the National Association for Gifted Children June 2007

This study examined the relationships between self-perceived multiple intelligences and areas of intelligencerelated activities among 592 Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. These students perceived their strengths in interpersonal, intrapersonal, and verbal-linguistic intelligences, and their weaknesses in bodilykinaesthetic and naturalist intelligences. They also indicated that they engaged more in activities related to personal intelligences, and less in activities related to visual-spatial, bodily-kinaesthetic, and verballinguistic intelligences, and creativity. In predicting the areas of activities related to specific intelligences, the corresponding specific intelligences were the most significant predictors, suggesting that the modes of assessment of multiple intelligences through self-perceptions and a self-analysis of intelligence-related activities could be regarded as providing convergent measures. Implications of the findings for integrating the two modes of assessment in a single assessment instrument are discussed. Over the years, the popular notion of a general unitary intelligence that cuts across all areas of human competence to explain human performance has been consistently challenged (see Cattell, 1971; Karolyi, Ramos-Ford, & Gardner, 2003; Guilford, 1967; Sternberg, 1986, 1997, 2000). In proposing that each individual has specific strengths and weaknesses and can be conceptualized as having multiple abilities, Gardner (1983, 1993, 1999), in particular, conceptualized these abilities as intelligences that could be affected by culture, biology, and other factors. In reframing his theory of multiple intelligences, Gardner (1999) defined intelligence as a biopsychological potential to process information in certain ways, and each intelligence allowed the individual to solve problems and fashion products that were of value within a cultural context. Initially, Gardner (1983, 1993) identified seven intelligences, namely, verbal-linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinaesthetic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal intelligences. More recently, he added naturalist intelligence, and considered for inclusion other intelligences such as existential intelligence (Gardner, 1999; Karolyi, Ramos-Ford, & Gardner, 2003). Since the theory of multiple intelligences was first introduced, it has been embraced by educators who find the perspective useful in expanding their thinking not only about abilities and potential, but also about assessment, curriculum, teaching and learning, to take into account the full spectrum of students’ multiple intelligences (see Armstrong, 1994, 1999; Campbell, Campbell, & Dickinson, 2004; Fasko, 2001; Kornhaber, Fierros, & Veenema, 2004). However, the progress from theory to practice, aiming to provide each child with a personalized educational experience that considers the child’s individual needs, interests, strengths and weaknesses, has to address the issue of how one could go about assessing accurately and reliably each child’s unique profile of multiple intelligences. In connection with assessment, the theory of multiple intelligences grows out of a conviction that traditional paperand-pencil tests, with their bias toward verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical skills, are not intelligence-fair. To be intelligence-fair, it is argued that the assessment instrument should attempt as far as possible to access the intelligence-inoperation rather than confounding intelligences (see Karolyi, Ramos-Ford, & Gardner, 2003). For example, the assessment of visual-spatial intelligence of a child should primarily engage spatial abilities of the child in both comprehending the task and producing the response. Thus, while recognizing that spatial problems can be approached through linguistic media like verbal directions, intelligence-fair methods tend to favour assessing the visual-spatial intelligence of children by observing them as they are drawing or taking apart and putting together objects. In addition, it is also recognized that such meaningful assessment of performances are inevitably dependent on the child’s familiarity and experience with the materials and the demands of the assessments, which are based on culturally valued activities