Garner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory

Part of my pedagogical studies involved several different theories for intelligence, growth and development, and learning theories.  My favorite learning concept centers around using the Multiple Intelligences.  It recognizes that there are many different kinds of “smart”.  When I first began studying there were eight different ways of being smart (as we put it to our kiddos) but now they have added a ninth.
1. Verbal/Linguistic- reading, writing, speaking, word play, spelling, grammar, etc.
2. Visual/Spatial – understanding space and how things fit in it, think of puzzles, tetris, building things, blueprinting, etc.
3. Logical/Mathematical – number reasoning and manipulation, adding/subtracting, computing, etc.
4. Intrapersonal – knowledge of self and self-awareness
5. Interpersonal – intelligence in working with others, empathy, relating to others, social skills
6. Bodily/Kinesthetic – coordination through movement, skilled at gross and/or fine motor skill activities.
7. Musical – understanding tone and its qualities, the ability to think abstractly musically, sense of rhythm, etc.
8. Naturalist – familiarity with nature, species of plants and animals, understanding of interrelationships of living and non-living cycles within the earth
9.* Technological – understanding of technology, interfaces, computer functions, etc (formerly considered logical/mathematical but moved to it’s own category after technology became such a dominate part of life)
I’ve decided that we are going to spend time each day helping Little Bird construct different types of “smart”.  Most people have a few that dominate their life.  You can take a test to find out your leading intelligences here.  There are 40 questions but it gives you a nice chart at the end.
My leading intelligence was Naturalistic, followed closely by Linguistic and Interpersonal.  My lowest were Visual/Spatial and Intrapersonal.  This doesn’t mean that I am only intelligent in the areas I scored highest in, it just means those are dominant.  So if you love logic problems and math but score low there, that doesn’t mean you are dumb at math