Ozdemir et al | Multiple intelligences

Educational Research Enhancing learning through multiple intelligences

Pnar zdemir1, Sibel Gneysu2 and Ceren Tekkaya1 Middle East Technical University1 and Bashkent University2, Turkey
This study investigated whether there was a significant difference between multiple intelligence instruction (MII) and traditionally designed science instruction (TDSI) on fourth grade students understanding of concepts associated with the Diversity of Living Things unit. Students intelligence types were also examined. There were two randomly-selected classes of 35 students of between 9 and 10 years old. The experimental group was instructed through Multiple Intelligence strategies while the control group employed traditional methods. The assessment tools were the Diversity of Living Things Concepts Test (DLTCT) and the Teele Inventory of Multiple Intelligences (TIMI). Before treatment, no statistically significant difference between the groups was found in terms of understanding of diversity of living things concepts. After treatment, independent t-test analysis indicated that MII produced significantly greater achievement in the understanding of diversity of living things concepts (p<0.05) and on students retention of knowledge (p<0.05). The results of TIMI revealed that fourth grade students most dominant intelligence was logical-mathematical intelligence both before and after treatment. However, after treatment, some variations were observed. Keywords: Multiple Intelligences Theory; Diversity of Living Things Concepts; Teele Inventory of Multiple Intelligences.

Introduction
New approaches to the teaching of science are being put forward in an effort to eliminate the difficulties in science teaching and to satisfy the needs of students. Most of these are based on learning theories which take into account the differences in individuals. One of them is multiple intelligence theory proposed by Gardner in 1983. The Theory of Multiple Intelligence asks: Given what we know about the brain, evolution and the differences in cultures, what are the human abilities we all share? In his theory of MI, Gardner broadens the scope of human potential beyond the confines of the IQ score. IQ alone is no longer the measure for success; it only counts for 20%, with the rest decided on emotional and social intelligences, and luck (Goleman, 1995). The theory represents a particular view of the nature of intelligence, but it is much more than just a theory of intelligence. It has become a viable approach for exploring teaching styles, individualising teaching and learning, developing curriculum, and improving teachers assessment literacy. According to Gardner, everyone possesses seven distinct intelligences: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, musicalrhythmic, bodily-kinesthetic, visual-spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Recently, Gardner added two more, one of which is naturalist intelligence. In Gardners view, naturalist intelligence denotes the human ability to discriminate among living things (plants, animals) as well as sensitivity to other features and patterns of the natural world (clouds, rock configurations). The other is existential intelligence. Gardner stated that individuals who exhibit the proclivity to pose (and ponder) questions about life, death, and ultimate realities have this intelligence. Although the theory has been critised on theoretical, con74 JBE Volume 40 Number 2, Spring 2006

ceptual, empirical, and pedagogical grounds by several scholars (Klein, 1997; Morgan, 1996; Sternberg, 1983), one of its greatest strengths is its capacity to serve as a framework allowing teachers to explore their teaching styles and to assist them in making decisions about ways to structure teaching and learning experiences for students. Students need to experience learning that allows them to engage all of their intelligences, to explore their own intelligences and how they can impact their learning, and they need to be offered choice in how they learn and are assessed. Students are then more likely to experience curriculum that is meaningful, personalised, and relevant. The theory suggests that two of human intelligences, verballinguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence, have dominated in traditional schooling. The five non-traditional intelligences spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal have generally been overlooked. Haggarty (1995, p49) stated, MI theory offers a richly diversified way of understanding and categorizing human cognitive abilities, and combinations of abilities, heightening our awareness of what makes learning possible for individual students. Kagan and Kagan (1998, p23) described MI theory as a powerful catalyst in education: It is revitalising the search for more authentic, student-centred approaches to curriculum, instruction and assessment. From his perspective, MI theory can be used to meet three visions: (a) to match teaching to the ways students learn (b) to encourage students to stretch their abilities and develop all their intelligences as fully as possible (c) to honour and celebrate diversity. Science teachers can assist students in learning science, learning about science, and learning to do science by maximising the

Multiple intelligences | Ozdemir et al

development of all the intelligences through the use of instructional and assessment strategies, with a curriculum that will support all of the intelligences. Studies with the Teele Inventory for Multiple Intelligence (Teele, 1996; Rhina, 2001) have revealed some interesting data that could affect the way instruction is provided at different grade levels. Students at the primary level demonstrated a much stronger preference for linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences than students at the middle and high school levels. Primary students most dominant intelligences were spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, linguistic and logical-mathematical while upper elementary students were spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and musical. Middle and high school students were strongest in interpersonal, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial and musical intelligences. Teele (1994) noted that linguistic intelligence was the strongest from kindergarten through to fourth grade and then dramatically declined. Logical-mathematical intelligence was strongest from first through fourth and began to decline. Spatial and bodily intelligence remained the two most dominant intelligences throughout elementary school, while spatial intelligence was very strong in all grades. She also reported that first grade students were lower in musical and intrapersonal intelligences until they went to high school. The study conducted by Teele (1994) demonstrated that students enter school at primary level strong in both linguistic and logicalmathematical intelligences and leave high school level with those two areas sharply in decline, even though those are the two intelligences that are predominate in schools. If schools are to provide opportunities for all students to learn and develop the ability to read, write and compute, then instruction must be presented in ways that address the students dominant intelligences. This enables students to process information through their strengths and then translate into the less dominant intelligences. The translation process is a way to empower students, enabling them to learn through their dominant intelligences while also strengthening their weaker intelligences. Teele also argued that when teachers are able to present information through all seven intelligences, all students can engage in the learning process and gain strength in all of the intelligences. intact classes selected from a school in an urban area. One group was randomly assigned to the experimental group (n=35) while the other formed the control (n=35). Both classes were taught by the same science teacher and both received identical syllabus-prescribed learning content. All students were exposed to the same content for the same duration. Duration of lessons was six 45-minute periods. In fourth grade, in the Diversity of Living Things unit, the main topic is the classification of living organisms. There are five main subjects in this topic: (a) animals; (b) plants; (c) fungi; (d) bacteria; and (e) protists. During the seven week period, each group received an equal amount of instruction and was provided with the same materials and assigments except for the MI teaching strategy.

Data collection
In this study data were collected through Diversity of Living Things Concepts Test and the Teele Inventory of Multiple Intelligences Test (TIMI). Diversity of Living Things Concepts Test This consisted of 25 multiple-choice questions related to the concepts in the Diversity of Living Things unit. Each question had one correct answer and three distracters. The content areas covered by the test were the use of microscope, classification, viruses, bacteria, protista, fungi, plants and animals. This was used as a pre-test to identify students previous knowledge. The same test was administered after the completion of treatment and again two months later in order to examine the extent of learning and the degree to which the acquired knowledge was maintained over time. The internal consistency reliability (Cronbachs alpha) of this test was found to be 0.71. Teele Inventory of Multiple Intelligences The Teele Inventory of Multiple Intelligences is specifically designed to examine the dominant intelligences of students in all grades. The TIMI is a forced-choice pictorial inventory that contains 56 numbered pictures of panda bears representing characteristics of each of the seven intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal and interpersonal. It provides students with 28 opportunities to make selections between two alternatives. The different intelligences are matched with one another and students have the chance to select each of the seven intelligences eight different times in the inventory. Students are asked to select one of the two choices that they feel is the most like them there are no right or wrong answers in this inventory. Each picture selected by the students represents a score for the intelligence associated with that picture and the answer sheets were coded in this way. The intelligence or intelligences that were more frequently selected yield the dominant intelligence of the students. The answer sheet enables the student and teacher to determine the students most dominant intelligences as indicated by the highest scores. This test was used to identify the students intelligence types at the beginning and at the end of treatment, to see whether there were any differences between the intelligence types. Treatment A pre- and post-test experiment with random assignment of classes to experimental and control groups was employed to Volume 40 Number 2, Spring 2006 JBE 75

Purpose
This study was designed to determine the effectiveness of the Multiple Intelligences Theory on fourth grade students understanding of science concepts. The questions addressed in this study were as follows: a) to investigate the effect of the instructional strategies used according to the principles of Multiple Intelligences Theory on students understanding of Diversity of Living Things Concepts, b) To determine whether MI strategies produce long term retention on students acquisition of meaningful learning of Diversity of Living Things Concept, c) To investigate whether there would be any differences between students in experimental and control groups with respect to the scores of Teele Inventory of Multiple Intelligences before and after treatment.

Methods
Subjects The subjects of the study consisted of 70 fourth grade students (38 boys and 32 girls) with a mean age of 9.5 years in two

Ozdemir et al | Multiple intelligences

examine treatment effect. In the control group, a teacherdirected strategy representing the traditional approach was used. The teacher lectured while standing in the front of the classroom, wrote on the blackboard, asked students questions about the assigned reading or handouts, waited while students finished their written work and gave daily homework to the students. Most of the time, the teacher presented the topic and the students listened and answered the questions that the teacher asked. The students carried out some activities given in their science textbook. In the experimental group, students were taught with the multiple intelligences instruction developed for the Diversity of Living Things concepts. While preparing lesson plans for the application of this theory, teaching strategies suggested by Campbell (1994; 1997), Armstrong (1994) and Gardner (1993) were considered. Students carried out all the activities prepared in the light of seven multiple intelligence types in their learning environment (see appendix). At the end of the treatment, students understanding of the concepts was assessed using the Diversity of Living Things Concepts Test as well as portfolios. The portfolios of each student consisted of a wide variety of materials such as lecture notes, student self-reflections, sample journal pages, written summaries, group projects, etc. In addition, all the activities conducted during the treatment observed by the researcher were included. Statistical analyses To analyse the data obtained from Diversity of Living Things Concepts Test and the Multiple Intelligences test, the Statistical Package for Social Science for Personal Computers (SPSS/PC) was used. The analysis were carried out at a significance level of p =0.05. The dominant intelligences of students obtained from TIMI before and after treatment for the two groups are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively. The dominant intelligence of the 70 students in both groups was found to be logicalmathematical intelligence both before and after treatment.
12

Number of Students

10 8 6 4 2 0
Li

pretest post-test

st ui ng

1 ic

2 h. at M . g o L

3 l ia at p S

6 4 5 7 l in - al r- al -K ica tra son nte son y s l n i u I er I er d M p p Bo

Intelligence Types

Figure 1. Dominant intelligences of students in experimental group both before and after treatment

Results
Before treatment, an independent t-test was employed to determine whether a statistically significant mean difference existed between the control and experimental groups with respect to understanding of Diversity of Living Things Concepts. No such difference between the two groups was found (t=0.28, df=68, p>0.05), indicating that students in the experimental and control groups were similar in this regard. After treatment, which lasted for seven weeks, the two groups were administered the same test as a post-test. Results revealed a statistically significant mean difference between experimental and control group in favour of the experimental group (t=3.65, df=68, p<0.05). To examine retention, the Diversity of Living Things Concepts Test was readministered after a further two months. The results of this test also revealed a significant mean difference between experimental and control groups in favour of the experimental group (t=5.21, df=68, p<0.05). It means that multiple intelligence instruction created long-term retention for the students in experimental group. Descriptive statistics for pre, post and delayed post-tests of the experimental and control groups are given in the Table 1.
Table 1. Statistics for pre-test, post-test and delayed post-test Treatment Groups Pre-test M SD Post-test M SD Delayed post-test M SD 8.09 13.35

Table 2 revealed a high variation in the mean scores of intelligences in the experimental group. For example, the mean of students musical intelligences was 3.09 before treatment and 4.48 after treatment (p<0.05). In addition, an increase in mean scores of both spatial and interpersonal intelligences was found. However, these mean differences were not significant (p>0.05). On the other hand, a decrease in the mean scores of two traditional intelligence types, linguistic and logical mathematical intelligence, were observed (Table 2). It can be suggested that instead of using these two traditional intelligences, students started to use other intelligences such as spatial, musical and interpersonal which are less emphasised in traditional schools. In the control group, after treatment a decrease in spatial and interpersonal intelligences and an increase in logicalmathematical and bodily kinesthetic intelligences were found (Table 2). However the changes were not statistically significant (p>0.05). In addition, no change was observed in linguistic, musical and interpersonal intelligences. These results supported the idea that traditional methods did not improve students non-traditional intelligences.

Discussion
In this study, the effects of instructional strategies used according to (a) the principles of MI theory and (b) traditionally designed science instruction were investigated in regard to
Figure 2. Dominant intelligences of students in control group before and after treatment.
14

Number of Students

12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Li

pretest post-test

Experimental Group 47.8 9.89 69.11 10.12 65.65 Control Group 48.54 12.18 57.25 16.34 51.91

1 ic ist u ng

2 h. at M . g Lo

3 l ia at Sp

6 4 5 7 l l l n Ki ra ona ter ona ica t y s il u In ers In ers d M p p Bo

Intelligence Types

76

JBE

Volume 40 Number 2, Spring 2006

Multiple intelligences | Ozdemir et al

Educational implications The results of the study provided further evidence to support the Experimental Group Control Group findings in the literature indicating Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test that students learning is enhanced Intelligence Types M SD M SD M SD M SD by multiple intelligence instrucLinguistic Intelligence 4.02 1.22 3.35 1.45 2.68 1.24 2.82 1.65 tion. It was also found that by inte2 grating multiple intelligence instrucLogical-Mathematical 5.53 1.40 5.21 1.91 5.58 1.51 5.65 1.24 tion into the curriculum, the intelIntelligence 3 ligence types of the students might Spatial Intelligence 3.21 1.11 3.42 1.23 5.56 1.25 5.02 1.68 also be altered. Therefore, science 1 teachers must be aware of students intelligence types in order Musical Intelligence 3.09 1.52 4.48 1.58 3.88 1.74 3.89 1.36 to integrate the multiple intelli9 gence theory accurately into their Bodily-Kinesthetic 3.72 1.18 3.71 1.09 3.04 1.57 3.81 1.34 curriculum. The Theory of Intelligence 2 Multiple Intelligences suggests Intrapersonal Intelligence 3.32 1.56 2.92 1.06 3.10 1.68 3.22 1.29 that two of the human intelli2 gences, verbal-linguistic intelligence Interpersonal Intelligence 5.11 1.24 4.91 1.52 5.16 1. 49 4.59 1.53 and logical-mathematical intelli1 gence, have dominated in traditional schooling; consequently, fourth grade students understanding of Diversity of Living teachers need to broaden their instructional and assessment Things Concepts, retention of knowledge and intelligence types. repertoires to include strategies drawing on a wider variety of In schools, generally, emphasis is given to logical-matheintelligence types. matical and linguistic intelligence and the other types are Gardners theory of multiple intelligences has met with a overlooked. This means that students who are weak in either strongly positive response from many educators. It has been of these intelligences are usually disadvantaged. However, by embraced by a range of educational theorists and, significantly, applying multiple intelligence teaching strategy, it is possible applied by teachers to the problems of schooling. It has helped to develop students weak intelligences (Gardner, 1989). In the a significant number of educators to question their work and present study, before and after the treatment, the dominant to encouraged them to look beyond the narrow confines of the intelligence of the students for both experimental and condominant discourses of skilling, curriculum, and testing and trol groups was found to be logical-mathematical intelliassessment. As there are only a few studies on the application gence which includes analytical skills as well as logical thinkof multiple intelligence theory, there is a need to conduct more ing ability. However, after treatment the variations in the studies on this issue. This present study may give insights for intelligences of the students were found to be higher in the teachers and educators about integrating multiple intelligences experimental group. In this group, the teaching strategy took into the curriulum. not only linguistic or logical-mathematical intelligence into account but the other intelligences. The various kinds of References activities undertaken like drawing a picture, composing, Armstrong T (1994) Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. 1st ediwatching a performance, dramatising and playing with puzzles tion. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. provided the students with a rich learning environment. Campbell B (1990) The Research Results of a Multiple Intelligences This type of instruction can provide opportunities for greater classroom. On the beam. (New Horizon for learning) XI (1), involvement, giving students more chances to gain insights, pp247-254. intrinsic interest, and self-efficacy. Campbell B (1994) The multiple intelligences handbook: Lesson plans In addition, multiple intelligence instruction led to the and more. Stanwood, Wash. Campbell and Associates, Inc. Campbell L (1997) Variations on a Theme. How Teachers Interpret better acquisition and retention of knowledge for the students Multiple Intelligences. Educational Leadership, 55, 14-19. in the experimental group, which is consistent with the earGardner H (1983) Frames of Mind. New York. Basic Books. lier studies. For example, Campbell (1990) investigated the Gardner H (1989) MI at the college level. Talk delivered at Lesley effect of multiple intelligence theory concerning a unit on College, Cambridge, MA. outer space. He organised his third grade classroom into seven Gardner H (1993) Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York. Basic Books. learning centres, each dedicated to one of the seven intelliGoleman D (1995) Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more gences. The data revealed that, at the end of treatment, all than IQ. New York. Bantam Books. students improved their academic achievement and they Haggarty B A (1995) Nurturing Multiple Intelligences: A Guide to started to use their musical and bodily-kinesthetic rather than Multiple Intelligences Theory and Teaching. New York. Addison logical-mathematical and verbal intelligences. The study also Wesley. Kagan S and Kagan M (1998). Multiple intelligences: The Complete Nil showed that the daily workings done in the classroom, espeBook. San Clemente, CA. Kagan Cooperative Learning. cially by using musical and bodily-kinesthetic activities, Klein P D (1997) Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight: helped the retention of knowledge acquired in the unit. A critique of Gardners theory. Canadian Journal of Education, 22, On the other hand, in the present study, the research 377-394. method purely compared the two instructional approaches, as Morgan H (1996) An analysis of Gardners theory of multiple intelligences. Roeper Rewiew, 18, 263-269. the subjects were limited to 70 students in two classrooms. Table 2. TIMI mean scores of students Volume 40 Number 2, Spring 2006 JBE 77

Ozdemir et al | Multiple intelligences

Rhina M F (2001) Ethnicity and dominant intelligence among first grade students. Unpublished Masters thesis, The Emory University, USA. Sternberg R J (1983) How much gall is too much gall? A review of frames of mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Contemporary Education Review, 2, 215-224. Teele S (1994) The relationship of multiple intelligences to the instructional process, curriculum and instruction, Unpublished Dissertation, University of California Riverside . Teele S (1996) Redesigning the educational system to enable all students to succeed. NASSP Bulletin, 80, 65-75. Pnar zdemir is a PhD student at the Middle East Technical University. Sibel Gneysu is Professor in the Faculty of Education, Bashkent University and Ceren Tekkaya (corresponding author) is Associate Professor in the Department of Elementary Education, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University, 06531-Ankara, Turkey. Tel: + 90 312 210 4194. Fax: + 90 312 210 1257. Email: ceren@metu.edu.tr

Appendix
Multiple Intelligence Instruction In the treatment group lessons, there was a variety of materials, activities, experiments and worksheets. During treatment, classroom, library and laboratory were used as a learning environment. Students has access to seven different learning centres: Personal Work Centre (Intrapersonal Intelligence), Working Together Centre (Interpersonal Intelligence), Music Centre (Musical Intelligence), Art Centre (Spatial Intelligence), Building Centre (Kinesthetic Intelligence), Reading Centre (Verbal/Linguistic Intelligence) and Mathematics & Science Centre (Logical/Mathematical Intelligence). The students were free to study in any centre. In these learning environments, a students preferences for centres changed from one lesson to another, the effect being to increase the number of their favourite centres and enhance their skills in most of the centres. The students spent most of the instructional time moving through the centres. They stayed approximately 20 minutes at each. In this way, all the students learned each days lesson in seven different ways. There were seven activities for seven types of intelligences. For example, in the Personal Work Centre, students studied on their own. They either researched the given subject, carried out the experiments independently or did individual projects. One of these projects was

related to Parts of a flower. Students studied individually in the Personal Work Centre by examining a flower and drawing its parts. For the same project, in the Working Together Centre, students worked in groups to examine the parts of a flower, discussed their drawings, and shared their ideas with their friends. In the Music Centre, students composed and sang songs about the parts of a flower, played different instruments, and learned the concept in rhythmical ways. In the Art Centre, they explored the same subject using charts, pictures or photographs. They drew a flower and labelled its parts, and they were shown various types of pictures of flowers and asked to identify the parts of the flower. In this centre, they also constructed different flower models by using play dough. In the Building Centre, they dramatised the stories. They also used their body language to explain the parts of a flower. In the Reading Centre, students analysed and organised information in written form. They read from different sources and made a story related to parts of a flower. In the Mathematics & Science Centre, they worked with games, puzzles, carried out science experiments and solved problems. For example, for the parts of a flower project, they were given yellow and red game cards. The names of different parts of the flower were written on the red ones while the yellow ones had pictures of these flower parts. The students tried to match the cards with each other.

GU
S
A RE T RU

EB

ILD

FO

RD

ST
ST JO
ST

ER AV R Y E

A5

A 5 2 01

FA

RR

20

GR

EA

OR

MO

ND

CL

ERK

LL RD NWE
B

IN

TU

HN

ST

ST

BROOKE

O
SS

GD

U
T
EL

ST

JOHN ST

ON

H
A
L

IL

SA

21

LEA

FF

M
ST

FARRINGDON ARRINGDON
S

TR

RD

RO

GR

TH

TO
TH
EO

BA

DS

RD

EE

H AT

ER

AY

JOC

GRAY'S INN GARDEN

HI

CO

WC RO S S ST

'S

LAN

LL

TO N

KEY

IN

GR

EVI

ST LLE

EW LA FE T T ER NE

FETTER LA NE

LO

0
S
T
KI
LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS
SE
FIE S LD

CT

G I LT

VI

AD

SPU

F U R N I VA L S T

HOLBORN

HIGH

HOL

HO

LB

OR

ST BAR THOLOMEW'S BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL HOSPITAL

FET TER LA

IN

GT

BL

S
S T

Institute of Biology

9 Red Lion Court London EC4A 3EF Tel: 020 7936 5900 Fax: 020 7936 5901
78 JBE

LO

AL

YC H

FRI A AC K L ANE

LT

RY

KE

RU

LL

WIL
D

D S T

ST

TU

GA

ST
C

REY

ST

RE

ET

RED LION COURT

ID

ROYAL COUR ROYAL COURTS TS OF JUSTICE

W
S

LA

FLE
MID

ET

ST

FLEET

ST

CITY THAMES LINK

LU D

OLD B AILEY

AM'S BRE GS BLD

NE

R S T

AY

G EA

LE

ST

CHANCER CHANCERY LANE

N BOR

A40
C

HOLBO

RN

R HA

TE

RH

OU

SE

ST

B5

00
L
LO
IT T L

IE 'S F

A20

NG

LA

NE

RED

GAR

LDS

RD

LIO

A4
20 0
NG
SW
LI

DEN

T ES

SM

IT

HF

IE

LD

T N S

FA R
R

IT

IN

AN
CE

-ING

SH

RY

OE

DON

WG

LA

AT

LA

NC

NE

ST

OL

S TS H O E L A

D
R
U

AY

RL

N'

B40

R
Y

COVENT GARDEN

TO

GARR

EX

ST

ICK
B

ET

ER

ST

TR

D
SA VO

TE

MP

LE

P L AC E

INNER TEMPLE GARDEN

TEMPLE

VIC

IA TO R

EMBANK

MENT

1 21 A3 BLACKFRIARS

4
TM

11

BLACKFRIARS BRIDGE

Give Way Way 2005

OS data. PU 100040256. Crown Crown

Tel: el: 0800 019 0027. 2003.

Volume 40 Number 2, Spring 2006

WATERLOO BRIDGE

BL

EN

ST

LA
N
E

BE

A4
20
0

LL
YA

IDGE ST NEW BR

G AT

RD

E HIL L

WHIT

BOUVERIE ST

IARS EFR ST

CAR

ORSET RISE

TE R

LANE

DLE

T
W
E

TUDOR ST

T E M P L E AV E

TE

QU EEN V I CTO R I A ST

MP

L
L

LE
LA

ED

FO
RD

ST

ST

A 2 01

A3

01