Rethinking Dance Pedagogy through Multiple Intelligences: A POMAT-Based Conceptual Framework for Vocational Undergraduate Dance Education

Vocational undergraduate dance education in China is increasingly expected to move beyond narrowly technique-centred instruction and to support multidimensional professional competence. Yet dance pedagogy remains strongly associated with demonstration, imitation, correction, and repetition, while conceptual tools for examining how broader learning opportunities are coordinated across a lesson remain limited. This conceptual review examines how the Multiple Intelligences Teaching Approach (MITA) can be interpreted as a flexible pedagogical orientation and how POMAT (Procedure, Objective, Materials, Assessment, and Technology) can provide an analytical framework for vocational undergraduate dance education. The review synthesised foundational MI and POMAT literature, peer-reviewed research on dance and higher education pedagogy, scholarship on Chinese tertiary dance education, and relevant policy and international framework documents. Rather than treating multiple intelligences as a learner-typing system or claiming that MI-based instruction is empirically superior, the paper adopts a cautious interpretation informed by methodological critiques of MI intervention research. The conceptual synthesis produced three central propositions: dance repertoire learning is multidimensional; MITA is most defensible when used to diversify learning opportunities rather than classify learners; and POMAT makes instructional coherence visible by examining relationships among pedagogical procedures, intended outcomes, materials, assessment and feedback, and technology. On this basis, the paper proposes a POMAT-based framework in which bodily-kinaesthetic, musical, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal learning opportunities are considered across the five instructional dimensions. The framework retains the pedagogical value of demonstration and technical correction while extending analysis to interpretation, collaboration, reflection, cultural meaning, and technology-supported learning. It offers a context-sensitive analytical framework for dance teachers, curriculum designers, and researchers and provides a foundation for future empirical examination in vocational undergraduate dance classrooms.

dance pedagogy, multiple intelligences teaching approach, POMAT framework, vocational undergraduate education, dance repertoire education

1. Alexander, S., Boehm, J. D., & Glen, N. (2023). Using mobile technologies to enhance learning and improve student engagement in the dance studio. Research in Dance Education, 24(2), 154–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647893.2021.1928621 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Armstrong, T. (2017). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (4th ed.). ASCD. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Multiple+Intelligences+in+the+Classroom%22+Thomas+Armstrong+2017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Attwood, A. I. (2022). A conceptual analysis of the semantic use of Multiple Intelligences Theory and implications for teacher education. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 920851. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.920851 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Biasutti, M., & Habe, K. (2023). Teachers’ perspectives on dance improvisation and flow. Research in Dance Education, 24(3), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647893.2021.1940915 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Brown, L. M. (2023). The impact of student-centered learning through use of peer feedback in the dance technique classroom. Journal of Dance Education, 23(2), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/15290824.2021.1932911 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Engdahl, C., Lundvall, S., & Barker, D. (2023). ‘Free but not free-free’: Teaching creative aspects of dance in physical education teacher education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 28(6), 617–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2021.2014435 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Ferrero, M., Vadillo, M. A., & León, S. P. (2021). A valid evaluation of the theory of multiple intelligences is not yet possible: Problems of methodological quality for intervention studies. Intelligence, 88, Article 101566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2021.101566 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Gardner%2C+H.+%281983%29.+Frames+of+mind%3A+The+theory+of+multiple+intelligences.+Basic+Books.+&btnG= [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Intelligence+reframed%3A+Multiple+intelligences+for+the+21st+century.+&btnG= [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hegna, H. M., & Ørbæk, T. (2024). Traces of embodied teaching and learning: A review of empirical studies in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(2), 420–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1989582 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Jin, J., & Snook, B. (2022). Comprehensively strengthening and improving aesthetic education in a new era: An examination of the dance education major at the Beijing Dance Academy. International Journal of Chinese Education, 11(3), Article 2212585X221127451. https://doi.org/10.1177/2212585X221127451 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Li, Z. (2024). Shifts in pedagogy and autonomy in virtual dance teaching and learning. Journal of Dance Education, 24(4), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/15290824.2023.2170383 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. McKenzie, W. (2005). Multiple intelligences and instructional technology (2nd ed.). International Society for Technology in Education. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22 Multiple+Intelligences+and+Instructional+Technology%22+Walter+McKenzie+2005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2021). 教育部关于印发《职业教育专业目录（2021年）》的通知 [Notice of the Ministry of Education on issuing the Vocational Education Programme Catalogue (2021)] (in Chinese). https://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A07/moe_953/202103/t20210319_521135.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Rowe, N., Xiong, X., & Tuomeiciren, H. (2020). Dancing from policy to pedagogy in China: Transgressions, surveillance and resistance from students, teachers and institutional leaders. Policy Futures in Education, 18(8), 995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320907802 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Schupp, K. (2024). Rethinking the pedagogy of dance pedagogy. Research in Dance Education, 25(3), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647893.2022.2083596 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Soerel, B. F., Plaatsman, L. A., Kegelaers, J., Stubbe, J. H., van Rijn, R. M., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2023). An analysis of teachers’ instructions and feedback at a contemporary dance university. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1133737. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1133737 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. (2022). 中华人民共和国职业教育法 [Vocational Education Law of the People’s Republic of China] (in Chinese). https://www.npc.gov.cn/c2/c30834/202204/t20220420_317575.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Sulaiman, S., & Sulaiman, T. (2012). Application of multiple intelligences teaching approach in classroom instruction based on POMAT model. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 20(S), 41–72. http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/19569/1/FPP_2011_12.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Sulaiman, T., Sulaiman, S., & Suan, W. H. (2011). Integrating multiple intelligences and technology into classroom instruction to transform instructional practice in Malaysia. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 1146–1155. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.5.1146-1155 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54676/UZQV8501 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. UNESCO. (2024). UNESCO framework for culture and arts education. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2024/03/WCCAE_UNESCO%20Framework_EN_CLT-EDWCCAE20241.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Zeitner, D. (2023). Dancing between realities: Exploring the body in virtual dance improvisation. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 24(5). https://doi.org/10.26209/ijea24n5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study