In the article written by Karen Goodnough (2001) “Multiple intelligences theory: A framework for personalizing science curricula” it spoke about multiple intelligence (MI) theory and Dave’s experience. At the beginning of the article is discussed the (MI) theory, first proposed in the book, Frame of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences by Howard Gardner, in this book he addressed how people have different type of intelligence or methods of learning, such intelligence was categorized into seven distinct intelligence: “Verbal-Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Musical-Rhythmic, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Visual-Spatial, Interpersonal, [and] naturalist intelligence” (Goodnough, 2001 p.182). Apart from summarizing what the MI theory is, and how
…show more content…
After the study Dave returned to his school and implement his finding to his lessons, gave an analysis in the end, of his findings which concluded that even though test grades did not increase or decreased, 85 % of his class enjoying his new way of teaching.
I found the article to be a well written some minor spelling errors but good. I completely agree with the MI theory, as well as the viewpoint of the author that “Implicit in this conception of scientific literacy is the need for science learning to occur in a context fostering personalized learning, critical and creative thinking, positive attitudes about science ” (Goodnough, 2001 p.181). People have different strengths and sometimes perform better at different task than others. The education system we have now is too narrow, grading us by the same standard, wanting us to learn the same way without acknowledging that we all have different ways of learning. However, by the title I expected it to be a scientific article, going into detail how MI theory worked, instead the article focused mostly on Dave and his transition in the MI theory study, afterwards how he implemented his findings in his classroom and the
After the study Dave returned to his school and implement his finding to his lessons, gave an analysis in the end, of his findings which concluded that even though test grades did not increase or decreased, 85 % of his class enjoying his new way of teaching.
I found the article to be a well written some minor spelling errors but good. I completely agree with the MI theory, as well as the viewpoint of the author that “Implicit in this conception of scientific literacy is the need for science learning to occur in a context fostering personalized learning, critical and creative thinking, positive attitudes about science ” (Goodnough, 2001 p.181). People have different strengths and sometimes perform better at different task than others. The education system we have now is too narrow, grading us by the same standard, wanting us to learn the same way without acknowledging that we all have different ways of learning. However, by the title I expected it to be a scientific article, going into detail how MI theory worked, instead the article focused mostly on Dave and his transition in the MI theory study, afterwards how he implemented his findings in his classroom and the