The Democratic Classroom & Multiple Intelligences

Part 1

For any class, it is critical to establish a code of conduct that can best foster a learning environment.  Traditionally this has been the responsibility of the teacher: to create, lay out, and enforce those rules.  Contemporary research, however, suggests a different approach.  Rather than a top-down, authoritarian generation of class rules, it is widely held that a more democratic, student-created set of expectations and guidelines can more effectively allow students “to empower [themselves], to motivate them to learn, and to help them discover their personal best” (Education World).  This approach can be furthered through the use of regular, student-led class meetings.

            Far from being a “gateway” to a permissive classroom with no sense of order, a democratized classroom does not eliminate the authority, but rather invests it in each student.  According to Dr. Marshall, by forming and then maintaining their own classroom rules through regular meetings, even “ An ‘unmanageable class’ can become a learning and caring community” (Marshall).  As student minds, like all human minds, are “pattern-seeking and pattern-making mechanism[s]” (Carson, 2002, p. 232), these classroom meetings glean much of their effectiveness and significance from their regularity.  Donna Styles describes her weekly class meetings very similarly to the orderly and procedural goings on of a town meeting: “desks are moved to the perimeter of the room and students take their designated places in a circle of chairs. […] Old business is discussed and new business is dealt with. ‘Thank yous’ and compliments are offered and the meeting is closed.  If a student wants an issue raised at a meeting, he or she places a slip of paper inside a box provided in the classroom. The papers, which include the name of the student and the date, constitute the new business of the next meeting” (Education World).  In a very important sense, the similarity to a city council minutes is intentional, as “to some extent, the process is the point” (Marshall).  It is only natural, after all, that a classroom community acting in a democratic fashion would resemble its large-scale counterpart.

            These sorts of regular class meetings provide even more than maintaining order and ensuring the student body has a vested interest in maintaining their classroom community.  In addition, they can provide valuable and pro-social life skills for all involved: listening skills, learning nonverbal communication, clarity of speech, empathy, fairness, tolerance, respect, and helpfulness are among the valuable skills students acquire during these meetings (Marshall).  Teachers, too, can gain valuable information and tools through these meetings.  They can “develop a closer relationship with their students. The relaxed conversation often reveals things about students, their families, and their circumstances which teachers might never have found out otherwise” (Marshall).  Even negative behavior or antipathy toward the idea or process of meetings can be revealing, if considered properly.  Kohn (1996) finds that behaviors such as acting out, testing, resistance, silence, or parroting can indicate students’ frustrations, expectations, and desire for order just a loudly as he most talkative student.

Part 2

            Intelligence is a fairly nebulous concept, difficult to define or neatly categorize, yet it is central to our work as educators.  Debate on the very idea of what the intellect “is,” how it is formed, and whether there is more than one kind is ongoing.  Still, there is now a general movement toward acceptance of the theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI).  Howard Gardner theorized that, while the standardized tests and most other forms of exams focused on students’ ability to solve problems or answer questions using their reading, writing, or mathematical skills – or as he would eventually call them, the “linguistic” and “logical-mathematical” intelligences (Sowers, 2004, p. 208).  Sensing that there were numerous other kinds of intelligences, Gardner would eventually formulate an additional six styles of learning: musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist (p. 208).  Cantu and Ruban (2006) note that “although Gardner initially conceptualized the intelligences as fairly independent, he also recognized that they are fairly interactive.”

            Though the study of and research into MI is now well into its second decade, “the development of standardized, reliable assessment tools […] has lagged behind the development of theory” (McMahon, Rose, & Parks, 2004, p. 41-42).  In part, this can be attributed to Gardner’s theory being justifiably criticized as “too broad for planning a curriculum” (p. 42).  Nevertheless, Gardner’s theory of MI “has had an enormous impact on education – perhaps more impact than any other theory that has ever preceded it” (Sternberg, Lautrey, and Lubart, 2003, p. 12).  Its implications that emphasized the importance of the classroom being “a place for [a given construct of intelligence] on the continuum between the overall notion of general intelligence and the long list of specific skills and subskills” have cause a fundamental alteration of the learning environment, the relationship between student and teacher, and the methodologies employed to effectively encourage learning (Cantu and Ruban).  Despite its inevitable criticisms, the theory of MI has drawn needed attention to the inherent biases present in classical testing and examination methods, and allowed some schools to adopt approached utilizing an MI approach with remarkable success: in Maryland, “a 20% increase in students’ scores on the Maryland School Performance Assessment after just 1 year of implementation of MI techniques across the curriculum” (McMahon, Rose, & Parks, p. 43).  This is not an isolated case, and its implementation has been shown to have positive effects in schools in around the country.

            There are challenges with implementing an MI-based curriculum, however, that cannot be ignored.  It can be difficult and time-consuming to apply the techniques to a school at an institutional level, and assessing its effectiveness – for instance, allowing a student with musical intelligence to be assessed by using a musical instrument – is “not always practical or feasible” (p. 44).  Still, despite its inherent limitations, in a world as diverse, interconnected, and stratified as ours, “’casting a broader net’ to identify and nurture people's diverse potentials is imperative” (Cantu and Ruban).  In light of the expanding definition of intelligence, it stands to reason that teachers would do well to take heed and implement as many MI strategies as they are able, and thus be able to effectively reach as many of their students as possible.

Resources

Cantu, C. and Ruban, L.  “Multiple Intelligences.” In Encyclopedia of Human Development, vol. 2, ed. by Neil J. Salkind, et al. (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2006), pp. 864-871.  http://asp6new.alexanderstreet.com.proxybz.lib.montana.edu/psyc/psyc.object.details.aspx?dorpID=1001021056 Retrieved: April 28, 2012.

Carson, R. (2002). “The epic narrative of intellectual culture as a framework for curricular coherence.” Science & Education, 11. 231–246

Education World. “Class Meetings: A Democratic Approach to Classroom Management.” 

 http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/profdev012.shtml Retrieved: April 28, 2012

Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mashall, M.  “Promoting Learning.”  The Teachers Net Gazette http://teachers.net/gazette/AUG00/marshall.html Retrieved: April 28, 2012

McMahon, S., Rose, D., and Parks, M.  “Multiple Intelligences and Reading Achievement: An Examination of the Teele Inventory of Multiple Intelligences.” In The Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 73, No. 1, Fall, 2004 (Taylor & Francis, Ltd.).  http://www.jstor.org.proxybz.lib.montana.edu/stable/20157383?seq=8&Search=yes&searchText=Intelligences&searchText=Multiple&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DMultiple%2BIntelligences%26Search.x%3D0%26Search.y%3D0%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=2456&returnArticleService=showFullText&resultsServiceName=null Retrieved: April 28, 2012.

 

Sternberg, R. J., Lautrey, J., & Lubart, T. I. (Eds.). (2003). Models of intelligence: International perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

References

Carson, R. (1998). “Ourstory—A culturally-based curriculum framed by history.” EDCI 552 Coursepack. Montana State University, Northern Plains Transition to Teaching, Bozeman, Montana.

Carson, R. (2002). “The epic narrative of intellectual culture as a framework for curricular coherence.” Science & Education, 11. 231–246

Carson, R. (2003). “A Vygotskian Perspective on Culture & Cognition: A Reflection on How Tools Mediate Action .”  EDCI 552 Coursepack. Montana State University, Northern Plains Transition to Teaching, Bozeman, Montana.