FRAMES OF MIND BOOK

adminComment(0)

Start by marking “Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences” as Want to Read: Howard Gardner is the John H. and Elisabeth A. Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Quotes from Frames of Mind: T. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences and millions of other books are available for site site. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences Paperback – March 29, Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences has been hailed by educators for. Editorial Reviews. Review. "The value of Frames of Mind is less in the answers it proposes than The cult of Gardner niticahonu.tk his book Frames of Mind.


Frames Of Mind Book

Author:LYNSEY MCCONICO
Language:English, Arabic, Dutch
Country:Monaco
Genre:Religion
Pages:133
Published (Last):03.09.2016
ISBN:400-4-76256-567-6
ePub File Size:19.87 MB
PDF File Size:14.25 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Register to download]
Downloads:49560
Uploaded by: SHERRELL

Howard Gardner - Multiple Intelligences and Frames of Mind: Overview His popular book, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, explains. The theory of multiple intelligences differentiates human intelligence into specific 'modalities', rather than seeing intelligence as dominated by a single general ability. Howard Gardner proposed this model in his book Frames of Mind: The. The book that revolutionized our understanding of human intelligence. In Frames of Mind, Gardner challenges the widely held notion that.

While few scholars— or, for that matter, nonscholars—cherish criticism, there is no doubt that I learned a good deal from having to grapple with this wide range of discussion. In recent years I have also authored and coauthored several direct responses to criticisms of the theory in psychological and educational journals. Analysis of the possible cultural biases in the list also interest me. Empirical evidence on the relationship, or lack of relationship, among different candidate intelligences is central to my concerns.

In speaking of measurement, I touch on the issue about which psychologists interested in intelligence have spilled the most liquid or electronic ink.

Having put forth the theory, they maintain, I should be required to test it and, on the basis of the results of those tests, either revise or scuttle the theory.

I can well understand their loyalty to their instrumentation and to their way of thinking. Moreover, as a scholar, I do monitor efforts by others to test the theory—taking particular pleasure, of course, in those empirical studies that support the general enterprise.

I was also gratified that a team of researchers, led by Mindy Kornhaber, documented the positive experiences of forty-one American schools that were inspired by MI ideas. In fact, the theory has remained relatively constant in the past decade.

It is probably the case that significant revisions of the theory will need to be undertaken by persons other than myself. As already noted, my major scholarly work since the middle s, the GoodWork Project, has focused on how professionals act responsibly. Though the work was stimulated in part by misapplications of MI theory, it has had a relatively independent life.

On a trip to Manila in , I was quite moved to learn that Mary Joy Abaquin, founder of an MI school, had succeeded in wedding my two interests.

Since that time, Mary Joy has presented awards each year to individuals who are outstanding in one or more of the intelligences, while at the same time putting those intelligences to use in the service of the wider community. Few things could make a scholar more pleased than the discovery that someone has been able to effect a powerful relationship—and for that matter, a practical one— between two major lines of work, each of which he has pursued for decades.

This, then, is how the first decades of multiple intelligences look to me. I am grateful to the many individuals who have taken an interest in the theory—both within my research group and across the country and the globe. I have tried to be responsive to their inquiries and to build on what they have taught me. Put succinctly, MI has and will have a life of its own, over and above what I might wish for it, my most widely known intellectual offspring. To begin with, there will be efforts to propose new intelligences.

In recent years, in addition to the explosion of interest in emotional intelligences, there have been serious efforts to describe a spiritual intelligence and a sexual intelligence. My colleague Antonio Battro25 has proposed the existence of a digital intelligence and has indicated how it may fulfill the criteria that I have set forth.

I have always conceded that in the end, the decision about what counts as an intelligence is a judgment call—not an unambiguous determination following the rigorous application of an algorithm. For example, to the extent that the so-called Mozart effect gains credibility, one might want to rethink the relation between musical and spatial intelligences.

Other hot spots might include whether logical and mathematical intelligences should be split up into separate intelligences, or whether other candidate intelligences—for example, dealing with healing or with spiritual matters—might be proposed in cultural groups with which I am not familiar.

Much work needs to be done on the question of how the intelligences can best be mobilized to achieve specific pedagogical goals. I do not believe that educational programs created under the aegis of MI theory lend themselves to the kinds of randomized control studies that the U. To state just one example, I think that MI approaches are particularly useful when a student is trying to master a challenging new concept—say, gravity in physics, or the Zeitgeist in history.

I am enormously enthusiastic about the efforts of David Rose, my valued colleague, and others at his organization cast. As Rose puts it, we should not think of students as disabled; we should instead consider whether our curricula may be disabled. Were I personally granted more time and energy to explore the ramifications of MI theory, I would devote those precious gifts to two endeavors.

First of all, as indicated above, I have become increasingly fascinated by the ways in which societal activities and domains of knowledge emerge and become periodically reconfigured.

Any complex society has — distinct occupations at the least; and any university of size offers at least fifty different areas of study. Surely these domains and disciplines are not accidents, nor are the ways that they evolve and combine simply random events. The culturally constructed spheres of knowledge must bear some kind of relation to the kinds of brains and minds that human beings have, and the ways that those brains and minds grow and develop in different cultural settings.

Put concretely, how does human logical-mathematical intelligence relate to the various sciences, mathematics, and computing software and hardware that have emerged in the past few thousand years, and those that may emerge one year or a hundred years from now? Which makes which, or, more probably, how does each shape the other?

Will computers augment or even substitute for particular intelligences or combinations of intelligences? How does the human mind deal with interdisciplinary studies—are they natural or unnatural cognitive activities? Or to be a bit wild, what would MI perspectives reveal about dogs or birds or other primates? Or, for that matter, robots or smart machines? I would love to be able to think about these issues in a systematic way.

Second, from the start, one of the appealing aspects of MI theory was its reliance on biological evidence. In the early s there was little relevant evidence from genetics or evolutionary psychology; such speculations were mere handwaving. There was, however, powerful evidence from the study of neuropsychology for the existence of different mental faculties; and—whatever new details may emerge—that evidence constituted the strongest leg on which to justify MI theory.

Of course, knowledge has accumulated at a phenomenal rate in both brain science and genetics. As an amateur geneticist and neuroscientist, I have tried as best I can to keep up with the cascade of new findings from these areas. I can say with some confidence that no findings have radically called into question the major lines of MI theory. But I can say with equal confidence that, in light of the findings of the past three decades, the biological basis of MI theory needs urgently to be brought up to date.

At the time that MI theory was introduced, it was very important to make the case that human brains and human minds are highly differentiated entities. It is fundamentally misleading to think about a single mind, a single intelligence, a single problem-solving capacity.

As an acquaintance recently remarked, exposure to the idea of multiple intelligences made her see in Technicolor what had previously appeared to be only in black and white! Happily, nowadays the argument for modularity is largely established. Even those who believe strongly in general intelligence and across-the-board skills feel the need to defend their position, in a way that was unnecessary in decades past.

But it is time to revisit the issue of the relationship between general and particular intelligences. This revisiting can and is being done in various intriguing ways. Psychologist Robbie Case proposed the notion of central conceptual structures—broader than specific intelligences but not as all-encompassing as Piagetian general intelligence.

Neural imaging studies of individuals solving IQ-style problems suggest that certain areas of the brain are most likely to be drawn on for these kinds of problems; and there may be evidence for genes that contribute to unusually high IQ, as there clearly are genes that cause retardation.

I think it would be worthwhile to study in detail the differences between those who deploy a focused laser intelligence and those who display an ever-vigilant and shifting searchlight intelligence. Were I granted another lifetime or two, I would like to rethink the nature of intelligence with respect to our new biological knowledge, on the one hand, and our most sophisticated understanding of the terrain of knowledge and societal practice, on the other—another Project on Human Potential, perhaps!

But I am glad to have had the chance to make an opening move some thirty years ago, to have been able to revisit the gameboard periodically, to get to know and to work with wonderful colleagues in many corners of the globe, and to lay out this problematic so that other interested players can have their chance to engage.

Howard Gardner November Notes 1. Geschwind, selected papers on language and the brain. New York: Springer, New York: Knopf, Gardner and D.

Rogers and J. Sloboda eds. Sawyer ed. See the three Project Spectrum books: H. Gardner, D. Feldman, and M. Krechevsky general eds. See J. Chen and H. Flanagan ed. New York: The Guildford Press, and references contained therein. See, for example, C.

Kent, Ohio: See W.

Williams, T. Blythe, N. White, J. Li, R. Sternberg, and H. Winner ed. New York: Basic Books, Sternberg, J. Lautrey, and T. Lubart eds. See H. Gardner, M. Csikszentmihalyi, and W. For an update on the project, see the websites goodworkproject. For a survey of these and other applications of MI theory, see J.

Chen, S. Moran, and H.

Gardner eds. Schaler ed. Shearer ed. See, for example, H. Gardner and S. Gardner and M. Kornhaber, E. Fierros, and S. Davis, S. Seider, J. Christodoulou, and H. Sternberg and S. Kaufman eds. See M. Clark and A. Hauser, N. Chomsky, and T.

The Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Still, while writing Frames of Mind, I did not anticipate that the book would find a receptive audience in so many circles across so many lands.

And I certainly did not expect to have the privilege of introducing a tenth-anniversary edition of the book. While working on Frames of Mind, I viewed it principally as a contribution to my own discipline of developmental psychology and, more broadly, to the behavioral and cognitive sciences. I wanted to broaden conceptions of intelligence to include not only the results of paper-and-pencil tests but also knowledge of the human brain and sensitivity to the diversity of human cultures.

Although I discussed the educational implications of the theory in the closing chapters, my eyes were not beamed toward the classroom. In the companion volume to this book— Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice Gardner —I review the principal ways in which the theory has entered into contemporary educational discourse.

At the end of this introduction are bibliographical references for materials that are not treated further in the book itself. The Principal Themes of Frames of Mind At the time I wrote Frames of Mind, I had not fully anticipated the extent to which most people continued to adhere to two assumptions about intelligence: first, that it is a single, general capacity that every human being possesses to a greater or lesser extent; and that, however defined, it can be measured by standardized verbal instruments, such as short-answer, paperand-pencil tests.

In an effort to help new readers to enter the work, and to forestall these widely held but ultimately untenable conceptions, I ask you to perform two thought experiments. First of all, try to forget that you have ever heard of the concept of intelligence as a single property of the human mind, or of that instrument called the intelligence test, which purports to measure intelligence once and for all.

You might also like: 88 WAYS TO READ HER MIND PDF

Consider, for example, hunters, fishermen, farmers, shamans, religious leaders, psychiatrists, military leaders, civil leaders, athletes, artists, musicians, poets, parents, and scientists. Honing in closer, then, consider the three end states with which I begin Frames of Mind: the Puluwat sailor, the Koranic student, and the Parisian composer at her microcomputer. In my view, if we are to encompass adequately the realm of human cognition, it is necessary to include a far wider and more universal set of competences than we have ordinarily considered.

And it is necessary to remain open to the possibility that many—if not most—of these competences do not lend themselves to measurement by standard verbal methods, which rely heavily on a blend of logical and linguistic abilities.

As set forth in Chapter 4, these criteria range from the isolation of a capacity as a result of brain damage to the susceptibility of a capacity to encoding in a symbolic system.

Then, in Part II of the book, I describe in detail each of the seven candidate intelligences: the linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences that are at such a premium in schools today; musical intelligence; spatial intelligence; bodily-kinesthetic intelligence; and two forms of personal intelligence, one directed toward other persons, one directed toward oneself.

Following the introduction of the intelligences and a description of their respective modes of operations, I present a critique of the theory in terms of those deficiencies most evident to me at the time of writing. I conclude with some considerations of how intelligences do—and can— develop within a culture, and of how they can be mobilized in various educational settings. When one puts forth a new theory, it is sometimes helpful to indicate the perspectives to which it is most radically opposed.

This tack seems especially important in light of the critics who have been unable—or unwilling—to abandon these traditional perspectives. I introduce two exhibits in this regard.

First, an advertisement for an intelligence test begins: Need an individual test which quickly provides a stable and reliable estimate of intelligence in 4 or 5 minutes per form? Has three forms? Does not depend on verbal production or subjective scoring? Can be used with the severely physically handicapped even paralyzed if they can signal yes—no? Handles two-year-olds and superior adults within the same short series of times and the same format? Whatever might be the value of this test, I can state unequivocally that the description of it implies an illusory wonderland of testing.

Furthermore, I am equally suspicious of claims to test intelligence whatever it might be by means of reaction-time measures or brain waves. That these measures may well correlate with IQs is, from my perspective, all the more reason for calling IQs into question. My second exhibit comes from a more venerable source—a well-known quotation from Samuel Johnson.

Theory of multiple intelligences

In other words, genius and, a fortiori, ordinary performance is likely to be specific to particular contents: human beings have evolved to exhibit several intelligences and not to draw variously on one flexible intelligence. Studies of Intelligence As I attempt to situate my own work within the broader history of efforts to conceptualize intelligence, I find it useful to divide the historical continuum into loosely sequential phases: lay theories, the standard psychometric approach, and pluralization and hierarchization.

Lay Theories. For most of human history, there was no scientific definition of intelligence. The Standard Psychometric Approach.

Just about a century ago, psychologists made the first efforts to define intelligence technically and to devise tests that would measure it see the opening pages of Chapter 2. In many ways, these efforts represented an advance and a singular success for scientific psychology.

Pluralization and Hierarchization. Thurstone and J. Guilford argued for the existence of a number of factors, or components, of intelligence. In the broadest sense, Frames of Mind is a contribution to this tradition, although it differs principally in the sources of evidence on which it relies.

Whereas most pluralists defend their position by stressing the low correlations among groups of tests, I have based MI theory on neurological, evolutionary, and crosscultural evidence. Having posited several components of intelligence, one must then question how and whether they relate to one another. Some scholars, such as Raymond Cattell and Philip Vernon , argue for a hierarchical relationship among factors, seeing general, verbal, or numerical intelligence as presiding over more specific components.

Other scholars, such as Thurstone, however, resist the urge to create a hierarchy of factors, and claim that each should be considered as an equivalent member of a heterarchical structure. These three phases take us up to the publication of Frames of Mind in In the subsequent decade, I discern at least two new trends: contextualization and distribution. Reflecting a general trend within the behavioral sciences, researchers have become increasingly critical of psychological theories that ignore crucial differences among the contexts within which human beings live and develop.

Being a human being in a contemporary postindustrial society is an entirely different matter from being a human being during the Neolithic or the Homeric eras, or, for that matter, from being one who lives in a preliterate or a Third World setting today. My intelligence does not stop at my skin; rather, it encompasses my tools paper, pencil, computer , my notational memory contained in files, notebooks, journals , and my network of associates office mates, professional colleagues, others whom I can phone or to whom I can dispatch electronic messages.

A forthcoming book, entitled Distributed Cognition, sets forth the principal principles of a distributed view Salomon, in press ; see also the useful book Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, authored by Lauren Resnick and her colleagues With the benefit of hindsight, I can point to hints of contextualization and distribution in the first edition of Frames of Mind.

In presenting spatial intelligence, for example, I emphasized the extent to which the expression of that intelligence is determined by the opportunities afforded in various cultures ranging from sailing to architecture to geometry to chess , and also the value of various tools and notations in enhancing the intelligences of the growing child. Yet, I think it fair to say that in I centered the multiple intelligences far more within the skull of the single individual in than I would one decade later.

Will intelligence continue to move beyond the brain of the individual into the realm of the artifacts and contexts of the wider culture? But those who favor the standard psychometric approach to cognition or intelligence have by no means laid down their disputational weapons. Scholars such as Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck have not only maintained their belief in the singularity of intelligence but also have supplemented their long-term loyalty to psychometric instruments with fresh enthusiasm about the brain-basis of intelligence.

They now contend that intelligence reflects a basic property of the nervous system and can be assessed electrophysiologically, without recourse to paper-andpencil instruments. A younger colleague, Michael Anderson , has amassed evidence to suggest that such indices of intelligence can be ascertained even among infants.

And perhaps most dramatically, Thomas Bouchard and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota have demonstrated a surprisingly high heritability of psychometric intelligence among a population uniquely situated to provide evidence on this topic: identical twins reared apart. To the extent that the Bouchard-JensenEysenck position is correct, there is really no need to pay attention to cultures, contexts, or distributions of intelligence.

Can they both be right? I do not see these two research traditions as necessarily on a collision course. It could well be that a certain property of the nervous system— say, speed and flexibility of nerve conduction—is largely inborn and accounts in significant measure for eventual success on certain kinds of paper-and-pencil measures.

A division of explanatory labor is also conceivable: in a recently published volume, Anderson stresses the power of the traditional view for illuminating infant cognition while invoking a multiple intelligences perspective for later development.

In his view, human environments can differ in a multitude of ways, leading to differences in performance far greater than those observed in twins raised in what are basically variations of a modern Western middle-class environment. Frames of Mind and My Recent Work As I have indicated, much of the work my colleagues and I have undertaken in the past decade has examined educational implications of MI theory see Gardner In particular, we have sought to take into account the various differences in individual profiles of intelligences within an educational setting.

As we now see it, intelligences are always expressed in the context of specific tasks, domains, and disciplines. By the same token, adults do not exhibit their spatial intelligence directly but are more or less proficient chess players or artists or geometricians. This shift in philosophy of assessment reflects what is probably the most important conceptual advance in MI theory: the distinction among intelligences, domains, and fields.

In the original formulation, these distinctions were not properly drawn, leading to confusion among readers and, not infrequently, within my own thinking. But collaborative work with David Feldman , and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has provided me with a well-founded taxonomy. At the level of the individual, it is proper to speak about one or more human intelligences, or human intellectual proclivities, that are part of our birthright.

These intelligences may be thought of in neurobiological terms. Having intrapersonal intelligence means having significant self-understanding that includes a clarity on your strengths and weakness, embracing achievable personal goals, knowing what makes you unique, and possessing an ability to reflect on and regulate your own emotion and reaction to situations.

This type of intelligence can be found in virtually all professions and is not limited to a particular genre of occupations. Those who need a high degree of intrapersonal intelligence would include mental health therapists, psychiatrists, entrepreneurs, and managers.

To have interpersonal intelligence you must understand other people well. These people are sensitive to the moods, feelings, motivations and personal experiences of others. They intuitively can read social cues and know how to appropriately respond to them in a way that makes other people feel safe and understood. These are skills that are not limited by occupational titles but are especially important for those who are therapists, social workers, teachers, salespersons, medical professionals, or politicians.

A person who has existential intelligence has the ability to think deeply and engage with others on the larger questions of life, such as ethics, death and spiritual themes. This person might be found working as a counselor, minister, ethicist, hospice professional, or in mortuary science. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study. Create your account. Already a member? Log In. Already registered? Log in here for access. Did you know… We have over college courses that prepare you to earn credit by exam that is accepted by over 1, colleges and universities.

You can test out of the first two years of college and save thousands off your degree. Anyone can earn credit-by-exam regardless of age or education level.

To learn more, visit our Earning Credit Page. Not sure what college you want to attend yet? The videos on Study. Sign Up. Explore over 4, video courses. Find a degree that fits your goals. Try it risk-free for 30 days. Gary Gilles Gary has a Master's degree in Counseling Psychology and has been teaching and developing courses in higher education since Add to Add to Add to. Want to watch this again later? Howard Gardner pioneered a new way of thinking about intelligence that is unconventional but well received.

His theory has practical application for how we go about learning new skills and choosing the type of work we find most satisfying. Learn more about Howard Gardner and the different types of intelligences, then test your knowledge with a quiz. Howard Gardner Howard Gardner is a psychologist and professor of neuroscience at Harvard University and is best known for developing the theory of Multiple Intelligences. What Is Meant by Multiple Intelligences?

Multiple Intelligences Gardner's research led him to the conclusion that people don't have just one type of mental intelligence the kind that is typically measured by an IQ test. How Frames of Mind Breaks New Ground Gardner's theory breaks with traditional views that assume intelligence is a genetically endowed trait and is primarily measured by a cognitive test. What Are the Nine Intelligences? Here are the nine types of intelligences along with occupational matches for each: Try it risk-free No obligation, cancel anytime.

Want to learn more? Select a subject to preview related courses: Linguistic Intelligence People who have linguistic intelligence have the ability to use language well to express their thoughts and ideas. Logical-Mathematical When people are strong in logical-mathematical intelligence , they have the ability to understand the underlying principles of cause and effect or to see logical relationships between ideas, numbers or concepts.

Spatial Intelligence When people have spatial intelligence , they have the ability to internally represent objects or associations between objects using the mind's eye. Naturalist Intelligence Someone with naturalist intelligence has the ability to nurture and relate to living things plants and animals in particular with a unique sensitivity.

Frames of mind : the theory of multiple intelligences

Intrapersonal Intelligence Having intrapersonal intelligence means having significant self-understanding that includes a clarity on your strengths and weakness, embracing achievable personal goals, knowing what makes you unique, and possessing an ability to reflect on and regulate your own emotion and reaction to situations. Interpersonal Intelligence To have interpersonal intelligence you must understand other people well.

Existential Intelligence A person who has existential intelligence has the ability to think deeply and engage with others on the larger questions of life, such as ethics, death and spiritual themes. Learning Outcomes Review the lesson to cement what you learned: Summarize Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences Identify the impact of Gardner's Frames of Mind Describe the nine intelligences according to Gardner.

Register to view this lesson Are you a student or a teacher? I am a student I am a teacher. Unlock Your Education See for yourself why 30 million people use Study. Become a Member Already a member? What teachers are saying about Study. Earning Credit. Earning College Credit Did you know… We have over college courses that prepare you to earn credit by exam that is accepted by over 1, colleges and universities.

To learn more, visit our Earning Credit Page Transferring credit to the school of your choice Not sure what college you want to attend yet? Browse Articles By Category Browse an area of study or degree level. Area of Study. Degree Level. Career Roadmap. Sales Operations Manager: You are viewing lesson Lesson 24 in chapter 6 of the course:.

History and Approaches: Biological Bases of Behavior Sensation and Perception: States of Consciousness: Tutoring Solution. Motivation and Emotion: Developmental Psychology: Ch Theories of Social Psychology Psychological Disorders and Psychological Treatments: Statistics, Tests and Measurement Certificate Program Research Methods in Psychology: Help and Review Introduction to Psychology: Certificate Program Human Growth and Development: Help and Review Human Growth and Development: Tutoring Solution Human Growth and Development:Other editions.

There remains much more to be done, but in the same way that we break down the capacities of athletes and find common elements to enhance, we naturally throw society's lot behind clearly gifted students and artists, without necessarily being clear on what the result is actually telling us.

The Guardian. They are typically good at reading, writing, telling stories and memorizing words along with dates.

Frames of mind book

Winter Nov 21, Jim Razinha rated it liked it. In the years since I published Frames of Mind, I have often been asked how I first got the idea of—or for—the theory of multiple intelligences. A Survey of Factor-analytic Studies.

LAINE from Naperville
Feel free to read my other posts. I'm keen on ninjutsu. I do love reading novels poorly .
>