BARILANUNIVERSITY

The Relationship between Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences among Gifted and

Non-Gifted Students

Zina Moshebuyev

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters

Degree in the School of Education

Bar-Ilan University

Ramat-Gan, Israel 2015

This work was carried out under the supervision of

Dr. Itzhak Weiss and Dr. Josef Klein School of Education, Bar-Ilan University

Acknowledgments

Iwould liketoacknowledgemydeepestgratitudetoDr. ItzhakWeiss andDr. Josef Klein for their professional and dedicatedguidancethroughoutthestudy.Myheartfeltgratitudegoestomybelovedfamilyforyearsofpatience,supportandunderstanding.Tomyfatherandmother,Ithankyouforthepricelessencouragementyouhavegivenme.Iwouldalsoowedeepestthankstomyhusbandandmydearchildrenfortheirconstantsupport,patienceandstrengthstocompletethisstudy.

TableofContents

Abstract I

Chapter 1- Theoretical Background Introduction 1

Literature Review 3

Giftedness 3

What is a Style? 9

Definitions of Learning styles 10

The Dunn and Dunn Model 12

Learning Style Researches in Gifted Students 15

Multiple Intelligence 16

Approaches to Understanding Intelligence 16

Multiple Forms of Intelligence 20

Multiple Intelligence Theory 21

Intelligence Types in Multiple Intelligence Theory 23

Multiple Intelligence Differences by Group 25

Multiple Intelligence Differences by Gender 26

Relationship between Intelligences and Styles 27

Chapter 2- Methodology The Purpose of the Study 29

Research Questions and Hypotheses 31

Method 33

Participants 33

Research Variables 33

Instruments 33

Procedure 34

Chapter 3- Research Findings Data analysis for the Study Measures 35

Descriptive Statistics 35

Research Question 1: Are there differences between gifted and non-gifted

students as related to learning style? Univariate Analysis of Variance

(ANOVA)

37

Research Question 2: Are there differences between gifted and non-gifted

students as related to multiple intelligence? Univariate Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA)

44

Research Question 3: Is there a correlation between learning styles and

multiple intelligences? Matrix correlation analysis

53

Hierarchical Regression Analysis 57

Chapter 4 Discussion Research Question 1: Are there differences between gifted and non-gifted

students as related to learning style?

63

Research Question 2: Are there differences between gifted and non-gifted

students as related to Multiple Intelligence?

66

Hypotheses 3: Relationships between learning styles and multiple

intelligences in both groups

69

Hierarchical Regression Analysis 71

Chapter 5 Conclusion Conclusion 73

Limitations and Recommendation for Future Research 74

Practical Implications 75

Bibliography 76 Appendixes 88 Appendix 1: Dunn & Dunn Learning Styles Questionnaire (1996) 89

Appendix 2: Details of the components of the learning style questionnaire 92

Appendix 3: Mackenzie Multiple Intelligences Questionnaire (1999,2002) 93

Appendix 4: Details of the components of the multiple intelligence

questionnaire

98

List of Tables

Table 1: Descriptive statistics 36

Table 2: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of gender by age in

the visual learning style

38

Table 3: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of gender by group in

the visual learning style

39

Table 4: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of gender by group in

the auditory learning style

40

Table 5: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of gender by group in

the tactile learning style

43

Table 6: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of gender by group in

the spatial intelligence

44

Table 7: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of gender by group in

the linguistic intelligence

46

Table 8: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of age by group in the

natural intelligence

50

Table 9: Summary table of analyses of variance (ANOVA) 52

Table 10: Results of the matrix correlation analysis between learning

styles and multiple intelligences

53

Table 11: Results of the matrix correlation analysis between learning

styles and multiple intelligences for gifted and non-gifted groups

56

54

Table 12: Summary table of the matrix correlation analyses

Table 13: Results of regression analysis predicting auditory learning style

among non-gifted group by demographic variables and multiple

intelligence

57

Table 14: Results of regression analysis predicting auditory learning style

among gifted group by demographic variables and multiple intelligence

58

Table 15: Results of regression analysis predicting visual learning style

among non-gifted group by demographic variables and multiple

intelligence 59

Table 16: Results of regression analysis predicting visual learning style

among gifted group by demographic variables and multiple intelligence

60

Table 17: Results of regression analysis predicting tactile learning style

among gifted group by demographic variables and multiple intelligence

61

Table 18: Summary table of the hierarchic regression analysis predicting

learning styles among gifted and non-gifted by demographic variables and

multiple intelligence

62

Table 19: Factors of the Dunn & Dunn (1996) instrument 92

Table 20: Factors of the Mackenzie (1999, 2002) instrument 98

List of Figures

Figure 1: Means interaction of visual learning style of gender by age 38

Figure 2: Means interaction of visual learning style of gender by group 39

Figure 3: Means interaction of auditory learning style of gender by group 41

Figure 4: Means of gender in tactile learning style 42

Figure 5: Means of group in tactile learning style 42

Figure 6: Means interaction of tactile learning style of gender by group 43

Figure 7: Means interaction of spatial intelligence of gender by group 45

Figure 8: Means interaction of linguistic intelligence of gender by group 47

Figure 9: Means of gender in interpersonal intelligence 48

Figure 10: Means interaction of natural intelligence of age by group 50

Figure 11: Means of gender in logic-mathematics intelligence 52

I

Abstract

Learning styles and multiple intelligences have been investigated in the last

decades as important variables that impact the learning processes among

students.

The present study hypothesizes that there will be a strong relationship between

learning styles and their corresponding multiple intelligences among gifted and

non-gifted students. This study aims to find parallels between the two concepts,

learning styles and multiple intelligences, and on the other hand to emphasize

the differences between them as two separate concepts. While trying to

understand individual differences during the learning process, it became clear

that information about general intelligence and personality gives only a partial

explanation. Learning styles and multiple intelligences contribute to a better

understanding of the difference between individuals among the gifted and non-

gifted in their process of learning. Learning style refers to an individuals natural,

habitual, and preferred ways of absorbing, processing, and retaining new

information and skills (Reid, 1995). The term learning style was a raised at the

beginning of the 20th century and merged into many theories and models ever

since then.

In this paper, we chose to focus on the model that was proposed by Dunn and

Dunn (1993). This model categorizes humans learning process through four

preferences: through visual, auditory, tactile and kinesthetic preferences.

It is important to distinguish between the concept style and close concepts such

as: ability and strategy. These concepts have different meanings. Abilities refer to

competencies and they have specific definitions while styles refer to something

more general.

The literature explains that the awareness to learning style is a part that benefits

the learning processes among the students. Teaching classes in different

learning styles will be significant for a wider range of students learning

preferences. Studies that have been conducted among gifted and non-gifted

students show that the exposure and the awareness to the different learning

II

styles influence the learning process. Studies also presented gender and group

as influential variables on learning styles.

The multiple theory of Gardner (1983) tries to expand the human potential and

ability beyond the boundaries of general intelligence, which measures

intelligence through the I.Q test. Gardner defines intelligence as ability or abilities

that allows an individual to solve problems or produce products within a defined

social structure. He claims that there are multiple intelligences which exist and

they are independent; it opposes the notion of the existence of just general

intelligence.

The multiple intelligences that are proposed by Gardner are: verbal,

mathematical, logical, spatial, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal

and natural intelligences.

According to Gardners theory all intelligences have the same importance. In

addition, each individual has a different level of multiple intelligences. Finally,

each one of the intelligences has its own course of development.

The theory also relies on three basic principles: first, the intelligence is not only

one entity. Moreover, multiple intelligences do not depend on each other and

finally, there is interaction between the multiple intelligences. The theory of

multiple intelligences and learning styles provide an equal educational

opportunity for a range of learners with different and diverse styles and

intelligences.

The main questions of the study are:

1. Are there differences between gifted and non-gifted students as related to

learning style?

2. Are there differences between gifted and non-gifted students as related to

Multiple Intelligence?

3. Is there a correlation between learning styles and multiple intelligences?

200 students participated in the study. Two groups of Israeli secondary school

students, gifted and non-gifted students, took part in the study. Ages ranged from

12-16 years old. Data was collected on learning styles and multiple intelligences

by two questionnaires, the Learning Style Inventory that was developed by Dunn

III

and Dunn (1996) and the Multiple Intelligences Survey that was developed by

Mackenzie (1999, 2002).

The findings present that there are differences in the preferences of learning

styles between gifted and non-gifted students. The auditory, visual and tactile

learning styles results presented differences in both groups while the kinesthetic

style results showed no significant statistical differences were found in both

groups.

The results have shown significant differences between the gifted and the non-

gifted as related to the tactile style; the non-gifted students prefer to use the

tactile learning style more than the gifted students. This finding contradicts our

hypothesis, that gifted students will present higher preference for using the tactile

learning style. Price and Milgram (1993) studies reported that kinesthetic and

tactile learning styles discriminated the most between gifted and non-gifted

students, gifted students preferred kinesthetic and tactile more than non-gifted

students because they like to be active participants in the discovery process in

order to be motivated and engaged in class (Rohaizad, Yeop & Anuar, 2008).

These differences of the results may be attributed to the changes that the

educational system in Israel has been making in the methods of teaching at

schools. This method believes that knowledge can be actively constructed by the

students interaction with the world in different ways and encourages the student

to engage in hands-on explorations such as: building models, doing experiments,

and using technology that fuel the constructive learning process and make it

meaningful for him (Papert, 1980).

The findings also show that there are significant statistical differences in the

tactile style due to the gender variable; and when we inquired the differences

separately for the female and the male group, the results indicated that the gifted

female group presents higher preferences in the use of tactile style than the

gifted male group. This finding partially supports our hypotheses because when

we focus on the gifted group, we found that the gifted females are more tactile

than the gifted males. This result is similar with research findings (Alsafi, 2010),

which also indicated that females demonstrated higher preference for tactile style

IV

than males.

Another difference that this study has indicated between gifted and non-gifted is

related to visual learning style due to the interaction of age by gender factors.

The differences in results in this style were in favor of the older female group

rather than the younger female group. Wehrwein, Lujan & Dicarlo (2007) in their

study proved that females present higher preference of the visual style. Ozbas

(2014) in his study also proved that the most important difference is beneficial for

the female group.

The results also report a significant difference between gifted and non-gifted as

related to the auditory style due to the interaction of gender by group factors; the

non-gifted male students preferred auditory style more than the gifted male

group. This finding supports our hypothesis claiming that non-gifted students will

present higher preferences for auditory learning styles than the gifted.

It can be concluded that there are significant differences among gifted and non-

gifted as related to learning styles due to different factors. The innovation in my

study is that the non-gifted students can also be characterized as tactile learners.

In the light of the presented findings of the study, future studies should

investigate more preferences of the tactile learning style among gifted and non-

gifted.

The findings of the study also confirm that there is a direct correlation between

different multiple intelligences and parallel learning styles. For instance, there is a

significant correlation between spatial intelligence and the visual learning style

and the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence strongly correlates with the kinesthetic

learning style. This confirms our hypothesis which recognizes a clear correlation

between the different multiple intelligences and the corresponded learning styles

in both groups. The findings indicate that correlations do exist in the majority of

the different learning styles and intelligences. These relationships might be set

forth in the other way; that is to say, gifted students with a higher preference for

auditory learning style seem to be stronger in all the intelligences and the non-

gifted students with higher preference for auditory style seem to be stronger in

linguistic, logical, kinesthetic, naturalistic and spatial intelligences.

V

These findings are similar to the results of the studies conducted by Seifoori &

Zarei (2011) and Tekiner (2005). The results of these studies also indicate

positive correlations between the learning styles with some of the intelligences.

The results obtained indicate that each participant uses a combination of different

learning modalities to learn effectively. Students with dominant linguistic

intelligence are more sensitive to spoken and written language, they possess the

ability to learn languages easily, and use language to express oneself rhetorically

or poetically; listen and respond, imitate sounds, read, write and take part in

discussions (Campbell, Campbell, & Dickinson, 1996).

Therefore, the use of the different learning styles contributes to this intelligence.

These results also conclude the idea articulated by Nolen (2003) that individuals

possess intelligence to a certain level, but as a result of exposure to specific

social and instructional conditions designed for a certain intelligence type; this

intelligence type develops to a higher level. That is to say, one type of

intelligence becomes stronger while others do not develop fully.

Gardner claimed that intelligence can function as a separate intellectual

intelligence, he also pointed out an integral relationship between a certain

intellectual ability to some other aspects of the intellect.

Gardners theory (1995) also presents correlations between the intelligences.

The fact that Gardner found relationships between different types of intelligences,

explains the correlation between the learning styles and the intelligences. Thus,

the auditory learning style positively correlates with the linguistic intelligence; it

also serves as a resource to other intelligences as well. This explains the results

of the present study.

In conclusion, the results of the hierarchical regression analysis report on a

positive prediction of the auditory style by linguistic intelligence and a negative

prediction of the visual style by musical intelligence. However, the findings

indicate more predictions among the gifted group. This may suggest that among

the gifted, intelligence has more impact on the learning style; the intelligences

are more connected to the learning styles in the gifted group. The auditory style

is predicted by intrapersonal and logical intelligences. The visual style is

VI

predicted by spatial intelligence and the tactile style is predicted by linguistic

intelligence. The gifted are more focused and more attended to their intelligences

and that is why it predicts their learning style, while the non-gifted are more

diffused about their intelligences and that is why it does not predict their learning

styles.

These findings have importance in the field of research and implementation.

In the field of research, it is important to clarify that the assessment tools today

are not enough to recognize the exact characteristics of learning styles and

multiple intelligences among gifted and non-gifted. New self-report

questionnaires need to be developed that will allow more accurate identification

of the components of the various learning styles and multiple intelligences. These

questionnaires must include different assignments to investigate what learning

styles must be utilized in order to accomplish the different assignments. This will

predict the differences and the relationships between the two concepts and it

also will be possible to make an accurate assessment of the task components

according to different learning styles and multiple intelligences.

Future research should also integrate classroom observations and interviews

with the students in a longitudinal study to have more valid results; that will allow

more accurate identification.

In addition, this research should be carried out also among adults; the results

may reveal more on the interactions and differences in gifted various non-gifted

students.

1

Chapter1TheoreticalBackgroundIntroductionThepurposeofthestudyistobringtogethertwomainconceptsthatarebeingexpressedintheprocessoflearning:learningstylesandmultipleintelligences.Theimportanceoftheseconceptsandtheirimpactsineducationwerearaisedinmanyresearchesintherecentdecades.Thesetwoconcepts(learningstylesandmultipleintelligences)arebeingdiscussedinstudies,tryingtoinvestigateandunderstandtheirimpactsonthelearningprocesses.Thepremiseoftheresearchisthattherearepossibleinterrelationsbetweenlearningstylesandmultipleintelligences.Theaimoftheresearchistoinvestigatetheparallelbetweenlearningstylesandmultipleintelligencesamonggiftedandnongiftedstudentsontheonehand,whilealsoexaminingthetwoconceptsseparatelyineachoneofthegroups.

Asitappearsintheliteraturereview,styleisdefinedasapreferredwayofthinkingordoingthings(e.g.,thinking,learning,teaching)(Sternberg&Zhang,2001).Astyleisnotanability,butratherapreferenceintheuseoftheabilitiespeoplehave.Gardnerdefinesintelligenceasabiopsychologicalpotentialtoprocessinformationthatcanbeactivatedinaculturalsettingtosolveproblemsorcreateproductsthatareofvalueinaculture(Gardner,1983).Hebelievesthatanindividualhasmultipleofintelligencesandtheyareindependent.

InthedifferentmodelsofthelearningstylesandthetheoryofGardnersmultipleintelligences(1983)thereisacommonperceptionthatrecognizesthedifferencesthatexistinindividuals.Eachindividualhashispotentialandstrengthandtherearevarietiesofwaystoexpressthem(Sternberg&Zhang,2001;Gardner,1983).Yet,thetwotheoriesrelatetodifferentconcepts:thetheoriesoflearningstylesrelatetotheconceptstyle,whilethetheoryofthemultipleintelligencesrelatestotheconceptintelligence.

Styleisapreference.Intelligenceisabilities.Abilitiesareseenasanindicationofpermanentandcanbemeasurableandtheyanswerthequestion,whetheranindividualisabletostudyandperformacognitivetaskornot.Whilestyleanswerthequestionhowanindividualpreferstousehisabilitiestoperformthetask(Sternberg,1994,1997).Stylesreflectsomethingmoregeneralthanabilities.

2

Asaforesaid,thisresearchaimstofocusonthedifferencesandrelationshipsoflearningstylesandmultipleintelligencesingiftedandnongiftedsecondarystudentsinIsraelandprovideandaccessibleoverviewtotheimportanceoftheattemptstointegratethesetwoconceptsintoeducationalfield.Forthepurposeoftheresearch,wewillpresentthetheoreticalbackgroundaboutgiftedness,learningstyles,multipleintelligencesanddiscussthedifferencesbetweenthetwoconcepts.Finally,wewillinvestigatethedifferencesandthecorrelationsbetweenthemingiftedandnongiftedstudents.Thecontributionofthepresentresearchistoincreasetheawarenessthattherearedifferencesinthewaysstudentsprocessing,analyzing,internalizingandpracticinginformation.Thestudywillalsopresentthedifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedasrelatedtotheirpreferredwaysoflearning.

3

LiteratureReviewGiftednessThedefinitionofgiftednessvariesfromthosewithanarrowfocusononehighlyexceptionalintellectualcapacitytothosewithabroadrangeofintellectual,motivationalandartisticdimensions(Renzulli&Hoge,1993).Thedefinitionsfortheconceptgiftednesshavechangedthroughouttheyearsaccordingtodifferenttheoriesanddefinitions.Thefirsttwodefinitionsrefertopsychologicalconstructs:geneticallybasedandcognitivelybased,whilethethirdonefocusesonachievementandaccomplishmentandthefourthtakesanenvironmentalapproach(Heller,Monks,Sternberg&Subotkin,2000).GeneticOrientedDefinitionsInthe1950s,thepsychologistsdefinedgiftednessmainlyintermsofintelligenceasmeasuredbyIntelligentQuotient(IQ)testsonintellectualabilitiesthatweredevelopedbyBinetin1904(Sousa,2003).TheinterestforthegiftedbeganwhenGalton(1869)reasonedthatindividualswhohadacutesensesandwhocouldsenseapproachingdangerandfindviablefoodsourceswouldbefavoredfromanevolutionarystandpoint.Galtonassertedthatonlythesmartsurvives;accordingtohisviewthoseindividualsthatpossessvisualandauditory,aswellastactileskillswerethosedeemedtobethemostintelligenthenceabletosurvive(Bonner,2010).Galtonstheoryestablishedthehereditarybasisofintelligencemeaningthatindividualswhowererecognizedordistinguishedbytheirintelligenceappearedtocomefromsuccessivegenerationswithinparticularfamilies.

Binet(1904)developedanimportantmeasurementtoolwhichmeasuredachildspotentialforschoollearning,andhelpingthosewhowerelaggingbehind.Binetworkedoutasetofgradedintellectualexercisesfromwhicheachchildsscorecouldbecomparedwithothersofthesameage.NowadaysthisBinetssetofgradedintellectualexercisesarecalledIQtestsandtheyareallconstantlyupdated.Terman(1922)inhisstudiesofthegiftedadaptedBinetsintelligencetestsandrenamedittheStanfordBinetIntelligenceTest.Hebelievedthatintelligence,asrevealedbyintelligencetests,isgeneticallydeterminedandthereforeitremainsstableovertime.Theseintelligencetestsmeasurechildrensabilitiestohelpandguidethemselvestoanappropriateeducation,agoodintelligencetestcansometimeidentifyagiftedchild(Freeman,2001).

4

EventuallyitwasconcludedthatIQtestswerenotasatisfactorymeasureofgiftednessandthatapersoncouldbegiftedindifferentways;academicarts,sports,performingartsorinbusinessventures(Sousa,2003).TheIQtestsonlyassessanalyticalandverbalskillsbutfailtomeasurepracticalknowledgeandcreativity,whicharecriticalcomponentstoproblemsolvingandsuccessinlife.Furthermore,thepredictiveabilitiesofIQtestsdeteriorateoncesituationsorpopulationschange(Sousa,2003).AnotherdefinitionwasproposedbyMarland(1972)hestatedthatgiftedchildrenarethoseidentifiedbyprofessionallyqualifiedpeoplewhoarecapableofhighperformancebyvirtueofoutstandingabilities.Moreover,heconcludedthatgiftedchildrenrequiredifferentiatededucationalprogramsandservicesbeyondwhicharenormallyprovidedbyaregularschoolprograminordertorealizetheircontributiontoselfandsociety.Childrencapableofhighperformanceincludethosewithdemonstratedachievementsand/orpotentialabilityinanyofthefollowingareas:generalintellectualability,specificacademicattitude,creativeorproductivethinking,leadershipability,visualandperformingartsandpsychomotorability.Marlandsdefinitiongoesbeyondintelligencetootherareasofhighabilityaswellasachievementisacriterionforidentification.Nonetheless,thisdefinitionexcludesnoncognitivefactorslike:motivation,aswellasclearoperationalizationofthedifferentformsofgiftedness.

Gardner(1983)arguedthattheconceptofintelligenceisnotaunitaryqualityofthemindbutratherthatdifferentkindsofintelligencesaregeneratedfromseparatemetaphoricalpoolsofmentalenergy.InhistheoryofMultipleIntelligence,Gardnersuggestedthathumanspossessatleasteightintelligencesandanindividualispredisposedtodevelopeachoftheintelligencestodifferentlevelsofcompetence.Gardnerproposedthattheintelligencesrepresentwaysofprocessinginformationandthinking;individualsatanygiventimeusethementionedintelligencesthatallowthemtosolvespecificproblems,generatenewproblems,andcreateproductsandservicesofvaluetotheirparticularculture(Gardner1983).Healsobelievedthatintelligenceistheproductofgeneticpredispositionandenvironment.AccordingtoGardnerstheoryofMultipleIntelligences,giftednessisdefinedasachildbeingexceptionallycompetentinoneormoreofthemultipleintelligences(Sousa,2003).Thistheoryhasencouragedtheideaofakaleidoscopeofhumanabilitieswhichhashadaliberatingimpactonunderstandingtheconceptofgiftedness(Freeman,2001).GardnerclaimedthattheIQtestswerenotenoughtoidentifygiftedchildrenbecauseoftheirfocusonlyonlinguisticandlogicalskills;asaresult,theMItheoryapproachwasusedasanalternativemeanofidentifyinggiftedchildren.

5

CognitiveModelsCognitivedefinitionsfocusonthoughtprocess,memory,andrelatedskills.Piagetwasmoreinterestedintheprocessofrespondingthanonthefinalresultsofthetests.Inthistheoryofknowledge,knownasgeneticepistemology,Piagetwasinterestedinfindingouthowchildrenattainknowledgeanduseit.Inoneofhisstudiesheobservedandinterviewedasmallgroupofchildrenwhiletheywereperformingtasks;hewantedtofindouthowtheygottothefinalresults.Thisstudyattemptsdirectlyidentifythecomponentsofperformanceontasksthathavebeengenerallyusedtoassessmentalabilities(Heller,Monks,Sternberg&Subotkin,2000).

InhistheorySternberganimportantproponenttoPiagetsapproach,focusesontheinsightandresponsestonoveltyintaskperformance(Heller,Monks,SternbergandSubotnik,2000).Withinthisapproachadistinctionismadebetweenthreeseparatebutrelatedpsychologicalprocess(Sternberg,1985):1.Selectiveencodingsiftingoutrelevantinformationfromirrelevantinformation.2.Selectivecombinationcombiningwhatmightoriginallyseemtobeisolatedpiecesofinformationintoaunifiedwholethatmayormaynotresembleitsparts(Sternberg,1985).3.Selectivecomparisonrelatingnewinformationtothatwhichwasacquiredinthepast.AccordingtoSternbergsapproach,insightfulperformancedemonstratedasproblemsolvingskillsorasknowledgeacquisitioncomponentsareindicatorsofgiftedness.Sternbergclaimsthatthebettertheseskillsarethemoreintellectuallygiftedapersonis(Heller,Monks,Sternberg&Subotkin,2000).Sternbergdistinguishesthreetypesofgiftednesswithhistriarchicmodelandconcludesthathumanintelligenceconsistsofthreetypesofintelligences:analytical,creative,andpractical.1.Analyticalintelligencepeoplewiththisintelligencehavetheabilitiesinanalyzing,critiquingandevaluatingproblemsandsituations.ThisintelligencecanbemeasuredbyIQtests.2.Creativelyintelligencepeoplethataregoodatdiscovering,inventingandcreating.3.Practicallyintelligencepeoplethatexcelatapplying,utilizingandimplementing.

Inthismodel,intelligenceisdefinedbythesethreetypesofbehavior,andgiftednessistheresultfromtheabilitytoperformtheskillsinoneormoreoftheseareaswithexceptionalaccuracyandefficiency.Thecombinationofthesethreetypesofintelligencesproducesdifferentpatternsofgiftedness(Sousa,2000).Thisconceptwastestedinmanystudieswhere

6

studentswereassessedontheirmemoryaswellastheiranalytic,creative,andpracticalachievements.Theresultsofthesestudiesshowedthatthestudentsthatweretaughtinwaysthatbestmatchedtheirachievementpatternsoutperformedthosewhosemethodofinstructionwasnotsuitablewiththeirpatternofabilities(Sternberg,Ferrari,ClinkenbeardandGrigorenko,1996;Sternberg,Griorenko,Jarvin,Clinkenbeard,FerrariandTorfi,2000).Inaddition,Sternbergalsosummarizesthatthetheoryofgiftednessdescribesthegiftedasonewhomeetsthefollowingfivecriteria:excellence,rarity,productivity,demonstrability,andvalue.1.Excellencetheindividualissuperiorinsomedimensionorsetofdimensionsrelativetopeers.2.Raritytheindividualpossessesaskillorattributethatisrareamongpeers.3.Productivitytheindividualmustproducesomethingintheareaofgiftedness.4.Demonstrabilitytheskilloraptitudeofgiftednessmustbedemonstrablethroughoneormorevalidassessments.5.Valuetheindividualshowssuperiorperformanceindimensionthatisvaluedbythatpersonssociety.Thesecriteriaprovidethebasisforunderstandingwhysomepeoplearedefinedasgiftedwhileothersarenot(Sousa,2003).

AchievementOrientedModelsTermanandStern(1916)wereconvincedthathighintelligencewasnecessarybutnotasufficientconditionforhighlyablebehaviorand,asaresult,theyclaimedthatachievementandpersonalitytraitslikemotivationandenvironmentallyappropriateconditionsareimportantasanobservableoutputofgiftedness(Heller,Monks,Sternberg&Subotkin,2000).ThemostinfluentialtheoryinthiscategoryisRenzullistheoryofthethreeringconceptionofgiftedness.Thistheoryattemptstoportraythemaindimensionsofhumanpotentialforcreativeproductivity(Sternberg&Davidson,2005).Itdeterminesthatpeoplearegiftedbecauseoftheiruniqueaccomplishmentandcreativecontributions.Theypossessarelativelywelldefinedsetofthreeinterlockingclustersoftraits,whichconsistof:1).aboveaverageability,2).aboveaveragetaskcommitment,and3).aboveaveragecreativity.Itisimportanttoemphasizethattheinteractionamongthethreeclustersisnecessaryforcreativeproductiveachievementandeachclusterplaysanimportantroleincontributingtothedisplayofgiftedbehavior(Renzulli,1998).Theresearchoncreativeproductivepeoplehasconsistentlyshownthatidentification

7

proceduresoveremphasizesuperiorabilitiesattheexpenseoftheothertwoclustersoftraits(Sternberg&Davidson,2005).Inhisapproach,Renzulliwantstobeabletoidentifyandtonurturegiftednessappropriately,heclaimsthatgiftednesshastobeseenasamanifestationofhumanpotentialthatcanbedevelopedincertainpeople,atcertaintimes,andundercertaincircumstances(Renzulli,1990).

EnvironmentalModelsTheenvironmentalmodelspresentmanyothersystemsthathaveanimpactonthedevelopmentofindividualssuchas:theeconomicsituation,thepoliticalorientationandtheculturallydominantvaluesandbeliefs.Allofwhichwerestatedabovehaveagreatinfluenceonhumandevelopmentandthereforeonthedevelopmentofgiftedchildren(Heller,Monks,Sternberg&Subotkin,2000).inhisapproach,Tannenbaum(1983)statedhebelievesoutstandingachievementsaredeterminedequallybythefollowingfivefactors:generalabilitygeneralintelligence,specialabilityaptitudeinaspecificarea,nonintellectivefactorsmetalearning,dedicationtoachosenfield,strongselfconcept,willingnesstosacrifice,mentalhealth,environmentalfactorsparents,classroom,peers,culture,andsocialclass,andchancefactorsaccidental,generalexploratory,sagacity,andpersonalizedaction.Tannenbaumsdefinition,thestardefinition,arrangesthesefactorsintheshapeofastarandviewsgiftednessasaninteractionofthefivefactors(Heller,Monks,Sternberg&Subotkin,2000).OneofTannenbaumsmajorconcernsaboutthewaygiftednesswasidentifiedisthatprecocity,alongwithvariouscontextualandenvironmentalfactors,couldpotentiallybeoverlooked.Tannenbaumstates:thosewhohavethepotentialforsucceedingasgiftedadultsrequirenotonlythepersonalattributesoftenmentionedindefinitionsofgiftedness,butalsosomespecialencounterswiththeenvironmenttofacilitatetheemergenceoftalent(Bonner,2010).AnotherdefinitionthatstronglyemphasizespersonalitytraitsisthemultidimensionalapproachthatwasproposedbyMonk(1992)anditconsistsofpersonalityandenvironmentalaspects.Monksstatesthatenvironmentalfactorsincludethemainsocialcontextsinwhichthepersonmaturessuchas:family,school,andpeergroups.Emergenceanddevelopmentofgiftedpotentialdependgreatlyonasupportiveenvironment.Allchildrenneedpeerstointeractwithandtolearnfromandthisisalsotruewiththegifted(Heller,Monks,Sternberg&Subotkin,

8

2000).Inconclusion,itseemsthattherearemanytermsfordefininggiftednessusingdifferenttheories.

9

Whatisastyle?Astyleisapreferredwayofthinkingordoingthings(e.g.,thinking,learning,teaching)(Sternberg&Zhang,2001).Astyleisnotanability,butratherapreferenceintheuseoftheabilitiespeoplehave.Itisaninterfacebetweenabilityandpersonality(Sternberg,1994,1997).Theinterestinthenotionofastyletriestodiscoverananswertotheinterfacebetweenabilitiesontheonehand,andpersonalityontheother.ThefamouspsychologistAllport(1937)wasthefirstonetointroducetheideaofstyles,andhereferredtostyleasameanofidentifyingdistinctivepersonalityorbehaviortypes.Hisdefinitionofstylereferstohabitualpatternsorpreferredwaysofdoingsomething(Sternberg&Zhang,2001).Theresearchofstyles,istryingtounderstandtheindividualdifferencesinperformanceofstudents,byusingquestionnairestoidentifystylepreferences.Sternbergsaidastyleisnotalevelorevenakindofability,butratherawayofutilizinganabilityorsetofabilities(Sternberg,1994).Sternbergtriedtoexplainthatastyleisnotatalentbutastrongtendency,andstylefunctionswithoutindividualconsciousness.Riding(2002)presentedthatstylecanbeinbuiltordevelopedwithexperience,butitisapparentatanearlyage.Healsopredictedthatastylemightresultfromadifferencebetweentwocomplementaryabilities.CanoGarciaandHughes(2000)claimedthattherearethreedifferentapproachestotheconceptualizationofstylecenteredoncognitioncenteredstyles,personalitycenteredstylesandactivitycenteredstyles.Thecognitioncenteredapproachfocusesuponindividualdifferencesincognitionandperceptionresultingintheidentificationanddescriptionofseveralstyles,abilities,anddimensionsofcognitiveprocessing(CanoGarcia&Hughes,2000).Theconceptofcognitivestylecontainsageneralmeaningrelatedtothewayinwhichinformationisprocessed(Sterenberg&Zhang,2001).RidingandCheema(1991),Miller(1987,1991)andRidingcitingTennants(1988)describecognitivestyleasapersonstypicalorhabitualmodeofproblemsolving,thinking,perceivingandremembering.Thepersonalitycenteredapproachinvolvesthestudyofstylesinrelationtootherindividualpersonalitycharacteristics(RaynerandRiding,1997).Theactivitycenteredapproachfocusesonactivitycenteredtheoriesoflearningstylesandteachingstylesassociatedwitheducationistsaddressingenvironmentalandprocessbased

10

issuesrelatedtomeetingindividualdifferencesintheclassroom(Rayner&Riding,1997).DefinitionsofLearningStylesManydefinitionsoflearningstyleappearinliterature,history,andinpsychology.Thissectionfocusesonsomeofthem;manyofthemindicatesimilarinterpretationsoflearningstyleswhileothersdescribeitdifferently.Learninginvolvesthetotalityofhumanactivities:feelings,reflecting,thinkinganddoing.Individualsaretaughttodevelopspecializedabilitiesandpreferencesforsuchactivitiesandtheyarecalledlearningstyles.Thelearningstyleconceptderivedfromthefieldofindividualdifferencesininformationprocessing(Curry,2000).Keefe(1979)illustratesthatlearningstylesrefertocognitive,affective,andphysiologicalbehaviorsthatperformasrelativelystableindicatorsofhowpeopleperceive,interactwith,andrespondtotheirenvironmentinalearningsituation.Learningstylesaredefinedasindividualconsistenciesinperception,memory,thinkingandjudgmentacrossanystimuluscondition(Curry,2000).Sternberg&Zhang(2001)definedthatlearningstylesareconsideredasactionorientedstylesandtheyarecenteredonthekindsofactivitiespeopleengageinatvariouspointsintheirlives,whichmeansthatlearningstyleisthewayapersonprocesses,internalizes,andstudiesnewandchallengingmaterial.Alearningstyleisanindividualsuniquesetofdifferencesthatincludepersonalpreferencesforinstructionoranassociationwithaparticularstyleoflearningactivity(Riding&Rayner,1998)meaningthatlearningstylesexplainhowpeopleliketolearn.Learningstylesemphasizethecharacteristicsofthelearningenvironment,aswellascharacteristicsofthelearnerincludinghowthelearnerprocessesinformation.FelderandHenriques(1995)explainthatlearningstylesarethewaysinwhichanindividualcharacteristicallyacquires,retainsandretrievesinformation,theysummarizethatstudentslearninmanywaysbyseeingandhearing,reflectingandacting,reasoninglogically,andintuitively(Sabatova,2008).Kneefe(1979),citedbyWooldrige(1995)definedthatlearningstylesareamixtureofcharacteristicelements,cognitiveabilities,affectiveandpsychologicalbehaviorsoflearners.Theyaretheindicatorsofthewaysthelearnersperceive,interactwithandrespondtothelearningenvironment(Wooldridge,1995).TheperspectivesofFelderandSilverman(1998)andAnderson(1995)onlearningstylespresenthowalearnerreceivesinformation,aswellas,how

11

heprocessesthereceivedinformation.Moran(1991),citingGorham(1986),identifiedthreemainassumptionsindifferentstudiesonlearningstyles:1)Peopledifferconsistentlyfromeachotherintheirpreferencesforcertainwaysofprocessinginformation.2)Theindividualdifferencesaremeasurable.3)Matchingormismatchingstudentslearningstyleswithinstructionaltechniquesaffectthelearningprocess.Vermunt(2003)suggestedhisconceptualizationsoflearningstylesashabitual,traittypeandstylelikelearningpatternsdealingwithcomponentsofprocessingstrategies,regulationstrategies,learningorientationsandmentallearningmodels.Healsoaddedaholisticcoordinatingaspecttotheconceptwherebyindividualspreferencesareinterpretedintermsofinteractionsbetweenparticulartypesofpersonalcharacteristicswithregardtolearning,andthecontextsinwhichtheindividualattemptstolearn(Vermunt,1996).InReidsdefinition(1995),learningstylesrefertoanindividualsnatural,habitual,andpreferredwaysofabsorbing,processing,andretainingnewinformationandskills.Individualslearningstyleisamultidimensionalelementwithmanyvariablesthataffecteachotherandproduceuniquepatterns.Reid(1998)claimedthatlearningstylesarenotdichotomous,butexistonwidecontinuums.Learningstylesareinfluencedbyfactorssuchasgender,age,culture,context,motivation,backgroundknowledge,andsubjectmatter(ChengandBanya,1998;Dunn,1999).Learningstylesareofvalueandareoftenlinkedtolearningstrategies,whicharedefinedasspecificmethodsofapproachingaproblemortask,modesofachievingaparticularend,plannedend,planneddesignsforcontrollingandmanipulatingcertaininformation(Brown,1994).SternbergandGrigorenko(2001)reofferedthatstylesoperatewithoutindividualsawareness.Intheearly1960sresearchersverifiedthatstudentslearninwaysthataredifferentfromtheirpeers.Therefore,severaldozenlearningstyleinstrumentsandinventorieshavebeendevelopedtodetermineandidentifylearnerspreferredlearningstyles.Inthepresentresearch,theDunnandDunnScaleofLearningStylesModel(1978)ismentionedduetothefactthatithasbeenprimarilyadoptedintheeducationalworld.

12

TheDunnandDunnModelDunnandDunn(1993)believethatpeoplecanalsodemonstrateintelligencebythemannerinwhichtheyperceive,comprehend,solveproblems,criticallyanalyzeandmakeproductivedecisions(Denig,2004).DunnandDunn(1993,1999)focusontheconstructionoflearningstyleandverifythatthereareindividualdifferencesinthewayanindividualbeginstoconcentrateon,process,internalizeandremembernewanddifficultacademiccontext.Dunn(2000)informsthatmostpeoplecanlearn,andanindividualhastheirownuniquewayofmasteringnewanddifficultsubjectmatter.Forinstance,formanypeoplelearningtoplaythepianopresentsabiglearningchallenge.Forsome,thatchallengeisagruelingordeal;ifthewaytheyaretaughtdoesnotmatchthewaytheylearn.RitaDunn(1999)notedthatlargestpartoflearningstyleisbiologicalwhileasmallpartofitisdevelopmental,whichchangemorepredictably.Learningstylesdifferwithage,achievementlevel,gender,culture,andglobalversusanalyticalbrainprocessing(Dunn,1999).Thismodelfocusesonidentifyingindividuals'preferencesforspecificinstructionalenvironments,strategiesandresources,andtheextenttowhicheachapproacheitherfostersorinhibitsacademicachievement.ThelearningstylescategorizationofDunn(1999)includesfourphysicalmodalitiesasvisual,auditory,tactileandkinesthetic.

VisuallearningstylesVisuallearningstylereferstothosewhoprefertolearnthroughsight,thatis,visualchannel.Oxford(1995)reportsVisualstudentsneedthevisualstimulationofbulletinboards,videosandmovies.Theylikereading,computers,picturesandwritteninstructions(Oxford,2002).Learnerswhosedominantlearningstylepreferenceisvisualcanvisuallyrecalltheyhavereadorobserved(Wooldridge,1995).Theyorganizeinformationintermsofspatialinterrelationshipsamongideasandstoreitgraphically(Nilson,2003).

AuditorylearningstylesAuditorylearnersprefertolearnthroughoralaurallearningchannelandtoengageindiscussions,conversations,andgroupwork(Oxford,1995).Theymayneedtohearwrittentextmaterial,askfortapesorpassagestobereadout,preferoralpracticewithoutbooks,andsoon(Erhman,1996).

13

TactilelearningstylesTactilelearnersprefertolearnthroughhandsonactivities.Theyneedtotouchandhandleobjects(Oxford,1995).Theygenerallyunderlinewhentheyreadandtakenoteswhilelistening.Theykeeptheirhandsbusy(Wooldridge,1995).Theyneedtousemanipulativeandmodels(Dunn,1999).

KinestheticlearningstylesKinestheticlearnerslearnthroughexperientiallearning,thatis,totalphysicalinvolvementwithalearningsituation(Reid,1987).Kinestheticlearnersneedbodymovementtoabsorbandretainwhatislearned(Wooldridge,1995).Theypreferlearningthroughactivityandtheycannotfocusonchallenginginformationpassively(Dunn,1999).

Eachpersonhasaprimarylearningstyle,andcanbetaughthowtostudyandconcentratecapitalizingonthatstyle(Denig,2004).However,studentsalsohaveasecondarystyle,whichcanbeusedtoreinforceinitiallearningeffectively.Hall&Moseley(2005)presenttheorieswhichdemonstratethatlearningstylesaredeterminedbeforehandduetogeneticinfluences,inheritedtraits,theinteractionofpersonalityandcognition,whileothertheoriesbelievethatlearningstylescanchangeandexpandduetomotivationandenvironmentalfactorssuchascooperativeorindividuallearning.Tofunctioneffectivelystudentswillrequireskillcharacteristicsofeachtypeofthelearningstyle:tobeabletoobserveandpayattentiontodetailofthesensory,imaginationandabstractthinkingabilityandsoon.Theoptimalteachingstyleisabalancedonethatsometimesmatchesstudentspreferences,sotheirdiscomfortleveldoesnotsatisfythemandsometimesgoesagainsttheirpreferencesforcingthemtostretchandgrowindirectionsthattheymightbeinclinedtoavoid(Felder&Brent,2005).Moreover,studentslearneffectivelyandhavemoreopportunitiesforsuccesswheneducatorsteachinamannerconsistentwitheachstudentsprimaryandsecondarylearningstyle(Dunn&Griggs,2003).Studiesrevealedthatstudentslearningstylepreferenceswerethestrengthsthatenabledthemtomasternewanddifficultinformationbyoneofthelearningstyles,auditorystyle,visualstyleandkinestheticstyle.Sarasin(1998)explainsthatthelearningstyleapproachesbasedonbehaviorsandactionscanbeeasilyperceivedinaclassroomsituationusingprimarysenses(visual,auditoryandkinesthetic)involvedinlearning.Ithasbeenprovenscientificallythatmatchingstudentslearningstylepreferenceswitheducationalinterventionscompatible

14

withthosepreferenceswasbeneficialtotheiracademicachievement(Dunn,Griggs,Olson,Gorman&Beasley,1995).ExperimentalstudiesbasedontheDunn,DunnandPriceLearningStyleModeltriedtoidentifythevalueofteachingstudentsthroughtheirlearningstylepreferencesandtheresultsshowsthatstudentswhoselearningstylesareaccommodatedwouldbeexpectedtoachieve75%ofastandarddeviationhigherthanstudentswhohavenothadtheirlearningstylesaccommodated.Thisfindingindicatesthatmatchingstudentslearningstylepreferenceswitheducationalinterventionscompatiblewiththosepreferencesisbeneficialtotheiracademicachievement(Prashnig,2000).

15

LearningStyleResearchesinGiftedStudentsInthefield,learningstylesamonggiftedhavebeeninvestigatedtoexplainthedifferencesbetweenthegiftedandnongiftedstudentsinthelearningprocess.Rohaizad,Yeop&Anuar(2008),presentthefindingsofastudywhichprovethatlearningstylesarealsosignificantinclassroomperformanceforgiftedmiddleschoolstudentsthatrespondaccordinglytodifferentclassroomenvironments.Theirstudyresultsshowahighpreferencefortactileandkinestheticlearningstylesamonggiftedbecausetheyliketobeactiveparticipantsinthediscoveryprocessinordertobemotivatedandengagedinclass.Cody(1983)comparedthelearningstylecharacteristicsamongaverageandgiftedstudents,andfoundthattheaveragestudentsdemonstratedahighpreferenceforvisuallearningstyleswhilethegiftedindicateahighpreferencefortactile/kinestheticlearningstyles(Prashnig,2000).AnotherresearchthatwasconductedbyDunnandPricealsoshowedthatgiftedstudentsprefertactileandkinestheticmodesoflearningtoauditory(Dunn,Rita,&Price,1980).TheresearchthatwasconductedbySueandPrice(1993)investigatedthelearningstylesofacademicallygiftedandnongiftedadolescentsandfoundoutthatacademicallygiftedstudentsshowedgreaterpreferenceforvisualandkinestheticstyles.Similarly,InghamandPrice(1993)alsofoundintheirstudythattheacademicallygiftedstudentsweremorevisualandlessauditorythannongiftedstudents.PriceandMilgram(1993)examinedthefindingsfromsevencountriesthatinvestigatedlearningstyleofgiftedandnongiftedstudentsinseveraldomains.Theyreportedthatkinestheticlearningstylediscriminatedthemostbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsoversixculturalgroupsanditwasfollowedbytactile.Inallcountries,giftedstudentspreferredkinestheticandtactilemorethannongiftedstudents.Turki(2014)alsoinvestigatedthedifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsasrelatedtolearningstyles,theresultsofthestudyindicatedthatgiftedstudentsaremorekinestheticandmorelikelytobeencouragedusinghandsonactivitiesthatenablethemtoreachtheirpotential.

16

MultipleIntelligenceApproachestoUnderstandingIntelligenceThedefinitionsofintelligenceshowedsomechangesbytime.Sternberg(2000)claimsthatallthedefinitionsofintelligencethatwereproposedin1921combinedtheissuesofadaptationtotheenvironment,basicmentalprocesses,andhigherorderthinking.In1986thedefinitionsofintelligenceputmuchmoreemphasisontheroleofknowledgeandtheinteractionbetweenknowledgeandmentalprocesses,aswellastheroleofcontextandculture.Therearefourdifferentapproachestounderstandingintelligencementionedintheliterature;Psychometricapproach,Developmentalprogressionapproach,Informationprocessingapproach,andPsychobiologicalapproach.

PsychometricapproachThepsychometricapproachisprimarilyconcernedwiththemeasurementofintelligenceutilizingvarioustestingmethods(Embretson&Mccollan,2000).ThisapproachhasbeeninitiatedbyGaltonanditemphasizesthedifferencesbetweenpeopleintermsoftheircognitiveabilitiesinsolvingproblemsthatrelyoninductivereasoningprocesseslikeanalogies,seriescompletionsandclassifications(Lohman,2005;Necka&Orzechowski,2005).Inthisapproachintelligenceisconsideredasasingleentityreflectingageneralability(Tekiner,2005).In1884,tofindoutindividualdifferences,Galtonstartedadministratingtestsofreactiontime,vision,hearing(suchasrateofmovement),timefornamingcolors,numbersoflettersrememberedononehearing,reactiontimeforsound,pressurecausingpainandsoon.Galtonbelievedthatthereweretwoqualitiesthatdifferentiateindividuals:energyandsensitivity.Galtonobservedthatinformationpassesthroughthesensestoreachindividualsandthatthemoreperceptivethesensesareofdifferencesinluminescence,pitch,odor,orwhatever,thebetterwouldbetherangeofinformationonwitchintelligencecouldact(Sternberg,Lautrey,&Lubart,2003).In1890Cattellwasalsointerestedinindividualdifferencesandheadministeredmanyteststhatwereutilizedformeasurementofpersonalityandhumanabilities(Brody,2000).Sternberg(2004)proposedtheSpearmansgtheoryin1904.Spearmanstheoryshowedtwomainintelligencefactors:ageneralfactor(g)andspecialfactors(s).Thegfactoristhegeneralfactorthatisinfluentialinallmentalabilitytestsandcommontasksandsfactorisinfluentialin

17

asingletestorspecifictask.Duringthesecondpartofthenineteenthcentury,theinterestinindividualdifferencesgothigherthaninthepast.In1905,AlfredBinetbuiltthefirstscaleoftheintelligencetestontheassumptionsthatintelligencecorrelatedwithageandthatintelligenceisnecessaryforsuccessinschool(citedinBrody,2000).Binetfoundoutthattheuniversaldevelopmentofintelligenceinchildhoodformedthebasisofconstructingameasurementscale(Anderson,2001).Thatis,thedifficultyofatestitemdependsonthechildsage.In1911,AlfredBinetandTheodoreSimonproposedaseriesofthesuccessorquestionsformeasuringanindividualsintelligence.Thefollowingyears,SternproposedtheIntelligenceQuotient(IQ)astheratioofmentalagetochronologicalage.In1916,LewisTermanmodifiedtheBinetscalesandthenewformoftheStanfordBinetscale.Thetestswereeffectivebutallthequestionsweredirectlyrelatedtomathematicsandlanguageskills,thusmeasuringintelligencebyonlythesetwodomains,moreover,theentiretestwasanalytic,aprocessingstyleinhibitingtheeasewithwhichglobalpeoplecouldrespond(Brennan,1984).DevelopmentalprogressionapproachSternberg,Lautrey,andLubart(2003)calleditacognitiveprocessingapproachanddivideditintothreesectionsbasedonthePiagetian,Vygotskian,andtheinformationprocessingtheories.PiagetandVygotskydevelopeddifferentconceptsofintelligence;Piaget(1972)claimedthatintelligenceconsistsofastateofanadaptiveequilibriumbetweentheindividualandhisorherenvironment.ForPiaget,individualsdevelopcontinuallyatdifferentagesandatdifferentrates.Piagetwasinterestedinthedevelopmentofhumanintelligence.AccordingtoPiaget,beginningfrominfancy,humanbeingscreatementalrepresentationsthroughactingontheworld,whichiscentraltointelligence.Everyindividualgoesthroughstagesofdevelopmentsuchassensorymotor,preoperational,intuitive,concrete,operational,andfinally,formaloperationalstage.Eventually,allindividualsintheirownratesachievetheendstateofhumanintellect.Ontheotherhand,someclaimedthatintelligencehasasocialorigin,inotherwordsintellectualdevelopmentisgainedthroughsocialinteractions.Theyalsoassertedthat

18

internalizationisbasictointelligenceandasaresultofit,whatindividualsobserveinthesocialenvironmentbecomeapartoftheindividualovertime.

InformationprocessingapproachThisapproachisconcernedwithconstructingmacrotheoriesofintelligenthumanornonhumansystemsataverydetailedlevel,thatis,atalevelwheretheoriescanbeimplementedandrunoncomputers(Sternberg,1990).Moreover,thisapproachprovidesinformationaboutthementalactivitiesorprocessesofintelligentthinking.Cognitionandmetacognitionarethecomponentsofthementalphenomena.Thecomponentsofcognitionrefertoregularinformationprocessing,whichisdirectlyresponsiblefortheexecutionofcognitivetasks,whereasthelatterinvolvestheprocessesofmonitoringandcontrol.Anothercrucialcomponenttounderstandintelligencearethemetacomponents.Metacomponentsrefertothehigherordercognitiveprocesseswhichareresponsibleforexecutivefunctionssuchasattentionoperation,attentionswitching,updatingofthecontentoftheshorttermmemory,andrestrainingirrelevantinformationorundesiredbehavioraltendency(Necka&Orzechowski,2005).Psychologiststriedtorelateinformationprocessingcomponentstothescoresontheintelligencetests;however,ithasnotbeenfullydescribed(Pertz&Sternberg,2005).Researchersthatinvestigatedtherelationshipbetweencognitiveprocessesandthescoresontheintelligencetestsrevealedthatprocessingspeed,functionalconnectivity,andfrontallobeactivationarerelatedtointelligence(Pertz&Sternberg,2005).Therefore,theresearchresultsalsoshowedthatworkingmemoryandattention,cognitiveflexibilityofstrategyuse,learningability,andcontextbasedknowledgearestronglyrelatedtointelligence(Pertz&Sternberg,2005).AstudythatwascarriedoutbyLohman(2005)alsoexaminedtherelationshipbetweenindividualdifferencesininformationprocessingandperformanceonintelligencetestshefoundthatindividualdifferencesinperformanceininformationprocessingareresponsibleforsomepartofintelligence.Lohman(2005)arguedthatalthoughabstractandanalytical,reasoningstronglyrelatedtointelligence,theyalsodependonother

19

resourcessuchaswillingandaffectcontext,experience,specificskillsandpriorknowledge.

PsychobiologicalapproachThisapproachattemptstoexplainintelligencebystudyingthebrainandtheoperationsofthecentralnervoussystem(Sternberg,1990).Sometheoriesemphasizethatcognitiveprocessingspeedandefficiencyareimportantvariableforexplainingintelligence(Vernon,Wickett,Bazana&Stelmack,2000).Ceci(1990)inhistheoryofintelligencesuggeststhatintelligenceincludesmetacognitive,biological,motivational,andenvironmentalvariables.Accordingtothistheory,processesdependonaparticulardomainofknowledgeandoperateonlywithinthatdomain.Forinstance,whena3yearoldchildisaskedhowmanypiecesitwouldmakeifanappleiscutinhalf,heorshegivescorrectanswer.However,whenthequestionisaskedaboutrugs,thechildaskshowbigtherugis.Thatis,someassessmentoftheelaboratenessofknowledgewithinagivendomainisnecessaryinordertomakeinferencesaboutthecausesofindividualdifferencesincognitiveprocessing(Barnett&Ceci,2005).Additionally,Goleman(1996)andLeDoux(2004)emphasizethattheemotionalvariablealsoimportantforlearning.AccordingtoNewmanandJust(2005),intelligencedoesnotlieinanyparticularbrainregion,butisinsteadafunctionofamoredistributed,dynamicallyconfiguredsetofareasandgmaybetheproductofanadaptive,flexibleneuralsystem.

20

MultipleFormsofIntelligenceThislastapproachproposesthatintelligenceisnotunitary,butmultifaceted.SternbergandGardnerarethemainproponentsofthisapproach.SternbergsTriarchictheoryofintelligenceconsistsofthethreesubtheories:componential,experiential,andcontextual,allofwhichareinterrelated(Sternberg,1990).Tostartwith,thecomponentialsubtheoryreferstothecognitiveprocessesunderlyingthewholeintelligentbehavior.Therearethreetypesofinformationprocessingcomponents;metacomponents,performancecomponentsandknowledgeacquisitioncomponents.Metacomponentsrefertothehigherorder,executiveprocesseswhichisusedtoplanwhattodo,monitortheactivityandevaluateitattheend(Sternberg,1990).Performancecomponentsrefertothelowerorderprocesseswhichcarryoutthecommandsofmetacomponents.Knowledgeacquisitioncomponentsareexercisedtolearnhowtodowhatmetacomponentsandperformancecomponentseventuallydo.Theexperientialsubtheoryclaimsthatthesecomponentsmaynotassessintelligenceuniformlyatdifferentlevelsofexperience,thus,intelligencecanbebestassessedatthelevelsofexperience,whichmayinvolverelativelynoveltasksortasksbecomingautomatized.Thecontextualsubtheoryrelatesintelligencetoindividualsculturalcontext.Sternberg(1997;2004)alsodevelopedthetheoryofSuccessfulIntelligencewhichclarifiesthatsuccessfulintelligenceistheabilitytoadaptto,shape,andselectenvironmentsoastoaccomplishonesgoalsandthoseofonessocietyandculture.Successfulintelligenceinvolvesanalyticalabilities,creativeabilities,andpracticalabilities.Ineducationsettings,studentsmultipleabilitiesarenotexercised;insteadanalyticalabilitiesareexploitedattheexpenseofcreativeandpracticalabilities.Inconclusion,thegfactorisfoundaspredictiveofacademicachievements,however,itisnotgoodatdifferentiating(Detterman,2000).ThatmeansthatthegfactordoesnotdifferentiatetwopeoplewiththeidenticalIQlevelsastheymayperformverydifferentlyinsimilartasks.

21

MultipleIntelligenceTheoryThepsychologistHowardGardner(1983)developedanimportantcontributiontothecognitivescience,thetheoryofMultipleIntelligences(MI),whichisanincreasinglypopularapproachtocharacterizingthewaysinwhichlearnersareuniquetodevelopinginstructiontorespondtothisuniqueness(Richards&Rodgers,2001).GardnersMultipleIntelligencetheoryisbasedonthreemainandfundamentalprinciples.Tostartwith,Gardner(1983)believedinmultiplicityofintelligencesandaccordingtothisvieweveryintelligenceisconsideredasaseparatesystem.ThetheoryofMIisadynamicconstructthatunderstandsintelligencesastoolsthatarechangeableandtrainableorcanbemodifiedtosomedegree:whiletraditionalintelligencetestsarebasedonthenotionthatthegeneralfacultyofintelligenceisaninbornattributethatdoesnotchangeoverthetime,theMItheoryassertsthatthereareskillsuniversaltohumanspecies,relatedtotheculturenurturingthatdomainandthatdevelopaccordingtoexperience,ageandtraining:(Armstrong,Kennedy&Coggins,2002).Thus,intelligencebasedonI.Q.testing,istoolimitedtocapturethebreadthandadaptabilityofhumanintelligence.GardnerclaimedthatintelligenceismorethananI.Q.scorebecause,ahighI.Q.intheabsenceofproductivitydoesntequatetointelligence.Gardner(1983)definedintelligenceasabiopsychologicalpotentialtoprocessinformationthatcanbeactivatedinaculturalsettingtosolveproblemsorcreateproductsthatareofvalueinaculture.Thesecondprincipalisthatthedifferentintelligencesareindependentofeachotherwhichmeansthattheevaluationofindividualsabilitiesincertainintelligencecannotpredicttheabilitiesinotherintelligences.Thelastprincipaldiscussestheinteractionbetweentheintelligences.Anindividualalwaysusesdifferentintelligencestoaccomplishatask,forinstance,amathematicaltaskwillrequiretheuseofthelogicalandlinguisticintelligencesinordertobeaccomplished.InGardnersconception,thesetwointelligencesoperatetogethertoaccomplishthetask.Everytaskaccordingtoitscharacteristicswillrequiretheintegrationofdifferentintelligences(Gardner,1996).Armstrong(1999)alsostressedthatthereisvirtuallynoactivityinlifethatcanbeundertakenwithonlyoneintelligence.Gardneralsopostulatedthatthereareseveralrelativelyautonomoushumanintellectualcompetencies;thesehumanintelligencesexplainparticularphenomenaofhumanbehavior(Bedford,2004)andwereevolvedinresponsetotheneedtounderstandhowcognitiveindividualdifferencescanbeaddressedanddeveloped(Arnold&Fonseca,2004).Themultiple

22

intelligencetheory,identifiedeightdifferentintelligences,eachofwhichcanbesubdividedorrearrangedandsomeofthemarecloserinsomesettings.Additionally,Gardner(1983)definedeightdifferentcriteriatojudgewhetheratypeofabilitycanbecountedasintelligence:1)Potentialisolationbybraindamage:AccordingtoGardnerthetheoriesofintelligenceshouldbebiologicallybased.Heclaimedthatthebrainconsistsofmanyintelligence,eachofwhichoperatesaccordingtoitsownrulesinrelativeautonomyfromtheothers,(Gardner,2003)andifaspecificpartofthebrainreceivesanydamage,aspecificcapacityislostorretarded,showingthatthecapacityisindependentfromothers.Hestatedthattothatextendthataparticularfacultycanbedestroyedorsparedinisolation,asaresultofbraindamage,itsrelativeautonomyfromotherhumanfacultiesseemslikely(Gardner,1993).2)Existenceofsavants,prodigies,andotherexceptionalindividuals.3)Anidentifiablecoreoperationorsetofoperations:Gardneridentifiedthatintelligencesoperateinrichenvironmentssothatagroupofintelligencesoperateinconjunction.4)Adistinctivedevelopmentalhistory,alongwithadefinitesetofendstatedperformances:intelligenceshouldhaveadevelopmentalhistorythatallnormalindividualsincludinggiftedpassthrough.Intelligenceshaveacertainstartingpointinchildhood;developatdifferentperiodsduringlife.5)Anevolutionaryhistoryandevolutionaryplausibility:oneshouldbeabletolocateevolutionaryantecedentoftheintelligence.AccordingtoGardner(1999),evidenceabouttheevolutionofourspeciesiscrucialtoanydiscussionofthecontemporarymindandbrain.6)Supportfromexperimentalpsychologicaltasks:Experimentalpsychologyrevealsoperationofintelligence.7)Supportfrompsychometricfindings:ifstandardtestsshowthattasksthatmeasureintelligencecorrelationwithcertaintasksbutnotwiththeothers,theideathataparticularabilityisindependentfromothersissupported.8)Susceptibilitytoencodinginasymbolsystem:Knowledgerepresentationandcommunicationofknowledgetakesplacebysymbols,whichareculturallycontrivedsystemsofmeaningwhichcaptureimportantformsofinformation(Gardner1993).

23

Mltheorycanbesummarizedasthefollowing:1.Everypersonpossessesalleightintelligences,buttheydifferintheirprofileofintelligences.2.Mostpeoplecandevelopeachintelligencetypetoanadequatelevelofcompetency.3.Intelligencesusuallyworktogetherincomplexways.Nointelligenceexistsbyitself.4.Therearemultiplewaystobesmartwithineachintelligencetype.5.EachintelligencemodalitymeetstheeightcriteriaidentifiedbyGardner.IntelligenceTypesinMultipleIntelligenceTheoryLinguisticIntelligenceLinguisticintelligenceinvolvessensitivitytospokenandwrittenlanguage,theabilitytolearnlanguages,andthecapacitytouselanguagetoaccomplishcertaingoals.Thisintelligenceincludestheabilitytoeffectivelyuselanguagetoexpressoneselfrhetoricallyorpoetically;andlanguageasameanstorememberinformation.LogicalMathematicalIntelligenceLogicalmathematicalintelligenceconsistsofthecapacitytoanalyzeproblemslogically,carryoutmathematicaloperations,andinvestigateissuesscientifically.Itentailstheabilitytodetectpatterns,reasondeductivelyandthinklogically.Thisintelligenceismostoftenassociatedwithscientificandmathematicalthinking.MusicalRhythmicIntelligenceMusicalintelligencerelatestothecapacitytoperceiveandproducerhythms,soundpatternspitch,beatandmelodies.Gardnerclaimsthatmusicalintelligenceisstructurallyparalleltolinguisticintelligence.Researchontheeffectsofmusicintheclassroomprovedthatstudentswhohadreceivedmusicaleducationorhadbeenexposedtomusic,hadhigheracademicresults(Campbell,1997).Ingeneral,thedevelopmentofmusicalintelligenceintheclassroomcanhavebeneficialinfluencesashelpingstudentstoconcentrateandconnectwiththeirinnerself,stimulatingcreativeprocesses,beingabletoeliminatedistractingnoisesfrominoroutsideoftheclassroomandfosteringarelaxed,motivatingandproductiveclassroomatmosphere(Arnold&Fonseca,2004).BodilyKinestheticIntelligenceBodilyKinestheticintelligenceentailsthepotentialofusingone'swholebodyorpartsofthebodytosolveproblems.Itistheabilitytousementalabilitiestocoordinatebodilymovements.Thehumanneedformovementisoverlookedandtherefor,itspotentialvalueforcreating

24

higherenergylevelsandmaintainingattentionisgreatlyreduced.Theuseofroleplay,drama,games,projectwork,andmanyactivitiesrelatedtogroupdynamicsaddressthebodilykinestheticintelligence(Arnold&Fonseca,2004).VisualSpatialIntelligenceSpatialintelligenceinvolvestheabilitytoperceivethecomponents(form,shape,line,space,color)necessarytocreateamentalimageofsomething.AccordingtoArmstrong(1999)thisintelligenceincludesthinkinginpicturesandimagesandtheabilitytoperceive,transform,andrecreatedifferentaspectsofthevisualspatialworld.InterpersonalIntelligenceInterpersonalintelligenceincludestalentinunderstandingandworkingwithothers,aswellasrespondingtofeelingsandintentionsofothers(Sternberg,1999;Rosnow,Skleder,Jaeger&Rind,1994).Socialconstructivismineducationstressestheimportanceofinteractionoftheparticipantsinthelearningprocess.Additionally,interpersonalintelligencebuildsonacorecapacitytonoticeandmakedistinctionsamongotherindividualsandinparticular,amongtheirmoods,temperaments,motivations,andintentions(Gardner1993).IntrapersonalIntelligenceIntrapersonalintelligenceistheabilitytounderstandinnerself.Itreferstocognatefacultiesthatareinvolvedwhenweturnourcuriosityorattentioninwardonordertounderstandourselvestowardsthepersonalrealmofbehavior,feelings,andmotivations(Rosnow,1994).Studiesonmetacognitiveknowledgeandlearning,wheremetacognitionreferstoknowledgeaboutoneselfprovedthatknowingpersonalcapacities,personality,feelings,motivation,attitudes,learningstylesandlimitationsinordertooptimizepersonalperformanceispreciselyoneofthemilestonesresearchappliedontheprocessoflearning(Christison,1999;Reid,1995,1998).NaturalistIntelligenceNaturalistintelligenceengagestheabilitytodiscriminateamongnumerousspecies,enjoymentofthenaturalworldandecologicalsensitivity.

25

MultipleIntelligenceDifferencesbyGroupMultipleintelligencesaccountforabroaderrangeofhumanpotentialandreflectapluralisticpanoramaofpeoplesindividualdifferences.MIproposesthatintelligencescanbeunderstoodaspersonaltoolsthateachindividualpossessestoobtainnewinformationandtostoreitinacertainwaythatcanbeeasilyretrievedwhenneeded(Arnold&Fonseca,2004).Gardnerproposesthatintelligencesareofneutralvalue;noneoftheseintelligencesareconsideredsuperiortotheothersandtheyarepresentedatsomeextentineveryone,althoughanindividualwillgenerallybemoretalentedinsome,thaninothers.Thetheoryofmultipleintelligences(MI)alsoprovidesausefulframeworkforunderstandingthebasiccompetenciesofthegifted.Specifically,astudentcanbeconsideredgiftedinadisciplineofstudyordomainthatdrawsononeormoreoftheeightintelligences(Gardner,1993).However,thereisnoonetoonemappingofintelligencesandgiftedness.Whilemathematicalactivities,forexample,wouldoftenharnesslogicalmathematicalandvisualspatialintelligences,goodperformanceonspatialtasksmightnotbenecessarilyassociatedwithvisualspatialintelligenceforsomestudentswhoemploysemanticstrategiesthatrelyprimarilyonverballinguisticandlogicalmathematicalintelligences.StudieshaveprovedthesignificantconnectionbetweentheMItheoryandidentifyingunderrepresentedandculturallydiversegroupsofgiftedstudentsforparticipationingiftededucationprograms(Maker,Nielson,&Rogers,1994;Sarouphim,1999).Whileitisgenerallyacknowledgedthatacomprehensiveunderstandingoftheneedsandpotentialofgiftedstudentsrequiresanassessmentthatcoversdifferentaspectsofgiftednessandtalentsandincorporatesmultipleperspectivesormultipleinformants,thereislittleresearchonmultipleperspectives,andnorecentresearchonmultipleinformantsinthegiftedfield.Despiteit,Chans(2004)studyaimedtoassessgiftedstudents'multipleintelligencesfromdifferentperspectives.Thestudyprovedthatgiftedstudentslogicalmathematicalintelligencereceivedthehighestratingswhereasbodilykinestheticintelligenceandnaturalistintelligencereceivedthelowestratings(Chan,2004).Eachstudent,includingthegiftedstudent,hasauniqueprofileofstrengths,weaknesses,andneeds.ThefindingsofChansstudyhighlightsthatastudent'sprofilemightbeperceiveddifferentlybyjudgesfromdifferentperspectives.Whileacknowledgingthatallperspectivesshouldberespectedandtheycouldbecomplementary,itisrecognizedthatstudentsdohaveexpertknowledgeaboutthemselvesandtheirperspectivesmighthavemoremeaningforthemselves.Contrarytotheconjecturethatgiftedstudentsmightbemorevulnerabletohavingproblemsrelatedtotheirinterpersonaland

26

intrapersonalintelligences,giftedstudentsinthisstudyjudgedthemselvesfavorablyininterpersonalintelligencebutsomewhatpoorlyinintrapersonalintelligence,suggestingthattheymighthaveproblemsinemotionalregulationandselfappraisal(Chan,2004).Inpredictingstudents'perceivedcreativityandleadershipusingratingsonthemultipleintelligences,theconventionalintelligences(verballinguistic,logicalmathematical,andvisualspatialintelligences)emergedassignificantpredictorsforcreativity,whereasinterpersonalandnaturalistintelligencesemergedassignificantpredictorsforleadership.Theresultsalsosuggestedthatgiftedstudentswhoratedthemselveshighlyontheconventionalintelligencesalsoperceivedthemselvesasmorecreativeandcapableofdivergentthinking,andthosewhoratedthemselveshighlyoninterpersonalandnaturalistintelligencesalsoperceivedthemselvesashavingleadershipskillsinteamwork(Chan,2004).MultipleIntelligenceDifferencesbyGenderKsicinski(2000)andotherresearchersinvestigatedandidentifiedgenderdifferencesregardingmultipleintelligences.Itwasfoundthatfemalesratedthemselveshigherthanmalesinthedifferentintelligencesexceptthekinestheticintelligence.Indeed,thereisabodyofevidencesuggestingthatmalesandfemaleshaveseparatelyshowntohaveaconsistentadvantageovertheothergenderontheperformanceofcertaincognitivetasks(Halpern&LaMay,2000;Lezak,1995).

27

RelationshipbetweenIntelligencesandStylesAccordingtoRenzulliandDai(2001),abilitiesrefertowhethertheindividualiscapableoflearningorperformingcertaincognitivetasks.Cognitiveandlearningstylesquestioninwhichwaystheindividualapproacheslearningtasks.Thus,stylesreflectmoregeneralizedandpervasiveaspectsofpersonalfunctioningthandoabilities(RenzulliandDai,2001).StenbergandGrigorenko(2001)alsoemphasizedthedistinctionbetweenstylesandabilities:stylesdonotrepresentasetofabilities,butratherasetofpreferences.Thedistinctionisimportantbecauseabilitiesandpreferencesmayormaynotcorrespond.Stylescanaccountforthevarianceinperformancethatcannotbeaccountedforbyvarianceinabilitytests.(Sternberg&Grigorenko,2001)Gardner(1999)pointedoutthedifferencebetweenastyleandintelligence,theconceptofstyledesignatesageneralapproachthatanindividualcanapplyequallytoanindefiniterangeofcontent.Incontrast,intelligenceisacapacityoranability,withitscomponentcomputationalprocesses,thatisgearedtoaspecificcontentintheworld.Moreover,Gardnerhighlightsthatintelligenceisnotonething,andtheMItheoryemphasizesthateachintelligencecanstandforitselfandthedifferentintelligencesareindependentofeachotherwhichmeanthattheevaluationofindividualsabilitiesincertainintelligencecannotpredicttheabilitiesinotherintelligence.Forinstance,anindividualwithhighmusicalabilitiesdoesnotindicatonhisabilitiesintheotherintelligences.Inaddition,Gardneralsodiscussedtheinteractionthatexistsbetweentheintelligences.Heclaimedthatintelligencesalwaysoperatejointly.Anindividualalwaysusesdifferentintelligencestoaccomplishatask,forinstance,amathematicaltaskwillrequiretheuseofthelogicalandlinguisticintelligencesinordertobeaccomplished.InGardnersconception,thesetwointelligencesoperatetogethersothatthetaskcanbeaccomplished.Everytaskaccordingtoitscharacteristicswillrequiretheintegrationofdifferentintelligencesinordertobesolved(Gardner,1996).Armstrong(1999)alsostressedthatthereisvirtuallynoactivityinlifethatcanbeundertakenwithonlyoneintelligence.Klein(2003)claimedthatGardners(1983)MultipleIntelligencetheoryisapartofthestudentslearningstyle,despitethefactthatthesetwoconceptshavedifferentmeaning;learningstylesareconcernedwithdifferencesintheprocessoflearningwhilemultipleintelligencesfocusonthecontentandtheproductsoflearning(Snyder,2000).However,theexistenceofmultiple

28

intelligencesisaprerequisitetotheexistenceofotherparallelintellectuallearningstylesamongstudents(Snyder,2000).Gardner(1999)alsopointedoutthedifferencebetweenastyleandintelligence:Theconceptofstyledesignatesageneralapproachthatanindividualcanapplyequallytoanindefiniterangeofcontent.Incontrast,anintelligenceisacapacity,withitscomponentcomputationalprocesses,thatisgearedtoaspecificcontentintheworldandperhaps,thedecisionabouthowtouseonesfavoredintelligencesreflectsonespreferredstyle(Gardner,1999).Silver,Strong,andPerini(1997;2000)arguedthatlearningstylesandmultipleintelligencescomplementeachotherbyrespondingtoeachotherslimitations.WhileMItheoryisfocusedonthecontentoflearning,itdoesnotpayattentiontotheperceptionandprocessofinformation.Ontheotherhand,learningstyleiscenteredontheprocessoflearningwhileitisnotdirectlyconcernedaboutthecontentofthelearning.Therefore,Silver,Strong,andPerini(1997;2000)createdamodelintegratingboththeoriesforpedagogicalpurposes.Silver(1997)proposedapossiblerelationbetweenintelligenceandstyle.Heclaimedthatonespreferredstylereflectsthedecisionabouthowtousefavoredintelligences.Toillustrate,apersonwhosedominantintelligenceislinguisticmaywritepoetryornovels,takeplaceindebatesorlearnforeignlanguages.Inlightofthis,inourresearchweclaimthatthesetwoconcepts,MultipleIntelligencesandLearningStyles,representsimilartheoreticalstructurethatexistsinindividuals.

29

Chapter2MethodologyThePurposeoftheStudyMultipleIntelligenceandLearningStylearewidelyencounteredineducationnowadaysandtherehasbeenaparallelincreaseintheemphasisofthesetwoconceptssinceindividualdifferenceswereshowntoconstituteimportantfactorsinthelearningprocess.Thetheoriesofmultipleintelligencesandlearningstylesareextremelysignificantinordertointerpretindividualdifferences,andthus,designeducationmodels.Thesetwotheoriesarebeingregardedasdifferentapproachesandtheydonotcontainmutuallyexclusivecontext(Ozgen,Tataroglu&Alkan,2011).However,despitetheirdifferingtheoreticalstructures,thesetheoriessharesimilarresultsinpractice(Guild,1997).ThetheoryofMultipleIntelligencedefinesthatindividualdifferencesresultfromthedifferenceintheircapacitytousetheirintelligences.Humanshavedifferenttypesofdominantintelligences,andindividualsintelligenceconsistsofdifferentcombinationsofintelligencesatcertainlevel(Ozgen,Tataroglu&Alkan,2011).Gardner(2004)explainsthatindividualsalongwiththedominantintelligence,alsopossessnondominantintelligencedomainsandallintelligencedomainsareimportantasdifferentintelligencescanbeindependentandanindividualmaywelllackanyabilityinaspecificdomain,whilepossessingaveryhighlevelofabilityinanother.Therefore,theintelligencedomainsandrelatedabilitiesofindividualsshouldbeincorporatedintothelearningprocess.Theconceptoflearningstyleisdefinedas:Thesetoffactorsthatdetermineindividualspsychologicallyperceivetheirlearningenvironmentandthewaystheyinteractwithandrespondtotheirenvironment(Ozgen,Tataroglu&Alkan,2011).Dunn(1983)associatedtheprocessoflearningwithenvironmentalstimuliandemphasizesthatthestimulipreferredbyindividualsrevealthedifferencesintheirlearningstyles.ThemodeloflearningstylesthatisproposedbyDunnandDunnpresentsthatlearningstyleisapreferredwayoffocusingon,processing,absorbingandstartingtorecallnewanddifferentcontents.Everyindividualpossessesadominantlearningstyleandanondominantlearningstyle(secondary,tertiaryandsoon)(Denig,2004).Rohaizad,Yeop&Anuar(2008),foundintheirstudythatgiftedmiddleschoolstudentsshowahighpreferencefortactileandkinestheticlearningstylesbecausetheyliketobeactiveparticipantsinthediscoveryprocessinordertobemotivatedandengagedinclass.Cody(1983)comparedthelearningstylecharacteristicsamongaverageandgifted

30

students,andfoundthattheaveragestudentsdemonstratedahighpreferenceforvisuallearningstyleswhilethegiftedindicateahighpreferencefortactile/kinestheticlearningstyles(Prashnig,2000).Dunn,PriceandRicca(1984)alsoreinforcedthefindingsthatgiftedstudentsprefertactileandkinestheticmodesoflearning(Dunn,RitaS.,andGaryE.Price,1980).Theliteraturepresentedpointstoastrongrelationshipbetweenlearningstylesandmultipleintelligencesintheprocessoflearning.Thepurposeofthestudyistodrawaparallelbetweenlearningstylesandmultipleintelligencesamonggiftedandnongiftedstudentsontheonehand,whilealsoexaminingthetwoconceptsseparatelyineachoneofthegroups.Gardnersstudynotesthatlearningstylesandtypesofmultipleintelligencesarenotthesame(Checkley,1997);hehighlightsthefactthatalearningstylecanbeassociatedwithmultipleintelligencedomainsandthetheoryofmultipleintelligenceisconnectedtothestylebasedapproaches.Nonetheless,Klein(2003)andothersacknowledgethedifferencesbetweenthetwoconceptsstatingthatlearningstylesareconcernedwithdifferencesintheprocessoflearningwhilemultipleintelligencesfocusonthecontentandproductsoflearning(Snyder,2000).Moreover,theexistenceofmultipleintelligencesisaprerequisitetotheexistenceofotherparallelintellectuallearningstylesamongstudents(Snyder,2000).Hence,thepurposeofthisstudyistoanalyzetherelationshipbetweenlearningstylesandmultipleintelligencesamonggiftedandnongiftedstudents.Itmightbethatagiftedstudentwillusehispreferredlearningstyleonlyiftheparallelintelligencetothisstylealsoexists.

31

ResearchQuestionsandHypothesis

Theresearchquestionsare:1.Aretheredifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsasrelatedtolearningstyle?

2.AretheredifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsasrelatedtoMultipleIntelligence?3.Isthereacorrelationbetweenlearningstylesandmultipleintelligences?Theresearchhypothesesare:1.Significantdifferenceswillbefoundbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsasrelatedtolearningstyle.a.Giftedstudentswillexhibithighpreferencesfortactileandkinestheticlearningstylesmorethanthenongiftedstudents.b.Nongiftedstudentswillratherpresenthighpreferencesforauditorylearningstylesthanthegifted.Argument:Giftedstudentsprefertobeactiveparticipantsinthediscoveryprocessinordertobemotivatedandengagedinclass(Rohaizad,Yeop&Anuar,2008).

2.SignificantdifferenceswillbefoundbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsasrelatedtoMultipleIntelligence.a.Giftedstudentswillpreferinterpersonalintelligencemorethanintrapersonalintelligence.Argument:Giftedstudentsmighthaveproblemsinemotionalregulationandselfperceptionthatmightnotcorrespondwithperformanceandbehavioralmeasures(Chan,2004).

3.Positivecorrelationwillbefoundbetweenmultipleintelligencesandthesuitablelearningstylesinbothgroups(giftedandnongifted).a.Positivecorrelationwillbefoundbetweenthevisualspatialintelligenceandvisuallearningstyle:studentswithhighpreferenceofvisualspatialintelligencewillprefervisuallearningstyle.b.Positivecorrelationwillbefoundbetweenthebodilykinestheticintelligenceandkinestheticlearningstyle:studentswithhighpreferenceofbodilykinestheticintelligencewillpreferkinestheticlearningstyle.

32

Argument:Theexistenceofmultipleintelligencesisaprerequisitetotheexistenceofotherparallelintellectuallearningstylesamongstudents(Guild,1997,Checkley1997,Snyder,2002).

33

MethodParticipantsThesampleforthisstudyiscomposedoftwogroupsofIsraelisecondaryschoolstudents.Theschoolswereselectedaccordingtotheirspecialeducationalprogramsforgiftedandageneraleducationalcurriculumforregularstudents.Thefirstgroupconsistsof100studentsfromgrades810ages1216,nominatedbytheirteacherstostudyinaspecialgiftededucationalprogram.Thecomparativegroupconsistsof100normalachievingstudentsfromgrades810ages1416,representasaverageintheiracademicperformance.ResearchVariablesIndependentvariables:Groups:1.Giftedstudents2.NongiftedstudentsDependentvariablesmeasuresofdifferentkindsof:1.LearningStyles2.MultipleIntelligences

InstrumentsLearningStyleInventory(appendix1)ThecurrentresearchisusingtheLearningStyleInventorythatwasdevelopedbyDunnandDunn(1996).Themainaimofthepresentinstrumentistodiagnosestudentsindividuallearningstyleanddeterminetheconditions,underwhichastudentismostlikelytoproduce,achieve,create,solveproblems,makedecisions,andlearn.Theinstrumentconsistsof32itemsintendedtodeterminetheperceptualstrengthsrelatedtotheauditory,visual,tactileandkinestheticlearningstyles.Todeterminethegeneralextentofpracticeofthelearningstyles,thefollowingscaleisused:Never(0),Rarely(1),Occasionally(2),Frequently(3)andAlways(4).FortheuseofthisresearchtheLearningStyleInventorywastranslatedintoHebrewandbacktranslatedintoEnglish.Inthetranslationprocess,everypossibleeffortwasmadetoensurethattheoriginalmeaningoftheitemswasretained.Thereliabilitythatwasfoundinpreviousstudiesis=0.82.

34

Thefactorsofthisinstrumentarepresentedintable20(seeappendix2).

MultipleIntelligencesSurvey(appendix3)ThisresearchisalsousingtheMultipleIntelligencesSurveythatwasdevelopedbyMackenzie(1999,2002).ThepurposeoftheinstrumentistoidentifyanindividualsMultipleIntelligencesprofiles.Thisinstrumentconsistsof80itemswhicharedividedinto8sections,whereeverysectionrepresentsoneofGardnerseightintelligencetypes.TodeterminetheMultipleIntelligencesprofiles,thefollowingscaleisused:DontAgreeAtAll(1),Disagree(2),Agree(3)andReallyAgree(4).Scoringoftheitemsrangedfrom1to4,eachfactorhasbeencomputedandthehighestscorefrom1to4inanyfactorindicatestheintelligencecharacteristicsofthesubject.Thereliabilitythatwasfoundinpreviousstudiesis=0.60.Thereliabilitythatwasfoundinthisresearchis=0.86.Thefactorsofthisinstrumentarepresentedintable21(seeappendix4).

ProcedureStudentswillbeinformedabouttheresearchandtheiragreementtoparticipatewillberequested.ThestudentswillbeaskedtorespondanonymouslytotheLearningStyleInventoryandtheMultipleIntelligencesSurveywheretheywillratethemselvesontheirpreferencesforlearningactivitiesandtheirdominantintelligencebyusingafourpointscale.Thestudentswillprovidebackgroundinformationsuchasage,gender,gradeandtheireducationalprogram.Thelearningstyleinventoryandthemultipleintelligencessurveywillbefilledoutduringtwoclassroomsessions.

35

ResearchFindingsDataAnalysisThedatawillbeprocessedbypresenting:descriptivestatisticsonthemeasuresoftheinventories.OnewayAnovawillbeperformedforexplainingthedifferencesbetweenthetwogroups,giftedandnongiftedstudents.Differentcorrelationsmatriceswillbepresentedforeachgroup,inordertofindthecorrelationsbetweenthedifferentlearningstylesandmultipleintelligencesinbothgroups.

DescriptiveStatisticsfortheStudyMeasuresThedescriptivestatistics,mean,standarddeviation,minimum,maximumandreliabilityaredisplayedinTable1.Italsoshowstheinternalconsistencymeasuresoftheeightscalesofmultipleintelligencesandthefourscalesofthelearningstylepreferences.TheeightscalesofmultipleintelligenceshadmoderateinternalconsistencyasreflectedinthevaluesofCronbachs(.46to.70),whereasthefourscalesoflearningstyleshadslightlyhighervalues(.55to.75).

36

Table1:DescriptiveStatistics

Variable N Mean Std.Deviation

Min Max ALPHACronbachs

()MultipleIntelligences

Linguistic 199 2.30 0.47 1.30 3.70 0.62Intrapersonal 199 2.50 0.42 1.00 3.67 0.46LogicalMath 199 2.74 0.46 1.44 3.70 0.58Musical 199 3.05 0.50 1.30 4.00 0.70Kinesthetic 199 2.68 0.43 1.38 3.89 0.48Natural 199 2.43 0.46 1.50 3.70 0.62Interpersonal 199 3.01 0.43 1.56 3.89 0.63Spatial 199 2.72 0.45 1.56 3.78 0.47

LearningStylesAuditory 199 2.27 0.60 0.75 3.50 0.55Visual 199 1.92 0.61 0.13 3.75 0.61Tactile 199 1.72 0.81 0.13 4.00 0.74Kinesthetic 199 1.56 0.80 0.00 3.75 0.75

37

ResearchQuestion1:Aretheredifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsasrelatedtolearningstyle?UnivariateAnalysisofVariance(ANOVA)Inordertoestablishthepreferenceratingsofgender,age,andgroupofthesecategories,a2x4x2(2:gendermaleandfemale,4:age12,13,14,15,2:groupgiftedandnongifted)univariateanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)wasperformedusingthecategoriesoflearningstylesandmultipleintelligencesasdependentvariables.Theresultspresentthefollowing:A:VisualLearningStyleTheresultsindicatethatthefirstmaineffectgenderisnotsignificantF(1,182)=1.263,p>.05.ThesecondmaineffectagealsoisnotsignificantF(1,182)=.281,p>.05.ThelastmaineffectgroupisnotsignificantF(1,182)=.069,p>.05.ThetripleinteractionofgenderbyagebygroupisnotsignificantF(3,182)=.428,p>.05.Conversely,thereisasignificantinteractionofgenderbyageF(3,182)=3.046,p.03,=.05.PostHocanalysisshowsthatthedifferencesinvisualstylewiththeinteractionofgenderandagearesignificantamongthefemalegroup.Thismeansthattheolderfemales(M=2.02)preferusingvisuallearningstylemorethantheyoungfemalegroup(M=1.49).Inthemalegrouptherewerenodifferencesbetweenagesthatprefervisuallearningstyle(p>.05)(seeTable2andFigure1).

38

Table2:MeansandS.E.ofasignificantinteractionofgenderbyageinthevisuallearningstyle

*indicatesonsignificantdifferencesofthemeansp.05

Figure1:Meansinteractionofvisuallearningstyleofgenderbyage

Gender Age Mean S.EMale 12 2.15 .21

13 1.86 .1414 2.08 .1315 1.81 .11

Female 12 1.49 .2013 1.99 .0814 1.88 .1315 2.02 .10

2.15

1.49

1.861.99 2.08 1.88 1.81

2.02

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

male female male female male female male female

12 13 14 15

Mean

genderbyageinteraction

VisualLearningStyle*

*

39

AnothersignificantinteractionforvisualstyleingenderbygroupF(1,182)=3.755,p.05,=.02.PostHocanalysisshowsthatthedifferencesinvisualstylewiththeinteractionofgenderandgrouparesignificantsolelyamongthenongiftedgroup.Thisconcludedthatthenongiftedmales(M=2.09)aresignificantlyhigherinthevisualstylethanthegiftedmales(M=1.77).Inaddition,therewerenodifferencesbetweenthefemalegroupsoverpreferenceofvisuallearningstyle(p>.05)(seetable3andfigure2).

Table3:MeansandS.E.ofasignificantinteractionofgenderbygroupinthevisuallearning

style

*indicatesonsignificantdifferencesofthemeansp.05Figure2:Meansinteractionofvisuallearningstyleofgenderbygroup

2.09

1.86

1.77

1.95

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

2.1

2.2

male female male female

nongifted gifted

Mean

genderbygroupinteraction

VisualLearningStyle

Group Gender Mean S.ENongifted Male 2.09 .11

Female 1.77 .10Gifted Male 1.86 .10

Female 1.95 .09

*

*

40

B:AuditoryLearningStyleTheresultsindicatethatthefirstmaineffectgenderisnotsignificantF(1,182)=.240,p>.05.ThesecondmaineffectagealsoisnotsignificantF(3,182)=.877,p>.05.ThelastmaineffectgroupisnotsignificantF(1,182)=.237,p>.05.ThetripleinteractionofgenderbyagebygroupisnotsignificantF(3,182)=.266,p>.05.TheresultsaswelldemonstrateasignificantinteractionwithgenderbygroupF(1,182)=3.077,p.05,=.01.PostHocanalysisshowsahigherdifferencebetweenthemales(M=2.33)inthenongiftedgroupcomparedtothemales(M=2.09)inthegiftedgroup.Thisindicatesthatthemalesinthenongiftedgroupdemonstrateagreaterpreferenceinusingtheauditorylearningstyle(p.05)(seetable4andfigure3).

Table4:MeansandS.E.ofasignificantinteractionofgenderbygroupintheauditory

learningstyle

Group Gender Mean S.ENongifted Male 2.33 .11

Female 2.19 .10Gifted Male 2.09 .10

Female 2.33 .09

41

*indicatesonsignificantdifferencesofthemeansp.05

Figure3:Meansinteractionofauditorylearningstyleofgenderbygroup

C:TactileLearningStyleTheresultsoftheunivariateanalysesshowthatthemaineffectageisnotsignificantF(3,182)=1.927,p>.05andthetripleinteractionofgenderbyagebygroupisalsonotsignificantF(3,182)=.081,p>.05.TheresultspresentthattheinteractionofgenderF(1,182)=4.887,p.05,=.02andgroupF(1,182)=5.857,p.05,=.03issignificantwiththetactilestyle.Theresultsdemonstratethatthefemalegroup(M=1.86)issignificantlyhigherinpreferringthetactilestyleincomparisontothemalegroup(M=1.55)(p0.5)(seefigure4)

Asregardingtothetactilestylecategory,thenongiftedgroup(M=1.87)issignificantlyhigherinthetactilestylethanthegiftedgroup(M=1.54)(p.05)(seefigure5).

2.33

2.09

2.19

2.33

1.95

2

2.05

2.1

2.15

2.2

2.25

2.3

2.35

nongifted gifted nongifted giftedMales Females

Mean

genderbygroupinteraction

AuditoryLearningStyle

*

*

42

*indicatesonsignificantdifferencesofthemeansp.05

Figure4:Meansofgenderintactilelearningstyle

*indicatesonsignificantdifferencesofthemeansp.05

Figure5:Meansofgroupintactilelearningstyle

1.55

1.86

00.20.40.60.81

1.21.41.61.82

Males Females

Mean

gender

TactileLearningStyle

1.87

1.54

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Nongifted Gifted

Mean

group

TactileLearningStyle

*

*

*

*

43

Ultimately,thetactilestylecategoryanalysisalsopresentsasignificantinteractionofgenderbygroupF(1,182)=4.018,p.04,=.02.PostHocanalysisshowsthatthedifferencesinthecategoryoftactilestyleintheinteractionofgenderbygrouparesignificantexclusivelyamongthegiftedgroup.Thisrevealsthatthegiftedfemales(M=1.83)aresignificantlyhigherinthetactilestylethanthegiftedmales(M=1.25),whiletherearenodifferencesbetweenthenongiftedgroupsinpreferringtactilelearningstyle(p>.05)(seetable5andfigure6).

Table5:MeansandS.E.ofasignificantinteractionofgenderbygroupinthetactile

learningstyle

*indicatesonsignificantdifferencesofthemeansp.05

Figure6:Meansinteractionoftactilelearningstyleofgenderbygroup

Gender Group Mean S.EMale Nongifted 1.86 .15

Gifted 1.25 .14Female Nongifted 1.88 .13

Gifted 1.83 .12