I agree with you about the need to maintain the connection with
research. I don't argue for common sense instead of research-based
theory and practice. The problem I've had in the past with identifying
individual learning styles has to do with the assessments. The ones I
recall (and it's been a good while since I've looked at this) couldn't
be valid measures when used with any adult with reading problems. If you
prefer to learn something by watching a demonstration or trying it out
yourself, it may simply be because you're not a good reader. It may have
nothing to do with not being a "visual learner." I remembered that they
were tested with college students, and I also remember being concerned
that they might not be appropriate for many of our ABE and literacy
students. 

Multiple intelligences seems to be a somewhat broader concept and I find
it easier to reconcile with my sense of the kinds of differences that
exist, but I keep an open mind about all of this, and (when I have the
time!) I'd like to look at some of the more recent research. I'm sure
I'm well behind the times!  

-----Original Message-----
From: professionaldevelopment-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:professionaldevelopment-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Catherine
B. King
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:28 AM
To: The Adult Literacy Professional Development Discussion List
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_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