Teaching and learning that is informed by MI is an inclusive pedagogy because it takes a very wide view of intelligence and works towards teaching and assessing students using more than just two of the intelligences. This allows students to use their own strengths and not be marginalised by having to focus on traditional ways of learning. This is especially important to consider in the context of the increased diversity of students now involved in secondary education. In Saudi Arabia schools, students come from a variety of ethnic, social and educational backgrounds. Secondary education has been slow to take diversity into account in the teaching/learning process, and developments like MI and other inclusive pedagogies are not common in Saudi Arabia schools. Knowledge acquisition is the main function and transmission of knowledge through lectures is the main mode and the teacher-cantered approach is dominant.The study's critique of the current teaching/learning processes in Saudi Arabian schools concurs with Gardner's descriptions of the traditional approach to teaching/learning as `westist', `bestist' and `testist'. `Bestist' refers to the belief that the answer to any problem can be found in one approach. This approach ignores the Socio-cultural issues of Saudi Arabia which are different from other western cultures. 'Westist' refers to the tendency of Western societies to promote one or two qualities or characteristics over others, for example, privileging individual work over collaboration. 'Testist' refers to focusing on the human abilities or intelligences that are most easily testable, like achievement, and ignoring the other abilities. This study is based on the belief that MI is not the only pedagogical approach but it does take into account the ways in which students learn, not based on teacher myths on the way they should learn. Most studies of MI have been carried out in western cultures. However, when it is applied to appraisal and teaching, cultural and social factors have to be taken into account. In other words, it has to be studied, experimented with, and evaluated locally. So, a new study, in a different context, may give new insightsinto the dynamics of using MI in the classroom. Research questions1. What are teachers' views of MI and using it in the classroom? 2. What are teachers' views of the constraints of implementing MI in the classroom? 3. What are the changes happened to the teachers due to the workshops? To educe teachers' views about MI and the causes that hinder them to use this theory a combination of mixed methods and research techniques was employed to strengthen the research design and add depth the research findings. Therefore, Data has been collected using multiple sources of data, including a questionnaire, interviews and direct classroom observations. The study used two samples: one for the questionnaire and the other one for the qualitative study. The entire questionnaire sample was random, covering a variety of teacher qualifications, and specialisms, and a range of teaching experience. A total of 150 secondary teachers responded to the questionnaire. After analyzing the questionnaires, a group of these teachers have been invited for an interview study and for the workshops. The chosen of these teachers based on their comments on the questionnaire for the purpose of deep understanding. The paper will begin with a discussion of the teachers' views regarding MI and how they use it in the classroom before the workshops. Then the paper will present teachers' views after the workshops.Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the interviews, observations, and content analysis of teachers' self-reports, the study indicated that teachers hold a variety of views regarding MI. also, the findings showed that most of the teachers confused about what MI means. Another important finding indicated that there were some of the constraints which affected teachers' Views about implementing of MI in the classroom. These constraints included lack of time, school administration, teacher's experience, teacher's attitude toward students, etc. however, the participants expressed that the workshops around MI helped them to enact MI in the classroom and to cope with these constraints.Campbell, L., Campbell, B. & Dickerson, D. (1999). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Eisner, E. (2004). Multiple intelligences: Its tensions and possibilities. Teachers College Record. 106, Pp. 31-39 Hopper, B. & Hurry, P. (2000). Learning the MI way: The effects on students' learning of using the theory of multiple intelligences. Pastoral Care. December, 26-32. Kagan, S. & Kagan, M. (1997). Multiple intelligences & Cooperative learning: Guidebook. The LPD Video Journal of Education, Sandy, Utah. Kagan, S. & Kagan, M. (1998). Multiple intelligences: the complete MI book. Kagan Cooperative learning, Calle Cordillera, USA. Kezar, A. (2001). Thoery of multible intelligences: Implications for higher education. Innovative Higher Education. 26(2), 141-154. Shearer, B. (2004). Multiple intelligences theory after 20 years. Teachers College Record. 106, 2-16. Shore, J. (2004). Teacher education and multiple intelligences: A case study of multiple intelligences and teacher efficacy in two teacher preparation courses. Teachers College Record. 106, 112-139. European Journal of Teacher Education; Journal of Teacher Education; British Journal of Educational Studies; British Journal of Educational Psychology; European Journal of Education.