Not a Science Fiction Story: Multiple Intelligences in the Composition Classroom

When I started searching for articles to help answer my questions about how to address different learning styles in the composition classroom, I found one whose title, at any rate, seemed like the perfect answer to my query: “Using Multiple Intelligences to Create Better (Teachers of) Writers: A Guide to MI Theory for the Composition Teacher.” Intrigued, I began reading.

The article begins with a helpful discussion of what multiple intelligences (MI) are, listing and briefly describing the eight MIs (linguistic, logical/mathematical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist). Next, it discusses the misconceptions and difficulties many educators feel about adjusting their classroom plans to incorporate MIs, highlighting a spectrum of unease that ranges from outright contempt for the “edutainment” teaching model some feel the theory establishes to a simple reluctance to embrace teaching methods outside instructors’ comfort zones. The article goes on to showcase how some instructors have successfully implemented MI-directed learning strategies in the composition classroom—from outlining with TinkerToys to pacing out paper ideas—and introduces some resources which may be useful for interested comp. teachers. Finally, the author concludes, composition instructors have a responsibility to engage MIs in teaching composition; as long as they “[keep] an eye on results,” they can provide students with important learning tools which will remain useful even after the class ends.

While I found the illumination of the MI theory very helpful—I’d previously been confusing MIs with the visual/auditory/kinesthetic learning styles—and thought its discussion of misconceptions about the MI theory and misgivings about its implementation in the classroom were illuminating, I have to confess that I was disappointed with the practical examples the article provided. Constructing paper organization using TinkerToys seemed similar to concept mapping, and most of the ideas seemed to focus on individual instances of MI implementation rather than learning activities or assignments that might benefit the entire class. I’ll certainly keep this author’s insistence of focusing on the end goal—teaching students to become better writers—in mind, but I know I still have some searching to do in my quest to find out how I can better implement MI learning into my own composition classes.