On the Topic of: Multiple Intelligences

The following is a response to Concept to Classroom: Multiple Intelligences, a workshop on understanding and using the theory of Multiple Intelligences to improve classroom teaching.

No debate here. I've seen it in action too many times, that need to explain things in more than one way before everyone in the room understands what you're trying to say. I understand my own issues with it very well, I am generally a visual learner and understand things best when I see them, which includes preferring the written word over verbalized communication. In college it was very important to me to copy anything the professors wrote on the board, especially drawings, add drawings to my own notes on topics that were being discussed to help me remember what I visualized at the time of the discussion and copy down as much of the lecture as I could, since it would be remembered and learned in the very act of writing it, where listening went "in one ear and out the other."

Implementing it in the classroom is much tougher. You have a limited amount of time, and in our current educational system, too much to teach to get the students to pass the test. The effort to address each topic from a variety of perspectives in order to reach students of all learning styles is difficult, at best. But certainly not impossible, and definitely an effort that pays off and is necessary if you want to reach everyone and give them the best possible chance to learn the material.

For science, there are many ways to implement techniques for teaching to multiple intelligences. Most topics in a science class lend themselves to either the traditional written or multiple choice tests or for experimentation and presentation as ways to evaluate learning. Interpersonal and Intrapersonal intelligences are stimulated through lab work (generally a group activity) or report writing (an individual activity). Reading and discussion aids the verbal and linguistic intelligences, while diagramming a cell or the process of respiration brings home the message for the visual intelligences. What I love about science is the way it brings together so many subjects and can be a gathering point for people of many intelligences.

Learning centers are a common way of addressing the needs of multiple intelligences in a classroom. They are most popular in elementary and middle school; however, as a future high school science teacher, I can still consider ways that they can enrich learning in my own classroom. In a science classroom these can be places where various long-term experiments are taking place, where related research from other sources are available, where related experiments can be done by individuals or groups and conclusions can be drawn. Lab work is a common idea here, where the jobs of data collection, note taking, mechanical operations for the experiment, observation and discussion can be shared in a group, with each student taking the role that fits their intelligences best, but then in sharing the work and the results they all can learn from the experience.

Presentations are another great tool, and one that can be used for assessment. Here, students are motivated to learn the material because they know the test of the material will be on their own terms. The more visual or musically inclined will include those types of elements in their presentation. For the verbal intelligences, you may see more of a lecture-type presentation. Whatever they use to present the material, there's probably been a greater amount of research, work and effort made then there would be in preparation for a traditional test.

The way information is presented by the instructor (me) should also follow those ideas. A basic and traditional lecture won't be received by all students the same way. Using elements of each of the intelligences, even in a limited way, will help to trigger the learning process for each student and draw them into the topic, even if not all material is presented in the way that is best for them. This is part of the multiple intelligences theory, that we all contain the ability to learn through each way, we just have tendencies toward faster development in certain areas. Using those ideas to draw them into the topic, then stimulating another aspect of their intelligence is a way to further their all around growth.

In teaching to multiple intelligences, we risk not having taught students the skills and information they need to pass the standardized tests that are now mandatory in our classrooms. This is one of the fears and, along with the time-consumption involved in finding multiple ways to reinforce material, it's sure to be raise alarms with classroom teachers and critics alike. However, the ways that people minds function are certainly different, and the expansion of learning options that come from increasing technology and access to Internet and vast stores of knowledge means that we can't continue to ignore the obvious fact that some students will learn faster in some ways then others. The educational system needs at least some revision from the bottom up in order to make it possible to fully explore the options of teaching to multiple intelligences, so that the assessments and requirements are also fair to all, giving all students the opportunities they will most benefit from (not, "all the same opportunities"!) before they enter our ever-evolving society.

Developing my Philosophy of Teaching

As I was browsing through the required readings on Teaching Philosophy Statements to accompany my future portfolio, my thought process went from, "eh, this isn't so hard" to "geez, I don't think I can really define my whole philosophy yet, I mean, I know what I like, but it's in 4th & 5th grade classrooms... not high school biology labs... how do they relate?"

So, some day, I'm sure I'll need to write a whole Philosophy of Teaching. This is neither the time nor the place for it. But it's a good place to take some notes. One of the interesting things to consider about the philosophy statement is that it is both cause and effect, as well as ever-evolving. While refining ideas and committing them to paper, you start to really consider what actions you use that demonstrate (or don't) the things that you claim to believe in. In writing it, you can create the effect of working toward being the teacher you want to be. And as you experience more as a teacher, you develop and change your philosophy, defining it and re-defining it as the situation requires. Though, hopefully, your true philosophy, what you really believe to be true about how a student learns your subject, and how to reach students and aid them as they develop skills they need in your subject or in life as a whole, doesn't change to meet a new situation, just changes in the way it is implemented.

Which means that there must be some underlying ties between what I believe works for me in a classroom full of 4th graders, or will work for me in the future when faced with a room of high school sophomores. What, though? Where are the similarities, what will be the same?

First, every student has the ability to learn the basic skills to study science. They may not be able to memorize every chemical reaction in the steps of the Krebs Cycle (part of cellular respiration) but they can understand the role of the different cycles in the life cycle of the plant. They may not have any interest in knowing names of species of trees or insects, but they may find a connection to the study of ecology and the cycles therein. And biology is about the systems and how they work, from the large to the small. Understanding that any topic is about putting together the pieces to see the big picture of the system is a basic skill, and some students learn it best from the top down (how the system works and what small pieces it needs) and others from bottom up (what the chemicals are, what the pieces are, how they fit together to create a system). So any topic must be presented to show both. I teach whenever possible by explaining the big picture and narrowing in to some of the pieces. And I believe in testing on both equally. Can you tell me why the system is important? Can you identify the pieces?

I love working with students one-on-one. I tend to begin a majority of my classes with a brief introduction-lecture and then do an activity/assignment. In my current teaching, that's the hands-on activity that's more-or-less planned for them. In the future, it might be some reading, an experiment, a research project, or other assignment. During the activity, I work the room, looking for common questions (which help me know when there's something I should have/could have explained more fully, which things the majority may not have the prior experience to fully understand without further guidance, etc) and then know either what to do differently next time while I answer the questions in a personalized way, or know when to interrupt the class and bring them back to a discussion or further lecture/review from another perspective. What will help the majority, before I go back to the individualized guidance that will bring the perspective each student needs in order to learn the subject.

Which means that it's very important to me to know the content of my subject matter inside and out. Can I explain it from multiple perspectives, can I create activities that stimulate learners of any style (the visual processors, the verbal communicators, the artists, the engineers) to guide them into the topic? And, no matter how they've gotten to their question, will I be able to understand it to also guide them to the answer?

Guiding them (not leading them) to the answer is imperative to me. I'd rather they use a good, clear thought process, and get the wrong answer then have them use a muddy thought process or a simple guess and be right only because I gave them the answer too soon. Can they take their wrong answer and test it again? This is of course a best-practices tactic only on experiments and activities when testing the wrong answer doesn't become dangerous, but will lead them to see that they've obviously made a wrong turn somewhere. Then we can work together to backtrack to where their answer came derailed and try again.

I guess I had more to write then I thought. I hope my philosophy becomes better defined over time, but those seem like good ideas to start with.