cont.: come together. I do appreciate you sending me information on proof of differentiated instruction because I have actually been looking for this myself. You saved me quite a bit of time. Thank you. I am attaching a...
@Chrismca: It is only a financial burden if schools pay for it. My video is for the individual teacher and explains what it is and how it can be used by them to interest students. As you have seen it is free. I personally have no problem calling these abilities and not intelligences because I believe I would still use them in the same manner in the classroom. I do understand how science works. I was brought up with the scientific method also, which is where the agreement between our thoughts....
Since DI also has no scientific proof that it is effective, I'm assuming you are not a fan of that theory either. DI and MI are alike because they include too many teaching techniques within them to be scientifically proven. If and how one uses these theories is up to the individual teacher. There is no one set way. It seems like the main problem you have here is the word intelligence so if I replaced the word intelligence with talents and interests, would that make a difference to you?
of savants. Therefore, you cannot test a specific MI by itself because there cannot be a controlled environment. This, to me, really comes down to common sense. If you teach with tools that will interest your students, students will most likely be more interested in the content and activities. I use the MI theory as a general guide that helps me connect to the interests of students and their background knowledge as well as to reinforce content in different ways. This is a form of DI...
@Chrismca: You continue to call MI a psuedoscience, which I have agreed on because it has never been scientifically proven, that is why there is the word "theory" attached to it as I have explained before. It will most likely never be proven scientifically, as Waterhouse explained and I'm sure you have read that report. The reason, as she states, is because Gardner has included that he thinks that several MI work together at once to do a single task and cannot be separated except in the case...
@MsD: #1 Not exactly: MI is pseudoscience -not because it's a theory, or that it has no evidence- but because even before it was tested, it did not not have the qualities of actual science (specificity, internal consistency, minimal assumptions, etc...) Lots of theories have been scientifically sound, but ultimately found wanting. But, they had qualities of good science
As for Waterhouse's paper, sure I read it, I used to teach with Lynn. Once she asked Gardner how much of his theory he believed
@MsD: #2 and he answered: So what, I'm rich and you're not. Honorable answer, huh?
The way you report using MI, it doesn't sound harmful -except perhaps financially for school districts. Do you really think that Gardner, and the school-hustling pedagogy pimps (ie uninformed educational consultants) who hawk Gardner's notions, have brought improvements to the schools commensurate with the money they've made?
@MsD #3 Clearly, the answer is no. That's my main problem.
But, funny you'd mention his use of the word "intelligence" Gardner spoke at my grad school. I asked him why he used the word intelligence the way he did. He said "If I'd called the book 'Multiple Abilities,' it would have sold zero copies" At the risk of repeating myself, when a proponent of an unproven proposition is making money from it, that is a reliable sign of pseudoscience. There are some very good books on this,you interested?
@MsDifferentiation #4 (and last) Actually DI has evidence see either Hodge (1997), or McAdamis (2001). There's also converging evidence (very important for science) from the reading instruction literature.
Anyway, good luck in your teaching and I'd really encourage you to look at some material on what constitutes science (ie the "demarcation problem") It's fascinating reading.
@Chrismca: Since you stated the words taught and teach, I'm assuming you mean in a lecture, mini-lesson or with reading materials. Those both use the linguistic MI. Comparing and contrasting and connecting to background knowledge both use the logical MI. So for you, if nothing else, MI can help you label and categorize your teaching techniques.
@MsD: Your assumption re: my teaching is right, but note something very important. The intelligences you rightly name -linguistic & logical- are those that Gardner says comprise the "traditional" view of intelligence. Thus, MI doesn't help here, see what I mean?
Moreover, not only is his "traditional" claim a straw-man fallacy, but he then follows up with the fallacy of the false alternative to support his model. Both these fallacies are reliable signs of pseudoscience -see the literature on it
If a student doesn't understand a concept the first way it is presented it needs to be presented in a different way, MI can give you some ideas to try. MI can also help to interest students in the concepts they need to learn. I was wondering if you would be willing to give me an example of how you first deliver and then repeat the concepts. Good discussion, thank you.
@MsD: Sure: If a student doesn't learn what I've taught whole-to-part, i'll teach it part to whole, then perhaps whole to part to whole. Or compare the new concept to a known one, or, conversely, contrast the two. Or, if a concept, skill, or strategy is terminologically heavy, reteach but skip the nomenclature. Or, typical of my work now, is to reteach a comprehension strategy simply with a different text, or switch literary genres if proper. And there's many others, all without pseudoscience.
Thank you for your comment so that I may have the opportunity to respond to it. There is no ethical problem for suggesting the use of MI. Throughout the video I refer to MI as a theory not a fact. MI can be a great tool for teachers to use for repetition of content and for increasing student choice. It is, as noted in the video, a great tool to help interest students in activities, not a miracle cure for learning. FYI leeches are widely used in hospitals today for several treatments.
@MsDifferentiation Since teachers can provide repetition & choice without MI, and MI has no supporting evidence , how is MI a "great tool" and not superfluous/
As for MI & leeches, you're right, they're not similar. Leeches have evidence that they work.
Seriously, what's the difference between: a) recommending an unsupported concept (fact or theory - both mislead) to folks with real educational needs and, b) a doctor giving only sugar pills to a patient who could benefit from proven medicine?
Videos like this present a serious ethical problem. The presenter tells teachers to spend their valuable time using a concept (MI) that has never been shown to improve student learning. That MI has no support is widely known, and this information is easily available to any responsible, diligent adult. An educator recommending MI is like a physician recommending leeches.
When will we start putting kids first, and stop spreading these pseudoscience fads. The kids deserve better!
i have all 8
MrDanielMaciag 2 months ago
cont.: come together. I do appreciate you sending me information on proof of differentiated instruction because I have actually been looking for this myself. You saved me quite a bit of time. Thank you. I am attaching a...
MsDifferentiation 4 months ago
@Chrismca: It is only a financial burden if schools pay for it. My video is for the individual teacher and explains what it is and how it can be used by them to interest students. As you have seen it is free. I personally have no problem calling these abilities and not intelligences because I believe I would still use them in the same manner in the classroom. I do understand how science works. I was brought up with the scientific method also, which is where the agreement between our thoughts....
MsDifferentiation 4 months ago
Since DI also has no scientific proof that it is effective, I'm assuming you are not a fan of that theory either. DI and MI are alike because they include too many teaching techniques within them to be scientifically proven. If and how one uses these theories is up to the individual teacher. There is no one set way. It seems like the main problem you have here is the word intelligence so if I replaced the word intelligence with talents and interests, would that make a difference to you?
MsDifferentiation 4 months ago
of savants. Therefore, you cannot test a specific MI by itself because there cannot be a controlled environment. This, to me, really comes down to common sense. If you teach with tools that will interest your students, students will most likely be more interested in the content and activities. I use the MI theory as a general guide that helps me connect to the interests of students and their background knowledge as well as to reinforce content in different ways. This is a form of DI...
MsDifferentiation 4 months ago
@Chrismca: You continue to call MI a psuedoscience, which I have agreed on because it has never been scientifically proven, that is why there is the word "theory" attached to it as I have explained before. It will most likely never be proven scientifically, as Waterhouse explained and I'm sure you have read that report. The reason, as she states, is because Gardner has included that he thinks that several MI work together at once to do a single task and cannot be separated except in the case...
MsDifferentiation 4 months ago
@MsD: #1 Not exactly: MI is pseudoscience -not because it's a theory, or that it has no evidence- but because even before it was tested, it did not not have the qualities of actual science (specificity, internal consistency, minimal assumptions, etc...) Lots of theories have been scientifically sound, but ultimately found wanting. But, they had qualities of good science
As for Waterhouse's paper, sure I read it, I used to teach with Lynn. Once she asked Gardner how much of his theory he believed
chrismca 4 months ago
@MsD: #2 and he answered: So what, I'm rich and you're not. Honorable answer, huh?
The way you report using MI, it doesn't sound harmful -except perhaps financially for school districts. Do you really think that Gardner, and the school-hustling pedagogy pimps (ie uninformed educational consultants) who hawk Gardner's notions, have brought improvements to the schools commensurate with the money they've made?
chrismca 4 months ago
@MsD #3 Clearly, the answer is no. That's my main problem.
But, funny you'd mention his use of the word "intelligence" Gardner spoke at my grad school. I asked him why he used the word intelligence the way he did. He said "If I'd called the book 'Multiple Abilities,' it would have sold zero copies" At the risk of repeating myself, when a proponent of an unproven proposition is making money from it, that is a reliable sign of pseudoscience. There are some very good books on this,you interested?
chrismca 4 months ago
@MsDifferentiation #4 (and last) Actually DI has evidence see either Hodge (1997), or McAdamis (2001). There's also converging evidence (very important for science) from the reading instruction literature.
Anyway, good luck in your teaching and I'd really encourage you to look at some material on what constitutes science (ie the "demarcation problem") It's fascinating reading.
chrismca 4 months ago
@Chrismca: Since you stated the words taught and teach, I'm assuming you mean in a lecture, mini-lesson or with reading materials. Those both use the linguistic MI. Comparing and contrasting and connecting to background knowledge both use the logical MI. So for you, if nothing else, MI can help you label and categorize your teaching techniques.
MsDifferentiation 4 months ago
@MsD: Your assumption re: my teaching is right, but note something very important. The intelligences you rightly name -linguistic & logical- are those that Gardner says comprise the "traditional" view of intelligence. Thus, MI doesn't help here, see what I mean?
Moreover, not only is his "traditional" claim a straw-man fallacy, but he then follows up with the fallacy of the false alternative to support his model. Both these fallacies are reliable signs of pseudoscience -see the literature on it
chrismca 4 months ago
If a student doesn't understand a concept the first way it is presented it needs to be presented in a different way, MI can give you some ideas to try. MI can also help to interest students in the concepts they need to learn. I was wondering if you would be willing to give me an example of how you first deliver and then repeat the concepts. Good discussion, thank you.
MsDifferentiation 4 months ago
@MsD: Sure: If a student doesn't learn what I've taught whole-to-part, i'll teach it part to whole, then perhaps whole to part to whole. Or compare the new concept to a known one, or, conversely, contrast the two. Or, if a concept, skill, or strategy is terminologically heavy, reteach but skip the nomenclature. Or, typical of my work now, is to reteach a comprehension strategy simply with a different text, or switch literary genres if proper. And there's many others, all without pseudoscience.
chrismca 4 months ago
Thank you for your comment so that I may have the opportunity to respond to it. There is no ethical problem for suggesting the use of MI. Throughout the video I refer to MI as a theory not a fact. MI can be a great tool for teachers to use for repetition of content and for increasing student choice. It is, as noted in the video, a great tool to help interest students in activities, not a miracle cure for learning. FYI leeches are widely used in hospitals today for several treatments.
MsDifferentiation 5 months ago
@MsDifferentiation Since teachers can provide repetition & choice without MI, and MI has no supporting evidence , how is MI a "great tool" and not superfluous/
As for MI & leeches, you're right, they're not similar. Leeches have evidence that they work.
Seriously, what's the difference between: a) recommending an unsupported concept (fact or theory - both mislead) to folks with real educational needs and, b) a doctor giving only sugar pills to a patient who could benefit from proven medicine?
chrismca 4 months ago
Videos like this present a serious ethical problem. The presenter tells teachers to spend their valuable time using a concept (MI) that has never been shown to improve student learning. That MI has no support is widely known, and this information is easily available to any responsible, diligent adult. An educator recommending MI is like a physician recommending leeches.
When will we start putting kids first, and stop spreading these pseudoscience fads. The kids deserve better!
chrismca 5 months ago
awesome video x)
HectorKatTuts 5 months ago
Brilliant!
eslgateways 5 months ago
I'm not entirely sure that "people smart" is really an intelligence..
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
nice video
marcdaddy33 6 months ago