Abstract
This study was carried out with 1,857 poor children from 17 schools, living in low-income areas of Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. All children took the ‘Student Multiple Intelligences Profile’ (SMIP) questionnaire as part of a bigger project that gathered data around concepts and beliefs of talent. This paper sets out two aims, first to investigate the structural representation of the self perceived multiple intelligences for this set of children and second to discuss how the best fit model might reflect children’s culture and their school experiences. After carrying out exploratory factor analysis, a four factor first order model was shown to have a good fit. A higher order factor solution was investigated owing to the correlation of two latent constructs. In order to provide some insight into the multiple intelligences construct the relationship between the SMIP items, student test outcomes and attitudes to learning were examined. The item groupings were explored through African cultural beliefs around intelligences indigenous to African communities.
Highlights
In this study we aimed to explore further the use of self-estimates with poor children in Tanzania regarding their multiple intelligences
What would be the structural representation of the self-perceived multiple intelligences for this set of children?
The mean and standard deviations were tabulated in order to look at the self-rating of the 1,829 students regarding the 21-item Student Multiple Intelligences Profile’ (SMIP)
Summary
The idea of a unitary intelligence is generally viewed as inadequate with many assuming a broader perspective of intelligence (Gardner, 1983, 1999; Karolyi, Ramos-Ford & Gardner, 2003; Renzulli, 1986, 1998; Sternberg, 1985, 1986, 1997, 2000). Gardner (1983) initially identified seven intelligences: verbal-linguistic, music, logical mathematical, visual spatial, bodily kinaesthetic, intrapersonal, interpersonal—adding an eighth, naturalist, a few years later (Gardner, 1999). Gardner (2006a) states that the theory of multiple intelligences has attracted polarised views from ‘extravagant praise’ to ‘arbitrary dismissals’ (p. 503). Books and articles have been written critiquing the theory of multiple intelligences (MI) initiating in some respects responses from Gardner himself (Gardner, 1995, 1999, 2006b; Gardner & Moran, 2006; Schaler, 2006; Visser, Ashton & Vernon, 2006; Waterhouse, 2006). Those questioning MI suggest inadequate evidence and empirical support for the theory along with an inconsistency with cognitive neuroscience findings (Waterhouse, 2006). Others look at problems regarding measurability (Visser et al, 2006). Gardner (2006a) himself concedes that tests need to be‘intelligence-fair’focusing on the intelligence that is to be measured (p. 504)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
