A Feasible Instructional Design Model for Multiple Intelligence TheorySeong Chong Toh

Associate Professor, Centre for Instructional Technology and Multimedia,Universiti Sains Malaysia e-mail: tohsc@usm.my

Ian Chee Choong GanPh D research student

Associate Professor, Centre for Instructional Technology and Multimedia,Universiti Sains Malaysia e-mail: igan138@gmail.com

Cited as: Toh, S. C., Ian Gan, C. C., (2010). A Feasible Instructional Design Model for Multiple Intelligence Theory. Proceedings of the Global Learn – Global Conference on Learning and Technology, organized by Association for Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), May 17-20, 2010, at Park Royal Hotel, Penang. 10 pages.

Abstract: Although the Multiple Intelligence Theory is now 25 years old, Professor Howard Gardner recently said that success to learning can be crystallized into two very central points: individuate and pluralize. Can a feasible instructional design model be constructed based on the MI theory? This paper will propose a Rapid Prototyping Instructional Design Model to design and develop instruction based on Multiple Intelligences theory. Details of this feasible instructional design model for multiple intelligence theory are described.

Introduction

Although the Multiple Intelligence (MI) theory has being widely used in education as an educational theory, very few instructional design models exist for enable designers to systematically design instruction in a effective way. For the available literature, there is one ID model by Tracy and Richey (2007), which is an adaptation of the Dickey and Carey. However, this model was based on the ADDIE process, and therefore suffers from several weaknesses. Firstly, in this linear or waterfall model, the processes involved tends to be inefficient because it is not iterative. It assumes that the first step to be perfect before moving on to the next. Secondly, the linear approach tends to work well for static content but may be restrictive when dealing with user generated content or learning outcomes that do not have a predetermined end state. Thirdly, the ADDIE model assumes that the instructional designer can know all of the requirements before she develops the content. From practical experience, we realize that the design process (developing and experimenting with the content) actually shapes the final design.

Taking cognizant of the weakness of the ADDIE model in designing MI learning, the author suggests a better way which is more realistic and practical in a real-world setting. The model is an adaptation of the Allen’s (2006) Successive Approximation Instructional Design Model. This model is also known as the Rapid Prototyping Model. The idea of rapid prototyping is to develop learning experiences in a continual design-evaluation cycle that continues throughout the life of the project. This cycle, known as the spiral cycle or layered approach, is considered to be iterative, meaning that products are continually improved as they cycle continues. An overlay incorporating the theory of multiple intelligences is overlaid over the instructional system design. The overlay serves three-fold purposes:-

• First, it provides detailed guidance in model use, especially with respect to conducting learner analysis and writing objectives that incorporate multiple intelligences;

• Second, it makes it feasible to complete the difficult task of developing a new operational ID model with the appropriate level of detail by allowing the model developer to focus only on the unique aspects of the new model.

• Third, the resulting design model typically can be easily mastered by both novices and expert designers because of their familiarity with traditional ID models.

Crystallization of the Multiple Intelligence Theory

Howard Gardner (1983), the inventor of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences, is very optimistic about the use of computer computer-based technologies in nurturing learning. Since the introduction of the theory 25 years ago, educators all over the world, educators from elementary schools to institutions of higher learning have been using this theory in their design of instructions in multifarious ways. Recently, he said that the success to learning can be crystallized into two words: individuate and pluralize. Individuate means learn as much as possible about how each student learns; what his or her strength is, and try to teach as much as possible that student in the way that he or she understands, and also to assess the student in ways that are comfortable. He further argued that well-designed instruction through computers can individuate much better than humans do. Pluralize means whenever there is anything you want to teach somebody, teach them in many different ways as possible, e.g. simulation, drama, storytelling, play, so as to activate different kinds of intelligences of the learners. This paper will discuss the two central ideas of Gardner’s latest thinking, and propose a feasible prescriptive instructional design model based on the MI theory.

Individuate and Pluralize Learning through Technology

In a typical classroom where a teacher is faced with a class of say 40 students, she is very much limited in how much she can individuate and even limited in how she can pluralize. Gardner argued that the computer, if well-programmed, can figure out what ways of learning are best for the learner, and if one way does not work, then use another one. Computers, he says, can certainly present information pluralistically; one can present information linguistically; musically and visually. Future more, he said that through the use of virtual realities, where through the creation of wholly new spaces, all the intelligences can be represented there. Take cognizant of this view, a brief overview of the Gardener’s Theory of Multiple Intelligence (MI) will be presented to enable the reader to have a sense of the ensuing discussion.

Multiple intelligences Theory

Gardner (1983) defines intelligence as a collection of potentialities or abilities that permits people to solve problems or make products which are of value in a particular cultural setting. For Gardner, the ability to act intelligently is driven by the goals, values and beliefs of that society (Gardner 1999). He argues that people do not have one intelligence, as measured by standard IQ testing, but several strengths or intelligences, resulting in a ‘jagged intelligence profile’. Some of the evidence he offers for separate intelligences includes the way damage to parts of the brain affects specific abilities and the way savants with a low IQ may have an exceptional ability in one area. Learners are ‘‘constructors’’ of knowledge when they take an active role in forming new understandings. It is generally agreed that learners construct understanding for themselves in ways that differ, sometimes quite sharply, from other learners (Winn, 2004). Multiple intelligences can be thought of as the learners’ tools that facilitate knowledge construction.

Gardner’s seven ways of knowing the world or intelligences are: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical-rhythmic, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic; and two forms of personal intelligences, one directed toward other persons, interpersonal intelligence, and one directed toward oneself, intra-personal intelligence. Gardner later included another two intelligences, namely, naturalist intelligence and existential intelligence.

Combing Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligence and his latest thinking of in his book entitled Five Minds of the Future (Gardner, 2006), the vision of meaningful and ideal learning can be represented in the Figure 1 below:-

The ideal outcomes of learning in Figure 1 refer to cognitive abilities that will command a premium in the years ahead. The disciplined mind should embody the ways of thinking and acting that distinguish her chosen discipline and not just spew forth a lot of heterogeneous knowledge about the subject. The synthesizing mind is the ability to integrate ideas from different disciplines or spheres into a coherent whole and to communicate that integration to others. The creating mind is the capacity to uncover and clarify new problems, questions and phenomena. The respectful mind is the awareness of and appreciation for differences among human beings. The ethical mind transcends mere tolerance, and instead, displays active interest in and affection for those who are different.

Research Studies on MI Theory

Several research studies had been done to test the efficacy of Gardner’s MI theory. Kelly and Tangey (2002) tested it intelligent tutoring system. They found that the most effective systems used strategies that encourage the learner to use as many of the identified intelligences as possible that is to pluralize instruction. Similarly, Martin (2002) tested the MI theory in instruction for students in the school of business. They found that MI instruction was also most effective, resulting in students who were more likely to recognize diversity in the workplace. Additionally, Rauscher and Zupan (2000) found that music students’ problem solving capacity was improved after instructional activities that built upon musical/rhythmic intelligence. For adult learners, Kallenbach and Viens (2002) carried out a study and found that application of the theory of multiple intelligences promotes deep-learning. However, most of the pervasive application of the MI theory is still in the in elementary school curricula.

Application of the MI Theory to Individuate and Pluralize Instruction

According to Gardner, firstly, the theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) should be used only as is a tool. It's not a goal. That means that the teacher has to decide what she wants to teach, and that should be based on what she thinks is important. Once those decisions are made, that's when MI can come into action.

Secondly, Gardner is a strong proponent of teaching for understanding, which means going deeply into topics so that students can really make use of knowledge in new situations. He posits that the topics should be taught in as many ways as possible, or pluralizes instruction. One can present information linguistically; musically and visually. This view is very different from most teaching, where learners memorize material and can reproduce it on demand but

cannot make use of it in new situations. Gardner says that if the emphasis of education is for understanding, then MI can be extremely helpful. This is because when a teacher is teaching a topic, she can approach the topic in many ways, thereby activating different intelligences. She can provide analogies and metaphors for different domains, invading different intelligences, and finally, she can present the key ideas in a number of different languages or symbol systems, again activating different intelligences.

Thirdly, Gardner is a firm believer of deep learning. He said that deep learning cannot occur if the teacher has only a short time; say five minutes, to dwell on a topic and then move on to something. Under this circumstance, the teacher is almost constrained to present the topic one way, which is usually verbally, and to give her student a short-answer test. Additionally, Gardner is very much in opposition to the current state and national trends, which create more tests, often of a short-answer sort, favouring coverage or non- coverage and not probing deeply into what people really understand.

Rapid Prototyping

The rapid prototype ID model overcomes the limitations of the traditional ADDIE approach in that it involves all team members earlier in the project cycle, and enables both the client and students to provide early feedback. This approach to rapid courseware prototyping can reduce the time required of programmers, instructional designers, authors, and subject matter experts, while making that time spent more focused and useful for the courseware design and development process. Generally, rapid prototyping model ( Figure 2) involves learners and/or subject matter experts interacting with prototypes and instructional designers in a continuous review/revision cycle. Developing a prototype is practically the first step, while front-end analysis is generally reduced or converted into an on-going, interactive process between subject-matter, objectives, and materials (Siemens, 2002).

Rapid prototyping allows the designer to start with a low fidelity medium (such as paper and pen) and move to increasingly higher fidelity prototypes as time goes on. There are two types of prototypes that can be developed:

Vertical Prototypes - in-depth functionality for a few features Horizontal Prototypes - entire screen with no underlying functionality

The first step in the rapid prototyping ID model is backgrounding the learner through needs analysis.

Backgrounding the Learner

At the start, the characteristics of the learner are analyzed to see which aspect of MI they are strong or weak at. The focus at this stage is not on the content, but on the learner. Then a process called iterative prototyping and evaluation is carried out to help the instructional designer gather and analyze information and reassess whether the assessment of the learner is done correctly. Allen ( 2006) described this process as successive approximation. See Figure 2.

During the backgrounding process, Allen (2006) suggests that there are ten questions that should be addressed before you begin the iterative prototyping cycles.

1. What performance competencies are the targets?

2. What behavioral outcomes are needed and how will you know whether you have achieved them?

3. Does the learner lack the education necessary to perform, or are they not performing for other reasons?

4. What abilities do performers currently have?

5. What incentives and disincentives are in place for both desired performance and undesired performance?

6. Are needed tools and resources available and appropriately accessible for desired performance?

7. Who will be approving the resources to be applied in creating a solution (the decision-maker) and actually making them available?

8. Whose opinion does the decision-maker reply on?

9. Who directly supervises the people to be trained?

10. Who has profit-loss responsibility that’s based most directly on the performance of the people being trained?

The figure above represents Allen’s (2006) model for the instructional design of learning. This model is called Successive Approximation ID model. The model can be used in the design of instruction because it promotes creativity, communicates effectively, involves all key stakeholders and align solutions to needs. At the heart of this

model is an iterative process that is repeatedly applied to a carefully defined sequence of issues. The process in this model begins after back grounding and concludes with the delivery of the final or “gold” product.

The process is divided into three phases, Preparation, Iterative Design, and Iterative Development. Iterative cycles are used both in design and in development work to confirm the desirability of what was done and made corrections.

The MI Overlay

The ‘‘overlay’’ approach involves taking an existing general ID model, that is the Rapid Prototyping ID model, and embedding an additional layer of design procedures that address special concerns. The overlay described in this paper involved three phases, namely, analysis of the learners and environment, development of instructional strategies, and the development of assessment instruments. This overlay approach is an adaptation from the Tracey and Richey (2007) overlay model. Brief descriptions of each phase will be described below:-

Analyse Learners and Environment

LearnersIn the first step, identify and analyse learner characters. Then use learner characteristics from analysis to determine pre-existing MI behaviours.

For instance: If cognitive characteristics of learners indicate high-level of visual literacy then design instruction then incorporate visual-spatial strategies.

Learning EnvironmentThen, ascertain whether the practice of desired performance and matched MI behaviours can take place in the learning environment, and if not make alterations to the learning environment.

For instance: To practice performance, the environment must encourage verbal and written communication (VL), have materials for problem-solving (LM), imagining (VS), team learning and discussion (ITE), and quiet self reflection for consensus (ITA).

Develop Instructional StrategiesThen, use information developed during analysis to make instructional strategy decisions.

For Instance:Organizational Strategies:• VL: Debating, reading, and journal keeping• LM: Thinking formulas and strategies, problem-solving, complex lines of reasoning, strategy,

and reasoning games• VS: Visualizing concepts through mind-mapping• ITE: Discussing, creating, and maintaining synergy in teams, cooperative learning, and consensus building• ITA: Valuing clarifications, self-reflections, questionnaires, and surveys

Delivery Strategies:• VL: Written and verbal strategies• LM: Computer problem-solving software programs• VS: Computer software programs• ITE: Group work• ITA: Independent assessments and studies

Management Strategies:• VL: Tables, microphones• LM/VS: Computer stations

Legend

VL = Verbal-Linguistic LM = Logical-MathematicalVS = Visual-Spatial BK = Bodily-Kinesthetic MR = Musical-Rhythmic ITE = Interpersonal ITA = Intrapersonal

Develop Assessment InstrumentsMatch identified MI behaviours, appropriate performance objectives, and environment considerations when designing assessment instruments.

Using the performance objectives and identified MI behaviours, design Instruments including: simulation, pencil-paper, etc.

• Where in instructional strategy?• A match with identified objective: conditions presented and performance required.

For instance: Assessments can include: written clarification of problem,observation of verbal debate and report of process and solution,documentation of logical rationale for solutions,

assessment of diagrams, flowchart development of process and reflection of thought process.

The multiple intelligences strategy face-to-face instructional examples can be summarized in Table 1 below:-

Table 1: MI Instructional Strategy Examples (Tracey & Richey (2007)Learner Characteristics MI Behaviours Environment

Language Development Level; Reading Level

VL: Writing/Speaking VL: Verbal/Written—tables, microphones

Developmental Level LM: Inductive/Deductive Thinking

LM: Problem solving, whiteboards, round tables

Level of Visual Literacy; VS: Visualize/Mental Images

VS: Manipulation of objects, imagining

Sensory Perception, General Health, Age

BK: Physical Movement

BK: Large environment for physical movement

Musical, Rhythm Development

MR: Tonal Patterns/Sounds/Rhythms

MR: Musical instrument tools for vocal practice

Social Characteristics: Relationships to Peers

ITE: Person to Person Relationships

ITE: Team play, learning/discussion

Affective Characteristics, Interests, Attitudes

ITA: Self-Reflection/Metacognition

ITA: Quiet, self-reflection, independent work

Instructional StrategiesDevelop:

1. Organizational Strategy: How instruction will be sequenced, what particular content will be presented, and how it will be presented.

2. Delivery Strategy: What instructional medium will be used and how learners will be grouped.

3. Management Strategy: The scheduling and allocation of resources to implement the instruction that is organized and delivered as planned within the previous two strategy aspects.

Determine:

1. MI Behaviours: Based on characteristics from analysis, determine

identified MI behaviours, and include strategies that exhibit the

behaviours.

2. Learner Control: How learners encounter the content. Encouraged to construct their own meanings from the instruction or limit the amount of responsibility for structuring the learning situation.

3. Structure:• World-related - cluster/sequence content according to

the way things in the world are organized.

• Inquiry-related - teach ideas together because they

represent similar phases of inquiry.

• Utilization-related - group ideas together according to which skills used in priority in the future.

4. Each strategy should have an introduction, a body, a conclusion, and an assessment.

Additional MI Tools suitable Online Learning

To individuate and pluralize instruction that caters for the needs of MI of the learners, there is a repertoire of online tools which the teacher can harness. These online tools can serve as adjuncts to assist the learners. The task of the teacher is to carry needs analyses of the learners as described above, and match the MI of the learner with the necessary tools. These online tools are summarized below:-

Linguistic Online ToolsName of Online

ResourceURL Description

Cricklers http://crickler.com/ Word puzzleAnagrams http://

www.anagramgenius.com/server.html

Rearranging words & phrases to produce new words

Etymologic http://www.etymologic.com/ Word origin or word definition

Palindromes

http://members.cox.net/jjschnebel/palintro.html

words or sentences that read the same backwards or forwards

Spoonerism http://www.fabelbish.com/ transposition of sounds of two or more words, especially a ludicrous one

Between the Lions

http://pbskids.org/lions/games/ word games

Logical Mathematical Online Tools

Name of Online Resource

URL Description

A. Pintura http://www.eduweb.com/pintura/

Art Detective Game

Inside Art http://www.anagramgenius.com/server.html

Rearranging words & phrases to produce new words

Illuminations http://illuminations.nctm.org/swr/index.asp

Illuminations has links to 724 math resources on the web

Interactive http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/

Courseware for Science and Maths Exploration

Logic Puzzles http://www.drblank.com/stadlog.htm

Logic puzzle

Cybersquares http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/games/counterexamples/index.html

Adventure Games

MI online tools covering the other intelligences can be obtained at Walter McKenzie MI immersion website. The URL of this website is http://surfaquarium.com/MI/intelligences.htm ttttp://surfa

quarium.com/MI/intelligences.htmp://surfaquarium.com/MI/intelligences.htm

Discussion

The purpose of this paper is to describe the design and development of an instructional design model to individualize and pluralize learning based on the MI theory. This model provides an overlay used in conjunction with an instructional systems design model. The implication is that it provides designers of instruction an instructional design model to systematically design incorporating multiple intelligences. The theory of multiple intelligences and the field of instructional design are rich in their theoretical bases and are implemented with the goal of fostering active and deep learning. Tracey and Richey (2007) identified two fundamental multiple intelligence assumptions that are also important to instructional design. The first assumption is that one learns information best when it is presented in a rich and meaningful context. The second assumption is that it is difficult to secure transfer of learning from separate courses or isolated definitions and skills to the kinds of problems that arise unexpectedly in the course of schoolwork or life (Gardner, 1983). In addition, the theory of multiple intelligences advocates problem-solving, context-rich instruction by using alternative contexts for practice thus promoting near and far transfer. The advantage of the Rapid Prototyping MI Design Model is that it focuses on the recognition of multiple intelligences in every step of the ID process; thus it has a continuous learner focus. This new MI ID Model, however, has benefits that go beyond the added value given to an instructional intervention. It demonstrates an approach to ID model enhancement. This is the ‘‘overlay’’ approach that involves taking an existing general ID model and embedding an additional layer of design procedures that address special concerns.

Conclusion

By using the theory of Multiple Intelligences, one can address the learning and motivational needs of the learner. By rotating instruction through all of the multiple intelligences, all learners are allowed to choose the method of instruction that best fits their needs. Learners develop their strengths and weaknesses as information is presented through a variety of methods and strategies using the multiple intelligences. Permitting the learner to present information learned utilizing any of the multiple intelligences in the assessment of concept mastery focuses the learner on sharing information learned. This paper provides a feasible instructional design model based of the MI theory to design instruction that are effective, efficient, relevant, and engaging.

References

Allen, M. W. (2006). Creating successful e-learning system for Getting it Right First Time, Every Time. Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA.

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999) Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2006). Five Minds For the Future. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Siemens, George. (2002). Instructional Design in Elearning. Elearnspace. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from http://www.elearnspace.org /Articles/

Kallenbach, S. & Viens, J. (2002). Open in interpretation: Multiple intelligences theory in adult literacy education. Retrieved September 2, 2002, from the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy, NCSALL Reports #21.

Kelly, D. & Tangey, B. (2002). Incorporating learning characteristics into an intelligent tutor. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on ITSs, ITS2002.

Martin, J. (2002) Multiple intelligences and business diversity. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(2), 187–204.

Rauscher, F. H., & Zupan, M. A., (2000). Classroom keyboard instruction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 215–228

Rossett, A. (ed.) (2002). The ASTD E-Learning Handbook. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Tracey, M. & Richey, R (2007). ID model construction and validation: a multipleintelligences case. Technology Research and Development, 55(4), 369 – 390.

Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonnassen (Eds), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd edn). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.