Samuel Hornby

EDMT902

4077243

Critical Literature Review

Multiple Intelligences
The theory of Multiple Intelligences was first proposed by Harvard professor and
psychologist Howard Gardner in his seminal work, Frames of Mind (1983). Gardner
contended that humans are capable of Multiple Intelligences, MI, including; linguistic,
logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, musical, interpersonal and intrapersonal.
However, since the release of Frames of Mind, Gardner has proposed the possibility of even
more intelligences. On the official Multiple Intelligences website, OASIS, Gardner defines
MI as a critique of the standard psychological view of intellect, that there is a single
intelligence, adequately measured by IQ (Gardner). Instead, MI claims that human beings
have a number of relatively discrete intellectual capacities. The theory of MI is arguably the
most influential and contested theory within education. Lynn Waterhouse, a psychologist that
specialises in cognitive neuroscience is highly critical of Gardners MI and has published an
article which highlights the lack of empirical evidence supporting MI. Within this article
Waterhouse also highlights alternative theories to MI that are supported by empirical
evidence. Comparatively, psychologist Jie-Qi Chen argues that the credibility of MI as a
scientific theory is validated by the validity and reliability of the theory. Whether the theory
of MI is a valid scientific theory backed by empirical evidence or not does not in my opinion
decrease the value of the theory. Viewing human intelligence as being responsive, emergent
and pluralistic and focusing on the personal strengths of an individual is a much more holistic
approach to intelligence.
Psychologist Alfred Binet in 1900 discovered a means of measuring and predicting
success within young people in school. His test was an intelligence test known as
"intelligence quotient" or IQ. Binet's discovery meant that intelligence now "seemed to be

Samuel Hornby

EDMT902

4077243

quantifiable", however as the verb "seemed" suggests Gardner was not convinced. Gardner
believes that IQ is a one dimensional view of intelligence and although the results do yield
reliable rankings of people it fails to consider the full spectrum of human intelligences.
Because IQ is so limiting Gardner felt the need to create an alternate view of intelligence that
focuses on a "pluralistic view of the mind". This view of the mind would recognise that
"people have different cognitive strengths and contrasting cognitive styles". Multiple
Intelligences, MI, are a set of cognitive abilities that Gardner describes as strengths. Every
individual poses each of these strengths but to varying degrees. Besides being pluralistic, MI
differs from the conventional understanding of intelligence, g, in that each strength can be
developed whereas IQ is fixed and does not vary with age. This focus on strengths parallels
the advances in positive psychology which similarly focuses on strengths rather than
deficiencies.
Gardner argues that intelligence is the ability to "solve problems or fashion products
that are of consequence in a particular cultural setting or community" and that MI is "framed
in the light of the biological origins of each problem solving skill (2004, pp. 7). In addition
Gardner suggests that each intelligence must have a core operation or set of operations, for
musical intelligence Gardner suggests that an example of one of the core operations in the
sensitivity to pitch relations (2004, pp. 7). Similarly, Gardner proposes that an intelligence
must be susceptible to encoding in a symbol system, again using musical intelligence as an
example, sheet music. Gardners main source of evidence in support of MI is biographical
examples of individuals whom supposedly possess a given intelligence in one area but are
weak in another. The purpose of this is to highlight that an individual can express high
intelligence in one area and be weaker in another which opposes the idea of g.

Samuel Hornby

EDMT902

4077243

The main critique of Multiple Intelligences has been the lack of empirical data
supporting the theory. Lyn Waterhouse states that to date (2006) there have been no
published studies that offer evidence of the validity of the MI. Similarly, Waterhouse
exposes holes within Gardners theory. Gardner (2004) suggests that high IQ is associated
with his theory of a mental searchlight, which allows individuals to scan an area efficiently
and thus allow them to run society smoothly (p. 217). However, by utilising IQ as the basis of
support for Gardners mental searchlight he is effectively undermining the argument that MI
reveals IQ to be a flawed concept. Waterhouse further builds credibility by incorporating the
work of other psychologists within the field that also agree that MI lacks validating data.
Studies completed by Sternberg in 1994 and Allix in 2000 both reported finding no empirical
data that supports the MI (Waterhouse, 2004, pp. 208). Waterhouse does acknowledge that
there have been some positive outcomes to the implementation of MI in education. However,
she states that any positive outcomes achieved by implementing Gardners theory within the
classroom are confounded by the novelty of a new method, suggesting that it is
engendered by teacher enthusiasm and student excitement (pp 209). Contrastingly, even if
this is the case and it is the novelty of something new that yields positive results does that
make the results any less worthy? Waterhouse also tries to dismiss the positive results by
suggesting that it was mere coincidence that the MI framework yielded positive results (p.
209).
Waterhouse provides an alternative to MI that is supported by empirical evidence and
is in her opinion valid. The theory of general, g, intelligence is supported by research
findings and is related to IQ which is testable (pp. 210). According to Waterhouse, g has
been theorised to reflect overall brain efficiency or the close interconnection of a set of
mental skills or working memory (pp. 210). Waterhouse argues that g has been used to
predict intellectual performance and cognitive skills have been shown to be linked with g.

Samuel Hornby

EDMT902

4077243

Similarly, Waterhouse refers to the work of Colom, Rebolla, Palaciosa, Juan-Espinosaa, and
Kyllonenb (2004) whom reported that g is likely to be working memory, a function of the
frontal lobe of the brain that maintains and manipulates information in a limited timeframe.
However, g is a fixed intelligence and cannot be increased whereas MI states that an
individual can develop any of their intelligences. Similarly, positive correlation between
intelligence and the size of the human brain and the level of brain activity argue against
Gardners (1991) criticism that g is merely the abstraction of a statistical factor.
Interestingly, g represents working memory and working memory is the core frontal lobe
executive function, therefore, g intelligence is comparable to Gardner's Central
Intelligence Agency, which he defined as the frontal lobe executive function. However,
Gardner states that MI theory is incompatible with g (Gardner, pg. 87).
In addition to g, Waterhouse highlights another alternative to the MI and that is the
multiple information processing systems, what is it? and where is it?. The what is it
pathway synthesises the perceptual analyses of what we see and hear and the where is it
synthesises the perceptual analysis of what we see, hear, and feel. These two large
information processing pathways are supported by empirical evidence and may be seen as
two intelligences. Each system has various operations that overlap and include all of the
content information of MI. (Waterhouse, 212). However, Waterhouse does concede that the
pathway theory is only concerned with decision making which is a limitation in comparison
to MI which is theorised to create, compose, appreciate, or perform. However, the empirical
evidence that supports the pathways theory argue against Gardners theoretical provision
that each intelligence must have its own separate neural processing pathway (Waterhouse,
212). In conclusion, Waterhouse acknowledges that future research may shed light on the
theory and that students, teachers, researchers and theorists should remain open to new
evidence (pp.222).

Samuel Hornby

EDMT902

4077243

Contrastingly, there have also been psychologists that support the MI, Jie-Qi Chen.
Chen in his article, Theory of Multiple Intelligences: Is it a Scientific Theory, addresses; the
empirical evidence used by Gardner, the methodology employed to validate MI and the
purpose/function of MI theory. In defending the lack of empirical evidence for MI theory,
Chen (2004) suggests that, a theory is not necessarily valuable because it is supported by the
results of empirical tests (p.22). Further Chen suggests that the theory has been validated by
its successful application within the classroom stating that The absolute objectivity of any
methodology is illusory (p.17). Similarly, Chen outlines that intelligence is not a tangible
object that can be measured; it is a construct that psychologist define (p.22). Chen mirrors
Gardners opinion on IQ suggesting that "if we limit studies by relying on a single standard
(IQ) for the acceptable measurement of intelligence, our understanding of this most central
capacity of human beings will be significantly restrained" (Chen, pp 19). Chen discusses how
a theory is validated stating that validity is established by comparing scores on one test with
scores of other standardised tests of the same nature. Further the theory has to be reliable.
Reliability refers to the consistency of a test's result over time. However, Gardner suggests
that because intelligence is not a stable general ability these methods of determining validity
are not appropriate. Vygotsky (1978) argued, "any fundamentally new approach to a scientific
problem inevitably leads to new methods of investigation and analysis. The invention of new
methods that are adequate to the new ways in which problems are posed requires far more
than a simple modification of previously accepted methods" (pp. 58)
Chen suggests that the theory of MI has value because it has high explanatory and generative
power. However, Waterhouse would disagree that MI has a high explanatory power given that
there are gaps within Gardner's theory. Chens concluding statement to the article is that "A
theory is not necessarily valuable because it is supported by the results of experimental tests.
Rather, its value depends on the contributions it makes to understanding and to practice in the

Samuel Hornby

EDMT902

4077243

field." I strongly agree with this statement. Although, as Waterhouse argues, MI theory holds
no empirical evidence isn't the anecdotal evidence of the teachers and parents of the children
most important given that 'intelligence' is only a construct defined by psychologists.
Similarly, even if there are gaps within the theory the positive effects of the theory when
implemented within a classroom is irrefutable.
Howard Gardners MI theory has and continues to be a contentious issue in respect to
its validity. Lyn Waterhouses article exposes several holes within the theory highlighting
contradictions within Gardners work. Contrastingly, Jie-Qi Chen opposes the need for
empirical evidence stating that a theory is not necessarily valuable because of the empirical
support. Regardless of the apparent lack of empirical evidence, MI theory has changed the
education system. By recognising that students will have varying strengths in different areas
teachers can develop lessons that will have the greatest potential of reaching the most
students as possible. As educators it is important to be aware of the theories concerning
intelligence and apply them accordingly. Ultimately, neither the traditional theory of g or
MI is perfect. Gardner was right in critiquing g in the same respect that Waterhouse is right
in critiquing Gardner and so the search for the perfect measure of intelligence continues.

Samuel Hornby

EDMT902

4077243

Bibliography
Allix, N. (2000). The theory of Multiple Intelligences: A case of missing cognitive matter.
Australian Journal of Education, 44, pp. 272-288.
Chen, J. (2004). Theory of Multiple Intelligences: Is it a Scientific Theory? Teachers College
Record, vol. 106, no 1, pp. 17-23.
Duchesne, S, McMaugh, A, Bochner, S and Krause (2013). Educational Psychology: For
learning and teaching. 4th ed. Cengage.
Gardner, H (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (10th- anniversary
ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H (2004). Audiences for the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Teachers College
Record, vol. 106, no. 1, pp212-220.
Gardner, H (2004). In a Nutshell, Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and
Practice. Accessed via http://multipleintelligencesoasis.org/resources/ .
Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence:
A critical Review. Educational Psychologists, 41, 207-225.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes
(M.Cole, V.John-Steiner, S.Scribner, and E.Souberman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.