↓ Skip to main content

Building a functional multiple intelligences theory to advance educational neuroscience

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Building a functional multiple intelligences theory to advance educational neuroscience
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00950
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlo Cerruti

Abstract

A key goal of educational neuroscience is to conduct constrained experimental research that is theory-driven and yet also clearly related to educators' complex set of questions and concerns. However, the fields of education, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience use different levels of description to characterize human ability. An important advance in research in educational neuroscience would be the identification of a cognitive and neurocognitive framework at a level of description relatively intuitive to educators. I argue that the theory of multiple intelligences (MI; Gardner, 1983), a conception of the mind that motivated a past generation of teachers, may provide such an opportunity. I criticize MI for doing little to clarify for teachers a core misunderstanding, specifically that MI was only an anatomical map of the mind but not a functional theory that detailed how the mind actually processes information. In an attempt to build a "functional MI" theory, I integrate into MI basic principles of cognitive and neural functioning, namely interregional neural facilitation and inhibition. In so doing I hope to forge a path toward constrained experimental research that bears upon teachers' concerns about teaching and learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 110 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 18%
Student > Master 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 35 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 16%
Social Sciences 15 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 7%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 27 24%
Unknown 36 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2021.
All research outputs
#4,259,538
of 25,360,284 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,393
of 34,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,960
of 293,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#309
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,360,284 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 293,890 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.