Multiple intelligences and language learning strategies ... and Language Learning.pdf · Multiple intelligences and language learning strategies: Investigating possible relations

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ARTICLE IN PRESS

System xxx (2008) xxx–xxx

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

SYSTEM

Multiple intelligences and languagelearning strategies: Investigating possible relations

Ramin Akbari a,*, Kobra Hosseini b

a English Department, Tarbiat Modares University, Chamran Expressway, Tehran, Iranb English Department, Ministry of Education, Tehran, Iran

Received 31 July 2006; received in revised form 20 June 2007; accepted 18 September 2007

Abstract

The present study was conducted to investigate the existence of any possible relationship betweenthe use of language learning strategies and multiple intelligences’ scores of foreign language learnersof English. Ninety subjects participated in the study. To measure the participants’ multiple intelli-gence scores, MIDAS, a commercially designed instrument, was used. Learners’ strategy use waschecked through SILL, Strategy use Inventory for Language Learning. The correlational analysisof the results indicated significant relations between the use of language learning strategies and IQscores of the learners. Musical intelligence, however, did not correlate with any aspect of strategyuse, and kinesthetic intelligence correlated only with memory learning strategies.� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Learning strategies; Intelligence; Multiple intelligences; Learner variables

1. Introduction

The second half of the twentieth century can be called the age of individualism, whenindividual values and differences were recognized and respected. After a prolonged preoc-cupation with the physical aspects of man, the tide turned and attention focused on the

0346-251X/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.09.008

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (R. Akbari), [email protected]

(K. Hosseini).

Please cite this article in press as: Akbari, R., Hosseini, K., Multiple intelligences and language..., System (2008), doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.09.008

mailto:[email protected]



2 R. Akbari, K. Hosseini / System xxx (2008) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

human being as a totality of physical, cognitive and affective variables. Man became manin the real sense of the word.

This shift of attention has left its mark on the way education is viewed and practiced.Individual differences now occupy an important position in any debate related to teaching/learning and the professional literature is filled with terms and phrases which try to cap-ture the elusive concepts that distinguish one person from another (Fontana, 1988; Lefran-cios, 1991; Crozier, 1997).

There is an irony here, however. While any term or concept which can clarify the dif-ferences among individuals is welcomed and freely used, the term intelligence is regardedas taboo and barred from the educational literature as much as possible, and if there is anyreference made to the term, it is to reject the existence of intelligence or downgrade itsvalue (Schiff and Lewontin, 1986).

This is an unfortunate state, since the opposition to intelligence has been mainly basedon socio–economic–political considerations, and not based on strong scientific reasoning.In the words of Howe (1997) ‘‘there has been a tendency to politicize the debate on intel-ligence, or even to regard certain issues [pertaining to it] as taboo” (page 13). This aversionis partly understandable but hardly justifiable. It is understandable due to the fact thatintelligence and IQ tests have been misused and misapplied with frequent racist/discrimi-natory intentions behind them (Mensh and Mensh, 1991). A quick look at the history ofintelligence testing shows that from its infancy, IQ measurement has been a means of jus-tifying observed instances of social injustice by attributing the failure of some classes orraces to their apparently low IQ scores. In the US, for example, supporters of the eugenicsmovement advocated IQ testing as a method for determining who should be allowed tohave children (Roleff, 1996; Armour-Thomas and Gopaul-McNicol, 1998; Jencks andPhillips, 1998; Valencia and Suzuki, 2001).

The banishment of intelligence to history books, however, is unjustifiable since whetherwe like it or not, intelligence is a reality which even the people who criticize the conceptadmit. As Howe (1997) puts it

Plea..., S

As a general umbrella term referring to a range of questions and issues that relate tohuman intellectual abilities, the word ‘intelligence’ is a useful and necessary one forlargely the same reasons that other umbrella terms like ‘economics’ and ‘gardening’are. . . As an abstract noun to denote the state of being intelligent, intelligence is realenough, in much the same way as success and productivity and happiness are real.No one denies that it is helpful to describe one person as being more intelligent thananother, when referring to their capabilities at mental tasks. . . (p. 36).

The existence of different theories of intelligence (Mackintosh, 1998; Sternberg, 2000;Bock et al., 2000; Sternberg and Kaufman, 2001) is another indication of the fact thatintelligence is still a vibrant, relevant concept in psychology. Even from a common senseviewpoint, it would be senseless to talk about the non-existence of intelligence and then atthe same time witness heated debates in academic psychology books and papers about themerits and demerits of the existing theories.

The fate of intelligence in language teaching has not been much better than its treatmentand reception in general education, and in many cases, the efforts to reject the existence of theconcept altogether have been more forceful and extreme. Just until recently, among thebooks which addressed individual differences in language learners hardly any referencewas made to intelligence, and if intelligence was mentioned, it was, in the majority of cases,

se cite this article in press as: Akbari, R., Hosseini, K., Multiple intelligences and languageystem (2008), doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.09.008

R. Akbari, K. Hosseini / System xxx (2008) xxx–xxx 3

ARTICLE IN PRESS

to refute its existence and argue against its importance. The conspicuous absence of intelli-gence from L2 professional literature conveys the impression that one is dealing with a for-bidden concept, one which lacks scientific validity and theoretical support. Fortunately thistrend is now changing, and there are some articles and book sections which have addressedintelligence in language teaching/learning, paving the way for more fruitful discussions of thetopic (see, for example, Williams and Burden, 1997; Christison, 1998, 1999a,b).

This relative revival of interest can be attributed to the advent of a new intelligence the-ory, namely Multiple Intelligences (MI) of Howard Gardner (Gardner, 1983). In this view,intelligence is viewed as being a composite of different abilities or aptitudes. The theoryright now includes nine intelligences, which encompass a wide range of human potentialsand abilities. Gardner’s theory divides human intelligence into musical, linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, natural, bodily-kinesthetic, and exis-tential (more information is presented in the literature section). Instead of viewing intelli-gence as a monolithic construct which can be measured psychometrically in isolation,Gardner puts intelligence in its social context by defining it as ‘‘the ability to solve prob-lems, or to create products, that are valued within one or more cultural settings” (Gardner,1983, x) (emphasis added).

It was in this spirit of revival that the present study was conducted. Drawing on the the-ory of Multiple Intelligences, the study tried to find out whether IQ indexes would showany relationship with the learners’ use of language learning strategies. More specifically,the following research question was addressed:

Is there any relationship between EFL learners’ Multiple Intelligences (MI) scores and

their use of different language learning strategies?

As a secondary question, the project also sought to determine whether any relationshipexists between the construct of Multiple Intelligences and learners’ overall proficiencymeasured through a retired version of IELTS.

It was hypothesized in this study that some of the components of MI (more specifically,linguistic, interpersonal, musical, and logical-mathematical) would show a positive rela-tionship with the different categories of learning strategies. In addition, the researchershypothesized that proficiency of the learners would be positively related to their MIindexes.

2. Review of the related literature

The story of intelligence starts with Alfred Binet and his pioneering IQ test (Mackin-tosh, 1998; Sternberg, 2000). However, the first theoretical attempt at the description ofintelligence and its underlying ability goes back to Charles Spearman (Mensh and Mensh,1991). His interest in the measurement of psychological abilities resulted in his developinga theoretical model which is known as g model (g for general) (see Sternberg and Gri-gorenko, 2002, for a comprehensive treatment of the concept). Based on his analysis ofcorrelational patterns which were observed among different tests of mental ability, Spear-man came to the belief that there must be a common underlying ability or force whichserved as the basis for all our mental/intellectual functioning. Spearman ‘‘was convincedthat g was a kind of brain power or mental energy, and he believed that it was the presenceof g that made a person intelligent” (Howe, 1997, 27). For a long time, this monolithicview of intelligence served as a basis for the development and interpretation of IQ testsand their scores. Since its introduction, the g factor has been the subject of heated debates



ARTICLE IN PRESS

and political arguments in academic as well as public circles, and in fact, one of the mainreasons for the misinterpretation and isolation of intelligence as a valid research construct(Roleff, 1996; Sternberg and Kaufman, 2001).

In L2 teaching literature, one of the first researchers addressing the relationshipbetween intelligence and language was Oller (1978). In fact, Oller has been instrumentalin shaping the attitude of the profession towards intelligence and without a proper apprai-sal of his argumentation it would be impossible to see how intelligence has been received inapplied linguistics. Oller was opposed to the concept of intelligence testing in general, andhe believed (and still believes) that what we call g is nothing but L1 language proficiency.In his words, ‘‘language proficiency, rather than innate intelligence, may account for thelion’s share of variance in the so-called IQ tests and in achievement tests as well” (p. 1).Oller believed that IQ tests basically measured language proficiency, and that what iscalled intelligence is, in fact, the same as linguistic facility. In his 1978 article, he citesthe following pieces of evidence supporting his idea of a close identity connection betweenlanguage proficiency and intelligence: (1) statistical evidence indicating a close relationshipbetween performance on intelligence tests and measures of language proficiency; (2) strik-ing similarities between IQ tests and language proficiency tests in terms of their content;and (3) neurolinguistic evidence showing overlaps among brain areas responsible for lan-guage and performance on IQ tests.

Oller (1992) elaborates more on the relationship between intelligence measures and lan-guage proficiency. Addressing the assessment of ‘‘Limited English Proficiency” learners,he starts with the question of why we do not have L1 proficiency measures, and then con-tends that there are, in fact, such measures, but disguised under different names, one ofthem being intelligence. For Oller, intelligence tests, either verbal or non-verbal, are allsemiotic systems that use language as their base. Our interpretation of any sign system willgo back to our gift of language. In addition, Oller believes that intelligence is an acquiredability or construct (since it is highly the result of language proficiency), and as a result,rejects those views which regard intelligence as innate or genetic.

The same idea is more forcefully pronounced in Oller (1997). Oller believes that sup-porters of innate views of intelligence suffer from what he calls monoglottis, a term hedefines as language or dialect blindness. People who suffer from this syndrome becomeimpervious to the role language and dialectal variations play in the test performance ofthe testees. Oller believes that most of the advocates of the innate view of intelligenceignore the role of language in IQ measurement, incorrectly interpreting language profi-ciency as inborn problem-solving ability or intelligence. According to Oller, all the verbalmeasures of intelligence, as well as all the pictorial or non-verbal measures are, in a sense,language-dependent, relying on subjects’ linguistic performance. In the case of non-verbalIQ tests, for example, Oller argues: ‘‘ The strict theoretical argument demonstrates thataccess to any conceivable abstract idea (i.e., any comprehensible or translatable thoughtabout objects, relations between objects, relations between relations, etc.) absolutelyrequires conventional signs of the linguistic kind” (p. 488).

It is not in the scope of this paper to evaluate Oller’s contentions regarding the innate-ness of intelligence. However, it seems that Oller is so averse to the concept of innatenessthat he ignores some observed facts put forward by the proponents of the genetic view ofintelligence. If intelligence is really a matter of environment, and basically of language pro-ficiency, as Oller claims, why does not it change during one’s lifetime? We know that aschildren’s age increases, so does their language proficiency. Then we should expect to find



ARTICLE IN PRESS

a steady increase in the IQ score of children in accordance with their age. However, it is anestablished fact that one’s IQ remains relatively constant during his/her lifetime. In addi-tion, Oller must explain why children who are born and raised in the same family showdifferent IQ scores, and why identical twins, who share the same set of genes, show corre-lations as high as 85% between their IQ measures even when they are raised far apart fromone another (Crozier, 1997).

In addition, the g model of intelligence, which is, ironically, the foundation of Oller’sapproach to the description of this mental construct, is now almost a superseded view,as is witnessed by the different multidimensional theories proposed for the descriptionand explanation of intelligence (for instance, Horn’s (1991) conception of intelligence ascomprising general/fluid-general/crystallized; Caroll’s (1993) three stratum theory, andSternberg’s (1985) triarchic theory). What Oller is doing is substituting the amorphous,theoretically despised g factor with a general language proficiency factor, clinging to thesingle factor explanation (hence the need in this paper to devote space to Oller’s view ofintelligence and clarification of the confusion). This runs in contrast to real life observa-tions of people who are low in language ability but high in other measures of achievementand skill ( two examples here could be idiot savants and people suffering from autism). Amultidimensional view of intelligence may be able to present a more realistic picture of thismysterious mental ability.

3. A new view of intelligence

Multiple intelligences theory (Gardner, 1983, 1993, 1999) views intelligence as a com-posite of different components which are more or less independent of one another. In thisapproach, ‘‘the human mind is quite modular in design and . . . separate and independentcognitive processes seem to underlie the performance on intellectual tasks” (Armour-Tho-mas and Gopaul-McNicol, 1998, 38).

There are nine different types of intelligences in this model (linguistic, logical-mathe-matical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, natural, andexistential) (see Table 1). Each one of these intelligences can function independently ofone another, and individuals may have their own weaknesses and strengths in each ofthese. Gardner (1993) regards his theory as egalitarian since it values different manifesta-tions of intelligence in different individuals and strives to provide a stimulating family andlearning context which will be conducive to the development of these abilities in childrenand individuals. No single type of intelligence is viewed as being superior to the others.

Table 1The nine component intelligences of Gardner’s theory

Intelligence Description

Verbal/linguistic Effective use of language and good knowledge of wordsMusical Sensitive to melody and rhythmLogical/mathematical Effective use of numbers, ability to deduce conclusions, ability to see cause and effectSpatial/visual Sensitivity to color and design, sensitivity to graphic formsBodily/kinesthetic Physical/bodily coordinationInterpersonal The ability to understand others, their intentions, moodsIntrapersonal Knowledge of the selfNatural To know and care about natureExistential To brood on the meaning of life



ARTICLE IN PRESS

There are eight pieces of evidence Gardner has drawn upon in the formulation of histheory. In other words, there are eight signs which will determine whether a capability willqualify as an intelligence, basing MI theory on ‘‘neurological, evolutionary, and cross-cul-tural evidence” (Gardner, 1983, xii). These criteria are:

1. Potential isolation by brain damage, which refers to the degree to which the capabilitiesare separate or modular.

2. Evidence from exceptional individuals, such as mentally retarded savants and childprodigies, which shows that ‘‘it is possible for a person to have exceptional or preco-cious abilities in one particular field, whilst the same person’s level of performance isother domains is no better than average” (Howe, 1997, 128).

3. An identifiable core operation or set of operations, which means that the ability underconsideration should be based on some basic information processing mechanisms (suchas pitch in musical intelligence).

4. A distinctive mental history, which refers to different levels of the ability and the devel-opmental history one has to go through to reach high levels of expertise.

5. An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility.6. Support from experimental psychological tasks.7. Support from psychometric results and findings.8. Having the potential of being coded in symbolic systems or notations.

All human beings, according to Gardner, possess all of these intelligences to a certaindegree. However, which of these intelligences will flourish in an individual depends ongenetic as well as social conditions. For an intelligence to come to dominate a person’s per-formance, the domain and the field for that intelligence should exist in the society in whichthe individual lives. In Gardner’s words:

Plea..., S

I . . . make a distinction between intelligence as a biopsychological potential; domainas the discipline or craft that is practiced in a society; and field, the set of institutionsand judges that determine which products within a domain are of merit. (1993: 37)

In a non-technical terminology, for an aptitude or intelligence to be nourished, thereshould be some abilities recognized in the society as valuable involving that intelligence,and at the same time there should be some standards or points of reference based on whichextraordinary performance can be judged.

In his more recent publications (for example, 1999), Gardner has become more con-cerned with the applications of his theory in education and the way an alternative methodof assessment based on multiple intelligences can lead to a more balanced and democraticeducational system. Gardner believes that a sound educational system, one which is basedon individual-centered schooling (1993), will result in the development of an individual’spotentials even long after formal schooling is finished. Such a system will equip the learnerswith both the potential and the tools needed for lifelong learning. And it is at this point thatone can see how multiple intelligences can be related to the concept of learning strategies.

3.1. Language learning strategies

The field of foreign/second language teaching became familiar with the concept oflanguage learning strategies through the work of Rubin (1975). The behaviors good

se cite this article in press as: Akbari, R., Hosseini, K., Multiple intelligences and languageystem (2008), doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.09.008


ARTICLE IN PRESS

language learners engaged in (Naiman et al., 1978) became the focus of research in thehope of making some generalizations and recommendations about how to increase theefficiency of L2 learning/teaching. Since then, numerous studies and textbooks address-ing the different aspects of the use of learning strategies in language learning situationshave been published, and many MA and Ph.D. dissertations have been devoted to thetopic.

Language learning strategies are defined by Cohen (1998) as ‘‘the conscious thoughtsand behaviors used by learners with the explicit goal of improving their knowledge of atarget language” (p. 68). Such strategies are usually contrasted with communication strat-egies, which are, unlike learning strategies, concerned with the production of L2 output,not its acquisition and internalization. Language learning strategies are also contrastedwith learning styles due to their problem-oriented nature: Strategies are used when a lear-ner is faced with a specific learning difficulty, and his/her strategic approach may change inaccordance with the nature of the learning problem faced. Styles, on the other hand, arerelatively fixed and do not change dramatically from one learning task to the next (Brown,1994).

There are now different classification systems available for language learning strategies.O’Malley and Chamot (1990) divide learning strategies into three groups of metacognitive,cognitive, and social/affective. Metacognitive learning strategies are ‘‘higher order execu-tive skills that may entail planning for, monitoring, or evaluating the success of a learningactivity” (p. 44), while cognitive learning strategies ‘‘operate directly on incoming informa-tion, manipulating it in ways to enhance learning” (ibid.). Social/affective strategies areconcerned with the control of affect and interaction with the others. In another classifica-tion, Oxford (1990) makes a distinction between two broad classes of language learningstrategies: Direct and indirect. Direct language learning strategies deal with ‘‘languageitself in a variety of specific tasks and situations” (p. 14) while indirect learning strategiesare for ‘‘the general management of learning” (p. 15). Direct language learning strategiesinclude memory strategies (for storing and retrieving new information), cognitive strate-gies (for comprehending and producing language), and compensation strategies (for over-coming gaps in the learner’s L2 knowledge). In the indirect category, Oxford refers tometacognitive learning strategies (dealing with the management and coordination of thelearning process), affective strategies (concerned with the emotional regulation of secondlanguage learning), and social strategies (related to learning through interaction with oth-ers). Cohen (1998) has another classification which is to a large extent similar to the oneoffered by O’Malley and Chamot (1990).

Since both MI and strategy use deal with the concept of problem and problem solving(both of the constructs, in fact, result in improved performance in their respective areas),and taking Gardner’s recent concern into account regarding the application of MI theoryto education settings, in the present study it is hypothesized that there is a link betweenmultiple intelligences’ scores of learners and their use of language learning strategies.

4. Methodology

4.1. Participants and instrumentation

Ninety subjects participated in this study (37 males, 53 females). The sample includedEnglish major university students at BA and postgraduate levels.



ARTICLE IN PRESS

To determine the language proficiency of the participants, a retired version of IELTSwas administered (see Table 2 for descriptive statistics). The reliability of the instrument,using test–retest method with 30 of the subjects, was 0.82. Due to practicality problems,however, the speaking part of IELTS was not administered. To determine the participants’use of language learning strategies and their IQ scores, SILL (Strategy Inventory for Lan-guage Learners) and MIDAS (Multiple Intelligences Developmental Assessment Scales)were used, respectively. The researchers used a Persian version of the SILL inventory,which was used and normed for Iranian learners by Tahmasebi (1999). The Cronbachalpha reliability of the translated version of SILL was calculated to be 0.77.

To determine the subjects’ multiple intelligences scores, MIDAS (Multiple IntelligencesDevelopmental Assessment Scales) was used; MIDAS is the instrument recommended byGardner himself for measuring multiple intelligences (personal communication). It is aself-report instrument of intellectual disposition designed by Shearer (1996) to be com-pleted by the respondents (or in the case of children, by their parents). The instrumenttakes 35 min to complete and includes 119 Likert-type (from a to f, with e being the highestand f being ‘‘I do not know”) questions that cover eight areas of abilities, interests, skillsand activities. Respondents were asked to read each item and select what they perceived asthe best answer at that point in time in their life. At the time of the present study, theinstrument tapped only eight of the nine multiple intelligences; existential intelligence,which is one of the recent additions to the list, was not part of MIDAS. Since the testis a copyrighted material, it is impossible here to reproduce it completely. However, onesample item from each intelligence is quoted.

4.2. Musical

Do you spend a lot of time listening to music?

(a) Rarely(b) Every once in a while(c) Sometimes(d) Often(e) Almost all the time(f) I do not know

Kinesthetic

Are you a good dancer, cheerleader, or gymnast?

(a) Not at all(b) Fairly good(c) Good(d) Very good(e) Excellent(f) I do not know

LinguisticDo you enjoy telling stories or talking about favorite movies or books?



ARTICLE IN PRESS

(a) Not at all(b) Rarely(c) Sometimes(d) Often(e) Almost all the time(f) I am not sure

Interpersonal

Are you ever a ‘‘leader” for doing things at school among friends or at work?

(a) Rarely(b) Every once in a while(c) Sometimes(d) Often(e) Almost always(f) I do not know

Intrapersonal

Do you have a clear sense of who you are and what you want out of life?

(a) Very little(b) A little(c) Usually(d) Most of the time(e) Almost all the time(f) I do not know

Naturalistic

Are you good at recognizing breeds of pets or kinds of animals?

(a) Not at all(b) A little(c) Somewhat(d) Quite good(e) Very good(f) I do not know

Spatial

How are you at finding your way around new buildings or city streets?

(a) Not good at all(b) Fairly good(c) Good(d) Very good(e) Excellent(f) I do not know



ARTICLE IN PRESS

Math/Logic

Do you have a good memory for numbers such as telephone numbers or addresses?

(a) Not very good(b) Fair(c) Good(d) Very good(e) Superior(f) I do not know

Numerous studies of the instrument’s reliability and validity have been carried out (seeShearer, 1996). MIDAS’s validity has been investigated by Shearer (1996) indicating thatits scales can provide a reasonable estimate of one’s MI strengths and limitations that cor-respond with external rating and criteria. MIDAS scales have been translated into Spanishand Korean and have been administered to approximately 10,000 subjects world-wide.For the purpose of the present study, MIDAS was translated into Persian by the research-ers to avoid any complication which might arise from language proficiency limitation ofsome of the subjects. The accuracy of the translation was checked by two independent pro-fessional translators. Cronbach alpha for this translated version with a sample of 35respondents was found to be at a desired level of 0.81.

One hundred fifty MIDAS scales were purchased for the present study, although only90 tests were used for data collection. The subjects were asked to mark their desiredoptions on answer sheets, which were sent to the US for scoring, due to the fact thatthe software needed for scoring was not purchasable at the time.

5. Results and discussions

Table 2 summarizes the descriptive results of the three instruments used in the study,namely MIDAS, SILL, and IELTS.

To find the answer to the first question of the study, that is, the one dealing with therelationship between the use of language learning strategies and respondents’ scores ona measure of multiple intelligences, Pearson produce moment correlation was used. Theresults of the analysis showed that there is a relatively weak but significant relationshipbetween the two variables of the study (Table 3). A significant correlation of 0.46(p < 0.01) was observed between the use of L2 learning strategies and learners’ MI scoreson MIDAS. This finding is what was expected and hypothesized to be observed due to thefact that many aspects of MI correspond to certain aspects of language use, such as com-munication skills (linguist, interpersonal), metacognition (intrapersonal) and general cog-nitive abilities (mathematical, for example). In addition, it can be postulated here that

Table 2Descriptive statistics of MIDAS, SILL and language proficiency

N Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation

Multiple intelligences 90 19 75.77 49.11 12.08Language learning strategies 90 9 21 15.85 2.27Language proficiency 90 16 81 43.01 14.1


Table 3Correlation between multiple intelligences and language learning strategies

Language learning strategies

Multiple intelligences 0.46a

a Two tailed, significant at 0.01.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

both intelligence and strategy use belong to a general problem solving ability, hence theirpositive correlation. The weakness of the correlation, however, means that the nature ofthe two variables is different, and they share only 17% common variance.

To further analyze the data, correlations between different individual strategy use oflearners and their overall MI scores, as well as correlations between individual strategyuse of the respondents and individual intelligences were calculated using, again, Pearsonformula (Tables 4 and 5).

The results of Table 4 indicate that there are relatively low, but positive, significant cor-relations among different strategy types and overall MI scores. The highest correlation isbetween the use of metacognitive learning strategies and MI, followed by cognitive andmemory. These relatively high positive correlations can be regarded as an indication thatMI is of a rather cognitive nature. The fact that metacognitive, cognitive and memorystrategies show the highest correlation also means that successful language learninginvolves conscious planning and storage of L2 data.

Among the individual intelligences, musical did not significantly correlate at all withany strategy use type, and kinesthetic only correlated significantly with memory, thoughthe correlation is too low to be of any real, practical significance. The fact musical intel-ligence did not show any significant correlation with any strategy use is surprising since

Table 4Correlation between MI and different learning strategies

Cognitive Compensation Metacognitive Social Affective Memory

MI 0.4a 0.3a 0.44a 0.25b 0.35a 0.37a

a Two tailed, significant at 0.01.b Two tailed, significant at 0.05.

Table 5Pearson correlation results of MI and different strategy types

Cognitive Compensation Metacognitive Social Affective Memory

Musical 0.01 .08 0.07 0.1 0.02 0.03Kinesthetic 0.2 0.19 0.19 .005 0.17 0.22a

Linguistic 0.3b 0.28b 0.46b 0.19 0.3b 0.3b

Interpersonal 0.29b 0.18 0.37b 0.28b 0.27b 0.3b

Intrapersonal 0.38b 0.24b 0.4b 0.25a 0.35b 0.34b

Natural 0.44b 0.36b 0.46b 0.27b 0.43b 0.37b

Mathematical 0.36b 0.22a 0.29b 0.19 0.26a 0.35b

Spatial 0.35b 0.2 0.34b 0.2 0.26a 0.3b

a Two tailed, significant at 0.05.b Two tailed, significant at 0.01.



ARTICLE IN PRESS

there are aspects of language learning that are of a phonological/intonational type, andone expects to find a relationship between musical sensitivity as it is measured by the musi-cal component of MI and phonological aspects. One interpretation of this lack of relation-ship could be attributed to the nature of SILL, which does not include any specificcomponent dealing exclusively with sound features of language.

Metacognitive and cognitive strategies showed the greatest correlations with almost allthe components of MI, although again the values are low. It can be argued here that peo-ple who are high on scales of MI know how to manage and mobilize their resources (meta-cognition) and also know about the efficient processes that help them realize their learninggoals (cognition). Social learning strategies also did not correlate significantly with 5 of MIcomponents, though they correlated with interpersonal, intrapersonal, and natural intelli-gences. The correlational values, however, are too small to allow for any meaningful inter-pretation of the relationships. The fact that linguistic intelligence did not correlate withsocial learning strategies is a bit of a surprise since the communicative aspects of languageuse require knowledge of the social potential of language and the way social connectionscan facilitate language development. However, it can equally be argued that the weak butsignificant correlations of interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences with all strategytypes, including social, take the communicative dimensions into account. Another inter-pretation is that MIDAS divides linguistic knowledge into two types of intelligences; for-mal, which is manifested by linguistic intelligence, and communicative, which is measuredthrough inter- and intrapersonal intelligences.

To analyze the data further, stepwise multiple regression was conducted (Tables 6a and6b), which showed that the Natural intelligence and strategy use shared 24% of variancewhile, together, Nature and Linguistic intelligence shared 35% variance with strategy. Inaddition, Natural, linguistic, and bodily-kinesthetic shared 38% variance with strategy.

Table 6aSummary of coefficients for the stepwise multiple regression

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients Significance of the slope

B SE ß t Significance

Nature (constant) 13.12 0.55 0.493 23.6 .000Linguistic 11.23 0.71 0.369 15.61 .000Kinesthetic 11.58 0.72 0.431 15.91 .000Interpersonal 10.82 0.79 0.457 13.7 .000

Dependent: language learning strategies.

Table 6bRegression analysis model summary

R R squared Adjusted R squared SE estimate

Step 1a 0.493 0.243 0.235 1.99Step 2b 0.592 0.359 0.335 1.85Step 3c 0.616 0.380 0.358 1.82Step 4d 0.644 0.414 0.387 1.78

a-Predictors: (constant) Nature.b-New predictor: Linguistic.c-New predictor: Bodily-kinesthetic.d-New predictor: Interpersonal.


Table 8R square table for the linguistic intelligence as the predictor of language proficiency model summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R square Standard error of the estimate

1 .328a .108 .098 13.3963

a Predictors: (Constant), LINGU.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

significant correlational value was found for them (Table 8). This finding is hardly surpris-ing since among the different types of intelligences measured by MI, linguistic seems to bethe most appropriate for acting as the predictor of language proficiency.

6. Conclusion

The present study intended to investigate the question of whether there is any probablerelationship between the use of language learning strategy by L2 learners and the constructof MI. The findings indicate that such a relationship does exist, and the study also foundthat MI and second language proficiency are related.

In the literature dealing with variables affecting the rate and route of second languagelearning, no explicit reference is made to the effect of intelligence on the process, and ifthere is any reference, the intention has been to downgrade in the importance of the con-struct. The important point to be borne in mind is that most studies have maintained thetraditional view of intelligence and employed the traditional IQ tests as the instrument tomeasure participants’ intelligence. However, the traditional definitions of intelligence, onwhich such tests were based, are now regarded as disputable in nature and narrow inscope. Therefore, it is the present researchers’ contention that Gardner’s MI theory pro-vides a way of understanding intelligence which is more sensible and practical in the fieldof applied linguistics. MI theory maintains that all humans possess at least eight differentintelligences that represent a variety of ways to learn and demonstrate understanding,without making any value judgments with racial connotations.

The findings of the study, however, must be treated with caution. The sample size of thestudy, as well as low correlation values obtained will mean that a replication of the study isneeded to determine the generalizability of the findings.

It is the hope of the present researchers that this study is replicated with other learnersfrom other L1 backgrounds to find out whether similar results can be obtained. In addi-tion, it is possible for researchers in applied linguistics to investigate the relationshipbetween MI and other language learning related concepts to see how MI can pertain to,and probably explain, the acquisition and the use of language by learners.

References

Armour-Thomas, E., Gopaul-McNicol, S., 1998. Assessing Intelligence: Applying Bio-cultural Model. Sage,

London.

Bock, G.R., Goode, J.A., Webb, K. (Eds.), 2000. The Nature of Intelligence. Wiley, Chichester.

Brown, H.D., 1994. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice Hall International, Englewood

Cliffs.

Caroll, J.B., 1993. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-analytic Studies. Cambridge University Press,

NY.

Christison, M.A., 1998. An introduction to multiple intelligence theory and second language learning. In: Reid,

J.M. (Ed.), Understanding Learning Styles in Second Language Classrooms. Prentice Hall Regents, NJ.



ARTICLE IN PRESS

Christison, M.A., 1999a. A Guidebook for Applying Multiple Intelligences Theory in the ESL/EFL Classroom.

Alta Book Center, Burlingame, CA.

Christison, M.A., 1999b. Multiple intelligences. ESL Magazine 2, 10–13.

Cohen, A.D., 1998. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Longman, Essex.

Crozier, R.W., 1997. Individual Learners: Personality Differences in Education. Routledge, London.

Fontana, D., 1988. Psychology for Teachers. Macmillan, Hampshire.

Gardner, H., 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books, NY.

Gardner, H., 1993. Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. Basic Books, McGraw-Hill, NY.

Gardner, H., 1999. Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. Basic Books, NY.

Hatch, E., Lazaraton, A., 1991. The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Heinle and

Heinle, Boston, MA.

Horn, J.L., 1991. Measurement of intellectual capabilities: A review of theory. In: McGrew, K.S., Werder, J.K.,

Woodcook, R.W. (Eds.), WJ-R Technical Manual. Riverside, Chicago.

Howe, M.J.A., 1997. IQ in Question; the Truth About Intelligence. Sage, London.

Jencks, C., Phillips, M. (Eds.), 1998. The Black–White Test Score Gap. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.

Larson-Freeman, D., Long, M.H., 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Longman,

NY.

Lefrancios, G.R., 1991. Psychology for Teachers. Wadsworth Publishing Company, CA.

Mackintosh, N.J., 1998. IQ and Human Intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Mensh, E., Mensh, H., 1991. The IQ Mythology: Class, Race, Gender, and Inequality. Southern Illinois

University Press, Carbondale.

Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Todesco, A., 1978. The good second language learners. TESL Talk 6, 58–75.

Oller, J., 1978. How important is language proficiency to IQ and other educational tests? In: Oller, J.W., Perkins,

K. (Eds.), Language and Education: Testing the Tests. Newbury House Publishers, MA.

Oller, J.W., 1992. Language testing research: lessons applied to LEP students and programs. In: Paper presented

at the Second National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on

Evaluation and Measurement, OBEMLA, 1992.

Oller, J.W., 1997. Monoglottosis: what’s wrong with the idea of the IQ meritocracy and its racy cousins? Applied

Linguistics 18, 467–507.

O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Oxford, R., 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Heinle and Heinle, Boston.

Richards, J.C., Rodgers, T., 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Roleff, T.L., 1996. Genetics and Intelligence. Greenhaven Press, San Diego.

Rubin, J., 1975. What the good language learner can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9, 41–51.

Shearer, B., 1996. Multiple Intelligences Developmental Assessment Scale. Greyden Press.

Schiff, M., Lewontin, R., 1986. Education and Class: The Irrelevance of IQ Genetic Studies. Clarendon Press,

Oxford.

Sternberg, R.J., Grigorenko, E.L., 2002. The General Factor of Intelligence: How General is it? Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, NJ.

Sternberg, R.J., 1985. Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press, NY.

Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), 2000. Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sternberg, R.J., Kaufman, J.C. (Eds.), 2001. The Evolution of Intelligence. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Mahwah.

Tahmasebi, A., 1999. Vocabulary learning strategies and language proficiency, Tehran, Unpublished MA thesis.

Valencia, R.R., Suzuki, L.A., 2001. Intelligence Testing and Minority Students: Foundations, Performance

Factors, and Assessment Issues. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Williams, M., Burden, R.L., 1997. Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


Documents

Multiple intelligences and language learning strategies ... and Language Learning.pdf · Multiple intelligences and language learning strategies: Investigating possible relations