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