Link to Presentation: http://prezi.com/sawswgvzadrk/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share
Instruction cannot be tailored to multiple intelligences then it’s just as well that multiple intelligences cannot learn in one set way. Diversity in the classroom is prevalent and should be addressed. For example, 129 engineering students who completed the ILS in a study conducted at Iowa State University found 63 percent were classified as active learners (and by implication 37 percent were classified as reflective learners), 67 percent were sensing learners (33 percent intuitive learners), 85 percent were visual learners (15 percent verbal), and 58 percent were sequential learners (42 percent global) (Felder & Brent, 2005, p.61.). Through this study it is evident that there is not a one size fits all for student learning.
Identifying multiple types of learners proves that instructors must be creative when planning lessons and ensuring all students have a positive learning experience and outcome. Differentiated instruction is an instructional design strategy that supports learners at every level. For example differentiated instruction focuses on teaching students at various levels in one class with three elements of content (what the teacher plans to teach), process (plans for instruction) and product (assessment) (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003). Students are assessed for their readiness to the topic and their progression so the instructor can form groups or offer additional work based on multiple levels of understanding. Collins and Stevens Inquiry instructional model is an excellent strategy for differentiated instruction. Through this model teachers prepare for learning by recalling prior knowledge and stating objectives, then move on to eliciting performance and providing feedback and finishing the lesson by assessing student learning (Dabbagh, 2006). Through this process teachers are able to continuously assess students to ensure they are understanding the information and guide them to keep them on task.
Incorporating technology to enhance, engage and appeal to multiple intelligences is a useful strategy for teaching and learning. The utilization of Web 2.0 opens a wide variety of technology tools for the students to choose from when creating their presentations. Web 2.0 is a term associated with web applications that are interactive in sharing information, interoperable and offer the user to create their own sites using their personal creativity (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2011). The flexibility of this technology has its pros and cons when being utilized in the classroom. For example in the video “Web 2.0 Tools” Ted Lysiak stated that the flexibility of Web 2.0 was a positive aspect because it allowed different and creative ways to teach and learn, but could be difficult because teachers would need to combat privacy from outside users as well as finding ways to avoid students cheating thus making them adjust their classroom management to fit the new technology (Lysiak, 2009). It is possible to limit the applications used in class to the student and teacher only in order to combat this risk. Setting up a network that is limited to classroom use would allow for only student/teacher interaction. Jing, Wix and Google sites are useful for the student to create different sites that can be accessed by fellow classmates. Jing allows for capturing images and creating videos, Wix is similar to PowerPoint but much more in-depth allowing students to connect to their created pages from hyperlinks while Google sites offer students the ability to create their own website (Kovalik, Kuo, Cummins, Dipzinski, Joseph, P., & Laskey, S. 2014). Web 2.0’s capabilities to offer a wide range of creative outlets and interaction make it a beneficial tool for this assignment and for a wide variety of learners. Web 2.0 will be able to identify with most if not all intelligences. The options of creating video, website, and wix demonstrations allows for different intelligences to incorporate their strengths into their presentations. For example, spatial intelligence could use images in their wix or google site, bodily kinesthetic intelligences could create videos in jing interpersonal intelligences would be able to learn from their peers’ presentations and react. Each student could find the tool in Web 2.0 that suited them best for the assignment and create their presentations using their personal strengths and learning at the same time.
References
Dabbagh, N. (2006). Instructional design knowledge base. Retrieved from http://cehdclass.gmu.edu/ndabbagh/Resources/IDKB/models_theories.htm
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://aim.cast.org/sites/aim.cast.org/files/DI_UDL.1.14.11.pdf
Kovalik, C., Kuo, C., Cummins, M., Dipzinski, E., Joseph, P., & Laskey, S. (2014). Implementing web 2.0 tools in the classroom: Four teachers' accounts. TechTrends, 58(5), 90-94. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0790-1
Lever-Duffy, J. & McDonald, J. B. (2011). Teaching and learning with technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc./Allyn & Bacon
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57-72. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Understanding_Differences.pdf
The Ohio Channel / ideastream. (2009). Web 2.0 tools [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ohiochannel.org/MediaLibrary/Media.aspx?fileId=118755
