{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019338203695745595, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00558659217877095, 'mean_word_length': 4.596153846153846, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Multiple Intelligences Theory after 20 Years

Very few theories in the history of education have had the impact of multiple intelligences (MI) first articulated in 1983 by Howard Gardner in his seminal book Frames of Mind. Like any powerful idea that has received worldwide acclaim it also has its critics and skeptics. This is how it should be. No new idea regardless of how compelling it may be should be received whole cloth. The history of educational innovations is littered with halfbaked ideas that have withered in the heat of the classroom and soon faded from the halls of academia. Some good ideas live on in spite of initial resistance, while others are composted to feed the next generation of theorists. MI theory stands on the shoulders of theorists such as J. P. Guilford and L. L. Thurstone and is also part of a recent crop of theorists (R. Sternberg, D. Goleman, among many others) who reject the unitary concept of intelligence. As MI theory comes of age at the turn of a new millennium, it is a good time to assess its status as a full-fledged member of society growing into the 21st century. The unitary concept of general intelligence ( g) embodied in the IQ score has been with us for nearly 100 years as a recognized theoretical and scientific verity. The continued presence of MI theory in the minds of educators around the world demands a fundamental reconsideration of the essential truth of the IQ concept. As MI theory turns 20 years old there are still many questions regarding its future. Does accepting MI theory mean that we must abandon IQ or can it be incorporated into our evolving understanding of the human mind/brain? Will the academic community and cognitive psychologists recognize and accept MI’s scientific validity? Will educators support its further development and creative applications? Will the use of MI language continue to work its way into the zeitgeist of daily life as IQ has done with such alacrity? Critics of MI theory pose two important challenges to its viability. First, is MI a valid representation of the human mind/brain? Second, how effective is MI as a basis for improving educational outcomes, learning, and personal achievement? Over the years, I have enjoyed a lively debate and dialogue with many MI skeptics. Unfortunately, too often I have been dismayed to