Just went to a converence yesterday and I almost brought this up. What’s the straight dope? What are the indicators for MI? have they developed a test for it yet?
I can’t believe I posted this and got NO guesses or factual replies. Maybe I ought to send this to Cecil…
Googling on “multiple intelligences” produced a number of results, including this one.
Sounds like hooey to me, but there you go.
I won’t enter the debate on exactly what intelligence is or how to measure it or how important it is.
As that page says, the word “intelligence” generally means reasoning ability. Intelligence is an ability like any other. There’s no question that other abilities can be important. But to call them “intelligences” rather than “abilities” I suspect is primarily intended to give them the prestige of the term. It’s merely a name change - it doesn’t change their real-world value, and IMHO therefore it’s worthless.
Test for “Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence (“body smart”)”? Try learning a sport or dancing.
Test for “Musical intelligence (“music smart”)”? Try singing, composing, or learning an instrument.
From that page (emphasis added):
My bullshit alarm goes off when I come across stuff like this.
rowrrbazzle. Teaching is susceptible to a number of different fads and theories. Multiple intelligence has been around more than 20 years now and is starting to make inroads in mainstream teaching, much as whole language in reading did in the 70s and kinesthetic-auditory-visual teaching approaches did in the 80s and 1990s. The next big change may very well be multiple intelligence… I see more and more of my colleagues using it, referring to it, and mainstream news organizations get excited reporting it.
Intelligence has already been redefined beyond mathematical reasoning, logical processes and linguistic abilities. Calling other important abilities “intelligences” is a reflection of this reassessment and redefinition of intelligence. I agree there is more prestige, and political correctness, in calling these abilities “intelligences”-- but as you noted, it doesn’t change the real world value much one way or the other. But as this is basically educational jargon anyway, meanings within the field are often clarified in context even when terminology shifts. Don’t get me started on the various names educators have used to euphemize slow learners.
My problem is how to apply this knowledge in an effiecient and timely manner in classroom, and test students inclinations in an attempt to motivate them and capture their interest. As I often state ad nasuem around here, I teach kindergarten in the inner city. The current method of “testing” for multiple intelligences appears to be having subjects complete interest inventory surveys as opposed to having subjects measure themselves against established questioning and/or responses. Surveying doesn’t seem particularly precise to me, especially at my grade level.
So: assuming there is something to identifying inclinations and aptitudes in these other ability areas in early childhood, how in the world do I test 5 and 6 year olds for their aptitude in these areas beyond observation? I’m not sure the best way to measure my own multiple intelligences… and I’m an adult! (Well, biologically.)
Here’s list of Gardner’s Multiple intelligences:
Linguistic intelligence (“word smart”):
Logical-mathematical intelligence (“number/reasoning smart”)
Spatial intelligence (“picture smart”)
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence (“body smart”)
Musical intelligence (“music smart”)
Interpersonal intelligence (“people smart”)
Intrapersonal intelligence (“self smart”)
Naturalist intelligence (“nature smart”)