Cultivate Multiple Ways of Knowing and Making Meaning¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 5 claims (4 for, 1 against) · 14 studies (5 causal, 4 quant-synthesis, 4 review, 1 theoretical), q1–q4 · 3 of 14 report an effect size

Description¶

This strategy designs learning so that content can be accessed, understood, and expressed through multiple modalities, cultural frames, and forms of representation. Learners encounter material through varied means (text, visual, oral, embodied, narrative) and demonstrate understanding through varied means (writing, art, performance, discussion, building). The goal is an inclusive environment where diverse backgrounds are treated as assets and expression is not limited to a single sanctioned format.

Design Implications¶

Multiple representations strengthen learning by giving learners redundant, complementary codes for the same idea Presenting words and corresponding pictures improves recall over words alone. [+S], and examining the same concept through multiple cases and perspectives builds flexible, transferable knowledge Examining multiple varied cases builds flexible knowledge structures. [+M]. Offering meaningful choices in how to engage and express understanding supports autonomy and intrinsic motivation Supporting learner autonomy increases intrinsic motivation. [+S]. Critically, this strategy is about multiple modalities and perspectives — not matching instruction to a diagnosed "learning style," which has been repeatedly discredited Teaching to matched learning styles does not improve outcomes. [-S].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Content represented in at least two modalities with a clear instructional purpose, not decoration (Dual Coding)
• Authentic materials and examples drawn from learners' cultural contexts, treated as objects of study rather than tokens
• Multiple assessment/expression options that hold constant the learning goal while varying the format (Choice Boards)
• A psychologically safe climate for sharing personal and cultural perspectives (Check-In, Class Discussion)
• Source materials and examples drawn from more than one cultural, disciplinary, or representational tradition
• Instructor knowledge of learners' communities and funds of knowledge, gathered rather than assumed

Constraints¶

• Matching instruction to self-reported "learning styles" does not improve achievement and wastes design effort Teaching to matched learning styles does not improve outcomes. [-S] — offer multiple representations, but do not sort learners by style
• Unrestricted choice can overload novices, who lack the knowledge to select productively; guided or constrained options work better for them [~M]
• Superficial inclusion of cultural examples ("heroes and holidays") can stereotype rather than affirm; deep integration of perspectives requires substantive redesign [~M]
• Multiple formats multiply design, facilitation, and assessment workload; rubrics must assess the shared learning goal, not production polish, or creative options become inequitable [~M]
• Superficial "multicultural add-ons" (holidays, food, flags) without epistemic substance do not improve learning and can read as tokenism [-W]
• Openly inviting personal perspectives without structure can expose learners to stereotype threat or discomfort in mixed-status classrooms [~M]
• Treating "multiple ways of knowing" as license to abandon accuracy or evidence standards degrades conceptual learning [-M]
• Matching instruction to self-reported "learning styles" does not improve outcomes and wastes design effort [X]

Implementation Variability¶

• Representation-side: teach one concept through text + diagram + demonstration + narrative (Analogies, Case Studies, Act It Out)
• Expression-side: fixed goal, variable product — essay, podcast, concept map, performance, model
• Perspective-side: analyze the same event or problem through multiple cultural or disciplinary lenses
• Participation-side: vary between individual, pair, and communal modes of knowing (reflection, dialogue, Collaborative Learning)
• Curriculum-level: alternate case sources, authors, and knowledge traditions across a unit
• Activity-level: offer parallel pathways (narrative, visual, manipulative, dialogic) into the same concept
• Assessment-level: allow multiple demonstration formats against a common rubric
• Community-level: invite elders, practitioners, or community experts as co-teachers of local knowledge

Target Learners¶

• Multilingual learners, who benefit from complementary verbal and visual representations Presenting words and corresponding pictures improves recall over words alone. [+S]
• Learners from cultural backgrounds underrepresented in canonical curricula, who engage more deeply when materials connect to community knowledge [~M]
• Novices, who need constrained choice rather than open-ended option sets [~M]
• All learners benefit from multiple representations; none benefit from style-matched instruction Teaching to matched learning styles does not improve outcomes. [-S]
• Learners from cultural or linguistic backgrounds underrepresented in standard curricula, who benefit when their funds of knowledge are treated as instructional assets [+M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Conceptual understanding that transfers across contexts Examining multiple varied cases builds flexible knowledge structures. [+M]
• Perspective-taking and empathy Building empathy improves intergroup attitudes. [+M]
• Creative and communicative expression
• Retention of core content through dual verbal/visual encoding Presenting words and corresponding pictures improves recall over words alone. [+S]
• Epistemic flexibility: recognizing that disciplines and cultures have different valid standards for warranting claims

Instructions¶

1. Identify the non-negotiable learning goal, then design at least two representations of it (text + visual, narrative + data, concrete + abstract) (Analogies, Case Studies)
2. Audit examples and materials for whose knowledge and experience they assume; add authentic perspectives from the learners' communities
3. Offer a bounded set of expression options for the same goal (Choice Boards), with a shared rubric focused on the learning goal
4. Open with identity- and experience-connecting routines (Check-In, Activating Prior Knowledge) so learners' ways of knowing enter the room
5. Use structured dialogue to surface multiple interpretations (Class Discussion, Act It Out)
6. Assess against the goal, not the format; provide Accommodations so expression options remain genuinely accessible

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — connects new content to the diverse knowledge learners already hold
• Acting-Role-Play — an embodied, non-written way of knowing and expressing understanding
• Building Empathy — a core outcome of engaging multiple cultural perspectives
• Act as a learning supporter during multimedia production
• Use inclusive visual maps of a discourse field to expose educators to multiple perspectives before making pedagogical and curricular choices
• Cultivate curiosity and lower psychological barriers by opening each project with real-world motivation cases and simple accessible AI examples
• Culturally Responsive Teaching — the pedagogical framework this strategy most directly enacts
• Universal Design for Learning — multiple means of representation and expression as accessibility infrastructure
• Case-Based Learning — using varied cases as multiple entry points into a concept
• Indigenous–non-Indigenous academic collaboration grounded in trust, collegiality and un-learning of Western epistemic authority

Examples¶

• CAST UDL Guidelines — the multiple-means-of-representation / -action-and-expression framework operationalizes this strategy systemwide.
• Facing History and Ourselves — history curriculum that examines events through multiple primary-source perspectives, with creative expression options (art, poetry, testimony) alongside analytical writing.
• Smithsonian Learning Lab — learners curate and annotate multimedia collections, expressing understanding through assembled exhibits rather than essays alone.
• A science class explaining photosynthesis via diagram, narrative, and physical model, assessed with one rubric on the underlying concept.
• Zaretta Hammond, Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain (2015) — a widely used practitioner framework for building learning partnerships on students' cultural funds of knowledge.
• Facing History and Ourselves — humanities curriculum that juxtaposes primary sources, testimony, narrative, and visual media so students construct historical understanding through multiple modes of evidence.
• Native Science curriculum approaches, e.g., the Oregon Natural Resources Education Program — pairs Indigenous ecological knowledge with Western scientific frameworks in environmental education.
• CAST UDL Guidelines — concrete design guidance for multiple means of representation, action/expression, and engagement.

Key Sources¶

• Gay, G. (2018). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
• Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
• Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511811678
• Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. ASCD.
• Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction (pp. 57–75). Erlbaum.
• Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. doi:10.3102/00028312032003465
• Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain. Corwin.
• Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum.