slingblade
18th February 2006, 09:27 AM
Gardner's Multiple Intelligences is, in my opinion, an excellent way to think about learning styles, and is a helpful tool in creating differentiated lesson plans. This tool suggests that people have different ways and styles of learning which can be observed and categorized, and addressed with different teaching methods to help advance student learning.
Yes, I absolutely know that education is rife with new Buzzwords and "new" strategies, of which "differentiation" is but one of the latest. Being a very visual learner, and having just endured four and one-half years of lecture in college, however, I can tell you anecdotally that I received better grades in those courses which were more visually-oriented, than in those which were primarily auditory. Moreover, I believe I learned more material and retained it better in such visual classes.
In doing research on learning styles for one of my Edu courses, I came across articles which suggested that high intelligence is often found in the company of high emotional sensitivity, and is usually expressed by observers as: "S/he's so smart, but s/he's such a child!"
One of the exciting things about MI is that new types of learning can be discovered and added to the current types already recognized. Today I came across an article which suggests a new learning style, and I wanted to share it on the forum. I'm curious about what other educators think about this, as well as about MI and differentiation in general.
The new style is caring intelligence: students who learn through empathy, or through making an emotional connection to the material presented in the classroom, due to a high level of emotional sensitivity.
Link to the article:
http://www.nexus.edu.au/teachstud/gat/brunt.htm
I'm aware there will be folks here who think Gardner's MI is so much hoo-hah and fluff. I welcome disagreement and discussion. I don't think one should rely on any one teaching method, strategy, or indicator for one's pedagogy. But I think MI has value to a certain extent, and can assist us in developing instruction which reaches a broader variety of students, at least somewhat. IOW, I feel reaching a child's intellect even lightly and briefly is better than never reaching it at all.
My question, therefore: is "caring intelligence" possibly valid and sound, and would it improve learning to add awareness of this intelligence through Gardner's, and to try to include empathetic instruction in the classroom from time to time?
Yes, I absolutely know that education is rife with new Buzzwords and "new" strategies, of which "differentiation" is but one of the latest. Being a very visual learner, and having just endured four and one-half years of lecture in college, however, I can tell you anecdotally that I received better grades in those courses which were more visually-oriented, than in those which were primarily auditory. Moreover, I believe I learned more material and retained it better in such visual classes.
In doing research on learning styles for one of my Edu courses, I came across articles which suggested that high intelligence is often found in the company of high emotional sensitivity, and is usually expressed by observers as: "S/he's so smart, but s/he's such a child!"
One of the exciting things about MI is that new types of learning can be discovered and added to the current types already recognized. Today I came across an article which suggests a new learning style, and I wanted to share it on the forum. I'm curious about what other educators think about this, as well as about MI and differentiation in general.
The new style is caring intelligence: students who learn through empathy, or through making an emotional connection to the material presented in the classroom, due to a high level of emotional sensitivity.
Link to the article:
http://www.nexus.edu.au/teachstud/gat/brunt.htm
I'm aware there will be folks here who think Gardner's MI is so much hoo-hah and fluff. I welcome disagreement and discussion. I don't think one should rely on any one teaching method, strategy, or indicator for one's pedagogy. But I think MI has value to a certain extent, and can assist us in developing instruction which reaches a broader variety of students, at least somewhat. IOW, I feel reaching a child's intellect even lightly and briefly is better than never reaching it at all.
My question, therefore: is "caring intelligence" possibly valid and sound, and would it improve learning to add awareness of this intelligence through Gardner's, and to try to include empathetic instruction in the classroom from time to time?