RUNNING HEAD: Student’s Academic Expectations
1
Sociology Report:
Student’s Academic Expectations in Regards to Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple
Intelligences
Vincent Palmeri
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Sociology Report
2
Abstract
Sociology Report
3
Introduction
Harvard graduate and Professor of Education, Howard Gardner is credited for pioneering
the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. “Gardner proposed seven different domains of intelligence,
each of which operates more or less independently. That is, a person can be high or low in any
intelligence, regardless of his or her level on the other six domains” (Mettetal, 1997, p.
115). Different studies and researchers suggest that there may be more than seven intelligences
(Barrington, 2004; Stanford, 2003); however, the seven being discussed for this experiment are
commonly agreed upon.
The seven distinct intelligences discussed in Howard Gardner’s theory include “Spatial”,
“Musical”, “Logical-Mathematical”, “Interpersonal”, “Intrapersonal”, “Bodily-Kinesthetic”, and
“Linguistic” intelligences. Spatial intelligence relates to thinking in physical space and Musical
intelligence correlates to rhythmic thought. The Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence reflects hand on
thought processes and requires bodily movement. The Interpersonal intelligence initiates
learning through social interaction while Intrapersonal is the opposite and requires individual
thought. Logical and linguistic intelligences are most commonly associated with learning for
academic purposes. The logical intelligence requires mathematical thought processes to learn and
the linguistic intelligence utilizes lectures and complex vocabulary to initiate thought (Gardner
and Hatch, 1989, p.6).
Since Gardner’s Theory was first introduced it has been widely hypothesized as to its
implications on educational systems around the world. It is clear that Gardner’s theory; if
properly implemented, could cause vast reforms to educational systems worldwide, increase
student diversity, and provide educational opportunities to those who have previously not met
traditional academic standards. It is commonly agreed upon that a majority of teaching methods
in place today, exclude many of the multiple intelligences discussed in Gardner’s Theory, and
focus on one or two of those intelligences. According to Gwendolyn Mettetal (1997, p115),
“Verbal and logical-mathematical intelligences correspond closely to the traditional intelligences
measured by intelligence tests”. This claim acts as evidence that intelligence is being measured
with a focus on these two specific intelligences, as opposed to including the remaining five
intelligences. Pokey Stanford’s analysis of the contrast between a multiple intelligence
classroom, and a traditional classroom agrees with Mettetal’s statement on traditional
intelligence measurements. Stanford states
The teacher's role in a Multiple Intelligence classroom contrasts sharply with that of a
teacher in a traditional classroom. In the traditional classroom, the teacher lectures while
standing at the front of the classroom, writes on the board, questions students about the
assigned readings or handouts, and waits as students finish written work. In comparison,
in the Multiple Intelligence classroom, the teacher continually shifts method of
presentation from linguistic to spatial to musical, and so on, often combining
intelligences in creative ways (Stanford, 2003, p.81-82).
Stanford’s analysis of a “Multiple Intelligence Classroom” requires continual transition between
intelligences initiated by the teacher.
In an experiment conducted at an elementary school in Farmington Indiana, students and
teachers were assigned the task of initiating the use of multiple intelligences. An abrupt switch
from a “traditional” class to class approach to a block learning period approach was the
foundation for transforming into an institution that develops multiple intelligences (Mettetal,
1997). The block based system was designed to allow for interpersonal interaction between
students during a “flow time” period. The period allowed for students to participate in multiple
activities designed to develop all of the seven intelligences. This “flow time” also allowed for
teachers to incorporate new teaching methods by consulting with other teachers. Although
incorporating new teaching methods was welcomed it was not required of the teachers (Mettetal,
1997). To test the efficiency of the new educational system students, faculty and parents were
interviewed and surveyed. Overall the participants had positive opinions of the new educational
system; however, there were some concerns regarding the non-traditional approach (Mettetal
1997).
In cases similar to the aforementioned situation, Multiple Intelligence Theory is already
being implemented; however, some feel that the theory is still widely misunderstood. In a study
conducted by Professor Ernie Barrington of the University of Auckland in New Zealand, fellow
lecturers attended a workshop focused on the Theory of Multiple Intelligences and were later
asked to complete a brief questionnaire (Barrington, 2004). A total of four workshops were held
in which forty nine lecturers from Hong Kong or New Zealand attended. After each workshop
each lecturer was mailed a questionnaire containing five questions in which twenty five lecturers
completed (Barrington, 2004). The questionnaire contained these five questions:
How much did you know about Multiple Intelligence Theory?” “Do you think MI is
relevant to tertiary teaching? Do you think the quality of learning would improve if MI
Theory were employed? Did you make any changes to your teaching as a result of the
workshop? Do you have any other comments to make (Barrington, 2004, p.429)
The results of Barrington’s questionnaire proved that a majority of lecturers felt the Multiple
Intelligence Theory had a place in higher education; however, only three of the twenty five felt
they knew a lot about the theory previous to the workshop.
After more than three decades since Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences
was first publicized in Gardner’s book Frames of Mind: the theory of multiple intelligences
(1983), Gardner’s theory still has not been fully implemented into current educational
institutions. The experiment that will be discussed in this paper is designed to test for traces of
Gardner’s Theory in a current college level English classroom based on the expectations of seven
students. The experiment is designed to test the expectations of seven students on an assignment
given the impression that the assignment is to be graded by the Professor. The hypothesis for this
experiment is that the majority of the participants will take a Linguistic approach to completing
the assignment based on societal norms created in an academic setting.
Methodology
For this experiments seven students in a 200 level English course at John Jay College of
Criminal Justice were asked to complete a task. The seven participants were separated into three
groups with two proctors overseeing each group. Proctors were fellow classmates with the
participants. The task the participants were assigned was to describe their experiences in the
concurrent English class. The proctors were assigned to give examples of possible methods to
complete the task; however, proctors also stated that the participants would be graded, and the
participants should complete the assignment using a method, they felt would satisfy the
professor. The participants were told that the assignment was to be graded to increase the
potential that they would take it seriously, and to ensure a more accurate reflection of their
expectations. Possible method examples given by the proctors included, but are not limited to,
working together, working individually, drawing a picture, writing a song or poem, and acting.
Examples were given to encourage the use of a non-traditional method. Proctors were not given a
script or a unanimous question; therefore, participants in each group had different experiences.
No participant information such as age and gender was recorded. The method in which the
participants completed the task would reflect their expectations of how a traditional English
course was taught. The method in which they completed the task would also reflect which
intelligence the participant most commonly identifies with when asked to complete an academic
assignment.
Results
For this experiment, recorded data consisted of behavior characteristics and the
individual’s method of completing the task. Group one consisted of three participants in which
two of the three participants wrote summaries of their experiences while one participant drew a
picture. Participants one and two who wrote summaries reflected a linguistic approach to
academics; however, participant one made his or her summary rhyme. This technique correlates
with the Musical intelligence as well. Participant three, who chose to draw a picture; this
demonstrates both the Visual-Spatial intelligence, and the Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence.
However, the participant also included written dialogue, and written dialogue reflects the
Linguistic intelligence.
Group two consisted of two participants; both of which wrote summaries that clearly
reflect a linguistic intelligence. However, the participants consulted with one another
immediately after the task was assigned. The fact that the participants consulted one another
prior to beginning the task demonstrates the Interpersonal Intelligence. The interaction between
the two participants caused them to agree to draw a picture. Their decision to draw a picture
reflects both the Visual-Spatial intelligence and the Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence. Although
the participants agreed to draw a picture eventually they both chose to write a summary. These
process, in which the participants reflected on a previous decision, and chose to pursue a
different method demonstrates a high level of self-reflection; therefore, demonstrating the
Intrapersonal Intelligence. Upon completion of the task, the proctors spoke with participants and
asked why the chose to write a summary. The participants stated that they felt a written summary
was the most common method. This statement reflects the use of the Logical-Mathematical
Intelligence because selecting the most common method required logical thought.
Group three consisted of two participants: participant’s six and seven. Participant seven
chose to write a summary while participant six chose to write a poem. As previously mentioned a
written summary clearly reflects a linguistic approach. A poem demonstrates both the Linguistic
and Musical Intelligences. Similar to group two, the participants in group three chose to consult
with one another upon being presented with the task. Like the participants in group two, the
participants in group three agreed to draw a picture; in fact, both participants began to draw their
individual pictures before deciding to write a poem and a summary respectively (visible in the
addendum). Unlike group two, the participants in group three chose to remain in contact, and
consulted with each other throughout the entire process. The consistent communication between
participants six and seven clearly reflects the interpersonal intelligence. When asked why they
chose not to draw a picture both participants agreed that it was too difficult.
Discussion
The results for this experiment, in relation to the hypothesis, are inconclusive. Although a
majority of the participants utilized the Linguistic Intelligence to complete task, it was not the
sole intelligence that they associated with. Although the results of this experiment did not prove
the original hypothesis, this experiment has acted as further research for Howard Gardner’s
Theory of Multiple Intelligences by providing proof of Multiple Intelligences in certain students.
Understanding the academic expectations of students, in regards to the Theory of
Multiple Intelligences, is important in creating a more efficient and effective educational system.
If it is proven that students commonly associate traditional academics with a particular
intelligence, the educational system may fail to develop the remaining intelligences. If this is the
scenario then a majority of students will be unable to reach their full potential. Further research
in this field could result in a more diverse academic environment, in turn, potentially creating
opportunities for those who previously did not meet traditional academic standards.
Although this experiment did not suffice as means to test this hypothesis, similar or a
revised version of this experiment could. The lack of a universal question could have potentially
harmed this experiment. Proctors were unable to present the same information to all of the
participants, in turn, creating a different experience for each group. Presenting a universal
question to all groups in further research would help prevent tainted results.
For this experiment, participant characteristics such as age, sex and gender were not
recorded. For future experiments recording such data could be beneficial by potentially noticing
further correlations between participants. Including participant’s academic characteristics such
as, grade point average, class standing and academic interest could be beneficial as well. These
characteristics could demonstrate the participant’s level of involvement in academics.
Removing peers as proctors and replacing them with older, more experienced proctors
could have been a benefit to the experiment as well. Since the proctors and participants are
members of similar social groups it is unsure the level of seriousness both parties presented.
Introducing proctors from separate social groups could potentially alter the way participants
react.
References
Barrington, E. (2004). Teaching to student diversity in higher education: how Multiple
Intelligence Theory can help. Teaching In Higher Education, 9(4), 421-434.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple Intelligences Go to School: Educational Implications
of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Educational Researcher, Vol. 18, No. 8 (Nov.,
1989), pp. 4-10
Mettetal, G. (1997). Attitudes towards a multiple intelligence curriculum. Journal Of
Educational Research, 91(2), 115.
Stanford, P. (2003). Multiple Intelligence for Every Classroom. Intervention In School &
Clinic, 39(2), 80-85.
Addendum
Attached as a PDF