoughts using natural cycles

* Students make relationships among content and the natural environment

* Students perform community service

Cognitive Neuroscience and MI

Evidence for the several intelligences came originally from the study of how

mental faculties were associated or dissociated as a consequence of damage to the

brain, and especially to cortical structures. With the surge in the types of

neuroimaging tools in the recent decades, far more specified inquiries relevant to MI

are possible. Nowadays a consensus obtains that there is not a one-to- one

correspondence between types of intelligence and areas of the cortex. Nonetheless it

is still germane to detail how the constructs outlined by MI can relate to brain

structure and function. Until this point, most neuroimaging studies of intellect have

examined the brain correlates of general intelligence (IQ). These studies have

revealed that general intelligence is correlated with activations in frontal regions

(Duncan et al., 2000) as well as several other brain regions (e.g., Jung & Haier,

2007), and with speed of neural conduction (Gotgay 2004).


An analogous kind of study can be carried out with respect to specific

intelligences (cf. emotional intelligence as reviewed by Mayer, Roberts & Barsade,

2008). Ultimately it would be desirable to secure an atlas of the neural correlates of

each of the intelligences, along with indices of how they do or not operate in

concert. Researchers should remain open to the possibility that intelligences may

have different neural representations, in different cultures the examples of linguistic

intelligence (speaking, reading, writing) comes to mind. From a neuropsychological

point of view, the critical test for MI theory will be the ways in which intellectual

strengths map onto neural structures and connections. It could be, as proponents of

general intelligence claim, that individuals with certain neural structures and

connections will be outstanding in all or at least, predictably, in some intelligences.

Were this to be the case, the neuropsychological underpinnings of MI theory would

be challenged. It could also be the case that individuals with intellectual strengths in

a particular area show similar brain profiles, and that those who exhibit contrasting

intellectual strengths show a contrasting set of neural profiles. It might also be the

case that certain neural structures (e.g. precociously developing frontal lobes) or

functions (speed of conduction) place one “at promise” for intellectual precocity

more generally, but that certain kinds of experiences that cause specialization to

emerge in which case, a profile of neurally-discrete intelligences will ultimately

consolidate. Similar lines of argument can unfold with respect to the genetic basis of

intelligence. To this point, those with very high or very low IQs display distinct

combinations of genes, though it is already clear that there will not be a single gene,

or even a small set of genes, that code for intellect. What remains to be determined

is whether those with quite distinctive behavioral profiles (e.g. individuals who are


highly musical, highly linguistic and/or highly skilled in physical activities) exhibit

distinctive genetic clusters as well. Put vividly, can the Bach family or the Curie

family or the Polgar family be distinguished genetically from the general population

and from one another? Or, as with the neural argument just propounded, certain

genetic profiles may aid one to achieve expertise more quickly, but the particular

area of expertise will necessarily yield quite distinctive cognitive profiles in the

adult.

It is germane to inquire whether, should neural evidence and genetic

evidence favor the notion of a single general intelligence and provide little evidence

for biological markers of the specific intelligences; MI theory will be disproved

scientifically. A question will still remain about how individuals end up possessing

quite distinct profiles of abilities and disabilities. Whether the answer to that

question will lie in studies drawn from genetics, neurology, psychology, sociology,

anthropology, or some combination thereof, remains to be determined.

Brain Lateralization

According to the theory of left-brain or right-brain dominance, each side of

the brain controls different types of thinking. A person who is "left-brained" is often

said to be more logical, analytical, and objective, while a person who is "right-

brained" is said to be more intuitive, thoughtful, and subjective. In psychology, the

theory is based on what is known as the lateralization of brain function. The right

brain-left brain theory originated in the work of Roger W. Sperry, who was awarded

the Nobel Prize in 1981.


Figure 2.16 Brain Lateralization

The Right Brain

According to the left-brain, right-brain dominance theory, the right side of

the brain is best at expressive and creative tasks. Some of the abilities that are

popularly associated with the right side of the brain include:

• Recognizing faces

• Expressing emotions

• Music

• Reading emotions

• Colour

• Images

• Intuition

• Creativity


The Left Brain

The left-side of the brain is considered to be adept at tasks that involve logic,

language and analytical thinking. The left-brain is often described as being better at:

• Language

• Logic

• Critical thinking

• Numbers

• Reasoning

The Left-Brain Teacher

Teachers with left-brain strengths generally prefer to teach using lecture and

discussion. They give problems to the students to solve independently. Teachers

with left-brain preferences assign more research and writing than their right-brain

peers.

The Left-Brain Student

Left-brain students prefer to work alone. They like to read independently and

incorporate research into their papers. They favour a quiet classroom without a lot of

distraction.

The Right-Brain Teacher

Teachers with right-brain strengths generally prefer to use hands-on activities

over a lecture format. They tend to embrace Howard Gardner's Multiple

Intelligences. They like to assign more group projects and activities, and prefer a

busy, active, noisy classroom environment.


The Right-Brain Student

Right-brain students prefer to work in groups. They like to do art projects,

industrial arts electives in middle school, and graphic design. They would prefer to

design and make a mobile rather than write "another tedious term paper.”

Myths about Multiple Intelligence Theory

As mentioned earlier, since the inception of Gardner’s intelligence theory, it

has been misunderstood and implemented in the wrong way in the classroom. In an

article written for the Phi Delta Kappan, entitled “Reflections on Multiple

Intelligences: Myths and Messages,” Gardner attempted to address some of these

common misconceptions. Gardner (1995) addressed myth number one as follows

“Now that seven intelligences have been identified, one can - and perhaps should-

create seven tests and secure seven scores”. Gardner (1995) then went on to say even

though assessment should be “intelligent fair,” seven different paper and pencil tests

are not the answer to assessing students using MI Theory. A child who has high

kinesthetic intelligence would not benefit well from a paper and pencil test with some

questions related to bodily activities. A closer examination of MI Theory and

assessment will be found later in this review.

A second myth Gardner (1995) identified was that intelligences were the

same as a learning domain or discipline. Intelligences are related more to

constructing information than studying a specific subject or examining a specific

domain of knowledge. Most of Gardner’s intelligences can encompass many domains

and be used to study a variety of subjects.

The next myth Gardner (1995) spoke of was “an intelligence is the same as a

learning style, a cognitive style, or a working style” (1995, pg.202). Gardner went on


to explain that style is related to the way we learn and can be applied to all subject

areas, whereas intelligence is more specific.

One last message that Gardner (1995) addressed was that “MI Theory is

incompatible with g (general intelligence), with hereditarian accounts, or with

environmental accounts of the nature and causes of intelligence” (p. 203). Gardner

is not denying the existence of general intelligence. It is possible that MI Theory is

simply further proof for the existence of the g factor. Most individuals feel that

general intelligence is inherited and that one’s abilities will be based on how smart

their parents were. It is obvious that Gardner is trying to help uncover the

intelligences that g does not cover. We are all capable of learning, and we should not

be held to the same standards as our parents. It is possible to gain more knowledge,

and be more intelligent in different areas than our parents.

Implementations of the Theory

Education facilities have traditionally emphasized the counting, reading and

writing skills, which refer to logical and linguistic intelligence. Many students do

reasonable well in these areas and score quite well in IQ tests. But, there are students

who do not. Gardner’s theory argues that these students will have an option to excel

if education facilities take a broader view on what intelligence is. Different

methodologies should be used, exercises and activities which reach all students and

not only those who excel at linguistic and logical intelligence. However, most

teachers must already know that students learn in different ways. To them this

theory hardly offers anything that they do not know already.

A study conducted by the Harvard University of 41 schools using the theory

came to the conclusion that in these schools there was "a culture of hard work,


respect, and caring; a faculty that collaborated and learned from each other;

classrooms that engaged students through constrained but meaningful choices, and a

sharp focus on enabling students to produce high-quality work."(Kornhaber, 2004)

Gardner himself was doubtful about the appeal, his theory would have

among educators: “At first blush, this diagnosis would appear to sound a death knell

for formal education. It is hard to teach one intelligence; what if there are seven? It

is hard to enough to teach even when anything can be taught; what to do if there are

distinct limits and strong constraints on human cognition and learning?” (Gardner &

Hatch, 1993: xxiii) However, Gardner responded to his question by pointing out that

psychology does not control education but only helps educators to understand the

conditions within which education takes place. In Gardner’s view, seven kinds of

intelligence would allow seven ways to teach, rather than just one.

Criticism on Garner’s Theory

As mentioned earlier, Gardner believes that the diversity of the adult roles, as

employees for example, cannot be explained by a single underlying intelligence, and

hence proposes that here are at least seven, or eight, different intelligence types.

Gardner defines intelligence as an ability to solve problems or create products which

are valuable in the given culture where the individual lives. Hence, it could be

argued that a dancer, a singer and a plumber are just as “intelligent” as a

mathematician, engineer or a physicist (Nolen-Hoeksema, Loftus, Wagenaar, 2009).

Although Gardner’s Theory about Multiple Intelligence types can be credited

for expanding the view on intelligence, the problem with it is the confusion of

different intelligence types. Mike Anderson points out that Gardner’s intelligence

types are ill-defined - they are “sometimes a behaviour, sometimes a cognitive


process and sometimes a structure in the brain” (1992, p. 67). Anderson’s theory is

based on the idea of general intelligence, which is a classical view proposed by

Louis Thurstone and others. Further on, Gardner’s theory does not take a stand

whether knowledge is important to intelligence or not. Stephen Ceci has developed a

theory which proposes that intelligence rests on multiple cognitive potentials. These

potentials are biologically based, but their expression depends on the knowledge an

individual has amassed in a particular domain. Hence knowledge is crucial to

intelligence in Ceci’s theory. (Nolen-Hoeksema, Loftus, Wagenaar, 2009, p. 444).

Gardner does not explain well the role of knowledge in his intelligence theory.

Another question is the concept of intelligence types as Gardner describes

them. Some psychologists view intelligence as a general ability for comprehension

and reasoning that manifests itself by problem solving, for example. This is a

classical view that was held by Alfred Binet, among others. Binet’s test contains

many kinds of items, but he still observed that intelligent children tended to score

higher than less intelligent children in all of the test items. This led Binet to assume

that there is a basic underlying ability which is sampled in different tasks (Nolen-

Hoeksema, Loftus, Wagenaar, 2009). Similarly David Wechsler also believed that

“intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully,

to think rationally, and to deal with his environment” (Wechsler, 1958). It is

important to note that also Wechsler’s intelligence test relied on several scales. Still

both Binet and Wechsler assumed that intelligence is a general capacity for

reasoning, instead of several intelligence types or modules as Gardner assumes in his

theory.


Gardner is a neurophysiologist and hence has studied individuals who

suffered a brain damage and were unable to perform on one specific area. Frequent

criticism is that his theories emerged from his own intuitions and reasoning and not

from comprehensive empirical research. (Waterhouse, 2006). This is alarming

because if there is not a proper set of tests to identify and measure different

intelligence types, then this theory has only little to be based on. Gardner explained:

“I once thought it possible to create a set of tests of each intelligence - an

intelligence-fair version to be sure - and then simply to determine the correlation

between the scores on the several tests. I now believe that this can only be

accomplished if someone developed several measures for each intelligence and then

made sure that people were comfortable in dealing with the materials and methods

used to measure each intelligence.” (Gardner, 1999, p. 98)

The Foundation and Province of MI Theory

Some critics of MI theory argue that it is not grounded in empirical research

and cannot, therefore, be proved or disproved on the basis of new empirical findings

(Waterhouse, 2006; White, 2006). In fact, MI theory is based entirely on empirical

findings. The intelligences were identified on the basis of hundreds of empirical

studies spanning multiple disciplines (Gardner, 1983, 1993; Gardner & Moran,

2006). Noted, too, is the relative lack of empirical studies specifically designed to

test the theory as a whole (Visser, Ashton, & Vernon, 2006). Like other broad

theories, such as evolution or plate tectonics, which synthesize experimental,

observational, and theoretical work, MI theory cannot be proved or disproved on the

basis of a single test or experiment. Rather, it gains or losses credibility as findings

accumulates over time. Indeed, subsequent findings have prompted ongoing review


and revisions of MI theory, such as the addition of new intelligences and the

conceptualization of intelligence profiles. Much of the empirical work conducted

since 1983 lends support to various aspects of the theory. For instance, studies on

children’s theory of mind and the identification of pathologies that involve losing a

sense of social judgment provide strong evidence for a distinct interpersonal

intelligence (Gardner, 1995; Feldman & Gardner, 1988; Gardner, Feldman &

Krechevsky, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c; Malkus, Feldman, & Gardner, 1988; Ramos-

Ford, Feldman, & Gardner, 1988).

Relatively few critiques of MI theory have addressed the criteria used to

identify and evaluate candidate intelligence. This state of affairs is somewhat

unexpected, since the criteria serve as the theory’s foundation. Moreover, by

drawing on cross-disciplinary sources of evidence, the criteria represent a pioneering

effort to broaden the way in which human intellectual capacities are identified and

evaluated. White (2006) is one of the few scholars to question this effort. He

suggests that the selection and application of the criteria is a subjective – and

therefore flawed – process. A psychologist with a different intellectual biography, he

argues, would have arrived at a different set of criteria and, consequently, a different

set of intelligences.

The professional training that preceded MI theory no doubt played an

important role in its formulation. We do not argue the fact of this influence, simply

its effect. MI theory is the product of several years spent examining human

cognition through several disciplinary lenses, including psychology, sociology,

neurology, biology, and anthropology, as well as the arts and humanities. The

criteria that emerged from this examination formed the basis of a systematic


investigation of candidate faculties. Thus, in contrast to White’s depiction of an

idiosyncratic process marked by one researcher’s intellectual preoccupations, the

identification and application of the criteria represent a systematic and

comprehensive approach to the study of human intelligence.

Moreover, any attempt to pluralize intelligence inevitably involves either an

agreed upon stopping point (an acceptance of the criterion as stated or an infinite

regress -what stimulated this criterion rather than another criterion?). Nonetheless,

White is correct that ultimately the ascertainment of what is, or is not, a separate

intelligence involves a synthesizing frame of mind (Gardner, 2006a), if not a certain

degree of subjectivity. Many critiques of MI theory pay scant attention to the criteria

and focus instead on the level of analysis used to classify human intellectual

faculties. Some scholars argue that the eight intelligences are not specific enough.

Indeed, findings from neuroscience lend support to the call for increased specificity

in the classification of intellectual capacities. As Gardner pointed out in the original

publications (Gardner, 1983, 1993), it is likely that musical intelligence comprises

several sub-intelligences relating to various dimensions of music, such as rhythm,

harmony, melody, and timbre. An analogous comment can be stated for each of the

other intelligences. In fact, one test of MI theory would be whether the sub-

intelligences within each intelligence correlate more highly with each other than

they correlate with sub-intelligences within other intelligences. Were the

classification of intelligences expanded to include such specific faculties, however,

the number would quickly become unwieldy and virtually untranslatable to

educators.


At the other extreme are those scholars who claim that MI theory expands

the definition of intelligence to such a degree that it is no longer a useful construct.

Gardner has argued elsewhere that a concept of intelligence that is yoked to

linguistic and logical-mathematical capacities is too narrow and fails to capture the

wide range of human intellectual functioning (Gardner, 1995;

Gardner & Moran, 2006). MI theory seeks a middle ground between an

innumerable set of highly specific intelligences, on the one hand, and a single, all-

purpose intelligence, on the other.

The description of individuals in terms of several relatively independent

computational capacities would seem to put MI theory at odds with ‘g’

(psychometricians’ term for general intelligence). Willingham (2004) argues that a

theory of intelligence that does not include ‘g’ is inconsistent with existing

psychometric data. These data, consisting typically of correlations between scores

on a series of oral questions or paper-and-pencil instruments, do provide

considerable evidence for the existence of ‘g.’ They do not, however, provide insight

into the scope of ‘g,’ or its usefulness as a construct. Neither Willingham nor other

“geocentric” theorists have yet provided a satisfactory definition for ‘g.’ One might

argue that ‘g’ is merely the common factor that underlies the set of tasks devised by

psychologists in their attempt to predict scholastic success. Perhaps ‘g’ measures

speed or flexibility of response; capacity to follow instructions; or motivation to

succeed at an artificial, decontextualized task. None of these possibilities necessarily

places ‘g’ at odds with MI theory and indeed Gardner has never denied the existence

or utility of ‘g’ for certain analytic purposes. The current perseveration on ‘g’ does,

however, suggest a narrowness that fails to capture adequately the broad range of


human cognition. Just how much of excellence across the range of intelligences

reflects a current or future version of ‘g’ is at present not known.

Conclusion

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences has potential in education. It has

encouraged educators and psychologists to look beyond the classical view of

intelligence. Gardner’s theory also emphasizes the role of arts in human intelligence

instead of just linguistic, spatial and logical-mathematical intelligence. Gardner’s

theory can be useful in finding out in what kind of areas an individual would excel,

but the theory answers poorly to the question what exactly intelligence is and how it

should be measured. The theory lacks empirical research to be built on and the main

idea of different intelligence types, and how they function, is defined badly.

The question still remains: is intelligence a general capacity for reasoning, a

unique blend of different intelligence styles or something else? There are plenty of

different theories, empirical research and studies about intelligence, but even

defining the word “intelligence” is difficult for a psychologist because his or her

definition would reflect his or her adapted theory about what it is, and theories of

intelligence differ widely. Gardner suggests that intelligence should be considered

more broadly and that individuals can be intelligent in many different ways but

perhaps intelligence is just a label that an intelligence test measures. There is some

evidence that supports this “label” view, for example, intelligence tests and

achievement in school tends to have validity coefficients of about 0.50, which is not

a very high outcome (Nolen-Hoeksema, Loftus, Wagenaar, 2009).

Documents

Chapter II THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS ON INTELLIGENCE- GENESIS ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/99775/1/10_chapter2.pdf · Theoretical Constructs on Intelligence- Genesis,