Uncategorized kimiko | 08 Mar 2008 10:11 pm
week 8
Take a moment and try taking the test of Multiple Intelligences at:
http://www.mitest.com/o7inte~1.htm
What is your reaction to the result of your test? Give your critique on the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Post your writing by Wednesday night.
62 Responses to “week 8”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
on 11 Mar 2008 at 10:55 pm 1.liz_goodman said …
My highest score was, unsurprisingly, in linguistic intelligence - my lowest (also unsurprisingly) in logical-mathematical and bodily-kinesthetic. The rest were about equal. The only registers of intelligence that surprised me was musical and spatial. I got about as high a score on musical intelligence as I did on interpersonal and intrapersonal — which I found surprising, because I’ve always seen myself as someone interested in other people, but not so involved with music and not so spatially adept.
Gardner’s historicization of recent debates over the single or multiple nature of intelligence is welcome. Seeing the debate as part of a repeating cycle can help us figure out how to defuse it. As well, his assessment of the limits of intelligence tests as we now know them seems intuitively right. Too often, we see that brief, high pressure tests largely measure test-taking ability.
I’m not sure what to make of his eight intelligences. They seem intuitively interesting, but the relationship between brain activity the socially meaningful production of “intelligence” remains unclear to me. Testing or evaluating those intelligences seems equally loaded as measuring one — as the online test we took showed me.
However, Gardner does not acknowledge the power of intelligence testing as an idea. I don’t want to defend IQ tests, but testing is deeply embedded in a modernist, universalist ideal of merit. In standardizing social sorting, part of the role of tests (especially in the US) is to symbolically demonstrate equality and fairness. So tests are the hardest thing to get rid of — and the prospect he raises, of an “octet” of new tests — is even more frightening.
I agree with Gardner’s suggestion of longterm evaluation of “real world demonstrations” in place of brief, artificial tests. But I’m not sure what “realistic conditions” might mean in a school. School is by its very nature unlike what comes before or after, so when we evaluate “realistic conditions,” we have to remember that the “realism” of school is highly negotiable without a complete overhaul of curricula.
on 12 Mar 2008 at 5:19 pm 2.katherine_ahern said …
I didn’t find this test particularly enlightening. My highest score was in musical intelligence (unsurprising), so the vocations recommended include things like “aficionado.”
Also, my logical-mathematical score was quite low, much lower than my linguistic score, but on the GREs my math score was higher than my verbal score, so I wonder if this test is measuring enjoyment rather than aptitude. One can also imagine calculating a general intelligence by simply adding up the scores for all of the kinds of intelligence.
I found the Gardner article plausible, and interesting - I remember when _The Bell Curve_ came out, and my impression was that the public interest and outcry had more to do with perceptions of racism rather than with the idea that different people have different aptitudes.
I’m suspicious of psychometrics. Too often they’re used to support self-serving conclusions.
I found the Turkle/Papert paper sort of dated, though in my personal experience I have encountered a lot of the problems described.
on 12 Mar 2008 at 8:31 pm 3.jonathan_brack said …
After taking the multiple intelligences test, I was fairly satisfied with the results. My highest score was interpersonal. In general the description of interpersonal did match with how I see myself and how other have described me. And according to the prescribed vocations, I am pursuing the right career — a teacher.
I think that the theory of multiple intelligences provides a good framework to describe how human intelligence works. For me, MI theory speak so strongly because I cannot accept that there is only one type of inherent intelligence. “Just as we all look different, and have different personalities and temperaments – we also exhibit different profiles of intelligences” (Gardner)
I the diversity in humanity is not regulated to phenotypical features and socio-cultural factors. What MI theory allows for is the ability to begin to identify and name the diversity within human intelligence. My concern is that though Gardner has drawn from a wide range of disciplines and schools of thought to compile the 7 intelligence types — it is hard to accept that there could be a finite list. Just as we continue to find the depth of of other aspects of humanity, so too can we think of human intelligence taking on a plethora of forms.
on 12 Mar 2008 at 8:38 pm 4.pierre_tchetgen said …
Interesting. I’ve actually done these kinds of psychological tests before, but with different results. My highest scores were actually pretty accurate from a subjective perspective with musical and intrapersonal being my top abilities according to the test. One thing I noticed this time around was the cultural and epistemological bias of some the questions here. Going back to ‘Metaphors we Live By’ and the idea that our modes of understanding/relating to the world are largely informed by the linguistic forms and concepts to which we are accustomed through knowledge or experience. In that sense, questions about whether one’s focus while driving down the highway (equivalent to ridding a donkey down a hill?) seemed a bit neither here nor there to me.
Gardner’s article raises some good cautionary points about this when speaking of the self-fulfilling effects of MI testing in schools. Although the seven vectors of intelligence provide a useful framework (or tool) to think abstractly about human cognitive factors, can these truly be tested empirically, in light of the interconnectedness of nature and knowledge. Beyond a single measure (IQ) versus the seven dimensions (MI) dichotomy, a more wholistic approach to human understanding should also take into account the spiritual aspects of knowing. Intelligence is displayed by one’s capacity to learn which, being situated in a dialectical process of discovery and reflection upon any fact accumulated and drawing from multiple sources and modes of knowing, cannot be grasped from a fragmentary, categorically biased approach. Still, his recommendations on introducing topics of learning by type of intelligence, using an interdisciplinary approach as well as multi-modal representation are good in that they help lay the prerequisite foundation for the possibility that a unified approach to intelligence and learning might be properly apprehended.
on 12 Mar 2008 at 10:05 pm 5.anirban_sen said …
I was not surprised by the results of the MI test. My strongest intelligence area is linguistics and my weakest is intrapersonal. While I do agree with these evaluations, I have found that in my test scores (such as the GRE) I have scored more on the mathematical part than the verbal. However, I have always done better and enjoyed more the verbal and linguistic intensive courses all through my educational career. This makes me believe that there is something screwy going on here! Either the standardized tests like the GRE are somewhat biased, or that I have some latent ability with mathematics, but my conscious mind refuses to accept this (much like the girls in the Turkle and Papert paper).
The Turkle and Papert paper seemed to draw the conclusion that certain behaviors (’soft’ vs ‘hard’ techniques) are seen as female vs male. However, I believe that this can be extended across not just gender lines, but race, socio-economic status, and age demographics. The reason I say this is because often in developing countries, there is very little computer programming education below the collegiate level. Therefore, someone coming from this type of background (if they started with a top-down programming style) would find their level of comfort to be the highest in the style that they were initially exposed to. I do however agree with Gardner’s hypothesis that there are different types of intelligence. I also believe that a person can have strengths in various areas instead of one score to determine the sum of one’s abilities.
on 12 Mar 2008 at 10:55 pm 6.seungwan_hong said …
After reading “The Triumph of Tinkering” by Turkle, S. with my test results
The concrete standard of intellectual development really exists? Piaget’s model is a somewhat important clue to establish educational curriculums according to age-levels, but the ranges of children’s intellectual diversity are too wide and flexible to apply such rigid standards. As the same reasons, I disagree with the intellectual measuring tests and its standardized questions.
Firstly, although I got 11 points in spatial area, I am very wondering how much the episode-based-questions can reflect reality. In my view, such fragmented questions about colors and shapes are never representative for creative process of spatial design. Main core of creativity is imagination process and its initial points, not final results and rigid abilities check-options such as discerning colors and easy recognition of shapes.
Secondly, there is no validity about self-determination about questions. Many of questions are ambiguous, so I often hesitated to determine my ability. (I am really enjoying singing?) Actually, I do not know enough my tastes and behavior patterns. These are very subtle, flexible, and ambiguous, so my determination standard about questions can be changeable. That means the results of tests do not have consistency, even if I will do the same test repeatedly. It is not valid for intellectual measuring. In addition, written questions cannot fully reflect action-based abilities such as bodily-Kinesthetic and interpersonal (social skills) areas.
on 13 Mar 2008 at 12:11 am 7.jon_breitbart said …
the results of my test are pretty interesting. my highest scores were in the musical and interpersonal categories, while my lowest score was intrapersonal. my high interpersonal and low intrapersonal scores are not surprising to me in the slightest. i consider myself lacking in many introspective skills or tendencies and tend to be much more focused on my relationship to others and the groups and people around me. the high musical score is really surprising to me, though. i was somewhat musical as a child and teenager, playing the violin, but my interest in music has never been particularly intense or robust - more recreational. i imagine my responses that i often have a catchy tune or song stuck in my head and can easily follow along with a song’s rhythm or beat contributed to my high score here, i wonder how relevant those questions actually are to a person’s musical nature. i was a little disappointed in me low logical-mathematical score, as i have always enjoyed logical reasoning tasks and problems. but i recognize that those preferences were more pronounced when i was in junior high and high school than they are now. like pierre, i wonder about the value of these sorts of tests, especially with regard to questions that assume a point-of-view or common experience among people. i also often find myself frustrated with many of the questions on these sorts of tests, in that i very often find myself struggling choose “yes” or “no” and want to respond somewhere in the middle. also, many of the questions on the test use value-laden terms, which can interpreted in many different ways depending on the test-taker.
i agree with most people in our class in that gardner’s notion that intelligence should be viewed with much more interdisciplinary lens and that taking into account people’s different preferences or more natural modes of thinking can be a useful notion. like liz, i wonder about gardner’s attempt to strictly define a set of specific types of intelligences under which we should evaluate people or design curricula by. could this attempt to strictly define how people tend to view or think about the world or solve problems serve to pidgeonhole some people? still, i certainly agree that a greater recognition of the value of varied thinking and learning styles is admirable and essential.
the turkel and papert paper was very interesting to me, in that equating certain societal gender roles with different programming styles was rather thought-provoking. i understand some of where they are coming from and think many of their assertions were probably even more true when the paper was written. the current trend toward more object-oriented programming does affirm, somewhat, their argument for the value of a “softer” approach to programming. i wonder, though, if the dichotomy the authors insisted upon in the article might be a little less black and white. can the code in a program become like an object that one becomes attached to in a personally-connected and emotional way as well? i also wonder to what extent the biological/psychological explanations they offer for differences in male and female approaches to science, math, and programming are actually causal and how constructed social values might play a more important role here. also, i wonder about the dichotomy the authors suggest between strictly abstract, logical thinking and more relational frameworks. i think that there is certainly value to both perspectives (and that these two perspectives are maybe a bit more related than they are made to seem) and that a focus more on inquiry learning, which combines characteristics of both perspectives and meshes them, is especially beneficial and allows different learning or thinking styles to co-exist and benefit others.
on 13 Mar 2008 at 12:52 am 8.hsin_hsien_chiu said …
After taking the test, it helps me to think of other ability as part of human intelligence. However, it might not be able to measure correctly about several subjects by written format, such as musical or bodily-kinesthetic ability.
Intelligence is a method artificially invented to describe the ability of human mind either quantitatively or qualitatively. From Howard Gardner’s perspective, he tried to apply the MI theory as tools to encourage people to learn through various media. If we discuss the methodology of the MI theory, Howard categorizes the human intelligence into several divisions, experiencing knowledge in regard to these domains, and emphasizes the importance of applying different pedagogies accordingly.
The idea brought by the MI theory is the multiple values of human ability. The categories clarified in the MI theory encompass not only rational but also emotional variables. It reminds me the categories of “art”. Art is traditionally discussed in eight domains: painting, sculpture, music, architecture, etc. However, there always come up with new approaches to discuss about art. For instance, regarding to the modern art, there are new categories, such as digital art, installation art, conceptual art, etc. If Howard’s intention is to lead homo sapiens discover different strength of human intelligence, it will be very meaningful to think of how to apply and create appropriate tools/ media to help people for learning.
Comparing to the traditional explanation for human intelligence, the MI theory illustrates the modern sprit of intelligence. Thought Howard carefully draws the peripheral of MI theory without including creativity, if we think of the future trend of industries nowadays, it might be inevitably to consider “creativity” as one of the most essential index of human intelligence.
on 13 Mar 2008 at 1:38 am 9.aylin_selcukoglu said …
According to the multiple intelligences test, I should be an evangelist, politician, or charismatic leader. Hah, awesome. Three things I never see myself becoming.
My scores from highest to lowest:
Interpersonal
Linguistic
Bodily-Kinesthetic / Musical (tie)
Intrapersonal
Logical-Mathematical
Spatial
Though I don’t necessarily see myself fitting the proposed jobs that my highest score relates to, I’m not very surprised by these results. I’ve always been poor at math and spatial skills, especially those “visualize the folded paper” problems. I also prefer to spend time interacting with people rather than alone.
So much of this test was based on your perception of yourself though. I also felt I was giving conflicting answers, like when I checked yes for “I would rather spend my evenings at a lively party than at home alone.” but I also checked yes for “I would rather spend my evenings at home than at a lively party.” It seems contradictory, but it’s all in the phrasing of the statements. I would rather be at a party with other people then home *alone*, emphasis on the alone, but I would rather spend my evenings at home (with a few close friends or my roommates) than at a lively party.
I like the theory of multiple intelligences, mainly because of this emphasis on the idea that people have different strengths and weaknesses; it’s not about one single “general intelligence” but a “range of human computational capacities” (Gardner). I’ve always been one to dislike tests, I’m just not a good test-taker and, though our society is highly dependent upon them, they are not always the best way to measure “intelligence.” This makes me think back to my elementary school days when we had to take a test to get “tracked” into the P.I. (I don’t even remember what it stands for anymore) class which was advanced math and advanced English. I took the test and didn’t make the cut so I never got into P.I. which continued throughout junior high. When it came time for recommendations for high school, my English teacher recommended me for the freshman advanced english course even though I had never been in P.I. I ended up taking all “advanced”/”weighted”/AP English courses throughout high school, it was the area I excelled most at (and enjoyed the most), and I even won the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Writing Award one year. So much for not getting into P.I. What’s even worse now is that they’re not just letting people into the advanced English courses based on recommendation, you have to take a test to place in. This just seems so frustrating to me, why a test? Why not ask for a writing sample? Have them read a book the summer before and do an analysis of it, as Gardner says “assess the way [students] carry out valued performances under realistic conditions.” As Liz mentioned, the inherent nature of school is not very realistic, but I think there are ways that could be at least more realistic ways of evaluation than tests. I know in many cases there needs to be some method of evaluation, but I really want to reiterate Gardner’s question…”Where is it written that intelligence needs to be determined on the basis of tests?”
on 13 Mar 2008 at 10:28 am 10.andy_carle said …
(Forgive the lateness of this post – the internet in my hotel was not cooperating last night.)
Stereotyping myself further as a nerdy computer scientist, my top score was in Logical-Mathematical. More compellingly, my next highest scores were in Linguistic, Spatial, and Musical. All around, my scores were rather flat, with the majority of my results falling within a point or two of each other. I think this is interesting and reasonably telling. I’ve never really been happy settling into any particularly narrowly defined field and only really became happy with my work when I moved to HCI, a pursuit that I feel touches on virtually each of the multiple intelligences.
I’m personally torn on the issue of intelligence and psychometric evaluation. On one hand, I see the obvious flaws in standard intelligence testing and the systematic inequity that arises from these problems. In a perfect world, I think that every student should receive a personalized education that allows them to make the most of their unique learning style and capabilities. On the other hand, I understand that resources are limited in the public school system. Having personally benefited *enormously* from a gifted education program that was based on a standard Stanford-Binet-ish IQ test, I’m saddened by the prospect of a school system without such programs.
I think that resolving this conflict is a, if not *the*, fundamental challenge of K-12 education in the coming decade. Finding a way to use the limited resources that are available to encourage students that are gifted in a variety of ways is crucial. Unfortunately, I certainly don’t have great answers to this problem, and I’m not convinced that any currently exist.
on 15 Mar 2008 at 3:35 pm 11.maryanne_berry said …
The theory of multiple intelligences has had a profound influence on my work as a high school English teacher. When I have introduced the theory to 12th graders, I have literally seen hunched shoulders ease, students’ bodies unfurl in response to the idea that they are intelligent in ways that traditional schooling does not value. Most of us who have reached graduate level studies must have exhibited linguistic and logical intelligences in addition to others, so it might be difficult to imagine how powerful schools can be in making a person feel stupid. Oddly, I often feel that my biggest challenge as a teacher is not to teach “content” but to convince students that they possess intelligences that can be used as entry points into a text and that these intelligences should be cultivated and valued.
I once gave a simple assignment in response to an Italian film Il Postino. It’s the story of a postman who delivers letters to the exiled poet Pablo Neruda. At the end of the film, the postman creates a sound-recording, a kind of poem listing the 10 most beautiful things in his life. I invited my students to do the same using any modality that seemed appropriate. The results were incredibly varied: one created a mobile of words and pictures, another made a pop-up book, another wrote a song, one student even danced for the class.
Gardner suggests that most schools place much more emphasis on logical and linguistic intelligences than on any of the others. In many schools students who are artists or musicians are marginalized. I heard that Gardner actually believes that there are many more intelligences (50+), but that he started by introducing seven (and has since added the naturalist and hinted at a ninth, the existential intelligence) because he wanted to present his theory in a palatable way. Many educators have latched on to Gardner’s ideas, and some have misinterpreted them. The test that we took might not be the most subtle way of determining our intellectual strengths. I think a more accurate assessment would be sensitive to the “situated” nature of experience.
on 03 Apr 2008 at 12:45 pm 12.jessica_kline said …
I scored high in the spatial and bodily-kinesthetic areas and scored very low in the music area. Similar to the experiences of others in the class, these results were not surprising. I have an easy time picking up new sports. In general, I’m able to watch someone engage in a sporting activity, and after trying it out myself, I can achieve a fairly good level of proficiency. This has occurred throughout my life; I did this with skiing when I was 4 and lacrosse when I was 19. (Although I still can’t figure out ice skating no matter how many times I try.) On the other hand, I’m musically-challenged. I was terrible at piano and even more terrible at the violin. It’s not that I don’t like music, I just feel fortunate that others in this world make music and not me.
While I agree with the theory of multiple intelligences, I worry that people will use the results as an excuse for failure, rather than using their strengths to their advantage. I wasn’t naturally good at the piano. But that really isn’t the reason why I failed. I failed because I didn’t practice and I didn’t compensate with my other strengths. I also worry that people will stay within their comfort zone and not try and succeed in other areas. According to the vocation suggestions, possible vocations for me include professional athlete, sports analyst, and trainer. I watch and play sports as a purely recreational activity. And this allows me to try other areas and always fall back on something that’s a source of fun rather than stress.
on 27 Apr 2008 at 4:56 pm 13.sally_maki said …
I felt somewhat offended by the multiple intelligences test. One of my lowest scores, (2nd to last, after linguistic) was intrapersonal, but I feel like this should be one of my higher scores. Just because I am social and don’t prefer to hang out alone in my room doesn’t mean that I do not spend a lot of time reflecting and that I am not meta-cognizant. I thought it was unfair that it had questions that were at odds with each other. Either you like being with people or you don’t, you can’t choose both, which I think is what most people would do if they could. I was surprised at my results in general. I got the highest score on my interpersonal, and second highest on kinesthetic, both things that I would have put in the middle. I somewhat agreed that linguistic would be lower for me, but I hated that it turned out that way because of things like I don’t like asking people riddles…. seriously… who does?
Even though I didn’t like the test, I do like a lot of things about the theory of multiple intelligences. I think it is valuable to see that even if someone isn’t good in some things like math, science, or language, they can be extremely intelligent in things we don’t appreciate like kinesthetic. I think this has a lot of implications for education. By appreciate all of the different intelligences and spending time on each, I think students can really improve in some of the neglected ones and more importantly feel like they are good at something even if they aren’t good at everything. This last point is the most important because feeling like you aren’t smart is probably one of the greatest barriers to getting a lot out of education.
The only thing is that I think there are several “intelligences” missing. He did a great job at identifying some of the major ones though, and I like the new ones that he has added like the ability to think about abstract things like space and time. But he doesn’t have one that appreciates people who have extremely well developed sense of taste. I read in the book Blink about people who could tell you hundreds of things about an oreo cookie, including which batch it is from, and what kind of sugar they used. Also, I think some of his main categories could be further split. Like in Kinesthetic, I think the ability to appreciate different tactile textures is very different than being coordinated. Or I feel like being able to sympathize with people is extremely different from being able to manage them, and require different kinds of intelligences. Overall I think that his breakdown and categorization needs a lot of work, but I think his theory is great and has a lot of good possible implications.
on 08 Feb 2012 at 8:20 am 14.vumdncxxu said …
kreng…
vjwirpztk stnem lfokbbe jpjl wwmlkcqxhriqzij…
on 28 Feb 2012 at 9:14 am 15.mountain bikes said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More here: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 29 Feb 2012 at 11:35 am 16.เกม หาตัวเลข said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Find More Informations here: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 01 Mar 2012 at 10:09 am 17.friteuse sans huile said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 01 Mar 2012 at 7:25 pm 18.free-credit-report-check.com said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 02 Mar 2012 at 7:27 pm 19.url said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] There you will find 74865 more Infos: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 03 Mar 2012 at 11:44 am 20.site said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 03 Mar 2012 at 5:44 pm 21.freecreditreportz.com said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More here: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 04 Mar 2012 at 1:12 pm 22.Montreal Escorts said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Find More Informations here: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 05 Mar 2012 at 11:22 am 23.my free credit score and report said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] There you will find 66841 more Infos: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 05 Mar 2012 at 8:16 pm 24.anthony morrison said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] There you will find 62219 more Infos: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 05 Mar 2012 at 10:02 pm 25.letalske karte said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 06 Mar 2012 at 7:01 am 26.Filme Noi online said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] There you will find 66635 more Infos: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 08 Mar 2012 at 11:16 am 27.cv maken said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 08 Mar 2012 at 8:38 pm 28.phone lookup said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More here: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 08 Mar 2012 at 11:30 pm 29.link said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 09 Mar 2012 at 3:59 pm 30.Click Here said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More here: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 10 Mar 2012 at 11:16 pm 31.y8 Games said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More here: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 15 Mar 2012 at 8:52 pm 32.\nexium side effects in men\ said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] There you will find 60377 more Infos: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 18 Mar 2012 at 8:13 am 33.pret immobilier said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] There you will find 66960 more Infos: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 18 Mar 2012 at 7:47 pm 34.assurance auto said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 18 Mar 2012 at 8:05 pm 35.Ares Software Download said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 18 Mar 2012 at 10:16 pm 36.pret personnel said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 19 Mar 2012 at 4:35 am 37.early childhood education jobs said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] There you will find 78651 more Infos: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 19 Mar 2012 at 10:36 am 38.Tarzan vibrator said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 19 Mar 2012 at 4:47 pm 39.hardwood floor cost said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 20 Mar 2012 at 9:06 am 40.montre homme said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 21 Mar 2012 at 1:40 am 41.เกมส์ทําอาหารน้ําผลไม้ said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 21 Mar 2012 at 8:42 am 42.salary and career said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 21 Mar 2012 at 9:02 am 43.pharmacy technician license said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 22 Mar 2012 at 11:03 am 44.\Lithium side effects\ said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Find More Informations here: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:19 am 45.Spielautomaten online said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More Infos here: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 25 Mar 2012 at 5:12 am 46.sizegenetics said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 26 Mar 2012 at 1:28 am 47.seo said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More here: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 27 Mar 2012 at 3:46 am 48.lennot said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] There you will find 72557 more Infos: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 27 Mar 2012 at 6:04 am 49.objets publicitaires said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Find More Informations here: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 29 Mar 2012 at 9:57 am 50.เกมส์ ทําแฮมเบอร์เกอร์ said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 29 Mar 2012 at 12:04 pm 51.φωτοβολταϊκά συστήματα said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 30 Mar 2012 at 9:43 am 52.social media strategies said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 30 Mar 2012 at 9:47 pm 53.เกมส์ฝึกแต่งหน้า said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 31 Mar 2012 at 6:32 am 54.viagra pills said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] There you will find 74852 more Infos: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 31 Mar 2012 at 9:19 am 55.builders north london said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 31 Mar 2012 at 1:04 pm 56.drainage pipe said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] There you will find 71419 more Infos: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 31 Mar 2012 at 3:44 pm 57.Celexa dosage said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More here: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 31 Mar 2012 at 8:14 pm 58.Lisinopril cough said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Read More here: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 03 Apr 2012 at 2:02 pm 59.china sucks said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Find More Informations here: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 03 Apr 2012 at 4:57 pm 60.motorcycle games said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 03 Apr 2012 at 11:30 pm 61.Bio: Aleesha Schwab said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …
on 04 Apr 2012 at 12:25 am 62.Triggerpunkttherapie said …
… [Trackback] …
[…] There you will find 60353 more Infos: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-2/s08/?page_id=11 […] …