If active and collaborative learning and teaching is more effective than lecture methods and individually based learning, why haven’t classroom environments changed to support them? If instructor-directed, competitive environments result in lower retention scores and higher attrition, why do students continue to sit in immovable desks—“soldiers in a row”, as one community college professor observed—rather than organized in groups at tables or sitting in a circular arrangement? Why haven’t classroom spaces evolved to support kinetic teaching and dynamic learning?
Black, S. 1994. Different kinds of smart. The Executive Educator
Brualdi, A. 1996. Multiple Intelligences: Gardner’s Theory . ERIC. ED410226.
Dickinson, D. 1999. Learning through many kinds of intelligences. New Horizons for Learning Electronic Journal 4(4).
Manner, B. 1997. Teacher’s Guide to Accompany Environmental Atlas of the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area. Monroeville, PA: Surprise Valley Publications.
Meyer, M. 1998. Learning and teaching through the naturalist intelligence. New Horizons for Learning Electronic Journal 3(5).
Nicholson-Nelson, K. 1998. Literacy activities that tap kids’ multiple intelligences. Instructor 107(5): 65–68.
Orion, N., and A. Hofstein. 1991. The measurement of student’s attitudes towards scientific field trips. Science Education 75(5): 513–523.
Orion, N., and A. Hofstein. 1994. Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31(10): 1097–1119.