saudi arabia secondary school teachers views of the
TRANSCRIPT
1
Saudi Arabia secondary school teachers’ views of the Multiple Intelligence
theory as an inclusive pedagogy
A paper presented at the European Educational Research Association (EERA) annual conference at
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Ghent,
Belgium (Ghent), 17th to 21st September, 2007.
By
Dr. Nasser Mansour
Teaching and learning that is informed by MI is an inclusive pedagogy because it
takes a very wide view of intelligence and works towards teaching and assessing
students using more than just two of the intelligences. This allows students to use
their own strengths and not be marginalised by having to focus on traditional ways of
learning. This is especially important to consider in the context of the increased
diversity of students now involved in secondary education.
In Saudi Arabia schools, students come from a variety of ethnic, social and
educational backgrounds. Secondary education has been slow to take diversity into
account in the teaching/learning process, and developments like MI and other
inclusive pedagogies are not common in Saudi Arabia schools. Knowledge
acquisition is the main function and transmission of knowledge through lectures is the
main mode and the teacher-cantered approach is dominant.
The study’s critique of the current teaching/learning processes in Saudi Arabian
schools concurs with Gardner’s descriptions of the traditional approach to
teaching/learning as `westist', `bestist' and `testist'. `Bestist' refers to the belief that the
answer to any problem can be found in one approach. This approach ignores the
Socio-cultural issues of Saudi Arabia which are different from other western cultures.
‘Westist’ refers to the tendency of Western societies to promote one or two qualities
or characteristics over others, for example, privileging individual work over
collaboration. ‘Testist’ refers to focusing on the human abilities or intelligences that
are most easily testable, like achievement, and ignoring the other abilities. This study
is based on the belief that MI is not the only pedagogical approach but it does take
into account the ways in which students learn, not based on teacher myths on the way
they should learn.
Most studies of MI have been carried out in western cultures. However, when it is
applied to appraisal and teaching, cultural and social factors have to be taken into
account. In other words, it has to be studied, experimented with, and evaluated
locally. So, a new study, in a different context, may give new insights into the
dynamics of using MI in the classroom.
To educe teachers’ views about MI and the causes that hinder them to use this theory
a combination of mixed methods and research techniques was employed to strengthen
the research design and add depth the research findings. Therefore, Data has been
collected using multiple sources of data, including a questionnaire, interviews and
direct classroom observations. The study used two samples: one for the questionnaire
2
and the other one for the qualitative study. The entire questionnaire sample was
random, covering a variety of teacher qualifications, and specialisms, and a range of
teaching experience. A total of 150 secondary teachers responded to the
questionnaire. After analyzing the questionnaires, a group of these teachers have been
invited for an interview study and for the workshops. The chosen of these teachers
based on their comments on the questionnaire for the purpose of deep understanding.
Research questions:
1. What are teachers’ views of MI and using it in the classroom?
2. What are teachers’ views of the constraints of implementing MI in the
classroom?
3. What are the changes happened to the teachers due to the workshops?
The paper will begin with a discussion of the teachers’ views regarding MI and how
they use it in the classroom before the workshops. Then the paper will present
teachers’ views after the workshops.
Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the interviews, observations, and
content analysis of teachers’ self-reports, the study indicated that teachers hold a
variety of views regarding MI. also, the findings showed that most of the teachers
confused about what MI means. Another important finding indicated that there were
some of the constraints which affected teachers’ Views about implementing of MI in
the classroom. These constraints included lack of time, school administration,
teacher’s experience, teacher’s attitude toward students, etc. however, the participants
expressed that the workshops around MI helped them to enact MI in the classroom
and to cope with these constraints.
References:
Campbell, L., Campbell, B. & Dickerson, D. (1999). Teaching and learning through
multiple intelligences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Eisner, E. (2004). Multiple intelligences: Its tensions and possibilities. Teachers
College Record. 106, Pp. 31-39
Hopper, B. & Hurry, P. (2000). Learning the MI way: The effects on students’
learning of using the theory of multiple intelligences. Pastoral Care.
December, 26-32.
Kagan, S. & Kagan, M. (1997). Multiple intelligences & Cooperative learning:
Guidebook. The LPD Video Journal of Education, Sandy, Utah.
Kagan, S. & Kagan, M. (1998). Multiple intelligences: the complete MI book. Kagan
Cooperative learning, Calle Cordillera, USA.
Kezar, A. (2001). Thoery of multible intelligences: Implications for higher education.
Innovative Higher Education. 26(2), 141-154.
Shearer, B. (2004). Multiple intelligences theory after 20 years. Teachers College
Record. 106, 2-16.
Shore, J. (2004). Teacher education and multiple intelligences: A case study of
multiple intelligences and teacher efficacy in two teacher preparation courses.
Teachers College Record. 106, 112-139.