This is a further reflection on ideas and concepts covered in the ECC course.
I agree fully with Bro Casey that we often teach in the way we learn the best – it is something I have realised in my own experiences in small-group teaching in my pastoral ministry in the church. I had realised that I tended to teach by reasoning, as I myself is inclined toward understanding the reasons behind things. However, it did not take long for me to realise that sheer reasoning without narratives and illustrations tend to be dry and lose the attention of many people I shared to, and I realised many others are interested and captivated by different types of content. Also, as I usually enjoy listening to a teacher without much interaction, I tended to teaching through a teacher-centred method, with little interaction with the audience. Later I realised that I needed to add activities and other ways to engage the audience more. After I started working in RP, my style of instruction changed towards a more interactive and discussive approach, and now I have another problem – I do not feel comfortable when the audience does not respond! This is true for some types of audiences, perhaps especially those of the older generation. It is still a good learning experience for me, as I can learn to balance the two and improve the overall way which I teach.
The idea of multiple intelligences is not new to me, as I have learned it while I was studying in NIE. I can appreciate the emphasis that different people study differently and learn in different ways, and this contributed to my realisation that the way I learn may not necessarily be the way others learn, hence prompting me to be more aware to vary my method of teaching. More recently, I came across other studies which criticise Howard Gardner’s theory (Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences; Perry D. Klein, “Multiplying the Problems of Intelligence by Eight: A Critique of Gardner’s Theory”, Canadian Journal of Education 22 no. 4 (1997), 377-394). The qualm is that the theory has no definitive way of defining the various intelligences, and broadens the concept of intelligence and fuses it into the more general category of abilities and talents, thus making it hard to study and difficult to implement practically. I think I can also see the point the critics is making, since it is practically difficult to cover all the different intelligences in any educational programme. My personal thoughts about why multiple intelligence is still widely acknowledged is perhaps, on preliminary reflection, because it has generally inspired more varied methodologies and programming in educational programmes, which is a good development. Practically, the VAK model (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic) is an easy-to-use framework for actual teaching purposes. Personally, I am more conscious of including visual elements in my teaching, in addition to just verbally conveying instructions. To add the kinaesthetic element in teaching is still a challenge for me at this point, because it is less often practised and ideas for implementing this method are less easy to find.
Regarding the processes in learning that were being shared in class, the relational part was something new for me and worth reflecting on in relation with how to plan the educational activities for my group in the church. The idea of looking at fraternal relationships and partnerships in our educational programmes might open up interesting ideas on how we can plan our activities. I believe we already have this in non-formal settings, like our life groups and mentoring structures. Perhaps we can be more deliberate in planning learning through these structures? My thoughts on how this can be done are still rather vague, and I hope to sit on it more and see what ideas will arise for me on this.
