Daniel Brian GRAHAM (4943600)

EDMT902 What is Learning?

Whilst there are numerous theories of intelligence, Sternberg (2012, p.211)
argues that in general they fall into one of two categories: monistic or pluralistic. The
monistic theory holds that intelligence is primarily identified with a single or
general structural factor, often referred to as g (2012, p.211). The second is
essentially pluralistic holding that there are a number of relatively autonomous
intelligences that whilst overlapping (e.g. functionally), are still separate and differing
factors (2012, p.211). Whilst acknowledging that today there are a variety of
pluralistic theories of intelligence including Robert Sternbergs theory of successful
intelligence (Sternberg, 2012), due to word constraints this paper will seek to
critically analyise the pluralistic view of intelligence with particular focus on Howard
Gardners (1983) Multiple Intelligence Theory (MIT).
In order to critically analyse MIT, one first needs to answer the question,
What is intelligence? Unfortunately of the plethora of concepts in the area of
psychological assessment, intelligence remains the most elusive to define with no one
consistent definition existing (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2012, p. 248). An example
monistic definition is, Intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity of the
individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his
environment. (Wechsler, 1944, p. 3). This view of intelligence is typically what is
measured in Intelligence Quotient (IQ) assessments where mathematical, reading and
writing tasks are seen as indicative of logical and linguistic intelligence (Gardner,
2006, p. 504).
In 1983 Howard Gardner a Harvard Psychologist, challenged the traditional
monistic view, concluding that not only did intelligence emanate from multiple
independent sources, but that it was also changeable with training and experience
(Gardner, 1983, p. 6). According to Gardner, the monistic view of intelligence did not
explain the intelligence necessary for a gifted musician to play their instrument, or a
champion athlete to perform at exceptional levels, or even for a great hunter to throw
a spear with outstanding ability (Gardner, 1983, p. 5). Gardner proposed a broader
view stating, I believe that human cognitive competence is better described in terms
of a set of abilities, talents, or mental skills, which I call intelligence (Gardner, 2006,
p.6). Gardner (1993, p.15) thus defined intelligence as, an ability or set of abilities
that permit an individual to solve problems or fashion products that are of
consequence in a particular cultural setting.

Daniel Brian GRAHAM (4943600)

EDMT902 What is Learning?

Gardner proposed the existence of initially seven distinct areas of intelligence
(Gardner, 1983, p. 8), however in 1999 he revised this to eight (Waterhouse, 2006, p.
207). These include: linguistic (e.g. tasks where words are required including reading
and/or understanding spoken language); mathematical (e.g. tasks involving numbers
including solving mathematical problems where reasoning of symbolic items are
employed); spatial (e.g. tasks where we are required to navigated from one location to
another, deciphering a road map, pack items in storage); musical (e.g. tasks where we
may sing or play a musical instrument); bodily kinaesthetic (e.g. tasks like dancing,
playing sports); naturalist (e.g. tasks requiring us to see and understand patterns in
nature); interpersonal (employed for tasks where we interact with others and seek to
understand peoples actions/emotions); and intrapersonal (employed for tasks when we
seek to understand ourselves or make decisions to modify our actions toward others),
(Sternberg, 2012, p. 503). In 2004 Gardner proposed a further two intelligences, the
mental searchlight intelligence and the laser intelligence (Waterhouse, 2006, p.
208).
From its inception MIT was embraced by many and heralded as a new
approach to education (Yenice and Aktamis, 2010. p. 3274). Waterhouse (2006, p.
207) cites statistics documenting the meteoritic rise since the theories release in
websites and educational workshops espousing the efficacy of MIT. Case in point is
Lyn Helding (2009) writing to teachers about MIT, she writes, [MIT] corroborated
what most educators learned through experience, that children learn differently. The
fact that a Harvard psychologist gave credence to this simple presumption engendered
a grassroots movement among teachers, parents, and learners which continues to this
day (p. 193). Multiple Intelligence (MI) approaches to teaching was also seen as the
key to assisting students who had previously struggled with more traditional
approaches (Checkly, 1997; Armstrong, 2002). In was based on the MI concept that
students possessed all of the intelligences, thus if instruction could be directed toward
their personal strengths then they would learn and improve (Gardner, 1983, p. 6). In
response to such claims, many educational institutions across the globe subsequently
implemented MIT strategies and report significant improvements to students
academic performance and behaviour (see Campbell and Campbell, 2004; Gardner,
1983, 1993; Gardner and Moran, 2006). Yet is the motivation by institutions to

Daniel Brian GRAHAM (4943600)

EDMT902 What is Learning?

implement MI strategies based on their research into the academic/behavioural results
in other schools, or is there another explanation for the meteoritic uptake?
According to research by Kornhaber (2004, p.72), MIT has been embraced by
many educational institutions simply because it validated what educators already
knew, that people learn in a variety of ways. In addition, Kornhaber (2004, p.72)
asserts that MI strategies complimented already established philosophies that children
learn through doing, and the importance of children to succeed in at least one area.
Thirdly, educators were already using some practices that dove-tailed in with MIT,
including arts-integrated approaches and hands-on learning. Fourthly, Kornhaber
(2004, p.72) states that MI offered a framework for educators to organise their
knowledge and methods, as well as supported systematic reflection and directional
development of their work. Yet regardless of the reasons why MIT has been
embraced, what have been the results?
Whilst there are a plethora of studies declaring the efficacy of MI approaches
to teaching, research by Kornhaber, Fierros and Veenema (2004, p.71) which targeted
41 schools including both private and public with students from differing
cultural/economic populations, is an excellent example of the positive outcomes often
cited. Specifically, almost 80% of schools reported improvements to their
standardized test scores; 80% reported improvements in student behaviour and parent
participation; and 80% reported a range of improvements for students with learning
disabilities. Whilst these results are impressive, is it appropriate attributing them to
MI strategies alone?
Waterhouse (2006, p.207) argues that before a new approach is declared
successful and its theoretical approaches implemented, it should first be rigorously
tested to ensure the costs and changes to systems are warranted. Whilst there are
many concerns that MI critics cite as fundamental flaws in MIT, due to word
constrains we will simply examine four:
1. Alleged floored research methodology.
2. Lack of empirical evidence.
3. Biologists view the brain and mind and MI claims.
4. Neuroscience and evidence of separate neural pathway processing.

Daniel Brian GRAHAM (4943600)

EDMT902 What is Learning?

With regard to alleged floored research methodology, critics of MIT state that
the dramatic improvements in students as a result of implementing MI strategies are
questionable, given the possibility of confounding variables (Waterhouse, 2006, p.
209). For example, Kornhaber, Fierros and Veenema (2004, p.71) in analysing their
results stated that it was not possible to attribute conclusively and exclusively their
outstanding results to implementing MI educational approaches alone. They
acknowledged that improvements in test scores could have simply been the result of
teachers employing a range of multi-media and other systems that were more
engaging for students than previous approaches. It could equally be argued that
improvements in student behaviour and/or academic gains with those with learning
difficulties, could be attributed to improvements in their self-esteem resulting from
their strengths instead of their weaknesses being acknowledged. Increases in esteem
has been linked to increases in confidence and a desire to learn (Ahmadi, Ismail &
Abdullah, 2013, p.236).
In response to the lack of controlling variables as a fundamental flaw in MI
research, Armstrong (2009, p.191) states that the kind of research critics propose to
prove the existence of MI in the classroom is actually not possible and therefore not
a flaw in research design. Armstrong points out that it is impossible to find a
classroom that employs nothing but MI approaches to teaching, and a control
classroom that uses absolutely none. Armstrong also cites numerous studies that
report the successful implementation of MIT in educational programs around the
world, as well as stating that there are over 200 doctoral dissertations concerned with
and supporting the efficacy of MIT. From this premise, it is the view of the writer that
given the plethora of research of MI, to reject the theory based on possible
confounding variables, is to imply that the truth cannot be found in qualitative
research designs, but only through quantitative numerical scientific formulations
employing strict experimental control group designs.
The second criticism to be explored relates to the alleged lack of empirical
evidence for MIT, and is cited by Waterhouse (2006, p. 208), as a key reason why it is
inappropriate to overhaul approaches to education without such evidence. According
to Waterhouse (2006, p.208) to date there are no published studies that offer empirical
evidence of the validity of multiple autonomous intelligences, but there is
overwhelming support for the monistic view of g. Sternberg and Kaufman (2012, p.

Daniel Brian GRAHAM (4943600)

EDMT902 What is Learning?

235) report, Even Howard Gardner (2006), well-known for his theory of multiple
intelligences, has agreed that one could speak of a g-factor that encompasses some
(but not all) of his proposed intelligences. Visser, Ashton, and Vernon (2006, p. 501)
whose experiments sought to assess the eight intelligences proposed by Gardner,
concluded after finding the presence of g running through most of the tests
administered, that what Gardner calls intelligences are in fact secondary group factors
under to the important g factor. Allix (2000, p. 273) in his paper titled The theory
of multiple intelligences: a case of missing cognitive matter, also reported finding no
empirically validated MI studies. It is also worth noting that Gardner in his response
to Allix (2000) conceded that there was, little hard evidence for Multiple Intelligence
Theory (Gardner & Connell 2000, p. 214). Matthews (1995, p. 102) states that
efforts to empirically validate MIT have proved to be very difficult, if not
impossible.
In response however to the supposed lack of empirical evidence for MIT,
Davis, Christodoulou, Seider, & Gardner (2011, p. 9) argue that MIT is actually based
entirely on hundreds of empirical studies spanning multiple disciplines including
biology, neurology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, not to mention the arts
and humanities. Davis et.al. (2011, p. 9) conclude stating, MIT cannot be proved or
disproved on the basis of a single test or experiment. Rather, it gains or loses
credibility as findings accumulate over time. With regard to g, Davis et.al (2011,
p.12) state that it could equally be argued that g is nothing more than the common
factor underlying tasks devised by psychologists seeking to predict academic success.
Chen (2004) defending MIT against claims that it lacks empirical support also
argues that intelligence is not a tangible object and therefore cannot be measured. In
response however, Waterhouse (2006, p.209) states that defined constructs can in fact
be measured if they have clearly specified and testable components. He goes on to say
that Gardner (2004) has acknowledged the lack of definition in his constructs, and
therefore his theory cannot be empirically tested.
With regard to the Gardners claim that both biology and neurology supports
MIT (Gardner, 2004, p. 214), including that each intelligence operates from separate
areas of the brain (Gardner, 1999, p. 99) and the existence of separate neural
pathways for the various intelligences, Waterhouse (2006, p. 211) argues that this is
simply not the case. Waterhouse (2010, p. 211) cites several cognitive neuroscience

Daniel Brian GRAHAM (4943600)

EDMT902 What is Learning?

studies for shared and overlapping pathways including Koelsch, Kasper, Sammler,
Schulze, Gunter, & Friederici, (2004) and Norton, Winner, Cronin, Overy, Lee, &
Schlaug (2005). Waterhouse (2010, p. 211) continues using the example of reading
and mathematics stating that due to their complexity, a significant variety of abilities
and areas of the brain are required including, long-term memory, working memory
and attention with each employing and sharing neural pathways.
In conclusion, whilst the points raised by Waterhouse (2006, p.207) and other
critics of MIT do have some validity, it is the view of the writer that such critics also
have a narrow view of what constitutes empirical research and sound methodology,
and are too quick to dismiss the plethora of qualitative evidence supporting the
efficacy of MIT. In saying that, it is also the view of the writer that for educational
institutions employing MIT strategies to conclude that improvements in student
behaviour and/or academic performance is exclusively the result of MI strategies is
equally inappropriate. It appears that as with the definition of intelligence,
conclusively proving the existence of MIs and its efficacy remains an elusive task
dividing the experts, and thus requiring further research. What is evident however,
is that MIT has stimulated an incredible amount of discussion about how people learn,
and in doing so has challenged educators to seek to examine not only how they
educate those in their charge, but also to acknowledge the uniqueness of the
individual. Based on the above it is the view of the writer that implementing MI
approaches to teaching has been positive and warrented, but as with any theory its
implementation should not be at the exclusion of exploring the efficacy of other
educational approaches.

Daniel Brian GRAHAM (4943600)

EDMT902 What is Learning?

References
Ahmadi, MR, Ismail, HN, Abdullah, MK 2013, The Importance of Metacognitive
Reading Strategy Awareness in Reading Comprehension. English Language
Teaching; Vol. 6, No. 10.
Allix, N. M 2000, The theory of multiple intelligences : a case of missing cognitive
matter. Australian Journal of Education; v.44 n.3 p.272-288.
Armstrong, T 2002, Youre Smarter Than You Think: A Kids Guide to Multiple
Intelligences. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
Armstrong, T 2009, Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom (3rd Edition),
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development (ASCD), Alexandria, VA,
USA. Available from: ProQuest ebrary. [11 April 2015].
Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D 2004, Teaching and learning through
multiple intelligences. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Education.
Checkly, K 1997, The First Seven The Eight: A conversation with Howard
Gardner. Educational Leadership, 55 (1), 8-11.
Chen, J.Q 2004, Theory of multiple intelligences: Is it a scientific theory?
Teachers College Record, 106, 1723.
Davis, K., Christodoulou, J., Seider, S., & Gardner, H 2011, The theory of multiple
intelligences. Viewed 11th of April, 2015,
https://howardgardner01.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/443-davis-christodoulouseider-mi-article.pdf
Gardner H 1983, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H 1993, Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner H 1999, Intelligence Reframed. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H 2004, Audiences for the theory of multiple intelligences.
Teachers College Record, 106, 212220.
Gardner H 2006, Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice. New
York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H., & Connell, M 2000, Response to Nicholas Allix. Australian
Journal of Education, 44, 288293.
Gardner, H., & Moran, S 2006, The science of multiple intelligences theory: A
response to Lynn Waterhouse. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 227-232.
Helding, L 2009, Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Journal of
Singing, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 193-199.

Daniel Brian GRAHAM (4943600)

EDMT902 What is Learning?

Kaplan, R.M. & Saccuzzo, D.P 2012, Psychological Testing: Principles,
Applications, and Issues, 8th Edition. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Koelsch, S., Kasper, E., Sammler, D., Schulze, K., Gunter, T., & Friederici, A. T
2004, Music, language and meaning: Brain signatures of semantic processing. Nature
Neuroscience, 7, 302307.
Kornhaber, M., Fierros, E., & Veenema, S 2004, Multiple Intelligences: Best Ideas
from Research and Practice. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Matthews, D. 1995, Gardner's multiple intelligence theory: An evaluation of relevant
research literature and a consideration of its application to gifted education. In R.
Pogarry &]. Bellanca (Eds.), Multiple intelligences: A collection. Highett, Vic.:
Hawker Brownlow Education, Australia.
Norton, A., Winner, E., Cronin, K., Overy, K., Lee, D. J., & Schlaug, G 2005, Are
there pre-existing neural, cognitive, or motoric markers for musical ability? Brain and
Cognition, 59, 124134.
Parmenter, TR. 2011, The Essential Sternberg. Essays on Intelligence, Psychology,
and Education. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, Vol. 8,
Issue 3, pp. 218 219
Sternberg, R. J 2012, Intelligence. WIREs Cogn Sci, 3: 501511.
doi: 10.1002/wcs.1193
Sternberg, RJ and Kaufman, SB 2012, Trends in intelligence research, Intelligence,
Volume 40, Issue 2, Pages 235-236
Visser, B.A., Ashton, M.C., Vernon, P.A 2006, Beyond g: Putting multiple
intelligences theory to the test. Intelligence, 34 (5), pp. 487-502.
Waterhouse, L 2006, Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional
intelligence: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41, 207-225.
Wechsler, D 1944, The measurement of adult intelligence (3rd ed.). Baltimore:
Williams & Wilkins.
Yenice, N., & Aktamis, H. 2010, Determination of multiple intelligence domains and
learning styles of the teacher candidates, in Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 2: 3274- 3281.