Literature Review

Running head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY AND MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES

Integrating Technology and Multiple Intelligences

Northern Arizona University

Oct 24, 2006

Abstract

The author examines recent literature related to enhancing learning through integrating technology and multiple intelligences. Many recent research studies illustrate the effectiveness of designing instruction with the multiple intelligence theory in mind. Integrating technology and multiple intelligences helps students deepen their understanding of subject matter. Appropriate professional development is necessary before teachers will be able to successfully integrate technology and multiple intelligences.

The majority of American teachers today are committed to lighting the fire for their students. Teachers realize that it is more important than ever before for students to think for themselves, solve problems, and work cooperatively. In addition to these vital aspects of learning, with the ever-increasing use of technologies in the world, it is very likely that today’s students will also need to be capable of learning to use whatever technologies will be present in their future careers.

If only lighting a fire in students was as easy as lighting a fire of wood and paper. Unlike wood, each student requires an individual approach to light his fire. Utilizing teaching strategies that integrate technology while reaching students through multiple pathways and encouraging higher order thinking skills, teachers will not only help students utilize technology to enhance learning, but they will also meet individual needs and find numerous ways to light the fires for their students.

Howard Gardner began his study of intelligences as a psychologist interested in the effects of brain damage. As his research progressed, he became increasingly aware of a pattern of intelligences. When Gardner first proposed his multiple intelligences theory in his book, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, he suggested seven intelligences. Today Howard Gardner believes there are at least nine intelligences: spatial, linguistic, mathematical-logical, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal, naturalist and existential. Gardner proposes that every person has his own intellectual profile comprised of multiple intelligences in various degrees of strengths (http://encarta.msn.com). In his article, “Can Technology Exploit Our Many Ways of Knowing”, Gardner (2000) states, “educators [should] take advantage of this multiplicity of intelligences. Teachers should fashion teaching and learning so that all students have the chance to learn and to demonstrate what they have learned—not just those students who happen to be gifted with words and numbers” (p. 32). Gardner (2004) also emphasizes that educators should not use his theory to label students or test students to see where they have strengths and weaknesses. Rather he suggests that the MI theory can provide powerful support as a tool in the classroom rather than a goal.

Numerous educators have researched and/or written about using the MI theory as a tool to enhance classroom learning by providing students with a variety of learning activities. Özdemir, Güneysu, and Tekkaya (2006) in their study entitled “Enhancing Learning through Multiple Intelligences” state:

Students need to experience learning that allows them to engage all of their intelligences, to explore their own intelligences and how they can impact their learning, and they need to be offered choice in how they learn and are assessed. Students are then more likely to experience curriculum that is meaningful, personalised, and relevant (p. 74).

Margie Lash (2004), author of “Multiple Intelligences and the Search for Creative Teaching”, also supports the idea that students need to have a variety of learning opportunities available to them to help strengthen the many different intelligences. Moran, Kornhaber, and Gardner (2006) remind the reader not to believe that teachers must plan lessons for all intelligences. The goal of using the MI theory is not to increase the teacher’s workload, but rather the goal is to make teachers aware if most of their instruction is favoring a few intelligences and if so, to provide for varied instruction throughout a unit of study.

In addition to the significance of providing varied instructions, many educators claim that identifying students’ areas of strengths and weaknesses is also important. Walter McKenzie (2002) proposes that it might be helpful to give students a multiple intelligence survey to “appreciate the distribution of intelligences” (p. 11). In his book, Multiple Intelligences and Instructional Technology, McKenzie (2002) provides a reproducible MI Survey as well as an electronic version created with Microsoft Excel. McKenzie stresses the point, in agreement with Gardner, that learners’ intelligences frequently, if not usually overlap. In other words, none of us has only one intelligence. In an effort to help educators who are used to focusing on a single intelligence or a few intelligences, this author goes even further to separate the intelligences into three domains: analytic, interactive, and introspective. McKenzie (2002) then suggests that teachers use “the wheel to select one intelligence from each domain in planning a lesson. By using the wheel in this way, the teacher offers a balance among the three and the potential for a well-rounded lesson with regard to the intelligences” (p. 20).

Other authors have also noted the validity of assessing learners’ intelligences. In their study, Özdemir et al. (2006) discuss how the Teele Inventory for Multiple Intelligence (a pictorial tool to measure MI) revealed data that could affect instruction at different grade levels. Margie Lash (2004) suggests that it might benefit teachers to assess their own multiple intelligence areas as well as their students. She includes an inventory of six questions that teacher and/or students can answer to help the teacher see where her students’ strengths and weaknesses lie. Lash believes the informed teacher will be better able to plan instruction to benefit her students.

Although some disagreement exists about the importance of assessing students’ multiple intelligences, more educators and learning experts agree that providing instruction based on Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory increases student learning. According to findings in a study done by Özdemir et al. (2006), “Multiple intelligence instruction led to the better acquisition and retention of knowledge for the students in the experimental group” (p 77). In another study conducted by Ozdener, and Ozcoban (2004), it was found that when students with a variety of MI strengths worked together in groups, the groups experienced a positive success rate. The researchers reasoned that students in groups were able to share their interests and experiences and this sharing benefited the group as a whole. If the teacher forms groups comprised of students with various strengths, students can support one another; where one student is weak another might be strong. Moran, Kornhaber, and Gardner (2006) discuss the benefits of multiple intelligences in group work focusing on how students can support one another and strengthen the learning process.

A study of middle school students in Kuwait also demonstrated the effectiveness of planning lessons based on the MI theory. The researchers of this study wanted to see how students multiple intelligences could predict success in reading achievement. The researchers discovered that the students in the experimental group who received the multiple intelligence treatment performed better in reading than the control group (Al-Balhan, 2006).

Much of the literature on the MI theory agrees that the theory is a valid and important one for educators. Additionally, authors agree that while teachers acknowledge MI’s importance, restructure of classroom instruction is slow to emerge and MI is not currently widely implemented in classrooms. Finally, all of the researchers in studies reviewed by this author recommend more studies on MI in education.

Years ago, when technology first arrived in schools, the push was for utilizing technology in the classroom for drills and skills. Shortly after that, and for many years even still today, the push was for utilizing technology to create projects with applications such as PowerPoint, Excel, and Word. Recent literature points to a new trend for integrating technology and this trend may be the longest-lasting of all. Many educational technology leaders and experts are now suggesting the best way to integrate technology is by focusing on the pedagogy rather than on the subject.

John B. Keller and Barbara A. Bichelmeyer (2004) published an interesting and informative article entitled “What Happens When Accountability Meets Technology Integration?” In this article, they propose a need to move away from the traditional pedagogy that is often characterized by “sage on the stage” and memorization and drill activities to what they call a progressive pedagogy. This progressive pedagogy utilizes process skills and constructivist learning ideas with an emphasis on critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The authors believe “if pedagogy is promoted to its rightful rank of first priority, high achievement and technology integration will follow” (p. 18).

Other authors also propose the need to focus on changing how teachers teach rather than simply adding technology into the lesson. Most agree that technology needs to be infused into the curriculum. Teachers must look at what they have to teach and then think about what the best way will be to teach that material. As teachers restructure how they teach, they must focus on moving students to deeper levels of understanding by including critical thinking activities. Technology offers a plethora of opportunities for engaging students’ attention and using critical thinking skills. Technology needs to become an integral part of the regular curricular plan. “Curriculum development and technology plans should not be allowed to happen in separate rooms” says Rob Reilly, former elementary school computer teacher and now visiting scientist at MIT’s Media Lab (Shields, 2003, p 27).

How can teachers change their pedagogy to help students gain the skills they need for the 21^st century? Robert Marzano has published several books on classroom instruction and research-based strategies. In his book Classroom Instruction that Works: Research Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement, he identifies nine strategies, listed as strategies in the book:

Brooks and Brooks (1999) in their book In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms emphasize the need for student-centered learning environments and authentic activities. Many other authors of books and scholarly publications also advocate for pedagogy that move the teacher from the front of the classroom in the role of “sage on the stage” to a facilitating role of “guide on the side”.

Although most educators agree about the necessity for pedagogical change to meet the growing needs of today’s students, the change is very slow to take place. One of the reasons for lack of change is the lack of appropriate professional development. Teachers in the field may be getting professional development, but it is not resulting in any real changes. Teachers new to the profession are frequently adept computer users, but their pedagogy is still very similar to what has been in place since American schools first began. Many colleges of education are still not teaching pre-service teachers how to infuse technology into their curriculum (Shields, 2003).

Much of the literature includes suggestions for implementing professional development suited to the needs of today’s educators. With the focus on standards and testing accountability, many teachers feel that professional development on the subject of technology integration is not necessary. Keller and Bichelmeyer (2004) argue:

Professional development aimed at getting teachers to use technology is not likely to significantly influence how teachers use technology in their classrooms until it can be demonstrated that using technology is instrumental in meeting the challenge for all students to make adequate yearly progress as measured by standardized tests (p. 22).

With all the factors that influence student achievement it is impossible to determine without a doubt that technology integration does or does not help raise student test scores. Educators need to focus on research-based strategies for increasing student achievement and technology integration will naturally fall into place as an integral tool for helping students become critical thinkers and problem solvers (Keller & Bichelmeyer, 2004).

How do schools help provide appropriate professional development? Years ago, schools started hiring technology specialists to help teachers integrate technology. Unfortunately, many of those technology people became overwhelmed with fixing hardware and software problems. Today, many people believe that what schools really need is a curriculum specialist with technology background and skills (Shields, 2003). The Northern Arizona University Educational Technology program prepares teachers for such roles by focusing teacher preparation on curriculum and technology.

There are many ways to help teachers improve their teaching methods and technology integration. The National Education Technology Plan gives several recommendations for teacher training:

3. Improve quality and consistency in teacher education “through measurement, accountability, and increased technology resources”

4. Ensure teachers know how to use data to personalize instruction (as cited in Rivero, 2005, p 37).

Any[ML1] school, college, or university that sincerely wants to help teachers learn to use instructional strategies and technology to help students develop skills needed for the jobs of today and tomorrow can begin by providing the right kind of professional development. It is vital that staff developers continue to focus on the best practices for professional development and technology integration.

The literature illustrates the benefits of planning lessons with multiple intelligences and technology to enhance learning. In addition, the literature points out the importance of effective professional development that focuses on changing pedagogy and not just sharing new strategies and techniques. All of the consulted literature fully supports my proposed project of providing teachers with professional development and resources for integrating technology and multiple intelligences.

At our school, we have made continual efforts at helping teachers change their pedagogy to increase student achievement by moving students into higher order thinking. My project continues this effort by stressing the need for changing instructional strategies to enhance student learning through the integrating of technology and multiple intelligences.

Integrating technology and multiple intelligences with professional development efforts at changing current pedagogies is a winning combination. Many authors and researchers believe strongly that integrating technology and multiple intelligences with strong pedagogical practices help students make connections, personalize the learning, and gain deeper understandings of subject matter. Policy makers and administrators need to recognize the importance of appropriate professional development that will help teachers use technology in ways that encourage students to use higher order thinking skills while integrating technology and multiple intelligences.