David Lazear’s Top Tips for Bringing Multiple Intelligences Into Your Daily Lessons
David Lazear, a prominent author and trainer associated with the multiple intelligences (MI) framework, has long argued that daily instruction should move beyond the linguistic and logical-mathematical defaults that dominate many classrooms. His recommendations, drawn from years of professional development work with schools, continue to surface in teacher planning guides and curriculum discussions. This analysis looks at how his approach fits into current education trends, what concerns educators raise, and where the conversation is headed.
Recent Trends in Lesson Design
Interest in student-centered and differentiated instruction has grown as schools seek ways to address engagement and retention. In many districts, lesson planning now emphasizes active learning, project-based tasks, and formative assessment—all areas where MI-based activities can be readily applied. Teachers are increasingly expected to design lessons that appeal to varied student strengths rather than relying solely on lecture, reading, and worksheet formats.
- Digital tools have made it easier to incorporate visual, musical, and kinesthetic elements into otherwise text-heavy lessons.
- Collaborative classroom models encourage interpersonal and intrapersonal reflection as part of regular routines.
- Short in-class activities, such as quick sketches, movement breaks, or verbal processing, are being used as everyday MI-aligned strategies.
Background: Lazear’s Central Advice
Lazear’s tips typically focus on small, repeatable practices rather than wholesale curriculum overhauls. He emphasizes that teachers do not need to design eight separate activities per lesson; instead, they can layer intelligences into existing content. Common recommendations include using visual organizers to supplement reading, incorporating music or rhythm to reinforce patterns, allowing students to demonstrate understanding through physical movement, and building in structured pair or group discussion time.
His guidance also encourages teachers to be explicit with students about which intelligences are being exercised. Naming the skill—such as “we are using our spatial intelligence to map the story’s setting”—helps students become self-aware about how they learn. For Lazear, this metacognitive component is not an add-on but a core feature of daily instruction.
User Concerns and Practical Friction
Educators who adopt an MI lens often report positive responses from students, but they also voice realistic concerns about implementation.
- Time pressure: Teachers worry that varied activities take longer to prepare and execute within fixed class periods.
- Assessment alignment: Many note that standardized tests still prioritize reading and math, creating tension between MI-informed instruction and accountability demands.
- Misapplication: Some critics point out that labeling students as a single “type” can become a stereotype, a concern that Lazear’s own writing warns against by stressing that all people possess all intelligences.
- Resource limits: Schools with minimal arts or technology funding may find certain strategies harder to support.
These concerns are not necessarily arguments against MI, but they do shape how Lazear’s tips are adapted in real classrooms. Successful implementations often treat MI as a planning lens rather than a rigid prescription.
Likely Impact on Daily Instruction
When applied consistently, Lazear’s tips can shift the daily rhythm of a lesson in observable ways. Teachers may open with a short movement-based review, move into a visual note-taking phase, and close with a reflective writing prompt—without adding significant time or complexity. The expected impact includes broader student participation, more opportunities for English learners and students with learning differences to access content, and a classroom climate where multiple ways of knowing are treated as legitimate.
Another likely outcome is improved teacher awareness. As educators track which intelligences they use regularly, they often discover unintentional gaps—for instance, heavy reliance on linguistic tasks with little attention to spatial or kinesthetic processing. That awareness alone can lead to more balanced lesson sequences over a week or unit.
What to Watch Next
The future of MI-based lesson planning will likely depend on how well it integrates with newer priorities in education.
- AI and personalized learning tools: Adaptive platforms may begin to incorporate MI-style preference data into activity recommendations.
- Social-emotional learning (SEL): Intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences overlap meaningfully with SEL competencies, potentially giving Lazear’s framework renewed relevance.
- Professional development reform: Schools may shift from one-off MI workshops to ongoing coaching that helps teachers internalize the strategies.
- Debates on learning styles: As researchers continue to critique the broader “learning styles” category, educators will likely separate tested MI principles from unsupported claims, making Lazear’s emphasis on multiple modes and explicit framing more important than ever.
Teachers and instructional coaches who want to apply Lazear’s work would be well served to start small, document what works in their context, and treat the framework as one useful tool among many—not a substitute for strong content knowledge and responsive teaching.