Working Theory of Practice Page 3
But what was it about that activity? Why did I have such a high level of engagement, and how can I somehow maintain that when I’m regularly delivering material? As I was wondering some of these things out loud, my Penn Mentor suggested that I figure out which multiple intelligences were being drawn on in each activity. Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory is one in which the idea is that none of us have one intelligence that is measureable by IQ, but rather, all of us have eight different kinds of intelligences, including logical-mathematical, spatial, linguistic, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, and existential intelligences (Gardner, 1998). Yet none of us have one or the other, but everyone has all of them, though some may be stronger than others (Gardner, 1998) For example, a person with a very highly developed musical intelligence might excel at writing a song for a class, however, they might not be as good at math problems if their logical/mathematical intelligence is not as developed.
As per my Penn mentor’s suggestion, I analyzed which intelligences were present in each station and found that “…there were 5 intelligences in total that were used in this activity: linguistic, logical/mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and interpersonal… (Journal 6, 2012).” This led me to thinking that maybe this was the reason the review activity had been such a hit with the students—there was something there for everyone to excel at. Most times, lecture is solely visual, linguistic, and logical-mathematical oriented in a chemistry class, but this activity allowed them to add in another aspect of the linguistic intelligence as well as spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and interpersonal intelligences. Maybe this way why I had such a high participation rate: most students were somehow working with the material in a way that made sense to them with the intelligence that they were strong at. Furthermore, maybe this was why I had that whole new group of leaders emerge in the class: there was finally an activity that they felt they could lead at. Maybe they are not strong in the visual, linguistic, and logical-mathematical intelligences that are more prevalent in lecture, but they need that kinesthetic, or interpersonal touch. Weinstein and Novodvorsky (2011) support this idea, that including items that students are strong at in a lesson, because they argue that it is important to search for students strengths as opposed to their weaknesses when teaching them and when getting them to learn, for when you find a student’s strength, you can use that to teach them. And if a student’s strength is in a certain kind of intelligence, then shouldn’t that be used to teach students as well?
As per my Penn mentor’s suggestion, I analyzed which intelligences were present in each station and found that “…there were 5 intelligences in total that were used in this activity: linguistic, logical/mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and interpersonal… (Journal 6, 2012).” This led me to thinking that maybe this was the reason the review activity had been such a hit with the students—there was something there for everyone to excel at. Most times, lecture is solely visual, linguistic, and logical-mathematical oriented in a chemistry class, but this activity allowed them to add in another aspect of the linguistic intelligence as well as spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and interpersonal intelligences. Maybe this way why I had such a high participation rate: most students were somehow working with the material in a way that made sense to them with the intelligence that they were strong at. Furthermore, maybe this was why I had that whole new group of leaders emerge in the class: there was finally an activity that they felt they could lead at. Maybe they are not strong in the visual, linguistic, and logical-mathematical intelligences that are more prevalent in lecture, but they need that kinesthetic, or interpersonal touch. Weinstein and Novodvorsky (2011) support this idea, that including items that students are strong at in a lesson, because they argue that it is important to search for students strengths as opposed to their weaknesses when teaching them and when getting them to learn, for when you find a student’s strength, you can use that to teach them. And if a student’s strength is in a certain kind of intelligence, then shouldn’t that be used to teach students as well?