15 thoughts on “Week 9”

  1. I found the test to be very straightforward. To me its so strange how vague questions, like the ones given, can end up creating results. My results of the test ended with me being mostly kinesthetic, or body smart. I have always known this. I learn better with my hands and actually doing the activity, rather then seeing it done. For me, it helps to create a more vivid memory in my head, which would tie into my second highest rankings, visual/ spatial and intrapersonal smart. I am very good at recognizing pictures and would also call myself a visual learner. In the past, I have helped with many films and have been in charge of looking for continuity differences, small things, like the actor not using the same hand to pull out a chair and stuff like that. I enjoy those things, and notice them in movies all the time. However, the intrapersonal intelligence is one that I have never really thought about. I would say that I know myself pretty well, but I’ve never stopped to assess it. My lowest score, by far, was linguistic. This is somewhat of a shock to me. I figured that my lowest would have been logical, since I’m not good with numbers. I have always been told that I am a good writer and that I am good with words, I mean if I got into Berkeley I must be decent, right? In my results this was barely higher then a 5, with my next lowest being at a 15. So in general, this is shocking to me and a little confusing. I think that the Theory of Multiple Intelligences is one that is very easy to understand. I think that every human being will have some version of each intelligence. However, like me, it may be very weak in some aspects and very high in others. Not everyone will have equal intelligences, and if they did it may be a little weird. I think that the theory is a little odd in the sense that it states that people will exhibit different intelligences, because people won’t necessarily show their knowledge. For example, you may never know someone is nature smart until you are outdoors with him or her, and you may never know that someone is linguistically smart until you have a conversation with him or her. Many intelligences need the proper setting or event in order to be exemplified.

  2. I normally do not like assessment tests like these for a few reasons. Many of the answers are very subjective to the current feelings, emotions and thoughts of the individual being tested. Individuals are often disillusioned in their own perceptions of themselves, often giving themselves a more favorable opinion rather than an objective fact of reality. For example, the statement: “I can picture scenes in my head when I remember things.” If an individual thinks this of himself, and a person who honestly knows and can objectively assess the truth of this statement thinks otherwise, then we have a problem in the test results. It is a dilemma in these tests because it is natural in our society for everyone to think they are capable, able, and are therefore more likely to rate themselves as higher than what actually is.

    As to my own results, these are my rankings from high to low: interpersonal and musical (tie 18), kinaesthetic (17), visual/spatial and intrapersonal (tie 16), logical (14), naturalistic (10), linguistic (7). In terms of my strengths and weaknesses, I do agree with the results for the most part, although I think my naturalistic and linguistic intelligence is listed as higher than what I thought it would be. Also, according to my friends who know me very well, they agree with these results. Interpersonal and musical for me are obviously a high part of my intelligence as I do spend a lot of time in self-reflection and have a large background in music (most of my blog posts have been about my experiences with band if you haven’t noticed). Kinaesthetic intelligence is accurate, according to my friends, because I am normally a “go-to” guy in many sports. I am only surprised at the “high” scores of my weaknesses in naturalistic and linguistic intelligence. I feel as if it should be lower than advertised.

    On the theory of multiple intelligence, I do agree with both of the claims that the theory is making on page 5, that everyone has these intelligences and that everyone has their own ‘profile of intelligences’ of strengths and weaknesses, or their know-hows and know-nothings. I think it’s apparent as we analyze societies filled with athletes, artists, researchers, doctors, psychologists, pastors, etc. Each of these occupations will typically have a different ‘profile of intelligence’ from one another.

  3. Scores:
    Logical 20
    Linguistic 20
    Kinaesthetic 20
    Visual/Spatial 19
    Musical 19
    Interpersonal 17
    Intrapersonal 13
    Naturalistic 11

    Considering that I scored pretty low on intrapersonal intelligence, and that I seemed to have scored too high in a lot of categories, I personally wouldn’t trust my results for this self-scored test. I think I should have scored much lower in kinaesthetic abilities, since I’m a physically pretty lazy person, and I’m not sure how logical and linguistic I actually am. I would agree with a high visual/spatial intelligence, however, and low naturalistic intelligence.

    Personally, I agree with the theory of multiple intelligences, although I wonder about how easy it really is to assess people’s intelligences in an objective way. For example, this test, which is based on an individual’s own answers to statements, is likely not the best way to measure levels of intelligences. Perhaps it would be better for people to rate each other, in a workplace or classroom setting, for example. Or maybe I’m only saying this because I have low intrapersonal skills and am not particularly good at judging my own abilities and understanding myself. Perhaps people who have higher intrapersonal skills would prefer to judge their own abilities rather than be rated by the people around them.

    In any case, the fundamental idea that people possess different types of intelligences is something I agree with. Knowing this, what can we do to increase inclusivity in education, when it comes to different intelligences and learning styles?

  4. I scored highest in 1) Interpersonal (People Smart), 2) Intrapersonal (Myself Smart), 3) Kinsaesthetic (Body Smart), and 4) Linguistic Smart. My lowest scores were 5) Visual/Spatial (Picture Smart), 6) Naturalistic (Nature Smart), 7) Logical (Number Smart), and 8) Musical (Music Smart. It didn’t surprise me that Logical Smart and Musical Smart were the lowest since I don’t enjoy math and I don’t play instruments anymore. It did surprise me though that Visual/Spatial Smart and Nature Smart were a few of the lowest, since I had believed those were my stronger skills. Usually I remember and learn things visually, which is also why I chose it for my major concentration, Visual Representation.

    Also in another test I took online, I had received higher scores in Visual Smart and Nature Smart categories, so I also wonder if it’s biased to the questions asked and the way in which I perceive the questions. Another problem is that the test is based on what I believe of myself, rather than unbiased truth of multiple intelligences. Overall I enjoyed the test though because it shows that interactions are positive when learning and that each person varies in how they learn.

  5. I have never taken a multiple intelligence test, and I found it comforting to find questions that were asked like ‘I can picture scenes in my head when I remember things’ as a way to know other’s might function the same. Or that activities like ‘love making lists’ attributes an intelligence rather than a pastime, in some views. It was also nice to actually get a visual pie chart at the end to compare the various intelligences, although it seemed like for the logical intelligences, the numbers would be printed on the chart.

    In critiquing the theory of Multiple Intelligence it seems the Howard Gardner article hits it spot on when he observes that “[o]ften these testmakers have a narrow, overly scholastic view of intellect.” In speaking to a friend who teaches English in Korea, that Confucius views on education has parents enrolling their children into learning academies for 6 additional hours of tutoring beyond school. Wider acceptance for not just rote memorization but value in critical thinking and multiple intelligence approaches to teach and learn seems still so far away. People probably teach as they were taught as I am even experiencing in a few of the computer programming classes still taught where we are not encouraged to play but trust in the blackbox approach and “right” way to learn. The Sherry Turkle and Seymour Papert article was the first time I heard a voice from Lisa describe that she wanted and needed to “[know] where all the elements are at every point in the development of her ideas.” In truly considering multiple intelligences, this way of learning allows for poetic expression of mastering patterns and this approach helps to guide students through experiences.

  6. I want to preface my critique by saying that I admire Gardner’s intention, which is to expand the notion of “intelligence” to be more inclusive. Also, I appreciate that this theory was and perhaps is still radical in the discipline of psychology. (I’m not a psychologist, so I can’t say.) Insofar as MI theory has lead to more equitable schools that help diverse students learn, I stand behind it.

    Still, I was left unsure of the value of this MI theory as a theory (an account of reality), mostly because I found the categories of intelligence to be arbitrary. Gardner attempts to explain how he arrived at the categories on page 4, but I found the explanation very opaque. How exactly did his consultation of the five criteria drawn from various disciplines verify which characteristics counted as intelligences and which did not? My sense is that the neurobiological criterion is the most important to Gardner. It is the gatekeeper; other intelligences will join what Gardner calls his “inner sanctum” only when he has proof that they have a “distinct neural basis” (5). I am not a neuroscientist either, so I can only hypothesize crudely what that would mean (different constellations of neural pathways lighting up in a neuroimage when I am considering nature vs when I am doing math?). In any case, I remain to be convinced that the neurobiological data, whatever it is, should determine what it is we get to mean by “intelligence.”

    When Gardner asserts that his categories are the fundamental categories of human nature, he ends up excluding the vast diversity of human culture. We could put pressure on any one of his categories: I would argue that poetry, for instance, takes a different sort of “linguistic intelligence” than writing a grocery list or a treatise, and that writing a poem must be different than composing and performing one in a more oral culture, and that writing a poem with rhyme and meter is a very different skill than writing something in free verse. My point is that the categories of intelligences, while they attempt pluralism, actually just try to further abstract and categorize the diversity of human experience. I wonder what it would look like to look at this question from a more cultural perspective, using ethnography or history to determine what skills are valued how in particular contest. (Gardner claims his categories are rooted in anthropology and cultural studies, though, as I said, I think that neurobiology holds the trump card.)

    Gardner warns against letting descriptions of categories become normative, yet that is exactly what they inherently are. Just as the word “intelligence” (as a mono-category used to describe certain kinds of cognitive, usually school-based proficiency) implicitly devalues the sorts of activities and proclivities that do not fit in the definition, so Gardner has provided a larger set of categories that implicitly devalue those proclivities that Gardner has not allowed into the “inner sanctum.”

    This does not mean that I disagree with the general notion of a broadening of our definition of what we can talk about when we use the word “intelligence” or when we value behaviors in an educational setting. One does not need MI theory, however, to know that people are good at or enjoy different things. Figuring out which things count as “intelligences” based on certain criteria, neurological or otherwise, seems to me like a not particularly helpful semantic distinction.

    Kinaesthetic 18
    Linguistic 16
    Spatial 18
    Musical 11
    Intrapersonal 18
    Interpersonal 14
    Logical 10
    Naturalistic 10

  7. My reaction to the test was that I wasn’t sure if it would be an accurate measurement of my areas of intelligence because I am the one assessing myself in the test. How I see myself might not be the same as how others view me, so I’m not sure how much I trust this multiple intelligence test. I also don’t like how the test lacks specificity. For example, how much is “a bit” in the choice “this is a bit like me”. The questions also lack depth, and I think some of them are superficial.

    Here are my results from the test:
    Logical: 21
    Interpersonal: 18
    Intrapersonal: 18
    Visual/Spatial: 18
    Musical: 17
    Kinaesthetic: 16
    Linguistic: 15
    Naturalistic: 8

    I feel that this test is not the most accurate assessment of our intelligence. However, I think the test can be useful in helping us identify our strengths and weaknesses. It can help people see which areas of their intelligence they need to put more effort in. This test can also help teachers to know their students’ learning styles better and to use the information given by the test results to teach students more effectively. For instance, if a student is a visual/spatial person, teachers could teach such students by using more pictures and charts to help such students learn better.

  8. Similar to Kyle’s considerations of his advocacy of Multiple Intelligences methods of assessment (outlined above), I too admired Garner’s intention to move Intelligence Testing beyond the limited (and limiting) scope of his predecessors, but found his alternate categorizations problematic.

    To offer a conjecture of praise of Garner’s work, I find it laudable that he challenged the earlier heralded orthodoxy of “intelligence theory” – the staple of I.Q. testing for the better part of the twentieth century. The challenge brought forth by Garner was against the notion of “a single intelligence”. Those subscribing to the single intelligence or general intelligence believed that “individuals are born with a certain intelligence or potential intelligence; and this intelligence is difficult to change” (p.2). Using this approach, human intelligence was quantifiable – little Amy may surpass her classmates with an above-average score of 143, while poor Tim is branded with a below-average number of 98.

    While the idea that intelligence can be calibrated on such a scale seems both arcane (something I’d imagine calculated early Enlightenment scholars) and futuristic (some Ridley Scott/ Peter Jackson/James Cameron sci-fi fantasy world where humans are segregated according to numbers), even more troubling was the lasting legacy within the classroom, where a child’s number was fixed. And so the very idea that intelligence is comprised of a multiplicity of affordances – from the musical to the linguistic – must have been revolutionary (I am envisioning a Freud/ Jung like war between the two camps! Fight to the death!). The notion that one should see the capacity for thought across a broad spectrum of “mind vectors” was/is, in theory, a happy alternative.

    Yet, as the test we’ve just completed seems to indicate, even Garner’s methodologies are prone to error and distortion… Does my answer to the question, “Do you prefer learning outdoors,” signify that I am less of a naturalist? Or is merely that numerous memories of being eaten alive by mosquitos during numerous outside classes in college simply put me off the idea? And how am I to answer the question, “Do I enjoy practicing music” if my only musical ability is to sing? Does someone’s ability to play the piano or the guitar mean they are more musically intelligent than me?

    And so as I ranked myself according to these forty questions, I kept wondering whether this was not another variation of a testing system that Garner rallied against. Isn’t this still reducing our intelligence to a scale, even if that scale is purported to be all encompassing? The question I kept asking was why we feel compelled to administer tests such as these at all? Who do they serve?

    My scores:

    Kinesthetic 19
    Logical 17
    Linguistic 14
    Visual 17
    Spatial 18
    Intrapersonal 18
    Interpersonal 16
    Naturalistic 14
    Musical 11

  9. Kinaesthetic: 20
    Linguistic: 18
    Logical: 18
    Interpersonal: 19
    Intrapersonal: 15
    Musical: 18
    Visual / Spatial : 22
    Natural: 18

    My first reaction to my score is, I think I answered to many questions as always so my numbers are all really high. I’m not really sure what the numerical number here really symbolizes. Perhaps I would have scored higher on natural intelligence if I would have known a few more bird specials.

    In relation to this point, this test seems to look at both your thought process and also your experiences. For instance, some measures directly relate to ways of thinking (i.e. liking charts & graphs) versus experiences (i.e. an opportunity for learning animal and plant species). Am I more naturalistic because my mom happened to marry a fisherman who taught us all about different species of fish?

    I echo many of the points above about how the test can be very subjective and could reflect one’s current emotional state. A test to measure multiple intelligences also seems to counter the ethos presented in the article. To me, the article was an attempt to teach others to just be aware of these different qualities of knowledge and to accept that knowledge can be spread through different domains. Calculating a specific numerical value of this knowledge seems like it is limited in it’s ability to truly reflect the way someone thinks and acts.

    With that said, if we look at the scores as relative measures and not exact quantities, they seem to be a bit more useful. The graph just shows that there are multiple facets to my own knowledge and some in which I am more prone to than others. Whether I agree with the ratios is a separate issue but it’s nice to know, according to this test, that I have some intelligence(s) at all.

  10. Logical 16
    Linguistic 16
    Kinaesthetic 16
    Visual/Spatial 21
    Musical 21
    Interpersonal 20
    Intrapersonal 10
    Naturalistic 20

    This test is kind of ridiculous. I think the questions they ask are not really sufficient to paint an accurate picture of the person. I don’t play music at all, but I’m apparently just as musically smart as I am spatially. I’m also more physical and logical (I believe) than what the scores indicate. Linguistically, the test is right. Im really bad at linguistics.

    I believe in the theory of multiple intelligence. However, I’m skeptical how well these tests actually can measure. I’m not sure if we will be able to develop a method that will accurately measure how smart a person is; as a person is very complex. I’m curious how much fluid intelligence that people have as well. If you measure someone one day – can they increase or decrease intelligence the next day? If the answer to that is yes, then perhaps the best result we can get is a rough approximation. I doubt we will every be able to reach an objective conclusion.

  11. I believe that one of the most powerful messages communicated by the theory of multiple intelligences is that we are more than what we can remember or recite. The power of this theory is the way it repositions the conversation about intelligence. When you read about it, you are forced to consider a whole human being. You must also confront any hierarchical notions you may hold on intelligent vs. non-intelligent people. Multiple intelligences is the great equalizer; no more superiority to those who hold the ivory tower! Now a previously uneducated person can be more intelligent, naturally, than a professor of physics. That is a powerful theory. No matter the lack of evidence in emperical studies for true proof of multiple intelligences, in this case, the proof of the value of the theory is inherent in the shift of perspectives about what it means to be smart.

    Any harm done by this theory might be found in teachers who excuse students from paying attention during lessons because the lesson does not tap into their learning mode. A child who gets a bit of a pass from group discussion about a story because he is a kinaesthetic learner, not a verbal learner, is a victim of a teacher’s misunderstanding of this theory. How many kids are allowed by well-intentioned teacher to wander through the back of the class when everyone else is seated, excused because they have to move to learn? I do agree that children need to move, but I have seen children neglected they have succeeded in convincing the teacher they can’t learn and pay attention at the same time. The theory of multiple intelligences has been applied in ways that do not benefit some students.

    The test is interesting, as it asks me for my opinion rather than asking me to completed tasks. I think it is hard for most people, certainly for me, to know the full range of our preferences and talents when we have not had a chance to enact them. It would be more powerful if the test required performance in each learning type, or learning something new in each learning type, to judge what kind of learner you were. I see the problems with that model, but this model runs the risk of recording only the test-takers bias for what he thinks he does well. A more accurate test might take much longer to complete and require specialists in each learning type of evaluate each person.

  12. My MI test results:

    Linguistic: 18
    Logical: 21
    Interpersonal: 13
    Intrapersonal: 14
    Musical:16
    Visual: 11
    Naturalistic: 7
    Kinaesthetic: 15

    First of all, let me say that as a former educator, this type of test actually angers me. This is exactly what Gardner warns against – a completely shallow and trivial “assessment” of multiple intelligences that will be and has been used in schools to explain to kids why they are “smart” at some things but not at others. Worse, curriculum may actually be differentiated for students based on such measures!! (forgive the double exclamation point, my linguistic intelligence is being overwhelmed by my logical intelligence just now) Because my cat woke me up at 4 this morning and I decided I can’t stand pets today, I currently have no naturalistic intelligence. Because I’m a bit antsy and move around a lot, now I’m kinaesthetically intelligent (even though I’m just about the clumsiest person you’ve ever seen). And because of this, I will be making full-body tableaus of perennials, annuals, and binennials in biology class while my “linguistically strong” classmate copies their definitions over and over next to me. Truly silly.

    Of course, this is not at all what Gardner intended. In fact, his theory was meant to be a move away from placing students into the dichomotous categories “intelligent” and “unintelligent,” a result of the use of IQ tests meant to assess general intelligence. However, I would argue that his MI theory has possibly had the same, if not worse, effect of educational compartmentalization. As far as I know, schools have never as a general practice broadcast student’s IQ test scores. In fact, I was always instructed that this was very personal, private information, not to be shared with others. In contrast, however, the multiple intelligences are touted by most schools as different-but-equal, and as such, students may be openly labeled as “visual learners” or “kinesthetic learners.” In fact, though, the different “intelligences” are not equally valued by society. Someone without linguistic skills will probably not accrue as high a salary as someone who is adept at grammar and genre. This may become a self-fulfilling prophecy – students who enter schools without the middle-class school skill set needed to get an early start at, say, linguistics and logic may be early labeled as kinesthetically smart, and decide that it is too difficult and will be ultimately fruitless to challenge their “nature” to improve in a different area. Even if students aren’t made aware of their intelligences, it is dangerous for teachers to think this way. Once a teacher starts thinking of a student as “visually intelligent” but not “logically intelligent,” I’d be willing to wager that, try as they might to use what they know bridge that perceived gap, their expectations for that student’s ability to learn logical principles will be lower than if they had never possessed that “knowledge” of their abilities.

    So even if we accept his construction of these 7 areas of intelligence (which I admit, I am quite skeptical about, though without seeing in more detail how he actually arrives at them I don’t feel that I can critique his approach), their current use in schools is extremely problematic. In his ideal situation, I suppose schools would teach all concepts using different modalities, which certainly can’t hurt, and would assess students’ capabilities in authentic performance assessment, which, hey, is actually a great idea. Maybe the biggest problem that I have with the MI theory is simply the use of the word “intelligences” rather than another word, like “competencies” or “skills.” Intelligence implies innate cognitive capability laced with, especially in an individualistic society like America, the power to change your life for the better. It implies a certain something that, like a switch, you turn on and off. You have it, or you don’t.

    Why do we even need to test for intelligence? Can’t we just decide what we want our kids to know, pre-assess them for that particular domain, then teach them based on what they are lacking? If, along the way, you find that adding visuals or motion to the teaching process helps, then great! But let’s not pigeonhole our kids unnecessarily and early based on MI, IQ, or any other test that purports to measure the complex and beautiful fabric of their minds.

  13. Many psychologists oppose to standardized tests arguing they just capture a snapshot that highly influenced by the context, time and feelings of the person at the time the test is taken, and that ultimately describe a situation that is not static. I agree with this view, and even though measuring abilities under realistic situations would give a more accurate, as Gardner suggests, it would still be a snapshot.
    For me intelligences are not static, and have no preset capacity limit. As Carol Dweck suggests on her book Mindsets, I have a growing mindset for intelligences and I believe everyone can work on and improve each aspect of the multiple intelligences. The results of the test for me, represent a far from perfect guide/understanding of my personal balance along the multiple intelligences and would not use them to compare myself to others. For sure, depending on the limitations one believes the test has, it can be a very useful tool. For instances, I expected to score higher in linguistic (my highest score) than in music (my lowest score) because I do not cultivate my musical intelligence in any other way than by listening to music for entertainment/relaxation purposes. Hence, the results give me information on the things that I might be doing to work on a particular intelligence that are working or signal the areas I would have to work on the most to achieve a more balanced MI profile.
    On the other hand though, there are many other elements of the test that can be quite confusing. I scored 20 or more on Visual, Logical, Naturalistic and Linguistic, in which I scored 25. Many questions come to mind… would that mean that I cannot further developed my linguistic intelligence and that there is little more I could achieve on the other three? Is it a good thing to have high scores on certain intelligences and low scores on others? Is it better to have more balanced scores? What does each of those scenarios mean? How would teachers use these elements to enhance their teaching effectiveness?
    Ultimately Gardner’s integrative concept of intelligence makes a lot of sense to me, but how it could help educators better serve their students other than with a wider perspective on what being intelligent means, is not very clear to me.

  14. Based on the results of my MI test, I’ve decided to leave grad school for a career in interpretive dance. (april fools.)

    After seeing my results, it occurred to me to wonder how this would translate to a letter grade scale. Or even to an IQ test. It’s hard to draw the “average” line since the answers were fairly subjective and based on my replies about my own habits and preferences. (For that matter, what does the Birmingham Grid for Learning test do to account for someone scoring very low in the Intrapersonal category?) Nevertheless, the test might be helpful in revealing a personal preference for certain areas over others by the relative scores across the test, as an example of MI theory’s attempt “to help each individual achieve his or her human potential at the workplace, in avocations, and in the service of the wider world.”

    I found the discussion in the articles we read to be insightful and poignantly self-aware in noting how intelligence is a reflection of how society values and cultivates certain skills (while ignoring others.) The ones listed here are interesting. I agree with what someone said above, that they seem to be fairly arbitrary and not necessarily all-inclusive.

    Logical 16
    Linguistic 15
    Kinaesthetic 18
    Visual/Spatial 15
    Musical 19
    Interpersonal 17
    Intrapersonal 13
    Naturalistic 16

Leave a Reply