David Lazear Examples: 8 Classroom Activities Aligned with Multiple Intelligences
More than three decades after Howard Gardner introduced the theory of multiple intelligences, educators are still asking a practical question: what does it actually look like in a lesson plan? David Lazear, a former teacher and prolific writer on MI theory, built much of his career on answering exactly that question. His work translated abstract psychological theory into curriculum tools, assessment ideas, and daily classroom routines. As schools move toward more differentiated instruction and student-centered learning, Lazear’s approach is gaining renewed attention—and so is the scrutiny that comes with it.
Recent Trends
The broader shift toward personalized learning has rekindled interest in approaches that treat students as individuals with varied strengths. High-stakes testing pressures, however, have narrowed many classrooms into tightly scripted, verbal-mathematical instruction. In response, some schools are looking for middle-ground strategies: ways to meet accountability demands while acknowledging that students process information differently.
Lazear’s framework is increasingly cited in professional development sessions focused on:
- designing lessons that enter a topic through more than one intelligence
- creating assessment options that let students demonstrate understanding in varied formats
- using “intelligence profiles” to inform grouping, pacing, and student choice
This renewed interest is not a return to the original MI boom of the 1990s. It is more measured, often driven by educators who want practical structures rather than grand claims.
Background
David Lazear was a central figure in what became known as the “MI implementation movement.” While Gardner provided the research-based theory, Lazear supplied the bridge to teaching practice. His books—including Eight Ways of Knowing, The Intelligent Curriculum, and Pathways of Learning—offered lesson templates, reflection prompts, and vocabulary for describing student strengths without labels or limits.
Lazear’s work emphasized that intelligence is not fixed. He argued that the intelligences interact, develop through use, and can be deliberately strengthened. This made MI theory attractive to teachers who were skeptical of approaches that sorted students into fixed ability groups. For many, Lazear’s version of MI offered a more optimistic, more actionable path.
Critics, then and now, have questioned whether multiple intelligences is a scientifically verifiable taxonomy or a helpful metaphor. Lazear’s contribution was largely pedagogical rather than experimental. He was not producing evidence for the theory; he was showing what the theory could look like when applied.
Eight Classroom Activities Aligned with the Framework
The following activity types are commonly associated with MI-informed classrooms and reflect the kind of practical “Lazear examples” that circulate in teacher workshops and curriculum guides. They are not strict scripts, but adaptable structures.
| Activity Example | Primary Intelligences | What Students Are Asked to Do |
|---|---|---|
| Sensory observation walk | Naturalistic, visual-spatial | Collect details from the environment—textures, sounds, patterns—and use them as material for writing or discussion. |
| Color-coded concept mapping | Visual-spatial, verbal-linguistic | Represent the relationships between ideas in a diagram, using color and spatial layout to show connections. |
| Movement-based sequencing | Bodily-kinesthetic, logical-mathematical | Act out processes such as the water cycle, a math equation, or a historical timeline through physical motion. |
| Peer teaching stations | Interpersonal, verbal-linguistic | Groups rotate through stations where students take turns explaining a concept to classmates in their own words. |
| Learning preference journals | Intrapersonal | Reflect on which activities felt easy, hard, or engaging, and set personal goals for trying new approaches. |
| Rhythm and pattern analysis | Musical-rhythmic | Use beat, rhyme, or recurring motifs to analyze poetry, memorize information, or understand patterns in mathematics. |
| Real-world problem scenarios | Logical-mathematical, interpersonal | Tackle open-ended problems—like designing a classroom layout or planning a budget—in small collaborative groups. |
| Storytelling with props | Verbal-linguistic, bodily-kinesthetic | Retell a lesson concept through improvised narration using objects, gestures, or simple costumes. |
In each case, the activity does not replace core content instruction. It functions as an entry point, a practice method, or an alternative form of demonstration. This is the key feature of Lazear’s influence: MI activities are meant to deepen engagement with content, not substitute for it.
User Concerns
Teachers considering these approaches typically raise practical rather than philosophical objections. Among the most common concerns are:
- Time. Planning multiple entry points for a single lesson takes more preparation time than delivering a standard lecture or worksheet.
- Assessment alignment. Many schools still report learning through standardized tests that rely heavily on verbal and logical skills, leaving teachers uncertain how MI work connects to measured outcomes.
- Classroom management. Movement-based or discussion-heavy activities can feel chaotic, especially for teachers accustomed to quiet, desk-based routines.
- Rigor. Some educators worry that creative activities are seen as “soft” by parents or administrators, even when the underlying thinking is demanding.
- Misapplication. A known risk is the “matching trap”—the belief that every student should only learn through a preferred intelligence, which can reduce, rather than expand, opportunities.
These concerns are not new, but they remain unresolved, particularly in schools where pacing guides and district mandates limit teacher autonomy.
Likely Impact
If MI-informed practices, including Lazear-style activities, become more widespread, the most immediate impact will likely be on lesson design. Teachers would shift from asking “What will I teach?” to “How many ways can students encounter this?” That change can influence instructional materials, classroom arrangement, and the language teachers use when giving feedback.
The second likely impact is on assessment. Schools that adopt MI-aligned activities often begin to experiment with portfolios, performance tasks, and student self-assessment. This does not replace standardized tests, but it gives teachers a broader evidence base for understanding student progress.
Professional development would also change. Instead of generic workshops on engagement, training would need to focus on how to build lessons that deliberately combine intelligences. This requires subject-matter knowledge, not just enthusiasm for the theory.
There is also a risk of superficial adoption. Schools may add “choice boards” or “learning stations” without rethinking the underlying purpose, turning MI into a menu of cosmetic options rather than a deeply integrated approach.
What to Watch Next
As education becomes more digital, a key question is whether MI-informed activities adapt well to online and hybrid settings. Some do—virtual journaling, digital concept mapping, and recorded peer explanations can carry on the same principles. Others, like movement-based sequencing or in-person classroom stations, are harder to preserve.
Another development to watch is the conversation around artificial intelligence in education. AI tools can now generate lesson ideas quickly, which may lower the planning burden that once made MI approaches impractical. But AI-generated activities are only useful if teachers understand the theory well enough to evaluate them. The risk is that MI becomes reduced to a keyword entered into a prompt.
Finally, the academic debate over Gardner’s model persists, with some researchers arguing that the theory lacks empirical precision and others defending it as a useful framework for equity in schools. Lazear’s legacy may ultimately be judged less by that debate and more by whether his practical examples help teachers act on an inclusive view of human ability.
For now, the conversation remains centered on the same question Lazear spent his career addressing: not whether students are smart, but how they are smart—and what teachers do with that knowledge.