Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PRESCIPTIVE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR SYMBOL SYSTEMS
1
Utilizing Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences as a Paradigm to Learning Capabilities
and Prescriptive Design Considerations for Symbol Systems
Darlene M. Ferri-Kurjack
Purdue University
2
Abstract
Most prescriptive and descriptive learning designs or theories respectively provide a
strategy or explanation of human learning that accounts for drawing out a portion of human
knowledge or previous schema or mental models and updating these through the incorporation of
new information to achieve a learning goal. Learning goals typically require certain capabilities
exist or be nurtured relative to the goal of instruction. To assist us in the focus of prescriptions to
learning among various learner capabilities and needs are “symbols”. In recognizing that
individuals are unique in their learning experience, there has been notable analysis in the area of
intelligence and learning capabilities. Cognitive psychologist, Howard Gardner first published
his Theory of Multiple Intelligences in 1983, in which he proposed that individuals demonstrate
seven intelligences or abilities that could be empowered through various learning modalities
(Gardner, 2011). The characteristics of the multiple intelligences are portrayed as Linguistic,
Musical, Logical-Mathematical, Spatial, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Interpersonal and Intrapersonal
(Gardner, 2011, p. xxii). The utilization of symbols as a learning modality provides a
representation of knowledge that appeals to the cognitive senses to inspire intellectual
capabilities without words and speaks to a larger audience with ease of complexity. This paper
poses instructional design potential for the incorporation of symbols among the capabilities of
intellect as noted by (Gardner, 2011).
Keywords: Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence, Symbols, Learning Design, and Culture
3
Introduction
Symbol use is frequently proposed for use in educational theory, (Driscoll, (2005),
highlights the investigations of Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner, and Jean Piaget, who all had a
varied yet popular view of how symbols can derive learning in a culture. Symbols have use for
training among many domains and learner needs. For instance, in the workplace symbols can be
drawn on to communicate safety training, the disabled may use tactile, gesture and kinesthetic
symbols, and specified workplace cultures, such as pilot training and railway domains may
realize meaning to symbols within their task. Engineering and mathematical disciplines may
find flowcharting symbols and schematics significant in conveying process and considerations to
analysis, and scenarios. Symbols may also prove assistive to creating learning scenarios in
domains that teach interactional and interpersonal skills to facilitate cause and effect, and
emotion.
Howard Gardner (2011) categorizes intelligence into specific (primarily sensory)
"modalities"; each person can possess different skill level among the multiple intelligences (MI).
He attempts to leverage learning through his theory by relating learning to an existing
intelligence. For instance, teaching math with rhythm and song for the Musical-Rhythm and
Harmonic Intelligence. Can we assume his stated multiple intelligences may also be used to
assess what potential or capability must exist in the design of instruction for learning to take
place? The Multiple Intelligences provide a paradigm to identify capabilities that must exist in
the learner and potential exists to use these as identified considerations to design learning relative
to the emphasis placed on the requirements that encompass training needs. One question of
example would be “Can I be a good project manager if I don’t have interpersonal skills?” A
symbolized learning context could incorporate focus on the development of the interpersonal
skills required in addition to the basic training needs; else, this person with great organizational
4
and mathematical intelligence may not exhibit the interpersonal requirements to be an effective
project manager. Symbol use has been demonstrated to convey various levels of information to
include experience, emotion, and culture that extend beyond basic instruction (Jung, 1964;
Womack, 2005). Should a designer assess these multiple intelligences based on the context of
the learning population? For instance, which of these skills (verbal, mathematical, kinesthetic or
visual) is needed to be proficient in a learning task or profession? Training focus can be
established via the capabilities established for a category(s) represented by MI Theory and speak
to a broad audience of learners in the context of ‘symbols” and culture. As noted by a noted
psychologist:
“When we attempt to understand symbols, we are not only confronted with the symbol
itself, but we are brought up against the wholeness of the symbol-producing individual…This
includes a study of cultural background, and in the process one fills in many gaps in one’s own
education (Jung, & Franz, 1964, Part 1).”
Some questions a designer may want to pose are which of these intelligences does the
learner need to achieve before becoming proficient in a task? How can we incorporate this
ability (i.e. verbal, visual) into symbolized context based learning to assist the learner? How can
existing learning theories be applied in combination to facilitate an MI with symbol use? The
following research literature overviews symbols as effective communication tools to learning
and the ability for symbols to speak to an array of capabilities among diverse intellectual types.
Literature Review
The research attempts to assess the most current findings relative to the investigation of
cognition and symbol use in learning and developmental research.
5
In recognizing that individuals are unique in their learning experience, there has been
notable analysis in the area of intelligence and learning capabilities. Cognitive psychologist,
Howard Gardner first published his Theory of Multiple Intelligences in 1983, in which he
proposed that individuals demonstrate seven intelligences or capabilities that could be
empowered through various learning modalities (Gardner, 2011). Table 1 provides a quick view
of capabilities associated to MI Theory.
Gardner, (2011), focuses his own research on symbols, and in shared view of his
colleagues query evidence to what is distinctive about human cognition and information
processing that involves the deployment of these various symbol systems, and whether one
symbol system such as language involves the same abilities and processes as music, gesture or
math (p. 27). One such research study provides a partial answer in response to Gardner’s query.
According to (Sriraman, et. al, 2010), the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO)
model proposed by Bigg and Collis (1982) define a Concrete Symbolic Stage at age 6-7, that
coincides with language development and the introduction of words and symbols, which serves
to allow the learner capability to draw on comparison in order to build more sophisticated
concepts with language and numbers (pp. 174,175). This research supports that symbols have
the ability to scaffold information to higher cognitive processes.
Gardner, (2011), classifies “symbolic competence” in “four distinct stages of development
that progress from the basic understanding of infancy and will provide a scaffold to
mundane symbolic activities, to a rapid advance between ages two to five, to symbol
systems that prove extremely useful in carrying out complex cultural tasks to those of early
adulthood and the fashioning of symbolic products (pp. 318-319).”
6
Research also reveals that symbols promote recall of information under prescribed learning
scenarios. Beukelman and Mirenda (2013) overview factors revealed by the research of (Worah,
et al 2008) that influence children’s ability to identify and understand the meaning of symbols:
“Concreteness - Symbols that contain clearly depicted people and/or observable
activities are more readily understood.
Familiarity - Symbols that depict people, objects, and/or activities that children have
often encountered or seen are more easily identified.
Context - Symbols that depict familiar activities in context may reduce learning demands.
Wholeness - Symbols that depict complete people or objects rather than elements or body
parts that are separated or disjoined are more readily identified (p. 40)”.
Gardner (2011) summarizes his understanding of symbols and recall in preliterate cultures to
imply that “recall ability for the recollection of large amounts of information is often coupled
with the ability to relate words to other kinds of symbols (p.98)”. Current technological cultures
find that symbols assist in reducing information complexity.
Several real world scenarios have applied symbol use to application with positive results.
In a research study conducted by (Millet, 2009) Systems Analysts students found Use Cases
easier to understand but Data Flow Diagrams more effective at helping systems analysts
communicate with users and developers. Beukelman, and Mirenda (2013) overview a symbolic
schedule system that has been effectively employed to assist the developmentally disabled with
learning daily activities (p. 250). Educational strategies frequently employ symbols in a variety
of different ways, for example Lamb, et.al (2012) in the book “Graphic Inquiry” not only provide
a detailed list of graphic symbols but also demonstrate their educational use throughout the book
to enable the realization of learning and conveying information with symbols. Table 2 provides
7
an overview of the graphic symbols that the authors demonstrate in conjunction with the format
of their book. As noted by Jung & Franz, (1964) “a symbol always stands for something more
than it’s obvious or immediate meaning (Part 1).” As noted in (Lamb, et al, 2012), Robert L.
Harris (1999, p. 380) states graphic symbols serve seven functions: to convey quantitative or
descriptive information, designate location, to differentiate and identify, serve as an enclosure,
highlight specific information, and form meaningful displays (p. 50)
Applications for Symbols in Instructional Design
Symbols poise relevance to culture; therefore, the ability for symbols to convey
information is innate to human development and cultural understanding (Jung, 1864; Gardner,
2011; Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013). From both an anthropological and psychological
perspective of research, symbols have proved to convey meaning on multiple levels in the
absence of words (Jung, 1964, Womack, 2005). There are benefits to the incorporation of
symbols in instructional design and strategy, foremost symbols can speak to the disabled,
cognitively impaired and a workforce of non-native English speakers with greater ease than the
conventional methods of written word (.Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013). More importantly,
symbols have been demonstrated to ease complexity of information with flowcharts, and logical
diagrams as demonstrated by Millet, (2009). Speaking to the capabilities inherent in MI Theory,
symbol use has the capability to influence the learning strengths and weaknesses required for a
desired learning outcome (Gardner, 2011). Symbols from infancy are a powerful form of human
communication. Lamb, et.al (2012) note that “symbols serve as useful springboards to
inquiry…They can stimulate questions and provide focus for exploration, organize information
and express ideas (p. 50)”. More importantly, symbol use can be embedded in a multitude of
both prescriptive and descriptive learning theories. The use of symbols also has great potential
8
given the advances of technology in both the design and delivery of instruction. There is also the
capability to keep the learner engaged through the stimuli of symbols that best supports the
learners need.
Figure 1, demonstrates an embedded prescriptive process to learning design
considerations. The process take into account considerations that employ the educational
designer to reflect on the design potential for symbol incorporation among the capabilities of
multiple intellect as noted by (Gardner, 2011) and employ the best prescriptive and descriptive
theories to account for optimal learning.
9
References
Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and Alternative Communication:
Supporting Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs. Baltimore:
Brookes Publishing.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Pearson Allyn and
Bacon
Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (3rd Edition). New
York, NY, USA: Basic Books. Retrieved from: http://www.ebrary.com
Jung, C. G., & Franz, M. v. (1964). Man and His Symbols. Garden City, N.Y.: Dell.
Retrieved from:
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtf
XzczMjc0M19fQU41?sid=3e40ab87-0283-4ba3-b6c3-
7c17cb5c76ea@sessionmgr4003&vid=4&ppid=Page-__-163&format=EK&nobk=y
Lamb, Annette, Callison, Daniel (2012). Graphic Inquiry.
Retrieved from: http://www.eblib.com
Millet, I. (2009). Student Perceptions of Data Flow Diagrams vs. Use Cases. In L. Tomei (Ed.),
Information Communication Technologies for Enhanced Education and Learning:
Advanced Applications and Developments (pp. 94-102). Hershey, PA: doi:10.4018/978-
1-60566-150-6.ch007
10
Sriraman, B., English, Lyn D, & Springer Link. (2010). Theories of mathematics education
seeking new frontiers (Advances in mathematics education (Springer (Firm))).
Heidelberg; London; New York: Springer.
Womack, M. (2005). Symbols and meaning: A concise introduction. Walnut Creek, Calif.:
AltaMira Press.
11
Tables
Table 1
Capabilities and Multiple Intelligence (Gardner, 2011)
Gardner’s MI Capabilities of MI
Verbal Sensitivity to spoken and written language, the capability to learn
languages, and the capacity to use language to accomplish certain
goals.
Musical This involves skill in the performance, composition, and
appreciation of musical patterns, shades and colors. It encompasses
the capability to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones, and
rhythms. Musical intelligence runs in an almost structural parallel
to linguistic intelligence.
Kinesthetic This is the potential of using one’s whole body or parts of the body
to solve problems or the capability to use mental abilities to
coordinate bodily movements.
Mathematical The capability to analyze problems logically, carry out
mathematical operations, and investigate issues scientifically. This
intelligence is most often associated with scientific and
mathematical thinking.
Visio-Spatial
The potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and
more confined areas
Intrapersonal The capability to understand the intentions, motivations and desires
of other people.
Interpersonal
The capability to understand oneself, to appreciate one’s feelings,
fears and motivations.
Naturalistic
The capability to solve problems or make something of value in one
or more cultures
12
Table 2
Different Types of Graphical Symbols as noted by (Lamb, Annette, Callison, Daniel, 2012, p. 48)
Symbol Name Symbol Description
Avatar A representation of self in a virtual environment
Emoticon Graphic used to convey emotional content
Glyph Graphic used in written language
Ideogram/Ideograph Picture that represents an idea
Insignia Visual representing status or jurisdiction
Logo Graphic forming a trademark or brand
Logogram Uses a visual to represent words
Map Symbols Graphic used on maps to represent a symbol
Musical Notation Graphics are used to visualize music
Network Symbol Graphics used in networking
Pictogram/Pictograph Image that resembles what it signifies
Scientific/Math Symbols Graphic used to represent a concept
13
Figures
Figure 1. Prescriptive Learning Design Strategy for Symbols and MI Theory
Identify the Multiple
Intelligence(s)
capabilities required for
learning to occur
Assess the learner or
learner population for
capabilities in the
required Multiple
Intelligence(s)
Assess the learner or
learner population for
deficiencies in the
required Multiple
Intelligence(s)
Establish a Learning
Goal(s) High Order or
Detailed
Recognize Learner
Capabilities
Recognize Learner
Deficiencies
Align learner
capabilities to context
appropriate to the
learner(s) required MI
capability
Choose a Learning
Theory(s)/Design
Strategy to facilitate a
required Multiple
Intelligence(s)
capability(s)
Choose a learning
Theory(s)/Strategy to
reinforce a required
Multiple Intelligence(s)
capability(s)
Assess symbolism
appropriate for
instructional capabilities
Relate commonly used
or known symbol forms
for the required
knowledge domain to
reactivate prior schema
Introduce learning
content through symbol
forms for the specified
knowledge domain to
inspire the creation of
new schema
Forms of Symbolic
Representation
MI CAPABILITIES