Teaching of Weather Forecasts and Seasons by Multiple Intelligences in

EFL/ESL Classrooms
Gkhan Bas, Turkey
Gokhan BAS is an English Language Teacher in Nigde city, Turkey. He has a BA degree in
English Language Teaching from Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey. He has had articles
published in national and international journals. He is currently having his MSc degree at
Selcuk University Educational Sciences (Educational Administration and Supervision)
Department in Konya. He has taught English in various schools in Konya and Nigde cities in
Turkey. He is studying Multiple Intelligences, Cooperative Learning, CALL, Brain-Based
Learning, Project-Based Learning, Teaching-Learning processes, TQM, Educational
Administration, and the Turkish Educational System. He is still teaching English in Karatli
Sehit Sahin Yilmaz Elementary School, Nigde, Turkey. E-mail: gokhan51bas@gmail.com
Menu
Introduction
Vocabulary teaching and learning in EFL/ESL classrooms
Multiple Intelligences Theory and Education
Other Intelligences
Application of MI Theory to Teaching of Weather Forecasts and Seasons
Conclusion
Introduction
Teaching a foreign language is a difficult process because everything is new and strange for
learners of it. The need to learn and teach a foreign language has arisen from the unavoidable
fact that is the growth of international trade, scientific research and tourism which require
people to speak to each other to make demands and meet them. For this reason a tremendous
amount of efforts has been made on the teaching of foreign languages on earth. Therefore, the
methodological issue in teaching various language skills and areas has been a matter of
discussion for ages (Saricoban, 2001).
Bruner (1983) investigated why children find school learning so difficult. He discovered that
this was because children experienced it as very separate from their real lives. His theory of
learning is essentially constructivist, a model of learning in which the child is seen as an
active agent in his or her own learning, retaining, selecting and transforming information to
construct knowledge which is shaped by his or her unique way of seeing and interpreting the
world (Bas and Kuzucu, 2009; Brooks and Brooks, 1999; Sunbul, 2007; Yurdakul, 2004).
Bruner (1983) also thought that the childs learning is a process, not merely a product, which
can be accelerated or enhanced by social and group processes.
The work of Vygotsky (1978) is also very important since he emphasised the role of social
atmosphere/interaction. He sees children as constructing their understating from the social
interaction of their learning contexts with all its possibilities and limitations. In this regard, as
Anning (1991) suggests that children are unique in what they bring to the learning experience
but tend to draw on the same kinds of learning strategy. This means that we must think of

learners as having individual differences so that teachers need to pay attention to the
organisation of their classrooms. They must also consider their students learning styles
(Dunn, 1990, 2000; Cekic, 2003) and different intelligence types / profiles (Gardner, 1993,
1999; Goleman, 1995, 2009; McCallum, 2008). As teachers must consider their students
intelligence profiles and learning styles and they must also consider them as having
individuals, they must use the modern language learning methods and approaches in their
classroom in order to create an atmosphere which pays attention to learners with different
learning preferences. In the learning environment, it is essential that the learning atmosphere
must be student-centred so that students in this atmosphere must do the activities by
themselves or in other words they must adopt the responsibility of their own learning (Abbott
and Ryan, 1999; Bas, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Brooks and Brooks, 1999; Senemoglu, 2004;
Yurdakul, 2004). There are new methods developed which pay attention to student-centred
learning environments in EFL/ESL classrooms. One of the favourite and mostly adopted
foreign language teaching / learning methods is the theory of multiple intelligences (Bas,
2008a; Berman, 1998; Christison, 1996; Puchta and Rinvolucri, 2007).
Vocabulary teaching and learning in EFL/ESL classrooms
Meaningful learning, storage and the retrieval of the vocabulary items in English as a foreign
language is the common problem encountered in teaching and learning process (Can, 2007).
Vocabulary, without which a language is meaningless, is an important aspect in all language
teaching because language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols, which permit all people in
a given culture or other people who have learnt the system of that culture to communicate or
to interact (Finocchioro, 1964: 8 as cited in Saricoban, 2001: 23). Nowadays it is widely
accepted that vocabulary teaching should be part of the syllabus and lesson, and taught in a
well-planned and regular basis. Some authors argue that vocabulary should be at the centre of
language teaching, because language consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised
grammar (Lewis, 1993) so that vocabulary teaching especially in primary and elementary
levels is fundamental since students are so much eager to learn and use new language and
more active as they are learning new things in / about a foreign language. As students grow
older, they are reluctant to learn new things since if they start to learn new vocabulary in a
language in earlier ages, they will not have much trouble in the future when they are
adolescents and adults.
Multiple Intelligences Theory and Education
While everyone might possess eight intelligences, they are not equally developed in any one
individual. Some teachers feel that they need to create activities that draw on all eight, not
only to facilitate language acquisition amongst diverse students, but also to help them realise
their full potential with all eight. One way of doing so is to think about the activities that are
frequently used in the classroom and to categorise them according to intelligence type
(Larsen-Freeman, 2000: 170).
If we accept that different intelligences predominate in different people, it suggests that the
same learning task may not be appropriate for all our students. While people with a strong
logical / mathematical intelligence might respond well to a complex grammar explanation, a
different student might need to comfort of diagrams and physical demonstration because their
strengths is in the visual / spatial area. Other students who have a strong interpersonal
intelligence may require a more interactive climate if their learning is to be effective (Harmer,
2001: 47).

Intelligence has traditionally been defined in terms of intelligence quotient (IQ), which
measures a narrow range of verbal/linguistic and logical/mathematical abilities (Christison,
1996). Gardner (1993) argues that humans possess a number of distinct intelligences that
manifest themselves in different skills and abilities. All human beings apply these
intelligences to solve problems, invent processes, and create things. Intelligence, according to
MI theory, is being able to apply one or more of the intelligences in ways that are valued by a
community or culture.
The current Multiple Intelligences Theory outlines eight intelligences, although Gardner
(1993, 1999) continues to explore additional possibilities:
1 Verbal / Linguistic Intelligence: The ability to use language effectively both orally
and in writing.
2 Logical/Mathematical Intelligence: The ability to use numbers effectively and
reason well.
3 Visual/Spatial Intelligence: The ability to recognise form, space, colour, line, and
shape and to graphically represent visual and spatial ideas.
4 Bodily/Kinaesthetic Intelligence: The ability to use the body to express ideas and
feelings and to solve problems.
5 Musical Intelligence: The ability to recognise rhythm, pitch, and melody.
6 Interpersonal Intelligence: The ability to understand another person's feelings,
motivations, and intentions and to respond effectively.
7 Intrapersonal Intelligence: The ability to know about and understand oneself and
recognise one's similarities to and differences from others.
8 Naturalist Intelligence: The ability to recognise and classify plants, minerals, and
animals.
The theory of Multiple Intelligences offers eight ways of teaching and learning styles. In this
regard, armed with the knowledge and application of the multiple intelligences, teachers can
ensure they provide enough variety in the activities they use so that as much of their pupils
learning potential can be tapped as possible (Bas, 2008a, 2008c; Berman, 1998).
The younger the learners the more physical activity they tend to need and the more they need
to make use of all their senses (Brewster, Ellis and Girard, 2003). According to Berman
(1998), if children can draw or visualise an image, hum it or move through it first, they may
be able to more easily talk or write about it. On the basis of the theory of multiple
intelligences in this regard, children can also draw a picture while listening to a description,
act out a nursery rhyme, follow instructions or make a shape or simple model while they listen
to a description of it. This draws on learning by the ear and eye and is good for those with
bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence.
Other Intelligences
Gardner (1993) states in his book Frames of Mind as I assume that there will be continued
give-and-take on the controversial aspects of MI theory; I hope for continued theoretical
progress as well (p. xxvii). So that he considers future multiple intelligences; he is
conscious and hopefull for the existence of future intelligences.

Not only Howard Gardner suggested intelligence styles for the theory of multiple
intelligences, but also Daniel Goleman (1995) has suggested an additional intelligence style to
the list of original multiple intelligences. He has added a ninth intelligence style which he
calls Emotional Intelligence. Goleman sees this type of intelligence out of the
intrapersonal intelligence in the original list of the theory of multiple intelligences. This
type of intelligence can be described as below:
1. Emotional Intelligence: The ability to understand their emotions and the emotions
of others and act appropriately based on this understanding.
Daniel Goleman (2009) and Ian McCallum (2008) have suggested a intelligence style which
they call ecological intelligence so that they see ecological intelligence out of the
naturalist intelligence of Gardner. They define this type of intelligence as:
2. Ecological Intelligence: Ecological Intelligence recasts the uproar over global
warming and the assault of man-made toxins into our bodies in terms of the collective
self-deception which both created this crisis and holds a key to its solution. Ecological
Intelligence argues that green labels and recycling programs may do more harm than
good by feeding a vital lie, lulling us into the illusion that we are doing enough already
while ignoring the adverse impact of the far vaster proportion of what we buy and do.
Gardner (1999, 2000b) nominated a different intelligence, namely spiritual intelligence.
Although he nominates a different intelligence, he is unsure whether to accept the existence of
it. According to Gardner (1999, 2000b), there are problems, for example, around the
content of spiritual intelligence, its privileged but unsubstantiated claims with regard to
truth value, and the need for it to be partially identified through its effect on other people.
However, there are studies (Vaughan, 2002; Wolman, 2001; Zohar and Marshall, 2000) on
spiritual intelligence that they accept it as an intelligence type. In this regard, the spiritual
intelligence can be described as below:
3. Spiritual Intelligence: This intelligence introduces the concept as an expansion of
psychology as a science, and posits the need for a new psychological model of the
human self and of human personality (Zohar and Marshall, 2000). Spiritual
intelligence calls for multiple ways of knowing and for the integration of the inner life
of mind and spirit with the outer life of work in the world. It can be cultivated through
questing, inquiry, and practice. Spiritual experiences may also contribute to its
development, depending on the context and means of integration. Spiritual maturity is
expressed through wisdom and compassionate action in the world. Spiritual
intelligence is necessary for discernment in making spiritual choices that contributes to
psychological well-being and overall healthy human development (Vaughan, 2002).
Application of MI Theory to Teaching of Weather Forecasts and Seasons
One of the popular vocabulary of English (or most of the languages) is the learning of
weather forecast and seasons of the year. Since learning of these vocabularies can be used
daily by everyone so they can be defined as everyday vocabulary. For this reason, it is
generally accepted that these vocabularies should be learnt by language learners.

The term working station has been developed by Armstrong (2000). These stations can be
given some names which reflect their favourite personalities (writer, artist, naturalist,
musician, vs. such as Shakespeare, Newton, Beethoven, Van Gogh, etc. working stations).
Students work in ten working stations in the vocabulary learning process of weather
forecasts and seasons of the year.
In learning weather forecast and seasons of the year vocabulary, they can be learnt by at
least by ten ways and in the teaching process of these vocabularies these intelligence types of
the theory of multiple intelligences can be used easily and effectively. In teaching of these
vocabularies, the following activities are suggested to be used in order to create an effective
classroom atmosphere and to motivate the students to join the lesson voluntarily and have fun
in the learning process.
1. Verbal / Linguistic Intelligence (Shakespeare Working Station)
Since verbal / linguistic intelligence is the ability to use words and language, students can
be taught weather forecasts and seasons of the year linguistically. In learning these
vocabularies, students can listen to the sounds of weather forecasts and seasons and read
about these vocabularies. They can also compare these vocabularies with their native
language and state the differences and similarities. Students can play vocabulary games ob
these vocabularies with their friends in groups and individually.
Students can write or / and read things which include weather forecasts and seasons of the
year. Additionally, they can be made to create a word chart of seasons and then play it with
their friends in the class with role-play or vs.
2. Logical / Mathematical Intelligence (Newton Working Station)
Logical / Mathematical intelligence is the ability to use reason, logic and numbers, vs.. In
this intelligence type, students can create a chart of weather forecasts of their city for a week
or month. They can be made to write clothes / fruits, vs. for each season and weather forecast
and also calculate the total number of snowy, rainy, cloudy, etc. days in a month or a season,
write a report on it and then present is to the class. They can also produce word puzzles and
think over the natural events and categorise them according to the seasons. In addition, they
can play computer games including weather forecast and seasons of the year and then do
ordering activities on paper forms or on the Internet.
3. Visual / Spatial Intelligence (Van Gogh Working Station)
Visual / Spatial intelligence is the ability to perceive the visual, draw, build, design and
create things, daydream, look at pictures, watch movies read maps, vs.. In this intelligence
style students can build puzzles, charts and graphs on weather forecast and seasons of the
year. They can draw pictures of the target vocabulary and state their favourite season(s) with
colours.
Students can also be made to create a chart of seasons and weather forecast profile of
their own city for a week or month and then demonstrate them with pictures or illustrations to
the students in the class. They can also write stories with pictures about the seasons or / and
weather forecasts.

4. Musical / Rhythmic Intelligence (Beethoven Working Station)

Since Musical / Rhythmic intelligence is the ability to produce and appraise music, sing,
hum, tunes, play an instrument, respond to music, etc., students in this intelligence style can
listen to, memorise and then sing songs which include seasons and weather forecasts.
Students can create sounds of weather forecasts (sounds of rain, storm, vs. / sunny, cloudy, vs.
weather) and then turn this activity into a game and play it by guessing the weather forecasts
and seasons of the year according to the sound(s) created. They can also write poems and
compose it and then sing it with a musical instrument. Students can listen to the sounds of
weather forecasts and seasons then dramatise them according to given sound(s).
5. Bodily / Kinaesthetic Intelligence (Charles Chaplin Working Station)
Bodily / Kinaesthetic intelligence is stated as the ability to control body movements, handle
objects skilfully, touch and talk, use body language (mime and gestures), vs.. In this
intelligence style students can mime the weather forecasts and seasons, demonstrate and
present them in the classroom. May be they can want their friends to remember the target
vocabulary according to the given movement(s). For example they can handle an umbrella
and then walk through the class as if it is raining and want from their friends to estimate the
target vocabulary.
Additionally, students in the classroom can create sounds of weather forecasts and seasons as
a game and they can want a friend of them (a player in a game selected randomly) to
dramatise the given weather forecast(s) or season(s) by their movements. Plus, students can
also create stories and then act them in the class which includes the target vocabulary. In this
learning style students can create weather forecasts and / or seasons crafts or make posters of
them and then demonstrate them in the class or school.
6. Intrapersonal Intelligence (Mevlana Working Station)
Since Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to self-reflect, be aware of ones inner state of
being, work alone, pursue own interests, vs., students in this intelligence style can create
projects individually and write self reports / compositions on the target vocabulary.
Students can also create an emotions chart and then write or draw the picture of his / her
own emotions according to the weather forecasts and / or seasons. In other words, students are
made to write / draw or dramatise feelings or emotions in winter, summer, vs. seasons or
rainy, snowy, cloudy, vs. weather forecast reports of their won city for a week or month and
also calculate the total number of rainy, snowy, sunny, vs. days of that week or month. They
can listen to, compose songs and read stories which include the target vocabulary.
7. Interpersonal / Social Intelligence (Gandhi Working Station)
Interpersonal / Social intelligence is defined as the ability to relate and understand others,
talk to people, join and make things in groups, vs..
In this intelligence style, students can create posters or projects within groups or pairs so that
they are made to work collaboratively by this way. Students can make interviews, for example
which deal with likes / dislikes of people about the weather forecasts and seasons and then

they can demonstrate the results of their interviews in the class with a report. Students can
also create dramas by using the target vocabulary and they can make comparisons amongst
the weather forecasts and seasons.
8. Natural Intelligence (Darwin Working Station)
Since Natural intelligence is defined as the ability to recognise and classify patterns in
nature, students in this intelligence style can define the natural changes in different seasons
and weather forecasts. They can create a poster deals with the colours / flowers / fruits /
clothes, vs. of each season that shows the changes on people and in the nature. They can also
state some of the animals in which season they live the best (or their favourite) with a poster.
Students can make graphs and charts of weather forecasts of their city and show weather
changes on them. Additionally, they can also draw pictures of the environment which includes
weather forecast and season changes on them.
Conclusion
In conclusion, students can be organised to be taught the weather forecasts and seasons of the
year in at least ten ways of multiple intelligences working stations (Armstrong, 2000). Every
student must visit each working station and join in the groups and do the activities dealing
with the content target of each station.
In selecting students for the working stations of multiple intelligences, teachers may adopt
two options in this process. Firstly, teachers can appoint each student in different working
stations according to their intelligence type preferences. For example, the teacher can ask
some questions to student which deal with different intelligence styles and then select the
students and place them in the working stations. Students in these working stations (or
groups) work collaboratively and then at the end of the group process the students in each
working station create one or more projects which reflects the identity and content of their
working station. Teachers can use Multiple Intelligences supported Project-based learning in
their lessons in order to enhance the learning environment in the classroom. This not only
enriches the learning atmosphere, but it also makes positive effects on their academic
achievement levels and attitudes towards the lesson indeed. In a research carried out by Bas
(in review) has found out that this method not only has positive effects on their academic
achievement, but also it has positive effects on their attitudes towards the lesson.
Secondly, teachers can let the students not to work in groups but he / she makes the students
join in the works of at least five or six working stations. At the end of this process, teachers
can want their students to create a project individually or in groups or he / she can make an
examination which reflects the jobs of each working station. But it is recommended the
teachers to organise their students within a group (working station) so that they must ensure
the collaboratively process in the classroom. Yet collaborative processes make students have
high achievement levels and attitudes towards the lesson. It is stated in some researches
(Acikgoz, 1992; Bas, in press; Gomleksiz, 1993; Johnson, Johnson and Smith, 1998; Sharan
and Sharan, 1990; Slavin, 1995, 1996) that creating a collaborative language learning
atmosphere in the class have positive effects on students. As can be seen easily in each
working station in this article, nearly all of the working stations, except intrapersonal
intelligence working station, support the collaborative atmosphere in the learning
environment.

In the classroom, teachers need to keep in mind that all students have at least eight
intelligences, but differ in the strengths. Gardner (1993, 1999) discovered that these
intelligences are not fixed but malleable capacities which can be enhanced by educational
opportunities. So, teachers should exercise teaching methods and activities to develop
students intelligences (Armstrong, 2000). Each students learning style and intelligences
should be respected because the teachers attitude toward students ability will influence the
ways teachers present material to their students and the methods to evaluate students
capacity. If we can provide opportunities for authentic learning based on students interest,
talents, and needs, students will be able to present their strengths, while acquiring more
motivations to be an expert and leading to increased confidence. Thus, it is extremely
important to develop a curriculum that can nurture the undeveloped intelligences and
strengthen the developed ones. In fact, this new curriculum based on MI theory can be used
for students with weak linguistic and logical intelligences. With the implementation of MI, it
is clear that a more student-centered curriculum is necessary (Gardner, 2000a). Gardner's
(1993, 1999, 2000a) purpose in Multiple Intelligences Theory is to create real life learning
situations for learners. For this reason, teachers need to help students link their prior
knowledge with the to-be-learned information so that students can apply what they have
learned in the classroom to the real outside world. Once the knowledge is gained, students
will have ability to solve their own problems in new situations and become successful learners
(Brooks and Brooks, 1999; Yurdakul, 2004).
References
Abbott, J. and Ryan, T. (1999). Constructing Knowledge, Reconstructing Schooling.
Educational Leadership. 57(3), 66-69.
Acikgoz, K. U. (1992). Cooperative, Competitive and Traditional Activities in Foreign
Language achievement and retention TESOL 25th Annual Convention and Exposition. New
York, March 24-28.
Anning, A. (1991). The First Year at School. Ballmoor: Open University Press.
Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. (Second Edition). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bas, G. (2008a). Integrating Multiple Intelligences in EFL/ESL Classrooms. The Internet
TESL Journal. 14(5), May. http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Bas-IntegratingMultipleIntelligences.html
Bas, G. (2008b). Implementation of Multiple Intelligences Supported Project-Based Learning
in EFL/ESL Classrooms. ERIC Document. (ED503870)
Bas, G. (2008c). Sinif Yonetiminde Coklu Zeka. Egitisim Dergisi. Sayi: 22, Mart.
Bas, G. and Kuzucu, O. (2009). Effects of CALL Method and DynED Language Programme
on Students Achievement Levels and Attitudes Towards the Lesson in English Classes.
International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 6(7), 31-44.
Bas, G. (in review). Effects of Multiple Intelligences Supported Project-Based Learning on
Students Achievement Levels and Attitudes Towards English Lesson. Novitas-Royal Journal.

Bas, G. (in press). Ingilizce Dersinde Isbirlikli Ogrenme Yonteminin Ogrencilerin Erisisi,
Derse Karsi Tutumlarina ve Ogrenilenlerin Kaliciligina Etkisi. Milli Egitim Dergisi.
Berman, M. (1998). A Multiple Intelligences Road to an ELT Classroom. Bencyfelin: Crown
House.
Brewster, J., Ellis, G. and Girard, D. (2003). The Primary English Teacher's Guide. (New
Edition). London: Penguin Books
Brooks, J. G. and Brooks, M. G. (1999). In Search of Understanding: The Case for
Constructivist Classrooms. (Revised Edition). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Bruner, J. (1983). Childs Talk: Learning to Use Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Can, E. (2007). Art and Craft Activities in Vocabulary Teaching: A Case Study with the 5 th
Grade Students at a State Primary School. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Cukurova
Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, Adana.
Cekic, H. (2003). Matching Learners and Teaching Styles and Its Effect on Learning Foreign
Language Grammar and Reading. Anadolu Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi. 13(2), 5967.
Christison, M. A. (1996). Teaching and Learning Language through Multiple Intelligences.
TESOL Journal. Autumn, pp. 10-14.
Dunn, R. (2000). Learning Styles: Theory, Research, and Practice. National Forum of Applied
Educational Research Journal. 13(1), 322.
Dunn, R. (1990). Rita Dunn Answers Questions on Learning Styles. Educational Leadership.
48, 10-12.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. (Second Edition).
London: Fontana Press.
Gardner, H. (1999). Are There Additional Intelligences? The Case for Naturalist, Spiritual,
and Existential Intelligences. In J. Kane (Ed.). Education, Information and Transformation.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gardner, H. (2000a). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. (Second Edition).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Gardner, H. (2000b). A Case Against Spiritual Intelligence. International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion. 10(1), 27-34.
Gomleksiz, M. (1993). Kubasik Ogrenme Yontemi ile Geleneksel Yontemin Demokratik
Tutumlar ve Erisiye Etkisi. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Cukurova Universitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitusu, Adana.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It can Matter More Than IQ? New York:
Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (2009). Ecological Intelligence: How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We
Buy can Change Everything. Williamsburg, MA: Doubleday Business.
Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. (Third Edition). Harlow:
Longman.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. and Smith, K. (1998). Active Learning: Cooperation in the
College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Larsen-freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles of Language Teaching. (Second
Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and a Way Forward. Hove:
Language Teaching Publications.
McCallum, I. (2008). Ecological Intelligence: Rediscovering Ourselves in Nature. Golden,
Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing.
Puchta, H. and Rinvolucri, M. (2007). Multiple Intelligences in EFL: Exercises for Secondary
and Adults Students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saricoban, A. (2001). The Teaching of Language Skills. Ankara: Hacettepe-Tas.
Sharan, Y. and Sharan, S. (1990). Group Investigation Expands Cooperative Learning.
Educational Leadership. 47(4), 17-21.
Senemoglu, N. (2004). Gelisim, Ogrenme ve Ogretim: Kuramdan Uygulamaya. (9. Baski).
Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative Learning. (Second Edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Slavin, R. (1996). Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know,
What We Need to Know? Contemporary Educational Psychology. 21, 43-69.
Sunbul, A. M. (2007). Ogretim Ilke ve Yontemleri. Konya: Cizgi Kitabevi.
Teele, S. (2005). Teele Inventory for Multiple Intelligences. Redlands, CA: Teele &
Associates.
Vaughan, F. (2002). What is Spiritual Intelligence? Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 42(2),
16-33.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Yurdakul, B. (2004). Yaplandrmaci Ogrenme Yaklasiminin Ogrenenlerin Problem Cozme

Becerilerine, Bilisotesi Farkindalik ve Derse Yonelik Tutum Duzeylerine Etkisi ile Ogrenme
Surecine Katkilari. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Hacettepe Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitusu, Ankara.
Wolman, R. (2001). Thinking with Your Soul: Spiritual Intelligence and What It Matters. New
York: Harmony Books.
Zohar, D. and Marshall, I. (2000). Spiritual Intelligence: The Ultimate Intelligence. London:
Bloomsbury Publishing.
The Teaching English Through Multiple Intelligences course can be viewed here

The theory of multiple intelligences was proposed by Howard Gardner in 1983 to analyse
and better describe the concept of intelligence. The theory also addresses the question whether
traditional IQ tests are truly scientific.
Gardner argues that the concept of intelligence as traditionally defined in psychometrics (IQ
tests) does not sufficiently describe the wide variety of cognitive abilities humans display. For
example, the theory states that a child who learns to multiply easily is not necessarily more
intelligent than a child who has stronger skills in another kind of intelligence. The child who
takes more time to master simple multiplication 1) may best learn to multiply through a
different approach, 2) may excel in a field outside of mathematics, or 3) may even be looking
at and understand the multiplication process at a fundamentally deeper level. Such a
fundamentally deeper understanding can result in what looks like slowness and can hide a
mathematical intelligence potentially higher than that of a child who quickly memorizes the
multiplication table despite a less detailed understanding of the process of multiplication.
The theory has met with mixed responses. Many psychologists feel that a differentiation of
the concept of intelligence is not supported by empirical evidence, but many educationalists
support the practical value of the approaches suggested by the theory.
[edit] Use in education
Traditionally, schools have emphasized the development of logical intelligence and linguistic
intelligence (mainly reading and writing). IQ tests (given to about 1,000,000 students each
year) focus mostly on logical and linguistic intelligence as well. While many students
function well in this environment, there are those who do not. Gardner's theory argues that
students will be better served by a broader vision of education, wherein teachers use different
methodologies, exercises and activities to reach all students, not just those who excel at
linguistic and logical intelligence.
Many teachers see the theory as simple common sense. Some say that it validates what they
already know: that students learn in different ways. On the other hand, James Traub's article in

The New Republic notes that Gardner's system has not been accepted by most academics in
intelligence or teaching.
George Miller, the esteemed psychologist credited with discovering the mechanisms by which
short term memory operates, wrote in The New York Times Book Review that Gardner's
argument boiled down to "hunch and opinion" (p. 20). Gardner's subsequent work has done
very little to shift the balance of opinion. A recent issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law devoted to the study of intelligence contained virtually no reference to Gardner's work.
Most people who study intelligence view M.I. theory as rhetoric rather than science, and
they're divided on the virtues of the rhetoric.
The application of the theory of multiple intelligences varies widely. It runs the gamut from a
teacher who, when confronted with a student having difficulties, uses a different approach to
teach the material, to an entire school using MI as a framework. In general, those who
subscribe to the theory strive to provide opportunities for their students to use and develop all
the different intelligences, not just the few at which they naturally excel.
A Harvard-led study of 41 schools using the theory came to the conclusion that in these
schools there was "a culture of hard work, respect, and caring; a faculty that collaborated and
learned from each other; classrooms that engaged students through constrained but
meaningful choices, and a sharp focus on enabling students to produce high-quality work."[6]
Of the schools implementing Gardner's theory, the most well-known is New City School, in
St. Louis, Missouri, which has been using the theory since 1988. The school's teachers have
produced two books for teachers, Celebrating Multiple Intelligences and Succeeding With
Multiple Intelligences and the principal, Thomas Hoerr, has written Becoming a Multiple
Intelligences School as well as many articles on the practical applications of the theory. The
school has also hosted four conferences, each attracting over 200 educators from around the
world and remains a valuable resource for teachers interested in implementing the theory in
their own classrooms.
Thomas Armstrong argues that Waldorf education organically engages all of Gardner's
original seven intelligences.[7]
[edit] Questions
Questions raised about Gardner's theory include:

What kind of correlations exist between the intelligences, or are they completely
independent?
Should schools be focusing on teaching to students' strengths or on remediating where
they are weak?
To what extent should students be aware of their profile in the various intelligences?

[edit] Critical reception

[edit] The definition of intelligence
One major criticism of the theory is that it is ad hoc: that Gardner is not expanding the
definition of the word "intelligence"; rather, he denies the existence of intelligence as

traditionally understood and instead uses the word "intelligence" whenever other people have
traditionally used words like "ability". This practice has been criticized by Robert J. Sternberg
(1983, 1991), Eysenck (1994), and Scarr (1985).
Defenders of MI theory argue that the traditional definition of intelligence is too narrow, and
thus broader definition more accurately reflects the differing ways in which humans think and
learn. They would state that the traditional interpretation of intelligence collapses under the
weight of its own logic and definition, noting that intelligence is usually defined as the
cognitive or mental capacity of an individual, which by logical necessity would include all
forms of mental qualities, not simply the ones most transparent to standardized I.Q. tests.
Some of these criticisms arise from the fact that Gardner has not settled on a single definition
of intelligence. He originally defined it as the ability to solve problems that have value in at
least one culture, or as something that a student is interested in. However, he added a
disclaimer that he has no fixed definition, and his classification is more of an artistic judgment
than fact:
Ultimately, it would certainly be desirable to have an algorithm for the selection of an
intelligence, such that any trained researcher could determine whether a candidate's
intelligence met the appropriate criteria. At present, however, it must be admitted that the
selection (or rejection) of a candidate's intelligence is reminiscent more of an artistic
judgment than of a scientific assessment. (Gardner, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple
Intelligences, 1985)
Gardner argues that by calling linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities intelligences, but
not artistic, musical, athletic, etc. abilities, the former are needlessly aggrandized. Certain
critics balk at this widening of the definition, saying that it ignores "the connotation of
intelligence...[which] has always connoted the kind of thinking skills that makes one
successful in school."[8]
Gardner writes "I balk at the unwarranted assumption that certain human abilities can be
arbitrarily singled out as intelligence while others cannot"[9] Critics hold that given this
statement, any interest or ability is now redefined as "intelligence". Thus, by adopting this
theory, studying intelligence becomes difficult, because it diffuses into the broader concept of
ability or talent. Gardner's addition of the naturalistic intelligence and conceptions of the
existential and moral intelligences are seen as fruits of this diffusion. Defenders of the MI
theory would argue that this is simply a recognition of the broad scope of inherent mental
abilities, and that such an exhaustive scope by nature defies a simple, one-dimensional
classification such as an assigned IQ value. They would claim that such one-dimensional
values are typically of limited value in predicting the real world application of unique mental
abilities.
Andreas Demetriou suggests that theories which overemphasize the autonomy of the domains
are as simplistic as the theories that overemphasize the role of general intelligence and ignore
the domains. He agrees with Gardner that there indeed are domains of intelligence that are
relevantly autonomous of each other. In fact, some of the domains, such as verbal, spatial,
mathematical, and social intelligence are identified by most lines of research in psychology.
However, in his theory, one of the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, Gardner
is criticized for underestimating the effects exerted on the various domains of intelligences by
processes that define general processing efficiency, such as speed of processing, executive

functions, and working memory, and hypercognitive processes underlying self-awareness and
self-regulation.
All of these processes are integral components of general intelligence that regulate the
functioning and development of different domains of intelligence. In fact, a 2006 study by
Visser and colleagues which was designed to test the autonomy of Gardner's intelligences
showed clearly that most of them are heavily dependent on the general factor of intelligence.
[10]

Thus, it is argued that the domains are to a large extent expressions of the condition of the
general processes. At the same time, the domains may vary because of their constitutional
differences but also differences in individual preferences and inclinations. Moreover, their
functioning both channels and influences the operation of the general processes.[11][12] Thus,
one cannot satisfactorily specify the intelligence of an individual or design effective
interventions programs unless both the general processes and the domains of interest are
evaluated (Demetriou & Kazi, 2006; Demetriou, Mouyi, & Spanoudis, 2010).
[edit] Lack of empirical evidence
The theory has been critiqued as tautologous and thus unfalsifiable;[13] yet other critics have
sought to prove it false by showing that many of Gardner's "intelligences" actually correlate
with the g factor, supporting the idea of a single dominant type of intelligence.[14]
A critical review of MI theory argues that there is little empirical evidence to support it:
"To date there have been no published studies that offer evidence of the validity of the
multiple intelligences. In 1994 Sternberg reported finding no empirical studies. In 2000 Allix
reported finding no empirical validating studies, and at that time Gardner and Connell
conceded that there was "little hard evidence for MI theory" (2000, p. 292). In 2004 Sternberg
and Grigerenko stated that there were no validating studies for multiple intelligences, and in
2004 Gardner asserted that he would be "delighted were such evidence to accrue" (p. 214),
and he admitted that "MI theory has few enthusiasts among psychometricians or others of a
traditional psychological background" because they require "psychometric or experimental
evidence that allows one to prove the existence of the several intelligences" (2004, p. 214)."
(Waterhouse, 2006a, p. 208).
The same review presents evidence to demonstrate that cognitive neuroscience research does
not support the theory of Multiple Intelligences:
"the human brain is unlikely to function via Gardners multiple intelligences. Taken together
the evidence for the intercorrelations of subskills of IQ measures, the evidence for a shared set
of genes associated with mathematics, reading, and g, and the evidence for shared and
overlapping what is it? and where is it? neural processing pathways, and shared neural
pathways for language, music, motor skills, and emotions suggest that it is unlikely that that
each of Gardners intelligences could operate via a different set of neural mechanisms
(1999, p. 99). Equally important, the evidence for the what is it? and where is it?
processing pathways, for Kahnemans two decision-making systems, and for adapted
cognition modules suggests that these cognitive brain specializations have evolved to address
very specific problems in our environment. Because Gardner claimed that that the
intelligences are innate potentialities related to a general content area, MI theory lacks a

rationale for the phylogenetic emergence of the intelligences." (From Waterhouse, 2006a, p.
213).
A number of articles have surveyed the use of Gardner's ideas and conclude that there is little
to no academically substantiated evidence that his ideas work in practice. Steven A. Stahl
found that most of the previous studies which claimed to show positive results had major
flaws:
Among others, Marie Carbo claims that her learning styles work is based on research.
{I discuss Carbo because she publishes extensively on her model and is very
prominent in the workshop circuit...} But given the overwhelmingly negative findings
in the published research, I wondered what she was citing, and about a decade ago, I
thought it would be interesting to take a look. Reviewing her articles, I found that out
of 17 studies she had cited, only one was published. Fifteen were doctoral dissertations
and 13 of these came out of one universitySt. Johns University in New York,
Carbos alma mater. None of these had been in a peer-refereed journal. When I looked
closely at the dissertations and other materials, I found that 13 of the 17 studies that
supposedly support her claim had to do with learning styles based on something other
than modality.[15]
To date, the current No Child Left Behind high-stakes test legislation does not encompass the
multiple intelligences framework in the exams' design and/or implementation.[16]
[edit] See also

Emotional intelligence
General intelligence factor
Intelligence quotient
Social intelligence

[edit] Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.

^ http://www.miresearch.org/mi_theory.html
^ Gardner (infed.org)
^ Lynn Gilman, Human Intelligence
^ Gardner, "Heteroglossia: A Global Perspective"Interdisciplinary Journal of Theory
of Postpedagogical Studies (May 1984)
^ Gardner "Interpersonal Communication amongst Multiple Subjects: A Study in
Redundancy," Experimental Psychology (2002)
^ Kornhaber, "Psychometric Superiority? Check Your Facts," 2004
^ "Waldorf education embodies in a truly organic sense all of Howard Gardner's seven
intelligences...not simply an amalgam of the seven intelligences. Many schools are
currently attempting to construct curricula based on Gardner's model simply through
an additive process (what can we add to what we have already got?). Steiner's
approach, however, was to begin with a deep inner vision of the child and the child's
needs and build a curriculum around that vision." Thomas Armstrong, cited in Eric
Oddleifson, Boston Public Schools As Arts-Integrated Learning Organizations:
Developing a High Standard of Culture for All
^ Willinggam, "Check the Facts: Reframing the Mind," 2004

9. ^ Gardner, Howard (1998). A Reply to Perry D. Kleins Multiplying the problems of

intelligence by eight. 96102. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1585790.
10. ^ Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2006). Beyond g: Putting multiple
intelligences theory to the test. Intelligence, 34, 487-502.
11. ^ Demetriou, A., Efklides, A., & Platsidou, M. (1993). The architecture and dynamics
of developing mind: Experiential structuralism as a frame for unifying cognitive
developmental theories. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 58, Serial Number 234.
12. ^ Demetriou, A., Christou, C., Spanoudis, G., & Platsidou, M. (2002). The
development of mental processing: Efficiency, working memory, and thinking.
Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development, 67, Serial Number 268.
13. ^ Klein, Perry D. (Winter, 1998). "A Response to Howard Gardner: Falsifiability,
Empirical Evidence, and Pedagogical Usefulness in Educational Psychologies".
Canadian Journal of Education 23 (1): 103112.
14. ^ Visser, B. et al., "g and the measurement of Multiple Intelligences: A response to
Gardner", Intelligence Volume 34, Issue 5, September-October 2006, Pages 507-510
15. ^ Stahl, "Different Strokes for Different Folks: A Critique of Learning Styles"
16. ^ Rothstein, R., & Jacobsen, R. (2006). "What Is Basic?". Principal Leadership, 7(4),
14-19.
[edit] References

Demetriou, A., & Kazi, S. (2006). Self-awareness in g (with processing efficiency and
reasoning). Intelligence, 34, 297-317.
Demetriou, A., Mouyi, A., & Spanoudis, G. (2010). The development of mental processing.
Nesselroade, J. R. (2010). Methods in the study of life-span human development: Issues and
answers. In W. F. Overton (Ed.), Biology, cognition and methods across the life-span. Volume
1 of the Handbook of life-span development (pp. 3655), Editor-in-chief: R. M. Lerner.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Eysenck, M. W (1994) "Intelligence". In M. W. Eysenck, (ed.), The Blackwell dictionary of
cognitive psychology (pp. 192193). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Gardner, Howard. (1983) "Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences." New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, Howard. (1993) "Multiple Intelligences: The Theory In Practice." New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, Howard. (1999) "Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century."
New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, Howard. (1998) "A Reply to Perry D. Klein's 'Multiplying the problems of
intelligence by eight'" Canadian Journal of Education, 23(1), 96-102.
Gardner, Howard, and Seana Moran. (2006). The science of Multiple Intelligences theory: A
response to Lynn Waterhouse. Educational Psychologist, Volume 41, Issue 4, Fall 2006,
pp. 227232.
Gardner, H. (2004) Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other
people's minds. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, p. 196.
Kavale, Kenneth, A., and Steven R. Forness, 1987. "Substance over style: Assessing the
efficacy of modality testing and teaching", Exceptional Children 54:228-239.
Klein, Perry, D. (1997) "Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight: A critique of
Gardner's theory", Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 377-394.
Klein, Perry, D. (1998) "A response to Howard Gardner: Falsifiability, empirical evidence, and
pedagogical usefulness in educational psychology" Canadian Journal of Education, 23(1),
103-112.
Kornhaber, Mindy. (2004) "Psychometric Superiority? Check the Facts"

Kornhaber, Mindy, Edward Fierros and Shirley Veenema. (2003) "Multiple Intelligences: Best
Ideas from Research and Practice"
Lohman, D. F.(2001). "Fluid intelligence, inductive reasoning, and working memory: Where
the theory of Multiple Intelligences falls short." In N. Colangelo & S. Assouline (Eds.), Talent
Development IV: Proceedings from the 1998 Henry B. & Jocelyn Wallace National Research
Symposium on talent development (pp. 219228). Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology
Press.Link
Scarr, S. (1985) "An authors frame of mind [Review of Frames of mind: The theory of
multiple intelligences]" New Ideas in Psychology, 3(1), 95-100.
Sempsey, James, "The Pedagogical Implications Of Cognitive Science and Howard Gardner's
M.I. Theory (A Critique)" 10.19.93
Steven A. Stahl "Different Strokes for Different Folks?: A Critique of Learning Styles",
American Educator, Fall, 199 [1]
Sternberg, R. J. (1983, Winter) "How much Gall is too much gall? {Review of Frames of
Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences}". Contemporary Education Review, 2(3), 215224.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988) The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence New York:
Penguin Books.
Sternberg, R. J. (1991) "Death, taxes, and bad intelligence tests", Intelligence, 15(3), 257-270.
Tupper, K.W. (2002) Entheogens and Existential Intelligence: The Use of Plant Teachers as Cognitive
Tools. Canadian Journal of Education. 27(4), 499-516
Traub, James (1998, October 26). Multiple intelligence disorder, The New Republic
Waterhouse, Lynn. (2006a). Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and Emotional
Intelligence: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), Fall 2006, pp. 207225.
Waterhouse, Lynn. (2006b). "Inadequate Evidence for Multiple Intelligences, Mozart Effect,
and Emotional Intelligence Theories." Educational Psychologist, 41(4), Fall 2006, pp. 247
255.
Willingham, Daniel T. (2004) "Check the Facts: Reframing the Mind," Education Next

[edit] Further reading

Kincheloe, Joe L., ed (2004). Multiple Intelligences Reconsidered. Counterpoints v.

278. New York: Peter Lang. ISBN 978-0-8204-7098-6. Lay summary (4 September
2010).

[edit] External links

Multiple Intelligences Institute - Committed to the understanding and application of

Multiple Intelligences Theory in educational settings, from pre-school through adult
education.