Multiple Intelligences Go to School: Educational Implications of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences Author(s): Howard Gardner and Thomas Hatch Source: Educational Researcher, Vol. 18, No. 8 (Nov., 1989), pp. 4-10 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176460 Accessed: 08/10/2010 18:01 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational Researcher. http://www.jstor.org MultipleIntelligences Go to School Educational Implicationsof the Theory of Multiple Intelligences HOWARD GARDNER THOMAS HATCH A new approachto the conceptualizationand assessmentof human intelligencesis de- tinued indefinitely, but, in fact, by the scribed.According to Gardner'sTheory of MultipleIntelligences, each human beingis late 70s, there were signs of a rewaken- capableof seven relativelyindependent forms of informationprocessing, with individuals ing of interest in theoretical and re- differingfrom one anotherin the specificprofile of intelligencesthat they exhibit. The search aspects of intelligence. With his rangeof humanintelligences is bestassessed through contextually based, "intelligence- focus on the information-processingas- fair" instruments.Three researchprojects growing out of the theory are described. pects of items in psychological tests, Preliminarydata securedfrom ProjectSpectrum, an applicationin earlychildhood, in- RobertSternberg (1977, 1982, 1985)was dicate that even 4- and 5-year-oldchildren exhibit distinctive profiles of strengthand perhaps the most importantcatalyst for weakness.Moreover, measures of the variousintelligences are largelyindependent and this shift, but researchers from a num- tap abilitiesother than those measuredby standardintelligence tests. ber of different areas of psychology have joined in this rediscovery of the EducationalResearcher, Vol. 18, No. 8, pp. 4-10 centrality of intelligence (Baron, 1985; Brown & Campione, 1986; Dehn & Schank, 1982;Hunt, 1986;Jensen, 1986; swings of the pendulum most seasoned their concerns with a Laboratory of Comparative Human Despitebetween theoretical and applied practicalorientation. Thus Binet (Binet Cognition, 1982; Scarr & Carter- concerns, the concept of intelligence & Simon, 1916) and Terman (1916) de- Salzman, 1982; Snow, 1982). has remained central to the field of veloped the first general-purpose in- The of psychology. In the wake of the Darwi- telligence tests in their respective coun- Theory Multiple Intelligences nian revolution, when scientific tries; Yerkes (Yerkes, Bridges, & Hard- A decade ago Gardner found that his psychology was just beginning, many wick, 1915)and Wechsler(1939) created own research interests were leading scholars became interested in the de- their own influentialinstruments. Even him to a heightened concern with is- velopment of intelligence across spe- scientists with a strong theoreticalbent, sues of human intelligence. This con- cies. The late 19th and early 20th cen- like Spearman (1927) and Thurstone cern grew out of two disparate factors, turies were punctuatedby volumes that (1938), contributedeither directly or in- one primarily theoretical, the other delineated levels of intelligence across directly to the devising of certain mea- largely practical. species and within the human species surement techniques and the favoring As a result of his own studies of the (Baldwin, 1895; Hobhouse, 1915; Ro- of particular lines of interpretation. development and breakdown of cog- manes, 1892). FrancisGalton (cousin of By midcentury, theories of intelli- nitive and symbol-using capacities, Charles Darwin) was perhaps the first gence had become a staple of psy- Gardner (1975, 1979, 1982)became con- psychologically oriented scientist to try chology textbooks, even as intelligence vinced that the Piagetian (Piaget, 1970) to measure the intellect directly. tests were taken for granted in many in- view of intellect was flawed. Whereas Though Galton (1870)had a theoretical dustrialized countries. Still, it is fair to Piaget (1962) had conceptualized all interest in the concept of intelligence, say that, within scientific psychology, his work was by no means unrelated to interest in issues of intelligence waned practical issues. A committed eugeni- to some extent. Although psychometri- cist, he sought to measure intelligence cians continued to perfect the instru- and hoped, through proper "breed- ments that purported to measure hu- HOWARDGARDNER, Professor of Educa- ing," to increase the overall intelligence man intellect and some new tests were tion, HarvardGraduate School of Educa- of the population. introduced (Guilford, 1967), for the tion, LongfellowHall, Cambridge,MA During the following half century, most part, the burgeoning interest in 02138, specializesin developmentalpsy- many of the most gifted and influential cognitive matters bypassed the area of chologyand neuropsychology. psychologists concerned themselves intelligence. THOMASHATCH, doctoral candidate, Har- with the nature of human intelligence. This divorce between mainstreamre- vard GraduateSchool of Education,Long- a few in- Although investigators were search psychology and the "applied fellow Hall, Cambridge,MA 02138, spe- terested principallyin theoreticalissues, area" of intelligence might have con- cializesin humandevelopment. 4 EDUCA TIONAL RESEARCHER aspects of symbol use as part of a single stone, 1938). Most definitions of in- summarized in several other publica- "semiotic function," empiricalevidence telligence focus on the capacities that tions (Gardner, 1987a, 1987b; Walters was accruingthat the human mind may are important for success in school. & Gardner, 1985). Gardner's provi- be quite modular in design. That is, Problem solving is recognized as a sional list includes seven intelligences, separate psychological processes ap- crucial component, but the ability to each with its own component processes pear to be involved in dealing with fashion a product-to write a sym- and subtypes (see Table 1). It is claimed linguistic, numerical, pictorial,gestural, phony, execute a painting, stage a play, that, as a species, human beings have and other kinds of symbolic systems build up and manage an organization, evolved over the millennia to carry out (Gardner, Howard, & Perkins, 1974; carry out an experiment-is not in- at least these seven forms of thinking. Gardner & Wolf, 1983). Individuals cluded, presumably because the afore- In a biological metaphor, these may be may be precocious with one form of mentioned capacities cannot be probed thought of as differentmental "organs" symbol use, without any necessary adequately in short-answertests. More- (Chomsky, 1980); in a computational carryover to other forms. By the same over, on the canonical account, in- metaphor, these may be construed as token, one form of symbol use may be- telligence is presumed to be a univer- separate information-processing come seriously compromised under sal, probably innate, capacity, and so devices (Fodor, 1983). Although all conditions of brain damage, without the diverse kinds of roles valued in dif- humans exhibit the range of in- correlative depreciation of other sym- ferent cultures are not considered ger- telligences, individuals differ-pre- bolic capacities (Wapner & Gardner, mane to a study of "raw intellect." sumably for both hereditary and envi- 1979). Indeed, different forms of sym- For the most part, definitions and ronmental reasons-in their current bol use appear to be subserved by dif- tests of intelligence are empirically profile of intelligences. Moreover, there ferent portions of the cerebral.cortex. determined. Investigators search for is no necessary correlationbetween any On a more practical level, Gardner items that predict who will succeed in two intelligences, and they may indeed was disturbed by the nearly exclusive school, even as they drop items that fail entail quite distinct forms of perception, stress in school on two forms of sym- to predict scholastic success. New tests memory, and other psychological bol use: linguistic symbolization and are determined in part by the degree of processes. logical-mathematicalsymbolization. Al- correlationwith older, already accepted Although few occupations rely en- though these two forms are obviously instruments. In sharp contrast, existing tirely on a single intelligence, different important in a scholastic setting,