Running head: ESOL TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVE
ESOL Teachers’ Perspectives on The Use of Multiple Intelligences in Their Culturally Diverse
Classrooms: Is it an Inequitable Access to Knowledge?
Nora El-Bilawi
George Mason University
Fall 2010
ABSTRACT: This study explored teachers’ perspectives on the importance of integrating
students’ funds of knowledge and cultural backgrounds when implementing Gardner’s multiple
intelligences (MI) in classroom activities. Interviews were conducted with six English as Second
Language (ESL) teachers to examine how culture is influential and how it is sustained when
teaching in an MI-based classroom. The findings indicate a strong correlation between MI theory
and teachers' and students' beliefs. The data collection and analysis highlight teachers’
perspectives on MI instruction and the role of culture in language teaching and learning. Some of
the study’s scholarly suggestions are to increase teachers’ awareness of diverse students’
teaching. This should be achieved by: Infusing targeted practical professional developments and
by integrating strong body of knowledge, about MI, in teacher-education programs.
Introduction
Statement of the problem
When I was an ESOL teacher, I noticed features of inadequate access to knowledge in the
mainstream classroom. To elaborate, some mainstream teachers did not integrate English
language learners (ELL) and their rich cultural backgrounds and funds of knowledge into
classroom instructions (Gonzalez et al., 2005). ELL students were forced to follow the same
intelligences preferences and learning styles of the majority body of students -white students- or
to follow what those teachers are traditionally used to in their teachings and preparations of their
lesson plans. Some teachers did not recognize that learning preferences and intelligences may be
shaped by the nature, culture, religion, and/or environment where these students come from
(Bruner, 1996).
As a result of these teachers’ practices, of ignoring what many ELL students hold as far
as different intelligences and learning styles, ELL students showed learning despair, fear, and the
feeling of unfamiliarity of “not fitting in” to the learning environment. According to the
Education Commission’s progress of education reform of Hispanic achievement (Education
Commission of the States, 2004), the dropout rate for Hispanic students who come to attend U.S.
schools is alarmingly high at 15%. Whereas, the dropout rate for native-born Hispanics declined
from 15% in 1990 to 14% in 2000 – in line with the downward trend in dropout rates for other
racial and ethnic groups. When I read this report, I stopped at this data and I had to ask myself
this question, why is this difference between the two demographics? Does this data imply that
immigrant students who come from different races like Hispanics, bring with them their
background of “little exposure to education” that determines or stains them with low
achievements forever, while students of different races or ethnic backgrounds- who are born
Americans- have the chance to achieve better “up to expectations?!” It is as if people who cannot
adapt to the educational setting’s mandates, do not fit into the structure of our American
classroom (Ferguson, 2007). Therefore, these left-out demographic of students show their anger
and despair from this situation by not participating in lessons’ activities, by showing a disruptive
behavior, or by falling in the cracks of the system that already had failed to reach out to them.
In my opinion, this previous analogy is the only reason why immigrant students do not achieve
well throughout their American education. How could this practice of inadequate access to
knowledge help in achieving the educational gap in our schools? To me, this is considered
cultural biases practices that obviously lead to widening the gap when integrating the multiple
intelligences theory in mainstream classes.
In another note, to be true to the theory of multiple intelligences (MI), which is based on
celebrating differences; teachers need to be encouraged to look at all of their students’
background differences and enable them to utilize these differences to induce cultural
implications of students’ intelligences in classroom activities as well as in curriculum design.
We need some kind of a parallel educational system that address all of our students’ needs and
cherish their differences rather than undermining them. Cohen et al. (2006) expect that the risk
of confirming a negative stereotype aimed at one’s group could undermine academic
performance in minority students by elevating their level of psychological threat. They found
that such psychological threat could be lessened by having students reaffirm their sense of
personal adequacy or ‘‘self-integrity’’ through teacher recognition and integration of their
cultures.
Teachers need to be internationally and inter-culturally minded to enable students to use their
intelligences and encourage them to find their learning preferences; teachers’ negative beliefs
and positive recognitions have great influences on students’ education (Ogbu, 2003).
Statement of the purpose
Therefore, in this study, I am planning to interview six ESOL teachers in order to ask
about their opinions on the use of multiple intelligences in classroom as means for learning
differentiation. My purpose is to examine their perspectives on whether it is a Western theory
applied to ELL students who come from a different racial or ethnic backgrounds and religious
beliefs. In other words, I wanted to examine whether the implementation of this theory, in
mainstream classrooms, force ELL students to “act white” in order to fit in, and/ or whether
culture and students’ ethnic backgrounds have any impact on these students learning preferences.
Another purpose in studying teacher’s perspective on MI is to shed the light on some
possible prejudices or biases that ESOL teachers might fall into when using MI as means for
differentiation.
Research questions
Based on my personal experiences, I want to answer the following research questions:
RQ. 1 What are ESOL teachers’ perspectives on the use of multiple intelligences theory with
English language learners? Does it work or not? Why?
RQ. 2 What is the role of teachers’ cultural background on their teaching preference?
Theoretical Framework
Culture and intellect are individual constructs, yet each shapes and constrains the other.
Gardner states that a major purpose of his work is to “inspire educationally oriented
anthropologists to develop a model of how intellectual competences may be fostered in various
cultural settings” (2004, p.10), and cites his own desire to conduct future research into the
“diverse contexts in which intelligences develop and of the ways in which they develop in those
contexts” (2004, xxxvii).
Singleton’s paper (1997), which was written specifically for an anti-racism seminar, mainly
focuses on the idea of “Whiteism.” By this term, Singleton means the collectiveness of the
experience of being white in a society that empowers the “white” culture giving more power and
privilege to this race. Singleton narrates that he suspects that White people are the last to
recognize that White is a color. This realization undeniably shatters the White belief that theirs’
is a universal human experience; “one which is color-blind, socially prudent and economically
just” (Singleton, 1997). He continues that “Whiteism” is as defining for White people as are
injustice, struggle and inequality for non-White people of color.
My research area focuses on the concept of “whiteism” in relation to the application and
teachers’ practices of the theory of multiple intelligences, and how this great theory can turn into
a Western view of teaching differentiation especially in culturally and linguistically diverse
classrooms.
My research’s ultimate goal is to enlighten and increase teachers’ awareness on how they should
be culturally oriented in all of their teaching practices more specifically when using multiple
intelligences activities. King et al. (2009), talk about teachers’ professional developments and
propose professional development principles to increase teachers’ cultural responsive practices. I
agree that there is a need for advocating teachers to examine how their own beliefs and
knowledge about teaching are mediated by their educational experiences and sociocultural
backgrounds as well as institutional and situational demands of their work (King et al. 2009).
Knowledge about teaching must be more than a deep understanding of subject matter. Although
content knowledge is an important element related to professional learning, culturally responsive
practice infuses content with an understanding of the cultural nature of learning.
The articles discusses some principles for teachers’ educational professional developments like:
Communication of high expectations, active teaching methods, teacher as facilitator, inclusion of
students who are culturally and linguistically diverse, cultural sensitivity, reshaping the
curriculum, student-controlled classroom discourse, small group instruction and academicallyrelated discourse (King et al. 2009).
Richard Nisbett (2003) argues that people in Western cultures tend to view intelligence as a
means for individuals to devise categories and to engage in rational debate, while people in
Eastern cultures see it as a way for members of a community to recognize contradiction and
complexity and to play their social roles successfully. Such differences between Eastern and
Western views of intelligence are tied, says Nisbett, to differences in the basic cognitive
processes of people in Eastern and Western cultures. However, Nisbett, cautions against the
simplistic idea that everyone raised in a particular culture will share equally in that culture's style
of thinking, or that someone raised in one culture will be unable to learn the cognitive style of
another. "I don't believe that simply because you are born Asian means you will think like
Asians," says Nisbett, "Culture is not just race, nationality or any particular social category-culture is experience."
In Joy and Kolb ‘s study (2009), They discuss the relationship between culture and
learning styles. The authors claim that culture has an impact on students’ the learning style; they
also emphasize on the fact that culture has a significant effect in deciding a person’s preference
for abstract conceptualization versus concrete experience. Overall, they believe that it is possible
that culture will account for more variability in learning styles when within-group cultural
homogeneity and/or between-groups heterogeneity increase.
This brings me to the question – what aspects of culture may be playing a role in shaping
learning styles? Joy & Kolb discuss that in the review of past studies, they saw that the
researchers resorted to various cultural typologies and dimensions in order to delineate the
elements of culture that have an impact on learning styles. The processes of culture are complex
and nuanced. Each cultural typology or dimension focuses on one or other of these processes.
Using multiple typologies or dimensions provides better understanding of the cultural processes
from a variety of angles. This may be more effective and even essential in discerning the most
influential elements from the intricate patterns that culture creates.
Conceptual Framework
In this study, I used social constructivism as a conceptual framework. From this
perspective it may be argued that both success and failure in language learning are the
collaborative social accomplishments of school systems, communities, teachers, students, and
families (McDermott & Gospodino, 1981). The thesis to be developed is that of a social
constructivist perspective on the literacy achievement of students of diverse backgrounds can be
strengthened by moving from a mainstream orientation to an orientation toward diversity, giving
a greater consideration to issues of ethnicity, primary language, and social class (Reyes, 1991).
This study helped to develop an argument for a diverse constructivist perspective. Further, it
examined social constructivism and its application to research on integrating MI theory as a way
of learning differentiation, paying great consideration to the strong epistemological elements of
the fact that reality is constructed through human activity and that members of a society together
invent the properties of the world. People create meaning through their interactions with each
other and the objects in the environment; hence, there is a need to go back to these social
constructs when integrating classroom activities using MI theory.
Methodology
Design
The design of this research is based on an interactive model design (Maxwell, 2005). The
design is interconnected to the various experiences, personal assumptions, goals, purposes,
theories, and research questions.
Methods
Data were collected through conducting semi-structured interviews with six ESL
elementary teachers. The purpose for choosing the semi-structured interviews was to generate as
much information as possible on the participants’ experiences and perspectives (Glesne, 2006).
The research questions were standardized for all participants. Interviews were conducted twice
over a period of four weeks.
Participants and Setting
Six ESL teachers participated in the study. They were selected based on the years of
experience (five or more) and the cultural/ethnic background. Additionally, each teacher had
lived and/or taught outside of the continental U.S. The chosen school is a Title I school (students
there are identified to be at risk with low socio-economical backgrounds). This choice was based
on the need for a rich diverse environment and examine where the gap might be. The teachers in
Title I schools are usually asked to differentiate instruction in order to reach for those students
who are placed at different instructional levels.
Data sources and collection
Semi-structured interviews were used to allow new questions to be brought up during the
interview. The interviewer in a semi-structured interview generally has a framework of themes to
be explored (Merriam, 1998). The interviews utilized open-ended questions that lasted for half
an hour per participant. The interviews consisted of a list of questions of fairly specific topics to
be covered.
Interviews. The interviewing process went smooth especially with the semi-structured
method that I used, which added a simultaneous nature to the process. According to Maxwell
(2005), the more structured the interviews the more compatibility across participants occurs
which consequently ensure the focus on participants rather than the phenomenon.
Data analysis
Data analysis is the core of any research paper and that is why it is not easy to look at the
transcribed interviews and be able to interpret and analyze the perspective of interviewees
without following a certain data analysis strategy (Maxwell, 2005). Hence, I designed a certain
system in my analysis to manage my interviews, which enabled me to get the most out of the
data collected. The stages or steps that I followed in this research’s data analysis are: rereadingnoticing- thinking, organizational categorization, and constant comparative analysis coding.
Organizational categories. Organizational categories came as a next step after rereading
transcripts, noticing the data, and thinking and connecting ideas to generate data material
(Maxwell, 2005). I felt since this was my first attempt in analyzing any qualitative research data
that I needed a familiar etic categorization system to guide me through the data. My generated
organizational categories in this early stage of the process were: Level of diversity,
differentiation strategies, brain-compatibility perception, role of culture and background, and
teachers’ innate experiences’ role.
Constant comparative analysis (CCA). In this third step, I grew more comfortable with
the data sources so I looked at them from an angle of the participants’ perspectives rather than
focusing on the phenomenon; hence, I was able to move from the etic to the emic analysis.
Therefore, I decided to use the CCA’s open and axial coding and not the selective coding. The
open coding in this process was in creating chunks of participants’ direct quotes and rewriting
some of their perspectives to allow more data and themes to emerge (Glesne, 2006). At the end
of this process, I was able to identify this research’s core themes (view results’ section), which is
the genuine result in any reliable qualitative research (Glesne, 2006).
Findings/Results
Four important themes related to the research questions emerged from the data analysis.
These four emerging themes are: Theme #1: Teachers’ diversity versus their perspective on MI
and culture. Theme #2: A call for a change in the American educational system. Theme #3: MI
applications, an intentional practice? Theme #4: MI versus brain-based instruction. The
following are the themes in details.
Theme #1: Teachers’ diversity versus teachers’ perspective on MI and culture. This
theme addresses the relationship between teachers’ diversity level and their perspective on
students’ cultural influence on their MI and learning preferences. I found this as an underlying
theme especially when I noticed teachers’ reactions -across the board of the interviewed
population- when asked about whether there is a connection between students’ cultures and their
learning multiple intelligences.
The teachers who come from diverse background or have been exposed to diversity, in general,
believed that culture is a great factor in influencing students’ intelligences and that some cultural
norms may actually complicate student’s learning preference. Whereas teachers, who are not
culturally diverse and/or have never been exposed to nothing but to their mono-culture, believe
that culture has a minimal role in students’ learning intelligences or learning preferences. They
believe that students’ learning is only related to their abilities or to their household’s
appreciation, or lack of thereof, to learning.
Theme #2: A call for a change in the American educational system. Most of the
participants blamed the educational system for not being able to implement MI and other
learning differentiation theories in their daily instruction due to several factors. The teachers
referred to the school and class schedules in relation to the amount of material to be covered.
Also, they mentioned the state’s mandatory testing and Standards of Learning, which
Christensen et al. (2008) referred to as flawed measures of students’ performances. These
standardized assessments come as obstacles in the way of creative learning or any learning based
on students’ preferences or abilities to search for knowledge (Christensen et al., 2008). They
called for a drastic change in our implacably traditional curriculum designs and school structure
is applicable to students’ real lives.
Theme #3: MI applications, an intentional practice? Most teachers said that they knew
about the MI theory; however, they felt that they have been practicing already some of the
theory’s strategies and applications as “intuitive practice” in their classrooms.
Of course there is nothing wrong with teachers who tie in their planning and teaching with their
previous teaching experiences or feelings of what is ought to be best ways to teach at certain
situations, but the problem lies when intentional teaching is omitted from the educational
process, this may allow for a great leeway for subjectivity, biases, or stereotyping to exist in
some of the teaching methods or strategies (Morrow, 2004).
Theme #4: MI versus brain-based instruction. It was interesting that a couple of
participants distinguished between MI and brain compatibility. Participant # 3 was even very
articulate when describing this theory. She related the MI theory to school practices while brainbased or compatibility learning to home values. In other words, she talked about how multiple
intelligences are not necessarily inherited from a student’s culture; in contrary, it may be linked
more to what a student was exposed to or learned to know. In contrary, brain-based learning is
mainly based on a child’s nurture system, surrounding environment, and genes.
Discussion
Scholarly Significance
This study is highly significant in a sense that it addresses the need for an ever-growing
population, English Language Learners, and teachers who should be responsible for providing
appropriate differentiated instruction to them. This could be achieved by developing practical
professional developments that target this issue and have teacher practice handling situations
with a diverse body of students, and then get evaluated on their practices with these students
(King et al., 2009). Furthermore, the study indicates the significance of teachers’ self
examination onto how their personal perspectives might influence their decisions that take place
in their classrooms on a daily basis. This argument calls for teacher mindedness against their
biases by maintaining reflective practices as their weekly diaries. When teachers reflect on their
teaching, they develop a deeper understanding of their own actions and stronger problem-solving
skills (Honigsfeld & Schiering, 2004).
Moreover, while most teachers admitted that they had some awareness of MI theory, they were
not as aware of how their own preferred intelligences and learning styles weighed, heavily, into
their instructional and assessment practices and choices. Hence, I suggest that we have to make
teachers understand and utilize the knowledge about MI and learning styles in teacher education
programs. The present study indicates a call for additional research to go broader and more
deeply into this important topic.
The previous suggestions are just attempts to close the racial achievement gap in our educational
system (Ferguson, 2007). Educational theories, methods of teaching, and classroom strategies are
tools in teachers’ hands; unless teachers learn how to use them, how to embrace and recognize
students’ diversity, and how to avoid their personal biases, the gap will keep inflating.
References
Armstrong, T., (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Virginia: ASCD Association for
Curriculum Development.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G., (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain.
Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Christensen, M., Horn, M. B., Johnson C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns. Encounter, 22 (3), 44-47. Retrieved
from Academic search complete database.
Cohen, G., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the Racial Achievement Gap: A
Social-Psychological Intervention. Science, 313(5791), 1307-1310. Retrieved from
Academic Search Complete database.
Ferguson, R. F. (2007). Excellence with equity: An emerging vision for closing the achievement
gap. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.
Gardner, H., (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (2004). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences [twentieth-anniversary
edition]. New York: Basic Books.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York:
Allyn & Bacon/Longman.
González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in
households, communities, and classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Honigsfeld, A., & Schiering, M. (2004). Diverse approaches to the diversity of learning styles in
teacher education. Educational psychology, 24(4), 487-507.
doi:10.1080/0144341042000228861.
Joy, S. and Kolb, D. A. (2009). Are there cultural differences in learning style? International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(1):69-85.
King, K. A., Artiles, A. J., & Kozleski, E. B. (2009, June). Professional learning for culturally
responsive teaching (S. Brown, Ed.) (Monograph). Tempe, Arizona: OESE
Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McDermott, R. P., & Gospodino, K. (1981). Social contexts for ethnic borders and school
failure. In H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie, & K. H. Au (Eds.), Culture and the bilingual
classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 212–230). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. S an
Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morrow, L. (2004). Developmentally appropriate practice in early literacy instruction. Reading
teacher, 58 (1), 88-89. Retrieved from academic research complete database.
Nisbett, R.E. (2003). The geography of thought, how Asian and westerners think differently and
why. New York, NY: Free Press.
Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic
disengagement. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. (ED 476 118)
Reyes, M. de la Luz. (1991). A process approach to literacy instruction for Spanish speaking
students: In search of a best fit. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society:
Perspectives, practices, and policies (pp. 157–171). New York: Teachers College Press.
Singleton, G. E. (1997). White is a color!. Pacific Educational Group, Inc., San Francisco, CA.
The Education Commission of the States (ECS). (2004, August). Hispanic achievement.
The progress of education reform, 6(3). No. SI-04-04.
Wu, S., & Alrabah, S. (2009). A cross-cultural study of Taiwanese and Kuwaiti EFL students'
learning styles and multiple intelligences. Innovations in Education & Teaching
International, 46(4), 393-403. doi:10.1080/14703290903301826.