The Multiple Intelligences Entry Point Approach: Engaging Language Learners into Any Topic

Josh Lange, UK

Josh Lange is UK representative of the Multiple Intelligences Institute and EAP Teaching Fellow for University College London.
E-mail: multipleintelligencesuk@gmail.com
Personal website: http://mitraining.schools.officelive.com/default.aspx
Multiple Intelligences Institute: www.miinstitute.info

Menu

Introduction
Background: the problem with learning styles in the TESOL classroom
Learning styles are not intelligences
The entry point approach
The entry point approach in secondary or adult TESOL: an example
Conclusion: summary of the Pilgrim’s presentation and MI entry points activity
References

Introduction

When I asked her about Multiple Intelligences Theory (MI), a very intelligent and highly-respected English for Academic Purposes teacher-trainer at the University of Reading, Sarah B, replied “that’s similar to learning styles, isn’t it?” Another great teacher-trainer at Oxford University, Emma K, once responded to me when I asked her if she knew about MI Theory “they told us about it on the DELTA but not much more.” I believe Sarah and Emma’s very honest statements would be repeated by most TESOL professionals, in other words “I generally know what MI is, but not really how to use it”. That was the purpose of this session at Pilgrim’s, to give participants a first-hand experience in using this modern theory in a practical way, a way that can support any topic in any setting, as long as the teacher believes that addressing a topic in more than one way is beneficial to today’s English language learners. Many teachers will find that they are already using the theory in novel ways. This paper first discusses one major obstacle to using learner-centered strategies in second language classes, then defines the difference between a ‘learning style’ and an ‘intelligence,’ then matches cutting-edge theory to the Entry Point Approach, and finally gives concrete examples showing how Entry Points can be used in most secondary and adult TESOL settings to better humanize language teaching.

Background: the problem with learning styles in the TESOL classroom

Research has shown that “kinaesthetic and tactile learning styles were strongly preferred by ESL students [in colleges and universities] when compared to native English speakers” (Reid, 1987; Stebbins, 1995). In related research, Oxford (1985) suggests that offering students some sense of familiarity by initially building upon students’ own inclinations makes ESL students less resistant to risk-taking and change, factors which linguists (Krashen) suggest are essential for successful L2 acquisition. In addressing the variety of language needs and learner differences to motivate learners and improve their own practice, TESOL and EFL teachers must rely upon a variety of learner-centered technologies to be successful in their task, technologies which unfortunately have little to do with formalized linguistic thinking.

English teachers who rely primarily on linguistic approaches to instruction often fail to understand why some learners are unable to develop clear understandings of the course content, while other learners seem to grasp the course content quite readily and perform very well on assessment. Perhaps one of the answers to this dilemma is that second language learners taking English language courses are not “linguistically intelligent,” but have multiple intelligences working together at different levels of development at any given time. Decker (1983, cited in Eliason 1995) showed that ESL teachers gave higher course grades to students with learning styles most similar to their own teaching style, and they believed the students understood the material better when in fact the differences were not significant. Nevertheless, looking closely at disciplinary differences in not only ESP but also in general EAP instruction is necessary as second language learners are working more and more in interdisciplinary learning contexts (Feak, 2009), and this recognition of the changes in this context alerts teachers to their own limitations in using learning styles or intelligences to engage learners.

If learning styles theories and the data on learners several strengths and interests were taken into consideration, TESOL providers might discover the obvious: that an overwhelming majority of these learners aren’t studying anything to do with linguistics or language teaching, they are taking a language course as a means to achieve a minimum IELTS or TOEFL score, or in many cases are obliged by the State to take English as a core requirement for their diploma. Likewise, ESP courses are “offered by the company” or necessary for some certification. In the courses I taught at the University of Reading between 2007 and 2009, for example, out of well over 100 pre-sessional students, only two planned to study English language teaching or linguistics. Indeed, many of these learners are financial analysts or accountants and language is often their primary weakness.

In contrast, English teachers must be very strong at language and as a result plan their lessons based on what they understand best. After all, the content is language, why shouldn’t the methods also be linguistic? In my opinion, the methods should be various because the learners have a variety of strengths and interests which differ greatly from the teacher. That is the problem: by disregarding learning styles or intelligences in lesson planning and practice…the students’ are oftentimes left out!

Learning styles are not intelligences

Learning styles and multiple intelligences are quite different. Although Multiple Intelligences (MI) is a modern developmental psychology theory closely linked to learning styles and constructivist theories (Battro, 2009), it differs from learning styles in that learning styles speak of the way a certain person learns, for example an “auditory” second language learner wants to participate in discussions, conversations, and group work (Oxford, 1995), whereas “musical intelligence” actually leads to a discipline that is valued by a certain culture in a certain time period, such as a concert violinist. Krechevsky & Seidel (1998) give an example, “One can be a tactile or auditory learner and still become an accountant or a botanist. However, if one has not developed strong logical-mathematical or naturalist intelligences, success in those professions will be limited.” Different than a ‘style’, an ‘intelligence’ is a biological potential situated in the brain of every human being which can be developed in a trajectory valued in a culture. Howard Gardner, the progenitor of MI Theory, has defined an intelligence (1999) thus: “the bio-psychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve a problem or fashion a product that is valued in one or more cultural settings.” However, the implications for the EAP or ESP teacher are the same: learner-centered classroom experiences.

The entry point approach

Whether a teacher uses MI theory or any learning styles theory to support their pre-defined aims, there are many approaches which engage the students. One approach that can be used in any TESOL or EFL setting is the Entry Point Approach, based on Multiple Intelligences. The Entry Point Approach is an approach to learning—a structure for designing curricula rather than a particular curricular vehicle. The notion of entry points was introduced by Howard Gardner in The Unschooled Mind (1991):

My own belief is that any rich, nourishing topic—any concept worth teaching—can be approached in at last five different ways that, roughly speaking, map onto the multiple intelligences. We might think of the topic as a room with at least five doors or entry points into it. Students vary as to which entry point is most appropriate for them and which routes are most comfortable to follow once they have gained initial access to the room. Awareness of these entry points can help the teacher introduce new materials in ways in which they can be easily grasped by a range of students; then, as students explore other entry points, they have the chance to develop those multiple perspectives that are the best antidote to stereotypical thinking (p. 245).

The framework features five different points of entry into any topic: the Aesthetic, the Narrative, the Logical/Quantitative, the Foundational, and the Experiential. Harvard project MUSE researchers initially suggested that by experiencing all five entry points, learners can discover: 1) if and when they prefer one entry point over another, and 2) that there are many different and valid ways to think and learn about any subject. Gardner (1991: 245, 1999: 169) outlines these entry points. I summarize using his examples of democracy in an American K-12 context, and his revisions (1999) are indicated in quotes:

The Narrative “narrational” Window. In using a narrational entry point one presents a story or narrative, linguistic or filmic, about the concept in question. In the case of democracy, one would tell the story of its beginnings in ancient Greece or, perhaps, of the origins of constitutional government in the United States.

The Logical/Quantitative “numerical” Window. (In Frames of Mind (1999), Gardner separates “logical” from “quantitative” windows, highlighting the difference of logical deduction vs. number pattern recognition.)

In using a logical-quantitative entry point, one approaches the concept by invoking numerical considerations or deductive reasoning processes. In the case of democracy one could look at congressional voting patterns over time or the arguments used for and against democracy by the Founding Fathers.

The Foundational or “existential” Window. A foundational entry point examines the philosophical and terminological facets of the concept. A foundational approach to democracy would ponder the root meaning of the word, the relationship of democracy to other forms of decision making and government, and the reasons why one might adopt a democratic rather than an oligarchic approach.

The Experiential or “hands-on” Window. Many people can easily approach a topic through an activity in which they are fully engaged – building or manipulating materials, or carrying out experiments. In experimenting with democracy, learners might constitute groups that have to make decisions in accordance with various governmental processes, observing the pros and cons of democracy as compared with other, more “top-down” forms of government.

The Aesthetic Window. Some are inspired easily by works of art or music, which feature balance, harmony, and composition. In approaching democracy, learners might look at a painting depicting a scene from the Revolutionary War and contemplate on whether the colors and characters of the American revolutionaries are more or less ‘democratic’ than the British soldiers (my example). One intriguing approach would be to listen to musical ensembles that are characterized either by group playing or by laying under the control of a single individual—the string quartet versus the orchestra (Gardner’s example).

Although there is an important synergy between them, with each schema having implications for the other, the structures differ in their specific area of illumination. In sum, MI theory may be more useful in considering students (those who are learning), and the Entry Point Approach may be more useful in considering text (what is being learned).

In the humanistic English Language classroom, an Entry Points Approach is useful for classes in which:

1. Topics are already established.
2. Learning goals are already identified.

Before implementing the Entry Points Approach, English teachers should ask themselves:

Does your own profile of strengths limit your classroom activities to certain Intelligences?

Is the topic addressable in many ways?

Can existing activities be altered or enhanced to offer access into the topic to more students?

After answering these three questions, you are ready to enhance your classroom experience and engage more learners in the content through Multiple Intelligences.

The entry point approach in secondary or adult TESOL: an example

The setting is the highly regarded Pilgrim’s Teacher Training Summer School in Canterbury, August 5th, 2011. Chaz Pugliesi invited me to present on how to use Gardner’s Entry Points. This was a difficult consideration, as usually one or two entry points is sufficient in one class session, and I had to use all of them simultaneously with over 50 people, and have all groups give feedback within a 25 minute timeframe. This involved a number of hours to plan and acquire the necessary tools, and it worked, but usually an entry point activity can be planned and prepared in a very short time with little preparation, and can form the reflective basis for an entire class or even a semester.

Because the Entry Points can be used with any content, I decided to use the generic topic of Tourism, which is commonly used in ELT classes and relevant to the audience (who were all visiting teachers on a summer course, after all). Also, generic topics such as tourism are used in the beginning stages of university-level TESOL as a basis for academic skills work (McCormack and Slaght, 2006). The target ‘learners’ in this instance were secondary and foundation level teachers, and the content was ‘types of tourism vocabulary activity’ based on the several Entry Points. NB!! Important note: teacher-learners were given the choice which ‘entry point’ group they would join. Each teacher-learner was given a short description of several types of modern tourism, adapted from Wikipedia:

• Cultural/Archaeological tourism
• 3DVT (or 3D virtual tourism)/Armchair tourism
• Flashpacker Tourism
• Dark tourism/Disaster tourism
• Drug tourism
• Extreme tourism
• Medical/Health tourism
• Sex tourism
• Space tourism
• Voluntourism/Volunteer Vacations

Once the content was established, and the learners were given enough time to assess the types of tourism on the handout, a ‘group leader’ was established and each group was given a cutout task. Some groups received specific content materials needed to complete their task. Each of the tasks is outlined below:

Foundational/Existential
TASK: discuss one or two of the problems with defining the types of tourism listed on your handout. For example, can ‘cosmetic surgery’ be considered ‘health tourism? Why do some on the list have two or more names? What do these names include or exclude?

Quantitative/Logical
(this group received a statistical table with some tourism data by region)
TASK: look at the data table. As a group, compare and contrast the forecasted 2020 Market Share between Europe and East Asia/Pacific regions and decide which types of tourism on the handout will have the most effect on these numbers.

Experiential
TASK: play the mime game with the types of tourism listed on the handout; each type of tourism must be mimed and guessed before the game can finish.

Narrative (Note: This task was not included in the session but was there in spirit!)
(this group would receive 6 A4 size color-printed images which could be interpreted in several ways, such as a pretty young girl in a skirt at a tropical destination)
TASK: create a storyboard with the images: the only rules are that you must use three types of tourism on the handout and there must be a happy-ending!

Aesthetic Visual
(this group looked at a series of images of ‘unusual beds’ on PowerPoint slides and given a multiple choice quiz with a-d variables). See appendix.
TASK: complete the tourism quiz based on the images and decide as a group the best answer for each after receiving the handout.

Aesthetic Musical
(this group received a CD player and 6 songs on a CD with completely different musical genres, such as rap, heavy metal, classical, tropical, pop, and of course Pink Floyd’s ‘Another Brick in the Wall’ on a CD.)
TASK: listen to the songs on the CD and match one type of tourism listed on the handout to the song you hear. You should listen to each song for at least 30 seconds. Then agree as a group on the best answer for each.

Narrative 2, Social
TASK: tell each other about an experience you or a friend has had with one or two of the types of tourism listed on the handout. (pairs optional)

Conclusion: summary of the Pilgrim’s presentation and MI entry points activity

Most participants seemed to enjoy the session, as it was practice-oriented integrated with interactive lecture style, and everyone had a first-hand experience with the practical implications of a Multiple-Intelligence-enhanced classroom experience. I was under pressure as both the room was completely overcrowded with so much talent and experience, but even more pressure came from the wall, where four large pictures of Bertrand Russell stared at me during the entire lecture. Before the activity, a presentation and history of Multiple Intelligences was given, and individuals were able to give insights into their own experiences and individual students. For example Astrid, who teaches the World’s #1 Mountain Climber, shared that her student is such a kinaesthetically-talented achiever but struggles with language, achieving very little. What Astrid recognizes is that it is indeed the task of the language teacher to integrate a person’s strengths into the language classroom: she wanted to just learn how.

Teachers were then put in the place of the learner, and performed their tasks very well, requiring only a small bit of clarification once the activities were started. Some activities were finished earlier than others, but all groups finished within the allotted timeframe. Each group was able to report back on their activity. Some groups, like the ‘foundational’ entry point group, developed into a heated debate as Pilgrim’s expert-trainer Bonnie Tsai raised the question: is categorization of cosmetic surgery ‘medical tourism’? (A family resemblances type linguistic question that even Wittgenstein might have difficulty answering!) The ‘visual-aesthetic’ group pondered the image of a bed that looked like a hamburger – is that cultural, extreme, or sex tourism? Using their vivid imaginations in combination with strong visual/spatial intelligence to discuss the meanings of the target vocabulary.

One interesting result of the activity was that the ‘musical aesthetic’ group collectively defined Pink Floyd’s ‘Another Brick in the Wall Part III” as relative to ‘dark tourism’ and ‘drug tourism.’ Of course most of the audience was European, whose cultures would be expected to connect Pink Floyd music to drug use, especially psychedelic drugs; but I’m not so sure that Asian or Middle Eastern participants would have connected the song to drug use. Perhaps the answers would vary also with age, experiences and so on. The point is that the activity recycled the target vocabulary in participants’ minds, and then gave them the power to choose how this song related to them, which sparked a discussion and due to the task type, an agreement had to be made. There are quite a bit of “speech acts” occurring here (Cohen, 1996), along with inquiry and reflection (Nunan, 2001); and at the same time the teacher is afforded the opportunity to recall those old days with psychedelic drugs as well as prepare for the ‘Dream and Symbols Interpretation’ afternoon optional session at Pilgrim’s.

References

Arnold, Jane and Fonseca MaCarmen (2004). Multiple Intelligence Theory and foreign language learning: a brain-based perspective. International Journal of English Studies. 4(1), pp. 119-136. Accessed 31/7/2009 from:
www.um.es/engphil/ijes

Battro, Antonio (2009) Multiple Intelligences and constructionism in the digital era. From: Multiple Intelligences around the world. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Davis, J. (1996). The MUSE Book. Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College/Harvard Project Zero

Eliason, Patricia (1995) Difficulties with cross-cultural learning-styles assessment. From: Reid, J. Learning styles in the EFL/ESL classroom.

Carter, Ronald and David Nunan (eds) (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: CUP.

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Cohen, A.D. (1996). Speech Acts. In S.L. McKay and N.H. Hornberger (eds) Sociolinguistics and language teaching. Cambridge: CUP, pp.383-420.

Feak, Christine (2009) Culture Shock? Genre Shock? BALEAP Conference Plenary.

Gardner, Howard (1991). The Unschooled Mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic.
--Intelligences Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic, 1999.
--The Disciplined Mind: What All Students Should Understand. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999.

McCormack, Joan and John Slaght (2006) Extended writing and research skills. English for Academic Study series. Reading: Garnet Education.

Oxford (1985). Second language learning strategies: What the research has to say. ERIC/CLL Bulletin, 9(1), 1, 3-4.

Reid, Joy (Ed). (1998). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. --(Ed.) (1995). Learning styles in the EFL/ESL classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Stebbins, Christine (1995). Culture-specific perceptual learning-style preferences of postsecondary students of English as a second language. From: Reid, J. Learning styles in the EFL/ESL classroom.

Please check the Teaching English Through Multiple Intelligences course at Pilgrims website.