Successfully reported this slideshow.

MI Assignment

1,713 views

Published on

Multiple Intelligences Test Results for personal and professional growth and development as an educator

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

MI Assignment

  1. 1. Learning Styles & Multiple Intelligences1 Running Head: LEARNING STYLES & MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences Blair Thallmayer East Stroudsburg University
  2. 2. Learning Styles & Multiple Intelligences2 Analyze Test Results The VARK Questionnaire Results The VARK Questionnaire stated that I had a multimodal learning preference. I am not too sure if I agree with these results. I had received a similar score for visual and read/write of 10, kinesthetic score of 7, and an aural score of 3. I felt that my preference should have been visual, due to the fact that I had taken this questionnaire in previous semesters and received a visual preference. My highest score in the past came in the visual category - (Fleming 2001). Learning Styles Results The Learning Styles evaluation offered results that I felt exactly fit my view of my learning style preferences. In this assessment there were four categorizes to be evaluated. The categories were Active- Reflective, Sensing-Intuitive, Visual-Verbal, and Sequential-Global. In the Active-Reflective section I received a 5 that was located closer to the active side. This meant I have a moderate preference for the active dimension of the scale and will learn more easily in a teaching environment which favors that dimension. In the Sensing-Intuitive section I received a 7 that was located closer to the sensing side. This meant that I have a moderate preference for the sensing dimension of the scale and will learn more easily in a teaching environment which favors that dimension. Without taking the visual-verbal section, I could have guessed visual would show high results. I had received a 9 score located on the visual side, stating that I have a very strong preference for visual dimension of the scale and I may have real difficulty learning in an environment which does not support that preference. This is something that I agree with completely because I have had trouble in the past with any learning environments that were not catering to the needs of visual students, such as myself. Lastly, in the sequential-global section I received a 1 on the global side stating that I’m fairly well balanced on the two dimensions of the last scale - (Soloman & Felder). Teaching Style Results
  3. 3. Learning Styles & Multiple Intelligences3 My scores: Expert- High 4.1, Formal Authority- High 3.7, Personal Model- High 4.1, Facilitator- High 4.5, Delegator- High 4.2. The Teaching Style assessment recorded results that my evaluation was high in all categories. I am not currently teaching, so I had answered the assessment based on previous experiences in the classroom of student teaching, PDS, camp counselor at summer camps, and so forth. I had always received high marks for PDS, student teaching and recognition awards for being a camp counselor; however I felt that my scores from this assessment might be a little off. I feel that I can not be in the high category for each section based on my little experience to a full time teaching situation. I feel that with more time, experience, and professional development workshops and classes that my scores will be in the high level but not for the present – (Grasha, & Riechmann). Multiple Intelligences Results My outcomes: Verbal 20%, Naturalist 40%, Musical 50%, Logical 60%, Kinesthetic 60%, Interpersonal 70%, Intrapersonal 80%, Existential 80%, Visual 100% . The Multiple Intelligences Survey, created by Walter McKenzie, gave results that were extremely accurate compared to what my view of my own multiple were before even answering. Therefore I agree with the results from this assessment. My top score of 100% was in the visual intelligence, and that is something that I selected based on my need to view assignments, tasks, directions, presentations, and so forth. My lowest score of 20% was in the verbal intelligence, and again that is something that I selected prior to this assessment because of my lack of interest in the language arts area. Growing up and to this day it is easier for me to understand a power point presentation with graphics, animations, photos and very little text verses a textbook reading assignment with questions to answer in writing at the end of the chapter- (Mckenzie 1999). Strengths & Weakness Strengths As a student, as well as a teacher, my strengths would be based on a multimodal learning preference supported by the VARK Questionnaire, of visual and reading/writing – (Fleming 2001). In
  4. 4. Learning Styles & Multiple Intelligences4 addition to the VARK Questionnaire, my learning styles would include active, sensing, visual and sequential/global based on the Learning Styles Assessment - (Soloman & Felder). Additionally, my teaching styles would include expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator – (Grasha, & Riechmann). This is always subjective to change due to the fact that I am currently a full time graduate student and will experience many more different styles of teachings. Whether these styles stem from my advisors, professors, district staff, coworkers, and future students, I still have plenty to learn. This inventory is meant to empower and strengthen all intelligences currently being evaluated. On top of the other assessments and evaluations, the Multiple Intelligences Survey concluded that my strong points were section nine- visual (100%), section eight- intrapersonal (80%), section four-existential (80%) and then section five-interpersonal (70%). Visual/Spatial Intelligence are found in people “known as ‘picture smart’ that learn best visually and tend to organize their thinking spatially. They like to think and create pictures, and are drawn to information that is presented in a visual form”-(Johnson & Lamb, 2000). Existentialist is kind of a “new intelligence that is thought of as ‘wondering’ people that learn best through seeing the ‘big picture’ of human existence by asking philosophical questions about the world”- (Johnson & Lamb, 2000 ). Intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences are kind of similar. Intrapersonal intelligence is when “people are ‘self smart’ and learn best through metacognitive practices such as getting in touch with their feelings and self motivation”- (Johnson & Lamb, 2000 ). Interpersonal intelligence is knowing about others. “These ‘social smart’ people learn best through interaction with other people, through discussions, cooperative work or social activities”- (Johnson & Lamb, 2000). As a learner, as well as a teacher, I would use these multiple intelligences with technology tools that would best fit my needs at learning while being easy to teach at the same time. Weaknesses
  5. 5. Learning Styles & Multiple Intelligences5 Supported by the VARK Questionnaire, my weakness would need some work to improve the aural category- (Fleming 2001). A feeble Learning Style that would require more personal effort would include reflective, intuitive, and, of course, verbal- (Soloman & Felder). Another brittle area, that occurs within my Multiple Intelligence assessment that would need to bring about some more composition in order to become successful can be found in section seven-verbal (20%), section one- naturalist (40%), section two- musical (50%), and section three-logical/section six- kinesthetic (60%). Verbal/Linguistic Intelligences are “thought of as ‘word smart’ people that learn best through language including speaking, writing, reading and listening. They are able to verbally, or in writing, explain, convince and express themselves; they enjoy writing and creating with words. They would also enjoy e-books, interactive books on CD-ROM, and other text-based software.’- (Johnson & Lamb, 2000 ). There are many resources available as technology tools that would help “word smart” students that might overlap into a category that fits my multiple intelligences. This would ultimately strengthen my verbal/linguistic weakness within education. An example of such technology would be desktop publishing (Publisher, PageMaker) and Desktop presentations (PowerPoint, Astound). Goal As An Educator The VARK , learning styles and theory of multiple intelligences are organized into categories in which learners find their strengths and weaknesses within the educational domain. Hopefully they will use those preferences to meet their needs. As an educator I plan to develop my strengths and weaknesses into domains that will promote my professional development. In addition, I plan on using the appropriate assessment and evaluation tools within and without technology to provide authentic assessments for my students. Hopefully, within the school district/building, there is a program that will help focus on students’ strengths to build on their weaknesses. If there is no such program within my school district/building, I will produce some means of evaluation to assess students learning styles, multiple intelligences and so forth for a successful learning environment.
  6. 6. Learning Styles & Multiple Intelligences6 References Fleming, N. (2001.). VARK -- A Guide to Learning Styles. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://www.vark-learn.com/english/index.asp. Grasha, & Riechmann. (n.d.). Teaching Style Survey. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://www.longleaf.net/teachingstyle.html. Johnson, L., & Lamb, A. (2000). Technology and Multiple Intelligences. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic68.htm. Mckenzie, W. (1999). Multiple Intelligences Survey. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://surfaquarium.com/Mi/inventory.htm. Soloman, & Felder. (n.d.). Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html.

×