Mindfulness Workshop for Language Teachers

Leading a workshop with Washington D.C. language teachers was a true honor and an enriching learning experience. Thank you, GWATFL (Greater Washington Association of Teachers of Foreign Languages), for inviting me to your 2017 Spring Conference. The venue was inspiring and the participants a joy to be with.  I appreciate all the effort you put into making the conference possible. Looking forward to the next event!

Slide1

Multiple Intelligences: The Theory behind the Myths

I wrote this article in July 2001, and it was published by “The Buenos Aires Herald”, a non academic paper. The topic is still relevant, and, as a matter of fact, it isn’t nearly as exploited as it should be for the benefit of all.

During most of the twentieth century, psychologists’ ideas about intelligence derived from statistical analysis of short-answer tests, which considered intelligence as being only one: “g” or general intelligence. Using these instruments and analysis, psychologists considered a person intelligent or not on the basis of his or her ability to solve logical-mathematical, linguistic and some spatial problems. In “Frames of Mind” (1983) and in “Multiple Intelligences, the Theory in Practice” (1993), Howard Gardner argues that using these instruments and methods does nor adequately capture human problem-solving capabilities. Instead, he defines intelligence as the ability to solve problems in real-life contexts, or to create something of value for the community. He then coins the term Multiple Intelligences (MI), which draws from psychology, neurology, biology, sociology, anthropology, the arts and humanities, to identify eight intelligences (originally seven as the naturalist intelligence was added a few years later). To the three skills originally occupying the rank of “intelligence”, Gardner adds musical, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal, interpersonal and naturalist.

It may be helpful to clear up some common misconceptions with regard to MI: the first one is the confusion between an intelligence and a domain of knowledge or discipline. In Gardner’s perspective, an intelligence is a biological and psychological potential: a capacity that resides in each person. A domain or discipline is an arena or body of knowledge that gives people the opportunity to use their intelligence in different ways and in which varying degrees of expertise can be developed. Examples of disciplines or domains in our culture are mathematics, medicine, gardening, engineering, sports. Carrying out work in a domain requires a person to use several different intelligences. For instance, gardening requires naturalist, bodily-kinesthetic and spatial intelligences. Similarly, each intelligence can be used in a variety of domains. Just as an example, linguistic ability can be used in writing, reading, acting, teaching, journalism and public speaking among other areas or domains.

Another source of misunderstanding is the equation of multiple intelligences with learning styles. Learning styles refer to the different approaches that individuals take when trying to make sense of diverse kinds of content. Typically, a learning style is thought to cut across all content areas. So, if a person is a kinesthetic or tactile learner, she will learn best when learning new material –whether history or cooking- by using her hands or sense of touch. In contrast, the intelligences represent potentials or capacities that are linked to neurological functions and structures and that respond to particular content in the world. One thing is to demonstrate a good memory or ability to remember what one has heard or listened to (auditory learner) and quite another thing is to have the ability to appreciate, play or compose music (musical intelligence).

Moreover, traditional conceptions of intelligence hold that intelligence remains the same in all situations. That is to say, one’s intelligence does not change, whether one is solving a math problem, learning how to ski, or finding one’s way around a new city. Modern conceptions point out that the thinking and learning required outside of school are often situated and contextualized. Most intellectual work does not occur in isolation: when people work in different kinds of settings, their abilities to solve problems differ. Apart from traditional test settings, problem solving is usually tied to certain goals and tasks and often aided by other people and an assortment of tools and resources.

At first glance, MI appears to be just a repetition of many other educational philosophies and approaches such as educating the “whole child”, “project-based learning”, an “interdisciplinary curriculum”, and so on. But this leads to the question of whether adopting the theory simply becomes a new label to describe existing practices and beliefs. Although MI may sometimes serve this purpose, it can also provide a theoretical foundation and validation for teachers’ beliefs and practices, deepening and extending them to new domains. The theory can become a framework for thinking about the students we teach and how to teach them, helping teachers become more reflective and explicit about the pedagogical choices they make. As with any other theory, people may initially use MI in superficial ways, and some may continue to do so for years. But if educational goals and criteria for reaching those goals can be articulated, then MI can become an ally to rigorous learning. In all cases, it is useful to bear in mind that MI does not prescribe any particular approach or activities. It is not a technique; it is certainly not about labeling students. It is much deeper and safer than that. It is a “mind set” ensured both by the sound knowledge of the theory and a caring attitude towards learning.

In the view of many educators, authors and researchers, the Multiple Intelligences Theory enriches education in so far as it incorporates aspects of real life that are not always included. Thus, an MI-oriented educational environment strives to allow each and every student thrive and express himself or herself in a plethora of ways for the benefit of the entire society.

References

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: BasicBooks.

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: BasicBooks.

 

The Visual Arts and Visual Literacy in Language Education: An Interactive Project

By Dr. Monica Mulholland, Ph.D. and Dr. Andrea Todd

The Visual Arts have unlimited advantages to offer the field of language education. They are a source of inspiration; they motivate learners to express themselves in writing and orally on a variety of topics; they promote critical thinking; and they connect cultures that might otherwise seem distant. In real life, art is often a catalyst for oral communication; therefore, it lends itself seamlessly to the communicative second language classroom. Visual Literacy denotes “[t]he ability to interpret, use, appreciate, and create images and video using both conventional and 21st century media in ways that advance understanding, thinking, decision making, communication, and learning” (Hattwig et al., 2011) An effective and engaging way in which these parallel areas, visual literacy and language education, can enrich each other is by the creation of VoiceThread projects using the FTC Palette approach (Sandell, 2010).

Visual Literacy in the language classroom allows students to transcend language differences: art “speaks” to everyone without words. It allows students to highlight their cultures and their individual personalities via their artistic perspectives. Visual Literacy provides fodder for discussion by making a piece of art “your own” or by finding your own meaning in the details. “Like French or Spanish, Art is a language that can be learned and understood. Like English, Art has an established vocabulary and grammar: the elements and principles of design” (Goldonowicz, 1985, p. 17).

The concept of the FTC Palette was created by Dr. Renee Sandell to serve as a framework for Visual Literacy. As a starting point for Visual Literacy, “FTC is a balanced approach to exploring the form + theme + context of an artwork” (Sandell, n.d.) that reveals layers of meaning. The formal component consists of the composition, elements, and design principles of the piece of art. The thematic component refers to the broad subject, subject matter, and perspective (of the artist and, later, of the observer). The contextual component explores when, where, and by or for whom the piece of art was created. Understanding the FTC elements of a piece of art serves as a jumping-off point for the student as art aficionado.

The FTC approach was used in a speaking project carried out by advanced ESL students at the Virginia Tech Language and Culture Institute in the National Capital Region. This project is the culminating activity of a series of tasks created with the “backward design” approach in mind. Backward design is a method of designing educational curriculum by setting goals before choosing instructional strategies and forms of assessment (Wiggins & McTighe). In this unit, the overarching goal is an oral presentation on Art, which was recorded by the students using VoiceThread.

VoiceThread (https://voicethread.com) is a web-based learning tool that can be used effectively to enhance student participation and collaboration in an asynchronous mode, and it is very easy to use. VoiceThread allows participants to have online conversations and to make comments using any mix of text, a microphone, a web cam, a telephone, or an uploaded audio file.

Project Title: The Powerful Language of Art

Goals: Through this project, the students will

  • reflect on their own thoughts and emotions about art,
  • use the target language orally in real-life contexts,
  • display instances of creative expression and critical thinking,
  • gain confidence in speaking in front of a camera, and
  • share their thoughts and emotions with listeners/viewers beyond the classroom walls.

 Level: High Intermediate/Advanced

Materials: the digital image of a work of art that is meaningful to the student (it does not need to be by a well-known artist); a computer lab or students’ laptop computers; internet connection; VoiceThread user name and password.

Time: 50 minutes

Procedure

  1. Instructor shares a grading rubric with the class to raise awareness on how the project will be graded.
  2. Instructor offers students a VoiceThread tutorial by accessing this link: https://wp.voicethread.com/howto/creating-a-new-voicethread-2/
  3. Students search online in the computer lab or on their own for a picture (painting or photograph) they would like to talk about during an oral activity which they will record on VoiceThread.
  4. Students upload their picture on VoiceThread following the steps in the tutorial.
  5. Students write six or seven sentences about their picture.
  6. Students read the sentences several times, and then put them out of sight to encourage spontaneous speech as opposed to reading when recording themselves.
  7. Students record their VoiceThread message on their laptops, their cell phones or in the lab.

The VTLCI project is available at: https://voicethread.com/myvoice/#thread/6883886/36304477

and https://voicethread.com/myvoice/#thread/6883900/36304537

Following the FTC Palette, students were asked to explore:

FORM (F)

  • All types of images: Oil paintings by well-known artists, finger painting, charcoal, murals, and photographs
  • Portraits, landscapes, family scenes, and urban subjects

 THEME (T)

  • Identity/Character/Personality
  • Feelings/Emotions/Psychology/Blindness/ Optimism
  • Reflections on creativity and the creative process
  • Family
  • Compassion
  • Nature
  • Racism through conceptual art

CONTEXT (C)

  • Europe, The United States, Latin America, The Middle East
  • 1800’s-1900’s
  • Contemporary


Student Feedback

Throughout this project, the feedback from students was consistently positive. Students were enthusiastic about viewing each other’s choices of artwork and listening about the stories behind the pictures. They were excited to provide commentary on VoiceThread, and to listen to their classmates’ responses.

These statements depict the participants’ feelings towards the project:

  • This project was useful because we should know about art, and it also helped us learn new vocabulary.
  • There was a lot of participation on VoiceThread!
  • There was an opportunity to repeat the recording. Intonation was a challenge for me.
  • I feel more comfortable on presentations online than face-to-face.
  • You are alone when you record, so you don’t feel nervous.
  • It gave me the opportunity to understand what art is.
  • I completely liked the project. I like all forms of art, and the project made me think what to share with the class.
  • I enjoyed the project because it was different from our usual topics, and change is nice.
  • This activity is unique. I loved it!
  • I like both face-to-face and online presentations, but the online one was new to me, so I really enjoyed it.
  • The advantage is that we save time in class that we can use for other things.
  • It was exciting to share a work of art I chose!

Conclusion

Integrating the visual arts and visual literacy with language education is an effective approach to second language teaching and learning that allows both teachers and students to go beyond language to reach the human being as represented by the artist, the subject, and the audience. Furthermore, students use language with a real communicative purpose, to explore both the interpersonal and intrapersonal aspects of their intelligence. Through projects like the one presented here, students learn that art is a language, too, and, as such, it helps them reflect and grow not only as learners but also as creative and compassionate individuals. The educator and the student can thus share their culture or cultures in a meaningful and engaging context, and interact with each other at a deeper level.

References

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Goldonowicz, J. (1985). Art and other subjects. Art Education, 38(6), 17.

Hattwig, Denise, Kaila Bussert, Ann Medaille, and Joanna Burgess. “Visual Literacy Standards in Higher Education: New Opportunities for Libraries and Student Learning.” Association of College & Research Libraries (2011): n. pag. Web. 19 Feb. 2017. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/visualliteracy

Sandell, R. (2009). Using Form+Theme+Context (FTC) for rebalancing 21st-century art education. Studies in Art Education, 50(3), 287-299.

Sandell, R. (n.d.) Form+Theme+Context (FTC)TM. Retrieved from http://forthcovision.onair.cc

Texas A&M (n.d.) Visual definitions. Retrieved from http://distance-ed.math.tamu.edu/ techtools/valgebra/resources/definitions.html

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (1998; 2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

 Sample images used on this project

pic-1  New Yorker by Lucian Freud, 2006

Pic 2.png Science and Charity by Pablo Picasso, 1897

Pic 3.png  Artist: Student’s sister (undisclosed name)

pic-4 King Abdullah Mural by Ahmad Zuhair, 2015

About the authors:

pic-5

Dr. Monica Mulholland received her B.A. in TESOL from the Instituto Superior del Profesorado Joaquín V. González, Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1988. She holds a Ph.D. in Spanish Literature from the Catholic University of America (2013). She also earned a Master’s degree in Foreign Languages and a Graduate Certificate in TESOL from George Mason University in Virginia (2006 & 2016). Currently, she serves as an ESL instructor at the Virginia Tech Language and Culture Institute in Washington D.C.  Additionally, Dr. Mulholland is a free-lance educational consultant on topics such as Creativity, Brain-Based Education, and Educational Mindfulness both in English and Spanish. She can be reached at mdmulholl@gmail.com.

andrea

Dr. Andrea Todd holds an EdD in Higher Education from George Washington (GW) University in Washington, DC, and an Master’s degree in English Linguistics from George Mason University. She currently serves as Director of Northern Virginia Operations for Virginia Tech Language and Culture Institute (VTLCI). In prior positions, she served as Director of Graduate Affairs and as Program Manager of GW’s Higher Education Administration Doctoral Program. You can reach Dr. Todd at todda@vt.edu. More information: https://www.lci.vt.edu

Note: This article was previously published in the VATESOL (Volume 19, Issue 1, March 2016), and the WATESOL (Winter 2017 Edition) Newsletters.