What were the results of the application of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences in schools?

Answer 1

I DO use Multiple Intelligences in my classroom (special education Resource Room and Gifted Education), with extremely good results. These are very real, and once you get into each child's specific learning style... their growth is phenomenal, especially in metacognitive skills (thinking about learning).

However, there is no real data about overall effectiveness nationwide, because....

It was hardly being used by anyone before NCLB (mostly the newer teachers were bringing it in to their classrooms), because teachers were "creatures of habit," especially at the secondary level, and were resistant to the new methods. Elementary level teachers did a better job of incorporating them to some extent, but the basic Elementary curriculum and classroom environment leant itself better to "kinesthetic/music/natural/etc. supplements when there was time."

NCLB killed any real hope of Multiple Intelligences being used consistently, because MI instruction TAKES TIME. It involves complex planning, and additional repetitions of content in the various modes based on how much variety of learning styles you have in your classroom. NCLB has pressed for quantity of coverage over quality and depth (you never know which benchmarks will land on the "state" tests), and heavily focuses on writing skills over any other ability (for instance, math scoring focuses more heavily on writing about math, than on problem solving or computation). All teachers can really do now is have students read-n-write, over and over, to get ready for the testing... because that is the only thing it really tests.

Answer 2

I did my master's thesis based partially on this topic. In my own experience I found Gardner's theories to hold true.

My thesis was on alternate concepts in the science field - ideas that the students have already formed on their own before they enter your class which may be false. I adapted my lessons to 6 of Gardner's intelligences and gave a pre-test, post-test, and exit interview to the students. I found that the lessons which were adapted to the multiple intelligences produced a lasting change in the understanding of the students, while the lesson presented in the more traditional form did not necessarily change the concepts the students had coming into my class.

I was very surprised at the results, but have since tried to include at least 4 of the intelligences in planning each lesson. My students seem to actually perform better since I started the new format.

Answer 3

spedusource is correct. NCLB killed any hopes of MI in school. Most schools have done away with gifted programs because of this, and MI was the best for teaching gifted education as well as special education students, which gifted technically is. The results were far better with MI, because students have different ways of learning. I still use it with students who have trouble grasping concepts, sometimes it's as simple as putting the concepts to a popular song.

Answer 4

i've never seen it applied very well at all. and it was barely mentioned (as in once in my ed psych class) in my teacher training program. i see many teachers who don't even seem to think it exists. they still lecture from the pulpit and hand out dittos.
nclb pretty much killed off any use for MI by forcing all kids to become test takers. application of MI in the school/classroom is difficult and time consuming but very effective. most policy makers and district bearucrats have ignored it's assets for the quicker, easier to understand test score number.

Answer 5

I haven't seen it applied very much or very well. It seems to have been overshadowed by the mania for test scores in those one or two traditionally recognized areas. In a few enlightened places, it has at least kept the curriculum broad and inclusive.