An Analysis of Multiple Intelligences Theory and Its Use with the Gifted and Talented.

Identifying and educating gifted and talented children has been a concern in education for many years. Additionally, children's abilities have been assessed frequently by measurement instruments that reflect a narrow definition of intelligence (Kranz, 1994); that is, the concept of general intelligence, g, by Spearman (cited in Guilford, 1967). Spearman's g is involved in "operations of a deductive nature, linked with skill, speed, intensity, and extensity of a person's intellectual output" (Oakland & Parmelee, 1985, p. 703). For Spearman, one's performance on an intellectual task is reflective of g and associated abilities specific to that task. However, efforts to provide support for this theory suggested that more than one g factor was needed to account for the data (Horn, 1989).

The unitary position of intelligence has been challenged by several theorists (e.g., Gardner, 1983; Guilford, 1967; Sternberg, 1985). It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss all of these theories. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to review and synthesize theory and research on the role of Gardner's (1983) Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory, which is a popular theory in classrooms in the United States, in identifying and educating the gifted and talented (G/T). A brief review of Gardner's MI theory is presented in the following section.

MI Theory

Gardner, while recognizing the advantages of a unitary concept of intelligence, such as the ability to categorize easily an individual's level of intelligence based on a test score, believed that a unitary approach did not do justice to the strengths and weaknesses in assessing an individual. Gardner (1994, p. 577) defined an intelligence as a "biopsychological potential that is drawn on within a culture for a variety of purposes," such as solving problems. Gardner (1983) initially proposed seven relatively independent forms of competence: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. He later added an eighth intelligence, the naturalist (Gardner, 1999). (See Table 1 for an explanation of these eight intelligences.) Although others have noted the lack of empirical support for his theory (e.g., Sternberg, 1994), Gardner's (1983) MI theory provides a useful framework for understanding both the rudimentary competencies of all people as well as the unique strengths of individuals. An individual's unique cognitive structure is based on the combination of these intelligences.

Table 1. Source: Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven ... and the eighth. Educational Leadership, 55(1), p. 1

Linguistic intelligence is the capacity to use language, your native language, and perhaps other languages, to express what's on your mind and to understand other people. Poets really specialize in linguistic intelligence, but any kind of writer, orator, speaker, lawyer, or a person for whom language is an important stock in trade highlights linguistic intelligence.

People with a highly developed logical-mathematical intelligence understand the underlying principles of some kind of a causal system, the way a scientist or a logician does, or can manipulate numbers, quantities, and operations, the way a mathematician does.

Spatial intelligence refers to the ability to represent the spatial world internally in your mind--the way a sailor or airplane pilot navigates the large spatial world, or the way a chess player or sculptor represents a more circumscribed spatial world. Spatial intelligence can be used in the arts or in the sciences. If you are spatially intelligent and oriented toward the arts, you are more likely to become a painter or a sculptor or an architect than, say, a musician or a writer. Similarly, certain sciences like anatomy or topology emphasize spatial intelligence.

Bodily kinesthetic intelligence is the capacity to use your whole body or parts of your body--your hand, your fingers, your arms--to solve a problem, make something, or put on some kind of a production. The most evident examples are people in athletics or the performing arts, particularly dance or acting.

Musical intelligence is the capacity to think in music, to be able to hear patterns, recognize them, remember them, and perhaps manipulate them. People who have a strong musical intelligence don't just remember music easily--they can't get it out of their minds, it's so omnipresent. Now, some people will say, "Yes, music is important, but it's a talent, not an intelligence." And I say, "Fine, let's call it a talent." But, then we have to leave the word intelligent out of all discussions of human abilities. You know, Mozart was damned smart!

Interpersonal intelligence is understanding other people. It's an ability we all need, but is at a premium if you are a teacher, clinician, salesperson, or politician. Anybody who deals with other people has to be skilled in the interpersonal sphere.

Intrapersonal intelligence refers to having an understanding of yourself, of knowing who you are, what you can do, what you want to do, how you react to things, which things to avoid, and which things to gravitate toward. We are drawn to people who have a good understanding of themselves because those people tend not to screw up. They tend to know what they can do. They tend to know what they can't do. And they tend to know where to go if they need help.

Naturalist intelligence designates the human ability to discriminate among living things (plants, animals) as well as sensitivity to other features of the natural world (clouds, rock configurations). This ability was clearly of value in our evolutionary past as hunters, gatherers, and farmers; it continues to be central in such roles as botanist or chef. I also speculate that much of our consumer society exploits the naturalist intelligence, which can be mobilized in the discrimination among cars, sneakers, kinds of makeup, and the like. The kind of pattern recognition valued in certain of the sciences may also draw upon naturalist intelligence.

According to Gardner's perspective, however, most Western societies continue to emphasize linguistic and logical-mathmematical intelligences in their formal education curricula, thus bypassing and undervaluing individuals with dominant abilities in the remaining six, and now seven categories. Gardner insists that for the field of education to meet the needs of students currently in formal education, as well as generations of students to come, the system must adapt to meet various individual differences for maximum intellectual gain (Kornhaber, Krechevsky, & Gardner, 1990; Walters & Gardner, 1986). That is, students' needs must be quickly and accurately assessed so that the educational system can adapt to maximize each student's intellectual gain.

Gardner (1987) felt that" [g]ifts are domain-specific" (p. 31), (e.g., linguistic). Gardner takes issue with gifted programs which include students whose IQ is over 130 but do not include those students whose IQ is 129, pointing out that giftedness is not general. Ramos-Ford and Gardner (1991) noted that many of the tests used to measure IQ are associated with logical-mathematical and linguistic skills, which are those skills that are regarded highly in the schools.

Gardner (1983) and Ramos-Ford and Gardner (1991) suggested that these intelligences are autonomous but that they are also interactive. In general, students have relative strengths and weaknesses across the intelligences, which has implications for the gifted and talented students. That is, students will differ as to the areas they are considered to be gifted or talented (Ramos-Ford & Gardner, 1991). Thus, a combination of approaches (e.g., observations, portfolios [Willard-Holt & Holt, 1997]) are necessary for the identification of gifted children. In fact, Ramos-Ford and Gardner (1991) and Willard-Holt and Holt (1997) suggested that perhaps more gifted and talented students would be identified in this way.

Identification

Ramos-Ford and Gardner (1991) stressed that assessment is an ongoing process in the regular classroom. They also pointed out that such assessment information should be regarded as measuring an ability at a particular time. Krechevsky and Seidel (1998) suggested four principles for designing assessments according to MI theory.

* Assessments have to be contextualized in order to be intelligence-fair.

* Assessments should allow for diverse modes of response or multiple ways to demonstrate understanding.

* Assessments should help to track the growth over time of children's ability to use their intelligences.

* Assessment is a fundamental part of the learning process. Through engaging in reflection and self-assessment, students can come to understand their own intelligences and how they work (p. 30).

Several programs, such as the Key School in Indianapolis, Arts Propel in Pittsburgh, and Project Spectrum in the Boston area (Gardner, 1989; Hatch & Gardner, 1990; Krechevsky, 1991; Krechevsky & Gardner, 1990; Olson, 1988), have incorporated the MI approach to assessment of students and those who are gifted and talented (Ramos-Ford & Gardner, 1991). However, there are no data reported that indicate that this approach does identify more G/T students than do the more traditional methods. Additionally, if schools broaden their identification criteria to include MI, then they will need additional resources (Willard-Holt & Holt, 1997).

The gifted program in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg (NC) schools identifies younger gifted students using a problem-solving approach based upon MI theory. The assessments measure linguistic, logical-mathematical, and spatial intelligences (Reid & Romanoff, 1997). These assessments appear to identify the cognitively gifted, which runs contrary to MI theory because musical, bodily-kinesthetic, inter-and intrapersonal intelligences are omitted.

Reid and Romanoff reported that there is less socioeconomic bias in their assessment procedure than there is in the traditional approach to identifying gifted students. In fact, they reported the increase of 26% of second graders were from low socioeconomic status (SES) families.

Maker, Nielson, and Rogers (1994) reported that the traditional use of intelligence tests for identifying gifted students does not produce a culturally diverse group of gifted students. Maker et al. (1994) suggested that Gardner's (1983) MI theory call be used to resolve this situation. Maker et al. (1994) suggested that one who enjoys engagement with challenging and ill-defined problems, and who persists toward problem solution may be defined as gifted. Maker (1992) stated that according to her definition "a gifted individual possesses abilities traditionally associated with both high intelligence and high creativity" (p. 13). But research suggested that this was not necessarily a strong relationship (e.g., Treffinger, 1986; Wallach & Kogan, 1965). Maker (1992), however, argued that this discrepancy can be explained by the fact that intelligence tests usually include items where the problem solver either has to employ the appropriate steps to solve the problem or where the person must develop a method and apply it to solve the problem. Tests of creativity, however, include items whereby the individual is required to develop and to apply appropriate methodology toward the solution of a problem. Therefore, problem solving or creativity may be demonstrated within each of the separate intelligences (Maker et al., 1994). (See Maker [1992] for further details regarding the identification process.)

Maker et al. (1994) developed DISCOVER, which is a process for measuring problem solving in regular elementary classrooms incorporating MI. Results reported over a three year period suggested that the DISCOVER process successfully identified male and female gifted children who closely represented the diverse communities from which they came. Interestingly, only three intelligences were assessed: spatial, logical-mathematical, and linguistic. Interand intrapersonal intelligences were assessed through observations. Why were not the other intelligences and/or talents assessed? Maker and her colleagues indicated that future assessments yet to be developed would include musical and bodily-kinesthetic problem solving. One might assume that the naturalist intelligence (Gardner, 1999) might also be included in future problem-solving assessment.

But still, one wonders why there appears to be a cognitive emphasis to the DISCOVER assessment process. This would seem to be similar in scope to the traditional assessment approaches to the identification of the gifted and talented children.

In addition, Plucker, Callahan, and Tomchin (1996) reported several issues that must be considered when using alternative assessment for identifying gifted students; for example, the logistical, training, scoring problems of performance-based assessment. They also reported problems with the quality, reliability, and validity of performance-based assessments.

Unfortunately, as Plucker and his associates reported, there is little published research that supports the use of MI performance-based assessment in the identification of student abilities. Plucker et al. addressed several of these issues using the Multiple Intelligences Assessment Technique (MIAT; Udall & Passe, 1993) in a study of an ethnically diverse student population of which approximately 50% were of low SES. Results suggested that the subscales of the MIAT were internally consistent, thereby supporting the reliability of the instrument. A factor analysis confirmed the presence of linguistic and logical-mathematical subscales, and that interpersonal intelligence loaded highly with linguistic intelligence, which is not surprising. In addition, young female students scored higher than young male students on both the linguistic and interpersonal intelligences subscales, which is also not surprising. Interestingly, Asian-American students received high ratings from teachers on the four subscales assessed, suggesting bias in the teachers' scoring. Unfortunately, the validity of the instrument was not supported in the Plucker et al. study. They stated that "We strongly believe that, for legal, educational, and ethical reasons, performance assessments used for high stakes purposes such as identifying potentially talented students need to be reliable, valid, appropriately normed, and equally fair to students regardless of gender and ethnicity" (p. 87).

According to Guskin, Peng, and Simon (1992), there are patterns of ability that overlap several of Gardner's (1983) MI. Guskin et al., (1992) investigated teachers' judgements, expectancies, and decisions when hypothetical cases of gifted students were presented to the teachers. Twenty-five traits, such as confident and independent were included in 36 cases presented to preservice and experienced teachers. Prior to this study, pre- and inservice teachers identified five patterns of giftedness and talent: analytic or cognitive ability, social-personality skills, creative arts, verbal skills, and motor ability (Guskin, Peng, & Majd-Jabbari, 1998).

Results suggested that when teachers are exposed to relevant information about students' accomplishments, teachers are sensitive to the MI of students. Guskin et al.'s (1992) also suggested that when teachers are sensitive to MI, they are not biased towards recognizing these "talents" in underrepresented groups in gifted programs.

A recent project, Support to Affirm Rising Talent (START), was developed according to Gardner's (1983) MI theory (Callahan, Tomlinson, Moon, Tomchin, & Plucker, 1995). They attempted to: develop identification procedures based upon Gardner's (1983) MI theory; identify high-potential primary age students from culturally diverse and/or low economic backgrounds through us of Gardner's framework; investigate the reliability and validity of the identification procedures; and test the efficacy of specific interventions on achievement and attitudes about school and self identified students in a group of early elementary students. (Portions of this study appeared in Plucker et al., 1996). A discussion of the identification process follows.

In general, results suggested that assessing MI is difficult and that there are problems with developing instruments, such as the MIAT (Udall & Passe, 1993). Although the subscales of the MIAT were internally consistent and the factor analysis confirmed the presence of the linguistic and logical-mathematical subscales (Callahan et al., 1995), there was little support for the validity of the instrument. Also, the linguistic and interpersonal intelligences combined on the first factor. Further, Asian-American students received high ratings from teachers, indicating potential bias. Thus, more research is needed to develop reliable and valid instruments to identify gifted students with MI theory. However, as Maker (1992) suggested, if the processes of identification of the gifted and talented are changed, then curriculum and instruction of G/T students should be changed. The following section will include a discussion of instruction, which is based upon MI theory, for the G/T.

Instruction

Theoretically, MI theory has many positive implications for curriculum and instructional goals for the G/T. Krechevsky and Seidel (1998) pointed out that MI theory could help teachers be more specific about their instructional practices. Those teachers in the field of educating gifted and talented students see the relevance of this theory to their own work. In fact, effective teachers would work with students' abilities, be flexible in their approach to teaching, challenge students with relevant projects, and would infuse the arts throughout their curriculum. Krechevsky and Seidel also noted four implications of MI theory for classroom instruction for all students: individualizing students' education; teaching subject matter in more than one way; project-based learning; and art-infused curriculum

However, even if MI theory is implemented well in a G/T classroom, there may not be gains in all areas of a child's education. For example, Callahan et al. (1995) reported that the intervention of the START program had no significant effect on the achievement of students who were in the MI classrooms, and decreased students' attitudes toward learning in both samples of students. However, they found improved student attitudes about themselves as a student.

There were several benefits to the START program. For example, results indicated that teachers were enthusiastic about ensuring that START students had a chance to develop their capabilities in the START classrooms and in the district's program for the gifted (Callahan et al., 1995). In addition, "most of the [identified] case study students felt the positive teacher responses and reported throughout the duration of START that they liked school, and ... that they were good at school" (Callahan et al., 1995, pp. xiv-xv). Moreover, there was an increase in school attendance, greater enthusiasm for schoolwork, increased self-esteem, increased abilities in language skills, and increased standardized test scores. Further, Callahan et al. (1995) reported that the START interventions increased the acceptance of START students and that this positive environment was beneficial to these students.

Unfortunately, there were also negative issues that were related to the use of MI theory in the START classrooms. First, many instructional materials tended not to be systematic, consistent, and comprehensible (Callahan et al.). "MI is more fad-like than authentic in helping teachers and students develop talent" (p. xvii). Second, MI became more of a teaching approach to learning style, rather than an approach to develop students' intelligences. Third, these researchers suggested that student success should be an important factor when implementing programs such as START.

The gifted program in the Charlotte-Mechlenburg (NC) schools incorporated MI problem-centered and thoughtful classrooms. These classrooms expand students' conceptual comprehension in classrooms that engage students in meaningful problem finding and problem solving and that stimulate critical and creative thinking in grades two to five (Reid & Romanoff, 1997). Reid and Romanoff (1997) reported that within two years of being identified as gifted, students scored 17 to 20 percent higher on standardized math and reading tests than students who were referred but not identified as gifted. Unfortunately, no comparisons were made with non-identified, non-gifted students, or with other related programs in North Carolina. Thus, we do not know how the increase in math and reading scores compares with other G/T programs.

The DISCOVER program in Tucson also used the MI framework in its curriculum. Maker, Nielson, and Rogers (1994) developed a problem-solving matrix for curriculum planning for gifted students. Higher-level thinking, discovery, group interaction, variety, and autonomy are promoted and incorporated in the matrix design for early elementary students. Students must provide solutions to real life problems, with the products generally requiring "synthesis of information and transformation into new forms" (Maker et al., 1994, p. 16). Although this matrix design was developed initially for Gardner's (1983) seven intelligences, it is the belief of the present author that this matrix can be adapted easily to incorporate the eighth intelligence, the naturalist.

Maker et al. (1994) listed the following characteristics for programs incorporating MI:

* Providing opportunities for problem solving in both realistic and fantasy situations.

* Giving opportunities to design products using strengths and interests as a guide.

* Providing opportunities for students to acquire skills and information using multiple intelligences and multiple symbol systems.

* Involving students in solving problems ranging from well structured to ill structured (Sternberg, 1985a, 1985b).

* Planning learning experiences around abstract themes.

* Bringing the students' own culture and experiences into the curriculum while expanding from this base into other related areas.

* Modeling.

* Emphasizing strengths but encouraging acknowledgment and effort to develop in areas of weakness.

* Learning and thinking actively.

* Connecting with and learning from the community.

* Interacting with parents and extended families.

* Learning in independent, small group and large-group settings (pp. 16 & 18). Maker et al. (1994) noted that there are studies in progress to evaluate the validity of the assessment process, but there is no indication of studies being conducted to evaluate the curriculum and instructional processes.

Willard-Holt and Holt (1997) noted several ways teachers could present MI to their gifted students; e.g., checklists, interest centers, and games. Checklists can be used to identify the student's strengths or weaknesses. Teachers can provide interest centers, which are similar in scope to learning centers, for students to demonstrate and /or explore their intelligences. Students can identify or create activities through games to challenge themselves (Willard-Holt & Holt, 1997).

Environment, content, process, pace, and product dimensions can be used to develop curricula for gifted children (Maker, 1982). Willard-Holt and Holt (1997) related each of these dimensions to MI. For example, they stated that learning environments that value all the intelligences will enhance the talents of all the students. They also suggested course content should include abstractness, variety, and should be broad enough to stimulate gifted students' intelligences. In addition, Willard-Holt and Holt believed that "Differentiating process would integrate multiple intelligences with higher order thinking skills" (p. 8). Also, projects, etc. should be conducted at the students' pace. Further, "Differentiating product allows students to express their learning in creative and personal ways" (p. 9). The products could then be classified by the intelligence that was involved to create them (Willard-Holt & Holt, 1997). Those educators interested in learning styles might see similarities to the use of MI in this case. It appears, then, that MI can be incorporated in curriculum and instruction. The following section evaluates the research on the use of MI with G/T students.

Evaluation

As mentioned previously, MI theory appeals to many educators because of its comprehensiveness and simplicity, and it seems to fit well with the identification and instruction of G/T students. In this regard, Matthews (1988) indicated several strengths of using MI theory with G/T students. These are: the inclusion of social/interpersonal intelligence, the artistically creative dimensions/domains of musical, spatial, and bodily-kinesthetic intelligences, and its adaptiveness to individual differences, which is especially relevant in special education. Support has been reported for identification of several of the intelligences; (i.e., social and cognitive domains, [Ford, 1982], and mathematical and musical domains, [Bamberger, 1986]). Further, support has been reported for MI and domain-specific instruction, knowledge, and skills, (e.g., Feldman, 1986; Jackson & Butterfield, 1986: Rabinowitz & Glaser, 1985). Thus, MI appears to be a viable approach to the identification and instruction of G/T students.

If the notion of multiple intelligences gains further support, the use of traditional IQ tests would be suspect in identifying giftedness. Thus, a system, such as Gardner's (1983) MI would be more useful for identifying and educating G/T students (Matthews, 1988).

Delisle (1996), and White and Breen (1998) cautioned us regarding the potential misuse of MI theory with G/T students and programs. For example, Delisle (1996) suggested that because of its "convenience and simplicity" educators should be cautious if using MI theory. He stated that MI was embraced because of its egalitarian theme. Thus, attention was focused toward every learners' intelligence versus the exceptionalities of the gifted, seemingly abandoning the need for effective instruction.

Delisle lamented the unequivocal acceptance of MI theory and its spawning of "talent developers". He argued that talent development and MI disregard the emotional element, and such important concepts as self-knowledge, respect for others, and compassion.

Many of Delisle's arguments are noteworthy, but one may argue that Gardner's (1983) intrapersonal intelligence is the emotional, self-knowing element or domain that Delisle claims is missing. In addition, Shepard and Fasko (1994), and Shepard, Fasko, and Osborne (1999) have noted the similarity between intrapersonal intelligence and Goleman's (1995) concept of emotional intelligence. Through his review and synthesis of brain and behavioral research, Goleman shows how the ability to delay gratification and be self-motivated, to recognize and deal with the emotional status of others, and to manage one's own emotions affects everything from physical health to social relationships to job performance. Even the ability to make effective use of one's intellectual capabilities may be muted or magnified by such affective variables.

Although there is disagreement on the issue of intrapersonal intelligence and giftedness, White and Breen (1998) provided additional support for the caution regarding the potential misuse of MI with gifted education. White and Breen agreed that MI may be appropriate for accommodating those children who are multiply gifted, but noted that an important question that confronts the multiply gifted is "What should they do and when should they do it?" (p. 12). It is in questions and dilemmas such as these where MI falls short. Instead, White and Breen argued that it is the child's ability "to think and to reason and to evaluate which allows the child to make these decisions" (p. 12).

Additionally, these authors questioned whether or not the intelligences are "intelligences," talents, or abilities. White and Breen also questioned whether or not these remain constant throughout one's lifespan. Further, they argued that the use of the word intelligence "implies that there is something in common between and among all the multiple abilities ..." (p. 13). Apparently, the intelligences are correlated in several abilities, too (e.g., music and bodily-kinesthetic). White and Breen thus felt that "The common name [intelligence] seems to conceal important differences ..." (p. 14) in terms.

Interestingly, White and Breen commended MI theory for enhancing educators' awareness of gifted and multiply gifted children's needs. Thus, it has some positive implications for gifted education.

However, they complained that education, which they label as "Edutainment," that is based on MI is without foundation. White and Breen further argued that this type of "edutainment" will only result in "quick fixes and poor substitutions for the lack of grounding in foundational skills ..." (p. 17), even for the gifted.

Conclusion

So where do we go from here? First, it would appear that, theoretically, MI might have something to offer for the identification of G/T children. For example, Maker et al. (1994) noted that using Gardner's (1983) MI theory assists in identifying a more culturally diverse group of G/T students. This was demonstrated through the DISCOVER program that Maker et al. (1994) developed. Second, it is apparent that more empirical data are needed to support the claims of MI proponents for its use in identifying and educating G/T children. For example, the START program developed by Callahan et al. (1995) attempted to identify G/T students using the MIAT (Udall & Passe, 1993). They found that although the subscales of the MIAT were internally consistent and the factor analysis confirmed the presence of the linguistic and logical-mathematical factors, the reliability and validity of the instrument was suspect because of a potentially biased sample. However, programs such as DISCOVER, (Maker, 1992; Maker et al., 1994), are movements in the right direction. Third, MI might have something to offer for the education of G/T children. For example, Reid and Romanoff (1997) reported that G/T students scored 17 to 20 percent higher on standardized math and reading tests than students who were referred for the program, but not identified as G/T. However, Callahan et al. (1995) reported that the intervention in the START program had no effect on the achievement of gifted students who were in the MI classrooms. Fourth, we need to be wary of the "fad-like" nature of MI, and aware that without further corroborating data MI is not the panacea for gifted education. In fact, some questioned (e.g., White & Breen, 1998) whether the intelligences are "intelligences" or abilities.

In conclusion, one issue, as espoused so well by Krechevsky and Seidel (1998), is certain for all educators. "From the first day of school, students bring working minds to class. The educator's job is to create the best possible working environment for those minds" (p. 38). Let us be creative enough to stimulate these wonderful minds.

REFERENCES

Bamberger, J. (1986). Cognitive issues in the development of musically gifted children. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 388-413). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Callahan, C.M., Tomlinson, C.A., Moon, T.R., Tomchin, E.M., & Plucker, J.A. (1995). Project START: Using a multiple intelligences model in identifying and promoting talent in high-risk students. (Research Monograph No. 95136). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.

Cleckley, K. (1997). The first seven...and the eighth. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 8-13.

Delisle, J. (1996). Multiple intelligences: Convenient, simple, wrong. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 19(6), 12-13.

Feldman, D.H. (1986). Giftedness as a developmentalist sees it. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 285-305). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ford, M.E. (1982). Social cognition and social competence in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 18, 323-340.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1987). The theory of multiple intelligences. Annals of Dyslexia, 37, 19-35.

Gardner, H. (1989). Zero-based arts education: An introduction to Arts PROPEL. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 30, 71-83.

Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18 (8), 4-10.

Gardner, H. (1994). Intelligence in theory and practice: A response to Elliot W. Eisner, Robert J. Sternberg, and Henry M. Levin. Teachers College Record, 95, 576-583.

Gardner, H. (1999). Are there additional intelligences? The case for naturalist, spiritual, and existential intelligences. In J. Kane (Ed.), Education, information, and transformation: Essays on learning and thinking (pp. 111-131). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam.

Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Guskin, S.L., Peng, C.Y.J., & Majd-Jabbari, M. (1988). Teachers' perceptions of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32,216-221.

Guskin, S.L., Peng, C.Y.J., & Simon, M. (1992). Do teachers react to "Multiple Intelligences"? Effects of teachers' stereotypes on judgments and expectancies for students with diverse patterns of giftedness/talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 32-37.

Jackson, N.E., & Butterfield, E.C. (1986). A conception of giftedness designed to promote research. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 151-181). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kornhaber, M., Krechevsky, M., & Gardner, H. (1990). Engaging intelligence. Educational Psychologist, 25, 177-199.

Krechevsky, M. (1991). Project Spectrum: An innovative assessment alternative. Educational Leadership, 43 (5), 43-48.

Krechevsky, M., & Gardner, H. (1990). The emergence and nurturance of multiple intelligences: The Project Spectrum approach. In M.J.A. Howe (Ed.), Encouraging the development of exceptional skills and talents (pp. 243-255. Leicester, England: The British Psychological Society.

Kranz, B. (1994). Identifying talents among multicultural children. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. (Fastback no. 364).

Krechevsky, M., & Seidel, S. (1998). Minds at work: Applying multiple intelligences in the classroom. In R.J. Sternberg & W.M. Williams (Eds.), Intelligence, instruction, and assessment: Theory into practice (pp. 17-42). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Maker, C.J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Maker, C.J. (1992). Intelligence and creativity in multiple intelligences: Identification and development. Educating Able Learners, 17, 12-19.

Maker, C.J., Nielson, A.B., & Rogers, J.A. (1994). Giftedness, diversity, and problem-solving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27, 4-19.

Matthews, D. (1988). Gardner's multiple intelligence theory: An evaluation of relevant research literature and a consideration of its application to gifted education. Roeper Review, 11, 100-104.

Olson, L. (1988, January). Children "Flourish" here. Education Week, 1 (18), 18-19.

Plucker, J.A., Callahan, C.M., & Tomchin, E.M. (1996). Wherefore art thou, multiple intelligences? Alternative assessments for identifying talent in ethnically diverse and low income students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 81-92.

Rabinowitz, M., & Glaser, R. (1985). Cognitive structure and process in highly competent performance. In F.D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 75-98). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (1991). Giftedness from a multiple intelligences perspective. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 55-64). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Reid, C., & Romanoff, B. (1997). Using multiple intelligence theory to identify gifted children. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 71-74.

Shepard, R., & Fasko, D. (1994). Intrapersonal intelligence and education. Scholar and Educator, 17 (1), 25-34.

Shepard, R., Fasko, D., & Osborne, F.H. (1999). Intrapersonal intelligence: Affective factors in thinking. Education, 119, 633-642.

Sternberg, R.J. (1985a). Teaching critical thinking, Part 1: Are we making critical mistakes? Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 104-108.

Sternberg, R.J. (1985b). Teaching critical thinking, Part 2: Possible solutions. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 277-280.

Sternberg, R.J. (1994). Commentary: Reforming school reform: Comments on Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. Teachers College Record, 95,561-569.

Treffinger, D.J. (1986). Research on creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 15-19.

Udall, A.J., & Passe, M. (1993). Gardner-based/Performance-based assessment notebook. Charlotte, NC: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.

Wallach, M.A., & Kogan, N.C. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Walters, J., & Gardner, H. (1986). The theory of multiple intelligences: Some issues and answers. In R.J. Sternberg & R. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligences (pp. 163-182). New York: Cambridge University Press.

White, D.A., & Breen, M. (1998). Edutainment: Gifted education and the perils of misusing multiple intelligences. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 4(2), 12-14, 16-17.

Willard-Holt, C., & Holt, D.G. (1997, Spring). Multiple intelligences and gifted education. Gifted Education Press Quarterly, 11(2), 6-9.

Daniel Fasko is Professor of Education at Morehead State University in Morehead, KY. He has been a member of the Department of Leadership and Secondary Education for the past 14 years.

Manuscript submitted December, 1999. Revision accepted September, 2000.