Implementing multiple intelligences theory in a grade 9 science classroom: The experiences of a high school teacher

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 419-436

  Goodnough, Karen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011476652     PISSN: 14926156     EISSN: 19424051     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14926150109556483     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Adams, D., &Hamm, M. (1998). Collaborative inquiry in science, math and technology. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1989). Sciencefor all Americans: A Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author.
3. Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
4. Baird, J.R., Fensham, P.J., Gunstone, R.F., &White, R.T. (1993). The importance of reflection in improving teaching and learning. In E. Whitelegg, J. Thomas, &S. Tresman (Eds.), Challenges and opportunities for science education (pp. 44-60). London: Open University.
5. Campbell, L. (1997). Variations on a theme: How teachers interpret Ml theory. Educational Leadership, 55,14-19.
6. Chapman, C. (1993). If the shoefits… How to develop multiple intelligences in the class. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight.
7. Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven… and the eighth. Educational Leadership, 55,8-13.
8. Clandinin, D.J., &Connelly, M.F. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association. New York: Macmillan.
9. Cochran-Smith, M., &Lytle, S.L. (1993). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. In M. Cochran-Smith &S.L. Lytle (Eds.), Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
10. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Toronto: Author.
11. Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s ‘practical knowledge’: Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 43-71.
12. Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. London: Open University Press.
13. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
14. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
15. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligences reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
16. Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
17. Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75-91.
18. Guba, E.G., &Lincoln, Y.S. (1997). Naturalistic and rationalistic inquiry. In J.P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 86-91). London: Pergamon Press.
19. Haggarty, B.A. (1995). Nurturing multiple intelligences: A guide to multiple intelligences theory and teaching. New York: Addison Wesley.
20. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
21. Kagan, S., &Kagan, M. (1998). Multiple intelligences: The complete MI book. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
22. Klein, P.D. (1997). Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight: A critique of Gardner’s theory. Canadian Journal of Education, 22,377-394.
23. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24. Morgan, H. (1996). An analysis of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. Roeper Review, 18,263-269.
25. Novak, J.D., &Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27. Ontario Ministry of Education and Training [OMET]. (1999, March 17). The Ontario science curriculum, Grades 9 and 10: Science, 1999 [On-line]. Available: www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/secondary/science/scieful.html.
28. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage Publications.
29. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
30. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-15.
31. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
32. Silver, H.F., Strong, R.W., &Perini, M.J. (2000). So each may learn: Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences theory. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
33. Stake, R.E. (1994). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin &Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236-247). London: Sage Publications.
34. Stemberg, R.J. (1983). How much gall is too much gall? A review of Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Contemporary Education Review, 2, 215-224.
35. Vialle, W. (1997). In Australia: Multiple intelligences in multiple settings. Educational Leadership, 55, 65-69.
36. Walters, J.M., &Gardner, H. (1988). The theory of multiple intelligences: Some issues and answers. In R. Stemberg &R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence (pp. 163-182). New York: Cambridge University Press
37. White, R., &Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.
38. Yancey, K.B. (1994). Introduction: Intersection, and difference—Mapping the landscape voice. In K.B. Yancey (Ed.), Voices on voice: Perspectives, definitions, and inquiry. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
39. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage Publications.