After reading Chapter 6 in the Wynn book study, paying close attention to the section on Mulitiple Intelligence Teams, state one benefit and one drawback of setting up school teams in this way.
MI teams are a plus because you play on natural strengths of those involved involved on the team. On page 227 Mr. Wynn states a universal strategy, the longer a team operates the more EFFECTIVE it becomes within its area of focus. The school system as a whole will have to adapt this strategy eventually to cut costs and keep education at its best. A drawback to using this might be getting the whole team, who have very different learning styles, to agree on what's best for the whole. Decision making and carrying out of action plans can sometimes be found strongly in certain intelligences.
One benefit to devising teams based on intelligences is that everyone can feel effective, competent, and valued. We are not much different than the kids...we too enjoy doing what they are good at and aren't huge fans of doing things that are too difficult. A drawback is just as Mrs. White stated, merging ideas from all the M.I. groups into one collaborative plan would certainly be challenging.
One benefit from multiple intelligence grouping may be that a greater variety of solutions can be ‘brought to the table.’ If like minds gather to solve a problem, those folks can probably come to consensus quickly as they will probably see from a singular perspective. I agree with Wendy and Denise...the possible negative aspect to gathering in multiple intelligence groups may be how do we reach consensus and blend all these discrepant ideas once we get back together as a faculty? Attacking problems from this perspective should yield a very broad spectrum of possible solutions (positive), but how do we choose and blend our course of action, keeping everyone happy (negative)? It could be fun to try!
I like the idea of multiple intelligence grouping. It goes back to the ideas of a round-table discussion. It does away with superiority or rank among the individuals. This type of forum will help foster participation with each individual. The one drawback would be to make sure that sidebars occur at a minimum so that focus is on the particular task. I know that as adults sometimes we can jump on rabbit trails and can stray form being on task. Having a monitor for the group would certainly help alleviate the problem.
One benefit of setting up school teams according to multiple intelligence strengths is that they can focus on one strategy instead of bits and pieces of what is needed in school improvement. The teams could be fun and productive working on and accomplishing a challenging goal, while getting feedback from others can lead to change and growth, thus realizing your potential. Even though these teams, like “great minds,” think alike each of us carry our own set of information, and how we interpret this information. We have a tendency to continue in “our” way of thinking until being challenged by interacting in a heterogeneous group with different information and/or a way of interpreting the information. This creates higher level thinking.
I like the idea of various MI groups taking a singular aspect of the School Improvement Plan and coming up with a variety of strategies. Starting that way would certainly facilitate the flow of ideas. The next step of coming together with other MI teams might be challenging, but could result in something really effective. It would be time consuming, but empowering. This set up would certainly meet Wynn's comment 'For solutions to have a chance at being systemic and sustainable, they must be holistic (made up of many small pieces) and driven by small teams. These teams must be empowered to make decisions and responsible for implementing the strategies that they conceptualize.'
I love the idea of using people's strengths in small groups. I believe since you get to choose what you are passionate about you will really be involved in that group's discussions and actions. The one draw back that I see is that with so many like minds working in one group they might be limited to their "like" thinking and couldn't step outside of how they percieve the problem. It is always good to have many different types of people in a group so we can get the whole picture. You are certain to fulfill all the needs of students/teacher/community if you have many different walks of life involved.
What a wonderful way for students' to pinpoint their potential through identifying their dominant intelligence from the M.I. list: Multiple Intelligence. This to, as the Core Values mentioned in Chapter 5 would be beneficial for all to include in SIP. Just think of it; administration, teachers, support staff, students and their parents working together (synergy) on strategy-focused teams using our M.I.'s to execute our goals into practice. The challenge being in the implementation. How about starting at the beginning of the school year when various data is being collected for our records... A form could be devised on the M.I.'s for all (administration, teachers. support staff, students and their parents...Anyone else?) to complete as well. Hmm...Then what?
I agree with Ms. Clemmer’s positive statement. A person that gets to choose the group they are in based on what they are interested in means they will have a vested interest and be extremely involved and excited. I don’t see much of a negative with the staff that we have. I can see us getting a lot accomplished in small groups, coming together as a staff to share ideas, then working together like we already do to come to the final product. I think we could actually get to the end result faster this way. Let’s do it!! The more we practice this as adults, the more we become comfortable about using this method with our students in the classroom.
When problem solving, I like the idea of forming small groups based on MI's. This will create more focused group discussions, and the faculty/staff may be more interested as they discuss the aspects of the issue they believe to be most important. When the small groups bring their ideas to the large group, everyone learns from their "expertise". This seems like a productive and efficient way to problem solve.
The only drawback I can detect would be if the small groups never changed. Most of us can fit into more than one MI group, and as we learn and grow from each other, our groups would need to change too.
Setting up school teams this way seems like it would have major benefits. People would feed off of one another and there would be great energy. It is easy to get excited about an idea when you have a group of people who feel the same way you do. It would be more challenging to work together as a whole group after working in small MI groups but I see where it would be a good idea too. Imagine the possibilities with so many different types of learners involved!
I agree that working in a small group with like-minded people sounds exciting and productive. As mentioned by several people, the key would be the coming together of all groups to share and implement. I think MI grouping would be a great way for TES to reach our highest potential, at all levels (staff, students...)
I think that an advantage of forming teams based on MI would be that people would feel more accepted and willing to share their ideas with people who are of like thinking. It would be a less threatening environment, therefore more ideas would be brought to the table. I feel that a drawback would be that the opinions of the MI group would be a bit narrow and may not include all viable options.
This is an interesting way of grouping teachers. When we were first introduced to the chapter last month, I was thinking that the groups would be made in such a way to have one person from each intelligence would be part of the team. After reading the chapter, I see that I was mistaken. I see some advantages in being able to get a lot done if the team only had to be concerned with one small aspect of an event and there may not be many objections if people with the same way of thinking were agreeing with each other. On the other hand, I feel I learn from people who are different from me. In a meeting, people who think differently will offer a suggestion and I'll think, "Wow, I never thought of it that way...." We would not have this opportunity if we were split in this way. I am thinking of big events w/ this happening. We would surely need time to get together with the entire group in order to make sure that all parts of the event did not interfere with each other.
Personally working in like MI groups has it's advantages in that you can discuss situations, tasks, etc with "like minds." In this scenario, we could probably get a lot accomplished. However, not being exposed to the various groups would not allow you to see other aspects of the problem solving or discussion, as not everyone would see it one way. We are challenged everyday by working in teams, many of which have multi MI. But if you stop and think for a moment, who is it you talk with, collaborate with, have discussions with? Are they a "like mind." Watch your students. They already know who to go to. Of course as adults it can get more complicated. I would like to try a task where we use the "like minds" of MI approach and then one in which we have mixed MI groups. When we come together, share thoughts, observations on which one was more successful. I like to be challenged by MI people. I think I can learn from them in a way I may not have thought.
The strongest argument in support of like MI teams would be that groups of like mind and similar approach could focus entirely on the areas/topics with which they are most comfortable and which they find most interesting. As a counselor, I feel I am strongest in Interpersonal Intelligence, and I would really enjoy functioning within a working group whose focus is mainly Relationships. It seems like a great way to put our strengths to their best use.
Still, without a mixture of MI group members, there would be little to challenge us to stretch and grow as professionals. Also, without occasionally focusing on tasks outside our comfort zones, I imagine we could really become entrenched in a rut of repetition and lose our excitement about our assigned tasks. In the end, I believe the better route is to collaborate using our differing MI strengths within an integrated group. We learn and grow from those who are different from us, as long as we are open to the experience.
I too like the idea of MI grouping in association with school planning. It is comfortable to work with people who have similar opinions or who "attack" a goal in a similar way. The situations or assignments for groups will change depending on what needs/plans are to be addressed therefore would help prevent narrow mindedness or getting in a rut. The trick to success is the liason between groups. I agree with what Carol said regarding trying MI groups and then mixing them up. Maybe that particular group would be the liason group for confirming plans.
I like the idea of Multiple Intelligence Teams; it just makes sense that you would work on what you are good at. The one benefit that I think of right away is that I would get to be involved with something that I enjoy doing. For example, if I am a Logical/Mathematical person I would prefer to work on scheduling and budgets, I wouldn’t want to worry about staff retreats. I think focusing on a person’s natural talents would help produce significant results. You wouldn’t want someone who didn’t like to design things to work on the school newsletter.
I think the idea of MI grouping would make people more comfortable. Great minds think alike and yes the longer a team stays together the more effective. But I also feel that we are more likely to become too comfortable. Yes we are putting our strengths together but in some ways we are limiting ourselves. If we are all working together for a common cause or goal, then we must remain focused, put our heads together and find ways to achieve those goals.
I agree with Pat that Multiple Intelligence Teams would probably make people feel more comfrotable in one sense yet if not challenged, could also become complacent as well. During this time of year when teachers are stressed enough with the end of year so quickly approaching, it is easier to see how MI teams would be a positive. But what we have to remember is the final goal - often we have to be a little uncomfortable to truly be all that we can grow to be!
I agree that MI teams are a great way for a person to be more involved and feel comfortable about giving input. The more time the team is together, the stronger and more effective they will become. A negative is that the team is together too long, the less "fresh ideas" will be introduced. A possible solution would be to attend a different team for a meeting or skip some all together.
Our 3rd grade team of 6 at ntes was an extremely eclectic (MI)group. It was fantastic because we each offered our strength to the group and as a whole, we accomplished our tasks. Because we accepted each other for our "oddities", we were a successful team. I agree with Laura that being in the same team forever could create limitatins, however a consistent team learns to flow together and effectively. Sometimes this takes time. I also agree with Michelle that we do have more than one intelligence and that will affect how we participate in various groupings.
MI "like minds" working together would result in more being accomplished in less time. On the other hand, mixed MI groups gives you the opportunity to learn from those with different ideas in accomplshing the tasik. I liked Carol's idea of expermenting with the MI approach of "like minds" and mixed MI groups,and then meeting together to determine which worked best for us at TES.
Wow - I should have blogged before our meeting yesterday but since I didn't, I just want to say that it was a fabulous thing to braistorm and share with like-minded people! I feel like our ideas were great and flowed easily. I absolutely think we should continue with similar meetings a couple of times per year. The danger in always meeting/ sharing like this, or with too many of one intelligence, is having too many similar ideas and not reaching students of other intelligences. IE, we can build birdhouses, plant gardens, etc. but we won't be reaching the child that needs to learn musically. We had the best of all worlds (intelligences) meeting like we did and then combining all of our best suggestions :)
I think that a benefit of MI grouping is that it allows everyone to be envolved and to feel as though their strengths are being shown and they are feeling valuable to the team. One drawback that I see would be that the group would be limited to their way of thinking and not able to solve the problem or issue.
A benefit to setting teams up in MI groups is that each person thinks in a similar way and they understand what another person in the group is saying without as much explanation. A drawback is that a group made up of people with the same dominate intelligence have more difficulty thinking outside of their own intelligence. This causes plans and problem solving to be very narrowly focused.
I think knowing what our intelligence zone is will be beneficial and can be used strategically by administration depending on the issue that needs to be addressed. For school improvement planning and grade level teams, we need a variety of intelligences so that we can really pursue every area of a discussion. However, if a specific issue needs to be solved, a group of like intelligences may be just what is needed. A scheduling problem, for example, may be quickly and easily solved by a logical group of thinkers while an issue of school beatification may be better handled by a naturalist or visual group of thinkers.
MI teams are a plus because you play on natural strengths of those involved involved on the team. On page 227 Mr. Wynn states a universal strategy, the longer a team operates the more EFFECTIVE it becomes within its area of focus. The school system as a whole will have to adapt this strategy eventually to cut costs and keep education at its best. A drawback to using this might be getting the whole team, who have very different learning styles, to agree on what's best for the whole. Decision making and carrying out of action plans can sometimes be found strongly in certain intelligences.
ReplyDeleteOne benefit to devising teams based on intelligences is that everyone can feel effective, competent, and valued. We are not much different than the kids...we too enjoy doing what they are good at and aren't huge fans of doing things that are too difficult. A drawback is just as Mrs. White stated, merging ideas from all the M.I. groups into one collaborative plan would certainly be challenging.
ReplyDeleteOne benefit from multiple intelligence grouping may be that a greater variety of solutions can be ‘brought to the table.’ If like minds gather to solve a problem, those folks can probably come to consensus quickly as they will probably see from a singular perspective. I agree with Wendy and Denise...the possible negative aspect to gathering in multiple intelligence groups may be how do we reach consensus and blend all these discrepant ideas once we get back together as a faculty? Attacking problems from this perspective should yield a very broad spectrum of possible solutions (positive), but how do we choose and blend our course of action, keeping everyone happy (negative)? It could be fun to try!
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of multiple intelligence grouping. It goes back to the ideas of a round-table discussion. It does away with superiority or rank among the individuals. This type of forum will help foster participation with each individual. The one drawback would be to make sure that sidebars occur at a minimum so that focus is on the particular task. I know that as adults sometimes we can jump on rabbit trails and can stray form being on task. Having a monitor for the group would certainly help alleviate the problem.
ReplyDeleteOne benefit of setting up school teams according to multiple intelligence strengths is that they can focus on one strategy instead of bits and pieces of what is needed in school improvement. The teams could be fun and productive working on and accomplishing a challenging goal, while getting feedback from others can lead to change and growth, thus realizing your potential. Even though these teams, like “great minds,” think alike each of us carry our own set of information, and how we interpret this information. We have a tendency to continue in “our” way of thinking until being challenged by interacting in a heterogeneous group with different information and/or a way of interpreting the information. This creates higher level thinking.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of various MI groups taking a singular aspect of the School Improvement Plan and coming up with a variety of strategies. Starting that way would certainly facilitate the flow of ideas. The next step of coming together with other MI teams might be challenging, but could result in something really effective. It would be time consuming, but empowering. This set up would certainly meet Wynn's comment 'For solutions to have a chance at being systemic and sustainable, they must be holistic (made up of many small pieces) and driven by small teams. These teams must be empowered to make decisions and responsible for implementing the strategies that they conceptualize.'
ReplyDeleteI love the idea of using people's strengths in small groups. I believe since you get to choose what you are passionate about you will really be involved in that group's discussions and actions. The one draw back that I see is that with so many like minds working in one group they might be limited to their "like" thinking and couldn't step outside of how they percieve the problem. It is always good to have many different types of people in a group so we can get the whole picture. You are certain to fulfill all the needs of students/teacher/community if you have many different walks of life involved.
ReplyDeleteWhat a wonderful way for students' to pinpoint their potential through identifying their dominant intelligence from the M.I. list: Multiple Intelligence. This to, as the Core Values mentioned in Chapter 5 would be beneficial for all to include in SIP. Just think of it; administration, teachers, support staff, students and their parents working together (synergy) on strategy-focused teams using our M.I.'s to execute our goals into practice. The challenge being in the implementation. How about starting at the beginning of the school year when various data is being collected for our records... A form could be devised on the M.I.'s for all (administration, teachers. support staff, students and their parents...Anyone else?) to complete as well. Hmm...Then what?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ms. Clemmer’s positive statement. A person that gets to choose the group they are in based on what they are interested in means they will have a vested interest and be extremely involved and excited. I don’t see much of a negative with the staff that we have. I can see us getting a lot accomplished in small groups, coming together as a staff to share ideas, then working together like we already do to come to the final product. I think we could actually get to the end result faster this way. Let’s do it!! The more we practice this as adults, the more we become comfortable about using this method with our students in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteWhen problem solving, I like the idea of forming small groups based on MI's. This will create more focused group discussions, and the faculty/staff may be more interested as they discuss the aspects of the issue they believe to be most important. When the small groups bring their ideas to the large group, everyone learns from their "expertise". This seems like a productive and efficient way to problem solve.
ReplyDeleteThe only drawback I can detect would be if the small groups never changed. Most of us can fit into more than one MI group, and as we learn and grow from each other, our groups would need to change too.
Setting up school teams this way seems like it would have major benefits. People would feed off of one another and there would be great energy. It is easy to get excited about an idea when you have a group of people who feel the same way you do. It would be more challenging to work together as a whole group after working in small MI groups but I see where it would be a good idea too. Imagine the possibilities with so many different types of learners involved!
ReplyDeleteI agree that working in a small group with like-minded people sounds exciting and productive. As mentioned by several people, the key would be the coming together of all groups to share and implement. I think MI grouping would be a great way for TES to reach our highest potential, at all levels (staff, students...)
ReplyDeleteI think that an advantage of forming teams based on MI would be that people would feel more accepted and willing to share their ideas with people who are of like thinking. It would be a less threatening environment, therefore more ideas would be brought to the table. I feel that a drawback would be that the opinions of the MI group would be a bit narrow and may not include all viable options.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting way of grouping teachers. When we were first introduced to the chapter last month, I was thinking that the groups would be made in such a way to have one person from each intelligence would be part of the team. After reading the chapter, I see that I was mistaken. I see some advantages in being able to get a lot done if the team only had to be concerned with one small aspect of an event and there may not be many objections if people with the same way of thinking were agreeing with each other. On the other hand, I feel I learn from people who are different from me. In a meeting, people who think differently will offer a suggestion and I'll think, "Wow, I never thought of it that way...." We would not have this opportunity if we were split in this way. I am thinking of big events w/ this happening. We would surely need time to get together with the entire group in order to make sure that all parts of the event did not interfere with each other.
ReplyDeletePersonally working in like MI groups has it's advantages in that you can discuss situations, tasks, etc with "like minds." In this scenario, we could probably get a lot accomplished. However, not being exposed to the various groups would not allow you to see other aspects of the problem solving or discussion, as not everyone would see it one way. We are challenged everyday by working in teams, many of which have multi MI. But if you stop and think for a moment, who is it you talk with, collaborate with, have discussions with? Are they a "like mind." Watch your students. They already know who to go to. Of course as adults it can get more complicated. I would like to try a task where we use the "like minds" of MI approach and then one in which we have mixed MI groups. When we come together, share thoughts, observations on which one was more successful. I like to be challenged by MI people. I think I can learn from them in a way I may not have thought.
ReplyDeleteThe strongest argument in support of like MI teams would be that groups of like mind and similar approach could focus entirely on the areas/topics with which they are most comfortable and which they find most interesting. As a counselor, I feel I am strongest in Interpersonal Intelligence, and I would really enjoy functioning within a working group whose focus is mainly Relationships. It seems like a great way to put our strengths to their best use.
ReplyDeleteStill, without a mixture of MI group members, there would be little to challenge us to stretch and grow as professionals. Also, without occasionally focusing on tasks outside our comfort zones, I imagine we could really become entrenched in a rut of repetition and lose our excitement about our assigned tasks. In the end, I believe the better route is to collaborate using our differing MI strengths within an integrated group. We learn and grow from those who are different from us, as long as we are open to the experience.
I too like the idea of MI grouping in association with school planning. It is comfortable to work with people who have similar opinions or who "attack" a goal in a similar way. The situations or assignments for groups will change depending on what needs/plans are to be addressed therefore would help prevent narrow mindedness or getting in a rut. The trick to success is the liason between groups. I agree with what Carol said regarding trying MI groups and then mixing them up. Maybe that particular group would be the liason group for confirming plans.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of Multiple Intelligence Teams; it just makes sense that you would work on what you are good at. The one benefit that I think of right away is that I would get to be involved with something that I enjoy doing. For example, if I am a Logical/Mathematical person I would prefer to work on scheduling and budgets, I wouldn’t want to worry about staff retreats. I think focusing on a person’s natural talents would help produce significant results. You wouldn’t want someone who didn’t like to design things to work on the school newsletter.
ReplyDeleteBrandi
I think the idea of MI grouping would make people more comfortable. Great minds think alike and yes the longer a team stays together the more effective. But I also feel that we are more likely to become too comfortable. Yes we are putting our strengths together but in some ways we are limiting ourselves. If we are all working together for a common cause or goal, then we must remain focused, put our heads together and find ways to achieve those goals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pat that Multiple Intelligence Teams would probably make people feel more comfrotable in one sense yet if not challenged, could also become complacent as well. During this time of year when teachers are stressed enough with the end of year so quickly approaching, it is easier to see how MI teams would be a positive. But what we have to remember is the final goal - often we have to be a little uncomfortable to truly be all that we can grow to be!
ReplyDeleteI agree that MI teams are a great way for a person to be more involved and feel comfortable about giving input. The more time the team is together, the stronger and more effective they will become. A negative is that the team is together too long, the less "fresh ideas" will be introduced. A possible solution would be to attend a different team for a meeting or skip some all together.
ReplyDeleteOur 3rd grade team of 6 at ntes was an extremely eclectic (MI)group. It was fantastic because we each offered our strength to the group and as a whole, we accomplished our tasks. Because we accepted each other for our "oddities", we were a successful team. I agree with Laura that being in the same team forever could create limitatins, however a consistent team learns to flow together and effectively. Sometimes this takes time. I also agree with Michelle that we do have more than one intelligence and that will affect how we participate in various groupings.
ReplyDeleteMI "like minds" working together would result in more being accomplished in less time. On the other hand, mixed MI groups gives you the opportunity to learn from those with different ideas in accomplshing the tasik.
ReplyDeleteI liked Carol's idea of expermenting with the MI approach of "like minds" and mixed MI groups,and then meeting together to determine which worked best for us at TES.
Wow - I should have blogged before our meeting yesterday but since I didn't, I just want to say that it was a fabulous thing to braistorm and share with like-minded people! I feel like our ideas were great and flowed easily. I absolutely think we should continue with similar meetings a couple of times per year.
ReplyDeleteThe danger in always meeting/ sharing like this, or with too many of one intelligence, is having too many similar ideas and not reaching students of other intelligences. IE, we can build birdhouses, plant gardens, etc. but we won't be reaching the child that needs to learn musically.
We had the best of all worlds (intelligences) meeting like we did and then combining all of our best suggestions :)
I think that a benefit of MI grouping is that it allows everyone to be envolved and to feel as though their strengths are being shown and they are feeling valuable to the team. One drawback that I see would be that the group would be limited to their way of thinking and not able to solve the problem or issue.
ReplyDeleteA benefit to setting teams up in MI groups is that each person thinks in a similar way and they understand what another person in the group is saying without as much explanation. A drawback is that a group made up of people with the same dominate intelligence have more difficulty thinking outside of their own intelligence. This causes plans and problem solving to be very narrowly focused.
ReplyDeleteI think knowing what our intelligence zone is will be beneficial and can be used strategically by administration depending on the issue that needs to be addressed. For school improvement planning and grade level teams, we need a variety of intelligences so that we can really pursue every area of a discussion. However, if a specific issue needs to be solved, a group of like intelligences may be just what is needed. A scheduling problem, for example, may be quickly and easily solved by a logical group of thinkers while an issue of school beatification may be better handled by a naturalist or visual group of thinkers.