Module 3: Learning styles and Multi

Module 3: Learning styles and Multiple Intelligences

This module aims at helping students to have basic notions about learning styles and multiple Intelligences and how to apply them to language classrooms.

I. Learning Styles

Learning-style theory begins with Carl Jung (1927), who noted major differences in the way people perceived (sensation versus intuition), the way they made decisions (logical thinking versus imaginative feelings), and how active or reflective they were while interacting (extroversion versus introversion). Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs (1977), who created the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and founded the Association of Psychological Type, applied Jung's work and influenced a generation of researchers trying to understand specific differences in human learning. Key researchers in this area include Anthony Gregorc (1985), Kathleen Butler (1984), Bernice McCarthy (1982), and Harvey Silver and J. Robert Hanson (1995). Although learning-style theorists interpret the personality in various ways, nearly all models have two things in common:

A focus on process. Learning-style models tend to concern themselves with the process of learning: how individuals absorb information, think about information, and evaluate the results.

An emphasis on personality. Learning-style theorists generally believe that learning is the result of a personal, individualized act of thought and feeling.

Most learning-style theorists have settled on four basic styles:

The Mastery style learner absorbs information concretely; processes information sequentially, in a step-by-step manner; and judges the value of learning in terms of its clarity and practicality.

The Understanding style learner focuses more on ideas and abstractions; learns through a process of questioning, reasoning, and testing; and evaluates learning by standards of logic and the use of evidence.

The Self-Expressive style learner looks for images implied in learning; uses feelings and emotions to construct new ideas and products; and judges the learning process according to its originality, aesthetics, and capacity to surprise or delight.

The Interpersonal style learner like the Mastery learner, focuses on concrete, palpable information; prefers to learn socially; and judges learning in terms of its potential use in helping others.

Learning styles are not fixed throughout life, but develop as a person learns and grows. Our approximate breakdown of the percentages of people with strengths in each style is as follows: Mastery, 35 percent; Understanding, 18 percent; Self-Expressive, 12 percent; and Interpersonal, 35 percent (Silver and Strong 1997).

Most learning-style advocates would agree that all individuals develop and practice a mixture of styles as they live and learn. Most people's styles flex and adapt to various contexts, though to differing degrees. In fact, most people seek a sense of wholeness by practicing all four styles to some degree. Educators should help students discover their unique profiles, as well as a balance of styles.

Strengths and Limitations of a Learning-Style Model

The following are some strengths of learning-style models:

- They tend to focus on how different individuals process information across many content areas.

- They recognize the role of cognitive and affective processes in learning and, therefore, can significantly deepen our insights into issues related to motivation.

- They tend to emphasize thought as a vital component of learning, thereby avoiding reliance on basic and lower-level learning activities.

Learning-styles models have a couple of limitations. First, they may fail to recognize how styles vary in different content areas and disciplines.

Second, these models are sometimes less sensitive than they should be to the effects of context on learning. Emerging from a tradition that viewed style as relatively permanent, many learning-style advocates advised altering learning environments to match or challenge a learner's style. Either way, learning-style models have largely left unanswered the question of how context and purpose affect learning.

2. Multiple Intelligence Theory

Fourteen years after the publication of Frames of Mind (Gardner 1983), the clarity and comprehensiveness of Howard Gardner's design continue to dazzle the educational community. Who could have expected that a reconsideration of the word intelligence would profoundly affect the way we see ourselves and our students?

Gardner describes seven intelligences:

verbal-linguistic: facility in producing language;

musical: sensitivity to components of music as well as to emotional implications;

logic-mathematical: ability to reason deductively or inductively and recognize and manipulate abstract relationships;

spatial: ability to create visual representations of the world and transfer them mentally or concretely;

kinesthetic: use of one’s body to solve problems, make things, and convey ideas and emotions;

interpersonal: ability to work effectively with others and understand their emotions, goals, and intentions;

intrapersonal: ability to understand one’s own emotions, goals, and intentions; and

naturalistic: capacity to recognize and make distinctions in the natural world and use the ability productively (Nicholson-Nelson 1998); has keen sensory skills (Dickinson 1999).

USING MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN THE CLASSROOM

Accepting Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences has several implications for teachers in terms of classroom instruction. The theory states that all seven intelligences are needed to productively function in society. Teachers, therefore, should think of all intelligences as equally important. This is in great contrast to traditional education systems which typically place a strong emphasis on the development and use of verbal and mathematical intelligences. Thus, the Theory of Multiple Intelligences implies that educators should recognize and teach to a broader range of talents and skills.

Another implication is that teachers should structure the presentation of material in a style which engages most or all of the intelligences. For example, when teaching about the revolutionary war, a teacher can show students battle maps, play revolutionary war songs, organize a role play of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and have the students read a novel about life during that period. This kind of presentation not only excites students about learning, but it also allows a teacher to reinforce the same material in a variety of ways. By activating a wide assortment of intelligences, teaching in this manner can facilitate a deeper understanding of the subject material.

Everyone is born possessing the seven intelligences. Nevertheless, all students will come into the classroom with different sets of developed intelligences. This means that each child will have his own unique set of intellectual strengths and weaknesses. These sets determine how easy (or difficult) it is for a student to learn information when it is presented in a

particular manner. This is commonly referred to as a learning style. Many learning styles can be found within one classroom. Therefore, it is impossible, as well as impractical, for a teacher to accommodate every lesson to all of the learning styles found within the classroom. Nevertheless the teacher can show students how to use their more developed intelligences to assist in the understanding of a subject which normally employs their weaker intelligences (Lazear, 1992). For example, the teacher can suggest that an especially musically intelligent child learn about the revolutionary war by making up a song about what happened.

3. Intergrating Learning-Style Model with Multiple Intelligences theory

In integrating these major theories of knowledge, we moved through three steps. First, we attempted to describe, for each of Gardner's intelligences, a set of four learning processes or abilities, one for each of the four learning styles. For linguistic intelligence, for example, the Mastery style represents the ability to use language to describe events and sequence activities; the Interpersonal style, the ability to use language to build trust and rapport; the Understanding style, the ability to develop logical arguments and use rhetoric; and the Self-expressive style, the ability to use metaphoric and expressive language.

Figure 1. Sample "Kinesthetic" Vocations by Style

Mastery The ability to use the body and tools to take effective action or to construct or repair. Mechanic, Trainer, Contractor, Craftsperson, Tool and Dye Maker Interpersonal The ability to use the body to build rapport, to console or persuade, and to support others. Coach, Counselor, Salesperson, Trainer

Kinesthetic

Understanding

The ability to plan strategically or to

critique the actions of the body.

Physical Educator, Sports Analyst, Self-Expressive The ability to appreciate the aesthetics of the body and to use those values to create new forms of expression.

Professional Athlete, Dance Critic Sculptor, Choreographer, Actor, Dancer, Mime, Puppeteer

Next, we listed samples of vocations that people are likely to choose, given particular intelligence and learning-style profiles. Working in this way, we devised a model that linked the process-centered approach of learning styles and the content and product-driven multiple intelligence theory.

Figure 2 shows how you might construct a classroom display of information about intelligences, styles, and possible vocations. Consider kinesthetic intelligence and the difference between a Tiger Woods and a Gene Kelly: People who excel in this intelligence, with an Understanding style, might be professional athletes (like Tiger Woods), dance critics, or sports analysts; people with a Self-expressive style might be sculptors, choreographers, dancers (like Gene Kelly), actors, mimes, or puppeteers.

Figure 2. Student Choice: Assessment Products by Intelligence a