After reading five articles on Gardner’s theories of multiple intelligences I feel like learning is so much more varied and personal than many educators give credit to. In order to learn a student has to have material presented to them in a manner that they can process for understanding. According to proponents of Gardner’s theories, teachers should strive to, “[i]ndividualize teaching methods and curricula as much as possible (no “uniform schools” where all students are taught and assessed in the same way) and teach important concepts in multiple ways, thereby reaching more students effectively” (Christodoulou, 2009, p. 4). Thus the manner of instruction has more impact on elevating learning from learning by rote to learning for understanding. According to Wiggins and McTighe there are six facets of understanding: explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge (2005, p. 84). In our previous discussions related to knowing and understanding group members also recognized many of these facets as the visible indicators of moving from having knowledge to understanding that knowledge.
So what does it mean to learn? In the simplest terms that I understand it, learning is the act of obtaining knowledge that leads to understanding that knowledge by demonstrating at least one or more of the applicable six facets presented by Wiggins and McTighe. As demonstrated in examples throughout the assigned chapters, students can give the right answer to a question but not be able to explain (explanation) how they derived at this answer as it has only been memorized fact nor are they able to respond to the question if it is not phrased in the manner they are used to thinking about the concept (application) and thus are not truly applying the concepts but yet again only repeating memorized information if the questions are presented “just so”.
Where do educators go from here? If the goal is to truly educate our students to be evaluative, innovative thinkers who understand concepts instead of regurgitate information then we not only need to change the delivery model but also the forms of assessment. Is there room for teaching to multiple intelligences and assessing synthesis and application of information in a public school system designed to reward and punish schools and staff members based upon standardized tests with fill-in the bubble assessments (an assessment that is only the best learning style for a portion of our population) that do not consider the deeper applications of concepts but only on the ability to regurgitate facts?
References:
Christodoulou, J. (2009). Applying multiple intelligences. School Administrator, 66(2), 22-26. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.
I agree wholeheartedly with your questions and comments! I have a much more cursory understanding of multiple intelligences theory than you most likely, but to me the theory seems fairly intuitive as well. We know, both as individual learners ourselves, and through our interactions with others, whether as teachers or really in any realm of social interaction at all, that individuals learn in multiple ways and as possess different understandings of the world. This diversity demands, as you write, diversified methods (and fields!) of instruction and assessment. There is no one-size-fits-all model in the educational process, yet in a system as big and unwieldy as the public school system, it seems that we have yet to find a flexible model to apply to the system as a whole. We have pockets of "democratic" schools, expeditionary learning, waldorf schools, montessori, charter, magnet, etc., but for the most part, there remains this entrenchment and investment in traditional modes of instruction and assessment. Then again, with such an overpopulated society, how can we even begin to "individualize" on such a massive scale? is this even really possible? Thanks for your post!
ReplyDeleteI too share in your assessment that a good way of understanding learning is in the context of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences (MI) Theory. The evolution in intelligence theory is striking to me—from the early 20th century when some argued that intelligence was determined by a single factor (the "g" factor), to Gardner's theory that acknowledged distinct types of intelligence. What I have learned from 250 so far this semester, is that learning is personalized, varied and nuanced. I second your belief in the need to change the delivery model and forms of assessment, although these seem to be incredibly contentious areas. My background is in the private sector, where there may be less organizational resistance towards modification of delivery models and forms of assessment.
ReplyDeleteAs a teacher, it is important to consider what it means to learn and to understand that there are a wide variety of opinions as to what learning actually is. This can be demonstrated in the difference between teachers who are expecting students to memorize answers to be regurgitated on a multiple choice exam, and those who are prompting students to become independent thinkers. If we examine this idea through the lenses of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences, it becomes even harder to determine what learning actually is. Does it mean that a person will not make the same mistake again? Not necessarily. Where does this leave teachers?
ReplyDelete