The Multiple Intelligences programme

All practitioners were asked about their understanding and views on the kindergarten curriculum and pedagogy based on MI theory and the MI programme. Their responses showed interesting areas of consensus as well as some differences.

4.2.1.1 Individual differences

In the discussions of curriculum and pedagogy of the kindergarten MI programmes, all practitioners made frequent references to the concept of children's 'individual differences'. All of them expressed acknowledgement of the importance of individual differences, though there were variations in their understanding of MI theory and the MI programme due to their different personal, educational, professional and cultural backgrounds. As explained in Section 4.1, they had different levels of qualifications, work and training experiences and distinctive roles.

On a management level, the headteacher and deputy headteacher expressed a similar understanding about the core of MI theory. The headteacher stated:

The theory of multiple intelligences contrasts with the traditional notion that children have a single, fixed intelligence. MI educators embrace the view that children have multiple intelligences.

Similarly, the deputy headteacher said:

Different people have different particular strengths and weaknesses. …So I think the advantage of the MI curriculum and

encouraging them to build on areas of strength so as to overcome

their weakness…

They both claimed that the advantage of the MI curriculum and pedagogy was in recognising children's different intelligences and encouraging them to build on areas of strength, so as to overcome their weakness. Linked to this, they explained that the key to implementing the MI programme lay in 'a consideration of children's individual differences'. They explained that the practical strategies for implementation were 'to observe children carefully' and 'identify their individual strengths and weakness', then to 'start working from the strengths so as to overcome the weaknesses'. Both the headteacher and deputy headteacher believed that children would 'become confident' in learning if teachers followed MI programme strategies. In particular, they were convinced that 'self-confidence' was an essential ingredient for all aspects of a child's well- being and development and a key disposition for success as an adult.

Furthermore, the headteacher expressed her knowledge of the MI programme,

which underpinned the kindergarten’s curriculum and pedagogy, by referring to

the research of Howard Gardner: 'As Gardner demonstrated, every child is unique'. In her opinion, the notion of children's uniqueness was highlighted as an essential feature of the MI programme, supported by empirical evidence. Her claim that 'tests only skim the surface of individual differences' seems to suggest a view that more traditional forms of education, reliant on tests, often fail to grasp the extent of children's diverse abilities.

Whilst the deputy headteacher voiced a similar opinion on the importance of 'individual difference' within the MI programme, she also emphasised the

The MI curriculum and pedagogy requires that teachers take account of children's individual differences when they choose teaching

materials…

As both were managers of the kindergarten, and in a 'leadership' position, although with different roles and responsibilities, it is unsurprising that they held similarly committed and informed views on MI theory and that both attached great importance to the notion of individual differences within the MI programme.

At an operational level, the teachers and the teaching and childcare assistant, as implementers of the programme, also discussed MI theory and the MI programme with generally favourable attitudes. For example, when taking about their understanding of MI theory, the lead teacher commented: 'I think the MI

programme is generally good…' And the teaching and childcare assistant was similarly positive: 'I think it is pretty good'.

However, the staff team could be divided clearly into two groups, 'trained' and 'untrained' staff, in relation to the MI programme. The trained teachers were the lead teacher and the English teacher. At the start of their work at Newton, they

had both attended an MI training programme involving one month’s part-time distance learning. They both highlighted the advantages of the MI programme. For example, the lead teacher said:

I think MI (theory) can [help us to] find every child’s strongest area,

whatever it is, and then build on it.

Similarly, the English teacher claimed that the MI programme enabled staff to 'find out about every child’s strongest area whichever it is, and then build on it'.

respect children's individual differences and how to simulate children’s development of multiple intelligences successfully during their daily teaching. For example, the lead teacher maintained that in setting up 'various play areas’, providing 'rich materials’, making monthly teaching themes, lesson plans and

designing teaching activities, ‘all needed to take account of children's individual differences'. She explained that this was ‘an effective means of delivering the MI programme’. Moreover, the English teacher expressed a similar viewpoint, giving a practical example of how to learn about children's individual interests:

Um, yeah like different students have different things that they like and they like to do and different topics that they want to learn about. Like when I first…was making the things myself usually I try and ask them before I bring up a topic, like, 'What do you guys want to learn about? What do you want to know about? What are you curious about?' and they tell me a list of things that they want to know

about…

In the English teacher's view, such consideration of children's interests and preferences led to positive teaching practices:

…so sometimes I remember they said oh they want to learn about hot-air balloons, so like sure we’ll learn about hot-air balloons, and so because they chose that topic, because they were interested in it, it

was very easy to engage them in that learning. It’s very easy for them to pay attention, very easy for them to ask questions because they really wanted to know about it.

The English teacher also took a reflective approach in the teaching:

Um, other times, if I chose that myself, they'd be like, 'Why are we learning this?' (laughing)

The above examples of the lead teacher and the English teacher indicate that as classroom teachers, these two practitioners recognised the significant benefits from respecting children’s individual differences and interests in the delivery of the MI programme.

The ‘untrained’ staff members in relation to the MI programme were the preschool teacher and the teaching and childcare assistant. In spite of the fact that she had not undertaken any MI training, the preschool teacher also seemed to attach importance to individual differences:

I don't really know about MI theory. Does it mean developing a child's

whole brain potential? …Whatever, we should teach children with a consideration of individual differences.

She continued to talk about her teaching practice which actually integrated an element of understanding children's individual differences:

Basically, I teach Chinese Pinyin year after year, but the teaching methods, content and specific arrangements are different each year

because the learners are different …

This 'untrained' preschool teacher also confidently discussed how the notion of individual differences should be employed in the implementation of the preschool curriculum and pedagogy by relating it to an individual case:

…In our class, for example, Tao is a bit of a special child, isn’t he? The teacher should have more patience for this kind of child. The teacher should have different expectations of him than for other children. Sometimes, it is easy for teachers to get anxious and lose patience. …The lead teacher often teaches him using the 'one-size- fits-all' approach ---‘You must do it in the same way!’ I discussed the problem with the lead teacher last time and told her that a special

child should be treated specially …

However, this understanding seemed to be built on her practical teaching experience of over 40 years rather than her knowledge of MI theory.

The teaching and childcare assistant had a childcare certificate and a qualification but not in education. Also she had relatively less work experience of ECEC and no training in relation to the MI programme. Thus, she unsurprisingly made less reference to individual differences than other staff.

She mainly expressed her understanding in relation to her practical experience:

…One of the achievements is that children have learnt to clean up the classroom by themselves…the difficulty is that some children are

very poor at functioning independently, so I have to take care and teach them differently according to their individual ability.

It can be seen that different staff members expressed their understanding of individual differences variously. For the management team, both the headteacher and the deputy headteacher showed knowledge of the concept of individual differences and its importance in the MI framework for the kindergarten's curriculum and pedagogy. The 'trained' teachers like the lead teacher and the English teacher, on the other hand, had significant practical experience of respecting interests and differences of individual children. The 'untrained' staff members such as the preschool teacher and the teaching and care assistant were both unconsciously paying attention to child's individual need and development. Therefore, it can be argued that all participant practitioners in this kindergarten were aware of the importance of individual differences within the MI programme, though their understanding and practice suggests they had internalised this awareness to varying degrees.

4.2.1.2 Areas of play provision

Another important element of the MI programme, according to the practitioners' responses, is the areas of play provision. As the headteacher claimed:

Actually, the MI [curriculum and pedagogy] can be seen in the 'areas of play provision', and not in traditional whole class activities.

Other ‘trained’ staff members including the deputy headteacher, the lead teacher and the English teacher expressed a similar view. For example, the lead teacher said:

MI theory has mainly been applied in the activities that take place in the areas of play provision.

Moreover, they all believed that the MI programme was able to acknowledge

children’s individual differences by providing a wide range of play areas with

rich play materials, as the lead teacher told me in the interview:

….and another important thing in the areas of play provision is that they work according to the monthly theme and aim which the kindergarten decides. Teachers also need to prepare relevant teaching materials and toys for different play areas in terms of the

developmental level of the children in this class…

These four ‘trained’ practitioners also emphasised that classrooms organised according to play areas provided ‘an ideal site for teachers' observations’. By undertaking observations of children in these areas, they believed that teachers were able to individualise their curriculum and pedagogy. The course director, who was the deputy headteacher and a parent, reported that:

Of course, children's interests are usually discovered by teacher's observations during play in areas of play provision. My daughter is an example. What her teacher observed is that my daughter really likes to play in the role play area. She enjoys cooking for her friends, as well as organising a party. So she has shown a great interest in the dolls house…

The deputy headteacher also pointed out that, since the promulgation and implementation of the Guidance Outline on Kindergarten Education (China, Ministry of Education, 2001), ECEC in China was 'gradually being reformed'. As a consequence, the significance of play-based activity was gradually being recognised within the national kindergarten curriculum and pedagogy. She explained that this was because areas of play provision enable adults to ‘fully

respect a child’s interests and individuality’ in terms of each child’s physical and mental development. Also, the activity of playing in the areas of play provision

programme, the areas of play provision enabled children to develop their

‘imagination and creativity’, as well as having a 'positive effect on their development of cooperation, problem-solving and self-discipline’.

The lead teacher similarly regarded the areas of play provision as an effective way to support children's learning and development. Also, she highlighted a ‘link’ between the areas of play provision and the monthly teaching theme, both of

which aimed to meet children’s expectations and interests in learning:

The link demonstrated the educational notion of modern curriculum integration and made the MI curriculum and pedagogy run throughout the whole teaching and learning routine.

The deputy headteacher additionally pointed out that the most important aspect of the areas of play provision was to provide 'the best materials' for children to use in terms of their individual differences:

After these years of exploration, I personally think the MI curriculum

and pedagogy are appropriate for us…Taking into account individual

differences, teachers play the role of...researcher into what the best materials are for children.

She suggested that a teacher should be 'an observer’ and ‘a play partner' to

know the ‘best moment’ for intervention, guidance and support of children, and

the most appropriate degree, when children were playing in the areas of play provision. This viewpoint was also supported by two classroom teachers, the lead teacher and the English teacher. As the lead teacher said:

Teachers should play the role of providing resources and being a play partner rather than a guide and teacher; they should also provide new interesting targets when children have lost interest in the

original target within the area…These strategies will help children to

Generally, the four ‘trained’ staff members including the headteachers, the lead teacher and the English teacher had a deeper understanding of the importance of areas of play provision in the MI programme than other practitioners. In contrast, the areas of play provision were not used during periods focused on the preschool curriculum, and so the preschool teacher did not comment on or have an interest in them. The teaching and childcare assistant did not comment on play provision areas either, although she was aware that these were an element in the MI curriculum and pedagogy. In the main, my observations suggested that she did not often get involved in working with children during play.