Learner Styles, Mutliple Intelligences and Learner Diversity

In 1983, Howard Gardner, a professor of Harvard University, offered a brand new perspective that varied from the main stream of that day, IQ being the deciding factor of a person’s development. According to Professor Garder, different people have different intelligences; he called them Mulitple Intellgiences. They are verbal/linguistic intelligence, logical/mathematical intelligence, bodily/kinesthetic intelligence, visual/spatial  intelligence, musical/rhythmic intelligence, inter-personal/social intelligence, and intra-personal/introspective intelligence. The theory aimed to modify the bias of IQ being the center of an individual’s intelligence. As of the lauch of the book, Frames of Minds, professor Gardner’s theory has been widely accepted and replaced the traditional dominance, IQ. Owing to the theory, educators gradually identify the multiple-faced talents students are inherently in possession of.

However, it is no easy job to undertand an individually distinctive intelligence of a person. For educators, the judgement of a person’s Intelligence Quotient is not difficult because of the higly-developed tool of assessment, contrast to which, other intelligence tools of assessment are relatively fewer. This also engenders bafflement for teachers who try to help leanres. Presumbaly because of this, corresponding exploration on a person’s propensity, learner style in particular, has been constantly discovered. Learner styles are emphasized as well as multiple intelligences.

According to Richard M. Felder, a professor in North Carolina State Universtiy, there are some different types of learners—active learners vs. reflective learners, sensing and intutiive learners, visual learners vs. verbal learners, sequential leaners and global learners. All these pairs are mutually contrast, one being the other’s counterpart. For example, active learners do something active with it —discussing or applying it, while reflective learners prefer to think about it quietly first. The types are literally understandable. But what is sequential learners and global leaerns? Felder thinks that sequential gain understanding in linear steps, which means learners tend to follow steps logically. Contrast to them, global learners prefer learning in large jumps, which indicates they absorb material almost randomly without seeing connections, and then suddenly “getting it.”

As a matter of fact, almost most learners are amalgams of different types. In other words, one could be active or reflective, sometimes sensing or some other time intutitive. No matter what type someone is, one thing is for sure, she/he must be oriented by a certain type. For example, one might a visual-geared leaner, but in certain scenario she/he still adopts learning approach used by verbal learners. By the same token, though someone is obviously, for example, oritented toward verbal/linguistic intelligence, he is also likely to be partially visual/spatial intelligence-geared.

The two theories combined in effect help educators recognize learner diversity. Educators siutated in a real teaching scenario could empathize learners much more than the two theories being released. They are aware that though they are authortity in large part in their classroom, they should respect learner diversity. However, it purturbs teachers how to put into consideration as well as practice multiple intelligences and learner styles. Even though the established respect for the two features of learners, they are still alien to how to proceed with their teaching associated with the two theories released.

Then, let’s conjecture the situation—what about teachers are able to distinguish each student’s learning style or individual intelligence? Can we assemble students with the same quality together? The possiblity is actually negative, and the truth is that we can never have the opportunity to have such a mission completed. Therefore, they may as well extend the socpes of teaching as identify learner diversity; the key in coping with the diverstiy consists more in teaching than identification of learner diversity. Teachers should varify their teaching to cater to the diversity of learners, because there is a stark distinction whether teachers are able to distiguish learner style or intelligences.

With the advent of technology, teachers are likely to overcome a quandary of how to be confronted with learner diversity. I have a personal experience. In my class, there are four to six students who always cannot follow my steps; they are more like outsiders than students attending a class. Frankly speaking, I do not know what learner styles they should fall category into or what mutlitple intelligence they own. I merely felt annoyed by their attitude until I asked students to take their technological gadgets into the class to help their learning. Presumbly they are active learner (as opposed to reflective learners); therefore, once the teaching style is geared toward their learning style, a postive learning outcome that a teacher looks forward to arises.

I do not suggest techonolgy is an elixir to cater to diverse learner styles. What I really mean is that technology provides in effect all teachers another perspective to look at their own teaching, and a viable way to broaden their own teaching spectrum.