I think Rita Dunn's response to this interchange is important. She wrote:
 
PLEASE click onto www.learninstyles.net and into BIBLIOGRAPHY. You will find more than 850 published studies on one particular learning style model conducted by researchers at more than 125 institutions of higher education--almost 200 on adult learning styles (and we are just now updating). I do not have Tom Sticht's email or I would have sought to enlighten him. This is the website of the International Learning Style Network, in operation since 1979 and cosponsored by organizations in more than 22 nations. Tom just doesn't have access to the best information.
 
Cordially,
 
Professor Rita Dunn
St. John's University  


Barbara K. Given, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Emerita of Special Education;
Faculty Affiliate, Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study; and former Director, Center for Honoring Individual Learning Diversity, an International Learing Styles Network Center.
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
Ph: 703-549-4483
Fax: 703-993-4325



----- Original Message -----
From: "Catherine B. King" <cb.king at verizon.net>
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:28 am
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1954] Re: Debunking Multiple intelligences


> Hello Eric and Susan:

> 

> Though I think Tom is premature in his criticism of the import of 

> learning 

> styles (and MI--thank you Wendy for clarifying the distinction), 

> he is quite 

> right about his call for evidence-based research--and I would add: 

> Theory 

> development and its applications that stand the test of time.

> 

> Education is a synthetic field--in the classroom, we can recognize 

> and apply 

> all sorts of theory and research from all sorts of fields, e.g., 

> sociology, 

> psychology, philosophy, history, etc.; and our theories draw from 

> all of 

> these other fields.  And of course there is an art to teaching as 

> well--we 

> all know that.

> 

> However, just like other professional fields, e.g., medicine or 

> architecture, what makes and keeps us professional(s) is not only 

> what we do 

> in the classroom, but our open and active connection with our 

> theoretical 

> and research fields, e.g., through regular PD, research journals 

> and 

> newsletters, professional collaboration, etc.

> 

> What you are calling "common sense" applications, then, are often 

> the 

> manifestation of the qualified art of teaching; however, as 

> professional 

> applications, they are and should be constantly informed and 

> edified by 

> relevant theory, research, and discourse from the fields.

> 

> I am always appreciative of Tom's contributions to our field (bow 

> to Tom). 

> However, my own (long-term) issue with Tom is not about whether 

> our field 

> should maintain its critical-theoretical and research base--it 

> should and 

> our professionalism and legitimacy depend on that maintenance--but 

> rather 

> what constitutes (and should constitute) the materials and methods 

> that 

> inform that base.  Those very changes in materials and methods--

> not what it 

> means to be critical and evidence-based--is what is at stake in 

> the dialogue 

> between more positivist foundations, and foundations that begin by 

> taking 

> into consideration more nuanced human data and methods of approach.

> 

> That brings us to your statement that Multiple Intelligences and 

> learning 

> styles are "metaphors for the kinds of individual differences that 

> exist." 

> If you mean that in the same way the "heart disease" is a metaphor 

> for a 

> kind of degeneration that actually exists in some people's 

> systems, I would 

> agree with you.  The only issue is then whether either kind of 

> theory can be 

> tested in a critical way, and whether we are using the best 

> metaphors to 

> identify, explore, and explain theoretically and to test, in this 

> case, the 

> different ways people learn, as well as pedagogy that actually 

> works for the 

> student.

> 

> Thanks for listening,

> 

> Catherine King

> 

> 

> 

> ----- Original Message ----- 

> From: "Susan McShane" <smcshane at famlit.org>

> To: "The Adult Literacy Professional Development Discussion List" 

> <professionaldevelopment at nifl.gov>

> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 12:47 PM

> Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1946] Re: Debunking Multiple 

> intelligences

> 

> >I agree Eric. That's the way I've always thought about these 

> things--as

> > metaphors for the kinds of individual differences that exist.

> >

> > Just vary the approaches and activities and use as many of the 

> senses as

> > you can. It seems to me that's the common-sense way to 

> understand it (no

> > pun intended).

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: professionaldevelopment-bounces at nifl.gov

> > [mailto:professionaldevelopment-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of

> > ejonline at comcast.net

> > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 3:11 PM

> > To: The Adult Literacy Professional Development Discussion List;

> > professionaldevelopment at nifl.gov

> > Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1945] Re: Debunking Multiple

> > intelligences

> >

> > I can see both sides of this discussion.

> >

> > One of the problems that I have seen with both MI and learning style

> > work is that sometimes it is presented as something other than a

> > possibly helpful heuristic. That is, it is presented like we 

> *know* that

> > the brain or thinking works in *this* way for the person in question

> > because it does so in some objective way (as if we could read a

> > schematic). This leads to thinking a person thinks in one way, 

> or worse,

> > that whole cultures and ethnicities think in one way (e.g., work in

> > Australia that tried to identify what kind of "intelligences"

> > Aboriginals have).

> >

> > Like anything else that tries to figure out the mystery of the mind,

> > these are models and metaphors. In fact,

> > over the decades we have cycled through a variety of models and

> > metaphors for cognition, typically in reaction to advances in 

> technology> (so first our brains were computing, then they were 

> conceived of as

> > being more like hypertext, next up - a social networking update on

> > connectionism).

> >

> > I think some of this work on MI and learning styles is 

> compelling and

> > helpful, but as a heuristic. You don't have to survey a room and 

> try to

> > come up with a fixed-label for the way that people think to keep 

> in mind

> > that you should vary your presentation style and that classwork 

> should> touch on multiple modalities.

> >

> > Erik Jacobson

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -------------- Original message ----------------------

> > From: "Wendy Quinones" <wbquinones at comcast.net>

> >> 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+adul

> >> t+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_Devel> opment

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >

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

> >> 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 ejonline at comcast.net

> >>

> >> Professional Development section of the Adult Literacy 

> Education Wiki

> >>

> > 

> http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Adult_Literacy_Professional_Devel> opment

> >

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

> > 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 smcshane at famlit.org

> >

> > Professional Development section of the Adult Literacy Education 

> Wiki> 

> http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Adult_Literacy_Professional_Devel> opment

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

> > 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 cb.king at verizon.net

> >

> > 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 bgiven at gmu.edu 

> 

> Professional Development section of the Adult Literacy Education 

> Wiki 

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

>