Gifted and Talented: Multiple Intelligences in the New Zealand Context

Gifted and Talented: Multiple Intelligences in the New Zealand Context

Abstract Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory corresponds with the belief that is at the heart

of gifted and talented education in New Zealand. This belief is that the needs of children

should be at the centre of fashioning curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2000). There are

some serious implications for implementing MI theory in practice, although these should

not discourage teachers from investigating whether implementation would be beneficial for

their students. An abundance of material is available about MI theory and how it can be

adapted for operation in an educational context; the most important point for teachers to

realise is that it is a theory of intelligence, not a curriculum development framework. The

major implication inherent in translating MI theory into practice is that teachers seek

adequate professional development to understand not only the theory, but also the Entry

Points Framework (which enables the theory to be put into practice) and appropriate ways

of assessing students’ learning from a curriculum that is based on Gardner’s definition of

intelligence.

Emma Scobie-Jennings Multiple Intelligences

2

Gifted and Talented: Multiple Intelligences in the New Zealand

Context

The purpose of this essay is to analyse Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence (MI) theory in

relation to the context of New Zealand’s educational system. The essay will explain and

critique the theory and consider it’s appropriateness within New Zealand’s educational

context. It will discuss how MI theory, in practice, can help address the needs of children

displaying characteristics of giftedness and talent and also examine implications that New

Zealand educators may face when attempting to implement MI theory.

Research into giftedness and talent closely parallels the study of intelligence

(Plucker, 2001). Intelligence theory appears to have an influence on definitions of

giftedness and talent, on how gifted and talented students are identified and on the

development of programmes for these students. But, as Campbell and Campbell (1999)

state teachers have lacked an adequate theory of intelligence, yet they are the people

responsible for the intellectual development of children. Historically, intelligence has been

a singular notion of academic capacity that can be measured in one way or another

(Gardner, 2006). Gottfredson (2003) notes, most mental tests of intelligence measure a

person’s general mental ability or ‘g’. This can be defined simply as the ability to process

information of any kind. The most famous measure of intelligence is Alfred Binet’s

Intelligence Quotient (IQ) (Becker, 2003). This is a person’s mental age, as established

through the IQ test, divided by chronological age and multiplied by 100. However, as Becker

(2003) states these tests only address the areas of knowledge, fluid reasoning, visual-spatial

processing, quantitative reasoning and short-term/working memory. McAlpine (2004)

observes that this and similar methods of measuring intelligence have influenced the

narrow conceptions of giftedness and talent that were held in the early days of research

into gifted and talented education. Concepts related to giftedness and talent have changed

over time to reflect the changes in the concept of intelligence, which has changed from a

one-dimensional concept to a multidimensional one reflecting many abilities or

‘intelligences’ (McAlpine; Gardner).


3

One of the most prevalent modern theories of intelligence is Howard Gardner’s

‘Multiple Intelligences’ theory (Gardner, 2006; Schaler, 2006). The following quote

encapsulates the essence of Gardner’s theory.

This theory challenged the long upheld view of intelligence as related to mental ability when

it was introduced in 1983, by calling for a broadening in how intelligence is defined.

“Gardner transformed the discussion of intelligence and education by making a powerful

case that there are several different forms of intelligence, some of which express

themselves in activities not traditionally considered strictly academic” (Schaler, p. xix). Von

Karolyi, Ramos-Ford and Gardner (2003) note this called for a conception of human ability

that includes multiple areas of intelligence instead of the traditional understanding that an

individual’s intelligence can be assessed through a single measure of IQ.

The primary goal of Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences is to “foster

understanding in ways that capitalise on differences in learners’ intelligences” (Gardner,

1999a, p. 70). It is based on a view that the mind is radically different to the conception

suggested by traditional intelligence models (Gardner, 2006). While traditional definitions

focus on ‘g’, Gardner’s definition (p. 6) focuses on the ability to “solve problems or fashion

products that are of consequence in a particular cultural setting or community”. He

recognises that there are many discrete and distinct facets of cognition; that people have

varying cognitive strengths and learn in a multitude of ways; and that different ways of

thinking and creating are valued within diverse cultures and communities.

At the heart of MI theory is the belief that each individual

has a rich and differentiated mind; that no two persons have

exactly the same cognitive configuration; and that education

is most likely to be successful if it pays attention to these

individual differences in the course of fashioning curriculum,

pedagogy, and assessment.

(Gardner, 2004, p. xiii)


4

The theory is based on the findings from cognitive science and neuroscience that

suggest that human cognitive competence can be described in terms of a set of abilities,

talents or mental skills, rather than general intelligence. Therefore Gardner (2006) came up

with the term ‘multiple intelligences’. He looked to human biology and psychology to

identify the intelligences inherent in humans and discovered that intelligences had universal

origins which allow a person to approach a problem and locate the appropriate direction to

an endpoint. They allowed the creation of a cultural product which captures and transmits

knowledge, conclusions, beliefs or feelings. Gardner also found that each intelligence must

have an identifiable core operation or set of operations and must have a culturally contrived

system of meaning that enables people to record and pass on important forms of

information. In order to distinguish the intelligences, Gardner reviewed evidence from a

wide range of sources, such as: cross-cultural accounts of cognition; knowledge about

normal development and development in gifted individuals; information about the break

down of cognitive skills through brain damage; studies of exceptional populations; and data

about the evolution of cognition. He was then able to develop an outline of the

intelligences that all normal individuals possess to some extent. Gardner made it clear that

individuals differ in the degree of skill in each intelligence and in the nature of their

combination, which he termed their ‘intellectual profile’.

The original set of intelligences presented in 1983 were: musical; bodily-kinaesthetic;

logical-mathematical; linguistic; spatial; interpersonal; and intrapersonal. For ten years after

proposing the theory, Gardner resisted any change (Gardner, 2006). However, after much

discussion and further research naturalist intelligence was added to the list. Appendix One

provides definitions and identifies the core operations of the eight confirmed intelligences

and gives examples of famous people who display a high ability in one of the intelligences.

Gardner believes that to a significant extent these intelligences operate

independently of each other. He cites that research on adults with brain-damage


5

repeatedly demonstrates that particular abilities can be lost while others remain intact.

Likewise, a significantly high level of ability in one intelligence, for example linguistic, does

not require a similarly high level in all or any of the others. However, he also makes clear

that one should not get caught up in thinking that all people only have one prevalent type of

intelligence. Gardner states that an important part of the theory is that all humans possess

all of the intelligences to some degree, and that all adult roles require a combination of

these intelligences, “…the diversity of human ability is created through the differences in

these profiles.” (Gardner, 2006, p. 22). In most cases individuals display a jagged profile of

intelligences, this has significant implications for education in that it cannot be assumed that

children who appear to be gifted have high ability in all of the intelligences.

It is also important to note, as outlined by Von Karolyi, Ramos-Ford and Gardner

(2003) that the intelligences do not relate explicitly to domains or learning areas. A person

with a high level of logical-mathematical intelligence can not necessarily be assumed to be

gifted in mathematics as this domain requires the use of more than one intelligence, usually

logical-mathematical and spatial. As Von Karolyi, Ramos-Ford and Gardner observe,

generally more than one intelligence will be utilised in work within any given domain.

Therefore, it is particularly important to be aware of the distinction between domains and

intelligences.

Gardner (2006) believes there are three main considerations when considering MI

theory: all humans have the full range of intelligences, in a cognitive sense that is what

makes us human beings; no two individuals have exactly the same intellectual profile; and

displaying a strong intelligence does not mean that a person necessarily acts intelligently.

These three points raise many questions about education and the way children are

assessed. Scapens and Fraser (2005) note Gardner wrote primarily for other psychologists

as a critique of standard intelligence theory, however the implications of his theory were

noticed by educators. “Many educators saw an evident relationship between the theory, as

they understood it, and educational practices that they embraced.” (Gardner, 2006, p. 53).

Gardner states that he primarily left it to educators to interpret his theory in terms of what

should be taught, and how it should be taught and assessed. Although more recently in


6

collaboration with colleagues from the education sector he has begun to speak out about

how MI theory should and should not be used in education (Gardner, 2003; 2006).

The purpose in defining and identifying giftedness and talent is to cater to individual

abilities and interests (Ministry of Education, 2000). As established above, Gardner’s MI

theory provides a way of recognising differing abilities and talent. As Bird (2004) states

when put into practice, MI theory is a way to enable teachers to integrate content and skill

development and provide means for learning concepts and skills and demonstrating their

learning in ways that go beyond traditional methods.

Anecdotal evidence signals that teachers in New Zealand are putting MI theory into

practice in their classrooms (Riley, 2004). Riley notes that MI theory can provide a structure

where variable abilities can be identified and curricula can be planned to strengthen these.

As Riley describes, MI theory agrees with the Ministry of Education’s (2000) belief that

identification of gifted and talented students should be multicategorical and move beyond a

vision of giftedness as a sole entity. MI theory provides teachers with a vocabulary that can

articulate a broader array of student gifts and talent (Campbell & Campbell, (1999).

MI theory also fulfils two requirements set out by the National Education Goals

(NEGs). NEG 1 and NEG 6 outline that all students should be able to attain the highest

standards of achievement and excellence through programmes which provide clear learning

objectives, monitor student performance, meet individual needs and enable all students to

realise their full potential (Ministry of Education, 2005). An understanding of MI theory fits

well with this goal as it provides a means for teachers and schools to adapt their curriculum

to meet the varied needs of all students, which includes recognising cultural and community

differences.

MI theory also sits well with the new addition to the New Zealand Curriculum, the

Key Competencies, especially those of Relating to Others and Managing Self. MI theory


7

provides a framework for understanding how these two competencies operate in the real

world. Relating to Others is about “interacting effectively with a diverse range of people in

a variety of contexts” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 12) and to develop the interpersonal

intelligence requires students to learn to do exactly that. As Gardner (2006) states

interpersonal intelligence involves people being able to notice distinctions in others –

contrasts in moods, temperaments, motivations, and intentions. The Ministry of Education

(2007) outlines that learning to ‘relate to others’ involves developing the ability to listen

actively, negotiate, recognise different view points, and share ideas. In order to be able to

do these things students need to develop their interpersonal intelligence.

Being competent at ‘managing self’ involves the development of the intrapersonal

intelligence. Managing Self is related to students’ self-motivation and understanding of

their learning styles, being able to set goals, and have strategies for coping with challenges

(Ministry of Education, 2007). Intrapersonal intelligence is defined by Gardner (2006) as a

persons’ core capacity to understand their internal aspects. A person with a well developed

intrapersonal intelligence is able to regulate their behaviour and can recognise what they

need to do to attain their goals. In order to be able to attain competency in ‘managing self’

students need to be encouraged and given strategies to develop their intrapersonal

intelligence. As Campbell and Campbell (1999) state MI theory is useful to enable students

to develop their character as well as to develop academically.

Robinson, Shore and Enerson (2007) note that there are four ways that MI theory

might be useful in gifted education. Firstly, the theory assists both teachers and parents in

recognising individual differences in a culturally acceptable way, it also allows differing

talents to be described in terms that are easily understood and applied. Secondly, MI

theory has formed the basis for general curricular innovations. These innovations are

readily available, however schools must be careful when adopting these as many of them

are only one person’s opinion on how MI theory should be implemented. Publications

endorsed by Gardner should be looked at prior to implementing MI theory to ensure

teachers have interpreted the theory correctly. Gardner has endorsed publications as well


8

as publishing his own that outline ways MI theory can be appropriately implemented in

education. Thirdly, Robinson, Enerson and Shore (2007) believe that MI theory provides a

framework for enhancing learning for gifted and talented students in an inclusive classroom

and lastly, the theory offers alternative working definitions of giftedness and talent.

MI theory has implications for schools that choose to adopt the theory for

their school-based definition of intelligence. In order to translate MI theory into practice,

schools need to consider the way they identify intelligence, develop and deliver curricula,

and assess students’ learning. Kornhaber, Fierros and Veenema (2004) note it is imperative

that educators approach the implementation of MI theory with the understanding that it is

a tool for understanding cognitive abilities. Educators need to recognise that powerful

learning environments require the integration of ideas and need to incorporate tools aimed

more specifically at developing curricula that engage learners with differing profiles of

intelligence (Kornhaber, Fierros & Veenema; Fogarty & Stoehr, 2008). Gardner’s theory

does not offer one way that children should be taught, rather it can be a catalyst, and

perhaps a challenge to teachers to find what is best in and for each child (Von Karolyi,

Ramos-Ford & Gardner, 2004). Schools are changing and with the new New Zealand

Curriculum to be fully implemented by 2010 the change is being guided by this. The new

curriculum encourages schools to become more learner-centred and focussed on students’

needs, rather than the traditional ‘cover all the achievement objectives’ view. Fogarty and

Stoehr (p. xiii) note that this change is a worldwide phenomenon, “the brain research, the

unloading of an overloaded curriculum, and the call for learner-centred schools are all

forces that are moving educators to integrated, holistic, and authentic learning.”

MI theory broadens the definition of intelligence to include far more than the

traditional view of IQ. This has wide ranging implications for schools and for teachers. For

many it would mean a total overhaul of the way they think about what it means to be

intelligent. For teachers who have a view of being intelligent as doing well in traditional

academic subjects such as English and maths, viewing all the intelligences as equally

important could be a substantial challenge. This could require extensive professional


9

development opportunities to ensure staff understood the theory before attempting to

develop ways of implementing it. For other teachers, adopting MI theory would confirm

their beliefs about intelligence and begin to provide a framework on which to develop a

curriculum to address the multiple intelligences. Implementing MI theory in practice

requires teachers to change not only the way they define intelligence, but it also has

implications for the way curriculum is developed and delivered.

One of the common ways teachers have attempted to translate the theory into

practice is through dividing the curriculum up into a number of discrete ‘intelligence

activities’ (Kornhaber, Fierros & Veenema, 2004). For example, a unit on animals might be

divided up into centres where children are required to create an animal song, move like an

animal, draw an animal, or write an animal story. When MI theory is used in this way it is

generally as an endpoint or assessment tool, rather than a way of understanding differing

abilities. However, as Kornhaber, Fierros and Veenema note, when MI theory (a tool for

understanding cognitive abilities) is used as a tool for curriculum development some

difficulties can arise. Gardner realised this problem, and several years after MI theory was

developed, he devised a framework that was more appropriate for constructing curriculum

to support achievement (Gardner, 1999b; 2006).

This framework, which he called the Entry Points Framework, is like a series of

different doors, each which leads into the same room – the subject or topic being studied.

Gardner (1999b) believes that each curriculum area can be divided into entry points, with

each point allowing students to experience the knowledge, concepts, and skills of the

discipline. While individual learners’ intelligence profiles may lead them to prefer some

entry points over others, it is important that topics are approached through multiple entry

points as this allows students to gain different perspectives on topics (Gardner). By looking

at different perspectives, students’ understanding is deepened: rather than being left with

one idea of a topic, therefore they are more likely to be able to transfer information from

one context to another. Kornhaber, Fierros & Veenema (2004) note because the Entry

Points Framework largely provides coverage of the different intelligences, it provides


10

teachers with a way of engaging diverse learners by enabling them to enter a topic at a

point that works for them. Once again the implication inherent here is the need for

professional development in order for teachers to fully understand how the framework

works as a curriculum development tool for MI theory. To explain how the Entry Points

Framework operates is beyond the scope of this essay. For more information about the

framework and how it can be implemented see Gardner’s publications: The Disciplined Mind

(1999) and Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons (2006).

Gardner (2003; 2006) notes that along with this framework, teachers need to make

an effort to cover less material better. He believes that covering too much material

threatens deep understanding and students are more likely to gain better understandings if

they are allowed to probe deeper into a smaller number of topics. There is an implication

here in choosing very carefully what should be covered. Broad coverage ensures a large

amount of material is learnt superficially (Gardner, 2006). It is vital that teachers are clear

on the concepts and topics that are important for their students to understand and the

kinds of performances that students are required to exhibit by the time they finish school.

This is something that the new New Zealand Curriculum is encouraging; that rather than

being required to cover all the achievement objectives teachers are now expected to select

what is relevant to their students and develop their school curriculum from these. In other

words no longer content-driven but instead a learner centred curriculum.

There are implications for schools not only in how MI theory might be implemented

in practice, but also implications inherent in each of the intelligences. Fogarty and Stoehr

(2008) believe that all the intelligences must be allowed equal footing, which requires a

change in thinking and prioritising for many educators, and also for the way funds are

allocated. For example, they believe that the arts should be seen to be just as important as

English and maths. As Campbell and Campbell (1999) note, if intelligence is seen through

the narrow traditional definition then students who do not succeed in linguistic or

mathematical disciplines perceive their talents to be of little or no use. This is especially a

consideration that needs to be made if operating MI theory in a secondary setting, where


11

subjects like the arts and physical education are seen as options rather than core subject

areas. This implies that these ‘options’ which make use of visual, spatial and musical

intelligences and bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence are not as valued as linguistic and

logical/mathematical intelligences. As Kornhaber and Gardner (1993) note schools often

miss opportunities to support the development of excellence because their curriculum,

assessment, and pedagogy are focussed on achieving competency in linguistic and logical-

mathematical intelligences. To see all subjects as equally important requires a mind-set

change not only for teachers, but also for students and parents.

For a school operating under the belief that all students possess the eight

intelligences in some profile there are a multitude of implications for the way students are

assessed. Gardner (2006) believes schools should attempt to incorporate eight principle

features in assessment. These features are: emphasis on assessment rather than testing;

assessment as simple, natural, and occurring on a reliable schedule; ecological validity;

instruments that are ‘intelligence-fair’; use of multiple measures; sensitivity to individual

differences, developmental levels, and forms of expertise; use of intrinsically interesting and

motivating materials; and application of assessment for the student’s benefit.

An emphasis on assessment rather than testing requires teachers to obtain

information about their students’ skills and potentials with the dual goals of providing useful

feedback to the student (formative assessment) and useful data to the surrounding

community (for example, parents and Board of Trustees) (Gardner, 2006). According to

Gardner, assessment should occur in the course of ordinary performance, whereas testing

generally occurs in a decontextualised setting. The implication here for schools is ensuring

that assessment is not an end in itself, rather it is an ongoing process of providing students

and parents with feedback and feed forward, enabling them to reflect on their progress and

find ways to move forward. This also relates to the eighth principle, in that the results of

the assessment should be applied for the student’s benefit. As Gardner (2006, p. 184) notes

“assessment should be undertaken primarily to aid students.” Feedback that will be helpful


12

immediately must be provided to the student, including identifying areas of strength and

weakness and suggestions about how to improve.

If assessment is to be simple, natural and occur on a reliable schedule it needs to be

part of the natural learning environment, rather than being imposed at odd times during the

year (Gardner, 2006). Assessment should become a part of students’ natural engagement in

a learning situation, and in many cases should occur naturally, with little need for explicit

recognition or labelling. Gardner believes that as assessment becomes part of the

landscape, it will no longer need to be separated from regular classroom activity. Many

formal testing practices are not ecologically valid (Gardner). These practices, such as NCEA

examinations, have moved so far away from what they are supposed to be assessing that

they do not necessarily provide accurate data about what a student can do. When students

are assessed in situations that relate to usual working conditions, it is much more possible

to make predictions about their ultimate performance. If assessment is carried out in this

way it also becomes more intrinsically interesting and motivating (Gardner). The material

included in formal tests is often dull and uninteresting for students, which can lead to

invalid results as students may not have been interested in the material. However,

according to Gardner, when assessment is carried out in the context of students working on

problems, projects, or products that genuinely engage them, hold their interest and

motivate them to do well, their full repertoire of skills and knowledge are more likely to be

discovered.

As mentioned previously, traditional education systems generally stress the

importance of developing the mathematical and linguistic intelligences, and consequently

often base student achievement on measurements of knowledge and skills in these two

areas (Gardner, 2006). Gardner stresses that assessment tools must be ‘intelligence-fair’;

they must assess the intelligence/s that are in operation in a subject area. As Gardner

notes, the independence of the intelligences means IQ testing or similar can be invalid if the

student has a high level of intelligence in one of the areas. For example, if the child is gifted

in mathematics and not in linguistic areas, results can be skewed and the child may not be


13

identified as being gifted. Kornhaber and Gardner (1993) state, forms of assessment must

be provided which are fair to those who have diverse strengths and that help them to

develop those strengths. Assessment should be ongoing and use media and symbol systems

that are sensitive to the domains or competencies they are testing (Kornhaber & Gardner).

Of significant relevance to gifted and talented education is the fifth principle: use of

multiple measures. Gardner (2006) believes that when decisions are to be made using

assessment data, multiple measures need to be taken. He states that a range of measures

specifically designed to assess different facets of the knowledge or skill in question is

desirable. While this may sound like a mammoth task, he does not intend that this should

be done on a day to day basis. Regular assessment should be carried out in a formative way

as discussed above, but if a decision such as placing a child in a gifted education programme

is to be made, a variety of measures need to be considered. This is also seen to be best

practice in gifted education in New Zealand, as stated by the Ministry of Education (2000)

identification of children as gifted and talented should be multi-categorical and should

include more than one method of identification.

The sixth principle requires assessment tools to take into account the vast

differences among students. By understanding differences between students,

developmental levels and varieties of expertise, formal testing can be adjusted (Gardner,

2006). For example, there is no point attempting to assess a student’s knowledge of New

Zealand history through a written test if they are a poor writer. The student’s writing skill is

not what is being assessed so this would not provide appropriate results. Rather an oral

account or a way of presenting their knowledge that is appropriate to their strengths would

be more sensitive and useful.

Multiple Intelligence theory can be very useful when attending to gifted and talented

students’ needs in a New Zealand context if the implications inherent in implementing the

theory in practice are addressed. It has been shown that some teachers are beginning to


14

use the theory in various ways in New Zealand schools; however the effectiveness of these

attempts to implement the theory into practice are yet to be researched. There is a

plethora of material available about how to use MI theory in an educational context;

however the most important insight for teachers to gain before attempting to do so is that

MI theory is a tool for understanding cognitive abilities, not a curriculum development tool.

There are several major implications that teachers need to address if endeavouring put

translate MI theory into practice and understanding the theory is the most important of

these. Once MI theory is understood, a tool for curriculum development such as the Entry

Points Framework is incorporated and the implications MI theory holds for assessment are

addressed, schools should find MI theory a very useful tool for addressing the needs of

gifted and talented students in New Zealand.


15

Appendix One

Intelligence Core Operation Example

Musical

Skill in composing, performing, listening, discerning,

and sensitive to the components of music and sound.

Pitch, melody, rhythm, texture,

timbre, musical, themes,

harmony.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Bodily-Kinaesthetic

Skill in orchestrating and controlling body motions and

handling objects to perform tasks or fashion products.

Control and coordination,

stamina, balance, locating self

or objects in space.

Babe Ruth, Tiger Woods

Logical-Mathematical

Able to confront, logically analyse, assess and

investigate objects, abstractions and problems, detect

relationships and core principles, carry out

mathematical operations, handle long chains of

reasoning.

Computation, deductive

reasoning, inductive reasoning.

Isaac Newton

Linguistic

Mastery, sensitivity, desire to explore, and love of

words, spoken and written language(s).

Comprehension and expression

of written and oral language,

syntax, semantics.

William Shakespeare,

T. S. Elliot

Spatial

Accurately perceives, recognises, manipulates,

modifies and transforms shape, form, and pattern.

Design, colour, form,

perspective, balance, contrast,

match.

Leonardo da Vinci

Interpersonal

Sensitive to, understands other’s actions, motivations,

moods, feelings and other mental states and act

productively on the basis of that knowledge.

Able to inspire, instruct or lead

others and respond to their

actions, emotions, motivations,

opinions and situations.

Dalai Lama

Intrapersonal

Accurately assesses, understands and regulates

oneself and acts productively on the basis of one’s

own actions, motivations, moods, feelings, and other

mental states.

Knowledge and understanding

of one’s strengths and

weaknesses, styles, emotions,

motivations, self-orientation.

Mahatma Gandhi

Naturalist

Expertise in recognition and classification of natural

objects i.e. flora and fauna or artefacts.

Noting the differences that

discriminate among several

categories or species in the

natural world.

Charles Darwin, Jane

Goodall

Adapted from Von Karolyi, Ramos-Ford and Gardner, 2003 and Gardner, 2006


16

References Becker, K. A. (2003). History of the Stanford-Binet intelligence scales: Content and

psychometrics. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition Assessment Service

Bulletin No. 1. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Retrieved May 14, 2009, from

http://www.assess.nelson.com/pdf/sb5-asb1.pdf

Bird, L. (2004, August). A winning combination: Multiple intelligence approach + Bloom’s

taxonomy + self-regulated learning. NZPF Magazine. Retrieved May 23, 2009, from

http://www.nzpf.ac.nz/archive/Aug04_Mag_winningcombination.pdf

Campbell, L. & Campbell, B. (1999). Multiple intelligences and student achievement: Success

stories from six schools. Virginia, USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Fogarty, R. & Stoehr, J. (2008). Integrating curricula with multiple intelligences: Teams,

themes & threads (2nd ed.). USA: Corwin Press.

Gardner, H. (1999a). Multiple approaches to understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),

Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory,

Volume II (pp. 69-90). United States: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gardner, H. (1999b). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York,

USA: Simon & Schuster.

Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple intelligences after twenty years. Paper presented to the

American Educational Research Association, 21 April 21 2003. Retrieved 13 June,

2009, from the Harvard Graduate School of Education Website:

http://www.pzweb.harvard.edu/PIs/HG_MI_after_20_years.pdf

Gardner, H. (2004). A practical theory. In M. Kornhaber, E. Fierros & S. Veenema (Eds.),

Multiple intelligences: Best ideas from research and practice (pp. xi-xiii). Boston:

Pearson Education Inc.

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New Horizons. USA: Basic Books.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). The science and politics of intelligence in gifted education. In N

Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd ed.) (pp. 24-40).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

http://www.assess.nelson.com/pdf/sb5-asb1.pdf

http://www.nzpf.ac.nz/archive/Aug04_Mag_winningcombination.pdf

http://www.pzweb.harvard.edu/PIs/HG_MI_after_20_years.pdf


17

Kornhaber, M., Fierros, E. & Veenema, S. (2004). Multiple intelligences: Best ideas from

research and practice. Boston, USA: Pearson Education Inc.

Kornhaber, M. & Gardner, H. (1993). Varieties of excellence: Identifying and assessing

children’s talents. New York, USA: NCREST. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction

Service No. ED363396) Retrieved June 20, 2009, from ERIC database.

McAlpine, D. (2004). What do we mean by gifted and talented? Concepts and definitions. In

D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (2nd

ed.), (pp. 33-65). Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove.

Ministry of Education. (2000). Gifted and talented students: Meeting their needs in New

Zealand schools. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2005). The national education goals. Retrieved 25 May, 2009, from

http://www.minedu.govt.nz/educationSectors/Schools/PolicyAndStrategy/PlanningR

eportingRelevantLegislationNEGSAndNAGS/TheNationalEducationGoalsNEGs.aspx

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Plucker, J. A. (2001). Looking back, looking around, looking forward: The impact of

intelligence theories on gifted education. Roeper review, 23(2). Retrieved 13 May,

2009, from http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/gifted.shtml

Riley, T. L. (2004). Curriculum models: The framework for gifted and talented education. In

D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (2nd

ed), (pp. 309-343). Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove Press.

Robinson, A., Shore, B. M. & Enerson, D. L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An

evidence-based guide. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.

Scapens, M. & Fraser, D. (2005). Multiple Intelligences: fashionable or foundational? Set:

Research information for teachers, 3, 26-30.

Schaler, J. A. (2006). Introduction. In J. A. Schaler (Ed.), Howard Gardner under fire: The rebel

psychologist faces his critics (pp. xvii-xxii). Illinois, USA: Open Court.

http://www.minedu.govt.nz/educationSectors/Schools/PolicyAndStrategy/PlanningReportingRelevantLegislationNEGSAndNAGS/TheNationalEducationGoalsNEGs.aspx

http://www.minedu.govt.nz/educationSectors/Schools/PolicyAndStrategy/PlanningReportingRelevantLegislationNEGSAndNAGS/TheNationalEducationGoalsNEGs.aspx

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/gifted.shtml


18

Von Karolyi, C., Ramos-Ford, V & Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple intelligences: A perspective on

giftedness. In N Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd

ed.) (pp. 100-112). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gifted and Talented: Multiple Intelligences in the New Zealand Context

Documents

Transcript of Gifted and Talented: Multiple Intelligences in the New Zealand Context