Multiple Intelligences Theory: A Framework for Personalizing Science Curricula

School Science and Mathematics

Volumn 101, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 180-193

  Goodnough, Karen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85165416322     PISSN: 00366803     EISSN: 19498594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18021.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Aikenhead, G. (1994). What is STS science teaching?. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 47–59). New York : Teachers College Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC : Author.
3. 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 : The Open University.
4. Bybee, R. W. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. London : Teachers College Press.
5. Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven…and the eighth. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 8–13.
6. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative research. London : Sage Publications.
7. Council of Ministers of Education. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Toronto, Canada : Author.
8. Curriculum Corporation. (1994). A statement on science for Australian schools: A joint project of the States, Territories and the Commonwealth of Australia initiated by the Australian Education Council. Carlton, Victoria : Author.
9. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York : Teachers College Press.
10. Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1986). Students' thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67(240), 443–455.
11. Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes, PA : Open University Press.
12. Fensham, P. J. (1987). Science for all. Educational Leadership, 44(4), 18–23.
13. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York : Basic Books.
14. Gardner, H. (1995, December). “Multiple intelligences” as a catalyst. English Journal, 16–18.
15. Haggarty, B. A. (1995). Nurturing multiple intelligences: A guide to multiple intelligences theory and teaching. New York : Addison Wesley.
16. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Philadelphia, PA : Open University Press.
17. Hodson, D., & Reid, D. (1988). Changing priorities in science education: Part I. School Science Review, 70(250), 101–108.
18. Hoerr, T. R. (1996). Introducing the theory of multiple intelligences. NASSP Bulletin, 80(583), 8–10.
19. Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (1998). Multiple intelligences: The complete MI book. San Clemente, CA : Kagan Cooperative Learning.
20. Klein, P. D. (1997). Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight: A critique of Gardner's theory. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 377–394.
21. Loucks-Horsley, S. (1999). Effective professional development for teachers of science. In Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education (Ed.), Ideas that work: Science professional development (pp. 2–9). Columbus, OH : Eisenhower National Clearinghouse.
22. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy. New York : Routledge.
23. McFadden, C. (1991). Towards an STS school curriculum. Science Education, 75(4), 457–469.
24. Merriam, S. B. (1990). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass Publishers.
25. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass Publishers.
26. Morgan, H. (1996). An analysis of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. Roeper Review, 18(4), 263–269.
27. National Research Council. (1996). National science standards. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
28. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed). London : Sage Publishers.
29. Ramsey, J. (1993). The science education reform movement: Implications for social responsibility. Science Education, 77(2), 235–258.
30. Richards, T. J., & Richards, L. (1994). Using computers in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 445–462). London : Sage Publications.
31. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–15.
32. Solomon, J. (1993). Teaching science, technology and society. Philadelphia : Open University Press.
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. Sternberg, 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(3), 215–224.
35. Yager, R. E. (1993). Science-technology-society as reform. School Science and Mathematics, 93(3), 145–151.
36. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. London : Sage Publications.