Smarter: A Longitudinal Multiple Intelligences (MI) Investigation by Clifford Morris
Copyright © 1994, 2010 by Clifford Morris, Researcher | CV | FAQ about Smarter
Smarter: A Longitudinal Multiple Intelligences (MI) Investigation by Clifford Morris
Overview
Research subjects select a best friend (i.e., one who well knows the subject's abilities, interests and skills) to complete Smarter on them (see item 16 below). Initial analysis of recently collected data suggests that a profile of our intelligences can be thoroughly interpreted through the lenses of various 'important' others in our lives. That is, those who know us well appear better able to assess our intellectual makeup.
The "SMARTER" model -- which is an acronym for my overall objective of human intelligences, namely: Successful Minds Are Really The End Result, consists of two (2) main parts. Part I is called Smarter: A Many Intelligences Indicator whereas Part II is titled Smarter Scenarios. In Part I, the user is asked to use a 4-point Likert scale to rate the intellectual behaviours of a research subject. In Part II, the (same) user is asked to read pairs of real-world scenarios and to decide which scenario seems to best represents the research subject. When both parts are completed, the user is able to gauge which intelligence behaviours appears stronger or weaker. Based on findings generated from an analysis of initial data input, most users tend to end up with a somewhat mixed three-pronged cognitive profile. In other words, their results usually suggest i) a more dominant list of intelligent-type behaviours, ii) some less dominant behaviours, and iii) a few so-so (or shady) cerebral areas, scattered somewhere between the latter and the former.
Before discussing the scenarios, a comment about attempting to pinpoint individual intelligent-types. Many members of the current non-scientific community tend to slot themselves (and others) as either solely intelligent in this domain, or within that category, or just intelligent in that one area. This cognitive exercise is quite meaningless as there is nothing to be gained in trying to label yourself, or someone else, as a i) logical-mathematical type, ii) introspective-intrapersonal type, iii) visual-spatial type, or as a iv) bodily-kinaesthetic type, to name just four (4) from Howard Gardner's eight (8) intelligences. Instead, I believe that a more meaningful way of describing anyone's intelligence profile is to believing that anyone might have within and around them a variety of broader forms of more dominant and less dominant intelligences. The following Smarter inventory scratches the tip of the much larger intelligences iceberg by simply INFERRING more dominant and less intellectual behaviours, based on the Gardner MI model. Such inferences are based solely from true descriptions of current activities that people enjoy doing and believe that they are good at.
Smarter Scenarios
Eight (8) real-world scenarios were designed in an attempt to capture a retrospective perspective of the subject's thinking processes. Each scenario was developed around one of Gardner's eight (8) intelligences. Users read and compare themselves or / and others to twenty-eight (28) pairs of MI-based scenarios (see Box 1 immediately below). Throughout, users are forced to decide which scenario better represents them / others by allocating three (3) points between the two pairs of scenarios. In other words, each scenario pair involves a forced-choice arrangement.
There are only four (4) ways to score each pair of scenarios (see the four horizontal rectangles in the top row of Box 1, immediately below). As one example, users could begin to self-assess their intellectual behaviours by selecting and reading scenarios 1 and 2 (see the horizontal rectangle in the upper left-hand corner of Box 1). For this pair, if a score of zero (0) points was given to scenario 1, scenario 2 would receive 3 points. Similarly, and as shown in the next pair, the same user may give one (1) point to scenario 1 and two (2) points to scenario 3 (see the second horizontal rectangle). Continuing in the same manner, the same user could next select scenarios 2 and 3. S/he might allocates 2 points to scenario 2 and 1 point to scenario 3. For the final example, the same user allocates to scenarios 1 and 4 three (3) points and zero (0) points, respectively. These are the only scoring possibilities for the pair of scenarios. The user continues the same procedure for the remaining 24 scenario pairs. Throughout, it is important to base point allocation on the judgment of each scenario's relative importance to the user. When all of the pairs have been scored, the scores allocated to each scenario is totalled. The three (3) scenarios with the highest score simply suggest a possible intelligence dominance. Likewise, the three (3) scenarios with the lowest scores suggest possible areas of intelligence limitation.
Box 1: Selection and Scoring Card for Smarter Scenarios
S1 = 0
S2 = 3S1 = 1
S3 = 2S2 = 2
S3 = 1S1 = 3
S4 = 0S2 = _
S4 = _S3 = _
S4 = _S1 = _
S5 = _S2 = _
S5 = _S3 = _
S5 = _S4 = _
S5 = _S1 = _
S6 = _S2 = _
S6 = _S5 = _
S6 = _S4 = _
S6 = _S3 = _
S6 = _S1 = _
S7 = _S2 = _
S7 = _S3 = _
S7 = _S4 = _
S7 = _S5 = _
S7 = _S6 = _
S7 = _S6 = _
S8 = _S2 = _
S8 = _S3 = _
S8 = _
S4 = _
S8 = _S5 = _
S8 = _S1 = _
S8 = _S7 = _
S8 = _
Discussion
As stated above, I continue to field test Smarter. Initial findings show promise that this instrument could become a practical tool to assist the ongoing struggle to measure our Intelligences. As one of numerous possible examples, the results generated from using the scores from Smarter might be utilized to gather data in public school classrooms, in the wider workplace, or for that matter, within any learning environment, i.e., teaching students or training groups. As to the latter possibility, Smarter can be particularly helpful with groups of individuals who have spent a considerable amount of time interacting with each other, analyzing or solving cases, participating in simulations or other training exercises, etc.
In this kind of working situation, it is recommended that the group complete a Smarter Profile together, perchance using a particular member of the group as the subject and arriving at a consensus on each of the eight intelligences. During follow-up discussions, the person whose intelligences was being examined should play a non-participant role. That person should be instructed not to ask any questions or attempt to clarify, justify or explain the actions of others. An appropriate response that person might make could be "Could you tell me more about that?" or "I’d like to hear more on that point." Then, at the end of the group assessment, the person whose intelligences were being examined is given an opportunity to respond to the group discussion. This process is repeated until every participant has had a turn to get feedback from the group. If Smarter is being used to gather data in an organization, each organization member from whom (intelligences) perceptions would be desired should complete a separate Smarter Profile. If you wish to do this, it is strongly suggested that the leaders do not collect the data themselves. Instead, some third party who has the trust and confidence of all involved -- such as a representative from personnel or human resource management -- should administer Smarter.
It also important to assure the participants that only generalized data will be shared with the leader, not the raw scores from any particular intelligence. These suggestions are important because if leaders collect their own data, even if the Smarter Profiles are anonymous, there may be a tendency for some subjects to answer according to what they feel the leader wants to hear or does not want to hear. Thus, to establish a valid database, leaders may want to have their data gathered by a third party. One of the shortcomings of most forced choice instruments is that they provide comparisons only between items or categories; they do not offer any perspective on the overall scope of the concepts under investigation. In other words, as a participant, you might score high or low on a certain intelligence when that intelligence is compared with each of the other seven intelligences, but no indication is given of how that intelligence score compares to the score another individual might give you. For example, if your score on one of the eight intelligences is low in relation to the other seven intelligences, you may be relatively high on one intelligence when compared to how other individuals you know score you. To correct for this (possible) deficiency, the Smarter Profile compares you with other individuals who know you, in reference to each of the eight intelligences.
Smarter Investigation
Research Subject Information
All research subjects must complete numbers: 2, 5, 12, 14 and 16. To move to the next box, press the Tab key on your keyboard. A click on the Submit button will call up Part I.Today's date is: