Naomi Atkins' Notes on Gardner (1991), chapters 11 and 12

Some food for thought...

In Chapters 11 & 12, Gardner examines three main school programs which address the issue of "education for understanding" at different stages:

• Spectrum (the children's museum approach) for early childhood
• the Key School (apprenticeship) for middle childhood
• Arts PROPEL (domain projects & process-portfolios) for adolescence

1) What do you like/dislike about each of these proposals? What are their benefits and their drawbacks? Do you think they were effective in achieving understanding? Do they address different learning styles/multiple intelligences? Is it unrealistic to think that they can be entirely/partially adopted or adapted into an educational system which, as we've discussed before, often resists major structural change? Would they be effective if only partially implemented?

2) Gardner also mentions several computer programs for each stage which address his concerns, but he says himself that "Technological adjuncts are not necessary; paper, pencil and thought can suffice" (233). What are the advantages of incorporating technology into a teaching-for-understanding educational strategy? Can technology be more effective than traditional teaching methods? Are there disadvantages to using technology? We've talked about this a bit before in the class, but not specifically in terms of understanding as the primary end.

3) In the final pages of Chapter 12, Gardner outlines five entry points for nurturing individual understanding: narrational, logical-quantitative, foundational, aesthetic, experiential. Are there other ways of presenting material to ensure that the learning styles of the greatest number of students are addressed? I like the idea of using different teaching approaches to address and cultivate students' multiple intelligences, but I wonder if it's unrealistic to assume that the teacher facing 30-40 students will be able/will have the time to present material in all these ways.

Gardner emphasizes the importance of the various roles of the teacher: for example, as a mentor/role model, teaching students indirectly the reasons for which activities are done, and as an evaluator of the level of students' intelligence profile, capabilities, and interests. What preparation would teachers who are going to educate for understanding need to succeed at these roles? Can teaching for understanding be taught?

4) What lessons can we draw from Gardner about our own various projects? I think his ideas pose quite a few questions relevant to our program designs, including: - Who is your audience? Are you teaching to multiple intelligences to address different learning styles (especially for groups working with younger children)?

• Does your program incorporate different "entry points" to engage different learning styles?
• Does your program include a way to evaluate the progress of the user? Do you consider evaluation/ assessment an important goal?
• For middle school through college groups -- does your program challenge the user to view concepts from different angles and to confront previous misconceptions, stereotypes and "rigidly applied algorithms"?
• Are these goals unattainable/unrealistic for us?

That's it for now...See you in class!

- Naomi