![]() |
![]() |
[ProfessionalDevelopment 1965] Re: Debunking Multiple intelligencesBonnie Odiorne bonniesophia at sbcglobal.netWed Feb 13 11:15:06 EST 2008
Hello, all, I somehow missed all the debate around Mr. Sticht's first post, which, perhaps metaphorically, ended up in my "trash" mailbox... I am glad that subsequent posters have made points that now I don't have to: the difference between learning styles and multiple intelligences; the model that favors scientific statistical/measurable results from the point of view of an objective observer, when more recent science has shown that the influence of the observer impacts those things observed, and so on. I've just been asked to do a presentation on MI, or I wouldn't be quite so concerned with either my theory or my methodology. My most important, personal, point has to do with professionalism: while disagreement is a healthy and vibrant part of any field, when it schisms into intransigent "sides" it becomes unproductive. In addition, when one adds ad hominem (or ad feminem?) elements to the reply, the dialogue is no longer a dialogue and becomes entirely too personal, thus be-bunking (to borrow a phrase) the very objectivity and theoretical purity one claims (or not) to espouse. Whatever happened to open mindedness, inquiry, experiment (which in French is rendered as experience) attempts (essays/essais) are a part of human experience in all its multisensory input, and there are dfifferences in how any individual perceives his/her environment. I think one must go inward, rather than outward, to establish a true foundational discourse, which is what I intend to do. In collegiality, Bonnie Odiorne, Ph.D. ----- Original Message ---- From: Wendy Quinones <wbquinones at comcast.net> To: professionaldevelopment at nifl.gov Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 9:57:20 AM Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1941] Re: Debunking Multiple intelligences 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 > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- 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 bonniesophia at sbcglobal.net Professional Development section of the Adult Literacy Education Wiki http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Adult_Literacy_Professional_Development -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/professionaldevelopment/attachments/20080213/1c0badb4/attachment.html
More information about the ProfessionalDevelopment mailing list |