Sorry to be so late in jumping on board - I just recently got the links!

So here's my take: Standard IQ tests have (historically) defined how WE define intelligence; and Gardner's MI theory seems to be a dynamic -- and evolving - organism that is subject to modification as we, as educators, continue to understand and define ways in which people are "intelligent" (i.e. a ninth intelligence, "existential ability" is currently under consideration).

So MI's create a bridge from the strengths we observe in the clasroom to the learning strategies we choose to use - and, in keeping, the performance assessors (or "projects") that the kids produce in the "real world" - and for our purposes, the classroom.

I think it's truly noble - but wildly ambitious! - to imagine creating lessons that could concurrently speak to an entire classroom's "intelligences". But should we apply our understanding of these intelligences as a jumping off point when planning our lessons? Absolutely! Gardner himself admits that any one of these intelligences can be increased with focus, attention and repetition. By providing a range of entry and exit points for students to display learning, we gain a small understanding of where their individual strengths may lie at any given moment. I agree with Gardner when he says that information is better retained when a student is dynamically involved - the challenge for us is to frame lessons that engage all students. We are often asked to help mold students into "lifelong learners"; I think understanding MI's -- and helping students to understand THEMSELVES - is a formidable step in that direction. Thanks.