Investigating The Promise Of Mass-Customized Education: A Content Analysis Self-Reported Descriptions Of Web 2.0-Learning-Tools Based On Multiple Intelligence Theory

James E. Folkestad*, Sharon K. Anderson**
* Associate Professor; Colorado State University, School of Education, Fort Collins.
** Associate Professor, Colorado State University School of Education, Fort Collins.
Periodicity:November - January'2009


Is the world “flat” or is the world “spiky”? Although leading authors and thinkers (Florida, 2005; Friedman, 2006) struggle to find the perfect metaphor for describing our 21st century global ecosystem, there is agreement that the landscape is shifting.  There is overwhelming agreement that our current education system was designed and continues to operate on an antiquated industrial model. To meet efficiencies, instruction is produced for batch delivery.  This mass-delivery method inevitably will emphasize one learning style (i.e., visual, auditory) and be taught through the lenses of one intelligence (i.e., logical mathematical).  This causes failure-to-strive syndrome in many students as the ecosystem fails to provide them the proper support that nurtures and rewards their individual learning needs.  (Beilke & Peoples, 1997; Brown & Adler, 2008; Gardner, 2007; Pink, 2006; Robinson, 2001).

Emerging technologies (Web 2.0) have the potential to deliver learning that is highly customized to individual interests and intelligences (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008).  This paper reports on a content analysis of website descriptions of the top 100 Web 2.0 learning tools as identified by the Center for Learning and Performance Technologies.  Emergent themes are reported and deductive coding -- based on Howard Gardner’s seven intelligences -- is used to refine thematic information.


Multiple intelligences, Web 2.0, learning, Customized Learning.

How to Cite this Article?

James E. Folkestad and Sharon K. Anderson (2009). Investigating The Promise Of Mass-Customized Education: A Content Analysis Self-Reported Descriptions Of Web 2.0-Learning-Tools Based On Multiple Intelligence Theory. i-manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, 2(3), 34-47.


[1]. Beilke, J.R. & Peoples, G. (1997). Failure to strive syndrome (FTTS): Predicting educational failure at the middle school level. 1 17,[4), 512-514.
[2]. Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks : How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press.
[3]. Boyatzis, R. E., (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
[4]. Brown, J. S. &Adler, R. R (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause, 43(1),17-32.
[5]. Christensen, C. M.. Horn, M. B., and Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class : how disruptive innovation will change the waythe world learns. McGraw-Hill.
[6]. Florida, R. L. (2005). The flight of the creative class: the new global competition for talent. Harper Business.
[7]. Florida, R.L. (2003). The rise of the creative class: And how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everydaylife. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.
[8]. Folkestad, J.E. (2008). Edgility website.
[9]. Folkestad, J.E., and Banning, J. (2008). Ecology of the Computer Lab. i-managers Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), 38-48.
[10]. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: a brief history of the twenty-firstcentury Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[11]. Gardner, H. (2007). Five minds for the future. Leadership for the common good. Harvard Business School Press.
[12]. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. NewYork, NY, BasicBooks.
[13]. Hart, Jane. (2008). Top 100 Tools for Learning 2008. Centre for Learning and Performance Technologies: Knowledge, Skills, and Tools for the Learning 2.0 Age. 00.html
[14]. Kao, J. (2007). Innovation nation: How America is losing its innovation edge, why it matters, and what we can do to getitback. NewYork, NY, Free Press.
[15]. Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: moving from the information age to the conceptual age. Riverhead Books.
[16]. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83- 96.
[17]. Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds. Capstone Publishing Limited, West Sussex.
[18]. Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657-687.

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article
Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.