臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

The purpose of this study was to investigate and explore the Multiple Intelligence activities in Little Canada Cram School. The study focused on the Multiple Intelligences activities and the reasons of using them in the classroom. ESL class is the subject of the study chosen in this study. There were 6 young learners in the classroom. The class communicated in English during the class time. The observations through video recordings and interviews were the techniques for collecting the data and they were analyzed by qualitative method.
The finding shows that there are eight activities used by the teacher to meet the pupils’ different intelligences. They are Students’ Name Writing, Previous Lesson Previewing, Story Telling, Game Playing, Video Playing, Drawing and Coloring, Grammar Teaching/ Workbook Checking and even Snack Time Activity. The activities are set in such situation that the pupils as young learners can enjoy the teaching and learning process. As the pupils are young learners, these activities can have the students be more free and excited to express themselves. In every activity mentioned above, the pupils’ Visual- Linguistics Intelligence is the one always used and involved. While Intrapersonal and Naturalist Intelligence are the less ones used.
For the reasons applying the activities in the classroom, the teacher does believe and accept the term of the individuation and pluralization in his teaching. The teacher makes such activities in the classroom because he can see the differences of the pupils. Besides, those activities also can eliminate the classroom management issue in the classroom. The pupils have more time and chance to have more interactions as well. They can be freely to express themselves and be more engaged in the classroom teaching learning process. This study suggests the application of the activities used in cram school to eliminate the common image of the “targeted goal” in the school, for teacher and also the young learners’ classroom in Indonesia as well.

Acknowledgement i
Abstract ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii

Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Subject of the Study 4
1.3 Purposes of the Study 4
1.4 Questions of the Study 4
1.5 Limitation of the Study 4
1.6 Significances of the Study 5
1.7 Definition of terms 5

Chapter 2 Related Literature 7
2.1 Multiple Intelligences 7
2.1.2 Multiple Intelligence Theory 8
2.1.3 Multiple Intelligence Curriculum 10
2.1.4 Multiple Intelligence Activities 14
2.2. English Language Teaching 19

2.2.1 English Language Teaching to Young Learners 20
2.2.2 English Language Teaching in Cram School 25
2.3 Multiple Intelligences and English Language Teaching 28

Chapter 3 Research Methodology 33
3.1 Design of the study 33
3.2 Subject of the study 34
3.2.1 Little Canada Cram School 34
3.2.2 Staff Members and Students 34
3.2.2.1 Staff Members 34
3.2.2.2 Students 36
3.3 Data Collection 38
3.3.1 Classroom Observation 38
3.3.2 Interview 39
3.4 Data Analysis 41
3.4.1 Analysis from Observation 41
3.4.2 Analysis from Interview 42

Chapter 4 Findings and Discussion 43
4.1 Multiple Intelligence Activities in Little Canada Cram School 43
4.1.1 Students’ Name Writing 43
4.1.2 Previous Lesson Reviewing 46
4.1.3 Story Telling 50
4.1.4 Game Playing 54
4.1.5 Video Playing 57
4.1.6 Drawing and Coloring 61
4.1.7 Grammar Teaching/ Workbook Checking 65
4.1.8 Snacks Time 67
4.2 Reasons Using Multiple Intelligences Activities in the Classroom 70
4.2.1 Individuation of Students and Pluralization of Teaching Methods 70
4.2.2 Classroom Management Issue Elimination 72

Chapter 5 Result and Suggestions 77
5.1 Result of the Study 77
5.1.1. Multiple Intelligences Activities Used in Little Canada Cram School
………….………………………………………………………………...77
5.1.2 Reasons Using the Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom 78
5.2 Suggestions of the Study 79
5.2.1. Suggestion for Cram School 79
5.2.2 Suggestions for Teacher 80
5.2.3 Suggestion for Future Study 80

References 83
Appendices 87
A. Students’ Parents Permission Form 87
B. Multiple Intelligences Activities Table Analysis 90
C. Interview Questions, Transript and Narrative Reconstruction 118

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 The Characteristics of Young Learners 21
Table 2 The Observation Schedule 39
Table 3 The Interview Questions 40
Table 4 The Observation Sheet Form 41
Table 5 The Multiple Intelligences Activities Table Analysis………………..90

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 The Little Canada School 35
Figure 2 The Students’ Name Writing Activity- Visual-Spatial Intelligence 44
Figure 3 The Students’ Name Writing Activity- Verbal-Linguistics Intelligence 45
Figure 4 The Students’ Name Writing Activity- Interpersonal Intelligence 45
Figure 5 The Previous Lesson Reviewing Activity- Verbal-Linguistics Intelligence 47
Figure 6 The Previous Lesson Reviewing Activity- Bodily- Kinesthetic Intelligence 47
Figure 7 The Students’ Name Writing Activity- Visual-Spatial Intelligence 48
Figure 8 The Previous Lesson Reviewing Activity- Visual-Spatial Intelligence 49
Figure 9 The Previous Lesson Reviewing Activity- Logical- Mathematic al Intelligence 49
Figure 10 The Previous Lesson Reviewing Activity- Naturalist Intelligence 50
Figure 11 The Story Telling Activity- Visual-Spatial Intelligence 51
Figure 12 The Story Telling Activity-Verbal- Linguistics Intelligence 51
Figure 13 The Story Telling Activity- Intrapersonal Intelligence 52
Figure 14 The Story Telling Activity- Bodily- Kinesthetic Intelligence 53
Figure 15 The Story Telling Activity- Interpersonal Intelligence 53
Figure 16 The Story Telling Activity- Logical- Mathematic Intelligence 54
Figure 17 The Game Playing Activity- Verbal-Linguistics Intelligence 55
Figure 18 The Game Playing Activity- Bodily- Kinesthetic Intelligence 55
Figure 19 The Game Playing Activity- Logical- Mathematical Intelligence 56
Figure 20 The Game Playing Activity- Interpersonal Intelligence 57
Figure 21 The Game Playing Activity- Visual-Spatial Intelligence 57
Figure 22 The Video Playing Activity- Visual-Spatial Intelligence 58
Figure 23 The Video Playing Activity- Verbal-Linguistics Intelligence 59
Figure 24 The Video Playing Activity- Naturalist Intelligence 60
Figure 25 The Video Playing Activity- Logical- Mathematical Intelligence 60
Figure 26 The Video Playing Activity- Bodily- Kinesthetic Intelligence 61
Figure 27 The Video Playing Activity- Musical Intelligence 61
Figure 28 The Drawing Coloring Activity-Visual- Spatial Intelligence 62
Figure 29 The Drawing Coloring Activity- Verbal-Linguistics Intelligence 63
Figure 30 The Drawing Coloring Activity- Musical Intelligence 63
Figure 31 The Drawing Coloring Activity- Bodily- Kinesthetic Intelligence 64
Figure 32 The Drawing Coloring Activity- Interpersonal Intelligence 64
Figure 33 The Grammar Teaching- Workbook Checking Activity-Verbal- Linguistics Intelligence 65
Figure 34 The Grammar Teaching- Workbook Checking Activity- Visual-Spatial Intelligence 66
Figure 35 The Grammar Teaching- Workbook Checking Activity- Logical- Mathematical Intelligence 66
Figure 36 The Grammar Teaching- Workbook Checking Activity- Intrapersonal Intelligence 67
Figure 37 The Snack Time Activity – Verbal-Linguistics Intelligence 68
Figure 38 The Snack Time Activity – Bodily- Kinesthetic Intelligence 68
Figure 39 The Snack Time Activity –Interpersonal Intelligence 69
Figure 40 The Snack Time Activity – Musical Intelligence 69

REFERENCES
Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. (2008). Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT. Dunia Pustaka Jaya.
Armstrong, Thomas. (2009). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. California: ASCD.
Bailey, K. (1994). Methods of Social Research. New York: The Free Press.
Biric. M. (2010). Implementation of Multiple Intelligences Theory in the English Language Course Syllabus at the University of Niš Medical School. Jan-Feb; 138(1-2):105-110.
Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. California: Longman.
Cameroon, L. (2005). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, et al. (1999). Multiple Intelligences and Student Achievement. ASCD.
Campbell, Campbell B. (1999). Multiple intelligences and student achievement: Success stories from six schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Chen, L. S. (1978). To consider more in the education of cramming schools. Min Chu Chao, 28(6), 9-11.
Chritision, M.A. (1996). Teaching Multiple Intelligence theory in the foreign language classroom. MEXTESOL Journal, Volume 19, No3. Cohen, L & Manion, L. (2007). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.
Dunn, Opal. (2011). How Young Children Learn English as Another Language. Wales: British Council.
Gahala, E & Lange, D. (1997). Multiple Intelligences: Multiple ways to help students learn foreign languages. Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Newsletter, Volume 41.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.
Gardner H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2001). Intelligence Reframed. Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books.
Graddol, (2006). English Next. The United Kingdom’s international organization. British Council.
Guignon, A. (2010). Implementing Gardner’s Theory in the Classroom. New York: Education World.
Hamilton, T. (2009). Using Song in Classroom. retrieved 8 June 2013. http//www.edunet journal.html.
Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Essex: Longman
Hasan, K. El & Maluf, Ghada. (1999). “An Application of Multiple Intelligences in
Lebanese Kindergarten”. Early Childhood Education Journal. 27(1), 13-18.
Helding, L. (2009). “Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences”. Journal of Singing. 66 (2), 193-199.
Hoerr, T. (2000). Becoming A Multiple Intelligences School. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Huang, K. M. (1993). Discussing cramming school. Hsien Tai Chiao Yu, 8, 145-151.
Jilani, N. (2013). Dare to Differentiate through Choice. Islamabad: International School of Islamabad.
Kang, J. (2013). Teaching English to Young Learners. Journal of English Language Center. 1(1), 1-62.
Keegan, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: good decision making through understanding people, cultures, and market. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Kragen, J. (2004). Developing Talent in Young People. New York: Ballantine Books.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lash, M. (2011). Multiple Intelligences and the Search for Creative Teaching. New York: Paths of Learning.
Lazear, D. (1992). Teaching for Multiple Intelligences. Fastback 342 Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation. (ED 356 227).
Liu, J. (2011). Does Cram Schooling Matter? Who Goes to Cram Schools? Some Evidence from Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development.
McKenzie, W. (2010). Multiple Intelligences: It’s not How Smart You Are, It’s
How You Are Smart. New York: Education World.
Moon. (2006). Children Learning English. 2006. Bangkok: Macmilan Publisher limited.
Mustafa, B. (2010). “Teaching English to Young Learners in Indonesia. Essential Requirements”. Journal Educationist. 4(2), 120-125.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. London: Sage.
Pinkley, D. (2011). Children Learning English as a Foreign Language: Teaching to Learners’ Multiple Intelligences. New York: Pearson Longman.
Pica, R. (2007). Movement and Learning: Movement Across The Curriculum. California: Excelligence.
Pinter, A. (2008). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Plucker, J. (2007). Alfred Binet. In Human Intelligence (Biological Profiles). Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/binet.shtml
Sacramento. (2009). Preschool English Learners. California: California Department of
Education.
Scott &Ytreberg. (1990). Teaching English to Students. New York: Longman
Smith, M. (2008). Howard Gardner, multiple intelligences, and education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm.
Sun. (1993). The Effect of Cramming Schools on Students’ Mathematics Achievement. Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, Vol. XIV. 313~338
Wright, (1997). Pictures for Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Yin, R. (2003). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. London: The Guilford Press