See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225870611

Theory of Multiple Intelligences: Implications for

Higher Education

Article  in  Innovative Higher Education · December 2001

DOI: 10.1023/A:1012292522528

CITATIONS READS
42 4,319

1 author:

Adrianna Kezar
University of Southern California
136 PUBLICATIONS   2,482 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evaluation of the Thompson Scholars Learning Community program View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adrianna Kezar on 19 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

P1: LMD/GVG
Innovative Higher Education PH066-345252 October 3, 2001 9:56 Style file version March 31, 1999

Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, Winter 2001 (°

C 2001)

Theory of Multiple Intelligences:

Implications for Higher Education
Adrianna Kezar

ABSTRACT: This article reviews implications of Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelli-

gences for higher education—responding to increased access, the necessity of meeting
the needs of diverse users, and the accountability movement.

KEY WORDS: multiple intelligence; philosophy; diversity; access; accountability.

Higher education magazines, journals, listservs, conferences, and

symposiums describe a plethora of innovations and new approaches
related to teaching and learning practices including assessment, col-
laborative and cooperative learning, interdisciplinarity, community ser-
vice learning, learning communities, first year interest groups, active/
experiential learning, problem based learning, among others. Many of
these reforms in higher education emerged out of changes taking place
in elementary and secondary education such as community service
learning and cooperative and active learning; and they drew on the
ideas of the educational philosopher John Dewey (1997). Although
Dewey wrote almost a century ago, his ideas have had a profound in-
fluence on educational practice over the years. For example, his ideas
created changes in schools and colleges in the 1930s (cooperative edu-
cation, problem based learning, deemphasis on subject matter) and in
the 1960s and 1970s (community service learning, interdisciplinarity,
active learning). Although it took more time, Dewey’s ideas eventually
have also had a significant impact on higher education.
Another educational philosopher, Howard Gardner, has had a sig-
nificant impact on education in the last two decades. His theory of
Multiple Intelligences (MI) has transformed some fundamental beliefs
about teaching and learning. MI schools are now being developed across
the country with support from national associations and foundations.
Surprisingly, however, MI theory has not yet had any significant influ-
ence on higher education institutions. Higher education professionals

Dr. Adrianna Kezar, Ph.D. from the University of Michigan is the Director of the
ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education and assistant professor, George Washington
University. Research interests include change, diversity, access, and philosophy in higher
education.

141 °
C 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
P1: LMD/GVG
Innovative Higher Education PH066-345252 October 3, 2001 9:56 Style file version March 31, 1999

142 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

seldom discuss this concept at conferences or in journals. In fact, there

has been virtually no literature written on the implications of MI the-
ory for higher education (Stage, Muller, Kinzie, & Simmons, 1998). In
a review of learning theories, Stage et al. note that almost no research
has been conducted on multiple intelligences in higher education and
“the little research on multiple intelligences has focused on validating
whether these intelligences exist among college students” (p. 69).
This is surprising given the significant attention that Gardner’s work
has received from the K-12 sector and educators worldwide. This article
attempts to fill this gap in our knowledge, focusing on the implications of
Gardner’s theory for higher education. The article also suggests factors
within the current environment that make it particularly important to
examine the implications of this theory: increased access, meeting di-
verse learners’ needs, and the accountability movement. Furthermore,
the relationship between MI theory and current innovations such as
collaborative learning is examined.

Theory and Commentary

For the purposes of this article and to provide a context for discussing
the implications for higher education, I review the history of the theory
and data sources used to develop it; I describe the eight intelligences;
and, I present some critiques of the theory. For a more detailed descrip-
tion, I refer the reader to two of Gardner’s works: Frames of Mind (1983)
and Multiple Intellgiences: The Theory in Practice (1993).
Gardner began work with Project Zero at Harvard University in the
mid 1970s with the philosopher Nelson Goodman. Project Zero was ini-
tially devoted to studying the arts as a cognitive process and to challeng-
ing the hegemony of linguistic and logical symbol systems and cognitive
processes. In the years that followed, Gardner continued to challenge
the superordinate status of linguistic and logical systems over other
forms of cognition that were emerging in his studies of cognitive pro-
cesses. The different areas he examined included: (1) the breakdown of
cognitive skills under conditions of brain damage; (2) evolutionary cog-
nitive theory examining changes over the millenium; (3) cross cultural
studies of cognition; (4) psychometric studies; (5) research on special
populations such as gifted, autistic, and idiot savants; and (6) research
on universal skills (Gardner, 1993).
The result of synthesizing data and the research was the articulation
of eight intelligences. Intelligences are defined as the ability to solve
P1: LMD/GVG
Innovative Higher Education PH066-345252 October 3, 2001 9:56 Style file version March 31, 1999

Multiple Intelligences 143

problems or fashion products that are of consequence in a particular

cultural setting or community (Gardner, 1993, p. 15). An intelligence is
a biopsychological predisposition that can be encouraged by the natural
environment; the intelligence will not evolve to its potential without de-
velopment (Gardner, 1993). The theory challenges a traditional notion
in Western societies—that linguistic and logical intelligence, typically
measured in I.Q. tests are the only intelligence of the brain. Instead,
it posits a greater set of intelligences. Typically, western cultures have
not conceptualized the ability to see spatial patterns or read people’s
emotions as intelligences, but as talents or skills—not something to
be nurtured by formal education and not something to be prized by
society.
The contribution of Gardner’s theory is the pluralistic view of the
mind; it invites us to recognize and nurture the varied human intelli-
gences. Some individuals finish schooling without ever having felt like
an expert in any area; this can lead to low self-esteem and lifetime prob-
lems in achievement. Applied MI theory can provide students with a
period of time in their schooling where they feel expert, increasing self-
esteem among a broader group of students. Gardner (1993) posited that
MI theory overcomes three biases: westist, bestist and testist (p. 12).
Westist refers to the tendency of Western societies to herald one or a few
qualities or characteristics over others. Bestist refers to the belief that
the answer to any solution is in one approach, such as linguistic think-
ing. Testist refers to focusing on the human abilities or intelligences
that are most easily testable.
The eight intelligences posited by Gardner are: musical, bodily-
kinesthetic, logical-mathematical, spatial, linguistic, interpersonal, in-
trapersonal, and naturalist. He is open to the possibility that others
exist, such as existential intelligence—the ability to engage large ques-
tions about existence (Armstrong, 2000). In order to be considered an
intelligence, several criteria had to be met: being an identifiable and
separate function of the brain, a biopsychological predisposition, found
across cultures and over time, and supported by evolutionary biology
and cognitive research.
Musical intelligence is the ability to be sensitive to pitch, melody,
rhythm, and tone. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence relates to the ability
to use the body skillfully and handle objects adroitly. He suggests that
expressing an emotion in a dance, playing a game skillfully in sports, or
creating a new product or invention is evidence of the cognitive features
of body usage (1993, pg. 19). Athletes, dancers, and craftspersons are
often associated with this form of intelligence.
P1: LMD/GVG
Innovative Higher Education PH066-345252 October 3, 2001 9:56 Style file version March 31, 1999

144 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

Logical-mathematical intelligence is familiar to most of us; it is the

ability to handle chains of reasoning and to recognize patterns and
order (Hoerr, 2000). Gardner notes that this form of intelligence is often
labeled scientific thinking (Gardner, 1993). Linguistic intelligence is
the other form of intelligence that provides the basis for I.Q exams.
It is sensitivity to the meaning and order of words. Great writers and
speakers are often associated with this form of intelligence.
Spatial intelligence is a less familiar area; it is the ability to perceive
the world accurately and to create or transform aspects of that world.
Engineers, architects, navigators, and chessplayers all demonstrate
this intelligence. The naturalist focuses on recognizing and classifying
phenomena such as flora and fauna in the environment. Observation
and pattern identification is critical. This talent is seen in people such
as Jane Goodall and Charles Darwin.
Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand people and
relationships and can be found among religious and political leaders,
counselors, and teachers. It is the core capacity to notice distinctions
among other people, such as contrasts in their moods, temperaments,
motivations, and intentions. Intrapersonal intelligence relates to ac-
cessing one’s emotional life as a means to understand oneself and others.
Gardner notes that “since this intelligence is the most private, it re-
quires evidence from language, music, or some other expressive form of
intelligence to be observed” (1993, p. 25).
Most people exhibit several intelligences, not just one; in fact,
Gardner specifically states that “all humans possess certain core abili-
ties in each of the intelligences” (1993, p. 28). Even though all humans
partake in each intelligence to some degree, certain individuals have
more potential in particular intelligences. Some intelligences arise at
an early age such as logical-mathematical and musical, while others
appear to arise more gradually such as the personal intelligences.
Some critics claim that intelligences are really what are commonly
called gifts or talents (Morgan, 1992; Stage et al., 1998). Gardner agrees,
but then would want linguistic and logical-mathematical ability also
labeled talents, rather than being elevated for no particular reason
(Gardner, 1993). Others claim that general intelligence such as crit-
ical thinking, reflectiveness, or memory does exist and that this the-
ory fails to acknowledge this important general intelligence (Morgan,
1992). Gardner notes that his reading of the evidence suggests there
is not a content independent knowledge base, yet this is still open to
debate with no definitive evidence. Over the last fifteen years, many
studies have been conducted and empirical evidence continues to mount
P1: LMD/GVG
Innovative Higher Education PH066-345252 October 3, 2001 9:56 Style file version March 31, 1999

Multiple Intelligences 145

support for the theory. Certainly, the theory may be falsified, but the ev-
idence suggests that multiple intelligences exist within each individual
(Armstrong, 2000; Gardner, 1993; Hoerr, 2000).
The implications of this theory have been significant for elementary
and secondary schools. Many schools are moving from being teacher
and curriculum centered to be individual learner centered since there
is an appreciation of each student’s unique combination of intelligences.
Classrooms are now focused on two different types of material: intelli-
gence centered and curriculum centered. Because learning in context
is important for many of these forms of intelligences, apprenticeships
and opportunities for students to learn outside the classrooms are es-
tablished in settings where the intelligences are used actively such as
museums, science centers, community centers, or the workplace. An-
other change is the development of “flow rooms,” which allow students
to continue to work in either weak or strong intelligences for longer
periods of time. In addition to altering curriculum, pedagogy, facilities
and schedules, another important change has been in the practice of as-
sessment and assignments. The preferred process is portfolios, allowing
students to illustrate concepts in drawings, audiotape, or other assign-
ments over the term. Projects, exhibitions, and presentations also pro-
vide opportunities to assess the different types of intelligences. These
are only a sampling of the changes occurring in schools that adopt MI
(For a more thorough description see Armstrong, 2000; Gardner, 1993;
Hoerr, 2000).

Context of Higher Education

A few comments about current trends of higher education help con-

textualize the implications of Gardner’s theory. First, access has been
stressed over the last thirty years, resulting in a larger and profoundly
more diverse student body. After W.W.II, the G.I. Bill brought many
middle and lower income students (veterans) into higher education.
Between 1945–1975 enrollments increased by more than 500% from
around 2 million to 11 million students (Cohen, 1996). Not only were
enrollments increasing; but the civil rights and women’s movements,
financial aid, affirmative action, and early intervention programs led
to a more diverse student body, increasing the number of women, peo-
ple of color, and disabled and low income students. Former President
Clinton repeatedly stated that it was his goal to make sure that ev-
ery American has at least two years of postsecondary education. With
universal access to higher education as a federal goal, understanding
P1: LMD/GVG
Innovative Higher Education PH066-345252 October 3, 2001 9:56 Style file version March 31, 1999

146 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

and being able to develop the diverse intelligences of the population

becomes increasingly important.
At the same time as access increased from 20% to 60% of the popu-
lation entering postsecondary education, an interest in learning styles
developed among scholars (Cohen, 1996). Research began to illustrate
that students were not a homogenous group; some were more audi-
tory than visual or more active than passive. Furthermore, research
showed that adults approach learning in a distinct manner focused
more on experiential approaches (Cohen, 1996). Research on women
suggests that they may have a unique approach to learning, which is
conceptualized as a cultural difference, rather than a biological issue
(Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986). MI builds on the re-
search on learning styles, focusing on a more profound difference than
style—an individual’s biopsychological potential.
In the last fifteen years, there has been particular attention to ac-
countability and assessment. As the public invested more money into a
growing system of higher education, legislatures began to be concerned
about whether individuals were being educated to make a contribution
to society. This has resulted in movements toward testing and assess-
ment of graduates.
These three trends—access, acknowledgement of the needs of a
diverse student body, and accountability—are important to consider
when examining the implications of the theory of multiple intelligences
for higher education. As we increase access, the chance of students with
talents in other than linguistic and logical mathematical ability also
increases. Moreover, legislatures are concerned that higher education
educates people to meet societal needs. MI theory has the potential to
develop persons with more diverse talents to address these needs and
problems.

Implications for Higher Education

Since MI theory is related to the current debates about access, appro-

priate ways to teach diverse learners, and assessment/accountability,
why is it not more frequently part of the dialogue at institutions or at
national conferences? Perhaps one reason is that a liberal arts educa-
tion, in particular, already draws on multiple intelligences. The under-
lying assumption of a liberal arts education is that a person should be
exposed to and learn music, leadership, language, mathematics, and
dance. Often courses are taught through the mode of the intelligence;
for example, many liberal arts colleges have experiential opportunities
P1: LMD/GVG
Innovative Higher Education PH066-345252 October 3, 2001 9:56 Style file version March 31, 1999

Multiple Intelligences 147

for learning leadership or dance studios. Colleges are to some degree

individual centered, as Gardner suggests a good education should be.
For example, college students can choose their own curricula. Institu-
tions that have a core curriculum offer a variety of areas that tend to
draw on multiple intelligences (even if they were not planned or de-
veloped for this purpose). Community colleges have long emphasized
other talent development including dance or auto mechanics that uti-
lize bodily kinesthetic intelligence. It may be that people reflected on
Gardner’s theory and saw that it offered little that is new to the higher
education debates.
However, even though higher education institutions would appear to
be closely aligned with Gardner’s theory already, there are nonetheless
important implications for higher education in relation to the trends
of today’s context: 1) access; 2) diversity; and, 3) accountability and
assessment.

Access

The potential of multiple intelligence theory, to build the intelligence

of all members of society, is aligned with the current emphasis of uni-
versal higher education. The theory suggests that all individuals have
natural talents that could be refined in higher education. It challenges
the notion that only the linguistic or mathematically talented people
will benefit from higher education. The question of whether a greater
number of persons can benefit from higher education is often debated
in policy circles, and MI theory could inform these debates.
The admissions criteria for higher education need to be re-examined
since they tend to identify students with linguistic or logical-mathe-
matical intelligence. A few colleges, generally smaller, such as Bates
College or Franklin and Marshall, admit students based on portfo-
lios. Also, specialized schools, as in music or art, examine students
work rather than standardized tests. Although it is considered cost
prohibitive, admissions officers across the country need to consider
whether portfolios could or should be used. The potential for identi-
fying students with unique intelligences would seem to warrant debate
on whether to move toward this form of admissions or at least revis-
ing some admission criteria. By changing admissions processes to tap
into multiple intelligences, institutions could also modify placement in
honors curriculum to include students with musical or intrapersonal
intelligence, for example. Even though there are open admissions in-
stitutions and talented individuals with drive can indeed pursue some
P1: LMD/GVG
Innovative Higher Education PH066-345252 October 3, 2001 9:56 Style file version March 31, 1999

148 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

form of postsecondary education, many students with strengths in other

than linguistic or logical-mathematical intelligence may not be able to
receive an education at elite institutions. This limitation in our admis-
sion process, perhaps, limits our potential as a society.
Another factor limiting our capacity to educate all talented students
is the use of standardized or multiple choice tests exams. At large in-
stitutions, where 87% of the students in this country attend, projects
and writing assignments are less common than multiple choice tests,
preventing many students from illustrating their competence. Some
students may experience failure, even though they understand the ma-
terial and have worked very hard. The implication of MI theory is that
we need to reconsider admissions standards, examinations, and assign-
ments because they may limit our capacity to identify, develop, and re-
ward intelligent individuals. Gardner’s theory invites thought of the
limitations of standardized tests and admissions criteria, adding to the
current debates about test bias and access.

Diverse Learning Needs

Meeting the needs of diverse learners is the area with the greatest
implications for higher education. The most obvious implication is that
faculty might consider teaching their courses/subject matter through
the multiple intelligences. How might music, group work, dance, and
drawing be incorporated into the assignments or exercises?
In addition, MI reinforces the value of faculty members’ desire to
experiment with new approaches such as cooperative, collaborative,
or community service learning. These teaching and learning methods
appear to develop intelligences formerly not addressed through con-
ventional techniques such as lecturing. Collaborative learning, work-
ing in groups to develop knowledge collectively, has the potential to
develop interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. Community ser-
vice learning, where students work in the community to examine an
issue that is discussed in the classroom—such as poverty—can also
enhance students’ interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. Ex-
periential learning often involves working with business and outside
groups in internships and apprenticeships; it can help develop spatial,
naturalistic and the personal intelligences.
Gardner recommends the use of apprenticeships for developing
intelligences that need more active engagement such as spatial intel-
ligence. The experiential learning movement also suggests the impor-
tance of applying knowledge and working in real settings. Gardner’s
P1: LMD/GVG
Innovative Higher Education PH066-345252 October 3, 2001 9:56 Style file version March 31, 1999

Multiple Intelligences 149

theory reinforces the importance of these forms of pedagogy, but it also

suggests that faculty consider more than one approach to learning. Al-
though many faculty members are adapting their teaching practices,
they tend to align themselves with one approach, for example collabo-
rative learning. MI theory suggests that faculty think about a repertoire
of approaches that tap into the various intelligences.
Even though higher education tends to be more learner centered than
K-12 because students have choices in their curricula, they do choose
from a prescribed set of courses developed by faculty. These courses
are most likely taught through the intelligence(s) with which the fac-
ulty member is most comfortable. Gardner’s theory implies that faculty
members might explore increased ways to individualize the curricu-
lum through independent study, experiential learning opportunities,
self-paced learning, and other curricular modifications to include the
multiple intelligences.
Another implication of the theory is that faculty members need more
time with students in order to observe intelligences. If students are to
receive meaningful feedback, the instructor needs to understand their
complex intellectual makeup. Perhaps it is indeed important to have
faculty advisors who work with students as they develop. Some smaller
institutions have a class dean that observes students’ progress through-
out the year, which can help students develop their full potential. Some
students may need fewer classes or course credits and more time with
each individual faculty member. Then faculty members can arrange
internships based on the intelligences the student wants or needs to
develop. Undergraduate education might better meet students’ needs
if it resembled the apprentice model of graduate school. This approach
may seem cost prohibitive on a mass scale, but MI elementary and sec-
ondary schools have creatively made changes that have not incurred
great cost.
MI theory implies that the work of student affairs professionals, of-
ten in the realm of affective development, is central to the institution.
Because linguistic and logical-mathematics intelligence have been em-
phasized as the core of higher education institutions, the work of stu-
dent affairs (closely related to interpersonal, intrapersonal, and bodily
kinesthetic intelligences, e.g., leadership programs, multicultural ef-
forts, and sports programs) has often been marginalized. Almost every
higher education institutions’ mission statement mentions the personal
intelligences; however, students are seldom provided guidance. Stu-
dents are indirectly told these are not important since they must take
non-credit bearing courses or experiences outside the formal curriculum
P1: LMD/GVG
Innovative Higher Education PH066-345252 October 3, 2001 9:56 Style file version March 31, 1999

150 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

to develop them. Researchers of cognition and learning have already

amassed evidence that the distinction between affective and cognitive
processes is artificial (Love & Love, 1995). Gardner’s work reinforces
these other cognitive studies and suggests that student affairs plays a
primary role in the development of intelligence. Because the personal
intelligences tend to be developed later in life, it is more important for
higher education to be involved in fostering these talents than elemen-
tary and secondary schooling. Some campuses are currently working to
combine their student and academic affairs divisions, making the work
of student affairs more central to the overall institution and blurring
the traditional distinctions among types of intelligences fostered and
by what division.
The facilities in higher education are certainly not conducive to the
training of multiple intelligences and in some ways present one of the
greatest barriers. Many campuses are not set up with convenient audio-
visual equipment, are not conducive to group work, or are not amenable
for movement. There is all too little space for introspection. Although
there are labs for science courses, these are usually the only rooms
on campuses set up for experiential learning. Most MI schools have
transformed the physical space of the school so that students can move
into different spaces based on the intelligence they are trying to de-
velop. Computers aid in providing alternative work spaces and stimulus
in higher education. For example, engineering programs use simula-
tions of bridge design and building. MI theory suggests the importance
of more quickly adopting these new technologies in higher education.
Many campuses are still not well equipped with computers in class-
rooms, nor do they require students to bring computers to class. Tech-
nology may be a more cost-effective solution to creating appropriate
environments to develop multiple intelligences.

Accountability

Gardner’s theory also has implications for accountability, especially

related to the assessment of learning outcomes in higher education.
Most college and university mission statements discuss the importance
of understanding oneself (intrapersonal intelligence), leadership devel-
opment (interpersonal intelligence), appreciation and competence in
the arts (musical, kinesthetic and spatial intelligences), for example.
Yet, it is common for institutions not to focus their curricula on these
goals, nor do the states or institutions that conduct assessment focus on
these outcomes. If institutions take their mission statements seriously
P1: LMD/GVG
Innovative Higher Education PH066-345252 October 3, 2001 9:56 Style file version March 31, 1999

Multiple Intelligences 151

and if states want to develop a skilled workforce, then they need to

rethink the processes to achieve these outcomes and the associated as-
sessment techniques. Gardner’s theory reinforces the notion that learn-
ing goals, curriculum, instruction, and related assessment should be
integrated, into the assessment and accountability movements. States
that are conducting outcomes assessment might develop ways to mea-
sure the multiple intelligences. These new assessments could then be
used to assist faculty in better understanding their students’ various
intelligences.
It is important to have these discussions now as more and more states
are adopting performance indicators and assessment plans. Legisla-
tures and higher education leaders have not conceptualized talent de-
velopment in this broader fashion and do not have the language or tools
to re-orient assessment to capture the full talent of a diverse society.
MI theory can provide the needed language and conceptualization to
help state systems and institutions meet the demands of accountabil-
ity. Although there are many other implications of Gardner’s theory, I
believe this review provides the reader with a sense of the possibilities
of applying this theory to higher education.

Constraints and Dangers

There are two constraints and one danger that should be noted when
considering the implications for higher education. First, this theory
has been applied in only a few instances to the higher education con-
text (Rosnow, 1994; Stage et al., 1998); and there are questions to be
answered related to the way that it can be practiced. Are there specific
intelligences that need development in college (for example the personal
intelligences)? Are certain entries into intelligences better for college
age students? Does the development of multiple intelligences change
the opportunities for college graduates? Stage et al. (1998) note that the
theory needs further testing within the higher education environment,
and they provide the following questions for future research: 1) Is it pos-
sible to modify curricula and course requirements to capitalize on the
full range of intelligences? 2) Do such modifications make a difference
in students’ learning? 3) Do college students represent the range of in-
telligences? (p. 74). The few studies that have examined whether college
students exhibit the multiple intelligences have shown that they tend
to have a range of intelligences, even with the admissions bias in place
and the fact that these talents have not been developed through educa-
tional institutions, for the most part (Gardner, 1993). Examining how
P1: LMD/GVG
Innovative Higher Education PH066-345252 October 3, 2001 9:56 Style file version March 31, 1999

152 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

curricula could be changed explores the constraints within the environ-

ment, not the validity of the theory or its application per se. This leads,
however, to the second constraint, cost and change in environment.
Certainly, there is no way to make a major change without incurring
some costs. Modifying pedagogy might be a lower cost issue, but in the
case of changing admissions, there are larger cost implications. Yet, al-
most any change initiative will require time and money. It is difficult
to know whether the culture of the academy will serve as a constraint.
In many ways the theory is aligned with the traditional beliefs of the
academy—the liberal learning tradition. This will also serve as an in-
teresting question for future research.
Perhaps the most noted danger of MI theory is that certain racial,
ethnic, or cultural groups will become associated with one or a few
intelligences, rather than the range of intelligences (Gardner, 1993).
A few observers have commented on the bigotry and narrow-mindness
of intelligence testing and fear the same will occur with MI theory
(Armstrong, 2000). Yet, one of the main criteria for an intelligence is
that it be found across all racial, ethnic, or cultural groups. This crite-
rion needs to be made a centerpiece of any effort to apply this theory
within higher education.

Conclusion

Is it important to apply MI theory to higher education with all the

other change initiatives mentioned in the introduction to this essay?
Does MI theory make a unique contribution? I think a case has been
made that MI theory makes a distinctive contribution to our under-
standing of teaching and learning and that it should become a theory
more commonly applied within higher education research and practice.
Gardner’s theory provides a new framework for discussions of access on
campuses and within the policy environment. The theory suggests the
need to change admissions practices, honors placement, assignments,
and, testing; and it reveals the need to broaden assessment practices.
MI theory provides a mechanism for developing multiple intelligences
through new pedagogical approaches. This theory also reinforces cur-
rent movements in higher education such as student and academic
affairs collaboration; the connection of mission, goals, processes, and
outcomes in assessment; the need for more technology in college class-
rooms; and the relationship between affective and cognitive learning
outcomes. This article is a call for application of this theory to the higher
P1: LMD/GVG
Innovative Higher Education PH066-345252 October 3, 2001 9:56 Style file version March 31, 1999

Multiple Intelligences 153

education environment. In addition, research on the implementation of

this theory is needed.
I also want to suggest another application of this theory. Perhaps MI
theory can be used as an umbrella for the many change initiatives that
overwhelm educators within the academy today. Most of the current
calls for reform are a response to the shifting context—access, diverse
learners, and accountability. Community service learning, for example,
responds to the need for addressing unique learners’ needs for experi-
ential learning, whereas the assessment movement responds to calls
for accountability (Stage, Muller, Kinzie, & Simmons, 1998). However,
each tends to address a distinctive educational problem, rather than a
set of issues.
Why would institutions want to consider developing an umbrella
framework for the various changes they are trying to implement? The
process of change in educational institutions often fails or is not fully
implemented. The reasons are complicated; but some commonly noted
issues include being thwarted by lack of faculty and administrator time,
blocked by tremendous barriers such as reward systems that do not en-
courage change, or stunted by lack of efficacy of the change initiative.
One of the main facilitators of change is a collaborative leadership cul-
ture (Eckel, Kill, Green, & Mallon, 1999).
The MI framework could addresses these barriers, providing several
strategic advantages. By combining the several change initiatives un-
der one umbrella, psychologically people feel they are working on fewer
issues at once, feeling less overwhelmed. Since MI theory combines is-
sues addressed by many different movements, it is positioned to provide
one framework for faculty and administrators to absorb. Furthermore,
it is a philosophy, not just a single educational technique or approach.
Philosophies offer a new way of conceptualizing education and answer
questions about whom to teach, what to teach, how to teach, and what
type of schools need to be formed to develop this form of education.
Studies of change find that the sheer number of change initiatives
overwhelms faculty and staff (Eckel, Kill, Green, & Mallon, 1999). One
guiding philosophy might be a stronger approach for developing change.
The more disconnected the initiatives, the more it appears that each ef-
fort is starting all over, rather than building on a common agenda or
long-term framework. Research on change has identified that synergy
among change initiatives leads to ease of implementation (Eckel, Kill,
Green, & Mallon, 1999).
MI theory might provide the intrinsic motivation for faculty to alter
their approach to teaching since this theory is based on a realization
 P1: LMD/GVG
Innovative Higher Education PH066-345252 October 3, 2001 9:56 Style file version March 31, 1999

154 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

that students have different intelligences. The biological support for

these different intelligences should be quite compelling to faculty who
tend to be persuaded by research. Most faculty and administrators be-
lieve in the need to develop people to meet their potential. Many change
initiatives fail because they simply do not provide compelling evidence
of the benefit to students or learning. This theory has been tested in
hundreds of studies over the last twenty years, providing a compelling
case for its efficacy (Armstrong, 2000; Gardner, 1993).
Lastly, MI theory promotes the importance of the work of all faculty
and staff (including student affairs administrators), helping to bring
people together to work collaboratively toward change. Creating a col-
laborative environment is critical to change initiatives. It may be that
MI theory can provide the common assumptions to coalesce faculty and
staff toward change. Another compelling argument to bring people to-
gether is that students will increasingly be graduating from MI high
schools.
In closing, through an exploration of the potential of multiple intelli-
gence theory we may again improve higher education as many believe
was accomplished through the application of John Dewey’s work in the
last century.

References

Armstrong, T. (2000) Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Washington DC: Association

of School Curriculum Development.
Belenky, M, Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing.
New York: Basic Books.
Cohen, A. (1996). The shaping of American higher education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Dewey, J. (reprinted, 1997; original 1916). Democracy and education. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Eckel, P., Hill, B, Green, M., & Mallon, B. (1999). On change: Reports from the road and
insights into institutional change. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Hoerr, T. (2000). Becoming a multiple intelligences school. Washington DC: Association
of School Curriculum Development.
Love, A., & Love, P. (1995). Enhancing student learning: Intellectual, social, and emotional
integration, 24(4). Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Series.
Morgan, H. (1992). An analysis of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence. Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of Eastern Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Rosnow, R. (1994). Intelligence and the epistimics of interpersonal acumen: Testing some
implications of Gardner’s theory. Intelligence, 19, 93–116.
Stage, F., Muller, P., Kinzie, J., & Simmons, A. (1998). Creating learning centered class-
rooms: What does learning theory have to say?, 26(4). Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report Series.

View publication stats