Multiple Intelligences in the structure of a new English syllabus for secondary school

had little or no experience with a particular subject matter or type of material. For example, our examination of bodily-kinesthetic abilities in a movement assessment for preschoolers was confounded by the fact that some four-year-olds had already been to ballet classes, whereas others had never been asked to move their bodies

expressively or in rhythm. This recognition reinforced the notion that bodily-kinesthetic intelligence cannot be assessed outside of a specific medium or without reference to a history of prior experiences.

   Together, these demands for assessments that are intelligence fair, are based on culturally valued activities, and take place within a familiar context naturally lead to an approach that blurs the distinctions between curriculum and assessment. Drawing information from the regular curriculum ensures that the activities are familiar;

introducing activities in a wide range of areas makes it possible to challenge and examine each intelligence in an appropriate manner. Tying the activities to inviting pursuits enables students to discover and develop abilities that in turn increase their chances of experiencing a sense of engagement and of achieving some success in their society.

                           Putting Theory into Practice

    In the past five years, this approach to assessment has been explored in projects at several different levels of schooling. At the junior and senior high school level, Arts PROPEL, a collaborative project with the Educational Testing Service and the Pittsburgh Public School System, seeks to assess growth and learning in areas like music, imaginative writing, and visual arts, which are neglected by most standard

measures .Arts PROPEL has developed a series of modules, or "domain

projects," that serve the goals of both curriculum and assessment. These projects feature sets of exercises and curriculum activities organized around a concept central to a specific artistic domainsuch as notation in music, character and dialogue in play writing, and graphic composition in the visual arts. The drafts, sketches, and final products generated by these and other curriculum activities are collected in portfolios

(sometimes termed "process-folios"), which serve as a basis for assessment of growth by both the teacher and the student. Although the emphasis thus far has fallen on local classroom assessments, efforts are also under way to develop criteria whereby student accomplishment can be evaluated by external examiners.

   At the elementary level, Patricia Bolanos and her colleagues have used MI theory to design an entire public school in downtown Indianapolis . Through a variety of special classes (e.g., computing, bodily/kinesthetic activities) and enrichment activities (a "flow" center and apprentice-like "pods"), all children in the Key School are given the opportunity to discover their areas of strength and to develop the full range of intelligences. In addition, over the course of a year, each

child executes a number of projects based on schoolwide themes, such as "Man and His Environment" or "Changes in Time and Space." These projects are presented and videotaped for subsequent study and analysis. A team of researchers from Harvard Project Zero is now engaged in developing a set of criteria whereby these videotaped projects can be assessed. Among the dimensions under consideration are project

conceptualization, effectiveness of presentation, technical quality of project, and originality, as well as evidence for cooperative efforts and distinctive individual features.

   A third effort, Project Spectrum, co-directed by David Feldman of Tufts University, has developed a number of curriculum activities and assessment options suited to the "child-centered" structure of many preschools and kindergartens .

 At present, there are fifteen different activities, each of which taps a

particular intelligence or set of intelligences. Throughout the year, a Spectrum classroom is equipped with "intelligence-fair" materials. Miniature replicas and props invite children to deploy linguistic intelligence within the context of story telling; household objects that children can take apart and reassemble challenge children's

spatial intelligence in a mechanical task; a "discovery" area including natural objects like rocks, bones, and shells enables children to use their logical abilities to conduct small "experiments," comparisons, and classifications; and group activities such as a biweekly creative movement session can be employed to give children the

opportunity to exercise their bodily-kinesthetic intelligence on a regular basis.

Provision of this variety of "high-affordance" materials allows children to gain experiences that engage their several intelligences, even as teachers have the chance unobtrusively to observe and assess children's strengths, interests, and proclivities.

More formal assessment of intelligences is also possible. Researchers can administer specific games to children and apply detailed scoring systems that have been developed for research purposes. For instance, in the bus game, children's ability to organize numerical information is scored by noting the extent to which they can keep track of the number of adults and children getting on and off a bus. Adults and children and on and off constitute two different dimensions. Thus, a child can receive

one of the following scores:

One dimensions recorded;

1.disorganized recording of one dimension (either adults and children or on and off);

2.labeled, accurate recording of one dimension;

3.disorganized recording of two dimensions;

4.disorganized recording of one dimension and labeled, accurate recording of one dimension; or 5labeled, accurate recording of two dimensions .

  They have also created a related instrument, the Modified Spectrum Field Inventory, that samples several intelligences in the course of two one-hour sessions. Although this inventory does not draw directly from the curriculum, it is based on the kinds of materials and activities that are common in many preschools. In addition, related

materials from the Spectrum curriculum can be implemented in the classroom to ensure that the children will be familiar with the kinds of tasks and materials used in the inventory.

Preliminary Results from
Project Spectrum

Although none of these programs is in final form, and thus any evaluation must be considered preliminary and tentative, the results so far at the pilot sites seem promising. The value of rich and evocative materials has been amply documented. In the classrooms in Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, and Boston, teachers report heightened motivation on the part of the students, even as students themselves appreciate the opportunity to reflect on their own growth and development. Moreover, our programs with both older and younger children confirm that a consideration of a broader range

of talents brings to the fore individuals who previously had been considered unexceptional or even at risk for school failure.

As for the assessment instruments under development, only those of Project Spectrum have been field tested in classrooms. In 1987-89, they used these instruments in two different settings to investigate the hypothesis that the intelligences are largely independent of one another. To examine this hypothesis, we sought to determine (a)

whether young children exhibit distinct profiles of intellectual strengths and weaknesses, and (b) whether or not performances on activities designed to tap different intelligences are significantly correlated. In the 1987-88 academic year, twenty children from a primarily white, upper-middle-income population took part in a year-long Spectrum program. In the 1988-89 academic year, the Modified Spectrum

Field Inventory was piloted with fifteen children in a combined kindergarten and first-grade classroom. This classroom was in a public school in a low- to middle-income school district.

   In the preschool study, children were assessed on ten different activities (story telling, drawing, singing, music perception, creative movement, social analysis, hypothesis testing, assembly, calculation and counting, and number and notational logic) as well as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition. To compare children's

performances across each of the activities, standard deviations were calculated for each activity. Children who scored one or more standard deviations above the mean were judged to have a strength on that activity; those who scored one or more standard deviations below the mean were considered to have a weakness on that activity. This analysis revealed that these children did not perform at the same level across activities and suggested that they do have distinct intellectual profiles. Of the

twenty children, fifteen demonstrated a strength on at least one activity, and twelve

children showed a weakness on one or more activities. In contrast, only one child was identified as having no strengths or weaknesses, and her scores ranged from -.98 to +.87 standard deviations from the mean.

These results were reinforced by the fact that, for the most part, children's

performances on the activities were independent. Using Spearman rank-order correlations, only the number activities, both requiring logical-mathematical intelligence, proved significantly correlated with one another (r = .78, p < .01). In the other areas, music and science, where there were two assessments, there were no

significant correlations. Conceivably, this result can be attributed to the fact that the number activities, both of which involved calculation, shared more features than the music activities (singing and music perception) or the science activities (hypothesis testing and mechanical skill). Of course, the small sample size also may have contributed to the absence of powerful correlations among measures.

  A comparison of the Spectrum and Stanford-Binet assessments revealed a limited relationship between children's performances on these different instruments.

Spearman rank-order correlations showed that only performances on the number activities were significantly correlated with IQ (dinosaur game, r = .69, p < .003; bus game, r = .51, p < .04). With its concentration on logical-mathematic and linguistic skills, one might have expected a significant correlation with the Spectrum language activity as well. Conceivably, there was no significant correlation because the

Stanford-Binet measures children's vocabulary and comprehension, whereas Spectrum measures how children use language within a story-telling task.

In the second study, eight kindergartners (four boys and four girls) and seven first graders (five girls and two boys) were assessed on the seven activities of the Modified Spectrum Field Inventory (MSPFI). This inventory, based on the activities developed for the year-long Spectrum assessments of preschoolers, consists of activities in the

areas of language (storyboard), numbers and logic (bus game), mechanics (assembly), art (drawing), music (xylophone games), social analysis (classroom model), and movement (creative movement). These assessments were administered in two one-hour sessions. Each activity was videotaped and children were scored by two

independent observers. Spearman rank-order correlations between the scores of the

two observers ranged from .88 (language) to .97 (art) and demonstrated the interrater reliability of these scores.

  As in the first study, strengths and weaknesses were estimated using standard deviations. Unlike the findings from the earlier study, however, these results revealed that some children performed quite well and others performed quite poorly across many of the activities. It appears that the small sample size and wide age ranges may have contributed to this result. Of the five first-grade girls, none demonstrated a weakness in any area; all showed at least one strength, with one girl having strengths

in six of the seven areas. The two first-grade boys showed no strengths, and both demonstrated weaknesses in three areas. Of the kindergartners, only two showed any strengths, with all but one of the other children showing at least one weakness. Quite possibly, these results reflect differences in developmental level, and perhaps gender

differences as well, that did not obtain in the preschool sample and that may have overpowered certain individual differences. It is also conceivable that a more extended exposure to, and greater familiarity with, the Spectrum materials and activities, as in the year-long Spectrum program, may have made the individual differences among younger children more visible.

Nonetheless, an examination of children's ranks on each of the activities revealed a more complex picture. Although the first-grade girls dominated the rankings, all but two children in the sample were ranked among the top five on at least one occasion.

All but one child also scored in the bottom five on at least one activity. Considered in this way, children did exhibit relative strengths and weaknesses across the seven activities.

To determine whether or not performance on one activity was independent of performance on the other activities, we standardized each of the scores with a mean = O and standard deviation = 1 and performed Spearman rank-order correlations. Because of the superior performance of the first-grade girls, the performances of kindergartners and first graders were computed separately.

Consideration of the kindergartners alone revealed only one correlation, between art and social analysis, that approached significance (r = .66, p < .071). For the sample of first graders, including the "high"-scoring girls, there were a number of significant correlations: language and assembly (r = .77, p < .04), language and numbers (r = .81,

p < .027), movement and social analysis (r = .77, p < .04), and assembly and numbers (r = .79, p < .034).

    With the exception of the performance of the first graders in the second study, these results are reasonably consistent with the claims of Ml Theory. For younger children, performances on the Spectrum activities were largely independent, relative strengths and weaknesses were uncovered, and there was a significant correlation between

preschoolers' performances on the Spectrum activities and the Stanford-Binet in one of the two areas where it would be expected. Further investigations need to be conducted to establish norms, to identify strengths and weaknesses consistently, and to examine fully the effects of age and gendr on the Spectrum activities.

Chapter 3. Learning environment in teaching English conversation

3.1. MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TEACHING ENGLISH LEARNERS TO THE SENIOR FORMS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL

 
    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 . 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.

As the education system has stressed the importance of developing mathematical and  linguistic intelligences, it often bases student success only on the measured skills in those two intelligences. Supporters of Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences believe that this emphasis is unfair. Children whose musical intelligences are highly

developed, for example, may be overlooked for gifted programs or may be placed in a special education class because they do not have the required math or language scores. Teachers must seek to assess their students' learning in ways which will give an accurate overview of the their strengths and weaknesses.

     As children do not learn in the same way, they cannot be assessed in a uniform fashion. Therefore, it is important that a teacher create an "intelligence profiles" for each student. Knowing how each student learns will allow the teacher to properly assess the child's progress . This individualized evaluation practice will allow a teacher to make more informed decisions on what to teach and how to present information.

     Traditional tests (e.g., multiple choice, short answer, essay...) require students to show their knowledge in a predetermined manner. Supporters of Gardner's theory claim that a better approach to assessment is to allow students to explain the material in their own ways using the different intelligences. Preferred assessment methods include student portfolios, independent projects, student journals, and assigning creative tasks.

3.1.1  Development of students’ Speaking and Pronunciation Skills

      Communicative and whole language instructional approaches promote integration of speaking, listening, reading, and writing in ways that reflect natural language use. But opportunities for speaking and listening require structure and planning if they are to support language development. This digest describes what speaking involves and

what good speakers do in the process of expressing themselves. It also presents an outline for creating an effective speaking lesson and for assessing learners' speaking skills.Oral communication skills in adult ESL instruction

    Outside the classroom, listening is used twice as often as speaking, which in turn is used twice as much as reading and writing . Inside the classroom, speaking and listening are the most often used skills . They are

recognized as critical for functioning in an English language context, both by teachers and by learners. These skills are also logical instructional starting points when learners have low literacy levels (in English or their native language) or limited formal education, or when they come from language backgrounds with a non-Roman script or a predominantly oral tradition. Further, with the drive to incorporate workforce readiness skills into adult EFL instruction, practice time is being devoted to such speaking skills as reporting, negotiating, clarifying, and problem solving .

What speaking is

Speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing information . Its

form and meaning are dependent on the context in which it occurs, including the participants themselves, their collective experiences, the physical environment, and the purposes for speaking. It is often spontaneous, open-ended, and evolving.

However, speech is not always unpredictable. Language functions (or patterns) that tend to recur in certain discourse situations (e.g., declining an invitation or requesting

time off from work), can be identified and charted . For

example, when a salesperson asks "May I help you?" the expected discourse sequence includes a statement of need, response to the need, offer of appreciation, acknowledgement of the appreciation, and a leave-taking exchange. Speaking requires that learners not only know how to produce specific points of language such as grammar, pronunciation, or vocabulary (linguistic competence), but also that they

understand when, why, and in what ways to produce language (sociolinguistic

competence). Finally, speech has its own skills, structures, and conventions different from written language . A good speaker synthesizes this array of skills and knowledge to succeed in a given speech act.

What a good speaker does

A speaker's skills and speech habits have an impact on the success of any exchange .

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8