Theoretical Foundations:
Learning with Style: Multiple Intelligences
I have always learned most effectively by doing. While I can remember what I read or am told,
for me to be taught through hands-on experience is to be taught in a different and deeper way.
I will not just remember: I will learn.
Howard Gardner, in his theory of multiple intelligences, conceives of intelligence as a
composition of various skills and areas of strength. For example, an individual can exhibit
areas of intelligence as diverse as:
-
linguistic;
-
spatial;
-
interpersonal;
-
intrapersonal;
-
body-kinesthetic.
Within the theory, while “all humans partake of each intelligence to some degree, certain
individuals are said to be ‘at promise.’ They are highly endowed with the core abilities and
skills of that intelligence” (28). However, “while some individuals are ‘at promise’ in an
intelligence, others are ‘at risk’” (28). This condition can be critical to education because, “those at risk in an intelligence will be most likely to fail tasks involving that intelligence. Conversely, those at promise will be most likely to succeed” (29). Fortunately, Gardner (Chapter Two) asserts that:
Under the multiple intelligences theory, an intelligence can serve both as the content of instruction and the means or medium for communicating that content. (32)
If instruction and assessment is structured exclusively around/in consideration of one intelligence, it may be an inaccurate way to gage a learner’s abilities or advance his or her learning and achievement.
Gardner’s theory has helped me both in understanding my own learning and aiding that of the students with whom I have had the opportunity to work. I firmly believe that differentiated instruction is important for all students. I know that I work and learn differently from others. Although I have succeeded in school, I do not presume that my learning style is superior. For whatever reason, it has enabled me to succeed in my classes. Who can say that a different learning style would not have proven more successful?
I believe that all students can—and should—be viewed as diverse learners. Each child has his or her own strengths and faces his or her own unique challenges. Ideally, all students should have the freedom to learn in the most effective way possible.
Making it Stick:
Peter C. Brown and Henry L. Roediger define learning as "acquiring knowledge and skills and having them readily available from memory so you can make sense of future problems and opportunities (2)". The authors elaborate that “[l]earning is deeper and more durable when it's effortful (3)" [emphasis original]. In other words, “...when learning is harder, it's stronger and lasts longer" (9). For example, although attempting to solve a problem before having been taught specifically how to do so may be challenging, and mistakes are probable, the process will be more effective in the long term. According to Brown and Roediger "[m]aking mistakes and correcting them builds the bridges to advanced learning (7)".
Similarly, rote repetition and the regurgitation/recitation of memorized facts do not equate to or indicate genuine learning. Being able to "repeat the phrases in a text or your lecture notes is no indication you understand the significance of the precepts they describe, their application, or how they already relate to what you already know about the subject" (16). It is possible to perform well on a written test without truly understanding the information being asked and emphasize the practical application of knowledge.
These perspectives on learning and the accurate assessment of acquired knowledge were not far from my thoughts as I planned the content, structure, and sequence of my lessons and activities throughout the fall and spring.
Student Connections:
Blythe et Al. describe “generative topics” as those that allow for “multiple connections” and have an “inexhaustible quality” (p. 30).[6] A generative topic, provides “the chance for students to make connections to their previous experiences, both in and out of school: they can always be explored more and more deeply (p. 30)”.
As my weeks cover the transition between strict science topics and technology, I have chosen to position my unit as a bridge between the two, under the umbrella of “curiosity, creativity, and innovation in science and technology.” Within both topics—as well as their intersection—I feel that there is great potential to make the material relevant to students by allowing them to apply what they have previously learned and experienced to their real lives.
I also feel that my topics—and the activities that I have planned—provide a unique opportunity for the students to apply real life experiences to what they are learning in class. As students, they will gain ammunition to clarify previously frustrating physics concepts from earlier this spring. They will be scientists and engineers in the classroom. They will be able to connect theories involving the electromagnetic spectrum to visible light when they examine it with their own eyes. They will complete a design challenge requiring them to plan, construct, and test a design.
It will not be possible for students to answer fully the questions posed within my unit. But this is not my intention. Rather, I hope to position the students--and enable them to position themselves--for a deeper, lasting experience of science and technology.
Testing as a Tool: formative assessment
Following Term II, I reflected that the time that I had spent working closely with my student had enabled me to learn as much about myself as a student of education and future teacher as it had about her as a learner. Above all else, I gained a deep appreciation for the importance of formative assessment in establishing an effective learning environment. While summative assessments such as unit tests “measure what students have learned at the end of some set of learning activities”, formative assessment “involves the use of assessments…as sources of feedback to improve teaching and learning” (How People Learn, 140). As the authors note in How People Learn, “given the goal of learning with understanding, assessments and feedback must focus on understanding, and not only on memory for procedures or facts” (140). As I worked closely with my student, I was able to gain a wealth of information about her comprehension. I learned not only what she seemed to comprehend, but also how she seemed to comprehend it.
Tiering:
According to the NSTA, individual lessons can be differentiated in terms of content, process, or product. Students then work in groups, which may be defined by readiness, learning profiles, and/or interests.
I believe that it is vital, with science in particular, to communicate to students that the material is relevant outside of a classroom or research setting. As such, I planned with the intention of engaging the students as scientists (and engineers) in the material. I sought to provide the students with multiple opportunities for hands-on exploration throughout my unit. I attempted to differentiate instruction and assessment in terms of both learning modalities and student interests. I also determined not to administer a formal test or quiz during state mandated testing, but to focus more deeply on formative assessment. Throughout my unit, I hope to position the students—and enable them to position themselves—for a deeper, lasting experience of science and technology. As in the fall, I continued to examine tiering and small group activities—coupled with formative assessment—as an effective approach to differentiating instruction for a whole class.
Graphic Original
Inspired by: http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=48723