Making Use of Claxton's Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom

A couple of months have passed since I first participated in an extended session intended to provoke thought around the topic of Learning and Assessment.  For me, the most interesting topic discussed during the first session was the difference between Surface Learning and Deep Learning (Marton and Säljö, 1976).

Other aspects discussed in the first session included:

1. The reptilian brain - how people can be reduced to survival behaviour when under stress.
2. The impact of language on learning.
3. Emotional (Limbic)Intelligence / Emotional Competencies (Daniel Goleman, 1995).
4. The 4 Rs (Guy Claxton) - Resilience, resourcefulness, reflectiveness and reciprocity.
5. Multiple Intelligences (Howard Gardner, 1983)

The second seminar began by revisiting Claxton's work in light of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences.  The initial contention presented was that selecting and using our preferred Multiple Intelligence in order to complete a task should lead to greater effectiveness of task completion / learning.  This was discussed for a short while, after which I proposed that perhaps choosing a less preferred Multiple Intelligence might prove more useful as it would put me out of my comfort zone and thus help to make the experience more memorable (in my strange view of the world we remember the bad things more than the good ones). This also feeds into Claxton's 4Rs, i.e. putting oneself outside the comfort zone aligns with having to be resilient and being resourceful.

Reflecting a little more on this, why should choosing the 'wrong' Multiple Intelligence promote learning?  Putting it one way, forcing a student to complete a task they do not want to do in a way they do not want to do it is probably a route to disaster... but... allowing CHOICE in determining the less preferred Multiple Intelligence to be used might lead to an enhanced learning experience.

A colleague and I decided to try this out.  We jointly planned a lesson where students would first select their preferred Multiple Intelligence and then use this to create a learning aid for dealing with addition / subtraction / multiplication and division of fractions.  Once this was done, pupils were to select a less preferred Multiple Intelligence to repeat the task.  At the same time, other colleagues would run lessons with sister groups (in terms of ability), but using a 'chalk and talk' approach.  At the end of all 4 lessons (2 using Gardner's approach and 2 using a more traditional method), pupils were given the same homework task to complete.  Anecdotally it seems that the 'chalk and talk' approach was more efficient (pupils were in a position to tackle a wider range of Mathematical problems in the same amount of time).  However, use of the word "efficient" led to a subsequent question within the department - would the use of Multiple Intelligences lead to more effective learning in terms of retention of process fluency.  The plan is to set the same homework for all groups at a later date and then to assess whether one method or the other has led to better retention. 

This leads nicely onto the area of Assessment.  One of my favourite quotes from the session comes from Black and Wiliam (1998); "Weighing the pig doesn't fatten it.".  I love this quote!  I have sought to apply its meaning since before I even read it.  In a nutshell, why do something which doesn't lead to a desired outcome?

In terms of the classroom, it is all too easy to finish a topic with a test.  How useful the test is depends on what happens next.  Marking and assigning a grade is the equivalent of weighing the pig.  From this we may ascertain a student's current level of attainment, but without subsequent action testing alone will not help the student to improve.

Our current practice within Mathematics seems to align with the thrust of Black and Wiliam's comment.  Following every assessment we (teacher and student together) take the opportunity to identify the area(s) in which pupils could improve (in line with their target grades), and then allow time to students to work with the teacher / each other to review and improve their assessment responses. 

Using assessment in the 'right' way has attracted much comment.  Rowntree (1987) asserts "If we wish to discover the truth about an educational system, we must look to its assessment procedures... assessment is important as students cannot avoid it."  Boud (1995) goes on to say "Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of poor teaching, they cannot escape the effects of poor assessment."

Fleming and Chambers (1983) reveal a fact that "80% of questions in school tests deal only with factual information".  One must look to the date of this work and take the figure with a pinch of salt.  While I agree that testing facts is easily done (and is, indeed, commonplace) I must contest the validity of the 80% figure in the current year.  Taking Mathematics as an example, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the subject is all about remembering facts (e.g. everyone has memories about learning their tables).  However, there are relatively few areas of Mathematics which are about fact recall only.  This will become increasingly the case as the new GCSE specification places higher priority than ever before on 'problem solving'.  Yes, it is still all paper-based, but on the plus side current thinking does allow for more emphasis on 'doing' rather than 'remembering'.

In striving to make best use of assessment within my subject, I have created a questionnaire which has been distributed to and responded to by approximately 60 students across Years 9 and 10.  Although I have not yet had time to analyse the results, a number items stood out:

• Most students believe they are currently assessed an appropriate number of times per year
• Almost all students believe that current assessments involve a mixture of testing fact recall and application of Mathematical processes.
• The majority of students believe that their assessments lead to feedback that helps them identify areas in which to improve (with respect to their target grade)
• Most students believe they are afforded time after an assessment in which to reflect and improve upon their initial responses
• A significant number of pupils (mainly in Year 10) believed that the outcomes of assessments fed into what was subsequently covered (or re-covered) during class time.

A couple of interesting comments were also made, which can be incorporated into departmental practice.  One pupil suggested that, following an assessment and having allowed time for review and improvement, it would be beneficial to set some similar questions to those which may have caused problems on the original assessment.  Another suggestion was to consider including opportunities for students to describe how they would solve a problem rather than just wanting the solution.  Both are food for thought.

Surface v. Deep Learning

This is my first public blog... ever... and as such I thought it most appropriate to simply dive in and ramble my way through a few thoughts and ideas which are in my mind.

Today's topic is 'learning and assessment' in the context of a UK secondary school. Learning must surely be what a school is all about, although perhaps the scope of learning should be clarified.  I am not talking simply about the internalisation of facts such as "two times three is six"... (and let's leave aside the debate as to whether anyone truly knows mathematical facts of whether they are believed)... I am of the opinion that we should include many other aspects of learning too:

• Learning facts (or at least what we believe at the current time to be facts)
• Practising and mastering skills and processes
• Applying skills and processes to facts (or hypothetical situations) and refining that application in light of feedback
• Developing understanding of self and society (and figuring out how the two best interact)
• Constructing paradigms encompassing those items listed above

Where learning implies the uptake or development of a piece of knowledge or a skill, assessment suggests the necessity to appreciate how much of that knowledge been retained or how deeply the skill has been internalised.  Perhaps this last sentence is the beginning of a definition, i.e. knowledge is an accumulated breadth of subject matter whereas skills are processes or actions which may be first replicated at a superficial level but then mastered upon deeper understanding of the facets and applications of that skill.

Such discussion of knowing v. mastering meanders into the domain of 'surface learning' as compared to 'deep learning'.  These titles are effective in suggesting their own definitions, with surface learning implying a rudimentary understanding of a wide breadth of topics (and topic areas) and deep learning suggesting mastery and the ability to interpret and apply irrespective of context.

It is probably easy (and logical) to have a predisposition to the assumption that deep learning is somehow better; that the two types of learning are at opposing ends of a continuum.  I would argue that such opinion is a reflex response and that both stages on a learning journey.  Consider the metaphor of a learning journey as described by a passenger train.  Individuals are independent travellers: the point of embarkation is a given in terms of their prior learning... the point at which they alight will be decided by the individual by reference to where they want to go along the particular train line.  The terminating station might be considered the pinnacle of deep learning, but not everyone will want to go there nor have the appropriate fare (where the fare is considered the propensity to learn / master the subject matter).  Different train lines exist and their final destinations and calling points might be likened to subjects and disciplines within the school environment.  It might be possible to extend this notion to include express trains v. stopping trains (in terms of how quickly the destination of 'deep learning' is reached), but perhaps that would be to over-egg the pudding.

Regardless, my contention is that the two types of learning are not necessarily better or worse than each other, but perhaps serve different purposes.  Framing the context in my own subject specialism of Mathematics, I would argue that it is difficult for everyone to achieve a deep learning of the subject given that it is a collection of axioms, definitions, lemmas and theorems which are hardly ever of practical application on a standalone basis (if at all).  Being absolutely honest about things, I am a fully qualified teacher of Mathematics with enough certificates of qualification and prowess to wallpaper my study, but I still do not class myself has having a deep understanding of Mathematics.  I am at the 'application' stage, which could perhaps be compared to a parkway station using the metaphor of the rail journey above (yes, I am milking it now), i.e. close to the destination, but still not quite there.  Even degree level Mathematics is still a case of recall, regurgitate and apply in a familiar context, which is not dissimilar from what we do at GCSE level in school.

That's perhaps a long winded way of making a point which I believe is seldom acknowledged: that different subjects have different thresholds at which surface learning stops and at which deep learning begins.  With this in mind (contentious statement alert) I pose the following question - with subject specificity in mind, why do we strive for a one size fits all approach to a teaching and learning paradigm if such thresholds of mastery exist?

Let's introduce a new category on the surface-deep learning continuum... "superficial deep learning", where the illusion of deep learning is given but the actual reality is simply a surface approach dressed up for the benefit of an observer.  To exemplify this, a colleague being observed wanted to take an approach to teaching the topic of simultaneous equations which would allow for an outstanding judgement to be given.  Their instinctive approach was to turn a simple,though time-tested and robust, textbook exercise into a jigsaw puzzle where a pair of equations were matched to another piece of the jigsaw containing the answer.  At first glance this might seem an excellent idea, but what had actually been achieved was to turn an advanced topic, which in its original textbook form could be argued to require a deep understanding of algebra, into a much simpler task of substitution.  The former skill requires high level thinking in terms of deciding how to rearrange, factorise, expand, etc. (grade B or above) whereas the latter approach, although seemingly encouraging deeper learning, actually encourage pupils to work at a simpler level (grade E or D).  We must therefore be careful when making judgements as to what is surface learning and what is deep learning - appearances can be very deceptive.

Time to climb off my high-horse, I think.  While the distinction between surface and deep learning might not be immediately clear across differing subjects, the notion of fight or flight is very, very real... and Mathematics is perhaps one of the most common subjects in which this emotional dichotomy exists.  Only a few days ago the cosmetics giant L'Oreal was accused of exploiting this very emotion in the context of Mathematics.

L'Oreal agrees to change 'bad at maths' boast advert

On a daily basis I see pupils puzzled by various aspects of Mathematics to the point at which the fight or flight mentality is drawn out.  I suggest that it is not the actual Mathematics which is at fault, but more-so the manner in which it is presented.  Show even the most intelligent and committed pupil a second order differential equation and I suspect they would struggle to understand it, engage with it or solve it.  But, scaffolded in the right way many of those pupils who would initially opt for flight should be able to make some headway.  My opinion is not simply that it needs to be dressed up and made to look pretty, but that the problem is split into bite size chunks, each of which may be digested in succession and ultimately allow solution of the original problem.  Getting pupils to 'discover' the solution is very much not the way forward - it took mankind thousands of years to do so - but scaffolding in a way which initially allows supported repetition, followed by independent repetition, followed by application should surely allow for competent use that Mathematical skill both in examinations and in the wider environment as and when an opportunity exists.

The manner in which scaffolded activities may take place can be many and varied.  For example, despite extolling the virtue of the Mathematics textbook, I recently decided to appeal to pupils' more creative sides when beginning a topic on circles.  Cliché as it is we attempted to discover 'pi'.  An unscaffolded,  approach would likely have yielded little progress in the fifty minutes available to this lower ability set.  Indeed we struggled in the first ten minutes to effectively use a tape measure - I predicted some might start measuring from "1" rather than zero, but I was not prepared for the random placement of the tape measure and then, with gusto, pupils proclaiming measurements which were, to all intents and purposes, random.  Perhaps some concrete learning experiences would have eventually led pupils to the correct use of a tape measure... for example measuring one's waist, buying a suitably sized pair of trousers and then wondering why they didn't fit properly... but we don't have that kind of time.  I much prefer a learning approach that makes use of the 'More Knowledgeable Other' (Vygotsky) from the Social Development Theory approach.  This quite simply makes sense to me.  Why let other people make mistakes already made and learned from by humanity at large when placing that person in Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development allows the mistake to be pre-empted and instructed against.

Anyway, back to the point of my lesson on discovering pi.  In the end, pupils did take the necessary measurements, entered them into a spreadsheet on the teacher's computer and then as a group explored what happened if we added, subtracted, multiplied or divided the measurements of the circumference and diameter of a circle.  At this point we could have made notes in books or solved problems requiring application of this skill, but instead we made instructional videos showing others how to similarly discover pi.  Whether anyone will ever learn FROM these videos or not is irrelevant... the main learning of the lesson took place DURING THE MAKING of the videos - this activity appealed to the various learning styles and Multiple Intelligences identified by Gardner.