The ongoing debate as to the nature of knowledge, where our many minds are and the scope of human intelligence has had a long, prosperous and sometimes trying history. Since the earliest of times, such viewpoints have become polarized, from those who hypothesize human intelligence as a unitary and singular general capacity, to others who advocate a more pluralistic model of our cerebral competencies. For most of the past (20th) century, the study of human intelligence was, in the main, focused on the former -- the adaptive use of a most general cognitive potential. This narrow traditional perspective of our many smarts meant that human intelligence could best be profiled via the mainstream (Jean) Piagetian model of solely logical-mathematical strengths.

My following commentary calls into question this unitary g-type outdated model of our many smarts and fosters, instead, a more pluralistic approach to cognitive capacities.  What follows then is my attempt to show that the psychological construct termed human intelligence is more than a single 'dip-stick' testing action, that is, a one-time pen-and paper timed measurement of our cerebral competences, so-to-speak, that so often slots individuals, and for the purposes of this discussion paper, school-aged girls and boys inaccurately.

To that end, I have divided this discussion paper into the following six (6) areas.

1. In Part I, I, once again, ask why the general intelligence factor, or, for short, the 'g' factor, continues to dominate intellectual assessment and pupil programming.  I do this by peeping back into my past (32) years as a classroom instructor and school administrator.  That is, I wonder how so many children were, and continue to be, incorrectly categorized as 'exceptional' students.
    

2. In Part II, I focus on a 1983 model of human intelligence as theorized by the Harvard University cognitive developmental psychologist, Howard Earl Gardner.  I continue to view his model of the mind as a partial answer to some of our educational situations.  Gardner's 'many kinds of minds' model continues to be used, cited, and referenced widely throughout many parts of the world.
    

3. In Part III, I introduce the reader to my theoretical interpretative schemata Smarter. Smarter postulates a successful teaching model by visualizing flashing diagonal line segments continuously intersecting an intellectual and affective continuum.
    

4. In Part IV, I examine two self- and other-estimate intelligence assessment tools directly connected to the schemata.  Both of these self-perceived assessment tools continue to be field tested by the author.
    

5. In Part V, I comment that this longitudinal investigation is ongoing and suggest some possible applications for this work.

6.  

7. In Part VI, the final section, I summarizes all of the above.  Throughout, I continuously argue against deficit classroom learning and foster instead, a more dynamic instructional format.

Over the past three decades, the 'g' factor has come into serious question.  There has been a surge of scientific research involving cerebral capacities, or human intellectual potential, especially within the field of developmental cognitive science.  Two such current cognitivists, Robert Jeffrey Sternberg, of Yale University, and Howard Earl Gardner of Harvard University, come to mind.  They continue to represent the two leading investigators in this field as they argue for a view of intellectual capabilities broader than assumed from scores on intelligence quotient (IQ) types of standardized tests.  Their research findings suggest that we have numerous forms of human intelligences in and around us.  In other words, they argue for an intelligent life "beyond g."  Since the early 1980's, both psychologists have critiqued seriously the notion of just a general intelligence, commonly referred to as simply 'g.'  Instead, they argue that our cerebral competencies, or cognitive capacities, are of an intelligence nature beyond the general dipstick ritual of simply sticking a timed verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical test in front of us.  By adopting Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences (MI) model, we might thus ask ourselves a second question: How might our more dominant and less dominant intelligent behaviours be viewed?  Smarter, my self-reflective MI tool was developed in partial response to that important question.

Schooling Our Intelligences

Many of our state-funded public, separate, and private schools continue to measure the intelligences of students using the notion that intelligence is essentially of a general nature.  This sad realization can be easily evidenced by taking a serious look into most of our community school classrooms.  Have you recently visited such a classroom and observed children learning only to realize that many of them appeared as 'intelligent' as those few formally identified by the school system's Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) as "intellectually gifted"?  If your response to that question was in the affirmative, then you may wish to read on, as this discussion comments on some of my former experiences as a classroom teacher, more precisely, how I gradually came to question some of the mainstream assessment and programming procedures of pupils.

For more than four decades -- I started teaching in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada,  in September of 1966 -- I was employed by numerous state-funded public Boards of Education in the Canadian province of Ontario.  Commencing in the mid-sixties, then the seventies, the eighties, and concluding in the late-nineties, I worked in numerous schools as a elementary school principal, an elementary, secondary, and university regular and special teacher, and education researcher.  Over this time, I gradually developed a theoretical hypothesis (see Figure 1) to respond to that above question.   Why did I do so?  My answer, during those four decades was ... and continues to be a simple one -- to try to make the place called school a better educational adventure for so many youngsters who, for whatever reason, simply did not appear to learn in the conventional way.  I guess that what I am trying to say is that I did not feel that mainstream schooling, for many students, was working -- students needed to find other ways to do daily reading, writing and arithmetic, or the conventional three R's.

For many of those years, I worked as a special education teacher.  My daily timetable involved assessing and programming special needs students.  Referred by their classroom teachers, they were, in the main, deemed to be either slow learners, hard-to-serve pupils, or learning disabled (LD) youngsters.  I gradually became extremely disturbed with the types of mainstream assessment instruments that I was forced to use to diagnose their learning potential.  More to that point, I did not agree with the diagnostic, achievement, and cognitive assessment instruments that I had to administer -- tests that were mainly timed, of a paper-and-pencil format, and scored according to some 'foreign' or outside norm.  I gradually came to interpret such conventional tests as outdated formalized or normalized or standardized instruments that, in the main, profiled students most negatively, usually as learning disabled (LD) youngsters, or as a "deficit" kind of learner.  Conversely, I gradually came to view these boys and girls as children who, more often than not, simply learned differently (LD).  They were not stupid students or dumb learners; they simply required alternative assessment and programming tools to highlight their other forms of intelligences.  To learn more about the intelligence theories of the time< decided to go back to school, study various cognitive psychologists.  For some time, I studied many theoretical orientations, finally settling with Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (see Morris, 1992a, 1992b, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, 1994a, 1994b, 1996, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 1997e, 1997f, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2001; Morris & Dionne, 1993a, 1993b; see especially Morris & LeBlanc, 1996).

Part II:  Howard Gardner's Theory of Many Intelligences

As already highlighted above, over the past three decades, there has been a surge of scientific research involving cerebral capacities, or human intellectual potential, especially within the field of developmental cognitive science.  Two psychologists, Robert Jeffrey Sternberg of Yale University and Howard Earl Gardner of Harvard University are the major contemporary figures in this field.  Both of them argue for a broader view of intellectual capabilities than assumed from scores on intelligence quotient (IQ) tests. Sternberg's triarchic theory of intelligence, while not the theme of this discussion, focuses on the nature of intelligence in everyday life; he views intelligence as a form of mental self management.  Gardner's multiple intelligences (MI) theory is especially significant for aspiring teachers because his MI model provides an understanding of the variety of talents that students might bring to the classroom, talents that may or may not be seen easily in the context of traditional school learning.  Both Gardner and Sternberg have made educators re-examine the important connection between intelligence and school learning.  By suggesting that we have numerous forms of human intelligences in and around us, they reinforce the common sense realization that these cognitive competencies can only be partially measured by the mainstream timed paper-and-pencil IQ-type of tests.  However, as is so true in life, common sense is not all that common!  Most current schooling systems continue to interpret intelligence as a singular item.

Before discussing the educational implications of Gardner's model of human intelligence, a few comments about his early life and current appointments.  He was born on July 11, 1943 and raised in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where he received his elementary and secondary school education.  He has been at Harvard University since graduating from high school.  He received his Bachelor of Arts summa cum laude from Harvard College, in 1965 (Harvard Website Short biography of Howard Gardner, 2001; Who's who in America 2001, p. 1830).  His 1971 Ph. D. thesis, The Development of Sensitivity to Figural and Stylistic Aspects of Painting, is also from Harvard University.  From 1971 until 1986, he lectured at Harvard University.  He is currently the John H. and Elisabeth A. Hobbs Professor in Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.  He is also an adjunct Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, and adjunct Professor of Neurology at the Boston University School of Medicine.  In addition, he holds research appointments at the Boston Veteran's Administration Medical Center and at the Boston University School of Medicine (Cohen, 1995; Nucci, 1997).  His writings have been highly influential throughout the world.  Since the early-seventies, he has written approximately 500 research articles and some 20 books.  Many of these books have been translated into other languages.  For example, his claim-to-fame (1983) book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences and reprinted numerous times, has thus far been translated into Chinese, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, and Spanish.  Frames has also been selected by five book clubs.  To this day, this book "is still [Gardner's] best-known and most influential book" (Eberstadt, 1999, p. 7).  In addition, he has been given honours (too numerous to list here) by numerous psychological and educational organizations throughout the world.

Frames stemmed from his research during the early 1970's into symbol-using capacities in gifted and normal children, and in adults who had experienced brain damage.  Through his efforts to bring these two areas of work together, he developed his theory of multiple types of human intelligences which he formally introduced in Frames. Drawing on research in neuropsychology, he proposed (at that time) that there were seven distinct types of individual intelligences, each based in a specific  area of the human brain.  Intelligence was here hypothesized not to be one general factor that underlay different abilities -- the predominant belief upon which most intelligence tests had been based.  At that time, Gardner truly believed that he was writing predominantly to enlighten mainstream psychologists, not, as it eventually turned out, to enlighten members of the educational community.  Throughout Frames. Gardner suggested a more encompassing approach to understanding intelligence.  As an aside, he deliberately used the word 'intelligence' due to its cachet.  In Frames, Gardner proposed a novel notion: that the psychological construct 'intelligence' should be viewed in wider ways than simply through the narrow analytical lenses of IQ-type formalized tests, tests so standardized for most societal systems today.  In short, Gardner questioned the classical belief that we could have only one 'mode of [mental] representation' about life; instead, he suggested that a more pluralistic viewpoint for measuring mental functioning ought to be addressed – a variety of intelligent ways of thinking.  Then, two years later, in 1985, he began his quest to reform state-funded public schooling.  He started to teach at the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 1986.  He was now the Co-Director of Harvard Project Zero, which he joined in the mid-1980s.  Project Zero continues to this (2003) date as a research group that studies human cognition, focusing on the arts in particular. Among other things, he and his colleagues have worked on designing performance-based tests and using the theory of multiple types of intelligence to create more individualized teaching and testing methods. Most recently, Gardner has become involved in carrying out long-term case studies of successful leaders and creators. One aspect of this work investigates the relationship between a person's production of exemplary work and his or her personal values.

Gardner's reconceptualizing of human intelligence proposes that the human brain is 'modular' and that we possess at least eight intelligences, or eight "frames of the mind."  Since the mainstream view of intelligence relies almost exclusively on the first two of his eight intelligences (i.e., verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical), Gardner's remaining six intelligences (spatial, bodily-kinaesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist) are seldom viewed, assessed and implemented. Over the past two decades, Gardner has argued forcefully against using a single IQ-type yardstick to measure one's intelligence and, instead, maps the distinctions between a much broader range of gifts, aptitudes, or skill.  His intelligences act in concert, with a certain domain or domains dominating that particular individual's cognitive profile.  More to the point, he saw no reason to call logical thinking an "intelligence" and musical ability, a "talent."  Instead, he believed that these abilities were equal.

Gardner's claim to fame rest on two strong points. His first claim is that we all possess all of these intelligences but in varying degrees of strength, skill and limitation.  His other claim is that just as we all look different and have unique personalities and temperaments, we also have different profiles of intelligences. In other words, no one kind of intelligence is better than another. Each intelligence has its own sphere of expertise. Thus, he views the intelligences as independent of each another.  Poets and writers tend to be strong in linguistic intelligence.  Similarly, dancers and athletes are likely to be strong in the bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence, and visual artists and chess players in the spatial intelligence.  On the other hand, the traditional straight-A student demonstrates a high degree of linguistic / verbal and logical / mathematical intelligence, the general form of intelligence or "g" intelligence supposedly measured predominantly by standardized intelligence quotient (IQ) tests and mainly considered by many current mainstream psychologists as the only intelligence. Gardner's definition of intelligence suggests a much broader view of cognitive functioning than do the general intelligence, or 'g' theorists.  His MI Theory is thus in sharp contrast to the mainstream intelligence construct as reflected by an individual's intelligence quotient, or IQ.  The IQ theory (Gardner's linguistic and logical / mathematical intelligences) assumes that our intellectual potential is a fixed, genetically determined trait, which can be measured early in life and determines an individual's potential. Until Gardner added his six intelligences to the mainstream cerebral pedestal, this 'dipstick' unitary 'g' model was perceived throughout most of the world as the intelligence norm.  If we have distinctly different kinds of minds, then it is inappropriate to measure all of us as if our minds are simply variations along a sole bell curve.  Now is the time for all of us to pay closer attention to what is special within our own minds as well as within the many kinds of minds of others over whom we have a degree of accountability.

After all these years (and believe me, it has been many), why do I continue to appreciate the Gardner MI model?  There are numerous reasons but, for here, it is mainly because Gardner's work suggests that it is not how smart you think that you are that really matters; what counts more is how you are smart. In other words, what do you think are your current intellectual strengths and current intellectual weaknesses?  Gardner suggests that our intelligences are organized 'vertically', that is, as a number of almost different domain specific cerebral faculties, rather than 'horizontally', as a set of general, or 'g' abilities (for a detailed commentary on this most important hypothesis, read carefully Torff & Gardner, 1999). This viewpoint is in direct contrast to many of the current language and logic theorists who continue to believe that there is only one kind of intelligence, that we either have a lot of it or not that much, and that there is virtually very little that we can do about this.  At the outset of his writings, that is, during the early seventies, the eighties, and most of the nineties, Gardner defined an intelligence as "the ability or set of abilities that allows a person to solve problems or to create products that are valued within one or more cultural settings." More recently, he has refined somewhat this definition.  He now defines 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 value in a culture."  His revised definition is important because it suggests that intelligences are not mere things that can be seen or counted.  Instead, Gardner views his intelligences as potentials – presumably, neural ones – that will or will not be activated, depending upon the values of a particular culture, the opportunities available in that culture, and the personal decisions made by individuals and/or their families, schoolteachers, and others.

My main question for the remainder of this second section then is: Can the more dominant and less dominant intelligence behaviours of classroom youngsters be formally identified?  Short of ongoing daily observations captured via video and subsequently systematically interpreted, I do not believe that there is an empirical way to do so.  More importantly, I do not feel that the multiple intelligences (MI) of school-aged students MUST be measured.  You must remember that it was NEVER Gardner's intention to have his MI formally assessed.  I believe that Gardner's overall goal for developing his MI model was to provide a cerebral mechanism for better UNDERSTANDING of various domain specific content knowledge bases.  Restated slightly differently, Gardner wants you, the classroom teacher and classroom student, to comprehend the process of understanding a concept that can, in turn, be used to solve similar contextual oriented problems.  His MI model simply represent different cerebral avenues, so-to-speak, or entry points, to these contents.

Even after bringing all of the above to the attention of numerous practicing classroom teachers, they continue to seek some assessment instrument that they can use to determine the intelligence profiles of their students.  To respond to such relevant queries, I answer with two self-reflective tools that purport to profile what students think are their more dominant and less dominant current intelligence behaviours.  As well, parents also wonder how specific subject matter may be presented in ways that may facilitate student's grasp of the concept.  They feel that learning information in more ways than through the simple language and logic lenses may be more interesting, enjoyable, and (hopefully) easier.  Parts III and IV represents my response.

Part III:  Thinking and Working Smarter not Harder

While (supposedly) retired, I continue to observe children as a part-time supply teacher.  I watch and note classroom activities and am able to 'see' within and around the many minds of these students.  That is, I am able to observe their various abilities, skills, talents, gifts, competencies, or to coin Gardner's term, their 'various modes of representations', or intelligences. More disturbing is the so sad realization that students often perceive themselves as either dumb or stupid and thus most unable to learn regular classroom subjects.  Many of their regular classroom teachers still 'see' them as such. Conversely, I now enjoy my role as a supply teacher much more.  Why?  Well, I now seem to be better able to see them as smart kids who often experience, receive, and perceive domain specific content knowledge in different modes, or other ways.  I saw them as smart or bright or intelligent children, intelligent in may possible ways.  This is a mindset that I will often present to their classroom teachers, the school principal, and, whenever possible, to their parents.  At times, I like to remind their parents that their children are smart students.  Of greater personal interest and satisfaction is the realization that often their regular classroom teachers and their parents agree with my viewpoint.

Moreover, I am especially interested in examining their overall learning potential.  This I was often able to do during the 1980s and 1990s; I would be asked to accompany the school principal, parents, and others within the educational arena to regular school board IPRC hearing.  There, the educational leaders of the day would stamp numerous classroom students as "exceptional" learners in the communicational grouping lapelled learning disabled (LD).  As an aside, and for those of you who may not be all that familiar with such special education jargon, an "exceptional pupil" is a student whose behavioural, communicational, intellectual, physical, or/and multiple exceptionalities are such that s/he is considered to need placement in a special education program and within a formal school setting.

An independent Educational Program (IEP) must then be tailored for that student with specific objectives stated in print to decrease his/her intellectual limitations.  An IEP is a special school program that is based on and modified by the results of continuous assessment and evaluation, including a plan containing specific objectives and an outline of educational services that meets the needs of the exceptional student. After such an IPRC hearing, I would be asked to tailor a specific educational package especially geared to the student's intellectual limitations.  In all of the aforementioned, minute attention would be given to the student's intellectual strengths.  In short, most students received the same dose of extra remedial work in the area of their deficiency. In the second part of this commentary, I outline how I attempted to change that negative way of schooling, with a more positive type of medicine.

As I continued to teach all types of learners, I gradually developed an alternative learning model for those who failed to master the basics in the conventional "eye-cue" way.  As depicted in the banner in Figure 1, I developed an alternative teaching and instructional model. The model contains the two necessary component of any learning model, theory and practice.  The one can not function properly without the other. In other words, meaningful classroom practice and sound educational theory are equally necessary for learning.  The banner is theoretical in that it is centered around the field of developmental cognitive science, a field of educational psychology that I have been studying since 1980.  The banner is pragmatic as it stems from my personal experiences over my previous 35 years as a school principal and special education and regular education teacher.  My overall intent in all of what immediately follows is to highlight a broader way of grasping true understanding and knowing for all learners, including learning disabled (LD) students ... those girls and (more often than not) boys whose LD simply means that they learn differently.

Affective and Intellectual Continuums

The banner is composed of two opposing yet complementary cerebral spectrums, or psychological dimensions.  The two dimensions are represented in the banner as two intersecting straight line segments, resulting in four learning quadrants.  For this discussion, only the contents within the upper right hand quadrant and the lower left hand quadrant are relevant and thus will be discussed.  Those banner labels typed in red hypothesize learners  "at risk." Similarly, all banner labels typed in green hypothesize learners "at promise." The terms "at risk" and "at promise" are not mine but borrowed from many of the writings of Howard Gardner (1983/1993, 1993, 1995, 1998c, 1999c, 1999d). As an aside, I deliberately programmed the banner to flash section after section, the intent being to visualize to you, the viewer, various psychological component of learning, and perhaps as important, to show how I interpret a current model of intelligence, namely the Gardner's MI model, specifically, his theorized intelligences as almost independent cognitive continuums ... possible potentialities for improving formalized schooling, overall learning and ultimately societal success.

I call the first and vertical spectrum (i.e., the y-axis) the "Affective Continuum"; it represents two affective psychological constructs, namely "Internal Locus-of-Control and High Self Efficacy" and "External Locus-of-Control and Low Self Efficacy." These two polar opposite psychological viewpoints focus more on the emotional nature of the learner, specifically, on two interrelated personality determinants, Julian Rotter's (1966, 1975) internal-external locus of control (LOC) and Alfred Bandura's (1977, 1982, 1986; see also Bandura, Adams & Beyer, 1977; Bandura, Adams, Hardy & Howells, 1980; Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Bandura & Simon, 1977) self-efficacy model. Likewise, the second and horizontal spectrum (i.e., the x-axis), intersecting the first (above) spectrum at right angles, is called an "Intellectual Continuum"; it is represented by the horizontal line segment with the red labels "IQ" and "Many Intelligences" as polar opposites.  This second psychological dimension is more cognitive, including the (much-discussed) nature--nature debate. This continuum represents an intelligence spectrum ranging from the mainstream unitary position of natural 'g', short for the conventional general model of intelligence as interpreted by IQ tests, to a broader nurturing model of cognition, an eclectic model depicting more than two intelligences, in short, eight mental modalities, distinct, semi-autonomous intelligences as posited by Gardner.  My interpretation of his eight independent intelligences are linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalist

FIGURE 1: Smarter Interpretative Schemata Copyright © 2003, 2010 by Clifford Morris

The above interpretative schemata postulates a successful learning model by showing eight flashing line segments continuously intersecting a horizontal (x-axis) intellectual continuum and a vertical (y-axis) affective continuum. Societal success is depicted in the upper right hand corner of the diagram whereby effective learning blends multiple intelligences with internal locus-of-control and high levels of self-efficacy. The eight flashing diagonal line segments represent Howard Gardner's eight intelligences. Terms located to the perimeter of the four learning quadrants suggest polar opposite learning processes. Adapted from Morris (1992b, p. 27) and based after Gardner (1983/1993, 1995, 1999e).

Based on my observations and experiences over the past 35 years, I now realize that the 'g' interpretation of intelligence has done a great deal of mischief by closing off opportunities and damaging the self-efficacy of millions of school aged youngsters.  As suggested by the red type, those stuck in this (cognitive) camp tends to "stop" real learning.  True subject comprehension and societal application, more often than not, is more negative in practice.  Many mainstream psychologists and educators utilize conventional special education procedures to hoard special education pupils into this negative quadrant, again most figuratively speaking.  In other words, true learning or real understanding seldom occurs here.  Contrary to the comment from the above student, life here can often be full of doom and gloom sometimes resulting in lifelong "scars" for the special needs individual in her / his ongoing learning journey.  I believe that such scars often remain with these learner forever.  In the final section of this commentary, I suggest using my two Smarter instruments as another way for profiling the cerebral competencies of such students.

Part IV:  Assessing Our Intelligences

In this section, I attempt to scratch the tip of an icy MI question ... a question that I am often asked during my MI talks.  The question tends to be worded something like this.  Is there a test out there to measure Gardner's intelligences?  Usually my answer goes somewhat like this.  First, I paraphrase Gardner's own personal philosophy on this relevant issue, that being that he never ever intended to develop a test to measure his intelligences model, that he was (and continues to be) more interested in developing additional avenues to learning content.  In other words, he wishes others, including classroom teachers, to ease their students into additional ways to grasp and comprehend any content under investigation.

Restated slightly differently and coming from one who has been following the philosophy of Mr. Gardner for almost 18 years,  I believe that Gardner's goal for developing MI was to provide a cerebral mechanism for better UNDERSTANDING of various domain specific content knowledge bases.  I think that Mr. Gardner wants you, the teachers, the parents and all students, to comprehend better the process of understanding a concept that can, in turn, be used to solve similar contextual-oriented problems.  His MI model of the human mind simply represent different cerebral avenues, so-to-speak, or entry points, to these various contents.  Gardner's feelings on the wider issue of formal testing is that we have become too much of a testing culture, that we have become, instead, a test-dominated society.  At this point in my response, I usually spend some time commenting about his views on timed paper-and-pen short-answer test, most specifically, his distrust with simply intelligence quotient (IQ) forms of standardized testing as the final say in assessing cerebral competencies.  I used the word 'simply', in the latter sentence, deliberately, to emphasize the important fact that Gardner has not discarded totally the need for formalized testing.  Indeed, the proverbial baby has not been thrown out with the bathwater!

At this juncture in my response, I usually spend some time on the whole issue of intellectual, diagnostic, and achievement testing, that there's an important place for classroom unit testing, some type of term examinations, testing-to-teach, teaching-to-test, et al.  Due to the mainstream dominance of IQ testing in our culture, I usually conclude my answer by commenting that while businesses such as the Educational Testing Services (ETS) continue to market formal tests, that Gardner is much more interested in getting educators to use his six additional intelligences as possible entry points into any subject matter.  Before moving on, here is one final comment on that assessment issue.  In spite of the above critique of using IQ tests solely to identify intelligence, I conclude most of my answers by defending those who have developed MI checklists et al.  Why do I do this?  It is because I believe that MI-oriented teachers, in order to tailor their lesson plans accordingly, first want to know something about the intellectual strengths and limitations of their students.  I sometimes prolong this final comment by stating that many teachers feel that a knowledge of student profiles are critical in order for them to tailor their daily lessons to the more preferred intelligences of their students.

Theoretically, such an approach ought to enable more students to learn easier.  Indeed, I have found this to be true as I continue my interest in education as a supply teacher.  Almost all types of students, especially those categorized by state-funded public schooling systems as 'difficult learners' or 'exceptional pupils' can be motivated to learn, can become positive pupils and productive class participants, if ... and this is important ... if  meaningful learning avenues to them can be constructed.  Today, this is a very difficult task to do, especially when class sizes are large, when educational resources are often absent and school finances are scarce, and classroom teachers are underpaid, overworked, and burdened with many bureaucratic procedures.  However, and yes there is intellectual light at the end of the tunnel, with care, professional dedication, and additional work on the part of teachers, the MI process can be completed.

The following two sections only begin to address that issue by commenting on two (2) Smarter self-assessment instruments, currently being field tested.  Both self-reflective instruments are similar to other subjective MI tools on the market today.  Note especially that these tools only try to INFER your many intelligences from descriptions of things that you enjoy and that you are good at.  They do not MEASURE your different intelligences.

Smarter Inventory

There are numerous MI inventories available today.  If you wish to explore some of them, simply complete an internet search containing the term "Multiple Intelligences Inventories".  That I have often done.  Due to space limitations, only four (4) of them will be mentioned here.  Dr. Charles Branton Shearer has the MIDAS and the University of Toronto has The MI Inventory.  Dr. Ellen Weber has The Intelligence Survey and I have Smarter, an acronym standing for successful minds are really the end result. Smarter, currently being field tested by the author, is composed of two parts.  Part I is called Smarter: A Many Intelligences Indicator and Part II is called Smarter Scenarios.  Throughout the inventory, users are asked to use a Likert-type scale to self-rate their current intellectual behaviours.  Throughout the scenarios, users are asked to read pairs of scenarios and to decide which scenario best represents them. Upon completion of both, users are able to gauge, informally, which form of intelligence behaviour is stronger or weaker.  Most users end up with a somewhat mixed three-pronged cognitive profile.  That is, their results usually suggest i) a more dominant list of intelligent-type behaviours, ii) some less dominant ones, and iii) a few so-so (shady) cerebral areas, scattered somewhere between the latter and the former.

Before commenting on the scenarios, a brief comment about attempting to pinpoint individual intelligent-types.  Many members of the non-scientific community slot themselves (and others) as either only intelligent in this domain, or within that category, or just intelligent in that area.  This cognitive exercise is meaningless as there is nothing to be gained in trying to label yourself, or someone else, as a logical-mathematical type, as an introspective-intrapersonal type, as a visual-spatial type, or as a bodily-kinaesthetic type, to name half of Gardner's intelligences.  Instead, I believe that a more meaningful way of describing an intelligence profile is to start believing that you might have within and around you a variety of broader forms of more dominant and less dominant intelligences.  To sum, the Smarter inventory scratches the tip of the much larger intelligences iceberg by INFERRING your more dominant and less intellectual behaviours, based on the Gardner MI model.  Such inferences are based solely from your best and true descriptions of your current activities that you enjoy doing and that you believe that you are good at.

Smarter Scenarios

There are four (4) ways to score each pair of scenarios (see the four horizontal rectangles in the top row of Box 1).  For example, users could begin to self-assess their intellectual behaviours by selecting  and reading scenarios 1 and 2 (see the horizontal rectangle in the upper left-hand corner of Box 1).  For this pair, a score of zero (0) points could be given to scenario 1 and scenario 2 would receive 3 points.  Similarly, and as shown in the next pair, the same user gave one (1) point to scenario 1 and two (2) points to scenario 3 (see the second horizontal rectangle).  Continuing in the same manner, the same user could next select scenarios 2 and 3.  S/he might allocates 2 points to scenario 2 and 1 point to scenario 3.  For the final example, the same user allocates to scenarios 1 and 4 three (3) points and zero (0) points, respectively.  These are the only scoring possibilities for the pairs.  The user continues the same procedure for the remaining 24 scenario pairs.  Throughout, it is important to base point allocation on the judgment of each scenario's relative importance to the user.  When all the pairs have been scored, the scores allocated to each scenario is totalled.  The three (3) scenarios with the highest score suggest a possible intelligence dominance.  The three scenarios with the lowest scores suggest possible areas of intelligence limitation.

S1 = 0 S2 = 3	S1 = 1 S3 = 2	S2 = 2 S3 = 1	S1 = 3 S4 = 0	S2 = _ S4 = _	S3 = _ S4 = _
S1 = _ S5 = _	S2 = _ S5 = _	S3 = _ S5 = _	S4 = _ S5 = _	S1 = _ S6 = _	S2 = _ S6 = _
S5 = _ S6 = _	S4 = _ S6 = _	S3 = _ S6 = _	S1 = _ S7 = _	S2 = _ S7 = _	S3 = _ S7 = _
S4 = _ S7 = _	S5 = _ S7 = _	S6 = _ S7 = _	S6 = _ S8 = _	S2 = _ S8 = _	S3 = _ S8 = _
	S4 = _ S8 = _	S5 = _ S8 = _	S1 = _ S8 = _	S7 = _ S8 = _

Box 1:  Scoring Card for the Smarter Scenarios

Part V:  Discussion

Both sections of this longitudinal investigation continue to be field tested by the author.  Initial results show promise that these instruments could become practical tool to assist in the ongoing struggle to measure Gardner's Multiple Intelligences.  The results generated from using the scores from the above two Smarter tools might be utilized to gather data in public school classrooms, in the wider workplace, or for that matter, within any learning environment, i.e., teaching students or training groups.  As to the latter possibility, these scenarios can be particularly helpful with groups of individuals that have developed some history, that is, groups of individuals who have spent a considerable amount of time interacting with each other, analyzing or solving cases, participating in simulations or other training exercises, etc.  In this kind of working situation, it is recommended that the group complete a Scenarios Profile together, using a particular member of the group as the subject and arriving at a consensus on each of the eight intelligences.  During follow-up discussions, the person whose intelligences was being examined should play a non-participant role.  That person should not ask any questions or attempt to clarify, justify, or explain the actions of others.  An appropriate response that person may make is "Could you tell me more about that?" or "I’d like to hear more on that point." Then, at the end of the group assessment, the person whose intelligences were being examined is given an opportunity to respond to the group discussion.  This process is repeated until every participant has had a turn to get feedback from the group.

If these scenarios are used to gather data in an organization, each organization member from whom (intelligences) perceptions would be desired should complete a separate Scenario Profile.  In this case, it is strongly suggested that the leaders do not collect the data themselves.  Instead, some third party who has the trust and confidence of all involved -- such as a representative from personnel or human resource management -- should administer the scenarios.  It also important to assure all of the participants that only generalized data will be shared with the leader, not the scores from any particular intelligence.  These suggestions are important because if leaders collect their own data, even if the Scenario Profiles are anonymous, there may be a tendency for some subjects to answer according to what they feel the leader wants to hear or do not want to hear. Thus, to establish a valid database, leaders may want to have their data gathered by a third party.  One of the shortcomings of most forced choice instruments is that they provide comparisons only between items or categories; they do not offer any perspective on the overall scope of the concepts under investigation. In other words, as a participant, you might score high or low on a certain intelligence when that intelligence is compared with each of the other seven intelligences, but no indication is given of how that intelligence score compares to the score another individual might give you.  For example, if your score on one of the eight intelligences is low in relation to the other seven intelligences, you may be relatively high on one intelligence when compared to how other individuals you know score you.  To correct this (possible) deficiency, the Scenario Profile compares you with other individuals who know you, in reference to each of the eight intelligences.

Part VI:  Summary and Conclusion

Those who evaluate success in our society often state that achievement, and for this commentary, scholastic achievement, is ineffective.  These same reviewers often conclude their writings by stating that efforts at improvements have ranged from altering how schooling is organized to changing teaching methods.  I would conclude such a review by stating that, basic to such change, is how classroom teachers and career trainers view the psychological construct termed 'intelligence.'  To bring this intelligence act closer to home, take a few minutes to "look at" your own children.  Are your daughters and sons intelligent in more ways than one?  That is, might they be intelligent in music, in sport, at playing chess, debating, or completing a computer science course, to name just a few?

As outlined throughout this paper, the most sensible approach to measuring these talents, skills, gifts, competencies, or to coin Gardner's term, 'intelligences', would be to recognize their multiplicity.  Many of us are unaware of our 'secret' or 'hidden' or 'dominant' intelligences.  Some of us might even perceive ourselves as intellectual washouts; we fail to realize that we could be, cerebrally-speaking, "at promise" in, at least one of the intelligence strands as surmised by Gardner.  Some of us have perhaps even become discouraged and withdrawn from being involved with activities that we are not all that good at.  Worse still, we could become aggressive and rebellious as we attempt to 'mask' our low self-efficacy, due, in part, to our ignorance of our true intelligences.

Perhaps the time is now ripe for all of us to take another look at the term intelligence, in particular Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Model of the human mind.  As stated throughout this commentary, I feel that the Gardner model represents an excellent starting point for such an investigation into our other talents, skills, or multiple intelligences.

Notes

¹ An earlier version of this discussion was published in the early 1990's when the author was a practicing elementary school regular classroom teacher (see Morris, 1992a, 1992b, 1993).  Now, some 12 years later, he present its contents to you again.  Save for some references, the main body of the text remains unchanged.  Another field of scientific inquiry that has virtually remained unchanged for the past century is how those who purport to educate continue to interpret school smarts as a single type of intelligence, based solely on a combination of mathematical and verbal ability.  This one-dimensional view gives rise to the commonly held definition of one's intelligence quotient (IQ).  According to this definition, all individuals are born with this general ability and it never change with age, training, or experience.  Restated in another and even more serious way, most current educators, be they practicing regular education classroom teachers, special education teachers, teachers of children who have been categorized as intellectually 'gifted', school principals, central office administrative staff, school board trustees, or well-intentioned parents, continue to view student smarts as a unitary static reality fixed at birth and (supposedly) well assessed by conventional (and outdated) standardized IQ tests.  In spite of ever increasing changes in society, most educators fail to understand intelligence as a dynamic ever growing reality that can be expanded in their adult and older adult lives, either within or outside the school building.  The Harvard University cognitive developmental scientist, Howard Gardner, terms them multiple intelligences (MI).  I foster his dynamic viewpoint -- our minds are many or multiple and that schooling, that is formal knowledge and leaning, ought to include the realization that we have numerous forms of intelligences within and all around us. In short, there continues to exist a wide gulf between what many believe what an intelligence is and what current cognitive developmental scientists theorize.  This commentary represents my ongoing 'battle call', so-to-speak, to decrease this serious void.

² In the 2nd Edition to his (2000) book Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, Thomas Armstrong has added a 14th chapter titled MI and Existential Intelligence (see Armstrong, 2000, pp. 127-131). He begins the chapter with "Howard Gardner has recently written about the possibility of a ninth intelligence -- the existential ... Gardner defines existential intelligence as a "concern with ultimate life issues" (p. 127, italic in original). To read my (short) review of Armstrong's Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom: 2nd Edition, in the June 2000 (Volume II, Number II) issue of the Multiple Intelligence newsletter (MI-News), click here.  On the same page, Armstrong continues by commenting that "Gardner explicitly states that he is not proposing here a spiritual, religious, or moral intelligence ....  Instead, [Gardner] is suggesting that any rendering of the spectrum of human intelligences should probably address humanity's long-standing efforts to come to grips with the ultimate questions of life: "Who are we?"  "What's it all about?"  "Why is there evil?"  "Where is humanity heading?"  Is there meaning in life?" and so forth" (p. 127, italic in original).  For a detailed comment on this possible ninth intelligence, the interested reader is referred to Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century (Gardner, 1999d, pp. 53-77; see also Gardner, 1998c, p. 21).

³ The author owes thanks to Willis C. Jacobs for the initial concept of forced-pair allocation.  In his 1992 doctoral dissertation, A Study to Explore the Bases of Power of School District Chief Executive Officers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Jacobs incorporated Hersey and Natemayer's (1979) Power Perception Profile: Perception of Self to provide information about the use of various types of power.  In their book, Hersey and Natemayer hypothesized that the self-perceived rating process may also be used to gather data in actual organizational settings or any learning environment, i.e., student or training groups.  For example, in professional learning groups such as corporate working environments and governmental agencies, I believe that forced-choice arrangements can be particularly helpful in groups that have developed some history – that is, they have spent a considerable amount of time interacting with each other, analyzing or solving cases, participating in simulations or other training exercises, etc.  In this situation, it is recommended that the group complete a scenario self-rating package together, using a particular member as the subject and arriving at a consensus on each of the eight intelligences. During each discussion, the person whose intelligences are being examined should play a non-participant role.  That person should not ask any questions or attempt to clarify, justify, or explain actions.  An appropriate response that person may make is "Could you tell me more about that?" or "I’d like to hear more on that point."  Then, at the end of the group’s assessment, the person whose eight intelligences were being examined is given an opportunity to respond to the group’s discussion.  This process is repeated until every participant has had a turn to get feedback from the group.  If the eight scenarios were used to gather data in an organization, each organization member from whom (intelligences) perceptions would be desired should complete a separate set of scenarios.  In this case, it is strongly suggested that the leaders do not collect the data themselves.  Instead, some third party who has the trust and confidence of all involved – such as a representative from personnel or human resource management – should administer the scenario.

In all of the above, it is important to assure all of the participants that only generalized data will be shared with the leader, not the scores from any particular instrument.  These suggestions are important because if leaders collect their own data, even if scenario profiles are anonymous, there may be a tendency for some subjects to answer according to what they feel the leader wants to hear or do not want to hear.  Thus, to establish a valid database, leaders may want to have their data gathered by a third party.  One of the shortcomings of most forced-choice qualitative research instruments is that they provide comparisons only between items or categories but do not offer any perspective on the overall scope of the concepts under investigation.  In other words, as a participant, you might score high or low on a certain intelligence when that intelligence is compared with each of the other seven intelligences, but no indication is given of how that intelligence score compares to the score another individual might receive you.  For example, if your score on one of the eight intelligences is low in relation to the other seven intelligences, you may be relatively high on one intelligence when compared to how other individuals you know score you.  To correct this deficiency, the scenarios compare you with other individuals who know you, in reference to each of the eight intelligences.

References

Armstrong, T.  (1987).  In their own way: Discovering and encouraging your child's personal learning style.  New York: St. Martin's Press.

Armstrong, T.  (1988, September).  Learning Differences -- Not Disabilities.  Principal, 68(1), 34-36.

Armstrong, T.  (1993). Seven Kinds of Smart: Identifying and Developing Your Many Intelligences.  New York: Penguin Group.

Armstrong, T.  (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom: 2nd Edition.  Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Bandura, Albert  (1977). Towards a unifying theory of behaviours change.  Psychological Review, 84, 1999-215.

Bandura, A. (1982).  Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.  American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986).  Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J.  (1977).  Cognitive processes mediating behavioural change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 125-139.

Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N. (1980). Tests of the generality of self-efficacy theory.  Cognitive Theory and Research, 4, 39-66.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981).  Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.

Bandura, A., & Simon, K. M. (1977).  The role of proximal intentions in self regulation of refractory behavior.  Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 177-193.

Carroll, J. B.  (1982). The measurement of intelligence.  In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 29-120).  New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ceci, S. J.  (1990). Framing intellectual assessment in terms of a person-process-context model.  Educational Psychologist, 25(3 & 4), 269-291.

Chabris, Christopher, F. & Critics  (1998a, November). Does IQ matter? Commentary, 106(5), 13-23.

Chabris, Christopher, F.  (1998b, August).  IQ since 'The Bell Curve', Commentary, 106(2), 33-40.

Cohen, D. (1995)  Howard Gardner. In Psychologists on Psychology, 2nd Ed. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 97-105.

Das, J. P.  (1992, April-June). Beyond a unidimensional scale of merit.  Intelligence, 16(2), 137-149.

Davidson, J. E.  (1990). Intelligence recreated.  Educational Psychologist, 25(3 & 4), 337-354.

Ebserstadt, Mary (1999, October & November). The schools they deserve: Howard Gardner and the remaking of elite education. Policy Review, 97, 3-17. To read Gardner's response to her article, click here.

Eysenck, H. J.  (1981). The intelligence controversy.  New York: John Wiley.

Fodor, J.  (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology.  Cambridge: MIT Press.

Fodor, J. A.  (1985, March). Précis of the modularity of mind.  Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(1), 1-42.

Freeman, F. (1950).  Theory and Practice of Psychological Testing. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Gardner, H.  (1982, September). Giftedness: Speculations from a biological perspective.  New Directions for Child Development, 17, 47-60.

Gardner, H.  (1983, 1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.  New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H,  (1987, May). Beyond the IQ: Education and human development.  Harvard Education Review, 57(2), 187-193.

Gardner, H.  (1990, Spring). The difficulties of school: Probable causes, probable cures.  Dćdalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.  119(2), 85-113.

Gardner, H.  (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice.  New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H.  (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages.  Phi Delta Kappa, 77(3), 200-209.

Gardner, H. (1997a). Developmental Views of Multiple Intelligence [sic]. In G. 0. Mazur (Ed.), Twenty year commemoration to the life of A. R. Luria (1902-1977) (61-79). New York: Semenenko Foundation.

Gardner, H. (1997b). Extraordinary Minds: Portraits of 4 exceptional individuals and an examination of our own extraordinariness. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1997c). Is musical intelligence special? In V. Brummen (Ed.), Ithaca Conference 96: Music as Intelligence. A Sourcebook. Ithaca, NY: Ithaca College. Based on a conference keynote, September 1996.

Gardner, Howard.  (1997d, Sept.).  Multiple Intelligences as a partner in school improvement  [Special Issue].  Educational Leadership, 55(1), 20-21.

Gardner, H. (1998a, March 19). An intelligent way. (London) Independent, Education Supplement, pp. 4, 5 [A response to John White, Do Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Add Up? London: Inst. of Education University of London, 1998].

Gardner, H.  (1998b, March 19).  An intelligent way to progress, Independent, pp E4-E5.

Gardner, Howard  (1998c, Winter).  A multiplicity of intelligences.  [Special Issue].  Scientific American, 9(4), 18-23.

"That tests cannot capture all of a person's skills in a neat number is an important crux of the article by Howard Gardner. In 'A Multiplicity of Intelligences', he espouses his view, developed in part after working with artists and musicians who had suffered strokes, that human intelligence is best thought of as consisting of several components, perhaps as many as nine. Components such as spatial and bodily-kinesthetic, embodied by, say, architect Frank Lloyd Wright and hockey player Wayne Gretzky, elude test measures. Gardner's classifications are not arbitrary; he draws from evolution, brain function, developmental biology and other disciplines.

Gardner has been quite influential in education circles, where his theory is often required study for teachers-to-be. He feels, however, that some of his ideas are being misinterpreted. He mentions Daniel Goleman's best-seller, Emotional Intelligence, the central concept of which is based on multiple intelligences theory. Gardner maintains that the theory should not be used to create a value system, as suggested in Goleman's book. People with high emotional quotients aren't necessarily well adjusted and kind to others -- think Hannibal Lecter (Yam, 1998, p.7).

Yam, Philip  (Ed.).  (1998, Winter).  Intelligence considered  [Special Issue]. Scientific American, 9(4),  6-11."

Gardner, H.  (1998d, Nov. 5).  Do parents count?  [Review of The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do by Judith Rich Harris with a foreword by Steven Pinker.  Simon and Schuster, 462 pages].  The New York Review of Books, 45(17),  pp. 19-22.

Gardner, H.  (1998e). Extraordinary cognitive achievements: A symbols systems approach. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th ed. vol. 1: Theoretical Models of Human Development (415-466). New York: Wiley.

Gardner, H.  (1998f, November 9). Letter to the Editor in Reply to Collins  "Seven Kinds of Smart" (Oct. 19,1998). Time.

Gardner, H.  (1999a, January 25).  A prescription for peace. Time, 153(3), pp. 44-45.

Gardner, H.  (1999b). Are there additional intelligences? The case for naturalist, spiritual, and existential intelligences.  In J. Kane (Ed.), Education. Information and Transformation (111-131). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Reprinted: Gifted Education Press Quarterly. 11(2), Spring 1997, pp. 2-5.  Another detailed review of this same book has recently been published in the Volume 9, Number 3 issue of Gifted Education News, published by Gifted Education Press, 10201 Yuma Court, P.O. Box 1586, Manassas, VA, 20108; (703) 369-5017.  The URL for Gifted Education Press is: http://www.giftedpress.com

Gardner, H. (1999c).  The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon & Schuster.  To read the first chapter, click here, and to read two reviews of the book, click here and here.

Gardner, H. (1999d).  Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.  As the editor of 'The MI-News', a quarterly electronic newsletter publication dealing with Howard Gardner's MI model, I have included there three excerpted sections of Intelligence reframed. First, to read Deeper into Multiple Intelligences: MI Theory as a Tool, click here.  Second, to read Individually Configured Education: The Key Educational Imperative of Multiple Intelligences, click here.  To read Encouraging Performances of Understanding, click here.  Another review of this book has been published in the Volume 9, Number 3 issue of Gifted Education News, published by Gifted Education Press, 10201 Yuma Court, P.O. Box 1586, Manassas, VA, 20108; (703) 369-5017. Their URL is: http://www.giftedpress.com

Gardner, H. (1999e, February). Who owns intelligence? Atlantic Monthly, 283(2), 67-76.

Gardner, H., & Hatch, T.  (1990, March).  Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences.  Technical Report No. 4.  (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 324 366)

Gardner, H., Krechevsky, M., Sternberg, R. J., & Okagaki, L. (1994). Intelligence in context: Enhancing students' practical intelligences for school.  In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice.  (pp. 105-127).  Cambridge: Bradford Books/MIT Press.

Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M. L., & Wake, W. K.  (1996). Intelligence: Multiple Perspectives.  Orlando, FL:  Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Gould, S. J.  (1981). The mismeasure of man.  New York: W.  W.  Norton.

Gould, S. J.  (1996). The mismeasure of man. Revised and Expanded.  New York: W.  W.  Norton.

Griffith, Sally, Cardoza.  (1999).  Multiple Intelligences: Teaching kids the way they learn  Grade 1,  Torrance, CA: Frank Schaffer Publications, Inc.

Hall, M. C.  (1999).  Multiple Intelligences: Teaching kids the way they learn  Grade 4,  Torrance, CA: Frank Schaffer Publications, Inc.

Harvard Website. Short biography of Howard Gardner http://www.pz.harvard.edu/Pls/HG.htm

Hersey, P. & Natemeyer, W.  (1979).  Power perception profile-perception of other.  Escondido, CA: Centre for Leadership Studies.

Hoffman, Barbara, G, & Thoman, Kim.  (1999).  Multiple Intelligences: Teaching kids the way they learn  Grade 3,  Torrance, CA: Frank Schaffer Publications, Inc.

Horne, J. L.  (1979). Trends in the measurement of intelligence.  Intelligence, 3, 229-240.

Howard, V. A.  (Ed.).  (1990).  Varieties of thinking: Essays from Harvard's Philosophy of Education Research Center.  New York: Routledge.

Hunt, Earl  (1990). A modern arsenal for mental assessment.  Educational Psychologist, 25(3 & 4), 223-241.

Hunt, Earl  (1995, July-August). The role of intelligences in modern society.  American Scientist.

Jacobs, W. A. (1992).  A study to explore the bases of power of school district chief executive officers in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

Jensen, A. R.  (1982). The chronometry of intelligence.  In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1).  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Morris, C.  (1992a, Sept./Oct.).  Gardner's multiple intelligences in our classrooms: Our students are smarter than we think: Part I  Teaching Today, 11(1), 25-26.

Morris, C.  (1999c, Sept.).  Pictures of Our Minds [Review of Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century].

Rotter, J. B.  (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external locus of control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(609), 1-28.

Rotter, J. B.  (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external locus of reinforcement.  Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,  43(1), 56-57.

Steele, Anne, L.  (1999).  Multiple Intelligences: Teaching kids the way they learn  Grade 2,  Torrance, CA: Frank Schaffer Publications, Inc.

Sternberg, R. Jeffrey.  (1979).  Six authors in search of a character: A play about intelligence tests in the year 2000.  Intelligence, 3, 283-293.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985a).  Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J.  (1985b, December).  Human intelligence: The model is the message.  Science, 230, 1111-1118.

Sternberg, R. J.  (1986a, February).  Identifying of the gifted through IQ: Why a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Roeper Review, 8(3), 143-147.

Sternberg, R. J.  (1986b, March-April).  Inside intelligence.  American Scientist, 74(2), (137-143).

Sternberg, R. J.  (1991).  Death, taxes, and bad intelligence tests.  Intelligence, 15(3), 257-270.

Sternberg, Robert, J.   (1998, Winter).  How intelligent is intelligence testing?  [Special Issue].  Scientific American, 9(4). 12-17.

Sternberg, R. J., & Salter, W., (1982).  Conceptions of intelligence.  In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),  Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 3-28).  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Smith, E. E., (Eds.).  (1988).  The psychology of human thought.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Torff, Bruce & Gardner, Howard. (1999).  The vertical mind -- the case for multiple intelligences.  In Mike Anderson (Ed.) et al. The development of intelligence. Studies in developmental psychology (pp. 139-159). Hove, England, UK: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

In this chapter, the three authors examine how our mind is set up to handle diverse tasks and whether it does so through a single, centralized system (the horizontal theory) or a set of separate cognitive mechanisms geared to particular kinds of information or tasks (the vertical theory).  They, then outline and argue for a vertical approach, that is, both authors foster Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences.  In the concluding pages of the chapter, Torff and Gardner summarize The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI).  Finally, they compare MI theory to other verticality faculty theories.  For anyone wishing to truly comprehend Gardner's theory, this is a must-read chapter.

Yam, Philip  (Ed.).  (1998, Winter). [Special Issue].  Scientific American, 9(4),  6-11.

Revised on Monday, 18 July, 2011