Chapter 1 Why MI?
'' . . . You see, really and truly, apart from the things anyone can pick up (the dressing and the proper way of speaking, and so on) the difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she's treated. I shall always be a flower girl to Professor Higgins, because he always treats me as a flower girl, and always will; but I know I can be a lady to you, because you always treat me as a lady, and always will.''
--Eliza Doolittle in Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw
This quote from Pygmalion concludes Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson's book, Pygmalion in the Classroom (1968). As the character Eliza Doolittle explains above, a person's place in society is largely determined by how others treat her. Similarly, the famous Rosenthal/Jacobson study and ensuing book claim that students' intellectual development is influenced by teachers' expectations and beliefs about student ability.
In their original study, the Harvard researchers told teachers in a San Francisco elementary school that a new test had identified certain students as ''bloomers,'' and that these children would make strong achievement gains during the school year. In reality, the identified students were selected at random without formal identification or testing. Yet, as the year progressed, the ''bloomers,'' especially those in the early grades, did make significant achievement gains. Rosenthal and Jacobson attributed these gains to teachers' expectations and their differential treatment of identified students. The ''Pygmalion effect,'' or the ''self-fulfilling prophecy'' states that what teachers expect from or believe about students influences how students perform.
Although controversy surrounded the original study, subsequent research has confirmed that teachers' beliefs do affect student outcomes (Bamburg, 1994; Brophy, 1983; Cooper & Tom, 1984; Good, 1987; Rist, 1970; Slavin, 1994; Winfield, 1986). Positive teacher expectations are recognized as a key variable that separates teachers who produce good achievement gains from those who do not. As a result, the educational mandate of maintaining high expectations for all students has become nearly cliché in school improvement efforts since the 1970s. What has not become cliché, however, is much specificity about the beliefs and behaviors that result in enhanced achievement. While teachers have always been entrusted with developing intellectual potential, the nature of such potential has seldom been discussed or described in educational circles, at least not until Howard Gardner proposed the theory of multiple intelligences.
Teacher Beliefs and MI Theory
Fifteen years after Harvard researchers Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson highlighted the connection between teacher expectations and student learning, another Harvard psychologist, Howard Gardner, suggested a model of intelligence that would rock the educational community as much as, if not more than, the ''Pygmalion effect.'' While Rosenthal's research emphasized the importance of teacher beliefs about student intelligence, Gardner's work offered teachers a model of intelligence in which to believe.
The need for such a model was great. During preservice and inservice education, teachers rarely consider the nature of the human learning potential they are mandated to develop. This gap in our professional knowledge base is akin to doctors being trained without studying the human body or architects being licensed without understanding the physics that allow structures to remain upright. Subsequently, in faculty lounges, at workshops, and in the popular press, little teacher dialogue occurs about the extraordinary brain power of students. Many discussions frankly contradict such a notion! Although most teachers entered the field of education to improve the lives of others, achieving this aim is difficult without knowledge of the human intellect.
It was no wonder, then, that Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences immediately took root in the educational community. It offered a theoretical foundation of the mind and bolstered beliefs about student competence. Gardner was surprised by this ready adoption because he assumed his work would interest psychologists and intelligence scholars. In talking with educators, however, we have heard three reasons for their ready embrace of MI: (1) the theory's contribution to educators' knowledge base and beliefs about the human mind, (2) MI's implications for professional practice, and (3) the impact of MI programs on student academic achievement. Among these three reasons, however, a single, compelling rationale emerged that explained the appeal of Gardner's work: MI theory positively influences teacher beliefs--beliefs about intelligence, instruction, and student achievement. Although theories about the nature of human intelligence have proliferated for centuries, such work has occurred in philosophic, psychological, and anthropological circles. Educators' preservice preparation typically does not delve deeply into such disciplines. When asked, ''What is intelligence?'' teachers are at a loss to define or describe it. The one theorist most teachers refer to when reflecting on intellectual development is the biologist-turned-psychologist Jean Piaget (1952). Piaget described aspects of cognitive growth, but his narrow view of human abilities and timetables has been shown to be inadequate. Laurie Nunnelee, an English teacher at Skyview Junior High School, claims, and others likely agree, that during preparation to become a teacher, ''traditional IQ tests were mentioned, but they were our only exposure to the idea of intelligence.'' Teachers, for the most part, have lacked an adequate theory of human intelligence, yet they are responsible for the intellectual development of their students.
This shortcoming in professional training has exposed teachers and students to vulnerability in several ways. First, lack of formal education about human intelligence has left teachers to create their own theories of mind. As Howard Gardner (1991) explains in The Unschooled Mind, both children and adults generate personal theories to explain their experiences and perceptions. The mind's theory-creating capacity seeks to extract meaning from and impose order upon life's innumerable experiences. Not based upon any existing knowledge, such theories emerge from an individual's best guesses at what seems plausible.
Teachers are not immune from theory generating. To make sense of the student learning potential they encounter daily, teachers construct beliefs or scripts about the intelligence of those in their charge. These implicit beliefs can be optimistic or pessimistic, constrictive or expansive. For the most part, they are seldom verbalized, usually unconscious, and may work against students' welfare. For example, if a teacher believes that intelligence cannot be modified, then schooling can accomplish little. Without educational intervention that might dislodge incorrect scripts about intelligence, or affirm and make conscious useful ones, teachers' implicit beliefs remain intact.
In our interviews with teachers and administrators, we encountered excitement about the theoretical foundation MI provides. MI offers insight into the human mind, its abilities, and its development that teachers find tangible, accessible, and professionally useful. The theory's helpfulness is evident in the comments of Edwina Smith, principal of Russell Elementary School: ''As educators we say, `All students can learn.' MI gives us something to back up that belief.''
The theory is appealing in part because Gardner attributes specific functions to different regions of the brain. This neuroanatomical feature enhances the theory's credibility with teachers, other professionals, and lay populations. Teachers cite Gardner's work with a sense of confidence and security because it was generated by a foremost cognitive psychologist at one of the world's most prestigious institutions.
Further, Gardner's pragmatic definition of intelligence renders this usually murky construct manageable and concrete. In Frames of Mind Gardner (1983) describes intelligence as the ability to solve problems, to make culturally relevant contributions to one's community, and to identify new challenges to pursue. This definition focuses on dynamic processes--problem solving and contributing to others--common activities in most classrooms. Nor does the definition limit intelligence to a static, quantifiable number. Instead, it frees teachers from concerns of whether intelligence is genetically determined at birth to creating environments and instructional methods that develop all children's competencies. The definition emphasizes the cultural relativity of what is considered ''intelligent behavior'' and expands teachers' appreciation of diverse value systems and behaviors. As language arts teacher Chris Morgan at Lincoln High School says, ''MI has made teachers more open and accepting of all students, which our growing minority population requires.''
According to the theory of multiple intelligences, the mind's problem-solving capacities are multifaceted, exceeding the traditional view of intelligence as being verbally and mathematically bright. In 1983, Gardner identified seven forms of intelligence: linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. A dozen years later, he added an eighth intelligence, that of the naturalist, one who specializes in recognizing and classifying natural and human-made phenomena. Recently, Gardner has suggested an additional intelligence: existential intelligence, which refers to the human desire to understand and pursue the ultimate questions, meanings, and mysteries of life. By making a case for many kinds of intelligences, Gardner affirms the observations of teachers who deal with a wide range of individual differences every day. For example, one student might play a musical instrument with ease but struggle with writing conventions. Another may enjoy the challenges of mathematical precision but avoid any opportunity to draw. Still another may perform a complex series of physical movements but appear awkward when interacting with peers. Many teachers claim that MI provides a language or vocabulary to perceive and articulate a broader array of student talent. Teachers frequently express frustration with the limited forms of recognition available to students in traditional curriculums, where linguistic and mathematical skills dominate. With MI, educators can identify and affirm a wider spectrum of student competence. As John Moen, a multimedia teacher at Skyview Junior High School, explains, ''For both teachers and students, MI creates a positive school culture of respect and belief.''
Teacher Beliefs About Intelligence Made Explicit
The MI schools described in this book put structures into place for educators to make their beliefs about intelligence explicit. Typically, teachers formed study groups to read and discuss research on intelligence and engaged in professional development about Gardner's theory. In either approach, such discussions about the human mind were usually the first of their kind at the preservice or inservice level. As Pat Bolanos, principal of the Key Learning Community, explains, ''Howard Gardner's theory gave us a starting point for discussions about human intelligence, and to talk about why a student does well in one area but not in another.''
The results of such discussions appear to have two different effects on teachers' beliefs about intelligence. According to Paul Osterlund, principal of EXPO Elementary School in St. Paul, ''The theory has both affirmed and changed teachers' beliefs about intelligence.'' Many educators claim that MI makes their implicit beliefs about intelligence explicit. Some we interviewed stated they had always assumed students had diverse abilities. Laurie Nunnelee at Skyview Junior High explains, ''I intuitively knew that students varied in their abilities and that all could improve. MI is reinforcing.'' Eeva Reeder, a math teacher at Mountlake Terrace High School, concurs: ''MI affirmed what I intuitively knew about intelligence--that there are different ways to learn and process information. MI validates other meaning-making systems.''
Some teachers, such as those at Key Learning Community, perceived MI as a theoretical ally because they wanted to educate the ''whole child'' and because they wanted to elevate the status of the arts in education. Others believed that all students should experience academic success and be acknowledged for their strengths. Social studies teacher Sherry Pratt at Lincoln High School claims that ''with MI, teachers see students as more capable because they can demonstrate learning in a variety of ways. It gives students and teachers, all of us, chances to be acknowledged for our strengths. Confidence is boosted, and this encourages us to develop other areas too. MI adds a complexity and a richness to the classroom, and more experiences are honored in the classroom. It keeps me as a teacher more connected to the students.''
While MI affirms many teachers' existing beliefs, other teachers find their beliefs challenged by the theory. Pat Bolanos, the principal of Key Learning Community, is adamant about the impact of MI on teachers' beliefs, ''MI has absolutely changed teachers' basic notions of human intelligence.'' At Lincoln High School, teacher Chris Morgan explains that ''MI has opened new horizons for the majority of our high school staff.'' Her colleague, chemistry teacher Pam Martin, agrees, ''MI initiates a broader understanding of intellectual diversity.''
Les Anderson, the founding principal of Russell Elementary School's MI program, provides a before and after description of the theory's influence on teachers' beliefs: ''Teachers used to look at kids as having gaps in intelligence. Now they try to optimize learning power because they look for the positive instead of the negative. Teachers say things like, `This child has trouble with reading, but he is good at art so we'll work from that strength.' And it works.'' One primary teacher at Russell who resisted ''the latest educational fad'' was eventually won over by MI. Amy Littrell explains: ''I was one of the most reluctant teachers in the school about adopting MI. Before I did, I'd find myself thinking at times, `Some of these children are so low they can't do the work.' But then when I started using MI, I saw that they were really learning the material. They could do the work, and some became leaders.''
Transformed beliefs of teachers sometimes extend beyond the classroom. Kathy Calwell, a middle school teacher at Key Learning Community, explains: ''My perceptions of intelligence have changed significantly, first with students and then with everyone in the city--actually with people everywhere. I began to realize that every business and organization usually taps all intelligences.''
In addition to affirming and, in some cases, changing teachers' beliefs, Gardner's theory has made another important contribution to education. MI provides a common language for articulating beliefs about students and instruction. According to Sandy Godbey, a primary teacher at Russell Elementary School, ''The theory has immensely improved the quality of discourse with everyone at the school and also with the parents and community.'' Sandy's new principal, Edwina Smith, adds, ''The teachers have a vocabulary that is different from what I was used to. They talk about how to help kids through their strengths. I haven't heard similar conversations at other schools.''
MI Theory and Teacher Beliefs About Instruction
Understanding intelligence is a prerequisite to significant improvement in pedagogy. Adhering to the traditional notion of intelligence, schools identify certain skills as basic or essential, and they demean others by labeling them as frills. Narrowly defined limits of intelligent behavior make students who don't excel in linguistic or mathematical disciplines perceive their talents to be of little use. As Steven J. Gould states in The Mismeasure of Man: ''We pass through this world but once. Few tragedies can be more extensive than the stunting of life, few injustices deeper than the denial of an opportunity to strive or even to hope, by a limit imposed from without, but falsely identified as lying within'' (1981, pp. 28-29). MI identifies and dignifies many uses of the mind and, in so doing, suggests enriched educational opportunities for all students. At the same time, the theory does not dictate any single curricular approach. This lack of specificity appears to be a core reason for MI's adoption by the schools cited in this book. John Moen, at Skyview Junior High School, says that ''MI runs counter to the societal trend to try to find the one best way to do something. MI opens things up and gives educators options.''
There is no single, correct way to implement MI. Without a prepackaged program, or what principals Paul Osterlund and Edwina Smith call a ''cookie-cutter'' program, educators design curriculum as appropriate for their students. How they structure curriculum reveals their beliefs about how to enhance student learning. Some teachers offer numerous entry points into lesson content. Some, such as those at EXPO Elementary School, transform curriculums through arts-based instruction, multi-age classes, team-teaching, or interdisciplinary programs. Others, including teachers at Lincoln High School, emphasize self-directed learning through classroom projects, and still others at Key Learning Community and Skyview Junior High School deepen student expertise through apprenticeships. Unlike other educational reforms, MI is open to curricular interpretation.
When teachers adopt an MI approach to instruction, they confront unavoidable demands. Time is needed to develop multimodal lessons; to work as team members; to incorporate the specialties of librarians, PE, art, or music teachers; and to educate parents. Dan Wilson, a biology teacher at Mountlake Terrace High School, says, ''MI lesson planning absolutely takes more time than other kinds. You can't just walk in and wing it. You have to be well prepared.'' Anne McNeill, a primary teacher at EXPO for Excellence Elementary School, explains how, over time, MI instruction has become easier:
One thing that has changed for me is I have realized that I don't have to teach everything well. I can get help from my colleagues. Gym, dance, and music teachers integrate the MIs into reading. They'll add movement and sign language and do poetry with music. That helps the rest of us a lot. There are a lot of built-in resources and modeling. Also, I let the kids show me ways they can learn. I provide ideas at the beginning, but then, as the year goes on, the students create their own performance assessments.
There are other benefits as well. As Lincoln High School Co-Principal Norrie Bean says, ''With MI, teachers become the facilitators of learning. That makes their lives easier.'' In most cases, teachers willingly make the extra effort because they would rather respond to student strengths than react to student deficits. High school math teacher Eeva Reeder explains that teaching through MI ''creates a lot more work for me, but I am morally obligated to act on my understanding of human intelligence.''
With higher expectations, with an emphasis upon strengths, teachers enrich their instruction and, in so doing, midwife improved student achievement. A high school student who had experienced academic failure before attending Lincoln's MI program said: ''I am one of those interpersonal people. Older kids helped me here, and later I was able to help younger kids. Even though I am dyslexic, I could do my `writing' sometimes on tape with outlines and visuals and still get credit. There is a lot more adaptivity here for my way of learning.''
In the process, teachers undergo change themselves. Some enjoy renewed opportunities for intellectual and scholarly pursuits available in MI study sessions at the outset of their curricular changes. Nearly all the teachers we interviewed claim that teaching multimodally develops their creativity. At Russell Elementary School some intentionally develop areas of weakness, for example, by taking violin lessons with their students. Some, such as middle school teachers at Key, have taken professional leaps by teaching at universities or running summer programs for educators from the United States and abroad. With MI, teachers are shifting their focus and effort: from that of curriculum development to human development, including their own ongoing growth.
Regardless of how teachers interpret Gardner's theory, MI offers guidance for improving learning. The theory describes human intelligence while also suggesting the attributes of a well-educated person. With the dizzying complexities of teaching any group of students, there is great appeal in Gardner's model because it reveals both the source and the goal of intellectual development.
MI Theory and Teacher Beliefs About Student Achievement
Teaching practices and classroom behaviors emerge from the beliefs educators have about their students. Sensitive to these perceptions, students respond to the unspoken attitudes of their teachers. For better or worse, student achievement mirrors the expectations of those who teach them. Simply put, teachers get from students what they expect.
Too often, teachers develop low expectations for students because of a number of limiting beliefs. Beliefs can be based on superficial factors, such as sex role stereotyping or negative assumptions about minority students, limited-English-proficiency students, those in poverty, those who turn in messy assignments, or wear unusual clothing, or sit in the back of the room. Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences corrects negative, implicit beliefs or inappropriate external factors that diminish expectations and weaken student achievement.
When asked how many special-needs children she had in her inclusive classroom, Arlene Desombre, a primary teacher at EXPO for Excellence, explained, ''I don't see things that way anymore. I perceive children according to what they are good at rather than by their challenges.'' MI provides a new lens to perceive students and a new tool for acting on that information. One nearly unanimous assertion we encountered from our interviews is that when schools adopt MI, teachers intentionally seek strengths in every student. Katrina Wentzel, EXPO Elementary School's curriculum coordinator, ''sees every child as gifted.'' Katrina's principal, Paul Osterlund, agrees: ''MI has changed teachers' perceptions of our students. Everything is more personalized. They now teach children instead of books.''
Because students are not perceived as defective, they have no excuses for not achieving well. High school biology teacher Dan Wilson emphasizes this point: ''MI provides a vehicle to reach every kid. At the same time, we have higher expectations for students. We expect them to find ways to represent their knowledge with high-quality work. Students are more involved in their assignments.'' Principal Pat Bolanos further explains: ''Our teachers have high expectations in all areas of intelligence. We have teacher specialists teaching in every area, and that raises the bar.''
In addition to increased expectations for students, similar high expectations exist for the teachers themselves. Edwina Smith, principal of Russell Elementary School, says, ''The teachers feel that more is expected of them with MI.'' Because problems of poor achievement do not lie in those they teach, educators must identify alternative approaches to tap the potential of their students. At many MI schools, educators attempt to personalize learning for each child. At EXPO for Excellence Elementary in St. Paul, former parent liaison Nancy Dana says: ''MI has given us the motivation to look at each student as an individual. We believe that we all learn in different ways and that traditional educational approaches won't work for every child. We value differences in student ability.''
With the belief firmly in place that all students possess strengths, student talents can be used strategically. For example, when students struggle with a concept or skill, they can often jump-start their learning by accessing their strengths, as numerous examples throughout the schools' case studies show.
We maintain that at schools where beliefs about intelligence remain implicit and limited, both students and teachers are at risk of underestimating and devaluing multiple forms of human talent. This situation contrasts markedly with what occurs at MI programs. Significantly, at MI schools, teachers' beliefs in students' abilities are communicated directly to the students themselves. Students come to perceive themselves as talented, sometimes in unexpected areas. A Key Learning Community middle school student says, ''MI makes you learn different things about yourself. It brings out hidden talents.'' As a result of this positive self-regard, Principal Paul Osterlund says, ''MI not only makes a positive difference in educational programs, it improves the lives of children.''
When reflecting on an MI hypothesis that each person has a unique cognitive profile, teachers and students realize that MI pluralizes the concept of intelligence and of being academically challenged. Few people excel in all eight intelligences. Because everyone is talented in some areas and weak in others, students experience greater self-acceptance. All have much to learn and many areas in which to grow.
Aware that classrooms have long-lasting effects, teachers desire to help all students experience success. MI teachers, however, go beyond recognizing student talent. They provide concrete opportunities to develop their students' intellectual potential. With numerous skills in place, students are likely to experience success in multiple forms as they grow older.
Students in MI schools have high hopes and expectations for themselves. And why not? When an entire community of children, parents, and teachers believe that everyone is multi-talented, new forms of intellectual performance are likely. Student achievement gains increase as measured by standardized, state-mandated, and/or informal tests. While strong academic achievement cannot be attributed to a single factor, we maintain that teacher beliefs in MI significantly influence students to create positive self-fulfilling prophecies.
