English Language Teaching; Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
92
Identifying College Students’ Multiple Intelligences to Enhance
Motivation and Language Proficiency
Magda Madkour
1
& Rafik Ahmed Abdel Moati Mohamed
2
1
College of Langauges and Translation, Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University University, Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia
2
National Center for Educational Research and Development, Cairo, Egypt
Correspondence: Dr. Magda Madkour, College of Langauges and Translation, Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud
Islamic University University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. E-mail: magdasilv[email protected]
Correspondence: Dr. Rafik Mohamed, National Center for Educational Research and Development, Cairo, Egypt.
E-mail: rafikah[email protected]
Received: March 24, 2016 Accepted: April 30, 2016 Online Published: May 3, 2016
doi: 10.5539/elt.v9n6p92 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n6p92
Abstract
While most research studies on the theory of multiple intelligences focused on the application of the multiple
intelligences domains as separate components, this quasi-experimental research targeted the effect of multiple
intelligences as integrated abilities for teaching and learning English at higher education. The purpose of this
study was to examine the impact of students’ multiple intelligences profiles on their motivation and language
proficiency. The quantitative data was collected from the students of the College of Languages and Translation at
Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Saudi Arabia. The researchers prepared a Likert scale
questionnaire to identify students’ multiple intelligences. The participants formed two groups from male and
female students who studied English courses at level 3. The first group studied English in a traditional classroom
where they relied on memorizing grammatical rules while the second group studied English after identifying
their multiple intelligences profiles. Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS), data
analysis results indicated that ineffective teaching strategies that depended on encouraging learners memorizing
language rules hindered students from boosting their language proficiency. The analysis of the data also showed
that when students became aware of their multiple intelligences profiles, they managed to enhance their
motivation, which helped them improve their language skills. The recommendations of the current research
provide creative ideas for using multiple intelligences at higher education, including a model for integrating
multiple intelligences for teaching English. The current research is also a contribution in teaching English to
college students since it is among only a few studies that have applied Gardner’s theory at higher education.
Keyword: multiple intelligences, English language, motivation, language proficiency, multiple intelligences
profile
1. Introduction
Since the publications of Gardner’s (1983; 1999; 2004) theory of multiple intelligences, research studies
(Armstrong, 2003; Aschbacher & Pine, 2006; Barrington, 2004; Batt, 2008; Campbell, 2004; Cortright, Kennedy,
& Thornton, 2013; Gardner, 2000; Hanafiyeh, 2013; Saricaoglu & Arikan, 2014) have been conducted to explore
the implications of the theory for learning and teaching in general, and in improving learners’ language
performance in particular. Language learning is not restricted to learning grammatical rules because the
application of the rules requires engagement in real life. Learner’s success cannot be achieved without acquiring
the skills of critical thinking and social skills. Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory, which includes kinesthetic
intelligence, existential intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, laser intelligence,
linguistic intelligence, logical intelligence, mental-search intelligence, musical intelligence, naturalistic
intelligence, and visual- spatial intelligence can urge learners use their full potential. When implementing
multiple intelligences in the classroom, teachers can help students become aware of different levels of language
learning, including phonological, lexical, syntactical, semantic, and pragmatic levels. For example, multiple
intelligences activities focus on phonological awareness through integrating musical and linguistic intelligences
using short stories, poetry, and journal and essay writing. The application of interpersonal and intrapersonal
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
93
intelligences through cooperative tasks in the classroom can increase students’ linguistic and social competency.
Using multiple intelligences, students can acquire the language skills as integrated components instead of
studying grammar, reading, listening, speaking, and writing as separate units without understanding the
importance of integrating them to achieve an advanced language level. College students need to use English
fluently so that they can pursue their graduate studies either at their native universities or abroad. Therefore, the
purpose of the current research was to examine the impact of students’ multiple intelligences profiles on their
motivation and language proficiency to enable teachers at the College of Languages and Translation of Imam
University use the multiple intelligences for teaching English.
1.1 Problem Statement
The problem of this research targeted the difficulties that the students at the College of Languages and
Translation, Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Saudi Arabia, faced when learning English.
The researchers focused on examining the impact of identifying the students’ multiple intelligences profiles on
enhancing their motivation and language proficiency. Data from students’ exam records, class observations, and
teachers’ feedback, showed that students had serious challenges in using the English language effectively,
whether in reading, writing, listening, or speaking. Students complained that they had problems using English to
communicate in real life. Evidence from students’ learning outcomes showed that the number of students who
failed the English courses increased. Students’ performance was deteriorating due to lack of motivation. Analysis
of the problem also showed that the students had difficulties in pursuing their higher education abroad. Previous
research (Dylan, 2013; Eggen & Kauchak, 2011; Gowen, 2010; Gredler, 2005; Hanafiyeh, 2013; Lynn, 2013;
Richards &. Rodgers, 2011) indicated that ineffective language teaching strategies at higher education hindered
students’ academic and social achievements. The traditional teaching strategies which depend on encouraging
students memorizing grammatical rules have negative impacts on students’ communicative and the social skills,
which students need to achieve language proficiency.
1.2 Purpose Statement
The purpose of this quantitative, quasi-experimental study was to examine the impact of students’ multiple
intelligences profiles on their motivation and language proficiency. The current study aimed at making
suggestions to help teachers use effective teaching strategies to urge students to improve their motivation;
consequently, their language proficiency through using their multiple intelligences inside and outside the
classrooms. The current study also aimed at providing language teachers with new instructional designs to put
the theory of multiple intelligences into practice. The quantitative data of this research was collected from
students of the College of Languages and Translation, at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in
Saudi Arabia. The participants formed two groups from male and female students who studied English courses at
level 3. The first group studied English in a traditional classroom where they relied on memorizing grammatical
rules while the second group studied English after identifying their multiple intelligences profiles. Data was
analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS) to ensure the research accuracy
and objectivity.
1.3 Definitions of Terms
According to Gardner, (1983, 1999, 2004) multiple intelligences: are multiple mental abilities in human beings.
These multiple abilities are a combination of biological and cultural domains. Multiple intelligences are innate
and acquired. Based on these concepts, the following definitions are used in this research:
Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence: the ability to use one’s bodily motions and the capacity to handle objects
skillfully; i.e., the proficiency of using the entire body to express ideas and feelings (Gardner, 198).
Existential Intelligence: the ability to contemplate phenomena or questions beyond sensory data, such as the
infinite; the appreciation of spirituality and understanding questions about life and the universe (Gardner, 1999).
Interpersonal Intelligence: Human ability to communicate effectively in diverse social and cultural settings; i.e.
the ability of perceiving the moods, motivations, and emotions (Gardner, 1983).
Intrapersonal Intelligence: refers to self-reflective capacities, having a deep understanding of the self, its
strengths and weaknesses, and to be able to predict one’s own reactions and emotions; i.e. having a positive
self-concept and life direction which exists intrinsically to help people having competency in knowing
themselves and acting to modify their errors based on self-knowledge (Gardner, 1983).
Laser intelligence: the human ability for creating and generating inventions (Gardner, 2004).
Logical-mathematical Intelligence: the ability to deal with logic, abstractions, reasoning and numbers, i.e. the
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
94
ability of manipulating and understanding and reasoning effectively (Gardner, 1983).
Mental-search intelligence: refers to people’s ability for searching and scanning information (Gardner, 2004).
Musical-rhythmic Intelligence: the ability and sensitivity to deal with sounds, rhythms, tones, and music, and the
ability to appreciate, distinguish, compose, and perform various musical forms (Gardner, 1983).
Naturalistic Intelligence: the ability to understand nature and to interact with natural surroundings such as
classifying creature species, and identifying natural phenomena; and using such knowledge in developing skills
in real life (Gardner, 1999).
Verbal-linguistic Intelligence: the ability to create using spoken or written language. People with high
verbal-linguistic intelligence are efficient at reading, writing, and telling stories (Gardner, 1983).
Visual-spatial Intelligence: human ability to do activities which require spatial judgment. People with a high
level of Visual-spatial Intelligence are able to visualize with the mind’s eye. Thus, visual-spatial intelligence is
characterized by being able to see an image or a situation and assess the areas that can be modified to transform
their appearance (Gardner, 1983).
1.4 Significance of the Study
The current research is a contribution in teaching English to college students since it is among only a few studies
that have applied Gardner’s theory at higher education. The researchers also provided a validated and reliable
instrument that can be used to identify students’ multiple intelligences in various educational settings. While the
multiple intelligences questionnaire which was designed for this study was not a psychological clinical tool, but
it would be useful to identify learner’s multiple intelligences at higher education since it was based on Gardner’s
concept of intelligence. The current research multiple intelligence questionnaire was employed to mark the
English language activities that students were interested in to help teachers design differentiated instructional
plans to increase students’ motivation for language learning. Moreover, this research provides some evidence of
the effectiveness of the multiple intelligences approach in teaching English at higher institutions since multiple
intelligences are relevant to learning the skills of a new language through developing not only linguistic abilities
but also higher order thinking, including social and cultural skills. The effectiveness of teaching methodologies
of language skills accentuates the role of research-based theories such as multiple intelligences for improving
students’ performance and achievements. The multiple intelligences are concerned with employing multiple
abilities for learning English when students can shift their focus from using traditional ways of memorizing
grammatical rules into adopting cognitive and metacognitive strategies for enhancing motivation and language
proficiency. Hence, the multiple intelligences instructional model that presented in this research adds to the
significance of the study.
1.5 Theoretical Framework
The multiple intelligences theory (Gardner, 1983, 1999, 2004) constituted the conceptual structure of this study
to explain the relevance of multiple intelligences as integrated domains to language learning. Through the
application of the theory of multiple intelligences, students become aware that language learning does not
involve only linguistic abilities, but other capabilities such as musical, kinesthetic, visual, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal intelligences. Gardner argued that learners not only have multiple intelligences, but they can also
develop such intelligences through education. Research (L. Campbell, B. Campbell, & Dickinson, 2004; Chen,
2004; Cortright, Kennedy, & Thornton, 2013; Cortright et al., 2015; Eggen & Kauchak, 2011; Epelbaum, 2007;
Madkour, 2011) indicated that teachers used the theory of multiple intelligences to discover students’
diversibilities. Cortright, Kennedy, and Thornton (2013) asserted that there was a relationship between intrinsic
motivation and multiple intelligences. Empirical research (Dornyei, 2001; Dylan, 2013; Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005;
Harmer, 2007; Roell, 2010; Saricaoglu & Arikan, 2009; Yeh, 2014) confirmed the effectiveness of implementing
the theory of multiple intelligences to improve students’ attitudes and performance. Hence, using the multiple
intelligences theory as the theoretical base allowed examining the link between multiple intelligences,
motivation, and language proficiency.
2. Literature Review
The literature review herein highlights the theory of multiple intelligences as a potential for solving the problems
of acquiring language skills to motivate students to improve their language proficiency. Evidence from previous
research studies (Branton, 2004; Chan, 2006; Cortright et al., 2015; Leimbach & Maringka, 2010; Posner, 2004;
Saricaoglu & Arikan, 2014; Shore, 2004) indicated that the theory of multiple intelligences was effectively used
as a new strategy for teaching English. Gardner (1983) expanded the concept of intelligence to include such
areas as musical, visual-spatial relations, intrapersonal, and interpersonal knowledge.
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
95
2.1 Theory of Multiple Intelligences
Gardner’s (1983, 1999, 2004) theory is linked to cognitive areas such as linguistics, psychology, anthropology,
neuroscience, and technology, incorporating various approaches to human potential. Gardner defined intelligence
as a bio-psychological ability to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems
or create valuable products. The multiple intelligences are bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, existential intelligence,
interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, laser intelligence, linguistic intelligence,
logical-mathematical intelligence, mental-search intelligence, musical intelligence, naturalistic intelligence, and
visual- spatial intelligence. According to Gardner, when students identify their multiple intelligences, they can
understand their individual strengths and weaknesses. Encouraging students to develop their own multiple
intelligences profiles can help them become motivated to acquire the necessary skills for learning English.
Teachers can use the students’ multiple intelligences profiles to prepare customized activities to maximize the
learning opportunities inside and outside the classroom. Previous research (Batt, 2008; Branton, 2004; Campbell
& Egawa, 2005; Chan, 2006; Christodoulou, 2009; Chen, 2004; Christion, 2004; Christion & Kennedy, 2004;
Dylan, 2013; Savas, 2012) showed that Gardner’s theory had important implications for teaching language skills
because it helped to use cognitive and metacognitive strategies to urge students to improve comprehension,
attitude, and motivation, consequently language proficiency.
2.2 Multiple Intelligences and Motivation
Research studies (Cortright et al., 2015; Dornyei, 2001; Gardner, 1999; Ginsberg, 2011; Gowen, 2010; Gredler,
2005) provided statistical evidence that motivation was an important predictor of language success. Yeh (2014)
asserted that many language learners were unmotivated because of limited learning resources, and that when
teachers used multiple intelligences activities, including audio and video materials, journal writing, and concept
maps, students’ performance improved. Razmjoo (2008) also confirmed the relationship between multiple
intelligences and language proficiency. Lynn (2013) provided evidence that when college students used multiple
intelligences, their existential, intrapersonal, interpersonal, linguistic, visual-spatial abilities were revealed,
which helped them to increase their performance. Rutger and Henk (2012) concluded that academic success was
higher when students used multiple intelligences. Suriat and Tajularipin, (2010) showed evidence that enhancing
language learning was achieved by responding to students’ individual differences, applying multiple
intelligences. Moreover, research (Dylan, 2013; Harmer, 2007) indicated that when teachers adopted a multiple
intelligences approach, they helped students to increase motivation. Touré-Tillery and Fishbach (2014)
confirmed that while aspects that influence success in language learning vary to include aptitude, motivation
learning styles, and teaching strategies, motivation was the most influential factor in language learning and that
students raised their motivation when they became aware of their multiple abilities. Roell (2010) affirmed that
students who used musical intelligence in learning English as a foreign language (EFL) or English as a second
language (ESL) were more motivated to develop linguistic and cultural competences than students who were
learning in traditional classrooms. In this respect, Gowen (2010) asserted that there was a relationship between
Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction (ARCS) model of motivational design and the theory of
multiple intelligences.
2.3 Multiple Intelligences and Teaching Strategies
When Gardner (1983) proposed the theory of multiple intelligences, new teaching approaches were implemented
to improve students’ performance, especially in the area of language learning. For example, research studies
(Acat, 2005; Christion & Kennedy, 2004; Gredler, 2005; Richards & Rodgers, 2011; Saricaoglu & Arikan, 2009)
confirmed that mental processes such as perception, memory, attention, and language acquisition were improved.
Research (Chan, 2006; McGrath & Noble, 2005; Savas, 2012) also indicated that teachers, who applied the
multiple intelligences strategies helped students acquire advanced language skills in reading, writing, speaking,
and listening. Yeh (2014) provided a model for teaching through integrating multiple intelligences into
film-based strategy to help L2 acquire linguistic and cultural competencies. Madkour (2009) provided a model to
integrate linguistic theories into the theory of multiple intelligences. Noble (2004) concluded that incorporating
Bloom’s taxonomy with multiple intelligences motivated students to improve their performance. Gowen (2010)
introduced an instructional model of integrating multiple intelligences into the technology of webquest. Dylan
(2013) used multiple intelligences to connect learning to students’ everyday lives, thus, fostering effective open
learning environments. According to McFarlane (2011), multiple intelligences theory is effective as a
methodology to strengthen the diversity of classrooms, including the utilization of technology to increase
learning opportunities. Research (Griggs et al., 2009; Haley, 2004; Kezar, 2001; Suriat & Tajularipin, 2010;
Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm, 2011; York-Barr et al., 2006) indicated that because of students’ individual differences,
learning varied and required differentiated strategies such as multiple intelligences. In this regard, McCoog
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
96
(2007) asserted that using technology required students to develop their intrapersonal and existentialist
intelligences.
3. Research Method
This quasi-experimental research targeted the effect of multiple intelligences as integrated abilities for teaching
and learning English at higher education. Data was collected from two groups from male and female students
who studied English at the College of Languages and Translation, Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic
University in Saudi Arabia. The first group studied in a traditional classroom where they relied on memorizing
language rules while the second group depended on using multiple intelligences in learning. The researchers
prepared a Likert scale questionnaire to identify students’ multiple intelligences through marking the English
language activities that they were interested in and benefited from. In addition, students’ grade records,
assignments, attendance, and class observation were analyzed. The construct validity for the questionnaire items
was based on Gardner’s concepts of multiple intelligences. Content validity was established by field through
testing the questionnaire items in the participants’ classrooms. A pilot study was conducted to achieve reliability.
The researchers also identified reliable materials from the literature review related to multiple intelligences
inventories to determine the instruments used in similar studies, including surveys, inventories, assessments, or
checklists that were compatible with Gardner’s theory. Data was analyzed using SPSS software to present
accurate statistical evidence..
3.1 Research Questions
1). What is the relationship between multiple intelligences domains and students’ language proficiency?
2). What are the impacts of Gardner’s (1983) multiple intelligences on students’ motivation?
3). What is the impact of the theory of multiple intelligences on solving students’ problems in learning English?
3.2 Research Hypothesis
There is a statistically significant relationship between the multiple intelligences domains and students’
motivation and language proficiency. The null hypothesis is that there is no significant relationship between the
multiple intelligences domains and students’ motivation and language proficiency.
4. Results
The total participants were 108 students (58 males and 50 females). Thus, the percentage of the male students
who participated in this study was 54% while the percentage of the female students was 46%. The percentage of
the participants who were between 18-21 years old reached 55% while the percentage of the participants who
were between 22-25 years old was 53%. Regarding the participants’ language level based on their GPA, Figure 1
displays the results.
Figure1. Participants’ language level
As displayed in Figure 1, data analysis showed that the language advanced level of the participants was 27%, the
intermediate language level reached 71%, and the beginner language level was 10%. Such results reflected the
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
97
need to identify students’ problems in language learning to increase their language proficiency. Based on the
participants’ grades in English, Figure 2 shows their motivation.
Figure 2. Participants’ motivation
As shown in Figure 2, only 28% of participants were motivated to learn English. Such results were compared to
teaching strategies as displayed in Figure 3.
Figure 3. The teaching strategies used in teaching English
Figure 3 shows that the percentage of the traditional teaching strategies reached 87% while cognitive strategies
was 13%, indicating that multiple intelligences activities were not included. This sheds light on the research
questions regarding the impact of the multiple intelligences on solving students’ problems in learning English.
Moreover, the internal consistency of the questionnaire was calculated by analyzing how each item of the
questionnaire was consistent with its scale. The results indicated the consistency of each item in relation to its
scale. The statements in the multiple intelligences were statistically significant at the level of 0.01 reflecting
consistency among the items of the scale. Hence, the correlation was significant at the 0.01 level. Table 1
displays the results.
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
98
Table 1. Correlations among 8 scales of the questionnaire
Linguistic
Intelligence
Logical-Mathematical
Intelligence
Spatial
Intelligence
Musical
Intelligence
Interpersonal
Intelligence
Intrapersonal
Intelligence
Naturalist
Intelligence
Linguistic
Intelligence
.365(**)
Logical-
Intelligence
.365(**) -
Spatial
Intelligence
0.083 .429(**) -
Musical
Intelligence
0.126 .297(**) .419(**) -
Interpersonal
Intelligence
.227(*) .263(**) .308(**) .419(**) -
Intrapersonal
Intelligence
.277(**) .461(**) .405(**) .505(**) .377(**) -
Naturalist
Intelligence
0.1 .324(**) .315(**) .531(**) .454(**) .431(**) -
Kinesthetic
Intelligence
0.127 .229(*) .243(*) .410(**) .518(**) .390(**) .481(**)
Linguistic
Intelligence
.365(**)
Logical-
Intelligence
.365(**) -
Spatial
Intelligence
.083 .429(**) -
Musical
Intelligence
.126 .297(**) .419(**) -
Interpersonal
Intelligence
.227(*) .263(**) .308(**) .419(**) -
Intrapersonal
Intelligence
.277(**) .461(**) .405(**) .505(**) .377(**) -
Naturalist
Intelligence
.100 .324(**) .315(**) .531(**) .454(**) .431(**) -
Kinesthetic
Intelligence
.127 .229(*) .243(*) .410(**) .518(**) .390(**) .481(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
As shown in Table 1, the correlations among the 8 scales of the questionnaire were calculated and found to be
significant at the level of 0.01. Table 2 shows the reliability of the questionnaire.
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
99
Table 2. Reliability of the multiple Intelligences questionnaire
Type of Intelligence
Reliability Coefficient
Cronbach’s alpha Split- half ( Spearman Brown )
Linguistic Intelligence .5307 .4888
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence .4994 .4143
Spatial intelligence .5751 .5374
Musical Intelligence .7038 .6151
Interpersonal Intelligence .5890 .6292
Intrapersonal Intelligence .7281 .7150
Naturalist Intelligence .5883 .4721
Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence .6224 .6304
All the test .8587 .7535
As displayed in Table 2, Cronbach’s alpha and Split-half Spearman Brown confirmed the questionnaire
reliability. Moreover, to validate the research hypothesis, the researcher used the independent sample t-test to
investigate if there is any statistical significance between the 2 groups. Table 3 shows the results.
Table 3. Differences of multiple intelligences between male and female groups
Type of Intelligence Gender N Mean Std. Deviation T p-value
Linguistic Intelligence
Male 58 9.6897 2.451
-0.145 0.885
Female 50 9.76 2.5759
Logical Intelligence
Male 58 12.8103 3.3164
0.208 0.835
Female 50 12.68 3.1522
Spatial intelligence
Male 58 11.1552 3.1723
1.955 0.053
Female 50 9.96 3.162
Musical Intelligence
Male 58 7.1724 2.4361
-0.184 0.855
Female 50 7.28 3.6143
Interpersonal Intelligence
Male 58 6.4483 2.5073
-1.519 0.132
Female 50 7.16 2.3331
Intrapersonal Intelligence
Male 58 9.1379 2.8925
2.116 0.037
Female 50 8 2.6573
Naturalist Intelligence
Male 58 7 2.2005
-0.932 0.353
Female 50 7.44 2.7042
Kinesthetic Intelligence
Male 58 8.6897 4.1473
-1.123 0.264
Female 50 9.56 3.8606
As displayed in Table 3, the difference between the male and the female students in the linguistic intelligence,
the logical-mathematical intelligence, musical intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, naturalist intelligence and
bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is statistically insignificant because the t values are (0.14), (0.20), (0.18), (01.51),
(0.93) and (1.12) respectively reflecting no significance in any of the six dimensions. However, as shown in
Table 3, there is statistical significance between the mean scores of the males and females at the level of 0.5 in
favor of the males in the spatial intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence where the t values are (01.95) and
(2.11), respectively. Regarding the results of the impact of age on multiple intelligences, Table 4 shows the
results.
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
100
Table 4. Differences of mean and standard deviation between male and female groups
Type of Intelligence Age N Mean Std. Deviation T p-value
Linguistic Intelligence
18-21 55 9.8182 2.5969
0.405 0.686
22-25 53 9.6226 2.4117
Logical Intelligence
18-21 55 12.9091 3.3181
0.52 0.604
22-25 53 12.5849 3.1527
Spatial intelligence
18-21 55 11.2 3.5767
2.001 0.048
22-25 53 9.9811 2.671
Musical Intelligence
18-21 55 7.8 3.3632
2.053 0.043
22-25 53 6.6226 2.5209
Interpersonal Intelligence
18-21 55 6.9455 2.6972
0.725 0.47
22-25 53 6.6038 2.1603
Intrapersonal Intelligence
18-21 55 8.8545 2.9591
0.91 0.365
22-25 53 8.3585 2.6968
Naturalist Intelligence
18-21 55 7.4 2.7595
0.849 0.398
22-25 53 7 2.0755
Kinesthetic Intelligence
18-21 55 9.2727 3.7191
0.472 0.638
22-25 53 8.9057 4.3424
As shown in Table 4, the differences between the 2 groups in the linguistic intelligence, logical-mathematical
intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, naturalist intelligence and bodily-kinesthetic
intelligence are not statistically significant because the t- values are (0.40), (0.52), (0.72), (0.91), (0.84) and (0.47)
respectively reflecting insignificance in any of the six dimensions. Table 4 also shows that there is statistical
significance between the mean scores of the groups at the level of 0.5 in favor of the 18-21 group in the spatial
intelligence and the musical intelligence where t- values are (02.00) and (2.05) respectively. In addition, the
researcher used the one-way ANOVA test to explore if there was any statistical significance among the two
groups regarding their language levels. The results showed that the F values in the linguistic intelligence,
logical-mathematical intelligence, the spatial intelligence, the musical intelligence, interpersonal intelligence,
intrapersonal intelligence, naturalist intelligence and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence were statistically
insignificant, (0.95), (0.88), (0.97), (0.29), (0.56), (0.56), (0.34) and (0.06) respectively reflecting insignificance
in any of the 8 multiple intelligences dimensions. Regarding the impact of multiple intelligences teaching
methodologies on students’ motivation, Figure 4 displays the results. Such results pointed to the importance of
applying the multiple intelligences theory in teaching English at higher education. Potential solutions for helping
students to raise their language proficiency focus on urging students to identify their multiple abilities rather than
encouraging them to memorize language rules. These results shed light on the research questions of the study
and clarified the link between multiple intelligences and student’s motivation, which is a major factor in
language learning.
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
101
Figure 4. Multiple intelligences teaching strategies and motivation
As displayed in Figure 4, students’ motivation reached 91% after integrating the theory of multiple intelligences
in teaching English, based on analysis of students’ grades and attendance percentage, and class observation,
indicating an increase of 63%. Figure 5 shows the results of language level after implementing the theory of
multiple intelligences in teaching English.
Figure 5. Students’ language proficiency implementing multiple intelligences
As displayed in Figure 5, the test score of group 1 of the participants who studied English using the traditional
method of memorizing rules was 44% while the test score of group 2 who learned English using multiple
intelligences was 89%, showing a difference of 45%. The results also indicated that the language advanced level
of the participants reached 71%, and the intermediate language level reached 25% and the beginner language
level was 4%. Thus, the students’ advanced level in using the English increased by 44%. Such results reflected
the effectiveness of identifying students’ multiple intelligences to increase their language proficiency.
5. Discussions and Recommendations
The current study’ findings refer to some important issues related to language learning using multiple
intelligences, including: (a) the effectiveness of the multiple intelligences theory for helping students use their
multiple abilities to improve language proficiency; (b) the positive impact of multiple intelligences instructional
plans on achieving students’ individual needs; (c) the efficiency of the theory of multiple intelligences to increase
students’ motivation to acquire advanced language skills; (d) the successful implementation of the multiple
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
102
intelligences in the classroom helped students become aware of different levels of language learning, including
the phonological, lexical, syntactical, and semantic levels through using such activities as journal writing,
writing poetry, short stories, and creating films; and (e) the effect of employing multiple intelligences tasks,
specifically interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences activities such as cooperative projects, on increasing the
students’ social and cultural competencies, which are integral in language learning. Based on these findings, the
first recommendation of the current study is to reinforce language skills through helping students identify their
multiple intelligences. Gardner (1999) emphasized that using multiple learning strategies helped learners to
create new learning experiences. Instead of using traditional strategies of teaching English, which primarily
depend on drilling, and memorization of language rules, teachers can use the suggested model, shown in Figure
6.
Figure 6. A model for integrating multiple intelligences for teaching English
Figure 6 shows that by identifying students’ multiple intelligences, teachers can use this model to engage
students in multifaceted language tasks. For instance, integrating linguistic into musical intelligences through
reading and writing stories, poetry and journals so that students can link sounds to writing forms. Students can,
thus, recognize voiced and voiceless sounds, diphthongs, and morphemes. By integrating kinesthetic into visual
–spatial intelligences, teachers can add activities to foster learning by doing through creating posters, films, web
quests, and other media presentations. Interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences can be enhanced through
teamwork, workshops, and project-based activities. The second recommendation is to establish a training center
for professional development for the staff at the College of Languages and Translation at Al-Imam University
using multiple intelligences to train teachers designing various instructional plans using the theory of multiple
intelligences. Although the concept of multiple intelligences has been used effectively worldwide, it has not yet
been applied in the Middle East, specifically at higher education. Thus, establishing such a center will be a
contribution to the whole community. Such a center can (a) provide professional development programs for all
the staff members in various areas of education; (b) help novice teachers to acquire teaching skills and research
experiences based on using multiple intelligences; and (c) exchange services and experiences among local and
international centers and institutions. Finally, the third recommendation is to diffuse the theory of multiple
intelligences among various colleges to integrate curriculum, and conduct assessments within the framework of
the theory of multiple intelligences.
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
103
6. Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to help teachers at higher education use effective teaching strategies such as
multiple intelligences to urge students to identify their multiple intelligences to improve motivation and language
proficiency. The specific problem that this study targeted focused on the difficulties that the students of the
College of Languages and Translation at Al-Imam University faced in using the English language effectively.
Students’ low performance had two major impacts on their academic lives. First, students were unable to pursue
higher education. Secondly, students could not conduct academic research without acquiring the necessary skills
for reading and writing. These two obstacles hindered the achievements of the College of Languages and
Translation, and impeded Imam University from accomplishing its educational objectives, including the
preparation of students to study abroad. The current research findings showed a statistical relationship between
multiple intelligences and students’ motivation and language proficiency. The analysis of the data also showed that
when students became aware of their multiple intelligences profiles, they managed to enhance their motivation,
consequently their language skills. The recommendations of the current research provide a model for integrating
multiple intelligences for teaching English. The recommendations also include creating a professional
development center based on Gardner’s theory to train teachers to implement multiple intelligences activities in
the classrooms. The current research also provided a validated multiple intelligence questionnaire that could be
used to identify students’ multiple intelligences in various educational settings. As such, this research is a
contribution in the application of multiple intelligences at higher education since it is among a few research studies
in applying multiple intelligences at a university level.
References
Acat, M. B. (2005). Applicability of the multiple intelligence theory to the process of organizing and planning of
learning and teaching. International Journal of Educational Reform, 14(1), 54-72.
Armstrong, T. (2003). The multiple intelligences of reading and writing: Making the words come alive.
Washington D.C: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Aschbacher, P., & Pine, J. (2006). Students’ learning of inquiry in the ‘inquiry’ curricula. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2),
308-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003172170608800413
Barrington, B. (2004). Teaching to student diversity in higher education: how multiple intelligences theory can
help. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(4), 422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356251042000252363
Batt, E. G. (2008). Teacher’s perceptions of ELL education: Potential solutions to overcome greatest
challenges.Multicultural Education, 15(3), 39-43.
Branton, S. C. (2004). Using multiple intelligences assessment to promote teacher development and student
achievement. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 147-162.
Campbell, L. (2004). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Campbell, L., Campbell, B. & Dickinson, D. (2004). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences.
Chicago, IL: Merill Company.
Chan, D. W. (2006). Perceived multiple intelligences among male and female Chinese gifted students in Hong
Kong: The structure of the student multiple intelligences profile. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 325.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000405
Chen, J. Q. (2004). Theory of multiple intelligences: Is it a scientific theory? Teachers College Record, 106, 17-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00313
Christion, M. A. (2004). Applying multiple intelligences theory: In perspective and in-service TEFL education
programs. Forum, 36(2), 2.
Christion, M. A., & Kennedy, D. (2004). Multiple intelligences. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 10-14.
Christodoulou, J. A. (2009). Applying multiple intelligences. School Administrator, 66(2), 22- 26.
Cortright, C. L., Kennedy, K. D., Thornton, J. S. (2013). Differentiating for multiple intelligences: A study of
students’ understandings through the use of aesthetic representations. Issues in Teacher Education, 22(2),
69-91.
Cortright, R. N., Lujan, H. L., Cox, J. H., Cortright, M. A., Langworthy, B. M., Petta, L. M., ... DiCarlo, S. E.
(2015). Intellectual development is positively related to intrinsic motivation and course grades for female but
not male students. Advances in Physiology Education, 39(3), 181-186.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00117.2014
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
104
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511667343
Dylan, E. (2013). Integrated curricular approaches in reaching adult students. Adult Learning, 24(3), 128-130.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1045159513489114
Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. P. (2011). Strategies and models for teachers: Teaching content and thinking skills (6 th.
ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019263658807250832
Epelbaum, D. (2007). Multiple intelligences assessment gives insight into reading comprehension difficulties
and potential: A case study. International Journal of Learning, 14(5), 243-251.
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587869
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2000). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2004). Audiences for the theory of multiple intelligences. Teachers College Record, 106, 212-220.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00329.x
Ginsberg, M .B. (2011). Transformative professional learning: A system to enhance teacher and student
motivation. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483387376
Gowen, D. C. (2010). The relationship of motivation and multiple intelligence preference to achievement from
instruction using webquests (dissertation), Minneapolis, Minnesota: Walden University.
Gredler, M. (2005). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (5 th. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Griggs, L., Barney, S., Brown-Sederberg, J., Collins, E., Keith, S., & Iannacci, L. (2009). Varying pedagogy to
address student multiple intelligences. Human Architecture, 7(1), 55-60.
Haley, M. H. (2004). Learner- centered instruction and the theory of multiple intelligences with second language
learners. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 163-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00326
Hanafiyeh, M. (2013). The relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ multiple intelligence and success in foreign
language learning. Asian Journal of Management, Science, and Education, 2(1), 97-105.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Harlow, England: Longman.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn029
Kezar, A. (2001). Theory of multiple intelligences: Implications for higher education. Innovative Higher
Education, 26(2), 141-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1012292522528
Leimbach, M. P., & Maringka, J. (2010). Invited reaction: Developing emotional intelligence (EI) abilities through
team-based learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(2), 139-145.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20046
Lynn L. (2013). Implementing Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences at the college level of learning
(dissertation), Minneapolis, Minnesota: Capella University.
Madkour, M. (2011). Multiple intelligences and language acquisition: A qualitative study and application of
Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Barnes & Nobels.
McClellan, J. A. (2006). Development of an indicator to identify multiple intelligences preferences of adult
learners (dissertation). The Faculty of the Graduate College of Oklahoma State University.
McKenzie, W. (2002). Multiple intelligences and instructional technology: A manual for every mind. Eugene, OR:
International Society for Technology in Education.
McCoog , I. J. (2007). Integrated instruction: Multiple intelligences and technology. Clearing House: A Journal
of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(1), 25-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.81.1.25-28
McFarlane, D. A. (2011). Multiple intelligences: The most effective platform for global 21st century educational
and instructional methodologies. College Quarterly, 14(2), 1-8.
McGrath, H., & Noble, T. (2005). Eight ways at once: Multiple intelligences and revised Bloom’s taxonomy (2 nd.
ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
105
Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised Bloom’s taxonomy with multiple intelligences: A planning tool for
curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 193-211.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00328.x
Posner, M. I. (2004). Neural systems and individual differences. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 24-30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00314.x
Razmjoo. S. A. (2008). On the relationship between multiple intelligences and language proficiency. The
Reading Matrix, 8(2), 155-174.
Richards, J. C., &. Rodgers, T. S. (2011). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge Language
Teaching Library. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Roell, C. (2010). Intercultural training with films. English Teaching Forum, 48(2), 2-15.
Rutger, K., & Henk, V. (2012). Predicting academic success in higher education: What’s more important than
being smart? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(4), 605-619.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0099-9
Saricaoglu, A., & Arikan, A. (2009). A study of multiple intelligences, foreign language success and some selected
variables. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 5(2), 110-122.
Saricaoglu, A., & Arikan, A. (2014). Multiple intelligences profiles. Frames of mind: Theory of multiple
intelligences. International Education Studies, 7(11), 1-8.
Savas, P. (2012). Pre-service English as a foreign language teachers’ perceptions of the relationship between
multiple intelligences and foreign language learning. Learning And Individual Differences, 22(6), 850-855.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.003
Shore, J. (2004). Teacher education and multiple intelligences: a case study of multiple intelligences and teacher
efficacy in two teacher preparation courses. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 112-139.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00323
Suriat, S., & Tajularipin, S. (2010). Enhancing language teaching and learning by keeping individual differences in
perspective, International Education Studies, 3(2), 134-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v3n2p134
Touré-Tillery M, & Fishbach, A. (2014). How to measure motivation: A guide for experimental social
psychologists. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7), 328-341.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12110
Vaughn, S. R., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2011). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior
problems (8 th. ed.). Dallas, TX: Pearson Publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0742-051x (93)90018-c
Yeh Yeh, E. (2014). Teaching culture and language through the multiple intelligences film teaching model in the
ESL/EFL classroom. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 14(1) 63-79.
York-Barr, J., Sommers, W. A., Ghere, G. S., & Montie, J. (2006). Reflective practice to improve schools: An
action guide for educators (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
106
Appendix
Multiple Intelligences Questionnaire
Demographic and Academic Data Please check (√) in the appropriate box.
Gender: Male.................................... Female .................................
Age: 18-21 …………………… 22-25 …………………… Other…….. …
Social Status Single……………….… Married ……………………. Other…… …
Language Level Based on GPA: Advanced ……… Intermediate Beginner ……
Motivation: Interested in learning English Not interested in Learning English
Course of Study Grammar Reading Listening/ Speaking Writing
Favorite learning style is: Memorization Discussions Analysis
The Teaching Method in Classroom is : Traditional Modern ( with computers, videos, and CDs)
II. Multiple Intelligences Questionnaire
Questions 1
Always
2
Frequently
3
Sometimes
4
Rarely
5
Never
Linguistic Intelligence (Q 1-4)
1. I enjoy reading books and magazines.
2. I like to tell stories.
3. I enjoy learning new words.
4. I like to write letters or essays.
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (Q 5-9)
5. I easily add numbers in my head.
6. I enjoy using calculators and computers.
7. I ask a lot of questions about how things work.
8. I enjoy playing chess and logic puzzles.
9. I enjoy analyzing what I learn.
Spatial intelligence (Q 10-13)
10. I prefer to draw pictures rather than tell stories.
11. I read maps, charts, or diagrams more easily than
texts.
12. I am interested in building three-dimensional
constructions.
13. I enjoy visual learning such as watching movies or
using pictures.
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016
107
Musical Intelligence (Q14-16)
14. I enjoy learning using audio materials.
15. I enjoy different sounds in nature.
16. I like the music of poetry.
Interpersonal Intelligence (Q 17-19)
17. I enjoy working with teams than working by myself.
18. I like to help people solving their problems.
19. I enjoy social gatherings.
Intrapersonal Intelligence (Q 20-23)
20. I prefer a quiet place in which to work or just be
alone.
21. I Like to reflect on my own learning.
22. I am an independent learner.
23. I like to assess myself and my own work.
Naturalist Intelligence (Q 24-26)
24. I enjoy learning outside the classroom.
25. I like to watch natural phenomena and learn from
them.
26. I keep detailed records of my observations of nature
and my work.
Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence (Q 27-30)
27. I prefer learning by doing.
28. Physical activities help to increase my mental
abilities.
29. I enjoy learning activities that involve me to move in
the classroom such as acting.
30. Physical activities help to become an active learner.
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
