The Multiple
Intelligences News "MI-News"
Spring
2002 Edition, Volume 4, Number 1
Approximately 3,200 subscribers
Back Issues
1(1) |
1(2) |
1(3)
| 1(4)
| 1(5)
| 1(6)
| 1(7)
|
1(8) |
1(9) |
2(1)
|
2(2) |
2(3)
|
2(4) | 3(1)
| 3(2)
| 3(2)
|
3(4)
|
4(1)
Publisher: Branton Shearer:
sbranton@kent.edu
Editor: Clifford Morris:
cmorris@igs.net
Web site editor: Clifford Morris:
cmorris@igs.net
Technical administrator: Larry Wilson:
lwilson@xc.org
Table of Contents
1. Introduction by Clifford Morris
2. A Construct Validation of the MIDAS Scale in Malaysia by Suan Yoong
3. Reflections on 9.11.01 on 3.11.02 by Branton Shearer
4. Gender Differences in Estimates of Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences by Clifford Morris
5. For Your Many Intelligences Only by Clifford Morris
1. Introduction by Clifford Morris
If you are a first time visitor, thanks for clicking here and welcome to this first (of four) editions of the MI newsletter for the 2002 year. To see previous issues of the MI-News, click here.
The MI-News is published and provided free by Branton Shearer's Multiple Intelligences (MI) Research and Consulting. The main objective in publishing this newsletter is to provide you with some theoretical and practical information about the Howard Gardner model of multiple intelligences and, perhaps more importantly, how this model of the human mind is currently being implemented elsewhere. The newsletter attempts to explore MI applications via discussion, contact and sharing. Thus, if you have interesting MI ideas, tried-and-tested MI-based lesson plans, or practical MI suggestions that you feel our readership would enjoy reading and using, please e-mail the newsletter's editor, Clifford Morris, with your comments.
2. A Construct Validation of the MIDAS Scale in Malaysia by Suan Yoong
In this section, we comment on another and recent study involving the MIDAS. The following paper was presented at the International Conference on Measurement and Evaluation in Education (ICMEE 2000), November 11-13, 2001, Penang, Malaysia. And, as stated in the Discussions and Implications section below, this research investigation was a preliminary pilot study; the research findings are ongoing. Additional results may be published in a forthcoming edition of this newsletter.
Abstract: The Multiple Intelligences Development Assessment Scales (MIDAS), designed by Branton Shearer (1994), provides an objective measure of the multiple intelligences as reported by the person or by a knowledgeable informant based on the theory of multiple intelligences as described by Gardner (1983). The MIDAS questionnaire attempts to provide a reasonable estimate of the person’s intellectual disposition in each of the eight MI constructs: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, naturalist, interpersonal and intrapersonal. MIDAS examines how the person uses his/her abilities in an array of meaningful, real world activities through self-report or assessment by a knowledgeable informant. Throughout, respondents are asked to assess the frequency or duration of time one participates in a particular activity, or asked for a realistic evaluation of their performance or displayed enthusiasm on that activity. Each item uses a tailored-made 5-point Likert-type scale that permit a range of responses. MIDAS was developed and validated using factor analysis; it was shown to possess high reliability measures. This study proposed to validate MIDAS in the multi-cultural Malaysian context. MIDAS was translated into Bahasa Malaysia and content-validated via back-translation procedure. However, some of the content had to be altered without loosing its original intent to fit the local context. MIDAS was administered to 324 Form 4 students from 10 schools in the northern region of Malaysia. The students were of varied abilities: 40% were in the science stream, 70% were girls, and 55% were ethnic Malays. Preliminary findings reveal promising validation for seven of the eight MI constructs. A linear factor analysis extracted 27 factors (with eigenvalue > 1.00), which accounted for 91% of the variance. The first (dominant) general factor that accounted for 33% of the variance had high factor loadings on linguistic and interpersonal items. The second factor, accounting for 7% of the variance had high factor loadings on logical-mathematical and spatial items. Factor 4 had high loadings in musical items, and Factor 8 has high loadings in naturalist items. Kinesthetic items were not loaded predominantly in any of the factors. The 7 sub-scales subsequently derived from the respective high factor loading items were found to have high reliabilities (Cronbach Alpha), between 0.75 to 0.90.
Keywords: Multiple Intelligences, Construct Validation--------
Howard Gardner’s (1983) Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) sparked a revolution in classroom worldwide, challenging the long held notion that human beings have a single, fixed general intelligence. Since then, countless educators have embraced the idea of multiple intelligences in curriculum planning, assessment and research (Armstrong, 1994a; 1994b; Campbell, 1994; Campbell, Campbell & Dickinson, 1996; Silver, Strong & Perini, 1997). Gardner (1983) defined intelligence as “an ability to solve problems, or to create products, that are valued within one or more cultural settings” (p. x). This definition not only emphasizes the creative, practical and hypothetical-abstract aspects of a person’s intellectual abilities but acknowledges the importance of contextual influences that contribute to the recognition, activation and development of a person’s skills. Gardner defines his eight intelligences as:
Linguistic, the capacity to use language, your native language, and perhaps other language, to express what’s on your mind and to understand
Logical-mathematical, the capacity to understand the underlying principles of some kind of a causal system, the way a scientist or logician does; or can manipulate numbers, quantities, operations, the way a mathematician does
Spatial, the ability to represent the spatial world internally in the mind, e.g., the way a sailor or an airplane pilot navigates the large spatial world, or the way a sculptor represents the circumscribed world; spatial intelligence can be used in the arts (painting, sculpture, architecture) or in the science (anatomy, topology)
Kinesthetic, the capacity to use the body parts (hands, fingers, arms, etc.) to solve a problem, make something, or put on some kind of a production (e.g. athletics, dance or acting)
Musical, the ability to perceive and create pitch and rhythm patterns
Interpersonal, the ability to understand other people
Intrapersonal, the ability to understand yourself and develop a sense of your own identity
Naturalist, knowledge of the human ability to discriminate among living things (plants, animals) as well as sensitivity to other features of the natural world (cloud, rock configuration, etc.)
Although assessment tools have been developed to self-estimate one's MI, critics have lamented that such attempts tend to measure skills under controlled and decontextualized conditions. For this reason, Shearer (1994) designed the Multiple Intelligences Development Assessment Scales (MIDAS) to provide an objective measure of the multiple intelligences as reported by the person or by a knowledgeable informant based on the theory of multiple intelligences as described by Gardner (1983, 1993). MIDAS casts a broader net and examines how one uses her / his abilities in an array of meaningful, real-world activities. MIDAS has been used widely in the USA and in Asia (to read all of the MI issues, go to http://www.angelfire.com/oh/themidas/mi_news_newsletters.html . Shearer also maintains a website, at http://www.miresearch.org , to disseminate the MIDAS.
This study proposed to validate MIDAS in the multicultural Malaysian context and to develop a localized scale for use with Malaysian population.
Method
Instrument
The MIDAS examines how one uses his/her abilities in an array of meaningful, real world activities through self-report or assessment by a knowledgeable informant. The MIDAS items ask the respondent to assess the frequency or duration of time the person participates in a particular activity, or ask for a realistic evaluation of the person’s performance or his/her displayed enthusiasm on that activity. There are 119 items in the MIDAS. Each item uses a tailored-made 5-point Likert-type scale that permit a range of responses. Although six (6) responses were given, the category F ("I don’t know or does not apply") is treated as missing data in the analysis.
Sample items include:
Musical
1. As a child, did you have a
strong liking for music or music classes?
A=A little B=Sometimes C=Usually D=Often E=All the time F=I don’t know
2. Did you ever learn to play an
instrument?
A=No B=A little C=Fair D=Good E=Excellent F=I don’t know
Kinesthetic
15. In school, did you generally
enjoy sports or gym class more than other school classes?
A=Not at all B=A little C=about the
same D=Enjoyed sports more E= Enjoyed sports much more
F=I don’t know
16. As a teenager, how often did
you play sports or other physical activities?
A=Every once in a while
B=Sometimes C=Often D=Almost always E=All
the time F=I don’t know or does not apply
Logical-Mathematical
28. As a child, did you easily
learn mathematics such as addition, multiplication and fractions?
A=Not at all B=It was fairly
hard C=Pretty easy D=Very easy E=
Learned much quicker than others F=I don’t know
36. How are you at figuring numbers
in your head?
A=Not at all B=Fair C=Good
D=Very good E=Superior F=I don’t know
Spatial
49. Are you good at finding yourself around new buildings or
city streets
A=Not at all B=Fairly good
C=Good D=Very Good E= Excellent F=I
don’t know or does not apply
52. How easily can you put things
together like toys, puzzles, or electronic equipment?
A=Not at all B=It was hard C=It
was fairly easy D=It was easy E=It was very easy
F=I don’t know
Linguistic
62. Do you use colorful words or phrases when talking
A=No B= Rarely C=Sometimes
D=Often E=All the time F=I don’t know
64. Are you a convincing speaker?
A=Not at all B=Every once in a while
C=Sometimes D=Often E= Almost All the time
F=I don’t know
Interpersonal
81. Are you good at making peace at
home, at work or among friends?
A=Fair B=Pretty Good C=Good
D=Very Good E=Excellent F=I don’t know
86. Do you usually know how to make
people feel comfortable and at ease?
A=Every once in a while B=Sometimes
C=Usually D=Almost always E=Always F=I don’t
know
Intrapersonal
98. Do you have a clear sense of
who you are and what you want out of life?
A=Very little B=A little C=Usually
D=Most of the time E=Almost all the time F=I don’t know
99. Are you aware of your feelings and able to control your moods
A=Every once in a while B=Sometimes C=Most of the time D=Almost all the time E=Always F=I don’t know
Naturalist
107. Have you ever raised pets or
other animals?
A=Never or rarely B=Every once in
a while C= Sometimes D=Often E=All the time F=I don’t know
112. Are you good at recognizing
breeds of pets or kinds of animal?
A=Not at all B= A little C=Somewhat
D=Quite Good E=Very Good F=I don’t know
The MIDAS was developed and validated using factor analysis and other techniques and was shown to possess high reliability, with Cronbach alphas measures mostly above 0.80 (Shearer, 1994).
Translation and Back-Translation
The MIDAS was translated into Bahasa Malaysia and content-validated via back-translation procedure to establish close semantic resemblance. However, the most critical problem faced in the translation process was to identify suitable Bahasa Malaysia equivalents that reflected the degree of differences in the range of responses as reflected in the Likert scale values. Nonetheless, this problem was, hopefully, overcome by brainstorming session involving a group of Malay undergraduates who participated in the pilot study. Seven items were dropped because the contexts were irrelevant to Malaysia. Moreover, the contents of some of the items had to be altered, such as using local examples, to fit the local context without loosing its original intent.
The resultant Bahasa Malaysia version of MIDAS (to be referred to as MIDAS-BM) contained 112 items. However, back translation did not ensure construct validity as many concepts either had no equivalent in another language or were difficult to translate without creating ambiguity. To address cultural and sub-cultural validity issues, a pilot study was conducted.
Procedure
The MIDAS-BM was administered to 324 Form Four (4) students from 10 schools in the northern region of Malaysia. Ten graduate students who participated in this study administered the instrument to the Form 4 students in one class sitting of 40 minutes, following standard procedure. The Form 4 students were of varied abilities, gender and ethnicity: 40% were in the science stream, 70% were girls, and 55% were ethnic Malays. The number of Indian students was, however, small.
Results
The data was factor-analyzed using SPSS for Window Version 10.1. Preliminary results revealed promising validation for seven of the eight MI constructs. A linear factor analysis procedure extracted 27 factors (with eigenvalue > 1.00), which accounted for 91% of the variance (see Table 1).
The dominant factor 1 is a general factor that alone accounted for 33% of the variance. It had high factor loadings on linguistic, interpersonal, and, to some extent, intrapersonal items (see Table 2). Factor 2, accounting for approximately 7% of the variance, had high factor loadings on the logical-mathematical and on the spatial items. Factor 3 (which accounted for 6% of the variance) and to a lesser extent, factor 5 (which accounted for 4% of the variance) were predominantly loaded with linguistic items. Two other prominent factors that were discernable included factor 4 with high loadings on the intrapersonal and on the naturalist items, and factor 8 with high loadings on the musical items (each factor accounted for approximately 3-4% of the variance). The remaining factors did not display any predominantly clear-cut factor loadings (vis-à-vis the original MI dimensions), and thus were not displayed. It should be noted here that the kinesthetic items were not loaded predominantly in any of the factors.
Table 1: Results of Factor Analysis (Total Variance Explained)
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis and Varimax Rotation.
Factor
Eigenvalues
% of Variance
Cumulative %
1 33.385
29.81
29.81
2 7.033
6.28
36.09
3 5.796
5.18
41.26
4 4.965
4.43
45.70
5 4.057
3.62
49.32
6 3.837
3.43
52.74
7 3.549
3.17
55.91
8 3.147
2.81
58.72
9 2.969
2.65
61.37
10 2.883
2.57
63.95
11 2.763
2.47
66.42
12 2.571
2.30
68.71
13 2.540
2.27
70.98
14 2.159
1.93
72.91
15 2.035
1.81
74.72
16 1.894
1.69
76.41
17 1.833
1.64
78.05
18 1.764
1.58
79.63
19 1.691
1.51
81.14
20 1.574
1.41
82.54
21 1.502
1.34
83.89
22 1.430
1.28
85.16
23 1.395
1.25
86.40
24 1.291
1.15
87.56
25 1.199
1.07
88.63
26 1.080
.965
89.592
27 1.026
.917
90.509
Table 2: Factors Loading for first Eight Prominent Factors
Item
Fac 1
Item
Fac 2
Item
Fac 3
Item
Fac 4
Item
Fac 5
Item
Fac 6
Item
Fac 7
Item
Fac 8
s009
.375
s008
.392
s031
.572
s040
.403
s007
.360
s013
.328
s014
.370
s001
.853
s012
.359
s018
.352
s034
.393
s069
.432
s012
.309
s024
.886
s028
.345
s002
.609
s016
.320
s023
.627
s041
.318
s070
.339
s013
.370
s029
.339
s032
.397
s008
.313
s019
.353
s026
.568
s052
.384
s080
.439
s019
.301
s032
.384
s036
.857
s010
.436
s020
.407
s028
.459
s060
.300
s098
.436
s025
.745
s033
.311
s037
.736
s011
.325
s049
.488
s029
.502
s061
.308
s099
.502
s051
.356
s044
.631
s038
.386
s012
.415
s056
.406
s030
.382
s062
.540
s101
.415
s052
.300
s046
.580
s061
.401
s013
.303
s062
.355
s038
.508
s064
.334
s102
.457
s061
.371
s050
.312
s065
.379
s018
.583
s067
.452
s040
.311
s065
.484
s103
.537
s063
.449
s051
.598
s066
.353
s079
.408
s068
.373
s042
.618
s068
.466
s105
.414
s064
.360
s057
.494
s083
.342
s069
.387
s044
.443
s069
.446
s107
.807
s066
.316
s086
.303
s092
.370
s070
.331
s045
.443
s072
.311
s108
.878
s067
.325
s098
.307
s071
.397
s046
.444
s074
.398
s109
.406
s070
.305
s115
-.365
s072
.446
s047
.684
s075
.604
s111
.598
s071
.449
s074
.440
s052
.337
s076
.676
s112
.653
s072
.515
s077
.412
s053
.769
s077
.472
s113
.475
s073
.801
s079
.495
s054
.519
s078
.676
s114
.385
s082
.475
s080
.325
s055
.844
s079
.466
s115
.372
s109
.346
s081
.585
s056
.558
s082
.435
s116
.342
s118
.475
s082
.340
s058
.651
s088
.308
s118
.307
s083
.500
s059
.845
s089
.428
s119
.369
s084
.610
s063
.469
s096
.731
s085
.818
s074
.315
s097
.301
s086
.665
s090
.381
s106
.482
s087
.612
s091
.301
s114
.334
s088
.756
s097
.323
s116
.344
s089
.304
s099
.336
s090
.372
s118
.395
s091
.505
s092
.416
Key:
s094
.465
Musical
Items s001 – s014
s095
.527
Kinesthetic
Items s015 – s027
s097
.712
Math/Logic
Items s028 – s044
s100
.422
Spatial
Items s045 – s059
s101
.354
Linguistic
Items s060 – s079
s103
.322
Interpersonal
Items s080 – s097
s105
.346
Intrapersonal
Items s098 – s106
s106
.308
Naturalist
Items s107 – s119
s110
.564
s114
.408
Seven MI scales were derived from items loaded highly on the appropriate dimensions in Factors 1, 2, 4 and 8. These factors were subjected to scale reliability analysis. The results (see Table 3) show that the modified MIDAS-BM scales had relatively high reliabilities, with alpha coefficients varying from 0.75 to 0.90. The inter-correlations among the sub-scales are mostly low to medium, except in the case of linguistic, interpersonal and intrapersonal subscales where their inter-correlations are slightly on the high side (see Table 4). The result is consistent with the observation that items from these three sub-scales have high factor loading the first dominant factor.
Table 3: Reliabilities of Modified MIDAS-BM
Sub-scale
N of Items
Cronbach Alpha
Music
7
0.77
Mathematics
7
0.75
Spatial
8
0.83
Linguistic
9
0.78
Interpersonal
16
0.90
Intrapersonal
6
0.80
Naturalist
10
0.84
MIDAS-BM (Overall)
63
0.94
Table 4: Inter-correlations among the MIDAS-BM subscales
Musical
Math-Logic
Spatial
Linguistic
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Math-Logic
.315
Spatial
.431
.436
Linguistic
.481
.380
.471
Interpersonal
.554
.481
.492
.729
Intrapersonal
.364
.410
.424
.601
.603
Natural
.325
.354
.492
.482
.512
.566
Discussion and Implications
Preliminary pilot study results suggested that the MIDAS showed promising construct-related validity for use within a Malaysian context, at least in providing a valid estimate of the person’s intellectual disposition in seven of the eight intelligences. Shearer (1994) has also described 24 additional types of skill associated with each of the intelligences. These types of skills will be investigated in subsequent studies. The research study is ongoing, and further IRT-based analysis using the partial credit model and structural equation modeling are currently underway.
It is interesting to note that the first factor resembles the verbal factor and the second factor resembles the quantitative factor in traditional intelligence measurement, suggesting that MI theory may possibly be rooted on the traditional theory.
References
Armstrong, T. (1994a). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Armstrong, T. (1994b). Multiple intelligences: Seven ways to approach curriculum. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 26-28.
Campbell, B. (1994). The Multiple Intelligences Handbook: Lesson Plans and More. Stanwood, WA: Campbell Associates Inc.
Campbell, L., Campbell, B. Dickinson, D. (1996). Teaching and Learning through Multiple Intelligences. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligence: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Shearer, S. (1994). The MIDAS: A Professional Manual. MI Research & Consulting Inc.
Silver, H. Strong, R. Perini, M. (1997). Integrating Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences. Educational Leadership, 55(2), 22-27.
3. Reflections on 9.11.01 on 3.11.02 by Branton Shearer
I hope this reflection finds you all well on this six month anniversary of the September 11 tragedy. I believe that it will be a double tragedy if we don't each find ways to build a better world out of the ashes of that sad event. It has been interesting for me to travel to other countries in the wake of 9.11. It has reinforced my belief in the need for tolerance and respect for cultural differences- especially so-called third world cultures that are very different from our own. Many times, in many countries, I heard criticism of the U.S. A. for its "arrogance." This was hard criticism for me to take when we believe ourselves to the champions of freedom, rule of law, individual rights, etc.
So what does 9.11 have to do with multiple intelligences in the classroom? Well....I think it is related to the Columbine High School shootings and other national school emergencies. We can deceive ourselves that everything is okay in our schools when the majority of students are doing "just fine." If we do not encourage and open the pathways to achievement and respect students with "non-traditional" intellectual strengths, then we run the risk of further alienating ever larger segments of our population.
This reminds me of the recent news on the dismal Ohio Proficiency Test Scores of African-American students. I was recently shocked by the current statistics in the local newspaper. It is shameful that only 11% of Ohio's African-American 4th graders passed all parts of the tests as compared to 43% of white students. Where is the outrage? If these numbers were reversed you can bet your life that a national emergency would be declared. Heads would roll. Instead, I read local school superintendents in the paper shrug it off and cast blame off of their over burdened shoulders. "Not our fault. Not our responsibility." is the message.
I respectfully disagree. Oh, for sure, there is plenty of blame to go around: poverty, broken homes, TV addiction, discrimination, lack of funding, under-prepared teachers, inadequate buildings, community decay, etc., etc. But I am ashamed to hear our educational leaders duck for cover under the blanket of the blame-game. Where is the moral outrage that our educational system is failing to meet the needs of large numbers of children? I know for a fact that it many of these same disenfranchised children will in the future inhabit the multitude of prisons that we are now building at cost of billions of taxpayers' dollars. Something is terribly amiss with the structure of our "system" if we cannot teach millions of children how to read and perform basic mathematical computations.
So what does all this have to do with multiple intelligences? What I think is wrong with our system is that it is built on an inadequate foundation of understanding of what it means to be an "intelligent person" both in school and in the neighborhood. We need a better foundation upon which to construct the values, priorities, messages, rewards, privileges, programs, curriculum and daily instruction that is delivered after the morning bell rings in our collective ears. We need a foundation that was NOT built on "arrogant" cultural prejudices of the 1800s (where British researchers could "discover" that the Aboriginal people of Australia were indeed "morons" because they performed poorly on IQ tests). We need an evolution in our thinking that is based on how the brain and communities actually work-- yes, we need to accept multiple intelligences and then work together to creatively implement MI-inspired ideas in the "policies and procedures" that guide our schools. We need more than a "quick fix" and window dressing in the school reform movement. We need schools based on an accurate understanding of how the mind / brain works and then we need sustained efforts to support teachers and learners in the development of all their intelligences.
So...this is my sermon for this grey Monday morning ... almost exactly six months to the minute since I stared in horror at the TV screen and watched helplessly as people died and lives were devastated.
I hope that working with multiple intelligence's concepts, tools and materials will give you renewed energy and at least one new strategy for recognizing, valuing, supporting and challenging ALL students regardless of their MI profiles to stretch to reach their unique intellectual potential (for yourself, too!).
4. Gender Differences in Estimates of Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences by Clifford Morris
Recently, a series of research papers have looked at estimates of Howard Gardner's original (1983) and updated (1999) multiple intelligences (MI) model rather than solely g (Furnham, 2000; Furnham, Clark & Bailey, 1999; Furnham, Fong & Martin, 1999; Furnham, Hosoe & Li-Ping Tang, 2002).
It is not an irrelevant aside to note here that none of these studies set out to test Gardner's MI theory. In other words, none of the above articles offer 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.
- Have you ever taken an intelligence test?
- Do you believe they measure intelligence fairly well?
- Do you believe that males are, on the average, more intelligent that females?
- Do you believe that intelligence is primarily inherited?
- Do you believe that intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are useful in educational settings?
- 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.
In the final study, 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 conclude then, the results of the above four 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
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, 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.
5. For Your Many Intelligences Only by Clifford Morris
As MI has now become one of my hobbies, I am always searching for additional web sites associated with Howard Gardner. Here are ten (10) more, some of which have already been mentioned in previous issues. Enjoy!
- A School Using MI for 14 Years
www.newcityschool.org- Getting Smart About Intelligences by Howard Gardner
http://www.twblearn.com/Howard_Gardner_GSAI.htm- TW Branun Newsletter of September 2001
http://www.twblearn.com/newsletterarchives/newslettersept.html- I think ... therefore MI
http://surfaquarium.com/im.htm- The Heart and Mind of the Multiple Intelligence Classroom
Practical Implementation of the Theory by David Lazear
http://www.twblearn.com/david_lazear.htm- Martian Chronicles by Marge Scherer
Educational Leadership, 55(1), September 1997
http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9709/scherer.html- How Teachers Interpret MI Theory by Linda Campbell
Educational Leadership, 55(1), September 1997
http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9709/campbell.html- Multiple Intelligences: Gardner's Theory. ERIC Digest
http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed410226.html- Resources for Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences
http://www.twblearn.com/Resources/howard_gardner_resources.htm- MI Links by Cliff Morris
http://www.igs.net/~cmorris/mi-links.html
Send mail to Clifford Morris with questions or comments about this newsletter
Last modified on Sunday, 26 May 2002