Research

Research on Multiple Intelligences

By Andrew Carson, Area Editor

A major goal of those in the Multiple Intelligences (MI) Special Interest Group (SIG) of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) is to evaluate research support for theories of multiple intelligences produced by Howard Gardner (Harvard University) and other theorists. What these theories have in common is the assumption that there exist real, important intelligences or abilities beyond what psychologists have called "Intelligence" (with a capital "I"), or the Intelligence Quotient (I.Q.), or "g". (I shall refer to IQ rather than g because most theories of g are at least in theory not entirely incompatible with the MI theory proposed by Gardner.)

Specifically, Gardner (1983, 1999) proposed the existence of seven intelligences (linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal) that affected learning relevant to performance and adjustment to education, work, and other environments. He has proposed eight criteria by which one might determine the existence of an intelligence:

1. neuroanatomical bases;
2. existence of savants, prodigies and other exception individuals;
3. evidence psychometric findings;
4. evidence from experimental psychological tasks;
5. a distinct developmental history for each intelligence culminating in a definable set of endstate performances (master levels)
6. an identifiable core operation or set of operations;
7. susceptibility to coding in a symbol system;
8. an evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility.

He has made more recent statements (see especially Gardner, 1999) through a number of books and articles that fine-tune and update the theory. However, it is probably fair to say that the theory has thus far generated surprisingly little large-scale, systematic empirical research. Because of this, one might argue that the theory, despite its apparent success in many venues (perhaps especially in elementary school reform efforts), is not drawing the research attention it needs to survive as a scientific theory.

To that end, in addition to evaluating the current scientific support for Gardner's MI and related theories, it is also our goal to encourage new research providing strong tests of the theories, with the aim of either providing compelling support for them or disproving them. In other words, we do not take it as a matter of simple faith that there even are intelligences beyond IQ or g or even that those variables themselves exist and carry weight in the psyche. Indeed, psychologists such as Anders Ericsson (Florida State University) and Robert Sternberg (Yale University) have challenged our culture's obsession with abilities and intelligence and have argued that we might better turn our attention to expertise and its acquisition, irregardless of individual differences in ability or intelligence.

The stakes are surprisingly high on the outcome of this scientific enterprise, because our theories of the nature of ability, expertise, and the acquisition of skill guide our beliefs about how school, work, and leisure activities should be organized. The implications are critical for education. We spend more than a billion dollars a day on education in the United States alone, but we have no generally accepted theory of abilities and expertise to inform our educational efforts. It is safe to say that the majority of schools in our nation -- and probably the vast majority -- endorse the IQ view. School Districts throughout the nation generally provide programing for gifted students, but it is usually the case that such programs require (as a prerequisite for admission) the administration of an intelligence test or some other indicator of IQ. Then the policies governing admission to gifted programs typically limit enrollment to a small percentage of students, e.g., the top 3% in IQ. Likewise, many private schools require the use of intelligence tests of some sort as part of the admissions process. Access to special education services often requires a student to complete an intelligence test, with low scores required for admission and access to special services. However, a number of schools around the United States and the world are now founded on the basis of MI theory, with assessment and curriculum organized around Gardner's theory. This model represents a challenge to the status quo with its IQ orientation. Finally, if the expertise-oriented theories of Andersson and Sternberg are correct, we should rethink and reconstruct our whole assessment system, and focus instead on the modeling of expertise. Similarly, research on MI and related theories has implications for the effective design of work and leisure settings.

Some Organizing Questions:

I will initiate this Research Interest Area by posing a few families of questions. (Please respond with answers, research findings, or other questions, and I will try to post them to the site. However, for space purposes I may need to edit your responses a bit. If you have another website toward which I may point visitors, please let me know it.)

 

1. How similar is Gardner's theory to other theories in which abilities are classified into types? To what degree can research on those theories provide evidence for or against Gardner's MI theory?

How similar is Gardner's MI theory to other (historical) theories models of multiple abilities or types, e.g., the work of Spearman, Thorndike, Thurstone, and Johnson O'Connor?

How similar is the theory to Sternberg's triarchic intelligence theory?

To what degree was it anticipated by Spearman's g and specific ability theory?

What are its relations to other empirically developed typologies, such as those of Linda S. Gottfredson (University of Delaware), Dale Prediger (ACT), and Phillip Ackerman (Georgia Tech)?

In particular, how similar is his theory to John L. Holland's theory of vocational personality types, which receives widespread application in career development and vocational psychology?

2. How can Gardner's theory be organized into a set of core statements, with relevant research organized in support or refutation of those statements?

Is it reasonable to evaluate Gardner's theory on criteria that he proposes, e.g., the eight criteria that he uses to determine the existence of an intelligence?

Which studies have reported tests on the core statements of Gardner's theory?

What is the degree of rigor (as usually determined) of such studies?

How many participants are usually included in these studies, and what are the psychometric characteristics of their measures, and how sound are the methods?

Can we conduct a meta-analysis of these studies, and seek, through the aggregation of their findings, to develop a stronger test of the elements of Gardner's MI theory?

Based on these analyses, are there any elements of Gardner's theory that are so demonstrably faulty that they should be dropped from the theory?

Are there some core statements of MI theory that Gardner and others appear to be reluctant to test?

3. In what research methods do MI researchers show great facility? How is interest in testing MI theory associated with skill (and probably also interest) in making use of particular research methods? How might individuals interested in learning such research methods be introduced to and encouraged to continue research on MI theory as part of their education in the use of those methods?

4. How should the intelligences be parsed? How many intelligences are there? Are there any likely candidates for intelligences that Gardner has (apparently) intentionally avoided, and for which good evidence exists to warrant their elevation to formal incorporation into the theory?

5. How vulnerable is MI theory to the charges, from such researchers as Anders Ericsson and Robert Sternberg, that abilities (although they may exist) matter far less than the acquisition of expertise through practice? If the expertise researchers are substantially correct, how much damage would MI theory take?

6. How vulnerable is MI theory to claims by some, such as Kieran Egan (Simon Fraser University), that developmental phases in learning should be the great interest in the design of schools, rather than MI-like theories? More generally, what is the status of MI theory relative to current progress in research in developmental psychology?

7. How extensively and how well is MI theory and its associated research base taught in psychology training programs? How often is it examined in textbooks across the psychology curriculum? What sorts of research evidence are provided along with the statement of MI theory?

References:

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

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

Author note:

Page updated July 24, 2001. Please address comments to Andrew D. Carson, The Ball Foundation, 800 Roosevelt Rd., C-120; Glen Ellyn, IL 60137. e-mail adcarson@ballfoundation.org. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of any other individual or organization. Contents of this page copyright 1999 Andrew D. Carson. Special thanks to the following for comments leading to improvements of this page: Branton Shearer, Kevin Field, Angela Stancati.