Hello Barbara and all:

Thank you to Barbara for the website--BTW, it's www.learningstyles.org (not 
.net).  I'm looking forward to exploring this site and will pass it on to my 
students.

Catherine King


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barbara K Given" <bgiven at gmu.edu>
To: "Catherine B. King" <cb.king at verizon.net>; "The Adult Literacy 
Professional Development Discussion List" <professionaldevelopment at nifl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1954] Re: Debunking Multiple 
intelligences



>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

>>

>