Multiple Intelligences Theory  

WIKI Authors: Gabriela L. Pesantes and Amal Bukhari

---

Definitions & Characteristics of DL, and F2F:

Note: This Wiki page aims to discuss the Multiple Intelligence theory as it directly relates to Distance Learning (DL) vs. a Face to Face (F2F) Classroom.  Please see the Multiple Intelligences Theory page for a more general discussion concerning Multiple Intelligences.

 

Distance Learning (DL) or Distance Education (DE):

With some considerations in mind and using experts in the subject as references, in his well-constructed blog, Mark defines DL as:

     "An institutionally approved method of teaching a course using one or more institutionally approved and supported analog or digital communications technologies, which provide

     synchronous and/or asynchronous means to deliver and receive text and audio visual course materials and assignments, and promote interactions between instructor and student and

     student to student, who are separated by location and/or time of attendance".

He provides a carefully designed and composed mind map, organizing his definition of distance learning and combines factors of what he constitutes as the future of DL. 

 

Design & Implementation

Smith, Ferguson, and Caris's study investigates instructors' experiences teaching DL courses vs. F2F in terms of  teaching strategies used, the social implications, and the issues a media-based setting created.  The organization of Web-based on-line courses requires consider amount of time to design and develop...The instructor must look at the course in a way when adapting traditionally delivered courses to the Web. (Smith et al., 2002)

Smith et al., refer to Moore's model of DL where three types of interactions exist; learner -content, learner-teacher, and learner-to-learner.  Effective DL or Web-based learning must incorporate instruction and promote activities where these interactions can occur.

In order to create an effective communicative DL environment, Smith et al., describe the conditions that must be implemented:

• Provide warm-up exercises (known as Bell wok in F2F settings)
• Organize modules in 1-2 week fixed durations to allow students to communicate with one another
  
• Work should be self-paced within modules with firm penalties in place if work is submitted late
• For synchronous on-line courses, the professor is challenged to use many instructional activities to become better acquainted with students' work
• Communicative environment opportunities for reflection can be offered-i.e. Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Platforms in Distance Learning

• Enrich media-based written language, injecting humor and metaphor

Some consider online courses ideal for collaborative learning...experimental learning more problematic over the Web...Therefore. the instructor should design, the course to include collaboration involving real-world problems (Smith, et al., p. 3).  For some professors, students' isolated, geographic differences present a challenge in making this possible.

 

From the results of their study, Smith, et al., encountered that DL appeared to be more suitable for graduate level and elective specific courses.  Undergraduate students had more difficulty with deadlines of assignments, proper communication among learning discussion groups, constant e-mailing to professor asking for clarification, and overall, managing the time and discipline web-based learning required.  F2F class environments provided a more engaging, socially interactive, and controlled setting; the professor was the deliverer and expert of subject content, resolved misunderstandings of content, and continuously guided students’ learning.  In a DL class, the professor was the facilitator and there was more of equality in the contribution of knowledge and participation between students and teachers, and students to students.  Students who may be shy in F2F environments, are freer and more motivated to have a voice, through their written responses and assignments.  According to Smith, et al., ironically, the anonymity of the DL setting brings about a new class identity and personality.

 

DL Beginnings: Different aspects of DL settings are presented by different researchers and theoretical frameworks. Engestrom (1999) is an example of distance learning through the social-cultural lens (specifically activity theory).  In general, they agree in certain visual representations.  The Anderson and Garrison (1998) is an example of distance learning through a community of inquiry lens. The charts below, are the representations of what constituted a DL classroom environment using these theoretical frameworks:

 

 

 

Face-to-face (F2F) Learning:

Contribution from Amal:

The F2F classes had two eras. The first one, the F2F class was known as traditional education. It described a typical situation; the students listened to their teacher who was considered the instrument of transmitting knowledge to the class.  The students’ role was to listen and absorb this knowledge and applied in tests. The teacher did his\her best to facilitate presenting the abstract ideas using primary lesson instruction or individual aids, but usually she/he tended to use oral recitation. Beck in his book The Three R's Plus: What Today's Schools are Trying to Do and Why said that the traditional education is a teacher centered style.

The second era was called “progressive education”.  John Dewey described it as being "imposed from above and from outside.” The goal of using this type of education was to teach the students how to think and be creative in applying the information they learn in their future lives. This is known as the student-centered style. Progressive education motivates students to use the environment as a tool of learning. Beck said the main disadvantages which could restrict the success of F2F are time, place and using the same material to present the point for the whole class. Thus, “students that did not learn quickly enough failed, rather than being allowed to succeed at their natural speeds” (Beck, p. 3).

 

Contribution from Gabriela:

As a Foreign Language (FL) and English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) teacher, this is how I implement MI in the F2F classroom:

Physical environment of my class-F2F setting would provide for all intellects

Write lesson plans that encompass all MI's and thereby, learning styles

Provide different technologies in lesson delivery

Through assignments, provide different software and methods where students could demonstrate content mastery; i.e., PPT, websites, videos, skits, poems, brochures, pamphlets, 2D or 3D models, and a variety of individual and/or cooperative-type activities

Display exemplary student work

Connect learning to real-life issues and world cultures

Set up a website for parents or create a newsletter to inform them of what their children are doing in class

Establishing relationship with parents - to get to know my students' personalities at home.  This insight can be of great help in assessing behavior, skills, and modes of learning

 

---

What does MI "look like" in the F2F & DL classroom?

 

Andriotis (2010) pushes teachers to focus on the students, not the technologies used.

 

An MIT-Based DL Foreign Language Classroom Environment:

 

NEW AND CURRENT DL MODELS:

 

    

                                                        

Via synchronous (chat-rooms- Elluminate or Skype) and/or asynchronous (e-mail, discussion boards) venues, the above mind map, describes the aspects that encompass the DL classroom environment.  Andriotis' list offers the types of MI-related activities that can be offered in such setting.

The YouTube video link below, is a CNN report by Ted Rowlands, showing an example of a DL setting using both venues.  A California family is sending their two children to an online public school.  This type of learning has offered the possibility for both students to move at their own pace, using their intellectual strengths.  Academic learning  is comparable to that of an F2F-traditonal setting; however, as Ted Rowlands points out, its autonomous nature, can have a social impact on the students.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXmmXV4TrNQ

 

A new MIT-based DL environment, not completely supported through curriculum nor enforced by all school districts, is working on real-life projects through the digital world.  Combining project-based learning and digital tools enable students to reach learning goals and gain real-world experience.  Students collaborate across continents and study and solve problems in their own communities.  Teachers need administrators' support to plan and use project-and technology-based instruction (Boss and Kraus, 2007).

 

In discussing multicultural education, a characteristic of the Scholar Academic Curriculum ideology, Schiro (2008), emphasizes two types of equity; First, as part of their learning, teachers can offer students intellectual knowledge from the contributions of different cultures.  Secondly, independent of race, cultural background or socio-economic status, all learners have equal access to acquiring knowledge from the academic disciplines and thus, the opportunity to excel in them.

 

---

Why do teachers need to know about MI, as it relates to F2F & DL?

 

 

In DL Settings

 

In chapter four of Howard and McGrath's book, Distance education for language teachers: a UK perspective, Cowan describes the disadvantages and advantages of distance learning from his own first-hand experience both as a learner and as a tutor, in technology, science, social sciences and in theology (Howard and McGrath, p. 14).  Referred to as open learning, Cowan summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of a DL environment.  The list below is adopted from his chapter:

In open learning, learners may:

•  learn at their own pace
• control the way in which they learn
• control the content and emphasis of what they learn and
• control or shape goals and criteria, and evaluate learning       

 

Disadvantages of DL:

• makes communication between teacher and learner more difficult
• makes group work more awkward to arrange at suitable times
• introduces undesirable delays in the learning sequence
• makes casual oversight of learning progress impossible
• constraints the teacher/learner relationship and
• inhibits cooperative activity

 

Teachers need to take into consideration these advantages/disadvantages when teaching in a DL setting; furthermore, whether in teaching language or any other subject, Cowan also presents other factors that should be considered if DL and open learning is to be successful.  The MIT would be most beneficial in addressing these factors.  Cowan lists these factors in terms of questions:

• What are the relevant needs of our learners, in this subject-area?
•  Which of these can be met in the new style of presentation, and how?
• What does that leave unfulfilled on the list of learning needs?
• Are there feasible and reasonably effective ways of trying to provide a minimally adequate response, in the new format?  if so, how?
• Will the proposed outcome, overall, match or surpass the status quo?

 

As last points in this section, Cowan mentions delays that can occur in understanding certain subject content and adequately applying such content in course work, while in a DL setting; these delays, as he calls them, involve the needs of the learners and, the possible ways of coping with any gaps between needs and provision...in adult education, we have been regrettably slow to realise that we have many different types of learning goals, and that methods of teaching and learning that are appropriate for one type may be quite inappropriate for another (Smith, et al., p. 20). 

Comparatively, there are different types of learner intelligences which require different teaching methods.  Applying the MIT can effectively address the needs of ALL intellects.

 

In F2F Settings

 

A note from one of the page's authors: As a Foreign Language (FL) high school and English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) adult teacher, this is how I implement MI in the F2F classroom:

• Physical environment of my class-F2F setting would honor all intellects

• Write lesson plans that encompass all MI's and thereby, learning styles, best instructional practices, & methods; i.e.., cooperative learning groups, learning circles, Socratic Seminars, and jigsaw puzzles

• Plan a minimum of 4 activities in lessons where students could demonstrate their learning by using their "smarts" in dynamic ways, i.e., by creating, performing/acting, designing, writing, managing/directing, or organizing. 
  

• Provide different technologies in lesson delivery

• Through assignments, provide different software and methods where students could demonstrate content mastery; i.e., PPT, websites, videos, skits, poems, brochures, pamphlets, and a variety of individual and/or cooperative-type activities

• Display exemplary student work

• Connect learning to real-life issues, making connections among cultures and other languages
  

• Set up a website for parents or create a newsletter to inform them of what and how their children is doing in class

• Establish relationship with parents - to get to know my students' personalities at home.  This insight can be of great help in assessing behavior, skills, and modes of learning

 

An Important Consideration

 

Whether in a F2F or a DL environment, an MI assessment may offer professors a good baseline on who the students are and allow them to modify their teaching methods, to fit the intellects of their students.  Whether online or in the traditional setting, Andriotis encourages her students to find their strengths, by taking a Multiple Intelligence assessment,  at the beginning of the course.  The assessment offered through the Literacy Works website http://literacyworks.org/mi/intro/index.... , is one of the best.  (Andriotis, p. 131).

 

---

Why do parents need to know about MI, F2F, and DL?

 

Although educating children is a collaborative effort, it does begin at home.  Parents are children’s first educators.  In his 2011 State of the Union speech on Education, President Obama emphasized the importance of parent involvement in children's education.  Children's experiences in the first developmental years while in their family environments begin to form their perceptions and characters.  Once they reach school age and enter society, they are individuals with young defined personalities, unique intellect, and very individual learning styles.

 

Why not have parents assess their children's intellects, perhaps through the MI assessment, and evaluate how they learn, what they like or don't like, and what would be the best learning environment that fit their types of intellects.  Providing this information to schools, administrators, guidance counselors, and teachers, can be an asset in really getting to know students and assessing "How am I smart?" as stated by Gardner and quoted by Andriotis.    

 

---

How does MI, F2F, and DL concern students?

 

In some cases, students are confused with the course design and encounter problems with navigating the different tabs, links, etc..., in accessing material and resources in a DL course.  For others, DL, presents the ideal choice, in their busy life schedule.  In addition, a DL setting, as postulated by the different experts referenced in this page, decreases the chances of professors forming perceptions, assumptions, or judgements of students, thereby diminishing the possibility of stereotypes. 

In contrast, F2F environments provide continuous accessibility to professor, increased interactions with them, are likely to be more beneficial for undergraduate students, may not always need to be carefully and specifically designed and planned, and may allow for a more engaging, socially interactive, and a more controlled setting; the professor is the deliverer and expert of subject content, resolves misunderstandings of content, and continuously guides students’ learning.  Displaying exemplary student work, particularly 3D hands-on projects, such as the types done in language classes, can be easily and quickly viewed and studied, in F2F learning environments.  Immersion in language, requires an authentic, exploratory, and real-life setting.  Can this experience be optimized equally in both types of settings or is DL becoming the preferred option? 

 

Like suggested for parents, students need to assess their intellects, perhaps through the MI assessment, from the Literacy Works website http://literacyworks.org/mi/intro/index...., and evaluate what would be the best learning environment that fits their type of intellect. 

A Personal Note from one of the authors: In my years of teaching in a high school under restructuring, I administered a Personality, Getting to Know You, or some other form of an MI assessment.  Analyzing the data offered in these assessments, was extremely involved, BUT it proved to be an invaluable tool for me in designing rich MI theory-based language activities!

---

Further Considerations for Research & Authors' Perspectives

As students in higher learning, professors and institutions take into account many of the points mentioned throughout this page, when designing and delivering DL courses; however, to date, I have not found much literature that investigates and analyzes, courses taken via virtual school learning, particularly in high school settings.  This is an area where further research should focus.  Specifically in regards to teaching foreign language, I have often witnessed how students opt to take courses such as French or Spanish, via virtual school, and soon after enrolling in the course, they find the DL setting much less productive and interesting than its  F2F counterpart. 

 

Further research may need to explore the following questions:

•  What should high school students know before taking a foreign language course through the Web, in a DL or a F2F setting? 
• Are there different mechanisms of communication offered in these settings? 
• Are the different types of intellects (MI's) considered when designing the course, the activities, and the software that will be used for assignments? 
• Are social and cultural differences honored?
• How can they effectively prepare for DL courses if most of their educational experience has been via a F2F setting? 
• Is there a difference in grading policies between DL and F2F high school courses?  If so, what are they?

 

As an example of why further research is necessary, in higher learning courses, the distribution of grades in online classes often has a "U"-shaped curve instead of the bell-shaped normal distribution (Smith, et al., p.22).

---

Great MI Resources at Your Fingertips:

 

• Gaby's Pamphlet-Study Group Synthesis.doc

 

• http://www.wix.com/gabylorena31/curriculum-platform

 

---

Further reading about MI, F2F, and DL (Parenthetical citations)

 

 

Reference List

 

Andriotis, K. (2010). The Use of Multiple Intelligence, humor, and technology in the college composition classroom: A Practical approach. Social Applications for Lifelong Learning

     (pp. 127-135). Patras: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, Lifelong Learning Programme.

 

Annstrong, T.A., Kennedy, T.J., & Coggine, P. (2002). Summarizing concepts about teacher education, learning and neuroscience. Northwest Passage: NWATE Journal of Education

     Practices, 2(1), 9-13.

 

Boss, S, & Krauss, Jane. (2007). Real projects in a digital world. Department of Education, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.

 

Cowan, J. (1995). The advantages and disadvantages of distance education. In R.Howard, & I. McGrath (Eds.), Distance education for language teachers: A UK perspective (pp. 14-20). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

 

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: BasicBooks.

 

Gilam, Lynn (2001). The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Retrieved from: http://www.homeeddirectory.com/blog/multiple-intelligences-visualspatial-learner. (Nov.4,2011).

 

Howard, R., & McGrath, I. (1995). Distance Education for Language Teachers : A UK Perspective. Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

 

Kang, H. & Gyorke, A. (2008): Rethinking distance learning activities: a comparison of transactional distance theory and activity theory. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and      e-Learning, 23:3, 203-214

 

Kari A. Wold, (2011). Blending theories for instructional design: creating and implementing the structure, environment, experience, and people (SEEP) model. Computer Assisted Language

     Learning 24:4, pages 371-382.

 

Lazear, D. G. (1991). Seven ways of teaching: The artistry of teaching with multiple intelligences. Palatine, Ill: Skylight Pub.

 

New Jersey Parent involvement and Intervention Center , (2010). Parent Involvement in Education: The Key to Future Success [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com

 

Pesantes, G. L. (Producer). (2011). My curriculum platform. [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.wix.com/create/my-account.

 

Schiro, M. S.  (2008). Curriculum theory: conflicting visions and enduring concepts. Boston, MA: Sage Publications.

 

Smith, G. (2002). The web versus the classroom: Instructor experiences in discussion-based and mathematics-based disciplines. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(1), 29-59.

 

Wartowski, D. (2011). President Barack Obama on Education: from the State of the Union. [Web].  Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7Y40KHd2Rg&NR=1