Upload
magdy-aly
View
567
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
هذه الدراسة عن الذكاءات المتعددة
Citation preview
THE THEORY OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES
AND CRITICAL THINKING
by
Paula J. Zobisch
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
June 2005
UMI Number: 3174529
31745292005
UMI MicroformCopyright
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
Abstract
This study examines whether or not teaching critical thinking
by using the theory of multiple intelligences increases
critical thinking comprehension. Student perception of an
instructor’s use of multiple intelligence techniques was
assessed in critical thinking courses.
iii
Dedication
This dissertation and all its hard work, hopes, and
dreams are dedicated to my sons, Brian and Matthew, and my
granddaughter, Riley. I’ve tried so hard to teach all of you
education opens doors that won’t open any other way; I hope
the example I have set will encourage you to dream big and
work hard.
iv
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge and thank my committee chair,
Elaine Guerrazzi, for having the courage to join my
dissertation committee midstream. I have appreciated your
candor and expertise, Elaine, and especially am grateful for
your encouragement. Thanks also to my committee members, Jerry
Roger, Keith Pratt, and Mary Dereshiwsky, for your
encouragement and expertise. Finally, I would like to express
a special thank you to my stats consultant, Don Platine, whose
guidance was immeasurable throughout this entire process.
v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments iv
List of Tables viii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction to the Problem 1
Background of the Study 3
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 5
Research Questions 5
Nature of the Study 7
Significance of the Study 8
Definition of Terms 9
Assumptions and Limitations 13
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 14
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 16
Introduction 16
Rationale 16
Theoretical Framework 18
Academic Psychology 33
Measuring Multiple Intelligence 36
Applying MI in Higher Education Institutions 37
vi
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 39
Introduction 39
Methodology 39
Theoretical Framework 40
Research Design 41
Sampling Design 44
Measures 45
Data Collection 47
Data Analysis 48
Statistical Procedures 50
Limitation of Methodology 51
Expected Findings and Ethical Issues 52
Pilot Testing 53
Time lines 54
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 55
Introduction 55
Description of Data 56
Data Analysis Process 57
Statistical Procedures 60
Findings and Results 62
Qualitative Analysis 67
vii
Summary 70
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS,RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 71
Introduction 71
Summary of the Study 71
Findings and Conclusions 74
Recommendations 77
Future Research 78
Implications 80
REFERENCES 82
APPENDIX A. STUDENT MI PREFERENCES 88
APPENDIX B. FINAL EXAM 92
APPENDIX C. STUDENT PERCEPTIONS 95
APPENDIX D. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION 99
APPENDIX E. CODING CATEGORIES FOR QUESTIONNAIRE 101
viii
List of Tables
Table 1a. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Critical Thinking 28
Table 1b. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Critical Thinking 29
Table 2a. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Multiple Intelligences 30
Table 2b. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Multiple Intelligences 31
Table 3. Research Question 1 63
Table 4. Research Question 2 65
Table 5. Research Question 3 66
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
Many adults are ill prepared to live, work, and function
effectively in our fast-paced and highly technical society
(Vaske, 2001). In fact, based on the 1992 test results of
adult literacy, nearly half of American adults do not perform
at the level of literacy considered by the National Education
Goals Panel to be necessary for competing successfully in a
global economy and for exercising the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship (Gronlund, 1993). The
challenge is how to develop the skills needed to be productive
and informed members of a world market led by constant change.
In response to this challenge, educators, employers, and
society at large began calling for the development of critical
thinking skills (Brookfield, 1987; Davis & Botkin, 1995;
Glaser & Resnick, 1991; Halpern, 1993; Kerka, 1992; Paul,
1990; Sternberg, 1985a). They argued that to thrive and
compete in the Information Age, individuals must ask
questions, challenge assumptions, invent new ways of solving
problems, connect new knowledge to information they already
have, and apply their knowledge and reasoning skills in new
MI and Critical Thinking 2
situations. In short, individuals must develop critical
thinking skills.
Adult educators, however, may not be using the best
methods of teaching adults to think critically. In the
traditional classroom, a teacher lectures while standing at
the front of the classroom and writes on the board, questions
students about assigned readings or handouts, and waits as
students finish written work (Stanford, 2003). Instead, the
academic literature supports the notion of different learning
styles or preferences (Knowles, 1980; McCarthy, 2000; Merriam
& Caffarella, 1999; Sternberg, 1997). A more effective method
of teaching and increasing student comprehension of critical
thinking is to implement Gardner’s (1993a) theory of multiple
intelligences (MI) into teaching strategies. The MI theory is
described as a philosophy of education or an attitude toward
teaching (Armstrong, 1994) in the spirit of John Dewey’s
(1916, 1938) ideas on progressive education, rather than a set
program of fixed techniques and strategies. It offers
educators a broad opportunity to creatively adapt its
fundamental principles to any number of educational settings.
Implications for school reform and classroom application
include expanded teaching strategies, curricular adaptations,
and expanded student assessment. In fact, unsuccessful,
MI and Critical Thinking 3
unmotivated students have experienced academic growth when
exposed to the multifaceted techniques of MI (Janes,
Koutsopanagos, Mason, & Villaranda, 2000).
Berkemeir (2002) found the use of multiple intelligence
techniques in teaching math led to increased comprehension as
measured by final test scores. A review of the literature,
however, has not identified additional research studies on
multiple intelligences and learning outcomes.
Background of the Study
Although Gardner’s Frames of Mind was published in 1983,
further studies in the academic literature remain limited. It
is difficult to know what insight further studies would
provide in this area of education. One can only imagine the
possibilities of information and data that can be collected
regarding MI and the adult population. Brookfield (1990)
claims critical thinking is necessary for survival in personal
relationships, for survival in the workplace, and for
maintaining a democratic world. Merriam and Brockett believed
learning to think critically can lead to “empowerment,
transformation, and emancipation—in short, social action”
(1997, p. 255). Unfortunately, traditional methods of teaching
critical thinking leave many students bewildered with little
MI and Critical Thinking 4
or no comprehension of the critical thinking process. There
are several reasons why the student population at an adult
education institution is important to the investigation of
teaching critical thinking through the use of MI techniques.
If critical thinking mastery can be improved through the use
of MI techniques, a democratic society could be stronger;
global competition could also be strengthened.
Statement of the Problem
Since the researcher teaches critical thinking courses at
a nontraditional adult education institution and is searching
for approaches to improve student comprehension, this raises
the question whether or not the use of MI techniques could
increase critical thinking comprehension. This question could
be approached from several directions; however, the focus of
this study will be on the student perception of the
instructor’s use of MI techniques.
If critical thinking is the ultimate goal of adult
education, as the literature suggests, how can educators teach
the skill in order to raise student comprehension? The
traditional method of higher education must be reexamined in
order to determine if additional teaching methods could be
MI and Critical Thinking 5
introduced in order to increase learner comprehension of
critical thinking.
Purpose of the Study
Since so little research exists on this topic, this study
is an exploratory study to determine whether or not additional
research (which could lead to activities such as faculty
training and/or student exposure to MI techniques) would be
valuable.
Research Questions
1. The major research question for this study is, Does
perception of an instructor’s use of MI techniques
enhance critical thinking mastery as measured by
scores on a standard test?
2. Does an instructor’s use of MI techniques that match
students’ preferences help students achieve higher
critical thinking test scores?
3. Do students reporting more use of MI techniques by
an instructor achieve higher critical thinking test
scores?
Since the literature declares “perception is reality”
(Griffin, 2004, ¶ 1; Holland, 2004, ¶ 4), when working with
MI and Critical Thinking 6
instructional techniques, it is more important to understand
what the learners perceive occurred than what MI technique
might actually have been used.
For example, if an instructor used a musical intelligence
MI technique that was not recognized by the class as an MI
technique, it would be ineffective and equivalent to not
having been used. Similarly, if the musical MI technique was
used but perceived as a different MI technique, the student
still recognized the use of an MI technique. Therefore, this
study will focus on the perception of the use of a variety of
MI techniques rather than the correct identification of the
actual MI technique used.
While much has been written about critical thinking as a
framework for adult education, little is known about the adult
educator’s perceived practice as to the most effective
teaching methods for the student comprehension of critical
thinking. Without this information, the field of adult
education might continue to espouse the relevance of critical
thinking skills, but adult learners might not develop the
critical thinking skills essential to the quality of their
lives. Examining what effect the theory of Multiple
Intelligence could have on the comprehension level of critical
thinking could improve the likelihood of greater understanding
MI and Critical Thinking 7
and the grasp of the critical thinking skills so needed in
adult living.
Nature of the Study
The research study will utilize a mixed method of study,
including both qualitative and quantitative methods. According
to Jick (1979), using more than a single method of study can
cancel any potential bias of any one single method and serve
to triangulate data sources. This study will use
questionnaires to assess student perceptions, a matching-item
exam to assess content mastery, and a focus group to verify
student perceptions of instructor use of MI techniques. It is
hoped the focus group data collection will reinforce the
accuracy of the end-of-course questionnaire. Actual methods of
data collection will include an initial Multiple Intelligence
questionnaire to determine each student’s preferences
(Appendix A), a final exam (Appendix B), an end-of-course
questionnaire to assess student perception of instructor use
of MI techniques (Appendix C), and open-ended interviews
(Appendix D). Volunteer faculty members allow the researcher
to administer the respective questionnaires to their
respective classes; focus group discussions will be conducted
by the researcher during the last class of the critical
MI and Critical Thinking 8
thinking course. The convenience sample will consist of
students taking critical thinking classes at an urban
nontraditional adult education institution. The sample will
contain approximately 60 students.
Significance of the Study
The study examines if increased comprehension of critical
thinking skills is achieved through the student perceived
instructor use of several MI presentation techniques. By
increasing comprehension of the critical thinking process,
more informed evaluation and scrutiny of information, better
decisions, and increased conflict resolution skills can be
achieved (Mettetal, Jordan, & Harper, 1997). This study may be
of interest to instructors and administrators at adult
education institutions who are concerned with increasing
success rates, improving retention, and improving curriculum
standards. Students may also experience improved instructional
techniques that will focus on different learning styles;
course materials may be presented in a manner more engaging
and encourage student learning. The results of this study may
also influence the type of faculty professional development
programs offered.
MI and Critical Thinking 9
Definition of Terms
Terms used throughout this study are defined below.
Adult. An individual performing social roles typically
assigned by our culture to those it considered adults such as
the roles of worker, spouse, or parent. A person is adult “to
the extent the individual perceives herself or himself to be
essentially responsible for her or his own life” (Knowles,
1980, p. 24).
Adult education. “The process whereby persons whose major
social roles are characteristic of adult status undertake
systematic and sustained learning activities for the purpose
of bringing about changes in knowledge, attitudes, values, or
skills” (Darkenwald & Merriam, 1982, p. 9).
Adult educators. Individuals who are currently teaching
or previously have taught undergraduate and graduate level
courses in adult education institutions granting undergraduate
and graduate degrees.
Adult learners. Individuals who have multiple roles and
responsibilities and have accumulated many life experiences,
who, in passing through a number of developmental phases,
reinterpret and rearrange their past experience, and who
experience anxiety and ambivalence toward learning
(Brookfield, 1986).
MI and Critical Thinking 10
Comprehension. “The inductive thinking and reasoning
patterns that start with observing factors in a given
situation and then making generalizations based on things that
have been observed time and time again” (Lazear, 1999, p. 41).
Comprehension is comparing something against a standard; this
pattern of thinking is very prevalent in our society. There
are preestablished standards, or generalizations, everywhere,
such as performance standards in the workplace, achievement
standards in the classroom, safety standards for the
construction industry, and standards of health, cleanliness,
and quality in the food industry. Standards are created by
human beings and can be changed as needed; however, skill in
applying preestablished standards and generalizations to
specific information, data, and situations is a key skill for
effective modern living.
Perkins (Campbell, Campbell, & Dickinson, 1999) describes
comprehension as understanding and the nature of human
insight. Perkins contrasts the concept of comprehension, or
understanding, with knowledge. When a person knows something,
the statement usually means he or she has mentally stored
information and can readily retrieve it. By contrast, when a
student comprehends, or understands, something, it is assumed
the skills surpass the stored information. Perkins maintains
MI and Critical Thinking 11
that comprehension refers to what individuals can do with
information rather than what they have memorized. Insight
involves action more than possession; when students
comprehend, or understand, something, they can explain
concepts in their own words, use information appropriately in
new contexts, and make fresh analogies and generalizations.
Memorization and recitation are not indicative of
comprehension as measured by Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et
al., 2001; Bloom, 1956).
Confounding variables. The confounding variables for
purposes of this study potentially include ethnicity, gender,
age, prior multiple intelligence knowledge, and student
multiple intelligence preferences.
Critical thinking. There are many variations on the
definition of critical thinking, resulting in “considerable
confusion and vagueness about the concept” (Garrison, 1991, p.
287). After conducting a meta-analysis of 20 studies of
critical thinking, Bangert-Drowns and Bankert (1990) reported
that critical thinking has been equated with a multiplicity of
constructs, including intelligence, domain-specific expertise,
problem solving, logic and sound reasoning, and other higher
order mental activities.
MI and Critical Thinking 12
Dependent variable. The dependent variable for purposes
of this study is the standard critical thinking test score
(Appendix B).
Independent variable. The independent variable for
purposes of this study is the end-of-course questionnaire
assessing student perception of an instructor’s use of MI
techniques (Appendix C).
Intelligence. Gardner defined intelligence as
A set of skills of problem-solving—enabling the individual to resolve genuine problems or difficulties that he or she encounters and, when appropriate, to creative an effective product and must also entail the potential for finding or creating problems thereby laying the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge. (1993a, p. 60)
Multiple intelligence. Howard Gardner’s (1993a) theory of
multiple intelligences was introduced in his book, Frames of
Mind. Gardner believes all humans are born with the following
eight intelligences in varying degrees: linguistic, musical,
logical/mathematical, spatial, bodily/kinesthetic,
interpersonal, intrapersonal, and nature. Gardner believes
each intelligence has its unique characteristics, and
educators who adapt their teaching methods to include all
intelligences have an increased opportunity to engage learners
in the learning process and to increase comprehension of the
subject studied.
MI and Critical Thinking 13
Assumptions and Limitations
Assumptions
An assumption of this study is that students can
recognize the use of various MI techniques. In addition, it is
assumed the critical thinking test that will be given during
the last class of the critical thinking course will accurately
measure the concepts to be presented using MI techniques.
Limitations
A significant limitation is the student’s desire to
master the critical thinking course material. Another
limitation involves the data level. While the Likert scale
used in the questionnaire is assumed to be at least interval-
level data (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996), the data level may only
be ordinal, questioning the accuracy and appropriateness of
Pearson’s correlation. Since the focus group discussions will
be held after the formal end of the course, the students may
be more interested in leaving than in participating in the
discussion.
A limiting factor to the MI inventory relates to self-
reporting. Surveys or questionnaires do not represent complete
objectivity (Berkemeir, 2002). According to the Berkemeir
MI and Critical Thinking 14
study, there are five factors that may generate misleading
information:
1. Surveys only tap respondents who are accessible and
cooperative.
2. Respondents have to feel that their participation is
a normal and natural process to avoid any form of
slanted or biased answers.
3. The researcher has to be careful of arousing
response sets.
4. Participants should be encouraged to not over rate
or under rate their responses.
5. Participants were unable to accurately identify
their self-perceived multiple intelligence.
Delimitation
The result of the study may not be generalizable beyond
the study due to the nonrandom nature of the sample selection.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature describing
the derivation, description, and educational implications of
Howard Gardner’s (1993a) MI theory. Various types of MI
MI and Critical Thinking 15
instrumentation, such as the instrumentation selected for this
study, will be discussed and described.
Chapter 3 will address the qualitative and quantitative
methodology of the research study. This chapter also includes
information about the type of student population studied and
the instrumentation used for the data collection; proposed
data reporting and analysis procedures are also included.
Chapter 4 will present the analysis from the data, that
is, the findings and results. Chapter 5 will include the
summary of the research, conclusions drawn from the research,
recommendations for practical application of the study
results, recommendations for future related research, and
implications for future research.
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
According to Vaske (2001), many adults are not prepared
to function in the 21st century with its high technology.
Brookfield (1990) claims critical thinking is a necessary
skill in forming relationships and a democratic society, and
Merriam and Brockett (1997) declare thinking critically can
even lead to social action. Even though critical thinking
skills are seemingly the goals of education to benefit members
of a society and ensure its democratic governmental structure,
Hechinger (1987) claims the traditional methods attempting to
teach critical thinking have little or minimal relevance to
adult lives. Sternberg (1985a) also claims there exists a gap
between what is required for critical thinking as adults and
what educators are actually teaching as critical thinking.
Rationale
Given the increasing complexity of our society and the
different learning styles of students, the development of
critical thinking skills is a laudable goal and our best hope
of managing complex, day-to-day problems. Adult educators have
confirmed that critical thinking is within the purview of
MI and Critical Thinking 17
adult education and, in fact, is a major goal of adult
education. Yet, little is known whether or not educators are
structuring their teaching methods to meet the different
learning styles and preferences of students. Are the best
teaching methods being utilized, or is there room for
improvement?
This study addresses a vital sector of today’s education
theory: Different learning styles and preferences of student
and MI theory and their relationship to student learning and
potential achievement in academic, professional, and personal
levels. Ultimately, if a determination can be made that MI
methods improve student comprehension, then perhaps MI should
be applied in all courses.
The New York Times reports, “The . . . schools have
discovered the importance of critical thinking, and many are
trying to teach how to do it” (Hechinger, 1987, p. 27). Yet
there seems to be no evidence that critical thinking skills
taught in schools have much relevance to the learning styles
and preferences of students. Many educators struggle with
finding ways to reach individual learning styles and needs;
one teaching method that can accommodate a variety of learning
styles is Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. Each of
the intelligences encompasses certain characteristics, and
MI and Critical Thinking 18
these characteristics lend themselves to particular
professions. According to Gardner, educators need to alter
their instructional strategies to meet the needs of each
intelligence (Nolen, 2003). The literature suggests humans are
born with a certain amount of intelligence. Specific
intelligences are dominant while others are recessive; the
potential to develop all intelligences is possible (Brockman,
n.d.). Gardner (1993a) insists educators must have an
understanding of the importance of presenting course materials
using all the eight intelligences in order to reach learners
who each have a mixture of the intelligences. When educators
center activities focused toward learning within the needs and
learning styles of their students, students may become more
engaged in the classroom. Gardner believes educators who teach
toward the multiple intelligences realize the benefits of
active, engaged learners who have a higher chance of actually
learning course material by being capable of applying the
principles to other circumstances, thus reinforcing learning.
Theoretical Framework
Theory of Multiple Intelligences
Howard Gardner (1993a) disagrees there is only one single
method of teaching and is best known for his theory of
MI and Critical Thinking 19
multiple intelligences. The work of Gardner has changed the
way people think and work in education, in the arts, in
cognitive psychology, and in medicine (Osciak, 2001). Through
his study of child prodigies, gifted individuals, brain
damaged patients, normal children, normal adults, experts in
different areas of work, and individuals from a variety of
cultures, Gardner (1993b) developed a theory that describes
and supports his belief of the existence of a number of
intelligences available to individuals. Educators can
significantly impact learning if they take the time to
understand and address the different types of MI
intelligences. Gardner stated, “Only if we expand and
reformulate our view of what counts as human intellect will we
be able to devise more appropriate ways of assessing it and
more effective ways of educating it” (1993b, p. 4).
Gardner defines intelligence as “the capacity to solve
problems or to fashion products that are valued in one or more
cultural settings” (Gardner & Hatch, 1989, p. 4). Many
educators struggle with finding ways to reach individual
learning styles and needs. One teaching method that can
accommodate a variety of learning styles is Gardner’s theory
of multiple intelligences. Each of the intelligences
encompasses certain characteristics, and these characteristics
MI and Critical Thinking 20
lend themselves to particular professions. According to
Gardner, educators need to alter their instructional
strategies to meet the needs of each intelligence (Nolen,
2003).
Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences states all
humans are born possessing a certain amount of intelligence.
Specific intelligences are dominant while others are
recessive; the potential to develop all intelligences is
possible (Brockman, n.d.). One must have an understanding of
their intelligences’ strengths and weaknesses. Gardner
describes eight intelligences: linguistic, logical/
mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily kinesthetic,
interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. His
description for each intelligence is listed below:
Verbal/Linguistic. Verbal intelligence involves the
mastery of language; people with this intelligence enjoy
reading and tend to think in words. Their intelligence of
language leads them to fields such as teaching, journalism,
writing, law, and translation. Language helps them to be
better at memorizing information; verbal students are often
excellent at storytelling (Gardner, 1993a).
MI and Critical Thinking 21
People with linguistic intelligence pay special attention
to grammar and vocabulary; they memorize best by using words.
Another advantage is they tend to be great at explaining;
people with this intelligence have a capacity for analyzing
language and creating a better understanding of what someone
actually means when using words. People with this intelligence
learn best by reading, writing, and giving oral reports about
something in their own lives.
Linguistic intelligence is one of the most highly
regarded intelligences and is a key component of the
traditional educational system.
Logical/Mathematical Intelligence. People with
logical/mathematical intelligence have the ability to detect
patterns, reason deductively, and think logically. Children
first experience this intelligence by setting items in order
or matching them with objects such as marbles. Later, children
are able to do math in their heads without the use of
manipulatives. As this intelligence grows, the love of
abstraction separates those with mathematical intelligence
from the rest. Students are able to follow long lines of
reasoning; these are usually the children who do well in a
traditional classroom because they are able to conform to the
MI and Critical Thinking 22
role of the model student. This intelligence is also one of
the most highly regarded intelligences and a key component of
the traditional educational system.
Spatial Intelligence. Individuals with spatial
intelligence are able to visualize how something will look
before it is completed. Lazear (1999) suggests working with
artistic media, designing skills to communicate an idea or
opinion, or designing a house or color scheme.
Spatial intelligence grows out of the visual world,
although blind people can also form spatial intelligence. As
this intelligence gives a sense of direction and accuracy, it
is most common with hunters and travelers. Other professions
with this intelligence include a navigator, guide, architect,
or lighting designer. People with spatial intelligence often
enjoy playing chess. Other areas of enjoyment could include
painting or sculpting. Spatial intelligence relates with the
concrete world that is directly opposite to people who relate
to the world through logical/mathematical intelligence.
Musical Intelligence. This is one of the earliest
intelligences to emerge in children (Gardner, 1993a); those
with musical intelligence have a strong understanding of
MI and Critical Thinking 23
pitch, rhythm, and timbre. Traditional education tends to
minimize the importance of music and music education, but
music can act as a way of identifying and expressing feelings.
Additionally, musical intelligence also relates to other
intelligences, such as the logical/mathematical intelligence,
because it contains musical patterns of rhythm and beat found
in the logical/mathematical intelligence.
Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence. Bodily/Kinesthetic
intelligence is the ability to understand the world through
the body; people with this intelligence have very fine motor
skills of their fingers and hands and have control of their
gross motor skills. Because of these abilities, people with
this intelligence are often surgeons, dancers, mimes,
sculptors, carpenters, plumbers, and athletes. Performers have
the ability to capture the intended emotion and express them
through body language. Kinesthesia is the ability to act
gracefully. Another beneficiary of bodily intelligence is the
athlete; exceptional athletes are graceful, powerful, fast,
and accurate. Individuals with kinesthetic intelligence are
animated in their actions and learn best by doing.
Teaching with bodily/kinesthetic intelligence can be
optimized through the use of manipulatives and physical
MI and Critical Thinking 24
activity. Students with this intelligence could calm their
brain by holding something in their hands so thinking and
learning can occur. Corporations have seen this in their
meetings and bring executive toys into their meetings, as this
has been found to significantly increase creativity and
productivity.
Interpersonal Intelligence. People with this intelligence
have the ability to perceive and discriminate between people’s
feelings and motives. Although interpersonal intelligence has
many of the same characteristics as intrapersonal
intelligence, interpersonal intelligence is the ability to
perceive differences in people outside self.
People with interpersonal intelligence readily understand
and are able to communicate with people who are different from
themselves. People with this intelligence are frequently found
in professions such as teaching, religion, sales, therapy, or
skilled parenting. People like Adolph Hitler have been known
to have high degrees of interpersonal intelligence, proving it
can also be used for things other than good. This intelligence
has the ability of looking outside of oneself and
understanding other people, including the ability to analyze
emotions and predict reactions to various situations.
MI and Critical Thinking 25
Intrapersonal Intelligence. People with intrapersonal
intelligence are commonly creative and have a high level of
self-respect, as this intelligence is developed from internal
resources. Students with intrapersonal characteristics possess
a need to be praised frequently. Intrapersonal intelligence
can be developed using imagination exercises and having
students work together, as observation and experience are the
tools to develop these skills. Individuals with intrapersonal
intelligence have the ability to form an accurate
representation of one’s self. This intelligence allows for
self-reflection and has an understanding of how other people
feel about themselves.
Naturalist Intelligence. Individuals with this
intelligence are expert at classifying and using features of
the environment. Like intrapersonal intelligence, this
intelligence also benefits from observation and experience.
Individuals with this intelligence truly appreciate nature and
have a great concern for the health of our planet.
People with naturalist intelligence commonly show an
expertise in the recognition and classification of plants and
animals. Washington Carver and Charles Darwin are considered
to have had naturalist intelligence. Naturalists benefit from
MI and Critical Thinking 26
learning outdoors; educators can plan activities such as
observing nature, labeling and mounting specimens from nature,
noticing changes in the environment, or taking nature hikes or
field trips in nature.
Attention to these intelligences and their impact in the
classroom is significantly changing education. The theory of
multiple intelligences is an effort to understand how culture
and various disciplines shape human potential. By being
informed about multiple intelligences theory and its
applications to instructional environments, educational
professionals can make better decisions concerning the design
and style of delivery for effective learning. Evidence of this
theory is shown in primary and corporate educational systems,
educational software, instructional design strategies, media
programming, and management and professional development
programs (Pennar, 1996). According to Pennar, “From hiring and
promoting to the daily search for solutions, a multifaceted
approach that captures and takes advantage of all ways of
thinking and learning can only enhance creativity and
innovation” (p. 107).
MI and Critical Thinking 27
Bloom’s Taxonomy
One of Benjamin Bloom’s (1956) most significant
contributions to the field of education was his three
classifications for types of learning: cognitive, psychomotor,
and affective. The cognitive domain is further divided into
six levels of increasingly more difficult higher order
critical thinking skills: knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Bloom’s
taxonomy can be combined with multiple intelligences to ensure
students are learning critical thinking skills. Bloom’s
taxonomy combines all six levels of Bloom’s cognitive critical
thinking skills with multiple intelligences. The multiple
intelligence instructional methods make it possible for every
intelligence to grasp the course content and develop higher
order critical thinking skills (Tables 1 and 2; Armstrong,
2000).
Armstrong (2000) believes the critical thinking movement
provides an alternative to the traditional content expert view
of the educator. Instead, Armstrong suggests using the
Socratic method whereby the educator questions the student’s
views.
MI and Critical Thinking 28
Table 1a. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Critical Thinking
LevelEducational objectives Verbs Questions
Knowledge Defined as the remembering of previously learned material; may involve recall of specific facts or theories; lowest level.
arrange, define, duplicate, label, list, memorize, name, order, recognize, relate, recall, repeat, reproduce, state
Who? What? When? Where? How? Describe.
Comprehension Defined as the ability to grasp the meaning of material; shown by translating material from one form to another (words to numbers), explaining, summarizing, estimating; lowest level of understanding
classify, describe, discuss, explain, express, identify, indicate, locate, recognize, report, restate, review, select, translate
Can you explain, retell, rephrase? What is the main idea? How would you summarize?
Application The ability to use learned material in new situations; may include rules, methods, concepts, principles, laws, theories; solve mathematical problems, correct usage of a method or procedure
apply, choose, demonstrate, dramatize, employ, illustrate, interpret, operate, practice, schedule, sketch, solve, use, write
How would you solve _____ using what you have learned? What examples can you find to show? What approach would you use? What other way would you plan? What would result if…?
MI and Critical Thinking 29
Table 1b. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Critical Thinking
LevelEducational objectives Verbs Questions
Analysis The ability to break down information into parts by identifying motives, analysis of relationship; recognize unstated assumptions, logical fallacies, distinguish between facts and inferences; evaluate relevancy of data
analyze, appraise, calculate, categorize, compare, contrast, criticize, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, examine, experiment, question, test
What is the theme? How would you classify? What conclusions can you draw? Can you identify the different parts? What evidence can you find? How does _____ compare/contrast with ___? Classify _____ according to _____.
Synthesis The ability to put parts together to form a new whole; combination of ideas to form a new whole; may include communication, plan of operations, or a set of abstract relations; learning stresses creative behaviors with emphasis on the formation of new patterns or structure
arrange, assemble, build, choose, compile, collect, compose construct, create, design, develop, formulate, manage, organize, plan, prepare, propose, set up, write
What changes would you make to solve? How would you improve? What would happen if? Can you invent? Can you propose an alternative? What way would you design? What could be combined to improve? How would you test? Can you predict the outcome for _____? What facts can you compile? Can you think of an original way for the ____?
Evaluation The ability to judge the value of material; present and defend opinions by making judgments about the information, validity of ideas or quality of work based on a set of criteria
award, choose, conclude, criticize, decide, defend, determine, dispute, evaluate, judge, measure, compare, recommend, interpret, appraise, support, prove, disprove, assess
Can you assess the value of? How would you evaluate? What would you select? How would you prioritize? What judgment would you make? Based on what you know, how would you explain? How would you prove or disprove? What data was used to make the conclusion?
MI and Critical Thinking 30
Table 2a. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Multiple Intelligences
LevelVerbal/
LinguisticLogical/
MathematicalVisual/Spatial
Musical/Rhythmic
Evaluation recommend, verify
assess, measure, test, rank, value
critique, appraise
critique, judge, rate
Synthesize propose, synthesize, compose
build, combine, translate, formulate
create, design, invent, organize
create, produce, compose
Analysis criticize, relate, question
analyze, infer, deduce
compare, contrast, diagram
differentiate, distinguish, classify
Application communicate, discuss, derive
solve, prove, compute, convert
illustrate, apply, chart
perform, produce
Comprehension explain, infer, describe
simplify, account for, express
code, group, locate
recognize, show
Knowledge name, define, state
label, find, list
select, write
state, recite
Evaluation select, measure, rate
measure, select, test
define, argue, support
evaluate, validate
Synthesize invent, make up, construct, assemble
organize, reconstruct
present, summarize
imagine, integrate
Analysis separate, diagram, sort, take apart
sort, discover, examine, categorize
debate, draw, conclusions
determine, simplify
Application demonstrate, construct, dramatize
record, investigate, keep records
translate, interview, discuss
interpret, model, plan
Comprehension express, locate
group, classify, recognize
paraphrase, report
interview, review
MI and Critical Thinking 31
Table 2b. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Multiple Intelligences
LevelVerbal/
LinguisticLogical/
MathematicalVisual/Spatial
Musical/Rhythmic
Knowledge label, select name, find, identify
recognize, quote
memorize, know, recall
Rather than providing answers, the educator enters into a
conversation with the student in an attempt to guide the
student into discovering his/her owning rightness of his/her
perspective. The purpose of the exercise is not to embarrass a
student but instead help them sharpen their critical thinking
skills so they will no longer take a position or form an
opinion out of strong emotion.
Cognitive psychology has become the dominant focus in
education; multiple intelligence theory provides a context for
all students’ cognitive skills, as each of the eight
intelligences is cognitive capacities (Armstrong, 2000).
Gardner’s (1993a) theory of multiple intelligence can be
combined with Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational outcomes.
Bloom’s taxonomy is a widely accepted educational evaluation
tool that can be used to encourage higher order thinking
skills. Bloom’s taxonomy demonstrates how multiple
intelligence can be integrated into virtually every subject
MI and Critical Thinking 32
and in a manner that encourages higher order, critical
thinking skills.
Critical evaluation is the highest level in Bloom’s
cognitive skills taxonomy, because it contains all the other
levels, including value judgments (Castle, 2003). Castle
claimed higher order thinking skills demonstrated by critical
evaluation are important, because
Non-critical thinking skills may result in rigid or narrow thinking (thinking based on past practices without considering current information), prejudicial thinking (gathering evidence to support a particular position without questioning the position itself), or emotive thinking (responding to the emotion of the message rather than the content. (p. 372)
Critical evaluation skills are needed as an important element
in successfully living in a technologically advanced society.
Learning to access and judge the value of knowledge is key to
this process; examining the logical consistency of written
material and the validity by which conclusions are supported
by the data will aid students when making professional or
personal decisions.
Traditional success in schools typically involves using
Gardner’s verbal/linguistic and logical/mathematical
intelligences (Gray & Waggoner, 2002). Using Bloom’s taxonomy
combined with the multiple intelligences, however, engages all
learning styles by teaching students to think in ways that are
MI and Critical Thinking 33
meaningful to them. Tomlinson stated, “In a differentiated
classroom, the teacher fashions instruction around the
essential concepts, principles, and skills of the subject”
(1999, p. 9). There are various ways to present course
concepts; not all students learn in the same manner (Gardner,
1999). Gardner suggests students will learn more quickly and
be able to demonstrate their knowledge of material through
ways that ensure learning is a personal, enjoyable journey.
Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence links brain research
suggesting diversified instruction carries a potential of
reaching an increasing number of learners.
Academic Psychology
Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences has not been
readily accepted within academic psychology. There are
criticisms of the conceptualization of multiple intelligences;
White argued there “are questions around the individual
criteria; for example, do all intelligences involve symbol
systems; how the criteria are to be applied; and why these
particular criteria are important” (1998, p. 9). White states
he has not been able to find any answer in Gardner’s writings;
Gardner himself admits there is an element of subjective
judgment involved.
MI and Critical Thinking 34
Researchers and scholars who traditionally view
intelligence as what is measured by intelligence tests may
continue to have difficulty with Gardner’s theory, because
they can still point to a substantial contribution of research
that demonstrates correlation between different abilities.
Those traditional researchers and scholars can still argue for
the existence of a general intelligence factor (Smith, 2002).
Gardner (1993b), however, disputes much of the evidence and
states it is not yet possible to know how far intelligences
actually correlate. In fact, recent developments in thinking
regarding intelligence such as Robert Sternberg’s (1985b,
1997) advancement of the triarchic model have shared Gardner’s
dislike of such standard intelligence theory.
A common criticism of Gardner’s work is the lack of
empirical evidence to support his conceptualizations.
Gardner’s theories appear to derive more strongly from his own
intuitions and reasoning than from a comprehensive and full
grounding in empirical research (Smith, 2002). There is, to
date, little in the research literature testing Gardner’s
theory.
Although scholars may criticize Gardner’s work, cognitive
psychologists and educational researchers give Gardner high
praise for helping the public understand intelligence is
MI and Critical Thinking 35
multifaceted. Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence has
helped educators understand and value the various talents a
learner has (Collins, 1998). Although empirical evidence is
needed in order for Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences
to gain the respect and acceptance among educational
psychologists, Gardner insists an educational approach, paying
attention to the different intelligences, is going to be a lot
more effective than one that denies the existence of
intelligences beyond the linguist/verbal and
logical/mathematical intelligences. Gardner points out that
the overall trend in neurology and cognitive psychology
support his view that intelligence comprises many abilities
(Collins).
While there may be significant issues around Gardner’s
theory of multiple intelligences, it has met with strong
positive response from many educators. It has helped numerous
educators question their work and look beyond the narrow
confines of the accepted (and reinforced by the empirical data
so valued by the individuals with logical/mathematical
intelligence) education evaluation methods.
A review of the literature indicates Gardner’s work
appears to be focused not just on describing our world, but
positioning ourselves to help create conditions to change our
MI and Critical Thinking 36
world and make it better (Brockman, n.d.). He questions
whether we will assume a passive view with respect to
intelligence by receiving a test score and allowing the score
to determine our life’s options, or whether we will see
intelligences as flexible opportunities which we can shape and
enhance for ourselves as well as those under our care, such as
our students or our children (Gardner, 1999).
Understanding all the intelligences and their unique
learning needs are a better way for educators to understand
and accommodate different learning styles. Educators must
learn to present course material in a style that engages most
of the intelligences. Educators who teach toward the multiple
intelligences realize the benefits, such as active, engaged
learners. Each of the intelligences is a potential ability in
every learner, and it is the educator’s job to nurture and
help learners develop their own intelligences (Nolen, 2003).
Measuring Multiple Intelligence
Berkemeir’s (2002) instrument was based on combining the
2000 version of Weber’s MITA and the 2000 version of
Armstrong’s MI surveys. Berkemeir’s instrument reworded some
of the questions for reading comprehension. Berkemeir
identified there were difficulties measuring MI and found that
MI and Critical Thinking 37
her instrument did not completely remove all the difficulties,
particularly issues involving self-perceived MI.
Applying MI in Higher Education Institutions
“Most scholars . . . are now convinced that enthusiasm
over intelligence tests has been excessive and that there are
numerous limitations in the instruments themselves and in the
uses to which they can (and should) be put” (Gardner, 1993b,
p. 16). Gardner (1993b) believed that despite exposure to
theoretical knowledge, college students often revert to the
uninformed opinion of the unschooled mind of a 5-year-old.
Gardner’s confidence in his MI theory derives from cognitive
research evidence where many of the early cognitive
representation theories are powerful and difficult to change.
Consequently, once a student learns a new idea for the very
first time, it is difficult to change that perception or
knowledge if the information learned was incorrect.
The MI approach would design curriculum and instruction
around the students’ needs while offering a variety of methods
of “learning and understanding” (Hoerr, 1996, p. 18). Gardner
(1993b) asserted the MI approach develops a student’s full
potential for mastering core information. Jordan supported
Gardner’s enthusiasm on the power of MI as a teaching tool,
MI and Critical Thinking 38
because “by emphasizing students’ abilities rather than
disabilities, Gardner validated such accomplishments as
significant products of right brain function, which are seldom
evaluated in standardized tests” (1996, p. 30).
Bolanos (1996) believed any potential wind of change in
teaching methodology at higher educational institutions
required modification of traditional mental models of
intelligence and teaching, something with which higher
education instructors are not comfortable. However, with
demand for student retention, experimentation with enhancement
courses through the Internet, and experimentation with
nontraditional methodologies such as distance learning, there
is an increasing need for reaching students from all
modalities of learning. In short, today’s education system is
confronted with a more diverse set of learners who possess a
broad spectrum of interests and abilities. MI is key in
filling that niche by providing critical insight to improving
assessment and instructional methodology (Lantham, 1997;
Visser, 1996).
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The ability of instructors to enhance students’ mastery
of course material is a primary objective of education. This
study examined whether the use of MI techniques helped achieve
this objective.
Methodology
Two key variables in this study involve student
perceptions. One variable is their perception of their
preferred MI techniques. The second variable is their
perception of an instructor’s use of MI techniques. These
variables were assessed by questionnaires. The questionnaires
enabled the researcher to determine the self-reported MI
preferences of the students and the students’ perception of
their instructor’s approaches for teaching critical thinking.
A third variable in this study was the student mastery of
the critical thinking course material. This was assessed by a
standard test employing matching developed by the
nontraditional adult education institution. Matching tests are
useful when small samples are to be used (Gall et al., 1996).
MI and Critical Thinking 40
Theoretical Framework
Information on the effectiveness and use of MI techniques
in a critical thinking classroom was gathered using
quantitative questionnaires and a qualitative focus group
approach. Questionnaires are commonly used with quantitative
research (Gall et al., 1996); a survey design provides a
quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or
opinions of a population by studying a sample of that
population (Creswell, 2003). According to Creswell,
“qualitative researchers . . . seek to build rapport and
credibility with the individuals in the study” (p. 181). Focus
group discussions are viewed as qualitative measures because
they allow “patterns in feelings, motivation, attitudes,
accomplishments, and experiences of individuals” (Gall et al.,
p. 288). The researcher conducted focus group discussions
consisting of one group per class. The focus group discussions
in this study were unstructured and used open-form questions
designed to encourage the identification of MI techniques used
by the instructor in presenting the critical thinking course
content.
The use of questionnaires and a focus group allowed a
triangulation of the data. This mixed method approach ensures
greater understanding of what the students perceived. The
MI and Critical Thinking 41
mixed methods approach is supported by the research of
Creswell (2003), Gall et al., (1996), Greene, Caracelli, and
Graham (1989), and Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003). Creswell
stated a mixed methods approach is one in which the researcher
tends to “base knowledge claims on pragmatic grounds” (p. 18)
and is the theory behind this study.
The literature review in chapter 2 suggests MI techniques
help achieve various educational objectives as identified by
Bloom’s Taxonomy. The specific question unanswered by the
literature review is, Does perception of an instructor’s use
of MI techniques enhance critical thinking mastery as measured
by scores on a standard test (Appendix B)?
Research Design
This study involved an exploratory study of the impact of
MI techniques in classroom presentation. Churchill (2001)
states exploratory research is used when the problem is not
yet clearly defined; it is a broad-based type of research
whose major objective is to collect ideas and provide insights
into the problem at hand.
This study is a mixed methodology using both quantitative
and qualitative measures. Words used to describe this approach
include integrating, synthesis, quantitative and qualitative
MI and Critical Thinking 42
methods, multimethod, and multimethodology; however, recent
writings use the term mixed methods (Tashakkori & Teddlie,
2003). It is believed the idea of mixing research methods may
have originated in 1959 when Campbell and Fiske used multiple
methods to study the validity of psychological traits
(Creswell, 2003). Approaches associated with field methods
such as observations and interviews (qualitative data) are now
combined with traditional surveys (quantitative data; Sieber,
1973).
Recognizing the fact that all methods have limitations,
researchers felt potential biases in any single method could
be cancelled through the use of multiple research methods. As
a result, “triangulating data sources, a means for seeking
convergence across qualitative and quantitative methods, was
born” (Jick, 1979, p. 12). The mixed method is selected when a
researcher uses two different methods in an attempt to
confirm, cross-validate, or corroborate findings within a
single study (Greene et al., 1989; Morgan, 1998; Steckler,
McLeroy, Goodman, Bird, & McCormick, 1992). This study used
questionnaires and focus groups as the means to offset the
weaknesses within one method with the strengths of the other
method. The data collection approach was sequential and
integrated the results of the two methods. The interpretation
MI and Critical Thinking 43
can either note the convergence of the findings as a way to
strengthen the knowledge claims of the study, or explain any
lack of convergence that may result.
Gall et al. (1996) support the complementary use of both
quantitative and qualitative measures in research. By
utilizing both methodologies, numerical and semantic data can
be analyzed at the same time and applied to this study.
According to Gall et al., qualitative research is used to
discover meanings and interpretations; quantitative research,
on the other hand, involves collecting data on observable
behaviors and drawing implied contrasts. Although qualitative
research is perceived as performing a discovery role and
quantitative research is perceived as performing a
confirmatory role, both types of research methodology can
perform separate yet complementary functions by providing
different types of data to analyze in this study.
Collecting research data by using questionnaires and
focus group discussions combined the complementary use of both
qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. The
process of inventory creation involves detailed planning that
began with identifying goals and objectives (Gall et al.,
1996). The development of the inventory types (questionnaires
and focus group discussions) connected the individual
MI and Critical Thinking 44
questions that were developed to address the specific goals
and objectives as identified. An inventory can combine the use
of both types of qualitative and quantitative forms in seeking
the research data.
Sampling Design
Theoretically, the population for this study would be all
adult learners, any adult interested in learning. However,
this population is not feasible to sample in this study.
Therefore, the population of interest is narrowed to working
adult learners enrolled in a nontraditional adult educational
institution. The sample group was a convenience sample and
consisted of students enrolled in critical thinking courses
during the 2004 fall term at a nontraditional adult education
institution in the central United States. A convenience sample
is based on the availability of research individuals (Worthen,
Sanders, & Fitzpatrick, 1997). The researcher approached the
instructors and the students of the critical thinking course
for their voluntary participation. These students were
randomly assigned to these classes based upon their enrollment
dates at the institution. The classes ranged from 15 to 25
students. Research data were collected from seven classes.
MI and Critical Thinking 45
Measures
According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), reliability and
validity of a research study can be established by the use of
triangulation exercises, such as the ones used in this study.
The results from the questionnaire regarding the students’
perceptions of the instructor’s teaching methods (Appendix C)
were compared with the results from the focus group
discussions (Appendix D), allowing triangulation of method and
data to validate the accuracy of the questionnaire. The focus
group discussion questions were developed using eight summary
descriptors from Berkemeir’s (2002) instrument as well as
additional descriptors from other multiple intelligence
scholars (Armstrong, 1993; Campbell et al., 1999; Lazear,
1999). Berkemeir states no existing multiple intelligence
measurement has been fully validated as the correct approach
to measure multiple intelligences. In addition, Linda Elder
(personal communication, June 7, 2004) is unaware of any
existing academic studies comparing these two. The design of
this study incorporated one assessment of students’ self-
perception of their multiple intelligence preferences, two
assessments of student perceptions of instructors’ use of MI
techniques, and an assessment of student critical thinking
mastery.
MI and Critical Thinking 46
The study collected data on four constructs:
1. Self-perceived MI preferences were assessed through
the responses to the questions of the instrument
(Appendix A). This variable is the rank-ordered
scores for the eight MI intelligences. This
instrument was developed by Berkemeir (2002). Self-
perceived MI preferences referred to responses
generated by descriptions of broad learning
activities.
2. Measurement of student comprehension of the critical
thinking concepts taught in the course through the
use of a standard exam developed through the
nontraditional adult education institution (Appendix
B).
3. Student Perceptions of Instructor Use of MI
Techniques (Appendix C) measured whether or not
students recognized MI techniques being used. Each
MI technique was measured through a set of five
descriptors. These descriptors were developed by
listing terms used to define the MI techniques by
other researchers (Armstrong, 1993; Berkemeir, 2002;
Campbell et al., 1999; Lazear, 1999).
MI and Critical Thinking 47
4. The variable measured from the focus group (Appendix
D) discussion was the number of examples provided
for each MI technique. Examples provided by students
were counted in the MI category mentioned,
regardless of whether the category was correct or
not. If the same example was used under multiple
categories, for instance, it was counted in each
mentioned category. The reason for this is the
recognition of any MI technique is more important to
this study than the correct assignment of such MI
technique. The descriptions used in the focus group
discussions (Appendix D) were developed by Berkemeir
(2002) and align with the MI descriptors in Appendix
A.
Approval from the Human Subjects Review Committee at the
nontraditional adult educational institution in the central
United States and Capella University was obtained.
Data Collection
After obtaining permission from course instructors, the
researcher distributed the questionnaire (Appendix A) at the
start of the course. The second questionnaire (Appendix C) was
administered after the final exam (Appendix B) on the final
MI and Critical Thinking 48
night of the course. The focus group discussion followed
immediately; the exam scores (Appendix B) were provided to the
researcher within one week from the instructor.
The collection of data occurred after Institutional
Review Board (IRB) approval was granted from both
institutions. The students were informed their participation
was voluntary; no rewards or inducements for such
participation were granted.
Data Analysis
Data Coding
The student MI preference questionnaire (Appendix A)
consisted of 40 questions regarding MI descriptors. These 40
questions were grouped into the eight MI categories with five
questions per category (Appendix E). Each question was
measured by a Likert scale ranging from “A. Not at all like
me” to “E. Definitely Like Me.” The alphabetic response
options were coded from 1 to 5, with A equals 1 to E equals 5.
The preference score for each MI was the sum of the
numerically coded responses for the questions related to that
intelligence.
The focus group discussions (Appendix D) were scored by
counting the number of unique examples provided by the
MI and Critical Thinking 49
students in response to each of the eight questions. The focus
group discussions were recorded, and the data collection
occurred from the analysis of the recording. In conducting the
focus group discussions, the facilitator read each question
sequentially. After each question was read, the facilitator
paused for student comments. After the first pause in the
student responses, the facilitator asked, “Any other
examples?” If other examples were presented at this point, a
final probe of “Anything else?” was used. Each question was
discussed for no more than 5 minutes before moving to the next
questions.
The measurement of student perception of instructor use
of MI techniques (Appendix C) involved a second set of 40
questions. These questions were scored using a 1 to 5 scale
ranging from “1. Not at All” to “5. A Lot.” These questions
were grouped into their related MI technique using the key in
Appendix E. The scores for each MI technique were the sum of
the responses related to each MI technique.
The instructor graded the final exam (Appendix B) and
provided the researcher with the results. The student
preference questions were identified by a student-generated
code. This code was provided to the instructor, but not the
researcher, during the first week of the course. The
MI and Critical Thinking 50
instructor had the student/code list available during the last
session of the course in case any students forgot their code.
This list was used by the instructor to link the final exam
grade to the code and, by extension, to the questionnaire
responses. Exam scores were provided to the researcher by the
individual’s code.
Data Cleaning
The only problem was student use of inconsistent codes.
If only one instance occurred per class, these two were
matched. However, when more than one instance occurred and the
codes appeared approximately similar, they were matched. Any
students who did not complete at least the two questionnaires
and the final exam had their data excluded from this study.
Statistical Procedures
The first question to be answered is, Do students
reporting higher instructor use of MI techniques achieve
higher critical thinking test scores? This was measured by a
Pearson’s correlation between the sum of the responses for all
the questions in Appendix C and student final exam scores.
The second question is, Does an instructor’s use of MI
techniques that match student preferences achieve higher
MI and Critical Thinking 51
critical thinking test scores? Three measures were involved
for this question. The individual MI technique scores from
both questionnaires were summed and correlated using Pearson’s
correlation. This showed the degree to which the instructor’s
use of MI techniques matched the individual student
preferences. This correlation was correlated with the final
exam score, again using Pearson’s correlation. This showed the
relationship, if any, between using appropriate techniques for
student preferences and comprehension.
The third question to be answered was, Do students
reporting more use of MI techniques by an instructor achieve
higher critical thinking test scores? One correlation was
between the average number of MI techniques reported (Appendix
C). The other correlation was between the focus group
discussion (Appendix D) sum of reported instances and the
average final exam (Appendix B).
Limitation of Methodology
The relationship between instructor use of MI techniques
and student achievement was based on perception, as mentioned
in chapter 2. If students do not perceive the use of MI
techniques, then there would be no expected relationship. The
key limitation, then, was the accuracy of the perception; the
MI and Critical Thinking 52
correct MI technique is unimportant but the perception of an
MI technique being used at all is critical to this study. This
limitation was addressed by the use of multiple descriptors in
the questionnaires.
Since this study was based on a convenience sample, the
findings from this study cannot be generalized to the larger
population of adult learners in a nontraditional educational
institution. Samples were drawn from two cities in an effort
to minimize this limitation.
Expected Findings and Ethical Issues
The expected findings were the more the instructor used
the full variety of multiple intelligence methods, the greater
the student mastery.
A limiting factor to the MI inventory relates to self-
reporting. Surveys or questionnaires do not represent complete
objectivity (Berkemeir, 2002). According to the Berkemeir
study, there are five factors that may generate misleading
information:
1. Surveys only tap respondents who are accessible and
cooperative.
MI and Critical Thinking 53
2. Respondents have to feel their participation is a
normal and natural process to avoid any form of
slanted or biased answers.
3. The researcher has to be careful of arousing
response sets.
4. Participants should be encouraged to not over rate
or under rate their responses.
5. Participants were unable to accurately identify
their self-perceived multiple intelligences.
It is possible an instructor would be unwilling to alter
current teaching techniques given the expected findings of
this study; this would raise ethical issues in the performance
of such instructors, as learning is the primary educational
objective.
Pilot Testing
A pilot test was conducted in May 2004, using the
research instruments described in this study. In order to
verify the expected analysis procedures, the researcher
distributed the questionnaires during the first and last
course sessions and conducted a focus group discussion during
the last session after the final exam. The final exam score
results were matched to the individual questionnaire results.
MI and Critical Thinking 54
Preliminary statistical results indicated the analysis
procedures worked as designed.
Time Lines
The data were collected November 2004 through January
2005. Data analyses were completed February 2005. The findings
and recommendations of the study were completed May 2005.
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
This chapter will present the findings and results of the
data collected in the attempt to answer the three research
questions:
1. The major research question for this study is, Does
perception of an instructor’s use of MI techniques
enhance critical thinking mastery as measured by
scores on a standard test?
2. Does an instructor’s use of MI techniques that match
students’ preferences help students achieve higher
critical thinking test scores?
3. Do students reporting more use of MI techniques by
an instructor achieve higher critical thinking test
scores?
The first two questions include the statistical
procedures used for analyzing the data. The third question
includes a discussion of the quantitative and qualitative
results.
MI and Critical Thinking 56
Description of Data
Student MI Preferences
The student MI preferences questionnaire (Appendix A)
assessed the students’ self-perceptions of their preferred MI
techniques through the responses of a set of five descriptors
for each of the eight intelligences. The data from this
question is used to answer research question 2, matching
student preferences.
Final Exam
The measurement of student comprehension of the critical
thinking concepts taught in the course was measured by a
standard exam (Appendix B) from the nontraditional adult
education institution. This data is the basic success
criterion and is used in all three research questions.
Student Perceptions
Whether or not a student recognized an MI technique used
by an instructor through the responses of a set of five
descriptors for each of the eight intelligences was measured
(Appendix C). This data is used in the analysis of all three
research questions.
MI and Critical Thinking 57
Focus Group
Counts of MI techniques used in each classroom were
assessed in the focus group (Appendix D) by members of the
discussion giving an example for each of the eight
intelligences. A ranking of the number of MI techniques
mentioned was provided. The data from the focus group
discussion is used in the analysis of the third question.
Data Analysis Process
Relationship Between Student Perception and Preference
Student MI preferences (Appendix A) and student
perceptions (Appendix C) were correlated to determine whether
there is any relationship between a student's self-perceived
MI preferences and a student's perception of MI techniques
used by an instructor.
Data Coding
The student MI preference questionnaire (Appendix A)
consisted of 40 questions regarding MI descriptors. These 40
questions were grouped into the eight MI categories with five
questions per category (Appendix E). The 40 questions and
their assignment into each of the eight MI categories were
developed and used by Berkemeir (2002). Each question was
MI and Critical Thinking 58
measured by a Likert scale ranging from “A. Not at all like
me” to “E. Definitely Like Me.” The alphabetic response
options were coded from 1 to 5 with A equals 1 to E equals 5.
The preference score for each MI was the sum of the
numerically coded responses for the questions related to that
intelligence.
The focus group discussions (Appendix D) were scored by
counting the number of unique examples provided by the
students in response to each of the eight questions. The focus
group discussions were recorded, and the data collection
occurred from the analysis of the recording. In conducting the
focus group discussions, the facilitator read each question
sequentially. After each question was read, the facilitator
paused for student comments. After the first pause in the
student responses, the facilitator asked, “Any other
examples?” If other examples were presented at this point, a
final probe of “Anything else?” was used. Each question was
discussed for no more than 5 minutes before moving to the next
questions.
The measurement of student perception of instructor use
of MI techniques (Appendix C) involved a second set of 40
questions. These questions were scored using a 1 to 5 scale
ranging from “1. Not at All” to “5. A Lot.” These questions
MI and Critical Thinking 59
were grouped into their related MI technique using the key in
Appendix E. The scores for each MI technique were the sum of
the responses related to each MI technique.
The instructor graded the final exam (Appendix B) and
provided the researcher with the results. The final exam data
were numerical scores ranging from 0 to 100, indicating the
percent of correct responses to the exam questions. The
student preference questions were identified by a student-
generated code. This code was provided to the instructor, but
not the researcher, during the first week of the course. The
instructor had the student/code list available during the last
session of the course if any students forgot their code. The
list was used by the instructor to link the final exam grade
to the code and, by extension, to the questionnaire responses.
Exam scores were provided to the researcher by the
individual’s code.
Data Cleaning
Students appeared to have used different codes for pre-
and post-class questionnaires in several instances. When
students used an inconsistent code, an attempt was made to
match the codes if there was only one instance in a class.
When there was more than one instance, the data were excluded
MI and Critical Thinking 60
from pre- and post-analyses. Students who did not complete the
questionnaires using a code that could be matched between pre,
post, and final exam were included in the focus group
discussion. The instructor told the class this researcher’s
study was the reason they were having a final exam. Although
the final exam was a requirement of the course and the
instructor was joking, the resulting data had inappropriate
responses such as pictures and doodling rather than the scale
of numbers. As a result of this biased data, data from three
additional courses were collected in an attempt to increase
the sample size.
Statistical Procedures
The key issue being measured and evaluated in this study
involves relationships, how changes in one variable
(instructor use of MI techniques) impacts other variables
(final exam scores and perceptions of MI techniques).
Relationships are measured by correlations. Two types of
correlations were used in this study. The first type used in
this study was Spearman's rho correlation. According to Cooper
& Schindler (2003), Spearman's is used for ordinal, or rank-
ordered data. Results from student preferences (Appendix A)
and student perceptions (Appendix C) were rank ordered for
MI and Critical Thinking 61
correlation purposes. The analysis between these two
appendixes was concerned with matches on relative frequency,
that is, did the ordered frequency of MI techniques used by
the instructor match the desired order of MI techniques
preferred by students.
Pearson's product movement correlation was used on
interval level data. This included the Spearman's correlation
results and final exam scores. The significance of these two
correlations was tested using the correlation t test (Cooper &
Schindler, 2003). The significance level was chosen as alpha
equals .05.
The first question to be answered was, Do students
reporting higher instructor use of MI techniques achieve
higher critical thinking test scores? This was measured by a
Pearson’s correlation between the sum of the responses for all
the questions in Appendix C and student final exam scores.
The second question was, Does an instructor’s use of MI
techniques that match student preferences achieve higher
critical thinking test scores? Three measures were involved
for this question. The individual MI technique scores from
both questionnaires were summed and correlated using Pearson’s
correlation. This showed the degree to which the instructor’s
use of MI techniques matched the individual student
MI and Critical Thinking 62
preferences. This correlation was correlated with the final
exam score, again using Pearson’s correlation. This showed the
relationship, if any, between using appropriate techniques for
student preferences and comprehension.
The third question to be answered was, Do students
reporting more use of MI techniques by an instructor achieve
higher critical thinking test scores? One correlation was
between the average number of MI techniques reported (Appendix
C). The other correlation was between the focus group
discussion (Appendix D) sum of reported instances and the
average final exam (Appendix B).
Findings and Results
The findings for each research question are listed below
by question:
Quantitative Findings
Research Question 1. The major research question for this
study is, Does perception of an instructor’s use of MI
techniques enhance critical thinking mastery as measured by
scores on a standard test?
For this question, student perception (Appendix C)
provided student counts of how often an instructor used an MI
MI and Critical Thinking 63
technique. If increased use of MI techniques did, in fact,
impact final exam scores, then instructors reported as having
higher uses of MI techniques would achieve better results. For
this question, the reported use of MI techniques used by an
instructor was averaged by class. This average was correlated
to the average final exam score per class.
Results from 78 participants were used to provide a
Pearson's correlation between the average MI technique rating
given to the instructors (Appendix C) and the final exam
scores (Appendix B) received by the students. The correlation
was .07, with a nonsignificant t value of 0.630 and associated
p value of 0.265.
Table 3. Research Question 1
Student perception
rating Final exam
Average 3.1 83.6
Standard deviation 0.6 12.2
Count 78
Correlation 0.072
t value 0.630
p value 0.265
MI and Critical Thinking 64
Research Question 2. Does an instructor’s use of MI
techniques that match students’ preferences help students
achieve higher critical thinking test scores?
Two correlations were required for this question. The
first correlation (Spearman's rho) measured the relationship
between student MI preferences (Appendix A) and student
perception of MI techniques used by an instructor (Appendix
C). The second correlation (Pearson's) measured the
relationship between Spearman's rho and the final exam.
Results from 68 participants (one class had a faulty
questionnaire and had to be eliminated from this analysis)
showed a high average correlation between the student
preferences (Appendix A) and student perceptions (Appendix C)
ratings. This Spearman's rho correlation averaged .80. This
indicates a high degree of consistency between students'
preferred MI techniques and instructors' use of the preferred
MI techniques. Correlation between this correlation and the
final exam was a -.16, resulting in a t value of -1.35 with an
associated p value of 0.09. This was a nonsignificant
correlation.
MI and Critical Thinking 65
Table 4. Research Question 2
Student preference Student perception
AverageStandard deviation Average
Standard deviation
Visual/Linguistic 3.26 0.65 3.58 1.01
Logical/Mathematical 3.73 0.58 3.28 0.81
Visual/Spatial 3.15 0.70 3.21 0.94
Musical 3.29 0.59 1.77 1.06
Bodily/Kinesthetic 3.42 0.65 2.90 1.06
Interpersonal 3.33 0.66 3.92 0.82
Intrapersonal 3.36 0.74 3.36 0.92
Naturalist 2.90 0.72 2.13 1.05
Spearman's rank order correlation
Average 0.80
Standard deviation 0.24
Pearson's correlation
Value -0.163631
t -1.347504
p value 0.0912128
Count 68
Research Question 3. Do students reporting more use of MI
techniques by an instructor achieve higher critical thinking
test scores?
MI and Critical Thinking 66
Two approaches were utilized for this question. The first
approach was the average rating of instructor use of MI
techniques (Appendix C) correlated to each student's final
exam score (Appendix D). The second approach was a correlation
between the average number of MI techniques recalled by the
students in each class during the focus group discussion and
the average final exam score for each class.
Table 5. Research Question 3
Class
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Student perception frequency average 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.1
Focus sum 33 48 11 67 14 20 28
Final average 90.9 86.1 75.0 91.0 81.3 78.5 92.1
Correlation tp
value
Correlation between student perception (Appendix C) average and final exam (Appendix D) 0.450 1.008 0.185
Correlation between focus group count and final exam 0.684 2.094* 0.045
Note. *Significant .05 level
MI and Critical Thinking 67
Qualitative Analysis
When focus group members were asked to identify examples
of the eight MI techniques, responses were varied. Positive
responses included listing examples of when the instructor
used different methods to emphasize a particular point.
Positive comments included, "He/She did a lot of different
ways of teaching us," "I really enjoyed all the different
methods," and "It's great to have more than one way of
learning something."
The negative responses included, "I don't like to play
games," "School should be more serious and focused on the
textbook rather than contests or personal reflection," and
"The instructor wanted to entertain us rather than help us
learn," "All the instructor did was read from the PowerPoint
slides," "I didn't even need to come to class; all I needed to
do was read the book," and "Why don't instructors learn more
than their favorite way of teaching?"
The students gave the following comments on each MI:
1. Verbal/Linguistic. Examples given for this method
included telling a story and illustrating how the
instructor was trying to teach her granddaughter
about using critical thinking skills with the
neighborhood bully; making the decision to buy a
MI and Critical Thinking 68
house, get married, and so forth; used words to draw
a mental picture; and wrote key points on the board.
2. Logical/Mathematical. Examples given for this method
included making an outline on the board of what
would be covered in each class, used an equation to
show the components of an argument, and used a
formula to test the validity of an argument.
3. Visual/Spatial. Examples given for this method
included using colors when writing on the board to
emphasize different parts of the argument, provided
handouts, and used PowerPoint slides.
4. Musical. Examples given for this method included the
rhythm and pace used by an instructor, and the
instructor referred to lyrics in a popular song.
5. Bodily/Kinesthetic. Examples given for this method
included moving around the room when working in
pairs or teams, standing in front of the class for
oral presentations, instructor brought manipulatives
to class to use during the fallacy role modeling,
and moving to the computer lab during class.
6. Intrapersonal. Examples given for this method
included class members working in pairs to reflect
on each individual's assumptions, and listened in
MI and Critical Thinking 69
conversations outside class to analyze the soundness
of an argument.
7. Interpersonal. Examples given for this method
included class members worked in pairs or teams to
analyze a case study, collaborated in a class
conversation discussing real-world examples of
fallacies in advertising and politics, and role-
playing and demonstrating the use of fallacies.
8. Naturalist. Examples given for this method included
the instructor referring to spring as the season of
renewal and growth and then compared spring to
opening a person's mind with critical thinking.
Focus group members were able to identify examples of MI
techniques used by their instructor. It became obvious from
the number of examples given that students were able to
perceive differences in teaching styles. Comments such as,
"Why do I have to take a final exam to prove my knowledge?"
and "What difference does it make how many ways an instructor
presents material?" were made. This indicated students did not
understand the value of MI and may not have been truly
receptive to taking the time and effort in identifying them.
When focus group members were asked to identify examples
of the eight MI techniques, enthusiastic responses included,
MI and Critical Thinking 70
"I loved the storytelling, because I could relate to the point
our instructor was trying to get across with the stories,"
"Terrific idea to have us work in pairs and do reflection in
class," "The role-playing in class really helped me cement the
lesson in my mind and was a lot of fun," and "Using the brain
teasers as a contest in class was interesting and helped me
see not everything appears the same to everyone."
Summary
The statistical data analyses found only a single
significant correlation. This was between an instructor's use
of MI techniques and the class average final exam score.
Correlations between and among individual preferences,
instructor's uses of MI techniques, and final exam scores were
not found to be significant.
The focus group discussions revealed student ability to
recall specific examples of instructor use of MI techniques.
Students could identify, remember, and relate MI techniques to
their experiences in class.
Chapter 5 will discuss the summary of the study, findings
and conclusions, recommendations, and implications.
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS,RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
This chapter will present the summary of the study,
findings and conclusions, recommendations, and implications of
the study.
Summary of the Study
According to the results of a 1992 survey of adult
literacy, nearly half of American adults do not perform at the
level of literacy considered by the National Education Goals
panel to be needed for competing in a global economy and for
exercising the rights and responsibilities of citizenship
(Gronlund, 1993). In response to developing the necessary
skills needed to be a productive and informed member of a
world market driven by constant change, educators are calling
for the development of critical thinking skills (Brookfield,
1987; Davis & Botkin, 1995; Glaser & Resnick, 1991; Halpern,
1993; Kerka, 1992; Paul, 1990; Sternberg, 1985a). Educators
argue in order to thrive in the 21st century and the
Information Age, individuals must ask questions, challenge
assumptions, invent new ways of solving problems, connect new
MI and Critical Thinking 72
knowledge to information already known, and apply their
knowledge and reasoning skills in new situations. In other
words, individuals must develop critical thinking skills.
Adult educators, however, may not be using the best
methods of teaching adults to think critically. In the
traditional classroom, an instructor stands at the front of a
classroom and lectures while students passively absorb
information. The academic literature supports the notion of
different learning styles or preferences (Knowles, 1980;
McCarthy, 2000; Merriam & Caffarella, 1999; Sternberg, 1997).
A more effective method of teaching and perhaps increasing
student comprehension could be to actively engage the students
in the learning process by using Gardner's (1993a) theory of
multiple intelligences.
Gardener's (1993a) theory of MI states humans have eight
distinct intelligences: verbal/linguistic, logical/
mathematical, visual/spatial, musical, bodily/kinesthetic,
interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. Attention to
these intelligences in the classroom can significantly change
education by engaging learners in the educational process.
Presenting course material in a variety of instructional
techniques has a great opportunity for reaching an increasing
number of students, because the literature supports the notion
MI and Critical Thinking 73
unsuccessful, unmotivated students have experienced academic
growth when exposed to the multifaceted techniques of MI
(Janes et al., 2000).
This study was an exploratory study of the impact of MI
instructional techniques used for teaching critical thinking
skills. An exploratory research approach is a broad-based type
of research used when a problem is not clearly defined; its
purpose is to collect ideas and provide insights into the
problem (Churchill, 2001).
A mixed methodology was used in this study in order to
provide triangulation of data. Two surveys and a focus group
discussion was used in an effort to ensure a greater
understanding of what the students perceived. The first survey
assessed student perception of their personal learning
preferences; the second survey assessed student perception of
MI techniques used by their instructor. A focus group
discussion asking students to identify specific examples of
the MI techniques used by their instructor was conducted
during the last meeting of the course. A final exam was given
during the last meeting of the course.
This study used a convenience sample; a convenience
sample is based on the availability of research individuals
(Worthen et al., 1997). The sample group consisted of students
MI and Critical Thinking 74
enrolled in seven critical thinking courses at a local
nontraditional adult educational institution. There were 93
volunteer student participants, although data from 15 students
had to be excluded because of an apparent bias when answering
the surveys.
Findings and Conclusions
Research Question 1
The major research question for this study is, Does
perception of an instructor’s use of MI techniques enhance
critical thinking mastery as measured by scores on a standard
test?
This question examined whether the final exam scores
improved when students perceived increased instructor use of
MI instructional techniques. The results show this did not
occur. Individual students reporting increased instructor use
of MI techniques did not consistently achieve high exam
scores. This finding does not support the general use of using
MI techniques as an instructional method of increasing an
individual's final exam score. The implication is instructor
use of MI instructional techniques will not impact individuals
in predictable ways.
MI and Critical Thinking 75
Research Question 2
Does an instructor’s use of MI techniques that match
students’ preferences help students achieve higher critical
thinking test scores?
This question examined whether the final exam scores
improved when the instructor's use of MI instructional
techniques matched students' individual MI preferences. The
results showed this did not occur. Individual students
reporting a higher match between their preference and
instructor use of MI techniques did not consistently achieve
higher exam scores. This finding does not support the general
use of matching instructor MI techniques with individual
student preference. The implication is attempting to match
instructor MI instructional techniques to individual student
preference is not effective.
Research Question 3
Do students reporting more use of MI techniques by an
instructor achieve higher critical thinking test scores?
This question examined whether the class average final
exam scores improved with increased student recognition of
instructor use of MI instructional techniques. This finding
supports that instructors using more MI techniques achieve
MI and Critical Thinking 76
higher class average final exam scores. The implication for
instructors in nontraditional adult educational institutions
is the more MI instructional techniques used, the greater the
critical thinking comprehension as measured by the class
average final exam scores.
Comparison to Theory
According to Gardner (1993a), using the theory of
multiple intelligences as a guide to instructional techniques
should result in increased learning comprehension. Berkemeir
(2002) found Gardner's theory to be true in teaching
mathematics.
Gardner's (1993a) theory provided the basis for this
study. This study did, in fact, affirm components of his
theory. Instructor use of MI techniques as perceived by
individual students did not relate to increased final exam
scores; this finding does not support Gardner's theory.
However, instructor use of more MI techniques in the class did
increase learning comprehension as measured by the class
average final exam scores; this finding does support Gardner's
theory.
MI and Critical Thinking 77
Recommendations
Practical Use
It was exciting to see exam scores increase as a result
of instructors presenting course materials through a variety
of MI instructional techniques. Even though Gardner's theory
of MI has only been in existence since 1983, it has progressed
rapidly in the classroom. There are several books available to
the educator that can be used to implement the MI techniques
(Armstrong, 2000; Brookfield, 1990; Campbell et al., 1999;
Gardner, 1993b; Gardner, 1999; Gardner & Hatch, 1989; Hoerr,
1996; Janes et al., 2000; Jordan, 1996; Lazear, 1999; Nolen,
2003; Stanford, 2003; Tomlinson, 1999; Weber, 2003).
Gardner's theory of MI should be used as the educational
curriculum framework to aid instructors in actively engaging
their students in the learning process. Too often, educators
teach to their own strengths, typically verbal/linguistic and
logical/mathematical (Gardner, 1993b), which is plausible in
its own right but does not address the learning styles and
interests of all learners.
Professional development workshops for educators need to
be a priority for nontraditional adult education institutions
(Hoerr, 1994). It is important to stress the enrollment rate
could slow if students are active and engaged as a result of
MI and Critical Thinking 78
training educators in Gardner's theory of MI. The traditional
classroom of lectures can evolve into a learning community and
contain rich, vibrant new activities that engage the learning
styles and interests of all learners.
Wolfe and Sorgen (1990) state what educators do in a
classroom should be based on what we know about how people
learn. Gardner regarded his theory of multiple intelligences
as an endorsement to Wolfe and Sorgen's idea of knowing how
people learn, as he bases his theory on three key ideas:
We are not all the same, we do not all have the same kinds of minds (that is, we are not all distinct points on a single bell curve); and education works most effectively if these differences are taken into account rather than denied or ignored. (1999. p. 91)
The debate over Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences may
now shift from a discussion of whether the eight intelligences
exist to how educators can better facilitate these
intelligences in a classroom setting (Armstrong, 1994).
Future Research
Replication of this Study
Replication of this study could involve other
nontraditional adult educational institutions teaching
critical thinking. Additionally, examining other academic
subjects beyond critical thinking could be a logical next
MI and Critical Thinking 79
step. Finally, replicate this study within traditional adult
educational institutions.
Limitations
The ability of the raters to recognize an MI
instructional technique proved a limitation in this study.
Examination of the rating on instructor use of MI
instructional techniques showed a wide variation within each
class. These variations included some students using the same
rating for all 40 questions to different rank orders of
instructor use of MI techniques. This limitation impacted the
findings of research questions 1 and 2 by reducing the
strength of the observed correlations. Training in recognizing
MI techniques for the raters might improve individual rater
consistency.
Measurement
While a standard final exam (Appendix B) was used, scores
indicated grading inconsistencies with the use of partial
credit by some instructors. The development of a standard
scoring approach would eliminate the problem.
MI and Critical Thinking 80
Sample
A more representative randomly selected sample involving
more than a single nontraditional adult educational
institution would strengthen the ability to generalize results
beyond a specific institution.
Additional Variables
Variables omitted from this study which might have had an
impact and should be examined include ethnicity, age, gender,
and socioeconomic background.
Implications
This study proves an approach for instructors to improve
average class comprehension levels of critical thinking.
Gardner (1999) states changes in our world are so rapid and so
decisive that it will not be possible for schools to remain as
they have always been or to introduce a few, superficial
adjustments. A more complex, multicultural global society
creates new expectations for educational outcomes.
Learning critical thinking skills is desperately needed
for adults to function in the 21st century. Adults who are
capable of evaluating information and making decisions can
strengthen a democratic republic (Gardner, 1993a). Similarly,
MI and Critical Thinking 81
employees skilled in conflict resolution contribute to a
strong economic society.
REFERENCES
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Armstrong, T. (1993). 7 kinds of smart. New York: Plume.
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom(2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Bankert, E. (1990, April). Meta-analysis of effects of explicit instruction for critical thinking. Boston: American Educational Research Association.
Berkemeir, J. Y. H. (2002). Exploring multiple intelligences theory at the community college level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay.
Bolanos, P. M. (1996). Multiple intelligences as a mental model: The key renaissance middle school. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 80(583), 24-28.
Brockman, J. (n.d.). Truth, beauty, and goodness: Education for all human beings. A talk with Howard Gardner. Retrieved November 30, 2003, from EBSCOhost Web site: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gardner/gardner.html
Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
MI and Critical Thinking 83
Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (1990). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (1999). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Castle, A. (2003). Demonstrating critical evaluation skills using Bloom's taxonomy. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 10(8), 369-373.
Churchill, G. A. (2001). Basic marketing research (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt.
Collins, J. (1998). Seven kinds of smart. Time Canada, 152(16), 62-64.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darkenwald, G. G., & Merriam, S. B. (1982). Adult education: Foundations of practice. New York: Harper and Row.
Davis, S., & Botkin, J. (1995). The monster under the bed. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Macmillan.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Education research (6th ed.). New York: Longman Publishers USA.
Gardner, H. (1993a). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
MI and Critical Thinking 84
Gardner, H. (1993b). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (Ed.). (1999). Intelligence reframed. Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-9.
Garrison, D. R. (1991). Critical thinking and adult education: A conceptual model for developing critical thinking in adult learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 10(4), 287-303.
Glaser, R., & Resnick, L. (1991). National research center on student learning (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED338704)
Gray, K. C., & Waggoner, J. E. (2002). Multiple intelligences meet Bloom's taxonomy. Kappa Delta Phi Record, 38(4), 184-187.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
Griffin, K. (2004). Perception is reality. Retrieved September 23, 2004, from EBSCOhost Web site: http://www.familybusinessstrategies.com/articles02/3262p.html
Gronlund, L. E. (1993). Understanding the national goals (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED358581)
Halpern, D. F. (1993). Assessing the effectiveness of critical-thinking instruction. Journal of General Education, 42(4), 239-254.
Hechinger, F. M. (1987, February 24). Thinking critically. New York Times, p. 27.
MI and Critical Thinking 85
Hoerr, T. R. (1996). Implementing the theory of multiple intelligences. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 80(583), 9-10.
Holland, P. (2004). Mental map of Alabama: Perception is reality? Retrieved September 23, 2004, from EBSCOhost Web site: http://www2.una.edu/geography/statedepted/lessons/mentalmaps.html
Janes, L. M., Koutsopanagos, C. L., Mason, D. S., & Villaranda, I. (2000). Improving student motivation through the use of engaged learning, cooperative learning and multiple intelligences. Chicago: Master's Action Research Project, Saint Xavier University and Skylight field-based master's programs.
Jick, T. D. (1979, December). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
Jordan, S. E. (1996). Multiple intelligences: Seven keys to opening closed minds. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 80(583), 29-35.
Kerka, S. (1992). Higher order thinking skills in vocational education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED350487)
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education.Chicago: Follett.
Lantham, A. S. (1997). Quantifying multiple intelligences gains. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 84-85.
Lazear, D. (1999). Eight ways of knowing (3rd ed.). Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional Development.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McCarthy, B. (2000). About learning. Wauconda, IL: About Learning.
MI and Critical Thinking 86
Merriam, S. B., & Brockett, R. G. (1997). The profession and practice of adult education: An introduction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mettetal, G., Jordan, D., & Harper, S. (1997, November/ December). Attitudes toward a multiple intelligence curriculum. Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 115-122.
Morgan, D. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362-376.
Nolen, J. (2003, Fall). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Education, 124(1), 115-119.
Osciak, S. Y. (2001). Multiple intelligences and the design of Web-based instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(4), 355-358.
Paul, R. (1990). Critical thinking. Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique.
Pennar, K. (1996). How many smarts do you have? Business Week, 3493, 104-108.
Sieber, S. D. (1973). The integration of field work and survey methods. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1335-1359.
Smith, M. K. (2002). Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences. Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved October 27, 2003, from EBSCOhost Web site: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm
Stanford, P. (2003, November). Multiple intelligence for every classroom. Intervention in School & Clinic, 39(2), 80-85.
Steckler, A., McLeroy, K. R., Goodman, R. M., Bird, S. T., & McCormick, L. (1992). Toward integrating qualitative and
MI and Critical Thinking 87
quantitative methods: An introduction. Health Education Quarterly, 19(1), 1-8.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985a). Teaching critical thinking, part 1: Are we making critical mistakes? Phi Delta Kappa, 67, 194-198.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1985b). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Reston, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Vaske, J. M. (2001). Critical thinking in adult education: An elusive quest for a definition of the field. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drake University, Des Moines, IA.
Visser, D. (1996). That's using your brain! Training and Development, 50(9), 38-40.
Weber, E. (2003). Five phases to PBL: MITA (Multiple Intelligence Teaching Approach) model for redesigned higher education classes. Retrieved February 16, 2004, from EBSCOhost Web site: http://www.blarg.net/~building/strategies/mi/weber3.htm
Wolfe, P., & Sorgen, M. (1990). Mind, memory, and learning. Napa, CA: Author.
Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program evaluation (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers USA.
White, J. (Ed.). (1998). Do Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences add up? London: Institute of Education, University of London.
APPENDIX ASTUDENT MI PREFERENCES
All participation in this survey is voluntary and
anonymous. Thank you for your participation.
______________________________________________________________
Please circle the proper responses for each statement:
DIRECTIONS: Step 1 Read each statement
Step 2 Use the scale below to answer the
following questions:
A. Not at all B. A little C. Somewhat D. A lot like E. Definitely
like me like me like me me like me
______________________________________________________________
1. A B C D E I enjoy reading all kinds of reading materials.
2. A B C D E I can easily compute numbers in my head.
3. A B C D E I like working on jigsaw puzzles, mazes, and
other visual puzzles.
4. A B C D E When I am bored, I find myself humming or
tapping a tune.
5. A B C D E It is hard for me to sit still for long; I
would rather be up and active.
6. A B C D E Interacting with others helps me to learn.
MI and Critical Thinking 89
7. A B C D E I regularly spend time alone reflecting or
thinking about life questions.
8. A B C D E I love to take walks in the woods to learn
about the plants and animals.
9. A B C D E Hiking and camping are enjoyable activities.
10. A B C D E I find that working alone is just as productive
as working in a group.
11. A B C D E I like getting involved in social activities
connected with my work or community.
12. A B C D E I believe that a fit body is important to
having a fit mind.
13. A B C D E Moving or dancing to the beat is easy for me.
14. A B C D E I am very good at reading maps and blueprints.
15. A B C D E Math and/or science were among my favorite
subject(s).
16. A B C D E When working in a group, I enjoy sharing and
summarizing my thoughts.
17. A B C D E Taking notes is important for me to study,
remember, and understand.
18. A B C D E Multiple choice tests are easy for me.
19. A B C D E I like to draw, sketch, or doodle.
20. A B C D E While working, studying, or learning something
new, I often sing or make tapping sounds.
MI and Critical Thinking 90
21. A B C D E I participate in at least one sport or physical
activity on a regular basis.
22. A B C D E People come to me for advice and help.
23. A B C D E I enjoy special hobbies or interests that I
keep pretty much to myself.
24. A B C D E I enjoy taking photographs to observe the
changes of the seasons and nature.
25. A B C D E I spend a great deal of time outdoors.
26. A B C D E I learn best when I enjoy, or have an
interest in the subject.
27. A B C D E I feel comfortable in the midst of a crowd.
28 A B C D E I learn best by hands-on activities.
29. A B C D E The type of music I am listening to depends on
my mood.
30. A B C D E Geometry is easier for me than algebra.
31. A B C D E Solving problems comes easily for me.
32. A B C D E Debates and public speaking are activities I
would like to participate in.
33. A B C D E I enjoy word games like Scrabble, Password, and
Boggle.
34. A B C D E Outlining chapters helps me to understand the
material I am reading.
MI and Critical Thinking 91
35. A B C D E I enjoy reading material that has many
pictures, or is heavily illustrated.
36. A B C D E I find it difficult to concentrate while
listening to the radio or television.
37. A B C D E My best ideas come to me when I am busy in some
form of physical activity.
38. A B C D E I prefer group sports like volleyball or
softball to solo sports like swimming or
jogging.
39. A B C D E I consider myself independent minded.
40. A B C D E I enjoy categorizing things by common traits,
or characteristics.
APPENDIX BFINAL EXAM
The following arguments contain various kinds of fallacies. Evaluate each
and identify the fallacy using the matching list on the last page.
1. We can recognize that athletes that participate in sports must be
given special consideration within our grading system, or we can let
the University sink into athletic oblivion.
2. I don't know what colleges are teaching these days! I have just
received a letter of application from a young man who graduated from
the state university last June. It was a wretched letter--badly
written, with elementary errors in spelling, punctuation, and
grammar. The state university does not deserve the tax support that
it is getting.
3. All right-thinking people will support the Board of Education's
decision to destroy novels in the school libraries that are
offensive to the moral standards of the community. If there were an
epidemic of typhoid, the health authorities would be expected to do
everything in their power to wipe it out. Pornography is worse than
typhoid, since it corrupts the minds and morals of the young, not
just their bodies. The school board is to be applauded for their
prompt action in wiping out this moral disease.
4. Despite endless efforts, no one has been able to prove that God
exists; we may just as well stop trying and accept the truth: there
is no God.
MI and Critical Thinking 93
5. Alicia started gaining more weight than ever when she started taking
Slimdown; the stuff must be fattening!
6. No sensible person would support the Equal Rights Amendment. If it
were to pass, we would have women in combat and unisex bathrooms.
Eventually, we would not even be able to tell the women from the
men!
7. How can Clinton be leading this country! He's a draft-dodging, pot-
smoking, womanizer!!
8. Michael Jordan wore that brand, so those must be the best basketball
shoes.
9. The difference in the outcome was Jefferson's missed field goal. If
he had put it through, we'd be going to the Super Bowl.
10. Don't ignore the woman who gave you birth, raised you, loved you
then, and loves you still. Remember your mom on Mother's Day.
11. So what if I didn't claim all of the money I earned on my taxes?
Lots of people underreport their income.
12. That's got to be a great line of clothes. Have you seen the prices
and the people endorsing it?
MATCHING LIST FOR FINAL
Each argument commits only one fallacy, and each fallacy is only used
once.
1. False analogy
2. Appeal to authority
3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc
4. Attacking the person
MI and Critical Thinking 94
5. Two wrongs
6. Non sequitur
7. Equivocation
8. False dilemma
9. Black and white (slippery slope)
10. Hasty generalization
11. Contrary-to-fact hypothesis
12. Ad ignorantium
13. Appeal to emotion
MI and Critical Thinking 95
APPENDIX CSTUDENT PERCEPTIONS
All participation in this survey is voluntary and
anonymous. Thank you for your participation.
______________________________________________________________
Read each statement. Use the following 1-5 scale to answer how
often the instructor used each Multiple Intelligence
technique:
1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Somewhat 4. Often 5. A lot
______________________________________________________________
Teaching Methods Used by Instructor
Saying, hearing, and seeing words 1.Process logic, problems, and equations 2.Visualizing, dreaming, and working with colors or pictures
3.
Rhythm, melody, and music 4.Touching, moving, and hands-on learning 5.Sharing, comparing, relating, cooperating, and interviewing
6.
Working alone, self-paced instructions, and having personal space
7.
Hands-on ability, categorizing things by common traits, being outdoors
8.
MI and Critical Thinking 96
Read each statement. Use the following 1-5 scale to answer how
often the instructor used each Multiple Intelligence
technique:
1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Somewhat 4. Often 5. A lot
______________________________________________________________
Teaching Methods Used by Instructor
Tells stories; listens and recalls information
9.
Shows patterns in data; uses graphs, charts; uses numbers
10.
Delivers information in pictures; mental imagery; mind mapping
11.
Uses sounds or songs to illustrate a point 12.Uses role-playing; move around the classroom 13.Collaborative learning; team activities; debates
14.
Uses self-reflection; self-directed activities; journal writing
15.
Refers to changing of seasons, nature 16.Explaining, understanding the order and meaning of words
17.
Read each statement. Use the following 1-5 scale to answer how
often the instructor used each Multiple Intelligence
technique:
1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Somewhat 4. Often 5. A lot
______________________________________________________________
MI and Critical Thinking 97
Teaching Methods Used by Instructor
Scientific reasoning; deductive and inductive reasoning
18.
Imagination; graphic representation; mental images
19.
Sensitivity to sounds; creating melody or rhythm
20.
Physical activity; moving around the classroom
21.
Sensitivity to others’ moods and feelings; verbal and nonverbal communication; passing over into the perspective of another
22.
Awareness and expression of different feelings; concentration
23.
Sensitivity to nature’s flora; growing natural things
24.
Uses a large vocabulary 25.Uses long chains of reasoning 26.
Read each statement. Use the following 1-5 scale to answer how
often the instructor used each Multiple Intelligence
technique:
1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Somewhat 4. Often 5. A lot
______________________________________________________________
MI and Critical Thinking 98
Teaching Methods Used by Instructor
“Sees” things others miss such as in a blueprint
27.
Uses music in teaching 28.Emphasizes emotions physically 29.Uses social insight; watches people 30.Uses self-reflection; self-directed activities; journal writing
31.
Refers to changing of seasons, nature 32.Uses puns, tongue twisters, alliteration 33.Uses patterns; puzzles or brain teasers 34.Uses mental exercises to ”see” 35.Uses ability to hear tones or rhythm 36.Physically active 37.Understands how to bring out the best in someone
38.
Uses self-image in assignments or activities 39.Uses nature in discussion 40.
APPENDIX DFOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION
All participation in this survey is voluntary and
anonymous. Thank you for your participation.
___________________________________________________________
Questions for Focus Group Discussion:
1. Provide examples to illustrate how the instructor used
words, verbally or visually, to convey critical thinking
concepts, that is, saying or writing.
2. Provide examples to illustrate how the instructor used
logic in conveying the critical thinking concepts, that
is, processes, problems, equations, routines, patterns.
3. Provide examples to illustrate how the instructor used
imagery in conveying the critical thinking concepts, that
is, mental or actual pictures, use of color.
4. Provide examples to illustrate how the instructor used
rhythm or melody in conveying the critical thinking
concepts, that is, music, cadence.
5. Provide examples to illustrate how the instructor used
physical activities or the use of body language in
conveying the critical thinking concepts.
MI and Critical Thinking 100
6. Provide examples to illustrate how the instructor used
collaborative activities in conveying the critical
thinking concepts, that is, discussions, brainstorming,
shared experiences, drawing conclusions, analogies,
generating alternating views.
7. Provide examples to illustrate how the instructor
provided opportunities for reflection and introspection
in conveying the critical thinking activities.
8. Provide examples to illustrate how the instructor
identified and categorized uniqueness and differences or
referred to the natural elements, such as the changing of
the seasons, in conveying the critical thinking
activities.
APPENDIX ECODING CATEGORIES FOR QUESTIONNAIRES
Questions 1-40 Key Intelligence1, 9, 17, 25, 33 Verbal-Linguistic Intelligence:
Tell stories, write essays, converse easily with peers.
2, 10, 18, 26, 34 Logical Mathematical Intelligence:Solve problems, balance checkbooks, make and keep schedules.
3, 11, 19, 27, 35 Visual Spatial Intelligence:Paint, draw, design web pages, decorate rooms, make cards, create scrapbooks
4, 12, 20, 28, 36 Musical Intelligence:Attend concerts, play an instrument, hum melodies, sing along with others, enjoy rhythm and rhyme.
5, 13, 21, 29, 37 Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence:Engage in sports, enjoy moving body to music, enjoy walking tours, use body language.
6, 14, 22, 30, 38 Interpersonal Intelligence:Join discussion group, enjoy chat rooms, ability to perceive and relate to what others think or see.
7, 15, 23, 31, 39 Intrapersonal Intelligence:Keep a personal journal, enjoy being alone, study to answer personal questions about life.
8, 16, 24, 32, 40 Naturalistic Intelligence:Collect wildflower specimens, enjoy hunting expeditions, follow an animal’s footprints, photograph landscapes, visit the zoo.