Tom and all,

I am the developer and facilitator of the Multiple Intelligences and 
Differentiated Instruction course under discussion here.  I acknowledge Tom's 
point about the dearth of empirical evidence about the efficacy of using MI. 
But isn't that true of virtually everything in adult education?  We are 
starved for the very resources that would make such studies available; until 
our government funds more adult literacy research, we can base very little 
on empirical research.



With respect, Tom, I wonder if you aren't thinking a little too narrowly 
about what the research actually tells us about multiple intelligences. 
There has been a great deal of research done on MI, and a great deal 
continues to be done. (Please note that I am not discussing learning styles, 
nor are they addressed in my course.  Confusion between these two concepts 
is common.)  For some past studies (Project SUMIT, Multiple Intelligences 
Schools), as well as ongoing work in various aspects of MI, you can check 
out the Project Zero website http://www.pz.harvard.edu/index.cfm at the 
Harvard Graduate School of Education, where Howard Gardner developed his 
theory of multiple intelligences.  This began as a psychological theory 
based on exhaustive study of neurological and brain research; it was we 
educators who jumped on it for pedagogical purposes.



Granted, most MI research has been done with K-12 in mind, but that's true 
of much of the research we use in adult education.  I was, however, 
privileged to be one of the teacher-researchers in the Adult Multiple 
Intelligences study, which dealt exclusively with using MI in adult 
classrooms, both ABE and ESOL.  The project, which lasted for 3-4 years, was 
a collaboration between Project Zero and the New England Literacy Resource 
Center/World Education under the auspices of NCSALL, then located at the 
Harvard Graduate School of Education.  Much of the material we produced is 
available on the web through NCSALL 
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/NCSALL?q=multiple+intelligences+and+adult+literacy&sa=NCSALL+Site+Search

including an issue of Focus On Basics devoted to the project: 
http://www.ncsall.net/?id=161



You might also consider research that isn't even directed at MI, but which 
points to precisely the intelligences that Gardner posits.  For example, 
research has shown repeatedly that what have been called multi-modal 
approaches are virtually a necessity in reaching native-English speakers 
with learning disabilities.  The Wilson method uses tapping, which would 
draw on both the bodily-kinesthetic and musical intelligences.  Other 
proven, research-based methods use writing in air, flour, or sand, which are 
certainly bodily-kinesthetic activities.



The NIFL publication "Applying Research in Reading Instruction for Adults" 
(http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/adult.html ) 
advocates a number of research-based strategies that draw similarly on the 
intelligences:  activating prior knowledge (intrapersonal), cooperative and 
group learning (interpersonal), think-alouds for comprehension (again, 
intrapersonal), graphic organizers (spatial), and so on.



My course is intended to give teachers a solid grounding in MI theory so 
that they can intentionally, systematically, and creatively use these 
strategies and others that they may devise themselves, to improve practice. 
Studies, my own included, have shown increased retention, engagement, and 
learning gains attributable at least in part to the use of MI.






>  Colleagues: I have followed discussions on several NIFL-sponsored 

> discussion

>  lists recently in which people have advocated teaching to learning styles 

> or

>  to multiple intelligences. This is strange to me given that the federal

>  government has argued for the use of evidence-based, scientifically

>  validated approaches to adult literacy education (see the What Works

>  Clearinghouse sponsored by the U.S Department of Education). But by even

>  loose standards of evidence, there is no credible evidence to support

>  teaching to a person's learning style, preferred learning modality (i.e.,

>  visual, auditory, kinesthetic), multiple intelligences, right brain-left

>  brain preference, or other very malformed ideas. Indeed, there are a wide

>  variety of so-called learning styles (impusive vs reflective; introverted

>  vs extroverted; field dependent vs field dependent and on and on)and no

>  research on how a teacher can take all of them into account everyday and

>  over weeks and months. It is not even certain that a learning style stays

>  the same from the beginning of a course to the end of the course. While I

>  understand the desire of the NIFL to promote useful discussions among 

> adult

>  literacy educators, with only a minimum of censorship, it strikes me as

>  counter productive to advocate for evidence-based, scientifically 

> validated

>  teaching while also permitting the advertisement of commercial workshops

>  that are based on poorly formed concepts and devoid of empirical evidence

>  for the efficacy of such ideas and the practices based on them. Tom 

> Sticht

>  ----------------------------------------------------

>  National Institute for Literacy

>  Adult Literacy Professional Development mailing list

>  professionaldevelopment at nifl.gov

>

>  To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/professionaldevelopment

>

>  Email delivered to amuro5 at epcc.edu

>

>  Professional Development section of the Adult Literacy Education Wiki

> 

> http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Adult_Literacy_Professional_Development

>

>

>

>

>