Working Theory of Practice Page 4
This whole realization got me ecstatic about the idea that there was hope for the“sleepers” in my class. If I could somehow find the learning style that suited them, and use it, this would make class a lot more fun for them, and it would theoretically help them to get more engaged with the subject material, and the be more likely to learn it.
Yet one of the realizations that I had with this activity was that I would not be able to use a learning style that suited everyone all of the time. In other words, students learn in different ways—some are more lecture oriented, while as others need that movement aspect to really drive the point home. However, I cannot just do one or the other, for that wouldn’t be fair to the students for whom that activity was not their strength. As I mentioned above in my example, my group of normal leaders in the class fell to the wayside with this new activity even though there was a new group of leaders that emerged. This means that that style of learning may not have worked for everyone, which brings up the concept of differentiated instruction.
Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) state that the primary goal of differentiated instruction is to “ensure that teachers focus on processes and procedures that ensure effective learning for varied individuals (3).” In other words, using different techniques for different individuals so that everyone’s learning style can be catered to in the classroom. In this sense, teachers should teach in many different ways and present ideas in multiple models so that the majority of students can be reached. But what I’m beginning to wonder is how multiple intelligence theory can be used to fuel differentiated instruction in order to get more of the students engaged; if students all have these different strengths and weaknesses in the intelligences that they naturally have, how can this be harnessed into creating different instruction techniques so as to maximally engage them and help them to understand the content material? How can we use multiple intelligence theory as a basis to differentiate instruction and get a larger portion of the students to both engage in class and learn the content material?
Yet one of the realizations that I had with this activity was that I would not be able to use a learning style that suited everyone all of the time. In other words, students learn in different ways—some are more lecture oriented, while as others need that movement aspect to really drive the point home. However, I cannot just do one or the other, for that wouldn’t be fair to the students for whom that activity was not their strength. As I mentioned above in my example, my group of normal leaders in the class fell to the wayside with this new activity even though there was a new group of leaders that emerged. This means that that style of learning may not have worked for everyone, which brings up the concept of differentiated instruction.
Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) state that the primary goal of differentiated instruction is to “ensure that teachers focus on processes and procedures that ensure effective learning for varied individuals (3).” In other words, using different techniques for different individuals so that everyone’s learning style can be catered to in the classroom. In this sense, teachers should teach in many different ways and present ideas in multiple models so that the majority of students can be reached. But what I’m beginning to wonder is how multiple intelligence theory can be used to fuel differentiated instruction in order to get more of the students engaged; if students all have these different strengths and weaknesses in the intelligences that they naturally have, how can this be harnessed into creating different instruction techniques so as to maximally engage them and help them to understand the content material? How can we use multiple intelligence theory as a basis to differentiate instruction and get a larger portion of the students to both engage in class and learn the content material?