The Multiple Intelligences News "The MI-News"

~ The MI News ~

Summer 2002 Edition (Volume 4, Number 2) |

Publisher Branton Shearer | Editor Cliff Morris |

Table of Contents

1. Introduction by Clifford Morris
2. The Gifted Debate by Branton Shearer
3. Gender Differences in Self-Estimates of Multiple Intelligences by Clifford Morris
4. Smart Options: Intelligent Career Exploration
5. MI Websites Collected by Clifford Morris

1. Introduction by Clifford Morris

If you are a first time reader, thanks for visiting us and welcome to this second (of four) editions of the MI-News for the year 2002. This issue is provided free by Branton Shearer's Multiple Intelligences (MI) Research and Consulting. Our objective s to provide you with theoretical and practical information about Howard Gardner MI model and perhaps more importantly how this model is currently being implemented elsewhere. Our newsletter attempts to explore MI applications via discussion, contact and sharing. Therefore, if you have interesting MI ideas, tried-and-tested MI-based lesson plans, or practical MI suggestions that you feel our readers would enjoy using, please e-mail me, Clifford Morris, newsletter editor, with your comments.

Please feel free to view our previous issues by clicking the (desired) back issue link above. Many of those issues contain interesting, practical and informative commentaries from those who view MI as a way of 'seeing' human intelligences beyond the conventional intelligence quotient (IQ) mindset.

2. The Gifted Debate by Branton Shearer

There are many reasons - both theoretical and practical - preventing Multiple Intelligences (MI) from gaining wider acceptance in American schools. As I read the latest text books, journals and popular press, I am often pleased and impressed that the dominance of the singular notion of intelligence is slowly giving way to the recognition that there is more to being smart than a high IQ score.

One field that is struggling with this transition is the area of gifted education. There appear to be two dominant camps presently at work in this field. The first camp refuses to accept Howard Gardner's definition of intelligence and is threatened by any perspective that would appear to lower gifted people off the highest of pedestals. They wish to relegate MI to the status of merely "learning styles" or "just a talent" thus reserving the term intelligent for only those people with high intelligence quotient (IQ) scores. What is interesting is, that when I speak to members of this camp they often appear not to have actually read any of Howard Gardner's books and base their views merely on their misinformed opinions. The second camp appreciates that the MI definition recognizes the value of creative thinking and problem-solving in a number of important domains and so MI validates that "giftedness" does not totally depend upon the convergent problem-solving and logical-mathematical abilities.

A recent commentary by James Delisle in Education Week (May 1, 2002) exemplified the former perspective in his examination of the problem of Justin Chapman. Justin gained notoriety at the age of 6 when he was reported to be the world's smartest person with a test IQ score of 298 and a math SAT score of 800. Later, it was revealed that Justin's mother admitted that she had rigged his SAT scores and had given him the answers to the IQ test. James Delisle takes the opportunity of this sad situation to blame MI and other "fuzzy" and "politically correct" theories about giftedness for the educational establishment's failure to address the social and emotional needs of gifted students.

I found his argument to be quite curious, lacking in substance and misguided. In fact, I believe that James is assuming an attack position because Justin's case leaves the gifted establishment so blatantly vulnerable to criticism. If so much intense focus wasn't placed on the singular value of the IQ score, might not Justin's mother (or teachers) more fully appreciate his social and emotional needs? If Justin had been given an MI assessment night not his linguistic and logical-mathematical strengths been recognized along with his potential interpersonal and intrapersonal needs? Where James and I agree is that we believe that education should address the "whole child." I believe that an MI assessment can serve this purpose with great power and sensitivity for all students no matter their IQ level. The following letter to the Education Week editor is my response to James' commentary.

Jim, I just don’t get it….

What were you trying to say in your recent story about the exploited boy genius, Justin Chapman (Education Week, May 1, 2002)? It is too bad that I come away from your article confused about your point because obviously Justin’s story is a sad one that needs to be clearly understood so as to help to prevent its reoccurrence. As you rightly point out, we need ways to help Justin (and his family) to cope with and guide his unique gifts. What confuses me about your article is when you conflate the dilemma of Justin’s abuse with multiple intelligences (MI) theory. I am left wondering what motivated this unnecessary aside to an important and poignant story?

Your well-justified anger at Justin’s situation seems unwisely misdirected at the notion that there is more to being smart than an IQ test score. Obviously, you are trying to construct (fabricate?) a link between the popularity of MI theory and Justin’s dilemma. I suspect this is (in part) defensive posturing on your part to protect the sacred temple of IQ from the attacks of “common barbarians” who fail to fully respect and appreciate the unique needs of high IQ individuals. Your anger is an unsuccessful attempt to change the subject and save face when there is no logical defense to the obvious fact that over valuation of an IQ score is at the core of Justin’s exploitation. Sadly, you miss a wonderful opportunity to show how the Justin case could be a powerful bridge from the 19^th century views of intelligence to the 21^st century as embodied by MI theory.

Rather than attacking scientific progress as unfair to people like Justin you could easily have demonstrated that current neuroscience evidence about the brain-mind-emotion connections can be used to actually help Justin to manage his profound social-emotional and intellectual needs. There is no question that many high IQ children have “special needs” just as do low IQ children -- just as gifted artists and elite dancers and inspired composers and superior naturalists who all could benefit by having their unique gifts recognized, supported and challenged.

Jim, it is an illusion and artificial construct of your powerful imagination that MI theory does not support the development of high IQ people. In fact, Howard Gardner has written extensively of the character and needs of creative and intelligent people. I am beginning to wonder if you have actually read any of his books since you speak of it from such a distorted, superficial and superior altitude. But this is not uncommon among the high IQ critics of MI theory who give the impression that a theory that might raise other people up to their pedestal is not worthy of their time to read carefully and with an open mind.

It is too bad that you refuse to understand that a counselor, teacher (or sincere) parent who recognizes Justin’s MI profile of gifts and limitations would be uniquely informed to guide his development as a whole person—not merely an IQ score. If our attention is solely focused on his linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences (e.g., the components of the IQ score) then his other intellectual needs will be neglected, devalued and diminished. I think that you would want no less for Justin and others like him.

Stories like Justin’s exploitation are important as doorways to the future so that sensitive and authentic educational opportunities for unique children may be created. His story should not be twisted and further exploited in the defense of a 19^th century theory that reduces the complexity of human intelligence to a single number on a single test for a select group of people who possess skills in a narrow range of human abilities. Jim, it is OK to open to the door to the rich complexity that comprises the mystery of human intelligence. MI theory values your linguistic and logical-mathematical gifts. It just doesn’t want to neglect the valuable abilities of people who are gifted in the “other intelligences” nor does it want to ignore the importance of YOUR other intelligences and only see your worth as embodied in a single number- no matter how high it is.

3. Gender Differences in Self-Estimates of Multiple Intelligences by Clifford Morris

June 15, 2002 Update

The following is a copy of a commentary that was first published in the March 15, 2002 issue of this newsletter. However, since that date, I have received a series of emails from readers seeking information about additional studies of this nature. I have thus repeated that commentary here including five additional papers (see the citations and references in blue type). Hopefully, in this way, queries from those emails will be answered. I see this form of MI research as ongoing, so please continue your email comments. Should I encounter additional research of this nature, I shall post them in forthcoming issues of this newsletter.

* * * * * * * *

Recently, a series of research papers looked at self-estimates of Howard Gardner's original (1983) and updated (1999) multiple intelligences (MI) model rather than solely g (Bennett, 1996, 1997, 2000; Furnham, 2000; Furnham, Clark & Bailey, 1999; Furnham, Fong & Martin, 1999; Furnham, Hosoe & Li-Ping Tang, 2002; Furnham, Reeves & Budhani, 2002). It is not an irrelevant aside to note here that none of these studies set out to test Gardner's MI theory. That is, none of them offered any form of substantial evidence to support Gardner MI model. It is a well-documented fact that most psychometric researchers tend not to agree with Gardner. Nonetheless, Gardner's MI model of the human mind provides a most useful way to investigate lay people's comprehension of intelligence, a model of intelligence which accounts for its tremendous popularity among non-scientists. For a detailed account of this non-scientific viewpoint, the more interested reader is referred to Intelligence reframed (Gardner, 1999).

This brief commentary only outlines the main points from these papers, each concerned with gender differences in the estimates of Howard Gardner's (original) seven fundamental types of multiple intelligences (MI): linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Due to space limitations, only four (4) papers can be highlighted here. The more interested reader is referred to the references for additional studies of this nature. Throughout, the issue of gender differences in human abilities, in general, and in MI, in particular, remain a highly contentious issue. Note carefully that these papers only focus on self-estimates of MI.

In the first paper (Furnham, Hosoe, & Li-Ping Tang, 2002), 213 American, 229 British, and 164 Japanese students self-estimated their own multiple intelligences and that of their parents (fathers and mothers) and siblings (first and second sisters and brothers). All of the research participants completed a simple one-page questionnaire. They were then asked to answer the following six basic questions concerning intelligence tests using simple yes/no answers.

1. Have you ever taken an intelligence test?

2. Do you believe they measure intelligence fairly well?

3. Do you believe that males are, on the average, more intelligent that females?

4. Do you believe that intelligence is primarily inherited?

5. Do you believe that intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are useful in educational settings?

6. Do you believe that some races are more intelligent than others?

A sex × Culture ANOVA on the three factors that underlie the seven MI (verbal, numerical, and cultural) showed consistent culture and numerous gender effects, but no interactions. As predicted, the male subjects rated their own overall MI, including that of their fathers, but not their mothers and sisters, higher than did the female participants. These same male research subjects also rated their numerical intelligence, but not their verbal or cultural intelligences, higher than the females. There were also consistent and clear cultural differences. The American subjects rated their MI higher than the Japanese (about 6-10 points) with the British subjects intermediate between the two. And all participants rated their fathers' and brothers' numerical MI higher, and verbal MI lower, than their mothers' and sisters'.

In the second paper, Adrian Furnham, Katie Clark, and Karen Bailey (1999) commented on two studies. In both studies, they asked female and male participants to rate each of the seven original intelligent types set out by Gardner (1983, 1999). They found a gender difference only on the logical-mathematical factor. In the first study, 180 British adults were asked to estimate their own MI, using Gardner's seven intelligence factors. Only one of the MI (mathematical-logical) showed a significant gender difference, with males believing that they had higher scores than the females. Factor analysis of the seven MI scales yielded three (3) interpretable higher-order factors. There was a similar sex difference on only one MI factor (mathematical-spatial), which showed males rating themselves higher than females. In the other study, 80 student participants completed the same seven MI estimates, plus a standard sex-role inventory, in order to separate sex and sex role in their self-estimation of MI. A series of sex × sex-role ANOVA's showed some effects, especially for mathematical, musical, and spatial intelligence, but nearly always for sex and not sex role. These findings suggested that previous studies which found consistent sex differences in self-estimates of overall intelligence (g) may have over-exaggerated the issue as the difference is clearly confined to a limited number of factors of intelligence.

In the third paper (Furnham, Fong, & Martin, 1999) reviewed for this issue of the MI-News, over 400 young people from Britain, Hawaii and Singapore estimated their own, their parents' and their siblings score on each of Gardner's seven basic MI types. This (third) paper is actually a repeat of the (second) study just outlined, only with a larger sample. And, as above, the subjects answered the same six simple questions concerning intelligence tests. And, similar to the above, there were both significant cultural and sex differences in the estimation of overall own MI scores. Males gave higher MI scores than females (109 vs. 107); the female research subjects rated themselves lower on the logical-mathematical, spatial, and bodily-kinesthetic intelligences. The British gave the highest score (109) compared with the Sinaporeans (106) and Hawaiians (104). To sum up so very briefly for here, the males more so than the females, and the British more than the other groups, were more likely to believe in gender and race differences in MI. Finally, Furnham (2000) studied how parents estimated their own and their children's MI types. The results suggested that the mothers gave lower estimates than fathers on their own logical-mathematical and spatial intelligence. Both parents rated sons as having greater logical-mathematical, spatial, and intrapersonal intelligence than daughters. In other words, these findings seem to suggest consistent gender differences with respect primarily to logical-mathematical and spatial intelligence.

Reviews of the (general) intelligence literature suggest that these estimates may be accurate. Halpin (1997) wrote: "Males, on average, score higher on tasks that require transformation in visual-spatial working memory, motor skills involved in aiming, spatio-temporal responding, and fluid reasoning, especially in abstract mathematical and scientific domains" (p. 1091). These findings are also consistent with studies involving sex differences in parental estimates of their children's general intelligence. Due to space limitations, these studies can not be outlined here. To read such studies, the more interested reader is referred to Furnham and Gasson (1998).

To sum, the results of all of these studies ought not to be interpreted as attempts to validate Gardner's (1983, 1999) MI theory. Rather, the findings represent ongoing attempts to better grasp and comprehend lay theories about intelligence, specifically the Gardner MI model.

Selected References (Recent Additions are in blue)

Bennett, Mark (1996). Men's and women's self-estimates of intelligence. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136(3), 411-412.

Bennett, Mark (1997). Self-estimates of ability in men and women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(4), 540-541.

Bennett, Mark (2000). Self-estimates and population estimates of ability in men and women. Australian Journal of Psychology, 52(1), 23-28.

Furnham, Adrian (2000). Parental estimates of their children's multiple intelligences. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 583-594.

Furnham, Adrian and Gasson, Lucinda (1998). Sex differences in parental estimates of their children's intelligence. Sex Roles, 38(112), 151-162.

Furnham, Adrian, Hosoe, Tatsuro, Li-Ping Tang, Thomas (2002). Male hubris and female humility? A cross-cultural study of ratings of self, parental, and sibling multiple intelligences in America, Britain, and Japan. Intelligence, 30(1), 101-115.

Furnham, Adrian; Reeves, Emma; Budhani, Salima (2002, March). Parents think their sons are brighter than their daughters: Sex differences in parental self-examinations and estimations of their children's multiple intelligences. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(1), 24-50.

Furnham, Adrian, Clark, Katie, Bailey, Karen (1999). Sex differences in estimates of multiple intelligences. European Journal of Personality, 13, 247-259.

Furnham, Adrian, Fong, Geraldyn, Martin, Neil (1999). Sex and cross-cultural differences in the estimated multi-faceted intelligence quotient score for self, parents and siblings. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(3) 1025-1034.

Gardner, Howard (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, Howard (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Halpern, D. (1997). Sex differences in intelligence. American Psychologist, 52, 1091-1102.

4. Smart Options: Intelligent Career Exploration

Editor's Note: In the Fall 2001 (Volume 3, Number 3) issue of this newsletter, at, http://www.igs.net/~cmorris/fal01.html, I introduced the Smarts Option multiple intelligences classroom application. Since that time, I have received a series of emails from readers interested in additional details about this new and interesting MI classroom program. To those, I here comment. If you wish to contact me for more details, please email me at cmorris@igs.net

* * * * * * * *

Since 1985, I have been reading and writing about Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences (MI). During this time, I have viewed numerous MI applications. One of the more promising programs is Smart Options. Here are its seven (7) guiding principles.

1. Smart Options fosters the notion that student intelligences is multi-dimensional.

2. Smart Options suggests that every pupil possesses an array of multiple intelligences.

3. Smart Options reinforces the idea that each girl and boy in a classroom has a unique mix of multiple intelligences.

4. Smart Options makes the valid assumption that the multiple intelligences are capable of being developed and strengthened by every student.

5. Smart Options states that every youngster is entitled to an opportunity to recognize, express, and cultivate her / his various intelligences.

6. Smart Options acknowledges that an understanding of one's multiple intelligences promotes proactivity and self-direction, and enhances self-esteem, self-confidence, and feelings of self-worth.

7. Smarts Options stipulates that a knowledge of one's multiple intelligences and of ways to strengthen them is a strong basis for exploring life and career options, as well as for making career and life choices and decisions.

What then is Smart Options? Smart Options is a recently created career development program based on Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences and Thomas Armstrong’s popularization of the concept. Created by Dr. Dan Baran and Phillippa Baran for students in grades 7 and 8, the program gives young people a richer understanding of themselves and shows them how they can use that knowledge to carve out more meaningful lives and careers. Smart Options is currently available in English and French; it requires between 4 and 6 hours of classroom time; additional time, if available, can be devoted to exercises and activities.

The Smart Options program consists of the following four components: a 32 paged full-colour Student’s Resource Book, a 54-paged Facilitator's Guide, a large poster suitable for mounting on a classroom wall, and an (forthcoming) introductory video. I will now comment briefly on the first three.

The Student’s Resource Book contains descriptions of each of the eight intelligences (smarts), checklists for understanding the smarts, exercises that show how smarts can be applied to career exploration, and suggestions for improving the strength of the smarts. Throughout the 32-paged 3-ringed workbook, the eight intelligences are introduced as body smarts, image smarts, logic smarts, music smarts, nature smarts, people smarts, self smarts, and word smarts. Two adjoining pages discuss each smart. The left hand page defines the specific smart under investigation, as well as listing a series of occupations that need that smart. The right hand page contains a list of characteristics for the student to check off. This same page also contains a series of strategies that the student can use to boost her / his specific smart. The two centerfold pages lists a series of jobs. The student is asked to try to imagine himself / herself in each of the jobs, and then to work out what smarts might be involved in each one. The final page suggests strategies for building each of the smarts.

The Facilitator's Guide provides step-by-step directions for leading students through their Student Resource Books, background information about intelligence and the contributions of people like Gardner and Armstrong, as well as a brief bibliography. Of special interest is how the four lesson plans are described. Lesson Plan 1 is called Discovering and assessing Your Smarts; it has three objectives: to place Smart Options as a set of ideas that will assist students prepare for a world of work that has undergone profound changes, to introduce students to Howard Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences, with his eight intelligences referred to as Smarts, and to offer students a means of assessing their own personal smarts. This lesson plan requires approximately two hours of classroom time to complete. Lesson Plan 2 is titled Practice Using Smart Ideas. It has two objectives: to increase students' familiarity with the ideas and terminology of the eight types of smarts, and to consolidate students' understanding of the eight smarts by exploring their role in a variety of occupational settings. This lesson plan also requires about two hours of classroom time to complete. Lesson Plan 3, Creating Your Smarts Profile and Using it to Explore Career Possibilities, has three objectives: to provide students with a simple technique for putting together an overall image of their smarts by generating their Smarts Profile, to extend students' smarts profiles to potential career domains, and to alert the students to resources that contain key information necessary to exploring career options. This lesson plan requires approximately two hours of classroom time to complete, with additional time spent by individual students when they have access to the Internet. Lesson Plan 4, Build Your Strengths, has three objectives: to reinforce the idea that awareness and exploration of one's smarts enhances employability and success in job searches and career development, to establish that the eight smarts can be developed and strengthened, and to provide suggestions for building smarts. This lesson plan requires about one-half of an hours of classroom time to complete.

The rather large poster summarizes the eight types of smarts as well as highlighting suggested occupations requiring particular strength in these smarts. Around the perimeter of the poster is listed a series of relevant web sites. The complete Smarts Options package is available through the Canadian National Life / Work Centre, 488 Central Street, Memramcook, New Brunswick, Canada E4K 3S6, and can be ordered by calling 1-888-533-5683. E-mail address is lifework@nbret.nb.ca The website for Smart Options is http://www.lifework.ca/pr_smart.html.

5. MI Websites by Clifford Morris

Now that I am supposed to be a retired teacher, I am expected to have plenty of extra time to cultivate hobbies et al. Well, and as you probably would have guessed by now, it seems that one of my ongoing interests continues to be MI. As those of you who have hobbies know, a hobbyist is continuously trying to enlarge and / or upgrade her / his area of interest. Well, that is true in my case as the below series of MI lists will show. To try to make some sense out of the numerous links that I have collected over the years, I have alphabetized them them into a series of lists.

I am always searching for additional web sites associated with Howard Gardner and his Multiple Intelligences model. Here then are the lists, some which have already been mentioned in previous issues of this newsletter. The repetition found in many of the links enables you the reader to select the sections more to your interest. Please email me with other MI-oriented links that you feel may be practical to our readership.

While all of the links are associated with MI, the following six item are of particular interest.

1. To read about Adults and MI, go to A

2. To search a Database of MI Research, scroll to D

3. To read about Intelligences, in general, scroll to I

4. To read back issues of two Newsletters about MI, scroll to N

5. To read about MI programs, scroll to P

6. To read about Schools currently using MI, scroll to S

1. Adult MI

2. Adult Literacy, Adult Ed. and MI

3. Adult ESL & MI Theory & Practice

4. Adult MI Study-1

5. Adult MI Study-2