Exploring Multiple Intelligences - hraljournal.com Fang-Mei Tai - 1.pdf · Exploring Multiple Intelligences Fang-Mei Tai, National Penghu University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue 11

Exploring Multiple Intelligences

Fang-Mei Tai, National Penghu University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

ABSTRACT

Researchers discovered a significant positive relationship between GPAs (or academic achievement)

and Multiple Intelligences. This study was designed to explore traditional and adult students’ perceptions

regarding Gardner’s seven multiple intelligences and attempted to address if there are correlations

bivariating existing between any two of intellectual perceptions of the students. The SPSS was used to

analyze the data obtained from this study. t tests for independent means revealed significantly difference

in multiple intelligence predominance ( p < .05 ) between traditional students and adult students. The

composite means and standard deviations for ranking the multiple intelligences were presented. The cor-

relation existing in the perceptions, i.e., the verbal-linguistic and other intelligences of traditional and

adult students from the randomly selected FCU by Pearson Correlation was also applied. The findings

provide the students to find what their multiple intelligences are and thereby to develop their second ma-

jor/minor to reach their academic achievement and indirectly to contribute teachers adjusting curriculum

by the measurement, Checklisting My Strengths. The results also aid the students of other departments of

the University, Mathematic or Architecture Dept., to investigate and develop their minor or career de-

signing by the same way applied by this study in the challenging, innovative, and diversified society. It is

with significant educational function and meaning insights outside of the immediate context considered in

the paper.

Keywords: Adult students, Multiple Intelligences, Curriculum, Minor Development

INTRODUCTION

Howard Gardner introduced Multiple Intelligences theory in his 1983 book, Frames of Mind, pro-

posing that there are several independent ability areas. From then on many researchers have still inter-

ested in his theory of MI as the follows:

Green & et. al. (2005) stated that MI theory can and should be applied in the context of organiza-

tional teams, i.e., using individuals' multiple intelligences (Gardner MI) to enhance contributions to the

team and organizational productivity. O'Halloran (2003) also investigated the use of Howard Gardner's

theory of multiple intelligences in hospitality education and found the need for teaching to consider vis-

ual-spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalist factors and which

would have an enhancement of hospitality instruction. In 2010 Glenn discovered a significant relationship

between the variables of GPAs and Multiple Intelligences and future academic achievement would be

positive.

Roscoe (2001) introduced his "self-development book", a very much "work book", on multiple in-

telligences and appealed that managers reviewing their intelligences in their work context and then apply-

ing them to their staff. Also in 2011Al-Wadi investigated teachers' perceptions toward enhancing learning

and found the effects of multiple intelligences theory on elementary students’ academic achievement.

Fashun (2012) adapted the Theory of Multiple Intelligences to the instrumental rehearsal for developing

musicianship from the podium. Roberts (2010) demonstrated the benefits of including Multiple Intelli-

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue12

gences protocol in standard school curriculum and the study disclosed how dance, as a component of MI

(kinesthetic bodily movement), can selectively be used to reduce academic stressors as learning in a

healthy environment has been displaced with the preoccupation of standardized tests or non-fixed stan-

dard curriculums in daily instruction. Furthermore, in 2012, in Sulim’s paper, Gardner's theory of Multi-

ple Intelligence was used conducting an experimental study and the author insisted the teaching strategies

should be rearranged according to the student's order of these types of MI.

Normally, people would like to understand their own multiple intelligences and students could pre-

pare career plan to reach their fullest potential accordingly; hence, this study was to investigate a sample

of 174 under-graduates through Gardner's SEVEN Multiple Intelligences.

Purpose of the Measurement This measurement was conducted to determine and to recognize if any correlations bivariating exist

be-tween the multiple intelligences perceptions of traditional English Dept FCU Students and English

Dept Adult Education FCU Students. Information that emerges from the present study may: ● help understand what FCU students their multiple intelligences are.

● serve as a guide for students in designing learning experiences, setting future goal and career plan or

de-veloping second major/minor, or diversified learning to achieve high academic expectations and en-

cour-agement. ● help teacher adjust curricula in order to promote students to reach their fullest potential to meet educa-

tional objectives. ● provide students of other departments of university, e. g. mathematic, music, architecture, or special

edu-cation program, etc. also explore and develop their minor or career designing by the same way of

this study.

The following research questions guided the study of this part.

1. What are the most predominant multiple intelligences of English Dept FCU students?

2. What are the most predominant multiple intelligences of English Dept Adult Education FCU students?

3. What differences in multiple intelligences perception exist between English Dept FCU students and

English Dept adult education FCU students?

4. Are there Correlations bivariating existing in the multiple intellectual perceptions of English Dept FCU

students?

5. Are there Correlations bivariating existing in the multiple intellectual perceptions of English Dept adult

education FCU students?

LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

Overview of the Multiple Intelligences Theory Everyone possesses unique and diverse gifts and talents and has different intelligences that contrib-

ute to the whole school. Gardner’s “Frames of Mind (1983)”, with its Theory of Multiple Intelligences

(MI), sparked a revolution of sorts in classrooms around the world and has had a major impact on the

perception of human intelligence; i.e., the human ability to solve problems (Checkley, 1997). According

to empirical evidence, the theory states that the human brain is modular and that all humans possess at

least seven intelligences: verbal/ linguistic, visual-spatial, musical, intra-personal, interpersonal, logical-

mathematical, and bodily-kinesthetic. Traditionally, intelligence tests depend almost entirely on the ver-

bal/ linguistic and logical/ mathematical intelligences and have often missed the talents, gifts, and abilities


of the many students who are stronger in the other six. Gardner (1996) proposed that “only if we recog-

nize multiple intelligences can we reach more students, and give those students the opportunity to demon-

strate what they have understood” (p. 3). And a better understanding how students learn would be made

through addressing the existence of the intelligences.

The instrument entitled, Checklisting My Strengths, is based on the following: Verbal-Linguistic Intelligence (Teele, 1996). Linguistic intelligence is the ability to think in words

and to use language to express and appreciate complex meanings. This intelligence allows us to under-

stand the order and meaning of words and to apply metalinguistic skills to reflect on our use of language.

Carter (2000) stated that “the latest brain scans reveal our thoughts, moods and memories as clearly as an

X-ray reveals our bones; we can watch the language areas sparkling as they grapple with new words. The

intelligence is the most widely shared human competence and is evident in posts, novelists, journalists,

and effective public speaker.”

Visual-Spatial Intelligence. The intelligence is the ability to think in three dimensions. Core ca-

pacities include mental imagery, spatial reasoning, image manipulation, graphic and artistic skills, and an

active imagination. Sailors, pilots, sculptors, painters, and architects all exhibit spatial intelligence.

Intrapersonal Intelligence. It is the capacity to understand oneself and one’s thoughts and feelings

and to use such knowledge in planning and directing one’s life. This intelligence involves not only an

appreciation of the self, but also of the human condition. It is evident in psychologists, spiritual leaders,

and philosophers.

Interpersonal Intelligence. This intelligence is the ability to understand and interact effectively

with others. It involves effective verbal and nonverbal communication, the ability to note distinctions

among others, a sensitivity to the moods and temperaments of others, and the ability to entertain multiple

perspectives. Teachers, social workers, actors, and politicians all exhibit interpersonal intelligence.

Logical-Mathematical Intelligence. It is the ability to calculate, quantify, consider propositions

and hypotheses, and carry out complex mathematical operations. It enables us to perceive relationships

and connections and to use abstract, symbolic thought; sequential reasoning skills; and inductive and de-

ductive thinking patterns. Logical intelligence is usually well developed in mathematicians, scientists, and

detectives.

Musical Intelligence. It is the capacity to discern pitch, rhythm, timbre, and tone. This intelligence

enables us to recognize, create, reproduce, and reflect on music, as demonstrated by composers, conduc-

tors, musicians, vocalists, and sensitive listeners. Interestingly, there is often an affective connection be-

tween music and the emotions; and mathematical and musical intelligences may share common thinking

processes.

Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence. It is the capacity to manipulate objects and use a variety of physi-

cal skills. This intelligence also involves a sense of timing and the perfection of skills through mind-body

union. Athletes, dancers, surgeons, and craftspeople exhibit well-developed bodily-kinesthetic intelli-

gence.

METHODOLOGY

Conceptual Framework and Theory The overall framework that surrounds this paper includes exploring the multiple intelligences, the

differences between, and the correlations bivariating existing between any two of multiple intelligences.

Various techniques could also be employed to determine the applicability of each analysis.


Research and Design

There was no single research and design encompassing the overall structure of the paper, rather

multiple intelligences in variable structure was explored from students’ perspectives. Importance was

placed upon finding the correlations bivariating existing between any two of multiple intelligences, data

analysis, data collection, or object grouping.

Population and Sample

The population for this study included all full-time traditional and non-traditional (adult) students at

universities of higher education with extension courses (adult education) in Taiwan. A list of all higher

education universites was provided through Minister of Education of R.O.C. (2013). The area located in

Middle Area of Taiwan was randomly chosen. Each university in this area was numbered in alphabetical

order and a table of random numbers was used to select one. Two classes of traditional (ninety-five) and

two classes of nontraditional in adult education (seventy-nine) English Department students from Feng

Chia University (FCU) were randomly selected to participate in the study. Therefore, the sample con-

sisted of 174 traditional and nontraditional students respectively from English Department and Adult

Education of English Department of FCU, which is a key comprehensive university Taiwan, completed

the Checklisting My Strengths (Questionnaire).

INSTRUMENTATION

The survey instruments (see Appendix) used to collect data for the study were based on the theory

of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences and adapted from the Drs. Milne (1999) and Kasen consists thirty five

items randomly arranged to cover seven multiple intelligences: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical,

bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, musical, visual-spatial intelligences. Responses were ob-

tained on a ten-point scale ranging from low 1, 2, … to high 9, 0. Scores were ranked from 1 to 10 after

transferring each score, added up each category and then multiplied by two (2) to get a categorical score,

with the higher score indicating higher agreement with the statement. Validity was assured through the

literature review and a critical review of the instrument and greater reliability of results also was provided.

Checklisting My Strengths Questionnaire. The instrument consists of two parts. The part 1 related

to students’ demographic characteristics and included items concerning students’ gender, age, years of

learning EFL experience, grade, major department, and institution. Part 2 consists of thirty five items

which measures respondents’ perceptions regarding their predominant multiple intelligence within vari-

ous aspects of the MIs.

Translation Procedures for the Instrumentation It was necessary to translate the Checklisting My Strengths into Chinese for students. Although the

questionnaires were to be completed by English Dept., Chinese translations would assure better under-

standing by student participants which should provide greater reliability and validity of results. Transla-

tion of the Checklisting My Strengths was conducted by the researcher and three Taiwanese graduate stu-

dents at the National Chung-Hsing University, with the assistance from Dr. Mark Baron, who cleared

doubts about some of the terminology and meanings in the English version of the instrument.


Data Collection The survey was administered to ninety-five full-time traditional and seventy-nine adult students at

FCU, a university of higher education with extension courses in Taiwan randomly selected to participate in the study. Before the distribution, the English Department Chairperson of FCU and the chief of Adult Education of the same university were contacted personally requesting permission to conduct the study at their university. One hundred cover letter and questionnaires were mail delivered to the two classes of traditional and eighty to the two classes of English Department adult education of FCU. The English De-partment chairperson/chief or assistant delivered the questionnaires to the mailbox of each teacher of the four classes selected to participate in the study. Traditional and adult students’ questionnaires were dis-tributed and collected within sealed envelopes by each teacher. Questionnaires were returned directly to the teacher who then returned them to the English Department chairperson/chief. Two weeks follows the distribution of questionnaires, the data collecting period ended. Six empty questionnaires were sent back and there were 174 valid ones. The rate of return was 96.6%. Data Analysis

Research questions one, and two were answered by computing composite means and standard de-viations for each of the seven multiple intelligence perception. Research question three was answered by comparing composite response means of traditional English Dept. students with those of adult education FCU students for each intelligence perception using t tests for independent means. Research questions four and five were answered by using Pearson correlation coefficients. All inferential statistics used the .05 level of significance.

RESULTS

Multiple Intelligences Perception of English Department FCU students

The composite means and standard deviations for English Department FCU students’ predominant multiple intelligences are presented in Table 1. Of the seven multiple intelligences, students most per-ceived the linguistic ( M =72.99 ) and intrapersonal ( M = 72.95 ) intelligences. Musical ( M = 52.70 ) and kinesthetic ( M = 59.94 ) intelligences were perceived least by the English Department FCU students as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Multiple Intelligences Perceptions of English Department FCU Students

Intelligence Mean S. D. Rank Linguistic 72.99 15.07 1

Intrapersonal 72.95 15.46 2 Interpersonal 68.86 14.82 3

Spatial 64.59 13.94 4 Mathematical 62.51 14.38 5 Kinesthetic 61.31 13.91 6

Musical 59.94 15.96 7 N=95

Multiple Intelligences Perception of English Dept Adult Education FCU Students

The composite means and standard deviations for English Dept Adult Education FCU students’ predominant MIs are presented in Table 2. Of the seven multiple intelligences, students also indicated the greatest perception for the linguistic ( M = 75.50 ) followed by intrapersonal ( M = 73.75 ) intelligences. However, Kinesthetic ( M = 52.50 ) and Musical ( M = 52.70 ) intelligences were perceived least by Eng-lish Dept Adult Education FCU students as shown in Table 2.


Table 2: Multiple Intelligences Perceptions of English Dept Adult Education FCU Students Intelligence Mean S. D. Rank Linguistic 75.50 12.11 1

Intrapersonal 73.75 10.48 2 Interpersonal 65.80 13.02 3

Spatial 60.85 14.18 4 Mathematical 56.35 14.31 5

Musical 52.70 15.91 6 Kinesthetic 52.50 17.04 7

N= 79

Differences in Multiple Intelligences Perception between English Dept FCU Students and English

Dept Adult Education FCU Students An independent sample t test was conducted to compare the two-group students’ predominant per-

ception for each multiple intelligence. The differences between the two groups students’ predominant

perception for MIs are presented in Table 3. English Dept Adult Education FCU students demonstrated a

significantly less predominant perception than English Dept students for three perceptions. These in-

cluded musical intelligence, t ( 133 ) = -2.41, p = .017 , mathematical intelligence, t ( 133 ) = -2.27, p

= .025, and kinesthetic intelligence, t ( 133 ) = -3.14, p = .002 . There were no significant differences

between the two group students’ intellectual perception regarding the other four intelligences determined

by t test at the 0.05 level as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Differences in Multiple Intelligences Perception between English Dept

FCU Students’ and English Dept Adult Education FCU Students

Intelligences Mean English Dept FCU students Mean English Dept Adult Education FCU t p

(N = 95 ) (N =79 ) Linguistic 72.99 75.50 0.93 .352

Spatial 64.59 60.85 -1.42 .159 Musical 59.94 52.70 -2.41 .017*

Intrapersonal 72.95 73.75 0.30 .764 Interpersonal 68.86 65.80 -1.14 .258 Mathematical 62.51 56.35 -2.28 .025* Kinesthetic 61.31 52.50 -3.14 .002*

*p < .05

Correlations Bivariating Exist in the Multiple Intellectual Perceptions of English Dept FCU Stu-

dents

There are four-pair bivariating correlations existing in the multiple intellectual perceptions of Eng-

lish Dept FCU students. They included linguistic-intrapersonal intelligences, p = .013, linguistic-

interpersonal intelligences, p = .038, interpersonal-spatial intelligences, p = .017, and intrapersonal-

kinesthetic intelligences, p = .043 determined by Pearson correlation at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). The

finding means that if a student expresses a stronger intellectual perception in intrapersonal, he must also

be good at kinesthetic intelligence and so on as shown in Table 4.


Table 4: Correlations Bivariating in the Multiple Intellectual

Perceptions of English Dept FCU Students Ling Spatial Musical Intra Inter Math Kines

Linguistic Pearson Prob

1.000 .

.531

.000 .645 .000

.390*.013

.330* .038

.609

.000 .641 .000

Spatial Pearson Prob

.531

.000 1.000

. .518 .001

.534

.000 .375* .017

.677

.000 .740 .000

Musical Pearson Prob

.645

.000 .518 .001

1.000 .

.510

.001 .416 .008

.519

.001 .471 .002

Intrapersonal Pearson Prob

.390* .013

.534

.000 .510 .001

1.000.

.540

.000 .546 .000

.321* .043

Interpersonal Pearson Prob

.330* .038

.375* .017

.416

.008 .540 .000

1.000 .

.448

.004 .265 .099

Mathematical Pearson Prob

.609

.000 .677 .000

.519

.001 .546 .000

.448

.004 1.000

. .683 .000

Kinesthetic Pearson Prob

.641

.000 .740 .000

.471

.002 .321*.043

.265

.099 .683 .000

1.000 .

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

Correlations Bivariating Exist in the MI Perceptions of English Dept Adult Education FCU Stu-

dents There are three correlations bivariating between visual-musical intelligences, p = .021, visual-

mathematical intelligences, p = .029, and intrapersonal-interpersonal intelligences, p = .028 determined

by Pearson correlation at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). The results are presented in Table 5. That means the

student who perceives a stronger intelligence in visual must also be good at in musical intelligence and

etc.

Table 5: Correlations Bivariating in the Multiple Intellectual Perceptions of English Dept Adult Education FCU Students

Ling Visu Music Intra Inter Math Kines

Linguistic Pearson Prob

1.000 .

.489

.005 .510 .003

.653

.000 .475 .007

.056

.766 .661 .000

Visual Pearson Prob

.489

.005 1.000

. .412* .02

.530

.002 .641 .000

.393* .029

.552

.001

Musical Pearson Prob

.510

.003 .412* .021

1.000 .

.295

.108 .279 .128

.224

.266 .257 .162

Intrapersonal Pearson Prob

.653

.000 .530 .002

.295

.108 1.000

. .395* .028

.196

.291 .560 .001

Interpersonal Pearson Prob

.475

.007 .641 .000

.279

.128 .395* .028

1.000 .

.584

.001 .648 .000

Mathematical Pearson Prob

.056

.766 .393* .029

.224

.226 .196 .291

.584

.001 1.000

. .123 .508

Kinesthetic Pearson Prob

.661

.000 .552 .001

.257

.162 .560 .001

.648

.000 .123 .508

1.000 .

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).


FINDINGS

The following findings emerged from the analysis of the data collected is in list: 1. Of the sevens, linguistic intelligence was perceived by aggregate respondents as being the most pre-

dominant, while kinesthetic and musical were perceived by respondents as being the least predominant

intelligences.

2. English Dept FCU students perceived linguistic as their predominant intelligence and intrapersonal and

interpersonal are the next; and reflected kinesthetic and musical intelligences as their least.

3. English Dept Adult Education FCU students perceived linguistic as their predominant intelligence and

intrapersonal and interpersonal are the next; while musical and kinesthetic were perceived as the least

predominant intelligences.

4. English Dept. Adult Education FCU students demonstrated a significantly less predominant perception

than English Dept. FCU students for three perceptions including musical, mathematical, and kines-

thetic intelligences. English Dept FCU students did not reflect any significantly difference from adult

students for the other four multiple intelligences.

5. There are four-pair bivariating correlations existing in the multiple intellectual perceptions of English

Dept. FCU students. The bivariating correlations included linguistic-intrapersonal, linguistic-

interpersonal, interpersonal-spatial, and intrapersonal-kinesthetic intelligences.

6. There are three-pair bivariating correlations existing in the multiple intellectual perceptions of English

Dept. Adult Education FCU students. They were visual-musical intelligences, visual-logical mathe-

matical intelligences, and intrapersonal-interpersonal intelligences.

7. The most predominant multiple intelligence perception of the two groups students is the same– linguis-

tic , intrapersonal, and interpersonal intelligences. Not only English Department traditional but also

adult students, who are working in English, demonstrate the highest scores in the linguistic intelligence.

The correlation between the multiple intelligence perception scores and “English” Dept. Students is

making sense.

CONCLUSIONS

All of the result addressing students’ multiple intelligences will guide in the school setting to in-

crease/create students’ personalized learning environment in helping not only English Dept. students but

also other Department students to set future goal and career designing or develop their second ma-

jor/minor or diversified learning. Also the study serves teachers as a reference to design students’ learning

experiences or adjust curricula.

1. English Dept traditional and adult FCU students perceived linguistic as their strongest intelligence for

the multiple intelligences.

2. English Dept traditional and adult FCU students also all reflected least predominant intellectual percep-

tion in kinesthetic and musical intelligences for the seven multiple intelligences.

3. English Dept students and English Dept adult education FCU students have reasonable correlation with

the Intelligence Quest perception scores, i.e., they have most predominant intelligence in linguistic.

4. Generally, there were no significant differences existing between English Dept. students and English

Dept. adult education FCU students’ intellectual perceptions regarding the predominance of the seven

multiple intelligences. English Dept. traditional and adult FCU students should be treated to represent

all FCU students; even more they could stand for universities students in Taiwan for this research.


5. English Dept. FCU students perceive musical is their weakest; while the kinesthetic is perceived as the

least predominant intelligence by English Dept. adult FCU students.

From the above finding, both English Dept traditional and adult FCU students perceived linguistic

as their strongest intelligence for the multiple intelligences. Also we found there are two correlations

bivariating between linguistic-intrapersonal intelligences, linguistic-interpersonal intelligences. In sum, it

is important for researchers who would utilize this to understand the correlations bivariating existing be-

tween any two of multiple intelligences, i.e., the student who perceives a stronger intelligence in spatial

must also be good at interpersonal intelligence, so that the students’ second major or diversified learning

could be thereby developed.

DISCUSSION

In 1998 Dr. Milne stated that there does exist a correlation (a linkage) between the Intelligence

Quest perception scores and the student’s achievement profile. In this paper, ranked means indicated that

all students’ most predominant multiple intelligences perception were linguistic intelligences; while both

kinesthetic and musical were ranked as the least. That English Dept. traditional and adult FCU students

demonstrate highest scores in the perceptions of linguistic intelligence is reasonable. However, despite the

strongest linguistic intelligence, most English Dept. students do not know and rely heavily upon this intel-

ligence. The second major therefore deserves to find; perhaps it will make them more internally moti-

vated to learn and to develop in today’s complex world.

Although there were significant differences between English Dept. traditional and adult FCU stu-

dents for musical, mathematical, and kinesthetic intelligences, the most predominant three multiple intel-

ligences perceptions of the both group students are almost the same; they included linguistic, intraper-

sonal, and interpersonal intelligences. Hence, the implications for English Dept. traditional and adult FCU

students to be treated to represent all FCU students, even to stand for all universities students in Taiwan

should be considerable.

There are four correlations bivariating existing in English Dept. FCU students between linguistic-

intrapersonal intelligences, linguistic-interpersonal intelligences, spatial-interpersonal, and intrapersonal-

kinesthetic intelligences. With respect to spatial-interpersonal intelligences, in Oxford’s (1993) research,

which found that the visual-spatial like to read a lot, which requires concentration and time spent alone.

And high intelligence in interpersonal is the ability to note distinctions among others and a sensitivity to

the moods and temperaments of others. It is no wonder they may have correlation each other. That means,

the student who perceives a stronger intelligence in spatial must also be good at interpersonal intelligence.

They have bivariating correlation each other.

To help students’ diversified learning, effective teachers should strive to understand and recognize

the students’ intelligences. To refine students’ talents, help students use their combination of intelligences,

and prepare a suitable learning environment should absolutely not be neglected. This paper will also ulti-

mately benefit to education and which would enhance students “welfare” leading to a great satisfaction

(Lysonski, et. al., 2003).


REFERENCES

Al-Wadi, N. I. (2011). Teachers' perceptions toward enhancing learning through multiple intelligences theory in elementary school:

A mixed methods study. Indiana State University, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2011. 3491221.

Carter, Rita (2000). Mapping the mind. Los Angeles: Clio Books.

Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven and the eighth. Educational Leadership, 55 (1), 8-13.

Fashun, C. H. (2012). Developing musicianship from the podium: Adapting the Theory of Multiple Intelligences to the instrumental

rehearsal. The University of Iowa, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2012. 3526815.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NK: Basic Books, c1993.

Gardner, H. (1996). Probing more deeply into the theory of multiple intelligences. NASSP Bulletin, 80 (583), 1-7.

Gardner, H. (1998). Extraordinary minds: Portraits of exceptional individuals and an examination of our extraordinariness. New

York: Basic Books.

Glenn, C. F. (2010). The use of multiple intelligence concepts with middle school students and future academic achievement. The

University of Southern Mississippi, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2010. 3416282.

Green, A. L., Hill, A. Y., Friday, E. & Friday, S. S. (2005). The use of multiple intelligences to enhance team productivity. Man-

agement Decision, 43 (3).

Latham, A. S. (1997). Quantifying MI’s gains. Educational Leadership, 55 (1), 84-85.

Lazear, D. (1991). Seven ways of teaching: The artistry of teaching with multiple intelligences (4th printing) Palatine, ILL: Skylight

Publishing, Inc.

Lysonski, S., Durvasula, S., & Watson, J. (2003). Should marketing managers be concerned about attitudes towards marketing and

consumerism in New Zealand? A longitudinal view. European Journal of Marketing, 37(3/4), 385-406.

Milne, Bruce G. (1975). A teaching guide for the cultural history and geography of the western frontier and up per Missouri region:

101 things to do for your bi-centennial: a program for the American issues forum. Vermillion, S.D.: Educational Research

and Service Center, School of Education, USD, c1975

Minister of Education of the Rep. of China (2013). Retrieved on Oct 2, 2013 from http://www.edu.tw/

O'Halloran, C. S. D. (2003). Changing our teaching paradigm: Multiple intelligence in hospitality education. Journal of Hospitality

& Tourism Education, 15 (2), 43-51.

Oxford, R., Park-Oh, Y., Ito, S., & Sumrall, M. (1993). Japanese by satellite: Effects of motivation, language learning styles and

strategies, gender, course level, and previous language learning experience on Japanese language achievement. Foreign Lan-

guage Annals, 26, 359-371.

Roberts, T. M. (2010). The experience of dance class: Exploring multiple intelligences instruction on student academic stress.

Capella University, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2010. 3418880.

Roscoe, J. (2001). Profiting from Multiple Intelligences in the Workplace. Industrial and Commercial Training, 33(4).

Sulim, G. H. S. A. (2012). Prediction of the correlation between the strategies of the teaching methods and the Multiple Intelligence

of some graduate female students at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sci-

ences, 47, 1268-1275.

Teele, S. (1996). Redesigning the educational system to enable all students to succeed. NASSP Bulletin, 80 (583), 65-75.


CHECKLISTING MY STRENGTHS

Circle the number which you feel best describes your strength or ability in each item:

(low) (high)

1. I speak well in public. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

2. I can find my way around cities very well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

3. People consider me a good listener. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

4. People say I am a good singer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

5. I can measure and analyze data well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 6. I have no great difficulty in writing papers. 7. I learn words and tunes to songs easily. 8. I participate(ed) in competitive sports. 9. Knowing and trusting myself is important.

10. I am strong and well coordinated. 11. I am good at quiz (trivia) games.

12. I communicate well through letters. 13. I have strong values and ethics.

14. I build things “from scratch” with tools 15. People consider me a good team player.

16. I know myself well and set my own goals. 17. I tell jokes and stories very well.

18. I have little or no difficulty in mathematics. 19. It is easy for me to communicate ideas.

20. I constantly examine my own feelings. 21. I cooperate well in working with a group.

22. I am a good dancer. 23. I excel in playing a musical instrument.

24. I have no difficulty in reading maps. 25. I have good eye-hand coordination.

26. I can visualize things before I build them. 27. Music is an important part of my life.

28. I make detailed house plans. 29. I conduct step by step experiments well.

30. Music is relaxing and a pleasure for me. 31. I can sketch outdoor scenes well.

32. I think a lot, sometimes day dream. 33. I like to express myself in poetry. 34. Goals are an important art of my life. 35. I build friendships easily.

Documents

Exploring Multiple Intelligences - hraljournal.com Fang-Mei Tai - 1.pdf · Exploring Multiple Intelligences Fang-Mei Tai, National Penghu University of Science and Technology, Taiwan