Multimedia and Multiple Intelligences

Well, posting on this topic may put me on unsteady ground in my class as the professor has indicated that he is not a huge supporter of this theory, but if I am going to be honest I have to come out and say that I firmly believe in the "idea" of multiple intelligence.  I understand all the arguments about scientific basis, and I have read articles by folks like Fridley & Fridley (2010), who indicate that MI has origins in phrenology and that the idea is full of  holes.  I see where the criticism stems from and I am ok with it.  The thing for me is that the theory of multiple intelligences most closely describes what I have observed first hand and through my interactions with others.


The critics most often do what critics do and try to radicalize the theory as if Gardner was stating that each person is constructed of one intelligence and that is the only way they learn.  To the contrary, in his book, Frames of Mind:  The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1993), he indicates that people are a mixed bag and typically have varying degrees of each intelligence within them, but that some tend to be more dominant.  What this means is that a person could have any combination of the nine identified intelligences with any number and combination as dominant.


With that out of the way, how does this relate to the use of multimedia?  Multimedia has the potential to bridge the gap between the varying intelligences, specifically in the distance learning or online environment.  Consider the typical fordist model with a high level of standardization and distribution.  Each course could be designed in such a way that each significant learning module would contain a variety of multimedia learning objects each of which contribute to the student's progress towards the established learning objective of that lesson.


There would be interactive models for kinesthetic learners, lectures for auditory learners, discussion boards for people who are interpersonal, and reflective blogs for those who are intrapersonal.  Each objective would have at least nine ways to interact with it.  Each type of learner may still be required to interact with all activities or, if the activities are equivalent in nature, each learner could interact with those objects that allow them to gain the best grasp of the subject matter.


While a traditional classroom may not allow for so many different learning activities, the industrialized model of online content delivery would enable educators to offer all of these different learning opportunities without greatly extending the time required by each student to comprehend the material.

References

Fridley, W., & Fridley, C. (2010). Some Problems & Peculiarities with the Learning Styles Rhetoric & Practice. Journal of Philosophy & History of Education, 6021-27. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.


Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences [Kindle Edition].   Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/kindle-ebooks.

Simonson, M., Sandino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S.  (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education.  (4th ed.)  New York City, NY: Allyn & Bacon.

Integrating technology into the curriculum

While reading the 6th chapter of Anthony Picciano's text my attention was drawn to a little section at the end of the chapter (pgs 108 & 109) where he discusses the issue of technology and curriculum integration.  Cost, training, and planning are all issues that Picciano regards as obstacles towards effective integration of the two.  Cost is associated with the costs of purchasing, maintaining, and updating whatever new technology a school may want to integrate.  Training relates mostly to the concept of teacher professional development and the time/costs associated with bringing people up to speed and gaining buy-in.  Additionally, planning is addressed due to the requirement to develop a plan that allows for continuous updating and flexibility.

I wonder if there need to be new approaches beyond simply trying to retrofit our already out of date educational process.  Perhaps the founders of schools like the Harlem Success Academy could lead us to imagine a new school founded upon an integrated approach.  No retrofit, just the best practices in educational technology brought to life by educators who were trained and on board with the approach.  This take on the problem negates a lot of the issues and allows for a ground up approach.  Negated are the issues of training and planning as these are dealt with from the onset.  Children enter an entirely new school system that has never known a world without technology.

On a smaller scale I wonder if the entire process is just not organic enough.  It's almost as if we are trying to reinvent the wheel.  How do people already use technology?  I think that may be as important a  question as how does a specific technology relate to learning theory.  The best new ideas are the ones that integrate seamlessly into people's lives.  The problem with new ideas in educational technology is that we seem to try and create new things based on research, but fitting those things into people's lives is difficult.  An example of a more organic technology for education would be something along the lines of Edmodo.  This system piggybacks off the idea of social networking, but is structured in such a way that best practices can still be utilized.

Overall the question about how to integrate technology into the curriculum is one that needs to be addressed.  Is there one answer that we can create an institutional model from or gone is the day of an industrialized system where everyone does business the same way?

Picciano chapters 4 & 5

I first want to apologize for to everyone for falling behind.  The first few weeks of school create "perfect storm" if you will and I often find myself cheating myself out of my own studies in order to deal with my outside commitments.  Things appear to be much more under control now and I expect to keep pace moving forward.

For week three we were supposed to have read chapters 4 & 5 of the Picciano text.  These were not exciting chapters.  The focus was on basic software tolls that educational leaders in general could use to manage their schools and direct their decision making processes.  While the information was valid and useful it seemed like a "lipstick on a pig" description of basic leadership principles where someone uses data and statistics to inform their decision making process.  Mostly just another example of someone going on and on about a process that most people already perform, but ascribing genius to themselves for having given the process a name.

The point here is that one should maintain a central database with which they will track essential information about all aspects of their school or program.  The data tracked and properly utilized will allow a person to see trends of the past, make predictions about the future, and use these to inform the decisions that they make.

Of the entire two chapters, revolving almost entirely around the use of DBMS, the point that really caught y eye was that the successful implementation of a data-driven decision making process within a school system has the potential to change the culture of that entire school system.  When any person at any level has ready access and the training to extrapolate the data needed to make informed and intelligent decisions there is no doubt that confidence, community, and excellence have the potential to flourish.  However, the obstacles that exist in most school systems, such as lack of training or ability, lack of access or resources, and most importantly lack of desire, have the potential to bring an entire implementation to a grinding halt.

I am not currently in a K-12 setting, but the interactions I have had in such settings lead me to believe that data-driven programs like this would be difficult at best to implement.  I am not against the concept, but as a realist I see very real hurdles in making sweeping changes to the culture of an entire school system.

First Thoughts: EDUC 638

I have to be honest and say that as I read the Picciano text and the Hall text, nothing really stood out to me as a new or unique idea during the first few chapters.  Most of what was said was overview type information covered or read in previous educational technology courses.  If I have to grab on to an idea,  it's that the entire process of leadership as it relates to educational technology really goes back to the position a leader takes regarding his or her philosophy of education.  Until that is understood little else can be accomplished.  This idea dictates the types of technology a leader may be willing to implement and henceforth how they will be planned for.

 I suppose this does not mean that an instructor/technologist need only search for employment in a place that shares his or her philosophy of education, but it could reduce the friction involved in the planning process.  On page 11 of the Picciano text he states that allowing others to participate in the administrative process will increase buy in and investment by those who must implement the plan.  This process would be much more efficient if there was a shared educational philosophy amongst the administration and the instructors/technologists.  This can only be the case if each person's philosophy logically extends to his or her practices.  Too often this is not the case and a disruptive inconsistency is created.  This rift would make planing for technology exceptionally difficult and collaboration nearly impossible.

All of this is to say that in planning or leading one must look back to what they believe philosophically, even in the realm or technology.  It is a commonly agreed upon fact supported by Picciano that technology for technology's sake is ineffective.  The instructors/technologists must carefully examine how each implementation contributes to they way he or she believes knowledge and learning is constructed.