The Triarchic Theory broadens intelligence into three types: analytical, practical, and creative (Fluellen, 2005). Analytical intelligence is the type most often measured in schools and it is measured by traditional tests like the I.Q. and the SAT. Practical intelligence refers to what most of us would can ‘common sense’ or ‘street smarts’. And creative intelligence is that which we see demonstrated most effectively by artists. Each of us possesses all of these types of intelligence, but we excel in them to varying degrees. Most people excel in only one type, some in multiple types, and still there are a few of us who perform well, or poorly, in all three areas. In addition, multiple types can and are often used simultaneously (Fluellen, 2005). According to Sternberg, some students who perform poorly on traditional methods of assessment are simply intelligent in other areas—music and athletics, for example. Many of these students are interested and very adept in these other areas; they simply choose not to focus as much on grades in school (Sternberg, 1985). The problem with traditional methods of assessment is that they assume a limited scope of intelligence as truth and curriculum is developed accordingly. Sternberg contends that we should be more focused on preparing for the real world and its challenges than for standardized tests (Hoerr, 2004).                              

As an alternative to traditional approaches to education, Sternberg proposes a student-centric model of curriculum emphasizing the need to “design curriculum from a multi-faceted, contextual perspective” that considers students’ individual abilities and interests (Hoerr, 2004). Sternberg’s introduction of Triarchic Theory in 1985 had immediate implications for educators in the areas of assessment and curriculum development. Thomas Hoerr comments on what the Triarchic Theory means for educators. “The book is strong in helping us understand the various approaches to intelligence and what is important; it is less helpful in thinking about how these understandings should be used in classrooms. While he offers some intriguing notions on curriculum and instruction, he falls short in speaking to classroom educators.” In recent years, however, Sternberg has taken his theory further. In 2001, Sternberg addressed the relationship between Triarchic Theory and instructional methods. “Triarchic teaching” uses what we have learned about various types of intelligences and applies it to instruction. Sternberg asserts that teachers should teach to students’ strengths. Teachers can use what they know of a student’s “intelligence profile” to draw parallels from one type of intelligence to another, so that a student can use his or her strengths to correct and improve his or her weaknesses in other areas of intelligence (Sternberg, 2001).

Works Cited

 

Fluellen, Jerry E. "Convergence: Human Intelligence: the Next 100 Years." Wilson Omnifile (2005): 9. Wilson Web. Reese Library, Augusta, GA. 4 Feb. 2008.

 

Hoerr, Thomas. "Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized." Teachers College Record 8 (2004): 106. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reese Library, Augusta, GA. 1 Feb. 2008.

 

Sternberg, Robert J., Elena L. Grigorenko, and Linda Jarvin. "Improving Reading Instruction: the Triarchic Model." Educational Leadership 58 (2001): 48-52. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reese Library, Augusta, GA. 1 Feb. 2008.

 

Sternberg, Robert J. "Principles of Teaching for Successful Intelligence." Educational Psychologist 33 (1998): 65-72. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reese Library, Augusta. 1 Feb. 2008.