# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Multiple intelligences and learning styles are terms that many educators use interchangeably. But did you know they're different?

Educational theorist Howard Gardner (1993) spells out the difference between the theories this way:

"In MI theory, I begin with a human organism that responds (or fails to respond) to different kinds of contents in the world ... Those who speak of learning styles are searching for approaches that ought to characterize all contents."

Still puzzled? We hear you!

That's why we're jumping headfirst into the definitions and backgrounds of these sometimes confusing terms.

What are learning styles?

Google has a field day when you look up learning styles. As is the case with most complicated terminology, some of the definitions make sense and some don't. Here are three explanations of learning styles that sit right:

Teaching Expertise states that "Learning Styles (LS) can be defined as the way humans prefer to concentrate on, store, and remember new and difficult information." OK, so far so good. That makes sense.

Educational scholar Dorothy MacKeracher (2004, p. 71) describes learning styles as "the characteristic of cognitive, affective, social, and physiological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment."

On the other hand, Brown University jumps more to the point and expresses that learning styles are how you process and comprehend information in learning situations.

Brown also breaks up learning styles into six categories (which we'll revisit later):

Visual learning

Kinesthetic learning

Individual learning

Tactile learning

Auditory learning

Group learning

In short, learning styles have to do with an individual's way of learning - or, as Gardner put it, how students a task.

Who came up with the learning styles?

Many scholars point out that learning styles have been around since Carl Jung explored personality types in 1923 and separated them into the following:

Extraversion vs. introversion

Sensation vs. intuition

Thinking vs. feeling

Judging vs. perceiving

This led to the now-famous Myers Brigg personality test (which yes, could be it's very own blog post).

But it was a New Zealand researcher Neil Flemming who discovered that certain teachers could reach every student if they catered to students' learning styles. He came up with VARK in 1987, which stands for the four basic modalities of learning techniques: visual, aural, auditory, read/write, and kinesthetic. Yes, it's slightly different from Brown's interpretation above, but the general idea holds true that there are categorized, preferred ways to learn.

VARK states that learning is not so black and white and reminds us to "[r]emember [that] life (and work) are multimodal, so there are no hard and fast boundaries."

On the other hand, Gardner's 1983 Multiple Intelligence Theory aimed to breakdown learning abilities based on learning styles. According to Gardner, the notion of multiple intelligences "is a theoretical framework for defining/understanding/assessing/developing people's different intelligence factors."

One could argue that multiple intelligence theory focuses more on evaluating and understanding an individual's intelligence than learning styles do. Gardner also emphasized that individuals possess each of these bits of intelligence, but it's the degree to which each one exhibits that's important to recognize.

*Note that critics of multiple intelligence theory point out that "intelligence" is not a clearly defined term. Instead, they base learning styles on biological and conditioned factors.

After sifting through various comparisons of these two terms, we found another description from the Teaching for Multiple Intelligences that stuck with us:

"[L]earning styles emphasize the different ways people think and feel as they solve problems, create products, and interact. The theory of multiple intelligences is an effort to understand how cultures and disciplines shape human potential."

You're not alone if you're still finding the concept tricky to grasp, so let's go a step further and breakdown each category.

But before we dig in, note that the notion of "learning" itself is not clear-cut, and we all possess aspects of all these styles and intelligences.

The 6 learning styles

Here's a breakdown of learning styles:

1. Visual learning

Using one's sense of sight to gather information.

Visual learning activities:

Following maps

Sketching diagrams

Watching videos

2. Group learning

Learning well in social settings, with a focus on collaboration and team-building skills.

Group learning activities:

Team building activities like those on a ropes course, human alphabet, and group sit

Group projects such as literature posters or presentations

Group discussions, formally or informally

3. Kinesthetic learning

Learning takes place physically with movement, expressions, and one's sense of touch.

Kinesthetic learning activities:

Simulation games like Predator Prey

Field trips or other outdoor activities

Board games and other manipulatives

4. Individual learning

Learning alone as opposed to in a group, with greater focus on self-study. This learning style connects with intrapersonal multiple intelligence.

Individual learning activities:

5. Tactile learning

Hands-on learning. This relates to kinesthetic intelligence and even nature intelligence.

Tactile learning activities:

Building 3D models

Attending and/or presenting at a science fair

Measuring items in the classroom

6. Auditory learning

Learning through hearing. Related to linguistic intelligence and musical intelligence.

Auditory learning activities:

Listening to nursery rhymes

Writing song lyrics, or even singing

Creating or listening to podcasts

The 9 intelligence categories

Now that you're more familiar with learning styles, let's offer some explanations for multiple intelligences. Most scholars break up the multiple intelligences into nine categories (because they added the existentialist one recently).

Although related to learning styles, multiple intelligences focus more on intellectual abilities. On the other hand, learning styles emphasize preferences or how a person likes to approach their learning. As you read the descriptions below, you should sense the overlap.

1. Spatial-visual intelligence

Students with this trait have an uncanny ability to visualize things. Whether it be manipulating 3D objects or finding the quickest route on a roadmap, this intelligence goes hand in hand with the visual learning style. It's how you store visually learned information in your memory.

2. Verbal-linguistic intelligence

Do you know those students who get excited about writing stories and public speaking? They favor verbal-linguistic learning. They probably love words, spoken and written. And they relish word sounds, meanings, etc. These students also tend to listen attentively.

3. Musical intelligence

People who exhibit musical intelligence learn in an auditory way and have an ear for rhythm. Instead of favoring words or images, musical learners prefer sounds.

4. Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence

How you obtain information through moving as well as how you control your body/fine motor skills. In short, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence involves learning through movement.

5. Naturalist intelligence

Learning best outdoors. People who are curious about their natural world, animals, and plants exhibit naturalist intelligence.

6. Interpersonal intelligence

People in this category are social and empathetic, which allows them to intuitively sense others' needs. They can read the moods of others and relate to their peers. They're also often strong communicators.

7. Intrapersonal intelligence

On the other end, intrapersonal intelligence focuses more inwardly than out. These learners ten to be highly reflective and thoughtful within their own minds. They also may be highly in tune with their own strengths and weaknesses.

8. Logical-mathematical intelligence

People who love analyzing problems and reaching a logical solution fall in this category. They have strong reasoning skills, typically excel at standardized tests, and are keen on identifying patterns.

9. Existential intelligence

What's the meaning of life? What is beauty? How do you define art? These are all big questions that characterize existentialist intelligence. These deep thinkers with philosophic minds are always trying to understand the world around them.

The take-away

Familiarity with multiple avenues of learning will benefit you and your students. Stacking your teacher arsenal with knowledge on learning styles and multiple intelligence theory will help you reach all your students and not just a select few.

Remember that all learners have unique strengths and weaknesses, and a one-size-fits-all approach to teaching doesn't cater to a student's individualism. By familiarizing yourself with multiple intelligence theory and the different learning styles, you'll be able to tap into all your students' strengths.

One final thought

How do you learn? Visually? Linguistically? Spatially?

In addition to implementing these sweet teaching techniques into your curriculum, when you reflect on your own learning styles and multiple intelligences, you'll be one step closer to understanding those around you!
Photo: Google Edu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning styles vs. multiple intelligences: Related, but not the same - Classcraft Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Multiple intelligences and learning styles are terms that many educators use interchangeably. But did you know they're different?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Classroom | Empowering Students in Their College Journey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Apply Erikson’s Theory in Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development can be taught to many young learners in the stages of the theory.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Key Takeaways

Lawrence Kohlberg formulated a theory asserting that individuals progress through six distinct stages of moral reasoning from infancy to adulthood.

He grouped these stages into three broad categories of moral reasoning, pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Each level is associated with increasingly complex stages of moral development.

Kohlberg suggested that people move through these stages in a fixed order and that moral understanding is linked to cognitive development.

Heinz Dilemma

Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget's (1932) theory of moral development in principle but wanted to develop his ideas further.

He used Piaget's storytelling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas. In each case, he presented a choice to be considered, for example, between the rights of some authority and the needs of some deserving individual unfairly treated.

After presenting people with various moral dilemmas, Kohlberg categorized their responses into different stages of moral reasoning.

Using children's responses to a series of moral dilemmas, Kohlberg established that the reasoning behind the decision was a greater indication of moral development than the actual answer.

One of the best-known of Kohlberg's (1958) stories concerns a man called Heinz who lived somewhere in Europe.

Heinz's wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist, and the Heinz tried desperately to buy some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug, and this was much more than the Heinz could afford.

Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the rest of the money later.

The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the chemist's and stole the drug.

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:

1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?

2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?

3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?

4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman dies?

By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg hoped to discover how moral reasoning changed as people grew older.

The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 10-16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984).

Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. Kohlberg was interested not in whether the boys judged the action right or wrong but in the reasons for the decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the children got older.

Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Each level has two sub-stages.

People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages.

Preconventional
1. Avoiding Punishment

Moral reasoning is based on direct consequences.

Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is illegal, and he could be punished.

2. Self-Interest

Actions are seen in terms of rewards rather than moral value.

Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is illegal, and he could be punished.

Conventional
3. Good boy attitude

Good behavior is about living up to social expectations and roles.

Heinz should steal the drug because, as a good husband, he is expected to do whatever he can to save his wife.

4. Law & Order Morality

Moral reasoning considers societal laws.

Heinz should not steal the drug because he must uphold the law and maintain societal order.

Postconventional
5. Social Contract

Rules are seen as social agreements that can be changed when necessary.

Heinz should steal the drug because preserving human life is a more fundamental value than property rights.

6. Universal Principles

Moral reasoning is based on universal ethical principles and justice.

Heinz should consider non-violent civil disobedience or negotiation with the pharmacist. The decision reflects a conflict between property rights and the sanctity of human life.

Level 1 - Preconventional Morality

Preconventional morality is the first level of moral development, lasting until approximately age 8. During this level, children accept the authority (and moral code) of others.

Preconventional morality is when people follow rules because they don't want to get in trouble or they want to get a reward. This level of morality is mostly based on what authority figures like parents or teachers tell you to do rather than what you think is right or wrong.

Authority is outside the individual, and children often make moral decisions based on the physical consequences of actions.

For example, if an action leads to punishment, it must be bad; if it leads to a reward, it must be good.

So, people at this level don't have their own personal sense of right and wrong yet. They think that something is good if they get rewarded for it and bad if they get punished for it.

For example, if you get candy for behaving, you think you were good, but if you get a scolding for misbehaving, you think you were bad.

At the preconventional level, children don't have a personal code of morality. Instead, moral decisions are shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good to avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, children recognize that there is not just one right view handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.

Level 2 - Conventional Morality

Conventional morality is the adolescent phase of moral development focused on societal norms and external expectations to discern right from wrong, often grounded in tradition, cultural practices, or established codes of conduct.

We internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models at the conventional level (most adolescents and adults).

Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the group's norms to which the person belongs.

A social system that stresses the responsibilities of relationships and social order is seen as desirable and must influence our view of right and wrong.

So, people who follow conventional morality believe that it's important to follow society's rules and expectations to maintain order and prevent problems.

For example, refusing to cheat on a test is a part of conventional morality because cheating can harm the academic system and create societal problems.

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others.

Stage 4. Law and Order Morality. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules to uphold the law and avoid guilt.

Level 3 - Postconventional Morality

Postconventional morality is the third level of moral development and is characterized by an individual's understanding of universal ethical principles.

Postconventional morality is when people decide based on what they think is right rather than just following the rules of society. This means that people at this level of morality have their own ethical principles and values and don't just do what society tells them to do.

At this level, people think about what is fair, what is just, and what values are important.

What is considered morally acceptable in any given situation is determined by what is the response most in keeping with these principles.

They also think about how their choices might affect others and try to make good decisions for everyone, not just themselves.

Values are abstract and ill-defined but might include: the preservation of life at all costs and the importance of human dignity. Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice.

According to Kohlberg, this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people get.

Only 10-15% are capable of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them, and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals.

The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz's dilemma, the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing.

Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines, which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone. E.g., human rights, justice, and equality.

The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment.

Kohlberg doubted few people had reached this stage.

Problems with Kohlberg's Methods

1. The dilemmas are artificial (i.e., they lack ecological validity)

Most dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people (Rosen, 1980). For example, it is all very well in the Heinz dilemma, asking subjects whether Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife.

However, Kohlberg's subjects were aged between 10 and 16. They have never been married, and never been placed in a situation remotely like the one in the story.

How should they know whether Heinz should steal the drug?

2. The sample is biased

Kohlberg's (1969) theory suggested males more frequently progress beyond stage four in moral development, implying females lacked moral reasoning skills.

His research assistant, Carol Gilligan, disputed this, who argued that women's moral reasoning differed, not deficient.

She criticized Kohlberg's theory for focusing solely on upper-class white males, arguing women value interpersonal connections. For instance, women often oppose theft in the Heinz dilemma due to potential repercussions, such as separation from his wife if Heinz is imprisoned.

Gilligan (1982) conducted new studies interviewing both men and women, finding women more often emphasized care, relationships and context rather than abstract rules. Gilligan argued that Kohlberg's theory overlooked this relational "different voice" in morality.

According to Gilligan (1977), because Kohlberg's theory was based on an all-male sample, the stages reflect a male definition of morality (it's androcentric).

Men's morality is based on abstract principles of law and justice, while women's is based on principles of compassion and care.

Further, the gender bias issue raised by Gilligan is a reminder of the significant gender debate still present in psychology, which, when ignored, can greatly impact the results obtained through psychological research.

3. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e., they are not real)

Kohlberg's approach to studying moral reasoning relied heavily on his semi-structured moral judgment interview. Participants were presented with hypothetical moral dilemmas, and their justifications were analyzed to determine their stage of moral reasoning.

Some critiques of Kohlberg's method are that it lacks ecological validity, removes reasoning from real-life contexts, and defines morality narrowly in terms of justice reasoning.

Psychologists concur with Kohlberg's moral development theory, yet emphasize the difference between moral reasoning and behavior.

What we claim we'd do in a hypothetical situation often differs from our actions when faced with the actual circumstance. In essence, our actions might not align with our proclaimed values.

In a real situation, what course of action a person takes will have real consequences - and sometimes very unpleasant ones for themselves. Would subjects reason in the same way if they were placed in a real situation? We don't know.

The fact that Kohlberg's theory is heavily dependent on an individual's response to an artificial dilemma questions the validity of the results obtained through this research.

People may respond very differently to real-life situations that they find themselves in than they do to an artificial dilemma presented to them in the comfort of a research environment.

4. Poor research design

How Kohlberg carried out his research when constructing this theory may not have been the best way to test whether all children follow the same sequence of stage progression.

His research was cross-sectional, meaning that he interviewed children of different ages to see their moral development level.

A better way to see if all children follow the same order through the stages would be to conduct longitudinal research on the same children.

However, longitudinal research on Kohlberg's theory has since been carried out by Colby et al. (1983), who tested 58 male participants of Kohlberg's original study.

She tested them six times in 27 years and supported Kohlberg's original conclusion, which is that we all pass through the stages of moral development in the same order.

Contemporary research employs more diverse methods beyond Kohlberg's interview approach, such as narrative analysis, to study moral experience. These newer methods aim to understand moral reasoning and development within authentic contexts and experiences.

Tappan and colleagues (1996) promote a narrative approach that examines how individuals construct stories and identities around moral experiences. This draws from the sociocultural tradition of examining identity in context. Tappan argues narrative provides a more contextualized understanding of moral development.

Colby and Damon's (1992) empirical research uses in-depth life story interviews to study moral exemplars - people dedicated to moral causes. Instead of hypothetical dilemmas, they ask participants to describe real moral challenges and commitments. Their goal is to respect exemplars as co-investigators of moral meaning-making.

Walker and Pitts' (1995) studies use open-ended interviews asking people to discuss real-life moral dilemmas and reflect on the moral domain in their own words. This elicits more naturalistic conceptions of morality compared to Kohlberg's abstract decontextualized approach.

Problems with Kohlberg's Theory

1. Are there distinct stages of moral development?

Kohlberg claims there are, but the evidence does not always support this conclusion.

For example, a person who justified a decision based on principled reasoning in one situation (postconventional morality stage 5 or 6) would frequently fall back on conventional reasoning (stage 3 or 4) with another story.

In practice, it seems that reasoning about right and wrong depends more on the situation than on general rules. Moreover, individuals do not always progress through the stages, and Rest (1979) found that one in fourteen slipped backward.

The evidence for distinct stages of moral development looks very weak. Some would argue that behind the theory is a culturally biased belief in the superiority of American values over those of other cultures and societies.

Gilligan (1982) did not dismiss developmental psychology or morality. She acknowledged that children undergo moral development in stages and even praised Kohlberg's stage logic as "brilliant" (Jorgensen, 2006, p. 186). However, she preferred Erikson's model over the more rigid Piagetian stages.

While Gilligan supported Kohlberg's stage theory as rational, she expressed discomfort with its structural descriptions that lacked context.

She also raised concerns about the theory's universality, pointing out that it primarily reflected Western culture (Jorgensen, 2006, pp. 187-188).

Neo-Kohlbergian Schema Model

Rest and colleagues (199) have developed a theoretical model building on but moving beyond Kohlberg's stage-based approach to moral development. Their model outlines four components of moral behavior: moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral character.

For the moral judgment component, Rest et al. propose that individuals use moral schemas rather than progress through discrete stages of moral reasoning.

Schemas are generalized knowledge structures that help us interpret information and situations. An individual can have multiple schemas available to make sense of moral issues, rather than being constrained to a single developmental stage.

Some examples of moral schemas proposed by Rest and colleagues include:

Personal Interest Schema - focused on individual interests and preferences

Maintaining Norms Schema - emphasizes following rules and norms

Postconventional Schema - considers moral ideals and principles

Rather than viewing development as movement to higher reasoning stages, the neo-Kohlbergian approach sees moral growth as acquiring additional, more complex moral schemas. Lower schemas are not replaced, but higher order moral schemas become available to complement existing ones.

The schema concept attempts to address critiques of the stage model, such as its rigidity and lack of context sensitivity. Using schemas allows for greater flexibility and integration of social factors into moral reasoning.

2. Does moral judgment match moral behavior?

Kohlberg never claimed that there would be a one-to-one correspondence between thinking and acting (what we say and what we do), but he does suggest that the two are linked.

However, Bee (1994) suggests that we also need to take into account of:

a) habits that people have developed over time.

b) whether people see situations as demanding their participation.

c) the costs and benefits of behaving in a particular way.

d) competing motive such as peer pressure, self-interest and so on.

Overall, Bee points out that moral behavior is only partly a question of moral reasoning. It also has to do with social factors.

3. Is justice the most fundamental moral principle?

This is Kohlberg's view. However, Gilligan (1977) suggests that the principle of caring for others is equally important. Furthermore, Kohlberg claims that the moral reasoning of males has often been in advance of that of females.

Girls are often found to be at stage 3 in Kohlberg's system (good boy-nice girl orientation), whereas boys are more often found to be at stage 4 (Law and Order orientation). Gilligan (p. 484) replies:

"The very traits that have traditionally defined the goodness of women, their care for and sensitivity to the needs of others, are those that mark them out as deficient in moral development".

In other words, Gilligan claims that there is a sex bias in Kohlberg's theory. He neglects the feminine voice of compassion, love, and non-violence, which is associated with the socialization of girls.

Gilligan concluded that Kohlberg's theory did not account for the fact that women approach moral problems from an 'ethics of care', rather than an 'ethics of justice' perspective, which challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of Kohlberg's theory.

In contrast to Kohlberg's impersonal "ethics of justice", Gilligan proposed an alternative "ethics of care" grounded in compassion and responsiveness to needs within relationships (Gilligan, 1982).

Her care perspective highlights emotion, empathy and understanding over detached logic. Gilligan saw care and justice ethics as complementary moral orientations.

Walker et al. (1995) found everyday moral conflicts often revolve around relationships rather than justice; individuals describe relying more on intuition than moral reasoning in dilemmas. This raises questions about the centrality of reasoning in moral functioning.

4. Do people make rational moral decisions?

Kohlbeg's theory emphasizes rationality and logical decision-making at the expense of emotional and contextual factors in moral decision-making.

One significant criticism is that Kohlberg's emphasis on reason can create an image of the moral person as cold and detached from real-life situations.

Carol Gilligan critiqued Kohlberg's theory as overly rationalistic and not accounting for care-based morality commonly found in women. She argued for a "different voice" grounded in relationships and responsiveness to particular individuals.

The criticism suggests that by portraying moral reasoning as primarily cognitive and detached from emotional and situational factors, Kohlberg's theory oversimplifies real-life moral decision-making, which often involves emotions, social dynamics, cultural nuances, and practical constraints.

Critics contend that his model does not adequately capture the multifaceted nature of morality in the complexities of everyday life.

References

Bee, H. L. (1994). Lifespan development. HarperCollins College Publishers.

Blum, L. A. (1988). Gilligan and Kohlberg: Implications for moral theory. Ethics, 98(3), 472-491.

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 48 (1-2, Serial No. 200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Day, J. M., & Tappan, M. B. (1996). The narrative approach to moral development: From the epistemic subject to dialogical selves. Human Development, 39(2), 67-82.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women's conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 481-517.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Harvard University Press.

Gilligan, C. (1995). Hearing the difference: Theorizing connection. Hypatia, 10(2), 120-127.

Jorgensen, G. (2006). Kohlberg and Gilligan: duet or duel?. Journal of Moral Education, 35(2), 179-196.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (Essays on Moral Development, Volume 2). Harper & Row

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. University of Minnesota Press.

Rosen, B. (1980). Moral dilemmas and their treatment. In, Moral development, moral education, and Kohlberg. B. Munsey (Ed). (1980), pp. 232-263. Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press.

Walker, L. J., Pitts, R. C., Hennig, K. H., & Matsuba, M. K. (1995). Reasoning about morality and real-life moral problems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lawrence Kohlberg formulated a theory asserting that individuals progress through six distinct stages of moral reasoning from infancy to adulthood. According to Kohlberg, these stages are grouped into three separate levels known as preconventional, conventional, and post-conventional morality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The four parenting styles in child-raising are authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and uninvolved parenting styles. The authoritative parenting style is the best, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and psychologists worldwide. The uninvolved parenting style is linked to the worst outcomes in children.

A 2010 study in the United States surveying over ten thousand school-aged students found that authoritative parenting was the most popular style, followed by authoritarian parenting.

Parenting styles are important because how parents interact with their children has a lifelong impact on children's healthy growth, including emotional, physical, and behavioral development. Let's explore the 4 types of parenting styles and their effects on children.

Parenting styles definition in psychology

Parenting styles are the different approaches that parents use to raise their children.

The four main types of parenting styles are based on research by developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind at the University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s and the work of Eleanor Maccoby and John Martin at Stanford University in 1983. ​1​

These parenting types are categorized based on two dimensions: demandingness and responsiveness. Demandingness refers to behavioral control and maturity expectations, and responsiveness pertains to parents' emotional sensitivity.

Psychologists use these styles widely to understand the link between parenting approaches and children's behavior and development.

Authoritative parenting style

The authoritative parenting style is high in demandingness and responsiveness.

Parents with high levels of demandingness expect their children to achieve and mature at a high standard. Authoritative parents set rules and enforce clear boundaries to guide their children toward becoming responsible adults.

However, authoritative parents are warm and responsive despite being demanding.​ They are assertive but not punitive or restrictive. They use guidance and positive discipline instead of punishment. They reason and explain their actions to teach children values, morals, and goals.​

The authoritative style is also called the democratic parenting style because parents allow negotiations and consider children's opinions.​ ​2​

Authoritative parents care about their children's well-being and respect their autonomy. They give children freedom and encourage independence.

Authoritative parents tend to have the following characteristics.

They explain parental expectations and family rules.

The authoritative discipline focuses on teaching children rather than punishing them.

They use positive parenting strategies to reinforce positive behavior and prevent problems.

They take their children's feelings and opinions into account.

They care about their children's physical and emotional well-being and try to develop a healthy parent-child relationship.

Children of authoritative parents tend to have better emotional health. They feel loved and cherished. They have fewer mental health issues. These children are happier, have higher self-esteem, and perform better in school. They are also more independent and have better social skills.

Kids raised with authoritative parenting tend to be more physically active and encounter lower levels of harmful stress, often linked to less responsive parenting styles. These factors contribute to improved physical health. ​3​

Positive disciplinary methods result in fewer behavioral problems such as delinquency.​​ Children are more likely to develop a secure attachment and better relationships with their parents.​

Researchers have found the authoritative approach is associated with the most favorable outcomes.

Authoritarian parenting style

The authoritarian parenting style is high in demandingness but low in responsiveness.

Authoritarian parents also have high expectations for their children's maturity and achievement. However, the high standards set by authoritarian parents are often enforced through rigid rules imposed without considering the child's perspective.

Authoritarian parents expect blind obedience to their absolute standard. They don't explain the rationale behind their rules and often justify their commands with "because I said so." The authoritarian discipline is punitive. Parents focus on punishing the mistakes harshly to make children feel sorry rather than teaching appropriate behavior. ​4​

The authoritarian approach is also known as the disciplinarian or autocratic parenting because of the strict discipline and severe punishment.

These stern parents are low in responsiveness and tend to be cold. They give more importance to upholding their authority than fostering a nurturing environment for their children. Authoritarian parents often mistake their children's fear for respect.

Authoritarian parents tend to have the following characteristics.

They don't explain their decisions and believe kids should follow their rules without question.

They believe kids should be seen and not heard in the household; thus, communication is one-directional.

They believe children's opinions or feelings aren't important.

They view children's attempts to reason as defiance.

They scold their children more often than praise them.

The authoritarian child-rearing style has pros and cons but has more cons than pros.

Children of authoritarian parenting tend to have worse emotional health. They have more mental health disorders, including depression, anxiety, suicide attempts, alcoholism, and drug use.​ These children are likely unhappy, have lower self-esteem, and perform worse academically. ​5​

Using harsh punishment to control children's behavior can cross into child abuse territory as the severity escalates. ​6​ Children exposed to such adverse childhood experiences are often linked to poor health outcomes in their adult years, including diabetes and heart attacks.

Adults raised by authoritarian parents generally adhere to rules but harbor unresolved anger. They often rank low in happiness. Over-controlling parenting blocks opportunities for children to develop self-regulation and independent decision-making skills. This can lead to more impulsive, aggressive, and reactive behaviors. ​7​

On the positive side, research indicates that authoritarian parenting can have protective benefits in certain cultural backgrounds, including African-American and Asian communities. However, the findings are inconclusive as studies present both positive and negative outcomes of this parenting style.

Permissive parenting style

The permissive parenting style is low in demandingness but high in responsiveness.

Parents who are not demanding set very few rules and boundaries. If there are rules, they are likely not enforced. When parents do give out consequences, the consequences may not stick. Children can avoid punishment by begging because permissive parents are lenient and forgiving.

Permissive parents are warm and indulgent, focusing extensively on their children's emotional well-being. They aim to fulfill their children's desires whenever feasible.

The permissive approach is also known as the indulgent or laissez-faire parenting style.

Permissive parents likely have the following characteristics.

They want to be their children's friends rather than parents.

They are carefree and believe in "let kids be kids."

They do not like to say no or disappoint their children.

Kids brought up under permissive parenting often display a sense of entitlement. Academic entitlement can contribute to mental health issues such as depression, stress, and a child's self-esteem problems. ​8​

Permissive parents do not limit unhealthy food intake or insist on healthy habits. As a result, kids are at a higher risk for health problems, such as obesity, sleep deprivation, and tooth decay. ​9​

Since children raised by permissive parents often have few boundaries, they are more prone to disregarding rules and showing antisocial behavioral problems. ​10​

On the positive side, research indicates that children of indulgent parents tend to exercise more, linked to better overall health. ​11​

Uninvolved parenting style

The uninvolved parenting style is low in both demandingness and responsiveness.

Parents with low demandingness do not set firm boundaries or high standards. Uninvolved parents rarely enforce clear rules, leading to a lack of structure and guidance in their children's lives. These parents expect children to raise themselves. Parents don't spend much time or energy meeting children's basic needs, and the children do not receive much parental attention or nurturance.

Neglectful parents are also not responsive. They are neither punitive nor supportive, often appearing indifferent to their children's activities or needs.

The uninvolved approach is sometimes called neglectful parenting because parents are largely emotionally and physically absent.

Uninvolved parents generally exhibit the following characteristics.

They don't spend time with their children.

They rarely ask about their children's lives or know about their activities, homework, or friendships.

Being a parent or raising children is not a priority for them.

They may grapple with various challenges, including depression, substance abuse, childhood trauma, or overwhelming responsibilities.

Children raised under uninvolved parenting commonly face mental health and emotional regulation challenges. These kids often report sadness and have the lowest self-esteem compared to those from other parenting styles, feeling neglected, unloved, and insignificant. ​12​

Poor physical health is more common in these children. ​13​

Research shows that parental involvement is a critical factor in children's education. The uninvolved parenting style is the most harmful to children's academic achievement. ​14​

Neglectful parents do not have rules or monitor their children's behavior. These kids are more at risk of behavior problems and delinquency. ​15​

Does parenting style matter

Parenting style matters significantly because it can shape a child's development and genetic expression. A comprehensive study by the Queensland Brain Institute and the VU University of Amsterdam analyzed data from 14.5 million pairs of twins. The research has revealed that the environment shapes nearly half of an individual's behavior and personality traits. ​16​ Parenting is one of the most impactful environmental factors children are exposed to since birth. Therefore, parenting style is vital in determining a child's future outcomes, which has been confirmed in decades of studies.

How do parenting styles affect children?

Parenting styles affect the child's emotional, cognitive, social, moral, cultural, physical, and mental development.

Emotional development - A child's early bond with parents shapes their ability to form relationships and manage emotions throughout life. Secure attachment from a responsive parenting style provides a foundation for emotional regulation and resilience. ​17​

Cognitive development - Providing a stimulating environment with educational toys, books, and activities and getting involved in a child's education can positively impact academic performance. ​18​

Social development - Children often mimic parents' social interactions, such as relationship formation, cooperation, conflict resolution, and empathy. ​19​

Moral and behavior development - Parents are the primary source of moral and ethical guidance, shaping a child's sense of right and wrong. Parenting and disciplining styles also affect the child's moral development. Parents with warmth, strict control, sympathy, and prosocial moral reasoning tend to create prosocial behavior in children. ​20​

Cultural development - Parents pass down cultural norms, traditions, and values, shaping a child's cultural identity.

Physical health - Parents influence eating habits and attitudes toward physical activity, affecting a child's long-term health.

Mental health - Parenting styles affect a child's self-esteem, stress-coping, and mental health development.

What is the best parenting style?

The authoritative parenting style is generally considered the best parenting style because consistent research has demonstrated its association with the most favorable outcomes in children. Children have mental health, better academic performance, and less tantrums.

The conventional parenting wisdom tells us there is no one right way to parent. However, psychologists have found strong and consistent links between parenting styles and outcomes.

Nonetheless, within a parenting style, there are different parenting practices. So, different kids can benefit from different parenting practices in the authoritative parenting style.

What is the worst parenting style?

The uninvolved parenting style also called the neglectful parenting style, is considered the worst parenting style, as studies have shown it is associated with the least favorable outcomes in children.

What are the 3 most common parenting styles?

The 3 most common parenting styles are authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive, which Diana Baumrind categorized through her studies on parenting styles.

What is the most popular American parenting style?

The most popular American parenting style is the authoritative parenting style (49%), followed by the authoritarian parenting style (23%), the permissive parenting style (20%), and uninvolved parenting style (8%). ​21​

What is the least common parenting style?

The least common parenting style in the United States was neglectful parenting style, according to a 2009 study. 8% used this uninvolved parenting style out of 9.5K participating families.

What is the most effective parenting style?

The most effective parenting style is the authoritative parenting style, according to research because this style combines high expectations with emotional warmth and open communication to foster independence, self-discipline, and emotional well-being in children.

What is the harshest parenting style?

The harshest parenting style is the authoritarian parenting style due to its combination of very high demands and low responsiveness. Authoritarian parents impose rigid rules and high standards, allowing little open dialogue.

When rules are broken, these parents utilize punitive, strict discipline with little explanation or emotional nurturing. While authoritarian parenting aims to produce obedient children, it can damage self-esteem, hinder social skills, and lead to behavioral problems.

What is the least strict parenting style?

The least strict parenting style is the permissive parenting style. Parents who adopt this approach tend to be lenient and indulgent, often avoiding setting firm boundaries or enforcing rules.

Permissive parents are generally more responsive to their child's desires and less likely to exert authority, aiming to act more like a friend than a parental figure. While this style may create a relaxed home environment, it can sometimes lead to poor self-discipline.

What is the gentle parenting style?

Gentle parenting is a child-centered approach emphasizing empathy, understanding, and emotional connection instead of punitive measures.

Gentle parents build a solid emotional bond with their children, fostering a sense of security and well-being. These parents focus on understanding the underlying reasons for a child's behavior rather than simply reacting to the behavior itself.

In this style, discipline is not about punishment or control but about teaching and guidance. Parents use non-coercive methods to help their children understand the consequences of their actions, and they employ active listening, open dialogue, and mutual respect to solve problems collaboratively. The goal is to equip children with the emotional tools needed to navigate challenges independently, now and in the future.

Why is parenting harder today?

Parenting is considered harder today than in previous generations because many parents feel a shift in child-rearing practices. There is higher pressure to be the "perfect parent." The prevalence of conflicting parenting advice online leaves parents confused and self-critical.

However, every generation believes they shoulder more parenting challenges than their predecessors. The "good old days" tend to be viewed through rose-colored glasses because of the lack of firsthand parenting experiences from one's childhood.

In truth, parenting has always been hard regardless of the era.

At what age is parenting the hardest?

Some parents feel that parenting is the hardest in infancy, while others think toddlerhood presents more difficulty. Similarly, some parents feel that pre-adolescence is the most challenging, while others consider teenage years the toughest.

There are different challenges at different stages of development. The perception can vary widely depending on factors such as the child's temperament, the parent's expectations, the parent-child relationship, and external circumstances such as financial stability or social support.

Final thoughts on parenting styles

Understanding your parenting style isn't about getting into a cycle of guilt or shame. It's also not about striving for perfection. No parent is perfect, and parents are expected to exhibit different parenting styles in different situations.

Knowing your parenting choices can help you become the best parent you can be. Research consistently shows that authoritative parenting yields the most positive results. As you change toward the authoritative approach, the benefits to your child's behavior, well-being, and relationship with you will become evident over time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 Parenting Styles and Their Proven Impact on Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
4 types of parenting styles, authoritative parenting, authoritarian parenting, permissive parenting, and uninvolved parenting, best, worst, and most popular parenting styles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Study Guides for thousands of courses. Instant access to better grades!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Listen to this post as a podcast:
A note on terminology: The acronym ESL is used less often now in schools than it used to be, because we recognize that many students who are learning English already speak several other languages, so English would not be a "second" language. I use it several times in the post because schools sometimes refer to the teachers as ESL teachers, and the term is still widely used as a search term for this topic. My intent in using the acronym is to make this post easier to find online.

You have a new student, and he speaks no English. His family has just moved to your town from Japan, and though he receives English as a Second Language (ESL) support, he will also be sitting in your room every day to give him more exposure to his new language. How can you be a good teacher to someone who barely understands you?

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, an average of 9 percent of students in U.S. public schools are English Language Learners (ELLs); that number is closer to 14 percent in cities. Although many of these students start off in high-intensity, whole-day English programs, most are integrated into mainstream classrooms within a year, well before their English language skills would be considered proficient.

How prepared are you to teach these students? If you're like most classroom teachers, you have little to no training in the most effective methods for working with English language learners (Walker, Shafer, & Iiams, 2004). So that means we have a problem here: Lots of ELL kids in regular classrooms, and no teacher training to ensure the success of that placement.

Below, three ESL teachers tell us what they know about the things regular classroom teachers can do to improve instruction for ELL students. These 12 strategies are simple, they are not very time consuming, and best of all, they will help everyone in your class learn better:

1. Make it Visual

"Avoid giving instructions in the air," says Melissa Eddington, an Ohio-based ESL teacher. "ELL kids have a harder time processing spoken language." So instructions - even basic directions for classroom procedures - should be written on the board whenever possible. Challenging concepts should be diagrammed or supported with pictures. And modeling the steps of a process or showing students what a finished product should look like can go a long way toward helping students understand. "Sometimes showing our students what to do is all they need in order to do it," Eddington says. Not only will this kind of nonlinguistic representation improve comprehension for ELL students, it will help all of your students grasp concepts better.

2. Build in more group work.

"Kids aren't just empty glasses that we pour stuff into and then at the end of the day they dump it back onto a test," says Kim, an ESL teacher who was the subject of my very first podcast interview. "If you really want the kids to learn, they've got to be engaged." That means less teacher-led, whole-class instruction, and more small groups, where students can practice language with their peers in a more personal, lower-risk setting. And if ELL students attend your class with a resource teacher, make use of that person: In most cases the resource teacher doesn't have to work exclusively with the ESL students; they can work with smaller groups that happen to contain these students, helping to improve the teacher-student ratio and give kids more time to practice.

3. Communicate with the ESL teacher.

Mary Yurkosky, a former ESL teacher in Massachusetts, credits much of her students' success to the strong relationship she had with the regular classroom teachers. "The classroom teachers were always talking to me about what they were doing in their classes," she says. "They made it so easy for me to support them: If a teacher was going to be doing a unit on plants, I could make sure we used some of that same vocabulary in the ESL class."

Ideally, this could be systematized, where ESL teachers could regularly get copies of lesson plans or collaborate with regular classroom teachers to build solid back-and-forth support, but "it doesn't have to be that much work," Yurkosky insists. "Just talk to each other. Talk about what's going on in your classrooms, invite each other to special presentations, share what your students are learning, and the words will naturally find their way into the ESL class."

4. Honor the "silent period."

Many new language learners go through a silent period, during which they will speak very little, if at all. "Don't force them to talk if they don't want to," says Eddington, "A lot of students who come from cultures outside of America want to be perfect when they speak, so they will not share until they feel they are at a point where they're perfect." Just knowing that this is a normal stage in second language acquisition should help relieve any pressure you feel to move them toward talking too quickly.

5. Allow some scaffolding with the native language.

Although it has been a hotly debated topic in the language-learning community, allowing students some use of their first language (L1) in second-language (L2) classrooms is gaining acceptance. When a student is still very new to a language, it's okay to pair him with other students who speak his native language. "Some students are afraid to open their mouths at all for fear of sounding stupid or just not knowing the words to use," Yurkosky says. "Letting them explain things or ask questions in their first language gets them to relax and feel like a part of the class."

And this doesn't only apply to spoken language. If you give students a written assignment, but the ELL student doesn't yet have the proficiency to handle writing his response in English, "Don't make them just sit there and do nothing," Eddington says. "Allow them to write in their first language if they're able. This allows them to still participate in journal writing or a math extended response, even if you can't read what they write." There has even been some evidence that allowing second-language learners to pre-write and brainstorm in L1 results in higher-quality writing in L2 in later stages of the writing process (Yigzaw, 2012).

6. Look out for culturally unique vocabulary.

"For most of these kids, their background knowledge is lacking, especially with things that are unique to American or westernized culture," says Eddington. It's important to directly teach certain vocabulary words: "Show them videos of what it looks like to toss pizza dough, show pictures of a juke box or a clothing rack - things that are not common in their own language."

One way to differentiate for ELL students is to consider the whole list of terms you're going to teach for a unit, and if you think an ELL student may be overwhelmed by such a long list, omit those that are not essential to understanding the larger topic at hand.

7. Use sentence frames to give students practice with academic language.

All students, not just English language learners, need practice with academic conversations. Sentence frames - partially completed sentences like "I disagree with what _________ said because..." - show students how to structure language in a formal way. Keep these posted in a highly visible spot in your classroom and require students to refer to them during discussions and while they write.

For this kind of language to really sink in, though, Kim says it has to become a regular part of class. "They won't do it if it's not the norm in the class, because they'll be embarrassed to use it among their peers," she says. "But if they can put it off on the teacher and say, Oh, well, you know, Miss Kim makes me talk like this, then they don't look as hoity-toity as they would otherwise."

8. Pre-teach whenever possible.

If you're going to be reading a certain article next week, give ESL students a copy of it now. If you plan to show a YouTube video tomorrow, send a link to your ESL students today. Any chance you can give these students to preview material will increase the odds that they'll understand it on the day you present it to everyone else. "That kind of thing is wonderful," Yurkosky says. "The kids feel so empowered if they've had a chance to look at the material ahead of time."

9. Learn about the cultural background of your students...

Our second-language populations grow more diverse every year. Taking the time to learn the basics of where a child comes from - exactly, not 'somewhere in the Middle East/South America/Asia/Africa' - tells the student that you respect her enough to bother. Kim remembers one time when she had to set the record straight about the diverse South American population at her school: "I was listening to the teachers talking about the 'Mexican' kids in our building," she says, "and I was like, 'We don't have any Mexicans.'" Not taking the time to at least correctly identify a child's country of origin, much like not bothering to pronounce their name correctly, is a kind of microaggression, a small, subtle insult that communicates hostility toward people of color. Make a commitment to be someone who bothers to get it right.

Once you have the country straight, take things up a notch by learning about students' religious and cultural practices. If he is a practicing Muslim, he should be told if one of the pizzas you ordered for the class party has sausage on it. If she comes from a culture where eye contact with adults is viewed as disrespectful, you'll know not to force her to look you in the eye when she's talking.

10. ...but don't make a child speak for his entire culture.

In her podcast interview, Kim shared a story about watching a teacher ask a new Iraqi student how he felt about the war in his country, right in the middle of class. "That's not cultural inclusiveness," she explains. "I've seen teachers do this and then pat themselves on the back. The students' English is limited so they can't express themselves very well, and they don't want to 'represent'; they just want to be there." If you anticipate a theme coming up in your class that's going to be relevant to one of your students, have a conversation with them in advance, or check with your ESL teacher to see if they think it's appropriate for in-class discussion.

11. Show them how to take themselves less seriously...

By modeling the risk-taking that's required to learn a new language, you help students develop the courage to take their own risks, and to have a sense of humor about it. "I tried to say the word 'paint' ( pinta) in Portuguese and instead I said the word for 'penis' ( pinto). They all roared with laughter while I stood there with a What?? look on my face," Yurkosky says. "When they explained what I'd said, I laughed so hard! I told them that laughing was fine because sometimes mistakes are really funny, but ridicule is never okay."

12. ...but always take them seriously.

One of Kim's pet peeves about how teachers interact with English language learners is the way they often see students' efforts as 'cute,' missing the whole point of what the student is trying to say. "A student will be desperate to communicate, and the teacher will get distracted by the delivery and miss the message," she says. "That's painful for me to watch." It bothers her when teachers mistake a lack of language for a lack of intelligence or maturity. When a child can't express themselves as well as they would in their native language, it's far too easy to assume the concepts just aren't in their heads.

"It breaks my heart when I hear teachers say (ELL kids) don't know anything," says Eddington. "These are brilliant kids and they know a lot. They just can't tell us in English yet." Make a conscious effort to see past the accent and the mispronunciations and treat every interaction - every student - with the respect they deserve.

"They're doing twice the job of everybody else in the class," Kim adds, "even though the result looks like half as much." ♦

Further Reading

The ESL/ELL Teacher's Survival Guide is one of the highest-rated books on teaching English-language learners available. In addition to offering an overview of the research on second-language learners and best practices in teaching ESL, it also includes a whole section on teaching ESL in the content areas and another specifically geared toward teaching ELL students in mainstream classrooms.
References:
Walker, A., Shafer, J., & Iiams, M. (2004). "Not in my classroom": Teacher attitudes towards English language learners in the mainstream classroom. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 130-160.

Yigzaw, A. (2012). Impact of L1 use in L2 English writing classes. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences, 8(1), 11-27.

If you thought this was helpful, stick around.
Join my mailing list and never miss another post. You'll get weekly tips, tools, and inspiration - in quick, bite-sized packages - all geared toward making your teaching more effective and joyful. To thank you, I'll send you a free copy of my new e-booklet, 20 Ways to Cut Your Grading Time in Half. I look forward to getting to know you better!

Click here to get a PDF of this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
12 Ways to Support English Learners in the Mainstream Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advice from three ESL teachers on the things regular classroom teachers can do to help English language learners thrive in mainstream classrooms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over 10 percent of students in the United States-more than 4.8 million kids-are English language learners (ELLs), and the number is on the rise. Though these students do not learn differently than their native-English-speaking peers, they do have particular educational needs.

To learn about these needs-and best practices for addressing them-I interviewed a range of educators and observers, including Larry Ferlazzo, an educator and author of The ESL/ELL Teacher's Survival Guide; longtime teachers of English as a second language (ESL) Emily Francis and Tan Huynh; and the journalist Helen Thorpe, who spent a year observing a teacher who works with ELLs.

The group emphasized that the strategies listed here, which include both big-picture mindsets and nitty-gritty teaching tactics, can be incorporated into all classrooms, benefiting both native English speakers and ELLs.

1. Cultivate Relationships and Be Culturally Responsive

No surprise here. A successful classroom, our educators agreed, is one in which students feel known, appreciated, and comfortable taking emotional and intellectual risks. That requires intentional planning and consistent messaging by the teacher.

Emily Francis, an ESL teacher in Concord, North Carolina, makes clear that she wants her students to "embrace their culture and their language as a foundation of who they are" and to consider their acquisition of a new culture and language "not as subtractive, but as additive." To help support students who may never have attended school before or may be coping with migration-based trauma, Francis emphasizes that little things make a big difference. "The first thing that I need to think about is, how is my student feeling in my classroom?" she says. "Are they sitting next to a buddy they can ask a question in their home language? Do they feel comfortable tapping me on the shoulder if they have to go to the bathroom?"

But creating a supportive environment is also about cultivating an appreciation of diversity-it's critical that both the curriculum and the classroom environment honor and reflect the lives of the students. For instance, Francis makes certain that her classroom library is reflective of her students' diverse backgrounds and identities.

ESL teacher Katie Toppel, who teaches near Portland, Oregon, champions the value of home visits to get to know students' families and takes care to incorporate the particulars of students' lives, such as pets' names and favorite sports, into lessons. Students are most engaged when they feel a personal connection to a lesson or unit, a connection that's created in part by a teacher's investment in culturally competent relationships.

2. Teach Language Skills Across the Curriculum

English language learners should not be learning the fundamentals of English in isolation; they should be applying their developing language skills to rich academic content in all subjects.

"It is key that in mainstream classrooms, teachers understand their role as language teachers," says Valentina Gonzalez, a district leader in Katy, Texas, suggesting that all teachers should be aware of the specialized idiom they work within. "If we teach math, then we teach the language of mathematics. If we teach science, then we teach the language of science." Math teachers, in other words, should take the time to teach the unfamiliar vocabulary of mathematics- add, subtract, calculator, solve -concurrently with the teaching of math skills.

3. Emphasize Productive Language

The educators I interviewed agreed that productive language skills-hard-to-master dimensions of language fluency like speaking and writing-should be front and center from day one, even if students feel hesitant about them.

Beginning ELLs often develop receptive language skills like listening and reading first. Educators who are unaware of the typical path to fluency may believe that students who can follow verbal or written directions will be able to produce oral or written language, but that's usually not the case.

To support reluctant speakers, Tan Huynh, an educator who blogs at Empowering ELLs, suggests using sentence frames. "For example, when a science teacher wants ELLs to produce a hypothesis, they might offer the sentence, 'If _____ was added, then _____ because _____.' This sentence frame provides clues that empower ELLs to sound and think like scientists," Huynh says.

Andrea Honigsfeld, a professor of education at Molloy College in Rockville, New York, suggests that all lessons touch on every letter of the acronym SWIRL, which stands for Speak, Write, Interact, Read, Listen. The approach intentionally privileges productive language skills "from the beginning," she says.

4. Speak Slowly-and Increase Your Wait Time

Easier said than done. Still, many of the teachers I spoke to said this simple change is vital. You can record yourself speaking in class to measure your cadence, and adjust.

"Adding in an extra three to five seconds after we pose a question offers all students time to think," explains Gonzalez. "However, for English learners, it also gives time to translate, process their thinking, translate back into English, and develop the courage to answer. If we call on students too quickly, many of our students will stop thinking about the answers-or trying to answer at all."

That means undoing some of our own habits, according to Larry Ferlazzo, a high school ESL teacher in Sacramento, California. "Researchers have found that typically most teachers give one to two seconds between asking a question and expecting a student response," he says. "The same researchers have shown that if you wait three to five seconds, the quality of responses is astronomically greater."

5. Differentiate-and Use Multiple Modalities

All kids learn better when they engage with material in multiple ways: Lessons that involve writing, speaking, drawing, and listening, for example, give students four opportunities to deepen their understanding of the work. For ELLs, those additional engagements also provide a little breathing room so they can work through the language barrier.

Helen Thorpe, a journalist who spent a year observing Eddie Williams's classroom in Denver in order to write a book about immigrants called The Newcomers, marveled at Williams's method of differentiation. "Eddie would enunciate very clearly in English multiple times, he would write it on the board, and he would go to the projector to give a visual. And, finally, he'd be asking the kids to verbalize aspects of the lesson themselves," she says, tracing Williams's efforts to move his students from receptive to productive language fluency.

Toppel uses a strategy called QSSSA to scaffold classroom discussions with ELLs. The letters stand for Question (the teacher poses a question, then gives ample think time); Signal (a designated motion like a thumbs-up, a finger on the nose-something that lets students indicate that they're ready to answer); Stem (the teacher provides a sentence starter for the question-for example, for "What is your favorite place to read a book?" the stem might be, "My favorite place to read a book is _____"); Share; and Assess.

6. Incorporate Students' Native Languages-and Don't Be Afraid of Technology

Bilingualism is the goal, of course, not replacement.

Ferlazzo uses a strategy called "preview, view, review," which leverages a student's native language skills as a foundation for learning the new language. He introduces a topic and encourages students to preview it in materials in their home language (often using multilingual videos and other online resources); he then teaches the topic in English, and then has students review the information in their home language.

Ferlazzo also encourages teachers to embrace technologies that students find helpful, like Google Translate. He stresses that the app can be a useful way for students to translate words quickly-but warns that it can quickly "become a dependency" if it's used as more than a handy dictionary.

Thorpe agrees that Translate can take pressure off teachers, who sometimes find that they "just stand at the front of the room and say things over and over. And if the kids didn't know what those words are, they're out of luck." Translation technology means you can say it once (or twice) and let the students use the technology to translate key words and phrases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Essential Strategies for Teaching English Language Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We interviewed educators with decades of experience in teaching ELLs and tapped a network of experts and observers to find the strategies that work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Katie Lee, MHA Deputy Director of Communications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 tips for teachers to practice social emotional learning in the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teachers, aides, and others working with students have enough on their plates already. However, studies show that incorporating social emotional learning (SEL) into regular classroom activities improves classroom behavior and decreases misbehavior and aggression.