Draft paper. Not to be cited without author’s permission
Multiple Intelligences Theory in the Malaysian Curriculum: Perspectives on how Teachers Distinguish between Students and Differentiate in the Secondary Classroom
Suseela Balakrishnan
School of Education, University of Leeds, U.K
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
Abstract
The new Malaysian National Curriculum explicitly states that the theory of multiple intelligences (MI) has influenced/ (should be reflected in) curriculum content as well as teaching and learning approaches adopted. My study is concerned with whether, to what extent, and how MI is in fact influencing classroom pedagogy in Malaysia. MI theory is essentially a way of understanding the individual child, an explanatory theory of why children are different. Therefore, central to the concept of MI in education is the theme of differentiation. This paper presents findings relating to how and to what extent Malaysian teachers distinguish between students and whether this in turn affects the way they differentiate (if they do) in their pedagogy. It also reports on the possible relationship between teachers’ beliefs about intelligence(s) and ways in which they distinguish between students, and again, whether this results in reported differentiation of students in their pedagogical practice. The study, from which this paper is drawn, is based on data generated in Malaysia in 2006 via in-depth interviews with seven case-study participants. The main findings are that participants distinguished between students by group or as individuals, and in each case by a number of subcategories. Based on how they distinguished between students, their pedagogy often differed accordingly. Data reported in this paper also suggests that participants’views and beliefs about intelligence to some extent, played a role in determining how and to what extent they saw students as being different, thus directly affecting the level of inclusion in the classroom
.
1.0 Introduction
Much of the current literature in education recognises individual differences among students and the need to address these. Gardner’s (1999, p.151) Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI), which suggests that education should ‘serve different kinds of minds equally well’, has contributed to such literature. He defines intelligence as a ‘bio psychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products, that are of value in a culture’. Gardner (ibid) posits that each of us has our own unique intelligence profile consisting of eight or nine intelligences of which he has identified eight; linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. Educational implications drawn by those who work with Gardner’s ideas include suggestions for classroom pedagogy. Kornhaber (2001:276) writes,
The theory validates educators’ everyday experience: students think and learn in many different ways. It also provides educators with a conceptual framework for organizing and reflecting on curriculum assessment and pedagogical practices. In turn, this reflection has led many educators to develop new approaches that might better meet the needs of the range of learners in their classrooms.
MI theory is now widely used all over the world as a useful tool for teachers to distinguish between students and to develop pedagogy associated with this tool. Reference to this way of distinguishing between students is in the Malaysian Curriculum. The Development of Education: National Report Malaysia (2001, p.44) explicitly mentions MI, suggesting that Gardner’s work has influenced recent policy reform. This paper is part of a larger study which among other things, aims to find out to whether MI is being used as a conceptual tool to inform classroom pedagogy and if so, to what extent and how. This paper specifically explores how Malaysian teachers, based on the report of what they are saying (interviews), in fact distinguish between students (if they do) and differentiate in their practice, and how this relates to their knowledge and beliefs about MI and indeed about intelligence more broadly understood.
As Gardner (1999, p.151) himself concurs, the key ingredient to an education supported by a MI framework is a commitment to recognising and understanding individual students. He claims,
This means learning about each student’s background, strengths, interests, preferences, anxieties, experiences, and goals, not to stereotype or to preordain but rather to ensure that educational decisions are made on the basis of an up-to date profile of the students. (ibid)
Although the literature surrounding the terminology differentiation (especially in England) has mainly focused on teachers pedagogical practices in the classroom, for the purpose of this paper, I would like to reclaim the meaning of differentiation to imply how people think as well as what they do. However, in order to make a clear distinction between these two dimensions in this paper, the term ‘distinguish’ will be used to refer to how people think and ‘differentiate’ to represent what they do.
2.0 Multiple Intelligences Theory in the Malaysian Context
Malaysia is formed by a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society[1], consisting mainly of Malays, Indians and Chinese. The Education system in Malaysia is highly centralized particularly for primary and secondary schools where state and local governments have very little say in the curriculum or other major aspects of education. Children start school at the age of seven undergoing 6 years of compulsory primary education and 5 years of secondary education. Classes are generally large with around 38-45 students in each class. The medium of instruction is Malay Language and English is learnt as a second language. One of the major changes that recently took place was that all Mathematic and Science subjects were to be taught in English.
The element of Multiple intelligences was first included in the Malaysian curriculum in 1993 (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2001a, p.21) under the primary curriculum. In 1999, following a revision in the curriculum, the use of MI as a conceptual tool was incorporated into the secondary school curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2001b, p. 40-44), in a move to encourage teachers to employ a variety of pedagogical approaches which are student centred.
In terms of the position of MI in the school syllabus it varies depending on the subjects to be taught. For instance, the Form Four (Secondary) Curriculum Specifications for the English Language Syllabus (2003) outlines three main sections; Learning Outcomes[2], Language Content[3] and Educational Emphases[4] and the theory of Multiple Intelligences falls under the category of Educational Emphases. However, in the Form Four Curriculum Specifications for Geography (2003), it is referred to under the heading of ‘Pedagogical Strategies’.
According to the Head of the English Unit, Curriculum Development Centre (personal communication, April 20, 2006), MI was included into the syllabus based on conclusion drawn from a number of studies, projects, brainstorming sessions and also a needs analysis.
…way back in 1995 and 1996, we had been testing out these new ideas… we had done studies, …on project schools, and we tried out some of these new intelligences. Since it is quite applicable and students are excited to learn when you have these kinds of strategies in the classroom, so after doing pilot studies and all that we felt that it was feasible in the classroom, so …we made it more formal. …our needs analysis, we did it by administering questionnaires to teachers and we talked to students…stakeholders and also through brainstorming sessions… (with) people from the industry.
He claimed that the inclusion of MI was also to address the issue of differences inherent in students
…you see in the old syllabus we had a very general syllabus whereas when you see students on the ground they are very diverse
Finally, he concluded that there is ongoing training given to teachers on how to incorporate the concept of MI in their teaching but was uncertain as to the extent to which it has been effectively implemented (illustrated by the quotes below),
…we have done training …we have done 3-5 days (training)… so actually there is a planned program on how they can go about doing it, and we’ve also done some small studies to find out if it’s working out …
If you ask me exactly whether it is being carried out in all these schools I don’t know but generally I think a lot of people have started talking about it, a lot of people are also doing it but again on the ground in schools there are a lot of other constraints…
3.0 Research Design
The study from which this paper is drawn adopts a case study approach using a mixed method involving a survey, interviews and classroom observations to explore the use of MI in the Malaysian educational context. The main study involved two phases summarized in the table below.
Table 1: Stages involved in the study from which this paper is drawn
Method / Data Source / SamplePhase 1
Survey / Questionnaire / -Distributed to 500 secondary schools teachers in Petaling Jaya
-achieved 349
Phase 2
Case Study / Observation
Interview 1
Interview 2 / - 7 teachers
- selected from phase 1 survey participants (based on reported familiarity of and use of MI)
The first stage involved data generated from a survey where the sample consisted of the secondary teacher population from a city in Malaysia, Petaling Jaya[5]. All the national secondary schools in this city (a total of 12) were approached to participate in the survey and a total of 500 questionnaires distributed of which 349 were returned. The following issues were explored through the questionnaire survey:
1. Whether participants had heard of MI and used it as a conceptual tool
2. Participants’ beliefs with regards to broader views of intelligence[6]
3. Participants’ pedagogical practices that might possibly reflect approaches to teaching which take account of the potential Multiple Intelligences of children
The questionnaire survey was also used as a basis for selection of case study (second stage) participants. As far as possible, an equal number of participants were selected to represent the following criteria:
Category 1: Participants who claimed to have heard of MI and claimed to use it as a conceptual tool
Category 2: Participants who claimed to have heard of MI but did not use it as a conceptual tool
Category 3: Participants who claimed not to have heard of MI and therefore did not use it as a conceptual tool
Two interviews and four classroom observations per case study participant were conducted to generate more descriptive data where in-depth data sets could be used to examine and explain patterns derived from the survey. Observations were essential in exploring the MI aspect of the Malaysian “curriculum in action” (Coles and Grant, 1985).
Questions in the interviews covered the following issues;
Interview 1: at the end of 2nd observation
Purpose: Clarifying and exploring relevant issues based on what was observed mainly related to specific classroom situations, individual students, teacher-students interaction, and pedagogy used.
Interview 2: At end of 4th observation
Purpose: To explore participants views on issues related to
· notions of intelligence,
· individual differences between students and differentiation
· multiple intelligences
Grounded analysis [7]was carried out based on what participant claimed during the interviews. MAXQDA, a qualitative software package to aid in managing qualitative data was used to code, subdivide and organise the data into relevant categories. Codes ‘are tags or labels for allocating units of meaning’ (Basit, 2003) to the inferential information provided in the interviews and these units of meaning are derived from ‘chunks of varying –sized words, phrases, sentences or whole paragraphs, connected or unconnected to a specific setting’ (ibid) which for the purpose of this paper I refer to as ‘data cuts’. Data cuts were multi-coded where appropriate and were exhaustive but not mutually exclusive.
I now present findings from the study relevant to the themes of this paper
4.0 Findings
Two main sets of findings will be presented relating to
(a) How teachers distinguished between students and differentiated in their practice
(b) Possible relationship between teachers’ beliefs and views about intelligence, and the ways in which they distinguished between their students and differentiated in their practice; examination of two individual cases
It is important to note that with all illustrations using quotations from participants, claims of differentiation will be indicated in bold.
4.1. How Participants distinguished between students and differentiated in their practice
Analysis of interview data suggested that there were two main ways in which participants distinguished between their students. They broadly distinguished between students in the following ways;
1. By group
…most of them (good students) are from urban areas, they have internet, all sorts of facilities…their drivers will send them to school, they don't wash their shoes, they don't clean their house. Indirectly, I will tell them "we have to do… cleaning, making our beds." (Eliza, B16)
2. As individuals
… like the boy Brian, he can do… I don't know about other subjects but in English he will (is able to) write himself. You know the summary the other
day, he finished. Even today I told him ‘you can write yourself’ and he started writing. (Eliza, B25)
To a great extent, this determined how and to what degree they differentiate in their practice. It is important to note here, that for all instances when teachers differentiated in their practice they either differentiated in terms of the pedagogy they used, how they interacted with the students or what they expected from them
4.1.1 How Participants distinguished between students by group and differentiated in their practice
Further detailed analysis of the data suggested that there were three factors that influenced the way participants’ distinguished students by group. They viewed students in terms of their attributes, background and also boundaries set by the formal schooling system and often differentiated accordingly. Figure 1 presents a detailed framework of how teachers distinguished between students by group and differentiated in their practice..
Figure 1: Framework of how teachers distinguished between students by group and differentiated in their practice