RUNNING HEAD: Student’s Academic Expectations 1

Sociology Report:

Student’s Academic association to Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Vincent Palmeri

John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Sociology Report 2

Abstract

This paper incorporates Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences into a

classroom experiment. The paper begins by explaining Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple

Intelligences and goes on to mention two separate experiments conducted by Professor Ernie

Barrington of the University of Auckland in New Zealand and Ms. Gwendolyn Mettetal.

Professor Ernie Barrington chose to hold a series of workshops to educate fellow professors and

followed up with a survey to measure potential benefits to implementing a system that is focus

on developing multiple intelligences. Ms. Gwendolyn Mettetal observed the transformation of an

elementary school in Indiana to a multiple intelligence focused program.

The experiment presented in this paper was designed to understand which of the seven

intelligences present in Gardner’s theory students associate with when presented an academic

task. The results of the experiment were inconclusive and present a clear need for further

research.

Sociology Report 3

Introduction

Harvard graduate and Professor of Education, Howard Gardner, is credited for pioneering

the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Gardner first introduced the Theory of Multiple

Intelligences in his book Frames of Mind: the theory of multiple intelligences in 1983 (Gardner,

1983). “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 distinct 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”. Spatial intelligence relates to thinking in physical space while 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 and self-

reflective thought. Logical and linguistic intelligences are most commonly associated with

learning for academic purposes. The logical intelligence requires mathematical thought processes

to learn. 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

Sociology Report 4

properly implemented, could cause vast reforms to educational systems worldwide. Such reforms

could increase student diversity rates, 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 the Linguistic and Logical-Mathematical

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.

Sociology Report 5

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 within their school.

An abrupt switch from a traditional class to class approach to a block learning period approach

was the foundation for the transformation into an institution focused on developing 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 and 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:

Sociology Report 6

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. This information shows that Multiple

Intelligence Theory is still relatively misunderstood.

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), the theory still has not been fully implemented into current educational institutions. The

experiment that will be discussed in this paper is designed to test which intelligences students

associate with when given a task in a college level English classroom. 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

Sociology Report 7

groups with two proctors overseeing each group. Experiments in each group were conducted

concurrently and in the same classroom. Proctors were fellow classmates of 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 another participant drew

Sociology Report 8

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. Participant three, who chose to draw a picture; demonstrated 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 upon drawing 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. This 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 the

participants and asked why they 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.

This statement also acted as proof for the hypothesis because it was the participant’s opinion that

a linguistic approach was the most common academic approach.

Group three consisted of two participants: participants six and seven. Participant seven

chose to write a summary while participant six chose to write a poem. As previously mentioned a

Sociology Report 9

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 the 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. The results of this experiment suggest that Multiple

Intelligences can be present in certain students.

Understanding the academic expectations of students, in regards to the Theory of

Multiple Intelligences, is important in creating a more complex, 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

Sociology Report 10

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.

The results of this experiment proved the presence of multiple intelligences in certain

students. The fact that the students utilized multiple intelligences to complete a task disproves

the hypothesis that they would solely utilize the Linguistic intelligence. Although the results

seem to disprove the hypothesis, factors such as a lack of a universal question and peer proctors

Sociology Report 11

could have tainted the results. The potential for tainted results is cause for an inconclusive

experiment and basis for further research.

Sociology Report 12

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.

Sociology Report 13

Addendum

Sociology Report 14

Sociology Report 15