Evaluating Major Learning Theorists
Two major theories of learning have had an important impact on how I approach my teaching and how I learn. Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory and Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Ed
Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory and Bloom’s Taxonomy aren’t entirely different. They share many of the same principles. In Gardner’s theory, humans can be broken into seven distinct intelligences. He proposes that these are different ways that human beings learn. Bloom’s Taxonomy proposes that humans learn in a hierarchy of learning that consists of six levels: Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating. Both Gardner’s theory and Bloom’s Taxonomy can be utilized together to enhance learning for all students.
Bloom’s first level, Remembering, is the simplest way of thinking. A logical-mathematically intelligent person will learn by simply remembering dates, facts, or attributes. A bodily-kinesthetic learner will learn by describing how to perform a certain skill, while visual-spatial learning will draw what they know or describe how something looks. However, the intrapersonal learner will list their own experiences while interpersonal learners will learn best by being asked to work with a group to show their knowledge.
In Bloom’s second level, Understanding, a verbal-linguistic student would be asked to retell or surmise what they know, or perhaps use a new word in a sentence. A musical learner will be asked to compare two sounds or songs even. A bodily/kinesthetic learner will be asked to demonstrate how to do something.
In Bloom’s third level of learning, Applying, students should be able to demonstrate complete understanding by applying what they’ve learned to real-world situations. A musical learner would perhaps be asked to perform music that they’ve learned or turn what they’ve been learning into a song. Logical-mathematical learning should be asked to interpret a graph, find statistics, or even conduct a full-blown experiment. And a verbal-linguistic learner would be asked to write a report on what they’ve learned.
In Bloom’s fourth hierarchy of learning, Analyzing, a verbal learner would be asked to debate a topic with fellow classmates. A visual learner would be asked to create a matrix for comparison to demonstrate learning. A logical or mathematic learner would be asked to identify patterns and interpret the results of a topic.
Finally, in Bloom’s fifth hierarchy of learning, Evaluating, students would be asked to evaluate a problem and demonstrate further understanding. In this hierarchy, a verbal/linguistic learner would be asked to identify the strongest argument in a text or suggest changes. A visual/spatial learner would be asked to evaluate artwork and describe which is best and why. A bodily/kinesthetic learner would be asked to evaluate performance and an interpersonal learner would be asked to debate as a group and provide a peer assessment.
Both Bloom’s taxonomy and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences can be utilized together to make the classroom a welcoming environment for all students. With the advances in technology in the classroom and further understanding of our students, we will be able to provide multiple methods to learn the same material by coming at it from different angles.
I also think that Jean Piaget’s theories on schema are applicable today. I almost always connect new knowledge to something already stored in my brain when learning. Behaviorism is always 100% applicable, as positive reinforcement or “operant conditioning” will reward good behavior or positive results and ideally the student will continue to produce positive results. I think that asking whether the learner or the learning has changed is like asking: “Which came first? The chicken or the egg?”. I believe that as technology grew, so did the learner, but also so did the learning. And in this way, teachers and parents have inadvertently used operant conditioning style techniques to teach children to use technology and therefore learn with the assistance of technology.
However, I will personally use such techniques as behaviorism, cognitive psychology, and constructivism to get the most out of my students. Some subjects and portions of the subject will require a more “drill and practice” approach as seen in behaviorism, while others will require a cognitive psychology approach where I expect my students to process the data as a computer would. And still, others would require a constructivist approach to teach my students by having them actively participate in an exercise to learn. This will also come into play as I get to know my students and what type of instruction they respond to best as individuals.
So, this will absolutely impact how I teach, and sometimes WHAT I teach. Utilizing more technology and perhaps a “flipped classroom” style technique will sometimes require me to also teach how to use the specific type of technology that we are utilizing.
