A Research Proposal On Multiple Intelligence by Nkoyoyo Edward of Ekitangaala Transformation High School

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES: IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM USE
Research proposal about multiple intelligence
Multiple Intelligences: Implications for Classroom Use

Nkoyoyo Edward
14bsced0992
Supervision of Instruction
Wednesday, 19th/April/2016
Contact
+256777169712
nkoyoyoedward@gmail.com
+256777169712
Page 1
A student at university of kisubi
Table of Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
Chapter One: Introduction..4

a. Introduction..4
b. Problem Statement/Research Question5
c. Design of Study6
d. Summary..7
Chapter Two: Literature Review9
a. Introduction.....9
b. What is Multiple Intelligence Theory.9
c. Myths About Multiple Intelligence Theory...14
d. Curriculum and Assessment Planning with MI Theory.16
e. Can Intelligences Be Determined in People?.......................................................19
f. Musical Intelligence In and Outside the Music Classroom...22
g. Conclusion.24
Chapter Three: Research Design..26
a. Introduction26
b. Problem Statement/Research Question..26
c. Audience for Research...27
d. Significance of Multiple Intelligence Theory27
e. Research Methods and Design...28
f. Summary32
Chapter Four: Analysis.33
a. Introduction33
b. Analysis..34
i. Multiple Intelligence Survey Analysis...34
ii. Instruction Reflection.36
iii. Assessment Analysis..37
c. Results38
i. Control Group Results...38
ii. Experimental Group Results..39
d. Summary40
Chapter Five: Results41
a. Introduction41
b. Results41
c. Conclusions44
d. End Note45
References..47
Appendix A....49
Appendix B51
Appendix C53
Appendix D55
+256777169712
Page 2
+256777169712
Page 3
Chapter 1
Introduction
Do all students really think the same? Should all students be required to do the same assignments
and be graded in the same manner? After doing much research it is my opinion that all students do not
think the same and at times it may be best practice to let students choose their assignments based on their
intelligences needs. Howard Gardners work around multiple intelligences has had a profound impact
on thinking and practice in education especially in the United States (Smith, 2008, pg. 1).
Multiple Intelligence Theory has been quite misunderstood since Howard Gardner first
introduced it in 1983, when at the time most students were placed in classes based on a score from a
general Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test. This general cognitive ability, known as the g factor was derived
from Charles Spearman. In a famous article, General Intelligence Objectively Determined and
Measured, Spearman proposed the idea that intelligent behavior is generated by a single, unitary quality
within the human mind or brain (Human Intelligences, 2007, pg. 2). Gardner felt that there was more to
people than how well they could read or perform math skills.
Gardners multiple intelligence theory says that instead of one kind of general intelligence,
there are at least seven different kinds, which include verbal intelligence, musical intelligence, logicalmathematical intelligence, spatial intelligence, body movement intelligence, intelligence to understand
oneself, and the intelligence to understand others (Plotnik, 2002, p. 283). Even though Gardner has
never endorsed an MI based curriculum, he is quoted in a TIME magazine article by James Collins
(1998), Heres a credo Ive never stated before. Im sure there are lots of different intelligences. Im
sure kids differ in their profiles. Im sure an education approach that pays attention to this is going to be
more effective than one that denies it (p.1). I think teachers can make good use of the principles of
Gardners ideas in their classroom. In this study I will be examining how students perform on
assignments that are geared towards their intelligence domain.
+256777169712
Page 4
Problem Statement/Research Question

In only one year of teaching, I have found that not only do all students think and learn
differently, but how they think effects how interested they will be in the subject at hand. The
students whose intelligence falls in the linguistic domain do not mind to write papers, and write
them very well. On the other hand students that are more kinesthetic do not perform well on
assignments that are centered on writing.
Also it has been my experience that students are unmotivated to do assignments that are
not of interest to them. Students either dont do the work or try to get away with very little. This
results in a number of negative things. First, the student will suffer academically. When students
dont complete assignments or do not complete them correctly, it results in a lower score, thus
affecting their overall grade point average. I have had many excellent students pass through my
classes, which are not well loved, and try to squeak by, but end up with a bad grade. Another
negative is that students sometime display poor conduct when they are not interested or
motivated to do assignments. This easily becomes a distraction for other students who might
typically display good behavior.
The dependent variable in this study will be the type of instruction and the assessment
given at the end of the lesson. The independent variable will be the content of the lesson.
Ultimately, this study will attempt to answer the following question: will students achieve higher
scores on assessments when given instruction geared toward their given Multiple Intelligence
domain?
Design of Study
This study will be a quantitative study. Subjects in the study will include students from
two music classes Ekitangaala transformation high school and kakooge senior secondary school
+256777169712
Page 5

in Nakasongola district (central Uganda). The control group for this study will consist of twentysix in senior one ranging in ages from twelve to seventeen. This class also has two students with
Individualized Education Plans (IEP) who receive special education services. In addition to
students with IEPs there are six students identified as gifted and talented and receive services
under a Gifted Student Service Plan (GSSP). The experimental class consists of twenty-five
students, also in the senior one ranging in ages from twelve to seventeen. This class has four
students who receive services through the counties special education program. Students in each
class will receive accommodations in the lesson according to their IEPs. For the most part, the
general populations of students in each class, which is the students who do not have IEPs, are at
or above grade level in reading and math. There are several in each class, however, that do
receive Response to Intervention (RTI) services in one or both areas, but do not qualify for
special education services. So in general, neither class, as a whole, has an exceptionally high
ability level and would be considered average.
At the start of the study, all students, both in the control and experimental group, will be
given a survey that will help me to determine which intelligence domains the students are most
drawn toward. The Multiple Intelligence (MI) survey will consist of thirty-five statements to
which students will respond and will measure students strengths in verbal, mathematical, visual,
kinesthetic, musical, intrapersonal, and interpersonal MI domains. They will be answering either
true, the statement applies to me, or false this statement does not apply to me. From these
surveys I hope to get a good idea of which intelligence domains are the strongest in each class. I
will primarily be looking for strengths in verbal, math, visual, kinesthetic, and musical domains.
Following documentation of these results the control class will receive a lesson on a
musical topic that will consist solely of lecture style instruction. The control class will receive
+256777169712
Page 6

the same lesson; however the instruction will consist of techniques related to the following
multiple intelligence domains: musical, kinesthetic, linguistic (or verbal), logical (or
mathematical), and spatial (or visual). Following the lesson, both the control and experimental
classes will take an identical teacher made assessment that will determine whether the MI
techniques helped improve student learning. I do want to go on and address the possibility that a
written teacher made assessment may not be the best avenue for assessing the use of MI
techniques in a lesson. In the article Reflections on Multiple Intelligences: Myths and
Messages, written by Howard Gardner (1995) for the Phi Delta Kappan, he addressed that
Now that seven intelligences have been identified, one can and perhaps should create seven
tests and secure seven scores (p. 202). Gardner (1995) continued to say that although
assessments should be intelligent fair, seven different paper and pencil tests are not the answer
to assessing students using MI Theory. A paper pencil test, is most often, only going to appeal to
those with high linguistic intelligence. A child who has high kinesthetic intelligence isnt going
to benefit from a test simply asking questions about bodily activities.
Summary
I think this study will appeal to a wide array of audiences. I think teachers,
administrators, parents, and students can all benefit from seeing the results. Teachers in all
subjects may be willing to try out some MI techniques in their classroom if they see positive
results from the study. In conversations I have had with my fellow teachers, I have seen that they
are also having motivation and achievement issues in their classes, as well. If I am able to see
that if by tweaking assignments and instructions just a little improves achievement, then this
study has done its job.
Administrators can then have some basis for encouraging their teachers to try MI in their
+256777169712
Page 7

classrooms, and on a grander scale, maybe implement a MI based curriculum. However, the
results should not be the only basis for starting an MI based curriculum, but it could be a basis
for looking into the possibility of it. Teachers in schools that decide that MI curriculum is not the
best idea for them could still use some of the ideas and techniques presented in this study in the
their everyday classroom activities.
Students and parents will benefit because students will learn what their intelligences.
Hopefully, this could start guiding them on a career path and make important decisions that will
impact their future. Also, if students are aware of their intelligences it may assist them in being
able to complete assignments more efficiently. They will also, hopefully, learn techniques to
stimulate their intelligence domain and find ways to use them across the curriculum. Parents,
then, will be able to be more encouraging to their children and help in finding sources of
motivation to help them to succeed. All individuals can benefit from benefit from knowing how
their intelligences influence their achievement in a school or a work environment.
It is important for educators to remember that Gardners Multiple Intelligence Theory is
not the same as a learning style. There has been much research done as to how teachers and
school administrators can use MI Theory in a positive manner in their classrooms. In chapter
two, literature related to MI Theory and research will be examined and reviewed. This will help
bring light to how educators can begin to see how MI Theory is being used currently in the
classroom
+256777169712
Page 8

Chapter 2
Introduction
Howard Gardner's work around multiple intelligences has had a profound impact on
thinking and practice in education especially in the United States (Smith, 2008, pg 1). Public
school educators have been researching for many years different ways that we can help all
students succeed in the classroom. Howard Gardners Multiple Intelligence Theory (MI Theory)
is one way some educators feel we can reach out to students who may not be successful in all
areas of academics. However, MI Theory has found a lot of critics through the years. Many
times its ideas are taken out of context, and when it is used, it is not used correctly. This review
of the literature on Howard Gardners Multiple Intelligence Theory will focus on these five
questions and ideas.
1.
What is Multiple Intelligence Theory?
2.
Myths about MI Theory
3.
Curriculum and Assessment Planning with MI Theory
4.
Can intelligences be determined in individuals?
5.
Musical Intelligence in and outside the music classroom.
What is Multiple Intelligence Theory

MI Theory has been quite misunderstood since Howard Gardner first introduced it in
1983. At this time, most students were placed in classes based on a general intelligence test,
otherwise known as an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test. This general cognitive ability was known
as the g factor and was derived from Charles Spearman. In a famous article, General
Intelligence Objectively Determined and Measured, Spearman proposed the idea that intelligent
behavior is generated by a single, unitary quality within the human mind or brain (Human
+256777169712
Page 9

Intelligences, 2007, p. 2). Gardner felt that there was more to people than how well they could
read or perform math skills. Gardners multiple intelligence theory says that instead of one kind
of general intelligence, there are at least seven different kinds, which include verbal intelligence,
musical intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, spatial intelligence, body movement
intelligence, intelligence to understand oneself, and the intelligence to understand others
(Plotnik, 2002, p. 283).
Verbal intelligence, also known as linguistic intelligence, basically refers to people who
are good with words. In the book Frames of Mind: The Theories of Multiple Intelligences
Gardner (1983) said In discussing the meanings or connotations of words, we find ourselves in
the area of semantics, that examination of meaning which is universally considered central to
language (p. 75). Gardner saw people that were verbally intelligent as not only being able to
speak well, but also being able to understand meanings of words and how to use them in both
writing and speaking.
Music educators of the time were very excited to see that Gardner had identified an
intelligence marked as musical. This was something that these educators had known was true for
many years. Gardners theory would most certainly be helpful in advocating music education
programs in the public schools. According to Annie Guignon (1998), of the website Education
World, musical intelligence can be defined as the ability to understand and create music (p. 1).
Guigon (1998) also went on to state, musicians, composers and dancers show a heightened
musical intelligence (p. 1). Gardner (1983) felt very strongly about this intelligence and even
stated in Frames of Mind of all the gifts with which individuals may be endowed, none emerges
earlier than musical talent (p. 99). He shared an interesting story about three different children
who displayed amazing musical talent at a very young age. In his attempt to explain music as
+256777169712
Page 10

intelligence he used this explanation for the differences:
The first child could be a Japanese youngster who has participated since age two in the
Suzuki Talent Education program and has, like thousands of her peers, mastered the
essentials of a string instrument by the time she enters school. The second child could be
a victim of autism, a youngster who can barely communicate with anyone else and who is
severely disturbed in several affective and cognitive spheres; still he exhibits an isolated
sparing of musical intelligence, such that he can sing back flawlessly any piece he hears.
The third could be a young child raised in a musical family who has begun to pick out
tunes on his own--a throwback to the precocious young Mozart, Mendelssohn, and SaintSaens. (Gardner, 1983, p. 99-100)
In this, Gardner was attempting to show that intelligence, specifically musical intelligence, can
stem from a number of sources. In the first example the child gained his musical ability by
continued practice. The brain of a young child is like a sponge and it has been proven time and
time again that the early years can be an essential time of learning. The second child had limited
skills in all other areas, because of a disability. Their musical talent, like the talents of thousands
of other autistic individuals, stems from that one area in the brain that seems to have the most
heightened functioning. The last child, the one who was raised in a musical family, probably
gained their musical abilities through genetics. Musical talent is not just being able to play an
instrument or sing, but being able to understand how music works, and how it blends together to
be a beautiful art form.
A third intelligence that Gardner (1983) identified was the logical-mathematical
intelligence. People who lean toward this intelligence tend to do well in math classes, and
typically are good problem solvers. R.A. Hirsh (2004) had this to say about this intelligence:
+256777169712
Page 11

Mathematical intelligence involves a process. A problem must be identified, recognized
as something worth solving, an algorithm is then identified and/or created, and a solution
is attempted. Intelligence in this area requires a true understanding of how mathematics
and logic work in the real world, in everyday life. Understanding the why in mathematics
truly indicates an understanding of mathematic processes. (p. 2)
Individuals with heightened logical-mathematical intelligence are also found to be proficient in
recognizing patterns and relationships, making generalizations, and using the scientific method
to form hypotheses, and come to conclusions.
Architects, painters, film makers, and even navigators are people who are found to have
high levels of spatial intelligence, sometimes referred to as visual intelligence. Spatial
intelligence is referred to as the ability to think in pictures, to perceive the visual world
accurately, and recreate (or alter) it in the mind or on paper (Guigon, 1998, p. 1). Many times
we refer to people with this intelligence as having an eye for something. It could refer to any
number of things. Filmmakers and photographers have an eye for taking beautiful photographs
or shooting amazing movies. Painters and sculptors know how to take reality and portray them
on canvas, in marble, or in clay. A chess player with heightened visual intelligence can see
hundreds of moves available on a chessboard without moving a single piece. There are lots of
career opportunities for people who are gifted with this intelligence.
Body movement intelligence is also referred to as kinesthetic intelligence. Those who
have this bodily intelligence are able to use their body in numerous ways to perform any number
of skills. In the book The Arts, Young Children, and Learning, Susan Wright (2003) described
bodily intelligence in this way, This is the ability to solve problems or fashion products using
one's body. Highly developed bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is exhibited by people such as
+256777169712
Page 12

dancers, athletes, surgeons, artisans, and musicians (p. 86). These people usually exhibit skills
such as good timing, excellent fine motor skills, and many times a good sense of direction.
Dancers typically display both excellent abilities in kinesthetic movement, as well as touches of
musical intelligence. Not only do dancers need to know how to use their body to tell stories and
communicate ideas through movement, but also they must be able to do this with music. This
requires being able to establish tempo, rhythms, and timing movements to line up with certain
sections of the song. The best example of individuals skilled in both kinesthetic intelligence and
musical intelligence are those who dance professional ballet.
The last two intelligences that Gardner identified were the interpersonal and intrapersonal
intelligences. Interpersonal intelligence is an ability to perceive and understand other
individuals -- their moods, desires, and motivations (Guigon, 1998, p.1), where as intrapersonal
intelligence entails the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and
motivations (Smith, 2008, p. 4). Well-rounded, emotionally healthy individuals usually display
characteristics of both intelligences. These individuals are able to not only recognize their own
emotions and know how they affect their functioning, but they are also able to recognize
emotions in others and use that ability to help other people. However, there are some people
who are either only interpersonal, or who are only intrapersonal.
Most people indentified as leaders are considered to have interpersonal intelligence.
They are able to listen and relate to people, and make decisions based not only their own agenda,
but on others. Parents, teachers, mental health professionals, and in many cases clergymen and
government leaders are found to have good interpersonal relations. Those who are considered to
be more intrapersonal are very aware of their own feelings, like being alone, and are capable of
setting and meeting certain goals.
+256777169712
Page 13

In recent years, Howard Gardner has begun to discuss the possibility of an eighth
intelligence. Gardner suggested that there may be an intelligence that could be identified as a
naturalist intelligence. Little research has been done in this, but it is starting to become more
prevalent and more recognizable in the study of MI Theory. Leslie Owen Wilson (1998) of the
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point used the following descriptions of the naturalist
intelligence:
Naturalist intelligence deals with sensing patterns in and making connections to elements
in nature. Using this same intelligence, people possessing enhanced levels of this
intelligence may also be very interested in other species, or in the environment and the
earth. Children possessing this type of intelligence may have a strong affinity to the
outside world or to animals, and this interest often begins at an early age. They may enjoy
subjects, shows and stories that deal with animals or natural phenomena. Or they may
show unusual interest in subjects like biology, zoology, botany, geology, meteorology,
paleontology, or astronomy. (p. 2)
There is still much research to be done in this possible eighth intelligence, and for the most part
it is still not recognized by many educators. If this intelligence exists, how many more
intelligences could we expect to be identified in the future?
Myths About Multiple Intelligence Theory
As mentioned previously, since the inception of Gardners intelligence theory, it has been
misunderstood and implemented in the wrong way in the classroom. In an article written for the
Phi Delta Kappan, entitled Reflections on Multiple Intelligences: Myths and Messages,
Gardner attempted to address some of these common misconceptions. Gardner (1995) addressed
myth number one as follows Now that seven intelligences have been identified, one can - and
+256777169712
Page 14

perhaps should--create seven tests and secure seven scores (p. 202). Gardner (1995) then went
on to say even though assessment should be intelligent fair, seven different paper and pencil
tests are not the answer to assessing students using MI Theory. A child who has high kinesthetic
intelligence would not benefit well from a paper and pencil test with some questions related to
bodily activities. A closer examination of MI Theory and assessment will be found later in this
review.
A second myth Gardner (1995) identified was that intelligences were the same as a
learning domain or discipline. Intelligences are related more to constructing information than
studying a specific subject or examining a specific domain of knowledge. Most of Gardners
intelligences can encompass many domains and be used to study a variety of subjects.
The next myth Gardner (1995) spoke of was an intelligence is the same as a learning
style, a cognitive style, or a working style (1995, pg.202). Gardner went on to explain that style
is related to the way we learn and can be applied to all subject areas, whereas intelligence is
more specific. For example, a student that is a visual learner may have to see a math problem
worked out several times before they can work one on their own. That same student may have to
see notes on a page before they can play a simple musical melody, even though they have heard
it once already. They also may need a written outline to help follow a lecture in a social studies
class. On the other hand that same student may display heightened verbal intelligence, and uses
that, in conjunction with being a visual learner, to write spectacular English papers. Another way
this myth often presents itself is when a teacher knows that he or she has several students in their
class who have been identified as being musically intelligent. In turn when students take tests or
are doing seat work, the teacher plays music. It has been proven on many occasions that playing
instrumental music during study time or assessments aids in student brain functioning. However,
+256777169712
Page 15

playing music during a math test for these musically intelligent students will neither impair nor
benefit their ability to do the problems presented on the exam.
One last message that Gardner (1995) addressed was that MI Theory is incompatible
with g (general intelligence), with hereditarian accounts, or with environmental accounts of the
nature and causes of intelligence (p. 203). Gardner is not denying the existence of general
intelligence. It is possible that MI Theory is simply further proof for the existence of the g
factor. Most individuals feel that general intelligence is inherited and that ones abilities will be
based on how smart their parents were. It is obvious that Gardner is trying to help uncover the
intelligences that g does not cover. We are all capable of learning, and we should not be held to
the same standards as our parents. It is possible to gain more knowledge, and be more intelligent
in different areas than our parents.
Curriculum and Assessment Planning with MI Theory
In the years that followed the introduction of Gardners Multiple Intelligence theory,
teachers, administrators, and curriculum specialist began to examine the possibility of a practical
classroom use of MI Theory. It has been applied to curriculum, instruction, teaching methods,
and assessment. There are many people that agree with it and then there are those who do not
agree with it. These curriculum and assessment approaches to curriculum should not be
confused with Gardners original theory. Gardner has never laid down a detailed plan for
applying his theory in schools, and the consultants and publishers who offer training in MI
operate independently of him, so there is a wide range of actual practices (Collins, 1998, p. 3).
Even though Gardner has never endorsed an MI based curriculum, he is quoted in a TIME
magazine online article by James Collins (1998), Heres a credo Ive never stated before. Im
sure there are lots of different intelligences. Im sure kids differ in their profiles. Im sure an
+256777169712
Page 16

education approach that pays attention to this is going to be more effective than one that denies
it (p.1).
Many schools have started to implement curriculum based on MI Theory. In an article
for the The Journal of Education Research, entitled Attitudes Toward a Multiple Intelligence
Curriculum, authors Gwendolyn Mettetal, Cheryl Jordan, and Sheryll Harper (1997), examined
a K-5, suburban, predominantly white, economically diverse elementary school in Indiana, called
Farmington Elementary. The authors continued to describe the background of Farmington
Elementary.
For many years, Farmington students from first grade through fifth grade changed
classes for each subject. Reading and math classes were ability grouped, whereas
homeroom, science, social studies, music, physical education, and other subjects were
heterogeneously grouped. The gifted and talented program pulled top students out of their
regular classrooms for periods of enrichment. The curriculum could be described as
traditional. (p. 116)
This article also discussed how changes in administration lead to an implementation of MI
curriculum. There were lots of changes that went on at the school. For the most part most of the
changes were school wide but there were a lot of changes that went on in specific classrooms
(Mettetal et al., 1997). Some classes had choice centers where students could work on activities
in which each intelligence is used. Some teachers consciously incorporated teaching to Multiple
Intelligences into their lessons, and a few also allowed students a choice in how they would
demonstrate knowledge of a unit (p. 116).
After research was conducted at this school as to the effectiveness of MI in curriculum,
Mettetal, Jordan, and Harper (19978) came to the following conclusions:
+256777169712
Page 17

1. Acceptance by Everyone of the Concept of Multiple Intelligences
2. Generally Positive Reactions to the Schoolwide Implementation (Flow, Activity
Room, Enrichment Clusters) of the MI Curriculum
3. Uneven Implementation of an MI Curriculum Across Classrooms (p. 118-119)
Basically the authors and researchers saw that all people involved in the school were very
accepting to MI Theory in the curriculum. There was little resistance and most all of the parties
involved made an effort in implementation. Also most of the teachers and staff in the school
reacted positively. There was not a lot of negativity. However, not all teachers got it.
During the 1st year, there were significant differences among teachers in how they
implemented MI Theory in their classrooms. Although some were trying to provide more
choices to students along the lines of MI, others seemed overwhelmed by the task of
designing those learning tasks and evaluation. (p. 116)
This uneven implementation is why many schools are steering clear of using MI Theory in
curriculum.
Collins (1998) said in his TIME article that No one says that using MI in schools is
directly injurious. The danger is that it leads to wasted time, to an emphasis on less important
skills and to a false sense that learning has taken place when it has not (p. 1). In most cases
teachers are not using MI Theory in its truest form. In Gardners (1995) Myths and Messages
article, he went on to address messages that have been sent out concerning use of MI Theory in
curriculum and real classroom environments that have bothered him.
1. The attempt to teach all concepts or subjects using all the intelligences.
2. The belief that it suffices, in and of itself, just to go through the motions of exercising
an intelligence.
+256777169712
Page 18

3. The use of materials associated with an intelligence in the background.
4. The use of intelligences primarily as mnemonic devices.
5. The conflating of intelligences with other desiderata.
6. The direct evaluation (or even grading) of intelligences, without regard to context or
content. (p. 206-207)
Gardner viewed all of these applications of MI Theory in the classroom as superficial. MI
Theory cannot always be used in every classroom, and if it is being used in all classrooms, it is
probably not being used correctly. Educators realized that all their students learn differently and
that we must consider that some of our students will be able to perform better in some areas than
in others. However, equality of Multiple Intelligences in the curriculum could be more harmful
than good.
If we go through a closer examination of what has been considered an equal application
of intelligences, we discover that equal means diluting the intelligences to application of
their lowest common denominator, then we must continue to evaluate, revise and seek
other interpretations and solutions and not content ourselves with quick fixes or panaceas.
(Kassell, 1998, p. 60)
If educators wish to use MI Theory in their curriculum and assessment it is important that the
activities be a practical and useful application.
Can Intelligences Be Determined in People?
Not long after Howard Gardner released his MI theory, people began to attack him
because the intelligences could not be proven, and they could not be assessed. In a 1994
response to Gardners criticizing critique of one of his papers, Robert. J. Sternberg (1984)
addressed the unproven theory. In fact, no experiments designed to test Gardners theory exist
+256777169712
Page 19

yet, and Gardners tests of his intelligences do not exist yet either, so it may be premature to
compare them with other tests (p. 700). Sternbergs studies related mostly to general
intelligence and cognition. As mentioned previously Gardner felt that most people were
proficient in one area or another and that intelligence was not general. One IQ score should not
determine a childs educational future. Educators have often attempted to account for the
discrepancies between the abilities we see in students and end results such as grades or
standardized test scores (McClaskey, 1995, p. 56). Gardner (1984) does not disagree that there
are some skills or traits that can be accurately measurable, but he also felt that these skills are
only skimming the top of the full range of intelligence. There is a lot more to cognition than a
few basic skills. Gardner went on to say about cognition it is more concerned with a range of
kinds of information, or, more precisely, separate contents, that simply cannot be collapsed into
one intellectual heap (p. 699).
Thomas Armstrong (2000) thinks much the same as Sternberg and in his book Multiple
Intelligences in the Classroom he said No test can accurately determine the nature or quality of
a persons intelligence (p. 12). However, Armstrong does believe testing intelligence through
paper and pencil tests would only be tapping into the logical and linguistic intelligences.
Armstrong went on to describe what he thought to be the best method to determine intelligence,
The best way to assess your own multiple intelligences, therefore, is through a realistic
appraisal of your performance in the many kinds of tasks, activities, and experiences associated
with each intelligence (p. 12). He felt intelligences could only be fostered through real life
experiences, and he suggested three factors that would influence intelligence development.
Armstrong (2000) believed that a persons biological background, personal experiences, and
cultural and social background would play an important role in which of Gardners intelligences
+256777169712
Page 20

would emerge later in life. Gardner has also said on many occasions that all people possess all of
the intelligences, but life events will determine which ones are nurtured.
In determining intelligence, some researchers say we should look to brain functioning.
There has been significant research done in determination of which hemisphere of the brain is
responsible for all life functioning. When the corpus callosum, or bundle of nerves connecting
the two hemispheres, is severed the left hemisphere responds better to verbal, sequential, and
linear processing while the right hemisphere is inclined toward nonverbal, spatial-visual, and
simultaneous processing (Campbell and Scott-Kassner, 2002, p. 27). The authors of this
previous passage do not find fault with Gardners theory and say that it could stand on its own,
but that there may be some truth to intelligences falling in one hemisphere or another.
Left-hemisphere processes are emphasized in linguistic and logical-mathematical
intelligences, while spatial intelligences reflects right-hemisphere excellence.
Interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences emanate from right-hemisphere functions.
Musical intelligence is balanced by processes of both hemispheres, for it allows
sequential (left-brained) processing through its perception of durational and pitch patterns
and phrases, and simultaneous (right-brain) processing through its perception of various
polyphonic textures, including harmony. The bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is the only
emphasis that appears to stem more from the motor and sensory parts of the cortex than
from either hemisphere in particular. (Campbell and Scott-Kassner, 2002, pp.27-28)
From this information it is possible that researchers need to examine brain functioning during
activities that apply to each intelligence to determine where the heightened activity is. However,
this would only tell us that activities relating to certain intelligences actually exist on the left,
right, or both sides of the brain. It would not go the extra step in showing if that person has a
+256777169712
Page 21

heightened ability in certain intelligences. So, it is apparent that even though individuals may
show heightened acuity in one intelligence or another, it is close to impossible to determine
which of Gardners intelligences they actually have.
Musical Intelligence In and Outside the Music Classroom
When Gardner published his theory in the early eighties, music educators were very
excited. To this day, those who teach music know there are students who perform exceptionally
well in music, but may struggle in math, science, or even reading. It is, however, possible today
that Gardners original theory of the musical intelligence is not being held true to form in
classrooms, both musical and non-musical.
Many schools are incorporating MI Theory into their curriculums and that has left many
music educators wondering how they will incorporate all seven into their class, let alone foster
the students who are musically intelligent. In an article for the Music Educators Journal, Cathy
Kassell (1998) said Music educators need to stop and reflect critically before applying the
Multiple Intelligences theory and consider the integrity of music and learning in general (p. 29).
As educators we know that we can only make decisions that are best for our students when we
have clear goals for their achievement. Gardner didnt think any less than this. Kassell went on
to say Armed with a philosophy of music education, music educators will then be better
equipped to answer demands that are made on them by the public and administrators to include
MI activities in their music programs (p. 29).
Music tends to be used in several types of activities closely associated with MI Theory.
These activities usually tend to lessen the value of a proper music education. Kassell (1998)
went on to mentioned, Much of the MI literature suggests exercises that link memorizing
academic content with rhythms and simple songs (p. 30). Simply singing a song to learn
+256777169712
Page 22

prepositions, multiplication tables, or the capitals of the states, is not an efficient use of the
musical intelligence. In this case music is simply a tool for enhancing memory (p. 30). It is
using music in a logical and or linguistic function. As musicians we realizethat the material
is not being taught through an application of musical intelligence (p. 30). Students are not
learning the true meaning of the notes, the pitches, or patterns of the music.
Kassell addressed the next activity, Writing the lyrics to songs to demonstrate ones
understanding of the content of a lesson is a consistent suggestion from many sources for
integrating the intelligences into the lessons (1998, p. 31). Again, are students really fostering
their musical intelligence, or just using music as an aide to foster linguistic intelligence?
Students are not learning much about actual music, but examining patterns and writing new
words.
The last activity Kassell addressed was about spelling. Music teachers for years have had
students spell out words to help learn the names of the lines and spaces, but Kassell (1998, p. 31)
described an activity where the keys of the piano are labeled with the letters of the alphabet and
students learn to spell words by pressing the keys. She said teachers think that students will be
able to match the pitch patterns and then be able to spell the world back. Kassell said This is
blatantly unmusical for several reasons. Labeling the keyboard using the entire alphabet can not
only be confusing to students who are already familiar with the musical alphabet, but it is simply
not an authentic musical experience (1998, p. 31). There are too many questions and loopholes
with this activity, and it would not only hurt the integrity of the musical intelligence, but could be
harmful in fostering other intelligences as well. Kassell said that to avoid these unauthentic uses
of the musical intelligence Teachers need to become more wary of pulling skills out of context
and equating memorization with understanding, both of which facilitate an environment that
+256777169712
Page 23

simply relies on rote learning and transmission of information (p. 31).
Kassell (1998) suggested that because of this that educators may need to look closely at
whether some specific skills, whether they be music or something else, may not be able to be
taught in a unit based on MI Theory. It is possible, however, that music educators can create
units based on MI Theory. Kassell said that links can be made that make use of music as a
discipline and as a way of knowing, rather than making superficial connections that compromise
integrity of a music program (p. 32). Music educators can do this by simply going beyond
teaching students how to play the music, but by really starting to have students examine the
meaning behind the music, how and why the music was composed, and the theoretical
components of compositions. Many high school band and choral students leave high school with
a limited knowledge of music, and only know how to sing, or to play there instruments. Many
choral students leave high school not knowing how to read music.
Kassell (1998) also said that it was possible to have connections across the curriculum in
which music was involved. She suggested activities in which students are asked to actively
experience music through listening, creating, and improvising, or performing (p. 32). One
example would be to have students examine music from different time periods and discuss how
the music of the time period influenced the culture and social climate, and vice versa. Another
example would be to have students listen to music; examine the dynamics, the texture, as well as
other elements and have them write a story to accompany the music. Students should be able to
explain why their story goes with the song. This is reaching across curriculum and across MI
Theory as well, fostering both students with musical and linguistic intelligences.
Conclusion
It is apparent that MI theory encompasses a lot of research and ideas. It has been praised
+256777169712
Page 24

and attacked by educators, psychologists, and curricularlists since its inception. Needless to say,
most people cannot doubt the possibility of its existence, however, most will argue with the lack
of assessment tools, it would be hard to apply in the classroom. I feel, however, as educators we
take the possibility of MI Theory into account more often than not, even if it is not in the way
Gardner would see fit. It helps us to see that all people are capable of success, even though they
may not have made the best grades in high school, or they attended a vocational school. All
humans wish to be loved, feel accepted, and feel they are worthwhile. Thanks to Gardner, these
individuals can have this feeling.
+256777169712
Page 25

Chapter 3
Introduction
It is apparent from the research that has been done that using Multiple Intelligence (MI)
Theory in the classroom is a viable option for teachers looking for solutions to everyday
classroom problems. Even though there are not tried and true assessments available that a)
determine the intelligences of students and b) assess students based on their identified
intelligence, there are things that teachers can do to help foster the intelligences of the students in
their classrooms. This study will examine the role MI Theory plays in getting students to
perform better on everyday classroom assignments.
Problem Statement/Research Question
It has been my experience that students are unmotivated to do assignments that are not of
interest to them. Students either dont do the work or try to get by with as little as possible. This
results in a number of negative things. First and foremost, the student will suffer academically.
When students either dont complete assignments, or do so poorly, this results in lowered scores,
thus affecting their overall grade point average. Many excellent students have passed through
my music class, a class that is not well loved by many, and try to squeak by, but end up with a
bad grade. Another negative is that the student sometimes displays poor conduct when they are
not interested or motivated to do daily assignments. This in turn could distract other students
who normally would have good behavior. The dependent variable in this study will be the type
of instruction and the assessment given at the end of the lesson. The independent variable will
be the content of the lesson. The purpose of this study is to see if by giving students instruction
geared toward their intelligence domain they will achieve a higher score on an assessment over
the given material?
+256777169712
Page 26

Audience for Research
The results of this study could appeal to a wide number of audiences. First will be
teachers in all subjects. If teachers can see results from even one small study, they may be
willing to try out some MI techniques in their classrooms. In talking with colleagues it is
apparent that motivation and achievement issues are being seen in all subjects. If teachers can
see that by tweaking assignments just a little, this will improve achievement, then hopefully this
study has done its job. Another audience will be school administrators. By presenting the
results to the administrators that will be either be a catalyst to help implement school wide MI
Theory curriculum, or if the results dont show a positive correlation in favor of MI Theory, the
administrators can continue to look for more ideas to help teachers. I hope that at the end of this
study that other teachers and administrators will be interested in trying out the MI Theory
techniques in their schools and classrooms. Lastly, both students and their parents can benefit
from the results of this study. In the end, this study will be showing students where their
intelligences are. This may guide students who may be undecided on a career path to start
making decisions about their future, and it may guide parents in finding sources of motivation
and encouragement for their child. All individuals can benefit from knowing how Multiple
Intelligences affect their overall learning and functioning.
Significance of Multiple Intelligence Study
This study is significant because it will help teachers see that all students are not the same
and that they could learn the same material by doing different assignments or using different
instructional techniques rather than everyone doing the same thing or using the same
instructional techniques in all classes. Teachers have always looked at student learning styles,
but Multiple Itelligences are different. It is more how we think, than how we learn. If teachers
+256777169712
Page 27

can find ways to identify the intelligences of their students, it will help them in building a
repertoire of activities and assignments to suit the needs of all students in the class. It is
important to note that it would be near impossible to come up with a paper and pencil test for
each of the intelligences, because by doing that you are limiting that to students that have strong
linguistic skills. At the end of this study I hope to be more aware of the intelligences of my
students and will use that in planning activities and assignments. It may require more work, but
it will benefit the students in the long run.
Students could benefit from the results of the study. If students are aware of their
intelligences it may assist them in being able to complete assignments more efficiently. They can
learn techniques that stimulate their intelligence domain and hopefully find ways to connect the
techniques across the curriculum.
Another significance of the study is that schools could use the information to see if
further research could be conducted by implementing MI curriculums. The results of this study
should not be the sole basis for starting an MI curriculum based education, but it could be used
as a basis for looking into the possibility of it. Teachers in schools that decided that MI
curriculum is not the best fit for them could still use some of the ideas in their day to day
classroom activities.
Research Methods and Design
This study will use quantitative research methods. Subjects in the study will be a sample
of convenience which will include 60 students from two music classes at Green County
Intermediate School (GCIS). GCIS is located in Greensburg, KY, a rural community located in
central Kentucky. The school is home to approximately 400 students in grades three through five
and has a teacher to student ratio of one to fifteen.
Green County Intermediate School is
+256777169712
Page 28

predominantly made up of Caucasian students, with 98% of the students identifying with this
ethnicity. Two percent of students identified as being black, and less than 1% each as Hispanic
and other. Seventy-three percent of the schools population participates in the free and reduced
lunch program. I will be the only researcher conducting the study. I hold a Bachelors Degree in
Music Education from Campbellsville University and currently am pursuing a Masters of Arts in
Education with special emphasis in Gifted Education.
The initial research will start with making students aware of the research that will be
conducted. Students will be made aware that at no time will their names be used in the final
draft of the research results. After making students fully aware of their participation, an
intelligence survey (Appendix A) will be administered to all participating students. The survey
will consist of thirty-five statements in which students will identify whether a statement
describes them or not. Because these students are still considered elementary age and to
accommodate all IEPs I will read each statement to the class and clarify the meaning if needed.
Also the general population in each class, those that do not receive special education services,
does contain a significant number of students who receive reading intervention through Response
to Intervention services at the school. To ensure validity and reliability students will not score
their own surveys. The results will be reviewed to see how high students scored in what I will
call the Big Five intelligence domains. These five domains are the ones that I feel are most
used in daily classroom experiences and are musical, spatial/visual, kinesthetic, linguistic/verbal,
and mathematical/logical. The results will be documented and filed to be used to relate further
data results to.
Following the review of the survey both classes will then receive a lesson of a musical
topic. I made the decision to re-teach a topic covered earlier in the year to help students prepare
+256777169712
Page 29

for upcoming school common assessments. Both classes will receive a teacher designed lesson
on rhythmic notation. Topics that will be covered in the lesson will be definitions of rhythm,
beat, and time signature; values and symbols for whole, half, quarter, and eighth notes and rests;
dotted rhythms; and, writing and performing rhythms. In the control class I will only be using the
lecture method of instruction. I will be changing my instructional delivery method for the
experimental class, using techniques that will appeal to the various Multiple Intelligences present
in the class. These students will receive a guide sheet that will help pace the instruction
(Appendix B). This will appeal to the students with high visual intelligence. The visual students
in the class will also be drawn to being able to see the note and rest symbols and the breakdown
of the note tree. I will also be going over the sheet orally, which will appeal to the students with
verbal intelligences in the class. These students need to not only see and do things, but benefit
from being able to hear it as well. Also by hearing how certain rhythmic note values sound, they
may be able to apply that later on an assessment. The students with mathematical/logistical
strengths will be able to see the breakdown of the notes in the note tree, how musical notes and
rests relate to mathematical fractions, recognize the logistical patterns in writing musical
rhythms, and the breakdown of what a dot does to a note when added to it (adds half the value of
the note). For those with kinesthetic strengths, I will be doing an activity where we perform
rhythms using different bodily movements (kicks for quarter note, punches for eighth notes, etc.).
This will get them up out of their chairs and let them think about musical notation in a way they
may had not before.
I determined that these techniques were reliable and valid by visiting the website for the
group Innovative Teaching Concepts (2009). There website states that they are providing the
educational community a resource for curriculum integration, instructional technology, and
+256777169712
Page 30

classroom management in the elementary grades (p. 1).
After each class receives the instruction they will take an a short ten question test that
consists of nine multiple choice questions covering topics from the lesson and one question that
has them write a short two measure rhythm in four four time. This test will be worth 100 points
and I will be looking to see how students performed in each class. To prove my hypothesis, I
will be looking for higher scores in my experimental class.
In addition to the actual graded assignments, I will also be giving students a survey to see
how well they liked the lesson and the delivery method in which it was taught. In addition I will
re-give the intelligence survey to see if I get similar results. At the conclusion of the study, I
hope to see that there is a link to the students results on the intelligence surveys, the grade they
received on the assessment, and the classes reactions to the instructional method (lecture versus
Multiple Intelligences). This will serve as the triangulation in this research project.
This project and research will take place over a course of several weeks due to the fact
that students only come to music class once a week.
Week 1
o Students made aware of research study being conducted
o Intelligence survey administered
Week 2
o Students receive the instructional lesson
o Assessment administered
Week 3
o Students re-take MI survey
o Students fill out evaluation survey over lesson
+256777169712
Page 31
Week 4
o All data analyzed and results shared with students.
This research project will not require a set budget. Normal classroom materials and
departmental funds will be used for basic supplies such as making copies. Students will provide
their own writing utensils. All assignments will take place within related units of study
Summary
It is important to note that though results from this study will be important to me for
future use in my classes, the study and results cannot be generalized. This is because of the
nature of the population and sample size. Also an important note is that it is possible that the
results will not show any correlation at all. However, from this study I hope to learn the
strengths and weaknesses in intelligence domains of my students, and how they perform when
multiple intelligence techniques are used in instruction.
+256777169712
Page 32

Chapter 4
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the condition of the classrooms on the days the
data was collected, explanations of how the data was collected and analyzed, and the results that
the data presented. Again I will be looking to see whether students receiving instruction geared
toward their Multiple Intelligences (MI) will perform better on an assessment than students who
do not. First lets look at the conditions of the classes. My original research design had called to
break down my research over three weeks, but due to the time constraints all data was collected
over a period of 2 weeks. This breaks down only into two class period because the students only
have music once a week for one hour. The control class had twenty-six out of thirty students
present on the days I collected data and the experimental class had twenty five. So, in total, fiftyone fifth grade students participated in my study.
Both classes come to music at the same time during the day, at two oclock and are there
for one hour each. Students sit at tables in groups of five to six students. There is a large white
board at the front of the class, the teachers desk is to the far left hand corner of the room, and
there is also a teacher computer and projector system that can be used during lesson. Upon
entering the classroom the students were told what would be going on and the purpose of the
research that was being done. In the next section I will breakdown the data that was collected
and analyzed.
Analysis
Multiple Intelligence Survey Analysis
The first piece of data that was collected was the MI survey. As mentioned earlier in this
paper the survey consisted of thirty-five statements in which the students responded either true or
+256777169712
Page 33

false in relation to their interests and abilities. Students were informed as to what the survey was
measuring and told to be as accurate as possible with their answers. I read each statement to the
students. The first purpose of this was to accommodate any student that had an IEP that called
for them to have a reader. Secondly, this gave me the opportunity to clarify the meaning of any
statement if it seemed confusing to the student. The quiz that was used (Appendix A) was geared
toward older elementary students, but some statements did need some explanation. The survey
did have the option to let students tally their own scores, but I felt it necessary to tally the scores
myself to ensure accuracy. Analysis of these surveys follows.
The surveys were quite easy to analyze. At the end of the survey there was a scoring
guide that broke the survey down into seven categories. As previously mentioned those
categories were verbal, mathematical, visual, kinesthetic, musical, intrapersonal, and
interpersonal. There were five statements from the survey that corresponded with each section.
According to the creator of the survey, Dr. Carla Piper (2002) from Chapman University, a total
of four or more indicators in any category would signify a strong ability. I simply ready through
each students surveys and marked the questions they responding true to. I would then be able to
go back and look for the categories in which they scored four or more.
For my control group a total of twenty-six students completed the survey. Once I started
my analysis of the surveys, I found that only twenty of the surveys, or 69.23%, were useable. I
found that one of the six was not useable due to the fact that the student had answered true on
every question. Even if the student was being honest, I felt the survey was inaccurate and I could
not count it as being valid or reliable for my study. The remaining five surveys that were not
scored were not done so because students did not respond to all statements. Even though some
students only left out one or two this would not have allowed me to get an accurate picture of
+256777169712
Page 34

their MI strength areas. Not responding to one statement could mean the difference between
displaying a strength area or not.
After determining which surveys were useable and which were not, I begin to go through
and look for students that displayed strengths in certain areas. As I began to do this my useable
sample began to decrease as well. For the control group eighteen of the twenty useable surveys
displayed totals of four or more in at least one category. The two that did not only had two or
three indicators in a few categories. From this point I entered into an Excel document the
number of students with strength areas in each category. I then broke these numbers down into
percentages. I will share these results in my results section, but it will be worth noting that the
percentages do not equal one hundred because the majority of students had more than one
strength area. After looking at the percentages for each category I then ranked the Big Five
categories (verbal, math, visual, kinesthetic, and musical) in order of the highest number of
students displaying the strengths to the lowest.
For my experimental group a total of twenty five students were surveyed. Of
those twenty-five, I found that twenty-three of the surveys were useable, as two of the
surveys were not completely filled out. I decided not to use these for the same reason I
did not use them for my control group. Using the same analysis techniques as my control
group, I began to total the indicator statements for each student. Again I was looking for
totals of four or more in any one category for the data to be included in my final results.
After examining all the surveys for the experimental group, I found that twenty-one of
the twenty-three useable surveys had at least one MI strength area with a score of four or
more. As with the control group I then looked for the number of students displaying
strengths in each area and placed in the Excel document for my personal use and
+256777169712
Page 35

continued data analysis. I will use this in my results in comparing the results of the two
classes. I also ranked the Big Five categories in order of the highest number of
students displaying strengths to the lowest.
I also collected one other piece of data from the MI survey. I was interested to see how
many students displayed strengths in more than one area. I was able to determine that and I will
share those in my results section. Students took this survey again following the day they
received the instruction and took the assessment. This was primarily for me to look to see if
there was any major changes in results of the first survey.
Instruction Reflection
After students took the MI survey the lesson that would be assessed at the end of the
study was presented. A reminder that the control group was instructed using only the lecture
format. In relationship to Multiple Intelligences this style of instruction is only going to appeal
to students with strengths in the verbal domain. The experimental groups instruction was based
in Multiple Intelligences and included a student guide sheet and activities based in the Big
Five domains of verbal, mathematical/logical, visual, kinesthetic, and musical. The topic for
the lesson was rhythm. Students had done several activities and received several lessons earlier
in the year on rhythm so I was expecting this to be a review. It was apparent once I started
teaching in both classes that students had forgotten some of the topics from earlier in the year.
Specific material that was covered included definitions of important terms related to
rhythm. They included rhythm, beat, and time signature. Also the following notes and rests and
their rhythmic values were reviewed: whole, half, quarter, and eighth. Students were reminded
of the specific symbol for each note or rest and the number of beats each is worth. Students also
were instructed in why each note has its specific name and how many notes can be used to make
+256777169712
Page 36

up another note. This can be seen in the Appendix B for the experimental groups student guide
sheet.
I also briefly introduced a new topic to the students, the dotted rhythm. Students were
instructed that the dot added to a note added half the value to the existing note. I showed the
students some examples. With the control group they were simply told what a dot does and
showed examples and told the value. With the experimental group to help to appeal to the visual
and mathematical strengths, I actually gave them examples to figure out. That way they were
able to see it and actually do the math to reach a conclusion.
The last topic that was covered was actually writing and performing rhythms. For the
control class I just showed them rhythms on the board and performed them. The experimental
group assisted me in coming up with the rhythms, wrote their own rhythms on their guide sheet,
and even looked at a partially written rhythm to figure out the pattern and complete the
remaining measures. This class also performed rhythms by using rhythm syllables, clapping, and
an activity where they got up out of their chairs and created movements for each note and rest
value. The goal with this was to appeal to my students with kinesthetic strengths.
Assessment Analysis
At the conclusion of the lesson material, both the experimental and the control groups
were given an identical assessment. The assessment consisted of ten questions. Nine of the
questions were multiple choice and related to definitions, note values, and note symbols. The
tenth question simply asked students to fill in the measures with the appropriate number of beats.
The review quiz was worth a total of 100 points, ten points per question. My goal was to
look for higher scores in the class that received the multiple intelligence instruction. Analysis of
these scores was quite simple. First, I scored each quiz using my answer key. Then I went
+256777169712
Page 37

through and looked for the number of students scoring an A+ (100), A (90), B (80), C (70), D
(60) and F (scores of 50 and below). I looked for the number of each score and then converted
that score into a percentage. I also entered the results from both classes in to an Excel document
so I could compare the results of the classes side by side. Once I started examining the results I
also analyzed the difference between the two classes in a score of 90 or above on the assessment
Results
Control Group Results
As a reminder a total of eighteen surveys were deemed useable and had a score of four or
more in at least one multiple intelligence domain. Eighteen was the number I used to get my
percentages for each domain.
First, there were a total of 88.9% of the control group that presented strengths in two or
more domains. This was the majority of the class. From this point I only determined
percentages for the Big Five domains as mentioned earlier. Percentages for those five domains
are as follows: 16.7% verbal, 33.33% mathematical/logical, 27.8% Visual, 72.2% kinesthetic,
and 55.6% musical. There were seven students that displayed strengths in intrapersonal and nine
that displayed strengths in interpersonal, but these were not significant to my study because they
are hard to use in creating lessons and assessments. The results of the highest number of
students ranking in one domain to the least were 1) kinesthetic, 2) musical, 3) math, 4) visual,
and 5) verbal.
I can already draw a conclusion from these results before even examining the assessment
data. The majority of students in this class identified most closely with the kinesthetic domain.
My lesson format was based solely in lecture format and using the board. It easy to determine
before looking at the assessment results that students in this class are probably not going to learn
+256777169712
Page 38

as well when receiving this type of instruction because visual and verbal strengths were the two
lowest domains.
The assessment data results were as follows (Appendix D): 7.69% A+, 7.69% A, 19.23%
B, 26.92% C, 11.54% D, and 26.92% F. The two highest scores were scores of 50 and below, an
F, and scores of 70, a C. Only a total of 15.38% of students who were assessed scored a 90 or
better. In my opinion I am contributing this to the fact that well over half of the class, 72.2%,
identified with the kinesthetic domain. The verbal domain, which the majority of the lesson was
geared toward, was the lowest, with 16.7% of the class identifying with it.
Students in this class also retook the Multiple Intelligence Survey. Differences in the
results from the first survey were not significant enough to report any differences and results of
the first survey stand. Further conclusions will be drawn in the close of this paper after the
results of the experimental group are reviewed.
Experimental Group Results
As a reminder a total of twenty-one surveys were deemed useable and had a score of four
or more in at least one multiple intelligence domain. Twenty-one was the number I used to get
my percentages for each domain.
First there were a total of 76.19% of the experimental group that presented strengths in
two or more domains. This was the majority of the class. From this point I only determined
percentages for the Big Five domains as mentioned earlier. Percentages for those five domains
are as follows: 19.05% verbal, 33% mathematical/logical, 23.81% Visual, 52.38% kinesthetic,
and 47.62% musical. There were nine students that displayed strengths in intrapersonal and six
that displayed strengths in interpersonal, but as with the control group these were not significant
to my study. The results of the highest number of students ranking in one domain to the least
+256777169712
Page 39

were 1) kinesthetic, 2) musical, 3) math, 4) visual, and 5) verbal. It is interesting to note at this
point that both the control and experimental group had the some hierarchy of domains.
The assessment data results were as follows (Appendix D): 24% A+, 4% A, 16% B, 12%
C, 4% D, and 40% F. The highest number of students received scores of 50 and below, an F, and
scores of 100, an A+. A total of 28% of students who were assessed scored a 90 or better. In
comparison with the control group, a difference of 12.62% of students scored a A or A+ on the
assessment. I found it interesting that even though a higher number of students received an A in
this class, a higher number of students also scored an F on the assessment. My experimental
class had 40% of the students scoring a 50 or less, whereas the control group only had 26.92%.
This is a difference of 13.08%. A contributing factor could be the higher number of IEP students
in this class, however, not all students in the special education program scored an F. Another
factor could be general ability level between the two classes. The control class has a higher
number of students that are in the gifted and talented program, and the class, for the most part
from past observation, performs at a higher level. My experimental class also has more students
that receive Response to Intervention instruction in reading and that could have lead to lower
performance on a written exam.
Students in this class also retook the MI Survey. Differences in the results from the first
survey were not significant enough to report any differences and results of the first survey stand.
Summary
I found my results to be very interesting. As I move into chapter five, I will further
review the results from the study and begin to answer my problem question and see if my
hypothesis was proven. I will also be sharing whether the use of Multiple Intelligences in
designing instruction and assessment is practical for further classroom use.
+256777169712
Page 40

Chapter 5
Introduction
In this chapter, I will once again review the results of my study, draw conclusions based
on the results, and answer my original question, Will students achieve higher scores on
assessments when given instruction geared toward their given multiple intelligence domain? I
will also draw conclusions based on my results, determining whether the results are useable in
the future in my classes and to others who may wish to use Multiple Intelligence Theory (MI
Theory) and techniques in their classrooms. Lastly I will also be looking at previous research
and studies in MI to see whether my study could be considered reliable and valid in comparison
to past research.
Results
In my control group eighteen of the original twenty-six multiple intelligence surveys
were useable and significant because those were the ones in which students displayed scores of
four or more in at least one intelligence domain. This signifies a strength area in the given
domain. Percentages of students scoring in the five domains I chose to focus on where: 16.7%
verbal, 33.33% mathematical/logical, 27.8% Visual, 72.2% kinesthetic, and 55.6% musical. The
results of the greatest number of students ranking in one domain to the least were 1) kinesthetic,
2) musical, 3) math, 4) visual, and 5) verbal.
In my experimental group a total of twenty-one surveys were deemed useable and had a
score of four or more in at least one MI domain. Percentages of students scoring in the five
domains I chose to focus on were: 19.05% verbal, 33% mathematical/logical, 23.81% Visual,
52.38% kinesthetic, and 47.62% musical. The results of the greatest number of students ranking
in one domain to the least were 1) kinesthetic, 2) musical, 3) math, 4) visual, and 5) verbal. The
+256777169712
Page 41

reader should be able to note that this was the same as with the control group.
The assessment data results for the control group were as follows (Appendix D): 7.69%
A+, 7.69% A, 19.23% B, 26.92% C, 11.54% D, and 26.92% F. The two highest percentages
were scores of 50 and below, a F, and scores of 70, a C. Only a total of 15.38% of students who
were assessed scored a 90 or better. The assessment data results for the experimental group were
as follows (Appendix D): 24% A+, 4% A, 16% B, 12% C, 4% D, and 40% F. The two highest
percentages were scores of 50 and below, an F, and scores of 100, an A+. A total of 28% of
students who were assessed scored a 90 or better. In comparison with the control group, a
difference of 12.62% of students scored an A or A+ on the assessment.
The initial data collected do reveal that the class that received instruction based in
Multiple Intelligences had a higher number of students receiving the grade of an A on the
assessment given at the end of instruction. As noted the experimental group, the class receiving
MI based instruction had 28% of the students scoring a 90 or higher. The control group had
15.38% of students scoring the same score. Again this is a difference of 12.62%.
I found it interesting that even though a greater number of students received an A in this
class, a greater number of students also scored an F on the assessment. My experimental class
had 40% of the students scoring a 50 or less, whereas the control group only had 26.92%. This is
a difference of 13.08%. A contributing factor could be the higher number of IEP students in this
class, however, not all students in the special education program scored an F. Another factor
could be general ability level between the two classes. The control class has a higher number of
students that are in the gifted and talented program, and the class, for the most part from past
observation, performs at a higher level. My experimental class also has more students that
receive Response to Intervention instruction in reading and that could have lead to lower
+256777169712
Page 42

performance on a written exam.
It would be hard to say whether these results could be used in all classrooms in the future
or be used as the basis for curriculum for a school. In an article for the The Journal of Education
Research, entitled Attitudes Toward a Multiple Intelligence Curriculum, authors Gwendolyn
Mettetal, Cheryl Jordan, and Sheryll Harper (1997) concluded that when multiple intelligence
theory is implemented across a school it tends to be implemented unevenly. Also, if not all
teacher buy into the idea of Multiple Intelligence theory, then those students who truly could
benefit from its use are missing out. Like the teachers in the school in which these authors
conducted their study, most teachers would probably become very overwhelmed with developing
lessons geared toward each students intelligence. In my study, I simply tried to prepare a lesson
that would reach out to all the identified intelligences in the class, but to truly paint an accurate
picture every lesson, assignment, and assessment would have to be specifically designed for each
student. This would bring new meaning to individualized education.
Also in my study I assessed all students the same way. Each student took a teacher
designed, multiple choice, pencil and paper assessment. Also each students intelligences were
assessed in the same way, a pencil and paper assessment. Relating back to chapter 2, Thomas
Armstrong(2000) in his book Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom he said No test can
accurately determine the nature or quality of a persons intelligence (p. 12). However, he did
believe testing intelligence through paper and pencil tests would only be tapping into the logical
and linguistic intelligences. Armstrong went on to say, The best way to assess your own
Multiple Intelligences, therefore, is through a realistic appraisal of your performance in the many
kinds of tasks, activities, and experiences associated with each intelligence (p. 12). According to
him intelligences could only be fostered through real life experiences.
+256777169712
Page 43

Conclusions
So after reviewing all results and relating them to past studies of Multiple Intelligences
can I say without a doubt that the use of MI theory in designing and assessing instruction will
result in higher assessment scores? I have two answers to this. First, according to my results,
yes the use of some MI techniques did play a role in the results of my study. I was looking for
improved scores between my control and experimental group and that was what my results
showed. In my control group, 15.38% of my students received an A and in my experimental
group 28% received an A. I saw in the control group that the majority of my students displayed
strengths in the kinesthetic intelligence domain. That class received instruction based solely for
students who have strengths in the verbal domain. This could account for why several students
received poor scores on the assessment.
Looking at the experimental group, the majority of students in this class also displayed
strengths in the kinesthetic domain, followed closely by the musical domain. During the
instruction with this class students were up out of their seats moving, clapping rhythms,
examining and analyzing musical concepts more closely, and thus receiving instruction more
closely associated with their intelligence domains. There were also techniques used that
appealed to the math, visual, and verbal domains. So, it is easy to draw the conclusion that
students scored better on this assessment because of the type of instruction they received.
I think this study could easily be viewed in several ways. Even though I did use
techniques closely associated with MI it would be easy to determine that there were other factors
involved that the higher scores could be attributed to. First, maybe the sole use of the student
guide sheet, or a study guide, could be the reason why students performed better. Another is
possibly this study looked more closely at learning styles and instructional delivery methods
+256777169712
Page 44

rather than MI.
Because of these factors it is necessary to report that results from these findings cannot be
generalized across populations. First, the sample size was too small and was only a convenience
sample. Secondly, there were too many other factors that could have lead to the results of the
study being skewed. Was the study actually measuring the use of MI Theory? Did the way the
students were arranged allow them to cheat? Also to truly get an accurate picture of using
multiple intelligence theory in the classroom, again, I would have to customize instruction,
assignments, and assessments for each individualized students strength areas. Remember,
according to previous studies, it is next to impossible to ever really determine a persons
intelligence by using a paper and pencil survey.
Will I continue to use these techniques in my classes in the future? I will probably
continue to implement some of the techniques I used with my experimental class. I cannot truly
say that they will always result in higher scores on assessments in all my classes though. Would
customizing the assignments and assessments for each individual student result in better scores?
This in of itself would be a whole study and require a lot of time and effort to determine. I can
conclude, however, from this study that one instructional method, based in one intelligence
domain, is not always best for all students.
End Note
So, in conclusion, I would say that if educators wish to try and implement multiple
intelligence techniques in their classroom they must be first willing to do a little research and
data collecting of their own. Yes, I believe there was some significance to my study, but to
further determine if MI Theory has a basis for use in my classroom and in other classrooms in
my school it would require further research. I believe that educators could use my initial
+256777169712
Page 45

research design as a starting point to see if their students respond better to lessons taught with MI
in mind. My results, however, should not be the basis for a complete change in how a teacher
designs their lessons or how a school designs their curriculum. More research on this subject
would definitely be needed before any major decision such as that should be made.
+256777169712
Page 46
Appendix A
Student Survey
+256777169712
Page 47
Appendix B
Student Guide Sheet for Experimental Class
+256777169712
Page 48
+256777169712
Page 49
+256777169712
Page 50

Appendix C
Assessment
+256777169712
Page 51
+256777169712
Page 52

Appendix D
Assessment Results: Control and Experimental Groups
Reference
+256777169712
Page 53

Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria: Association for
Supervision in the Classroom.
Campbell, P.S., Scott-Kassner, C. (2002). Music in Childhood From Preschool Through The
Elementary Grades. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Collins, J. (1998, October). How To Make A Better Student: Seven Kinds of Smart. Time
Magazine Online. Retrieved November, 8, 2009.
<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989359,00.html>
Gardner, H. (1984). Assessing Intelligences: A Comment on Testing Intelligence without IQ
Tests. The Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 699-700.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theories of Multiple Intelligences. New York. Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on Multiple Intelligences: Myths and Messages. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 77, 200-203 and 206-209.
Guignon, A. (1998). Multiple Intelligences: A Theory for Everyone. Education World. Online
Posting. Retrieved November 6, 2009. <http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr054.shtml>
Hirsh, R.A. (2004). Excerpt from Early Childhood Curriculum: Incorporating Multiple
Intelligences, Developmentally Appropriate Practice, and Play. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Inc. Online Posting. Retrieved November 6, 2009.
<http://www.education.com/reference/article/logical-mathematical-intelligence/ >
Human Intelligences. (2007, July 25). Charles Spearman. Retrieved from Indiana University
website May 10, 2011 <http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/Spearman.shtml>
Innovative Teaching Concepts. (2009, May 31). MI Acitivities. Retrieved from
+256777169712
Page 54

http://www.todaysteacher.com/MILearningActivities.htm
Kassell, C. (1998). Music and the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Music Educators
Journal,84, 29-32 and 60.
Mettetal, G., Gordan, C., Harper, S. (1997) Attitudes toward a Multiple Intelligences
Curriculum. The Journal of Education Research, 91, 115-122.
McClaskey, J. (1995). Assessing Student Learning through Multiple Intelligences. The English
Journal, 84, 56-59.
Piper, C. (2002). Multiple Intelligence Quiz. Teaching With Technology. Online Posting.
Retrieved April 27, 2011.
<http://www1.chapman.edu/soe/faculty/peper/teachtech/miquiz.htm>
Plotnik, R. (2002). Introduction to Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Smith, M.K. (2008). Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences. The Encyclopeda of Informal
Education. Online Posting. Retrieved November 6, 2009.
<http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm>
Sternberg, R.J. (1984). Fighting butter battles: A reply. Phi Delta Kappan,65, 699-700.
Wilson, L.O. (1998). The Eighth Intelligence: Naturalistic Intelligence.Journeys: Inside out,
outside in. Chicago: Zephyr Press. Online Posting. New Horizons.Org. Retrieved
November 6, 2009.
http://home.avvanta.com/~building/strategies/environmental/wilson2.htm
Wright, S. (2003). Excerpt from The Arts, Young Children, and Learning. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Online posting. Retrieved November 6, 2009.
<http://www.education.com/reference/article/bodily-kinesthetic-intelligence/>
+256777169712
Page 55

A Research Proposal On Multiple Intelligence by Nkoyoyo Edward of Ekitangaala Transformation High School

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Research Proposal On Multiple Intelligence by Nkoyoyo Edward of Ekitangaala Transformation High School

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES: IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM USE

Research proposal about multiple intelligence

Multiple Intelligences: Implications for Classroom Use

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Chapter One: Introduction..4

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Problem Statement/Research Question

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

What is Multiple Intelligence Theory?

Myths about MI Theory

Curriculum and Assessment Planning with MI Theory

Can intelligences be determined in individuals?

Musical Intelligence in and outside the music classroom.

What is Multiple Intelligence Theory

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Green County Intermediate School is

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book

Nkoyoyo Edwards research book