“My place and my pace.” (Maushak & Ou, 2007) This line is so simple yet so eloquent. I found that the three articles I selected as inspiring and connected in their meaning. In the article, “Redefining Rigor: Critical Engagement, Digital Media, and the New English/Language Arts” the authors talk about the idea of engagement. In short, all three articles talk to this point. However, in this article the authors talk about the transition many teachers have made from literature-based curriculum to a more media-focused curriculum. There is a fear that something will be lost in the translation- the richness of the experience will somehow be watered down. In particular there are many challenges an urban school may face that a rural school may not in the course of academic learning. The study was to observe and report the findings of a digital media production project in which the students “choose topics for production pieces, develop significant questions to ask, identify their sources, and determine the best way to deliver their messages.” (Dockter, Haug, & Lewis, 2010) The project had simple goals in that it was to allow students to build an individual understanding of the project process, collaboration, a formal presentation to an audience, and ultimately encourage creativity and critical thinking. What the students conveyed was a positive response to the course as being challenging, authentic, respectful, connected and encouraging investment in product, and was the hardest thing they had done in their coursework.
I found this article mirrors some of what I found serving on the Board of a charter school in Boston. This urban charter school received all the students that rest of what the Boston Public School System had expelled or suspended. Engagement was a key. Using similar ideas for graduating students, the school used portfolios as a final exam. The student was allowed to pick his topic and using his subjects in school present his or her portfolio using various media. This portfolio was meant to present their passion and future goals through their use of art, music, writing, or whatever was best suited to convey their point. The students responded very similar to those in the study, but rose to the challenge and excelled. The students used internet, collaboration, communication through alternative methods and media composition to present final projects that were used to gain 11 students admission into Ivy League colleges (5, Yale, 3 Harvard, 2 Columbia, 1 UPenn) - a dream never taken seriously in traditional literature-based curriculum. I was not sure the concept would work, but I got to see it first hand. I was proud to see these students surpass their own expectations with the use of non-traditional media-based learning.
The second article is where I started and got my opening quote. The article, “Using Synchronous Communication To Facilitate Graduate Students’ Online Collaboration” talks to this creation of a ‘third’ or safe space concept that several researchers have written about. This idea incorporates the idea of the student becoming an active participant in the learning process. I think this is what this article discusses when debating the values of synchronous versus asynchronous communications for online learners. In short, computer mediated communication (CMC) is best served with a combination of both types of communication when dealing with online learners. Asynchronous communications occur over a period of time and are often delayed to fit the online learner’s schedule to complete work. However, the article talks about using synchronous communications in concert often enhance the learning experience for all. In fact synchronous communication has been found to enhance and encourage online collaboration between students. The article details how a project model was used to study the impact synchronous communications have on the learning experience for online learners. It found that it is best when the groups are smaller, a group leader has been identified, and students take time to get to know one another. The study points to the fact that it is important that the students build a community and this one fact has significant impact on the learning experience for the online learner. This one fact highlights the uniqueness of the internet tools that make variety and interaction (engagement) important for online learning. Using podcasts, blogs, Facebook, and similar media allows students to build a community and ultimately a ‘safe’ place to learn.
The last article, “International, Online Collaboration” continues the theme of these articles. The ‘bouncing story’ activity builds upon many of the ideas talked about in the previous articles- particularly building a sense of community and engagement around the world. Through an ongoing back and forth, the students become highly motivated, real life connection, multiple interactions with peers and faculty from other countries, ongoing exchange of feedback, and the idea of team work. Students participating in this activity were then asked to talk about their experiences. As in the previous two articles, students found value in more challenging and ultimately more rewarding uses of the internet to complete projects related to learning. As this study found students thought the activity was worth the investment of time, had immediate implications, motivated them to want to do good work, and ultimately increased their knowledge of radio drama genre (particle applications).
All three of these articles speak to immediate gratification. They also speak to this idea of building a ‘safe’ community in order to motivate, collaborate and learn. Using internet based projects to have students interact at their pace produces invested and highly motivated learners. The ultimate goal is you provide a road to success and expression through alternative media platforms. Students want to express themselves and use technology they feel comfortable using. These articles highlight this main point. Learning is best when the student is invested, engaged, challenged, and receives immediate gratification (of some sort).
These articles were great!
Friday, March 26, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Howard Gardener's Multiple Intelligences
Multiple Intelligences was a novel and controversial idea of broadening the definition of intelligence when introduced. Howard Gardener proposed in his book Frames of Mind (2004 edition) the idea that the current parameters of testing and educating were limited by a narrow construct of intelligence. Gardener then went further in describing seven intelligences that broadened how human potential should be viewed and valued as it relates to skill sets that we all have in varied combinations or levels. Does Gardener present definitions of various aspects of intelligence that may include portions of the population that testing excludes? He may add credence to some of the criticism laid upon his theory as merely a self-esteem crash course. However, it would appear in this theoretical jambalaya, words are used rather loosely and opens Gardener’s theory to much interpretation. This may have been intentional.
In short, Gardener’s theory is maybe not novel at all in definition, but perhaps in application. It was purposeful that Gardener did not provide a procedure for how multiple intelligences must be used and he holds, “ Like any other theory, it can be put to different uses by different people; it is not possible, and may not be appropriate, for the originator of a theory to attempt to control the ways in which it is used.” (Gardener, 2004, p. xxxvi) Gardener professes not to dictate how to use his theory, but he does state “I cannot take responsibility for the uses or misuses to which my ideas are put by anyone who encounters them in the marketplace. Still, if someone who has worked with me were to apply the ideas in a way I could not endorse, I would ask him or her to develop a separate terminology and to desist from relating the work to my own.” (Gardener, 2004, p. xxxvii)
One of Gardener’s main points throughout his book is that intelligence is multifaceted and is conveyed to society in product, ideas and expression (verbally, bodily, personally, logically, musically). Each component is autonomous but works interdependently with the others. The framework then changes the question from ‘how intelligent a student is?’ to ‘how the student is intelligent?’ This may be why critics labeled Gardener’s theory as a self-help esteem building concept. Gardener changed the question educators should be asking. He states, “I wish to examine the educational implications of a theory….it should be possible to identify an individual’s intellectual profile (or proclivities) at an early age and then draw upon this knowledge to enhance that person’s educational opportunities and options.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 10) I think this is the most significant aspect of his theory. Gardener uses his theory to highlight the shortcomings of testing and how society labels what makes one smart. “In fact, if one were going to measure individuals, one needed numerous dimensions and tasks on which to measure and compare. It was only a matter of time before psychologists devised various tests and began to rank human beings by comparing performances on these measures.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 15) Gardener concludes that “[w]hen it comes to the interpretation of intelligence testing, we are faced with an issue of taste or preference rather than one on which scientific closure is likely to be reached.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 17)
Also of great significance is the role of culture in this theory. Gardener throughout each intelligence takes a moment to focus on the influence of culture. In realizing the affect of culture “will it be possible to determine whether theories of learning and teaching travel readily across national boundaries or must be continually refashioned in light of the particularities of each culture” (Gardener, 2004, p. 10) The various intelligences are influenced by what a particular culture values. All of the intelligences Gardener outlines in his book are (and have been) valued by human cultures.
In theory Gardener acknowledges that intelligence does have a basis in biology. “But building upon the findings from neurobiology, studied in molar as well as molecular terms, we receive a powerful hint about the possible ‘natural kinds’ of human intelligence. We cannot (even should we wish to) neatly factor culture out of this equation, because culture influences every individual (except possibly some freaks) and will, therefore, necessarily color the way that intellectual potentials evolve in the first place.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 57) Gardener joins a long debate that has been used in conversations seeking to explain homosexuality or an athlete’s abilities in a particular sport- what is natural and what is nurtured?
Development of a particular intelligence is linked to the stimuli an individual encounters in their life. These life experiences are directly tied to the values of a culture and enhance the growth of a particular intelligence through ready access of resources, reinforcement of certain behaviors, and what that culture holds as a model for students to aspire. In one culture storytelling may be a skill highly valued and in that same culture 100 years later the ability to paint takes precedence. I think Gardener is clever in that through his cultural examples he illustrates not only different cultures’ influences, but how a culture’s influence may change as it evolves or progresses. “I recognize that the ideal of what is valued will differ markedly, sometimes even radically, across human cultures, within the creation of new products or posing of new questions being of relatively little importance in some settings.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 61)
On personal note, this factor is something that I believe is what has caused much fear in the educational setting regarding Gardener’s theory. It is this acknowledgement and acceptance of a culture or cultures role in education that many traditional (white male) educators find disturbing. I think it is important to point out that evolution is not always a step forward. Acknowledging the influence of a variety of cultures may diminish what is considered the ‘norm’ culture. I think this struggle is not uniquely American. History has shown other kingdoms, countries and empires having to deal with a influx of new cultures into their own. Many have failed and I think is poses a unique challenge for this country to try to incorporate varied cultural influences into the educational system.
Linguistic and Logical-Mathematical Intelligences are the traditional benchmarks in education. As reflective in most predictors of one’s potential in college or graduate school (SAT, GRE, LSAT, MCAT, etc.), testing places more value on a linguistics, logic and math. By tradition those who illustrate particularly strong capabilities in these areas (writers, politicians, scientists) are deemed highly intelligent. Throughout history, the “ability to retain information like lengthy verbal lists, long a favorite testing area of Western psychologists, is another form of a linguistic intelligence that has been especially valued in tradition preliterate societies.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 92) Moreover, “[f]rom counting in terms of body parts found among Papuan New Guineans to the use of cowrie shells for market transactions in Africa, we see ample evidence of the agility of the human mind in wedding our natural proclivities to order and count to the carrying out of functions considered important in diverse cultural settings.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 159) These two intelligences are maybe the easiest to distinguish and could explain why most cultures have traditionally valued them as higher than some of Gardener’s other intelligences.
Musical and Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligences are ancillary components and have been recognized and valued in human history, but have taken a secondary role in the American educational system. Gardener does indicate that musical intelligence is very similar to linguistic intelligence. “Many composers, Sessions among them, have stressed the close ties that exist between music and bodily or gestural language.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 123) It is because of the value place on other intelligences that “it is probably only in recent times and in Western civilization, that the performance and appreciation of music, quite apart from movement of the body, has become just the pursuit of a tiny ‘vocal’ minority.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 123) This last point in evident through society’s willingness to support placing value on athletic and musical ability with money, fame and awards. The last three intelligences are less revered and less likely to be tested in educational settings.
Spatial, Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Intelligences relate to how one is placed in the world. These intelligences also seem to be actively involved in the development and growth of the other intelligences Gardener discusses. Spatial intelligence relates to many aspects of art and architecture. This intelligence may be the strongly linked to an individual’s life experiences. “One does find the greatest artists doing their greatest work as they get older. I think that unlike most arts or sciences, the visual arts are more connected with actual human experience. Painting and sculpture have more to do with the outside world and they are never ending.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 204) The personal intelligences are the most universal and the hardest to translate from culture to culture. “More so then in other realms, one encounters a tremendous variety of forms of interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence…..the varieties of personal intelligence prove more distinctive, less comparable, perhaps even unknowable to someone from an alien society.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 240) These two intelligences are closely linked to one another and are often used together.
Gardener makes a point to highlight how the intelligences complement one another and often work together. However, he does make the effort to distinguish the intelligences and in fact one of his criteria of what defines an intelligence points to the ability to isolate its functions. So the intelligences are distinguishable and autonomous faculties that use different parts of the brain. However, the individual intelligence’s functions rely on the various core operations of the other intelligences to develop. This aspect coupled with intuition, creativity and life experiences shape how these intelligences evolve.
As throughout all of his works (which obviously I have read some), Gardener seeks to empower individuals through development of ‘their’ intelligences. The internet is an excellent way to allow a student to tap into their stronger (more developed) intelligences since the internet can utilize logic, music, personal expression, math, language (written or verbal), bodily-kinesthetic (through video), and spatial. A teacher can focus in on a student’s more dominant intelligence in order to convey an understanding of a topic or piece of literature. One student may decide to construct a web page and another may do a video, and yet another may decide to do something different using the tools we have been shown in this class thus far. The point being they have multiple outlets to tap into multiple intelligences.
In short, Gardener’s theory is maybe not novel at all in definition, but perhaps in application. It was purposeful that Gardener did not provide a procedure for how multiple intelligences must be used and he holds, “ Like any other theory, it can be put to different uses by different people; it is not possible, and may not be appropriate, for the originator of a theory to attempt to control the ways in which it is used.” (Gardener, 2004, p. xxxvi) Gardener professes not to dictate how to use his theory, but he does state “I cannot take responsibility for the uses or misuses to which my ideas are put by anyone who encounters them in the marketplace. Still, if someone who has worked with me were to apply the ideas in a way I could not endorse, I would ask him or her to develop a separate terminology and to desist from relating the work to my own.” (Gardener, 2004, p. xxxvii)
One of Gardener’s main points throughout his book is that intelligence is multifaceted and is conveyed to society in product, ideas and expression (verbally, bodily, personally, logically, musically). Each component is autonomous but works interdependently with the others. The framework then changes the question from ‘how intelligent a student is?’ to ‘how the student is intelligent?’ This may be why critics labeled Gardener’s theory as a self-help esteem building concept. Gardener changed the question educators should be asking. He states, “I wish to examine the educational implications of a theory….it should be possible to identify an individual’s intellectual profile (or proclivities) at an early age and then draw upon this knowledge to enhance that person’s educational opportunities and options.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 10) I think this is the most significant aspect of his theory. Gardener uses his theory to highlight the shortcomings of testing and how society labels what makes one smart. “In fact, if one were going to measure individuals, one needed numerous dimensions and tasks on which to measure and compare. It was only a matter of time before psychologists devised various tests and began to rank human beings by comparing performances on these measures.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 15) Gardener concludes that “[w]hen it comes to the interpretation of intelligence testing, we are faced with an issue of taste or preference rather than one on which scientific closure is likely to be reached.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 17)
Also of great significance is the role of culture in this theory. Gardener throughout each intelligence takes a moment to focus on the influence of culture. In realizing the affect of culture “will it be possible to determine whether theories of learning and teaching travel readily across national boundaries or must be continually refashioned in light of the particularities of each culture” (Gardener, 2004, p. 10) The various intelligences are influenced by what a particular culture values. All of the intelligences Gardener outlines in his book are (and have been) valued by human cultures.
In theory Gardener acknowledges that intelligence does have a basis in biology. “But building upon the findings from neurobiology, studied in molar as well as molecular terms, we receive a powerful hint about the possible ‘natural kinds’ of human intelligence. We cannot (even should we wish to) neatly factor culture out of this equation, because culture influences every individual (except possibly some freaks) and will, therefore, necessarily color the way that intellectual potentials evolve in the first place.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 57) Gardener joins a long debate that has been used in conversations seeking to explain homosexuality or an athlete’s abilities in a particular sport- what is natural and what is nurtured?
Development of a particular intelligence is linked to the stimuli an individual encounters in their life. These life experiences are directly tied to the values of a culture and enhance the growth of a particular intelligence through ready access of resources, reinforcement of certain behaviors, and what that culture holds as a model for students to aspire. In one culture storytelling may be a skill highly valued and in that same culture 100 years later the ability to paint takes precedence. I think Gardener is clever in that through his cultural examples he illustrates not only different cultures’ influences, but how a culture’s influence may change as it evolves or progresses. “I recognize that the ideal of what is valued will differ markedly, sometimes even radically, across human cultures, within the creation of new products or posing of new questions being of relatively little importance in some settings.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 61)
On personal note, this factor is something that I believe is what has caused much fear in the educational setting regarding Gardener’s theory. It is this acknowledgement and acceptance of a culture or cultures role in education that many traditional (white male) educators find disturbing. I think it is important to point out that evolution is not always a step forward. Acknowledging the influence of a variety of cultures may diminish what is considered the ‘norm’ culture. I think this struggle is not uniquely American. History has shown other kingdoms, countries and empires having to deal with a influx of new cultures into their own. Many have failed and I think is poses a unique challenge for this country to try to incorporate varied cultural influences into the educational system.
Linguistic and Logical-Mathematical Intelligences are the traditional benchmarks in education. As reflective in most predictors of one’s potential in college or graduate school (SAT, GRE, LSAT, MCAT, etc.), testing places more value on a linguistics, logic and math. By tradition those who illustrate particularly strong capabilities in these areas (writers, politicians, scientists) are deemed highly intelligent. Throughout history, the “ability to retain information like lengthy verbal lists, long a favorite testing area of Western psychologists, is another form of a linguistic intelligence that has been especially valued in tradition preliterate societies.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 92) Moreover, “[f]rom counting in terms of body parts found among Papuan New Guineans to the use of cowrie shells for market transactions in Africa, we see ample evidence of the agility of the human mind in wedding our natural proclivities to order and count to the carrying out of functions considered important in diverse cultural settings.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 159) These two intelligences are maybe the easiest to distinguish and could explain why most cultures have traditionally valued them as higher than some of Gardener’s other intelligences.
Musical and Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligences are ancillary components and have been recognized and valued in human history, but have taken a secondary role in the American educational system. Gardener does indicate that musical intelligence is very similar to linguistic intelligence. “Many composers, Sessions among them, have stressed the close ties that exist between music and bodily or gestural language.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 123) It is because of the value place on other intelligences that “it is probably only in recent times and in Western civilization, that the performance and appreciation of music, quite apart from movement of the body, has become just the pursuit of a tiny ‘vocal’ minority.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 123) This last point in evident through society’s willingness to support placing value on athletic and musical ability with money, fame and awards. The last three intelligences are less revered and less likely to be tested in educational settings.
Spatial, Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Intelligences relate to how one is placed in the world. These intelligences also seem to be actively involved in the development and growth of the other intelligences Gardener discusses. Spatial intelligence relates to many aspects of art and architecture. This intelligence may be the strongly linked to an individual’s life experiences. “One does find the greatest artists doing their greatest work as they get older. I think that unlike most arts or sciences, the visual arts are more connected with actual human experience. Painting and sculpture have more to do with the outside world and they are never ending.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 204) The personal intelligences are the most universal and the hardest to translate from culture to culture. “More so then in other realms, one encounters a tremendous variety of forms of interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence…..the varieties of personal intelligence prove more distinctive, less comparable, perhaps even unknowable to someone from an alien society.” (Gardener, 2004, p. 240) These two intelligences are closely linked to one another and are often used together.
Gardener makes a point to highlight how the intelligences complement one another and often work together. However, he does make the effort to distinguish the intelligences and in fact one of his criteria of what defines an intelligence points to the ability to isolate its functions. So the intelligences are distinguishable and autonomous faculties that use different parts of the brain. However, the individual intelligence’s functions rely on the various core operations of the other intelligences to develop. This aspect coupled with intuition, creativity and life experiences shape how these intelligences evolve.
As throughout all of his works (which obviously I have read some), Gardener seeks to empower individuals through development of ‘their’ intelligences. The internet is an excellent way to allow a student to tap into their stronger (more developed) intelligences since the internet can utilize logic, music, personal expression, math, language (written or verbal), bodily-kinesthetic (through video), and spatial. A teacher can focus in on a student’s more dominant intelligence in order to convey an understanding of a topic or piece of literature. One student may decide to construct a web page and another may do a video, and yet another may decide to do something different using the tools we have been shown in this class thus far. The point being they have multiple outlets to tap into multiple intelligences.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Using the internet in the classroom can be a good experience or bad depending on several things. For instance, in the videos I noticed the size of the class was quite large. That was a typical class size for me in Law School and some classes that were required in my undergraduate program. So monitoring internet use in a class like that would be hard. As the second video showed, students bring laptops not necessarily for class use. This is just trying to get everyone on the same page (so to speak). As you go down and read some of the articles you have provided, there are endless issues when using the internet in a classroom and the problems can be exponential depending on the class size.
For instance a list of challenges can include plagiarism, cheating, distractions (Facebook, email, video, music, games, etc.), privacy and the constant issue of kid safety. There are other issues of accessibility and cultural equity as well. I though both videos were great. The first video really lets America know we are falling behind and China and India are quickly surpassing us in technology.
Depending on the age of the class, a teacher would have very different issues. A younger age would need to be protected more from unsafe websites, privacy and general kid safety. As the class got older and more computer savvy these issues take a back burner, but then you become more concerned about plagiarism in particular to assignments. I think as the group gets older, the class would understand many of these issues (not to say they don’t happen).
I am not sure a teacher can prevent or protect a student/class from every possible issue. The technology is constantly changing and there are always someone out there who has figured something new out.
For instance a list of challenges can include plagiarism, cheating, distractions (Facebook, email, video, music, games, etc.), privacy and the constant issue of kid safety. There are other issues of accessibility and cultural equity as well. I though both videos were great. The first video really lets America know we are falling behind and China and India are quickly surpassing us in technology.
Depending on the age of the class, a teacher would have very different issues. A younger age would need to be protected more from unsafe websites, privacy and general kid safety. As the class got older and more computer savvy these issues take a back burner, but then you become more concerned about plagiarism in particular to assignments. I think as the group gets older, the class would understand many of these issues (not to say they don’t happen).
I am not sure a teacher can prevent or protect a student/class from every possible issue. The technology is constantly changing and there are always someone out there who has figured something new out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)