Following a brief reading and paper to develop this personal "mastery", it's commonplace for students to consider how different intelligences among their classmates will affect the way they work together. Again, this is usually a bit of reading, perhaps a pocket of a lecture, and a brief paper.
Why is it that this theory is often lost in adult learning initiatives? Not only are professionals not often asked to be mindful of multiple intelligences, but I've seen enough learning and development programs to know that only a few great ones pay any heed to the various styles that make up a group of learners. I think the key piece is the awareness. How could learners benefit from each other if just given a bit of background around how their colleagues learn?
Has this theory become replaced by other interpersonal typing methodologies? Does an assessment that gauges how people receive and provide information, or conduct themselves in a group provide enough personal insight and understanding of others to make Multiple Intelligences obsolete? Here are a few typing methodologies that would be seen in professional development and adult learning more regularly that are designed to help people understand communication styles, preferences, etc:
- Myers Briggs
- Human Dynamics
- Strength Deployment Inventory
- i-speak
- True Colours
- Dennison Culture Survey
- Team Management Systems
- Personality Dimensions
- DISC
And there are several others. Many share the same trade-off that they are too difficult or time consuming for a significant number of people on a team to realistically learn, or they are niche or narrowly focused and only provide limited insight. As with anything, experimenting with a few varieties and starting simple is a low risk way to learn what you like.
No comments:
Post a Comment