WHAMPOA - An Interdisciplinary Journal 58(2010) 1-30

Multiple Intelligences and Foreign Language Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan

Hou Yi-anEd.D
Kaomei College of Health Care and Management, Taiwan Abstract Whats the role of Multiple Intelligences (MI) in foreign language learning behavior and performance? A case study of 2545 Taiwanese college students intends to provide the answers. Participants are 2545 Taiwanese EFL college students, including 975 boys and 1570 girls. They take an English proficiency test of listening and reading (A2), and fill out a series of questionnaires dealing with multiple intelligences (Gardner, H.,1993), motivation/attitude (Gardner, R.C.,1985), anxiety (Horwitz, et.al, 1986), language learning strategy (Oxford, 1990), and perceptual learning style preference (Reid, 1984). Data available from the questionnaires are analyzed by using descriptive and inferential statistics with SPSS 15, including item means and standard deviations, t test, and regression analysis. Findings show that MI do relate to students learning behavior and affect their English performance to some extent. Keywords: MI, motivation, anxiety, strategy, styles I. Introduction Intelligence is the ability to solve problems or fashion products that are valued in one or more cultural settings, defined by Gardner (1993, p.87). Gardner believed that we all have different combinations of intelligences which work together and make individuals different. But Gardner mentioned that our schools and culture focus most attention on linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences and ignore other intelligences. He claimed that we should also place equal attention on those who show gifts in the other intelligences to enrich the world we live. So, Gardner created his theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) in 1983. Initially Gardner identified 7 relatively autonomous capacities, namely, linguistic intelligence, logical-mathemtical intelligence, spatial intelligence, musical intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, and intrapersonal intelligence. Later, he added an eighth intelligence (naturalist intelligence), and worked for a possible ninth intelligence (existential intelligence) (Gardner, 2003). Its been proved that MI theory is very important to educators because it helps us expand our horizon of available teaching/learning tools beyond the conventional linguistic and

logical methods by nurturing intelligences in many different potential pathways for an individualized learning environment. Though Gardner, the father of MI, said he was less persuaded that it can be useful in mastering a foreign language, yet many teachers claim success using MI approaches, hence, the present study would also like to see how it goes in a Taiwan setting where English is learned as a foreign language, in particular, how students with different intelligences prefer strategy use (Oxford,1990) and learning styles (Reid, 1984) when learning a foreign language and how the preference affects their language performance. A case study of 2545 Taiwanese college students intends to provide the answers. II. Literature Review Related literature review consists of multiple intelligence, language learning strategy use and preferred learning styles, which are described below: 2.1 Multiple intelligence Many teachers and educators have known about the Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory proposed by Howard Gardner in 1983. The Multiple Intelligence (MI) theory offers teachers a way to examine and adopt the best teaching techniques and strategies in light of students individual differences. It also encourages educators to view learners as equals regardless of quotient produced from a traditional intelligence exam. Teachers are aware of the fact that every classroom is full of students with different areas of interest,

different ways of expressing themselves, different strengths and weakness and recognize that an effective teaching and learning is to help students appreciate their strengths and improve their weakness. Without doubt that Gardner deserves everyones gratitude, in particular, language teachers appreciate how well the theory applies in the language-learning process. With the help of the theory, language teachers can create activities flexible, reflective, logical, and creative for diverse students individual differences (Christison, 1998). Christison (1996a) described clearly how Gardner conceived these intelligences (p.11): 2.1.1 Logical/Mathematical Intelligence-The ability to use numbers effectively and reason well. Sample skills are understanding the basic properties of numbers, the principles of cause and effect, and the ability to predict. 2.1.2 Verbal/Linguistic Intelligence-The ability to use words effectively, both orally and in writing. Sample skills are remembering information, convincing others to help, and talking about language itself. 2.1.3 Visual/Spatial Intelligence-The ability to sense form, space, color, line, and shape. Sample skills include the ability to represent visual or spatial ideas graphically. 2.1.4

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language

Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence-The ability to use the body to express ideas and feelings, and to solve problems. Sample skills are coordination, flexibility, speed, and balance. 2.1.5 Musical/Rhythmic Intelligence-The ability to sense rhythm, pitch, and melody. Sample skills are recognizing simple songs and being able to vary speed, tempo, and rhythm in simple melodies. 2.1.6 Interpersonal Intelligence-The ability to understand another persons moods, feelings, motivations, and intentions. Sample skills are responding effectively to other people,problem solving, and resolving conflict. 2.1.7 Intrapersonal Intelligence-The ability to understand yourself, your strengths, weakness, moods, desires, and intentions. Sample skills are understanding how one is similar to or different from others, reminding oneself to do something, knowing about oneself as a language learner, and knowing how to handle ones feelings. 2.1.8 Naturalist Intelligence-The ability to recognize species of plants or animals in ones environment. 2.2 Language learning strategy use Learning strategies are "specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new
3

situations' (Oxford, 1990a, p.8). Several language learning strategy theories have been discussed in the past several decades (Rubin, 1981; OMalley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990a). Among them, one theory that has frequently been employed around the world is Oxfords (1990a) language learning strategy theory. Oxfords theory was developed based on a synthesis of previous research, factor-analytic, questionnaire-based studies of language learning strategy among adult learners, and research from the field of cognitive and educational psychology. Accordingly, her theory has not only been widely used to investigate ESL/EFL students learning strategies based on their cultural backgrounds but also has been extensively measured for reliability and validity. Oxford (1990a) divided strategies into six subcategories, including memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies, which are described below: 2.2.1 Memory Strategy: One of direct strategies that used to help learners remember and retrieve new knowledge. 2.2.2 Cognitive Strategy: One of direct strategies that used to help learners receive, analyze, and produce information. 2.2.3 Compensation Strategy: One of direct strategies that used to help learners more comprehensive or productive despite knowledge gaps of language. 2.2.4 Metacognitive Strategy: One of

indirect strategies that used to help learners coordinate their own learning processes. 2.2.5 Affective Strategy: One of indirect strategies that used to help learners control their emotions, attitudes, motivations, and values. 2.2.6 Social Strategy: One of indirect strategies that used to help learners learn language from other people. 2.3 Perceptual learning style preferences Language learning styles are general methods learners employed to learn languages. Dunn, Beaudry, and Klavas (1989) defined learning style as a biological and developmental set of personal characteristics that make the same teaching method effective for some and ineffective for others (p. 50) Learning styles are a way in which each learner begins to concentrate on, process, and retain new and difficult information (Dunn & Dunn, 1993, p. 2). Reid (1995) stated that learning style can be seen as an individuals nature, habitual, and preferred way(s) of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information (p. viii) and she divided perceptual learning styles as visual/ auditory, kinesthetic /tactile, and group/individual. They are listed below: 2.3.1 Visual major learning style preference- learn well from seeing words in books, on the chalkboard, and in workbooks. 2.3.2 Auditory major learning style preference- learn well from hearing words spoken and from oral explanations.

2.3.3 Kinesthetic major learning style preference- learn best by experience, by being involved physically in classroom experiences. 2.3.4 Tactile major learning style preference- learn best when have the opportunity to do hands-on experiences with materials. 2.3.5 Group major learning style preference- learn more easily when study with at least one other student, and will be more successful completing work well when work with others. 2.3.6 Individual major learning style preference- learn best when work alone. III. Methodology Subjects of the study, research instrument and procedure are presented as follows: 3.1 Subject of the study Subjects are 2545 students in a private five-year college in south Taiwan, including 975 males (38.3%) and 1570 females (61.7%). They are from 6 departments of the school. Among them, 733 (28.81%) are from Nursing Department, 859 (33.76%), from Physical Therapy Department, 293 (11.51%) from Optometry Department, 259 (10.17%) from Information Management Department, 352 (13.83%) from Foreign Languages Department, and 49 (1.92%) from Dental Laboratory Department. Subjects of different genders with six different majors of the study are shown

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language

Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan below: Table 1: Subjects of the study by gender and majors
Major Gender Boy Girl Total % Nurs ing 95 638 733 28.81% Physical Therapy 440 419 859 33.76% Optom etry 173 120 293 11.51% Information Management 159 100 259 10.17% Foreign languages 74 278 352 13.83%

N=2545
Dental Labortory 34 15 49 1.92% 975 1570 2545 100% total

Among the subjects, except for students of Foreign Languages Department, English is a required course for all other students within the first three years in the school. Hence, subjects of the study only consist of the whole population of the first graders, second graders and third graders of

the five departments and all students of the Foreign Languages Department. In total, there are 865 first graders (33.99%), 792 second graders (31.12%), 788 third graders (30.97%), 53 fourth graders (2.08%), and 47 fifth graders (1.84%). Subjects of the study by gender and grades are shown below: N=2545
Fifth grade 8 39 47 1.84% 975 1570 2545 100% total

Table 2: Subjects of the study by gender and grades

Grade Gender Boy Girl Total % First grade 357 508 865 33.99% Second grade 313 479 792 31.12% Third grade 290 498 788 30.97% Fourth Grade 7 46 53 2.08%

3.2 Research instrument The research instrument includes a set of General English Proficiency Test, Eleventary Level (CEF A2), which consists of 35 items of listening and 40 items of reading. In addition, a 170-item questionnaire (see Appendix) is used to find out students multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1993) and learning behavior, including motivation, attitude (Gardner, 1985), belief (Horwitz, 1988), strategy (Oxford, 1990), styles (Reid, 1984), and anxiety (Horwitz, et al., 1986). The research instrument is listed below:

Table 2. Research instrument of the study adopted

Questionnaire/test Author(s) year Questions note adopted Background Information Motivation/Attitude Multiple Intelligences Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale Strategy of Foreign Language Learning Preferred Learning Styles General English Proficiency Test (CEF A2) Self-created 2008 05 Q1-5 Q6-50 Q51-130 Q131-140 Q141-150 Q151-160 Q161-170

Gardner, R. C 1985 45 Gardner, H Horwitz, E. 1993 80 1988 10

Horwitz, et al. 1986 10 Oxford, R. L. 1990 10 Reid, J. M LTTC* 1984 10 2005 75

*LTTC: The Language Training & Testing Center, Taiwan

3.3 Procedure In the beginning of the first semester of 2008, all the participants fill out the Chinese questionnaire dealing with their MI and learning behavior, and take the English proficiency test (GEPT). All the data collected from the survey with a three-point Likert scale (3=agree, 2=no comment, 1=disagree) and from the GEPT via listening and reading scores were processed by The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Version 15.0). IV. Findings and results Findings of the study are described as follows: 4.1 Students background

It shows that most of the students (90.3%) are graduated from public junior high schools, and 17.1% of their fathers and 10.8% of their mothers have college (or above) education. In terms of their parents occupations, 59.4% of their fathers and 41.9% of their mothers are skilled workers or businesspersons. 4.2 Reliability Coefficient of the research instrument The overall reliability coefficient of the research instrument is Cronbachs alpha=.934, while the reliability coefficient of individual part of the questionnaire ranges from .791 (for motivation) to .918 (for multiple intelligences). The reliability coefficient of the research instrument is shown below:

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language

Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan Table 4-2. Reliability Coefficient of the research instrument questionnaire 1.motivation 2.attitude 3.moitvational intensity 4.multiple intelligences 5.belief 6.anxiety 7.strategy use 8.preference learning styles all 4.3 Mean and standard deviation of the research instrument Findings show that students are motivated to learn English more instrumentally (M=2.44, SD=.35) than integratively (M=2.12, SD=.38) (p<.01). In terms of learning behavior, students have high means in motivation (M=2.28, SD=.32) and anxiety (M=2.27, SD=.42), but low in motivational intensity (M=2.04, SD=.38). As for intelligences, they are strong in Cronbachs alpha .791 .794 .796 .918 .807 .822 .834 .793 .934 N of items 16 19 10 80 10 10 10 10 165 item number Q6-21 Q22-40 Q41-50 Q51-130 Q131-140 Q141-150 Q151-160 Q161-170 Q6-170

musical intelligence (1), intrapersonal intelligence (2), and interpersonal intelligence (3), but weak in universal/naturalist intelligence (8), verbal/spatial intelligence (7), and logical/mathematical intelligence (6). Whereas English scores, the average of students reading scores (M=42.28) is lower than listening scores (M=58.21). The means and deviation of individual part of the research instrument are listed below:

Table 4-3. Mean and standard deviation of the research instrument Factor Motivation Instrumental orientation Integrative orientation Attitude Motivational Intensity Belief Anxiety Strategy Styles MI Logical/Mathematical intelligence H 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7

L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 2.28 2.44 2.12 2.19 2.04 2.22 2.27 2.12 2.21 2.08 1.95

SD .32 .35 .38 .29 .38 .32 .42 .42 .34 .26 .41

N 2243 2249 2255 2240 2240 2215 2211 2287 2199 2165 2232

Note Sig= .000

(6)

Verbal/Linguistic intelligence Visual/Spatial intelligence Bodily intelligence Musical intelligence Interpersonal intelligence Intrapersonal intelligence Universal/Naturalist intelligence English listening scores English reading scores English total scores 4.4 MI and learning behavior By gression analysis, multiple intelligences and learning behavior are described below, including MI and motivation, instrumental orientation, integrative orientation, attitude, motivational intensity, belief, anxiety, strategy use, as well as preferred learning styles. 4.4.1 MI and motivation The findings show that factors related to students motivation to learn English are

3 3 3 3 3 3 3
120 117 225

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.93 2.19 2.04 2.22 2.200 2.202 1.87 58.21 42.28 100.5

.40 .38 .42 .43 .39 .35 .38 18.2 17.7 32.4

2243 2236 2235 2235 2233 2225 2222 2222 2429 2428

(7) (4) (5) (1) (3) (2) (8)

musical intelligence (t=5.925, sig=.000), interpersonal intelligence (t=5.214, sig=.000), intrapersonal intelligence (t=3.682, sig=.000), bodily intelligence (t=-3.342, sig=.000) (negatively), visual/spatial intelligence (t=2.589, sig=.010), and verbal/linguistic intelligence(t=2.062, sig=.039), which are shown below:

Table 4-4-1. MI and motivation Factor (Constant) Logical/Mathematic intelligence Verbal/Linguistic intelligence Visual/Spatial intelligence Bodily intelligence Musical intelligence Interpersonal intelligence Intrapersonal intelligence Universal/Naturalist intelligence Dependent variable: motivation 4.4.2 MI and instrumental orientation It is found that factors related to
8

t 28.337 -.575 2.062 2.589 -3.342 5.925 5.214 3.682 .650

sig .000 .565 .039 .010 .001 .000 .000 .000 .516

rank

(6) (5) (4) (1) (2) (3)

students instrumental orientation are musical intelligence (t=6.176, sig=.000),

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language

Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan interpersonal intelligence (t=5.632, sig=.000), bodily intelligence (t=-4.682, sig=.000) (negatively), intrapersonal intelligence (t=3.308, sig=.001), and visual/spatial intelligence sig=.007), shown below: (t=2.713,

Table 4-4-2. MI and instrumental orientation Factor (Constant) Logical/Mathematic intelligence Verbal/Linguistic intelligence Visual/Spatial intelligence Bodily intelligence Musical intelligence Interpersonal intelligence Intrapersonal intelligence Universal/Naturalist intelligence t 30.288 -.255 .045 2.713 -4.682 6.176 5.632 3.308 .071 sig .000 .798 .964 .007 .000 .000 .000 .001 .943 (5) (3) (1) (2) (4) rank

Dependent variable: instrumental orientation 4.4.3 MI and integrative orientation There are four intelligences related to students integrative orientation; they are: musical intelligence (t=4.389, sig=.000), interpersonal intelligence (t=3.667, sig=.000), verbal/linguistic intelligence (t=3.480, sig=.001), and intrapersonal intelligence (t=3.250, sig=.001), shown below:

Table 4-4-3. MI and integrative orientation Factor (Constant) Logical/Mathematic intelligence Verbal/Linguistic intelligence Visual/Spatial intelligence Bodily intelligence Musical intelligence Interpersonal intelligence Intrapersonal intelligence Universal/Naturalist intelligence t 20.052 -.632 3.480 1.952 -1.381 4.389 3.667 3.250 .938 sig .000 .527 .001 .051 .168 .000 .000 .001 .348 (1) (2) (4) (3) rank

Dependent variable: integrative orientation 4.4.4 MI and attitude

9

It is found that five factors are related

10

to students attitude toward English learning, including musical intelligence (t=7.102, sig=.000), intrapersonal intelligence (t=4.491, sig=.001), interpersonal Table 4-4-4. MI and attitude Factor (Constant) Logical/Mathematic intelligence Verbal/Linguistic intelligence Visual/Spatial intelligence Bodily intelligence Musical intelligence Interpersonal intelligence Intrapersonal intelligence Universal/Naturalist intelligence Dependent variable: attitude 4.4.5 MI and motivational intensity The findings indicate that except for logical/mathematic intelligence, all other seven intelligences are related to students motivational intensity for English learning; they are: musical intelligence (t=6.073, sig=.000), verbal/ linguistic intelligence (t=5.590, sig=.000), bodily intelligence

intelligence (t=4.374, sig=.000), verbal/linguistic intelligence (t=3.868, sig=.000) and bodily intelligence (t=-3.141, sig=.002), shown below:

t 28.792 1.488 3.868 1.381 -3.141 7.102 4.374 4.491 .557

sig .000 .137 .000 .167 .002 .000 .000 .000 .577

rank

(4) (5) (1) (3) (2)

(t=-4.617, sig=.002) (negatively), interpersonal intelligence (t=2.739, sig=.006), visual/spatial intelligence (t=-2.270, sig=.023) (negatively), universal/naturalist intelligence (t=2.232, sig=.026), and intrapersonal intelligence (t=2.133, sig=.033), shown below:

Table 4-4-5. MI and motivational intensity Factor (Constant) Logical/Mathematic intelligence Verbal/Linguistic intelligence Visual/Spatial intelligence Bodily intelligence Musical intelligence Interpersonal intelligence Intrapersonal intelligence Universal/Naturalist intelligence t 22.280 1.007 5.590 -2.270 -4.617 6.073 2.739 2.133 2.232 Sig .000 .314 .000 .023 .000 .000 .006 .033 .026 (2) (5) (3) (1) (4) (7) (6) rank

Dependent variable: motivational intensity

10

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language

11

Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan

4.4.6 MI and belief The findings show that six intelligences are related to students beliefs about English learning; they are: musical intelligence (t=6.252, sig=.000), intrapersonal intelligence(t=5.506, sig=.000), bodily intelligence (t=-4.213, sig=.000) Table 4-4-6. MI and belief Factor (Constant) Logical/Mathematic intelligence Verbal/Linguistic intelligence Visual/Spatial intelligence Bodily intelligence Musical intelligence Interpersonal intelligence Intrapersonal intelligence Universal/Naturalist intelligence Dependent variable: belief 4.4.7 MI and anxiety The findings indicate that factors related to students anxiety in English learning are verbal/linguistic intelligence (t=-5.851, sig=.000) (negatively), bodily Table 4-4-7. MI and anxiety Factor (Constant) Logical/Mathematic intelligence Verbal/Linguistic intelligence Visual/Spatial intelligence Bodily intelligence Musical intelligence Interpersonal intelligence Intrapersonal intelligence Universal/Naturalist intelligence Dependent variable: anxiety
11

(negatively), verbal/ linguistic intelligence (t=3.560, sig=.000), interpersonal intelligence (t=2.254, sig=.024), and logical/mathematic intelligence (t=2.029, sig=.043), shown below:

t 28.171 2.029 3.560 1.655 -4.213 6.252 2.254 5.506 -.555

sig .000 .043 .000 .098 .000 .000 .024 .000 .579

rank (6) (4) (3) (1) (5) (2)

intelligence (t=-3.633, sig=.000) (negatively), universal/naturalist intelligence (t=2.292, sig=.022), and musical intelligence (t=2.128, sig=.033), shown below:

t 31.917 1.626 -5.851 1.832 -3.633 2.128 .368 -.023 2.297

sig .000 .104 .000 .067 .000 .033 .713 .982 .022

rank

(1) (2) (4)

(3)

12

4.4.8 MI and strategy use The findings show that except for logical/mathematic intelligence, all other seven intelligences are related to students strategy use; they are: verbal/ linguistic intelligence (t=6.978, sig=.000), musical intelligence (t=5.923, sig=.000), Table 4-4-8. MI and strategy use Factor (Constant) Logical/Mathematic intelligence Verbal/Linguistic intelligence Visual/Spatial intelligence Bodily intelligence Musical intelligence Interpersonal intelligence Intrapersonal intelligence Universal/Naturalist intelligence Dependent variable: strategy use 4.4.9 MI and preferred learning styles Its found that all the eight intelligences are related to students preferred learning styles. Among them, intrapersonal intelligence is the best predictor of learning style preferences (t=7.332, sig=.000), then musical intelligence (t=5.865, sig=.000), interperpersonal intelligence (t=5.231, Factor (Constant) Logical/Mathematic intelligence Verbal/Linguistic intelligence Visual/Spatial intelligence Bodily intelligence Musical intelligence Interpersonal intelligence
12

intrapersonal intelligence (t=5.733, sig=.000), universal/naturalist intelligence (t=5.364, sig=.000), interpersonal intelligence (t=3.977, sig=.000), visual/spatial intelligence (t=3.006, sig=.003), and bodily intelligence (t=-2.808, sig=.005) (negatively), shown below: t 8.719 1.478 6.978 3.006 -2.808 5.923 3.977 5.733 5.364 sig .000 .140 .000 .003 .005 .000 .000 .000 .000 (1) (6) (7) (2) (5) (3) (4) rank

sig=.000), visual/spatial intelligence (t=4.200, sig=.000), verbal/linguistic intelligence (t=3.619, sig=.000), universal/naturalist (t=3.529, sig=.000), bodily intelligence (t=-3.403, sig=.001) (negatively), and logical/ mathematic intelligence (t=2.728, sig=.006). All are shown below: t 18.334 2.728 3.619 4.200 -3.403 5.865 5.231 sig .000 .006 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 (8) (5) (4) (7) (2) (3) rank

Table 4-4-9. MI and preferred learning styles

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language

13

Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan Intrapersonal intelligence Universal/Naturalist intelligence 7.332 3.529 .000 .000 (1) (6)

Dependent variable: preferred learning styles 4.5 MI and English performance The following descriptions include multiple itnelligences and students English listening scores, reading scores, and total scores. 4.5.1 MI and performance English listening Its found that only three intelligences are related to students English listening scores. They are musical intelligence (t=3.672, sig=.000), verbal/linguistic intelligence (t=2.698, sig=.007), and universal/naturalist intelligence (t=-2.056, sig=.040) (negatively), shown below:

Table 4-5-1. MI and listening performance Factor (Constant) Logical/Mathematic intelligence Verbal/Linguistic intelligence Visual/Spatial intelligence Bodily intelligence Musical intelligence Interpersonal intelligence Intrapersonal intelligence Universal/Naturalist intelligence t 18.823 -1.036 2.698 -1.395 -.573 3.672 .519 -1.394 -2.056 sig .000 .300 .007 .163 .567 .000 .604 .163 .040 (2) (1) (3) rank

Dependent variable: listening performance 4.5.2 MI and English reading performance Similar to that of listening scores, there are only three intelligences related to students English reading scores, but they are verbal/linguistic intelligence (t=2.863, sig=.004), musical intelligence (t=2.334, sig=.020), and visual/spatial intelligence (t=-2.199, sig=.028) (negatively), shown below:

Table 4-5-2. MI and reading performance Factor (Constant) Logical/Mathematic intelligence Verbal/Linguistic intelligence Visual/Spatial intelligence t 13.626 -.334 2.863 -2.199
13

sig .000 .739 .004 .028

rank

(1) (3)

14

Bodily intelligence Musical intelligence Interpersonal intelligence Intrapersonal intelligence Universal/Naturalist intelligence

-1.149 2.334 -.158 .326 -.650

.251 .020 .875 .745 .516 (2)

Dependent variable: reading performance 4.5.3 MI and English total performance of English Quite the same as that of reading scores, the three factors related to students English total scores are musical intelligence (t=3.332, sig=.001), verbal/linguistic intelligence (t=3.079, sig=.002), and visual/spatial intelligence (t=-1.987, sig=.047) (negatively). They are shown below:

Table 4-5-3. MI and total performance of English Factor (Constant) Logical/Mathematic intelligence Verbal/Linguistic intelligence Visual/Spatial intelligence Bodily intelligence Musical intelligence Interpersonal intelligence Intrapersonal intelligence Universal/Naturalist intelligence t 17.991 -.762 3.079 -1.987 -.951 3.332 .203 -.599 -1.505 sig .000 .446 .002 .047 .342 .001 .839 .549 .133 (1) (2) (3) rank

Dependent variable: total performance of English 4.5.4 Summary of MI and learning behavior and English performance MI and learning behavior and English performance are summarized below: Table 4-5-4.Summary of MI and learning behavior and English performance MI Factor motivation instrument integrative attitude (3) (4) -(5) logi cal ver bal (6) vis ual (5) (5) bod ily -(4) -(3) mus ical (1) (1) (1) (1) interp intrap natu ersonal ersonal ralist (2) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (2)

14

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language

15

Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan intensity Belief Anxiety strategy Style listening Reading Total Rank 6 (8) (6) (2) (4) -(1) (1) (5) (3) (1) (2) 7 -(3) -(3) 4 5 (6) (4) -(5) -(3) -(3) -(2) -(7) -(7) (1) (1) (4) (2) (2) (1) (2) (1) 1 3 2 8 (5) (3) (3) (1) (4) (5) (7) (2) (3) (4) (6) -(2) (6)

Independent variables: MI Dependent variables: learning behavior and English performance (No) means the order of good predictor, - means negatively related 4.6 Factors related to English scores Students GEPT scores are adopted as their English performance including listening scores, reading scores, and total scores. Factors related to individual scores are described below: 4.6.1 Factors related to English listening performance To put all the possible factors into consideration, findings show that except for motivation and styles, factors related to students listening scores are anxiety (t=-10.247, sig=.000) (negatively), major (t=9.977, sig=.000), motivational intensity (t=4.851, sig=.000), attitude (t=4.089, sig=.000), multiple intelligences (t=-3.909, sig=.000) (negatively), gender (t=3.151, sig=.002), belief (t=2.592, sig=.010), and strategy (t=2.457, sig=.014). All are shown below:

4-6-1.Factors related to English listening performance Factor (Constant) motivation attitude intensity belief anxiety strategy styles MI gender
15

t .770 .206 4.089 4.851 2.592 -10.247 2.457 -.232 -3.909 3.151

sig .441 .837 .000 .000 .010 .000 .014 .816 .000 .002

rank

(4) (3) (7) (1) (8) (5) (6)

16

major

9.977

.000

(2)

Dependent variable: English listening performance 4.6.2 Factors related to English reading performance Similar to that of listening, except for motivation and styles, factors related to students reading scores are major (t=10.020, sig=.000), anxiety (t=-8.820, sig=.000) (negatively), Factor (Constant) motivation attitude intensity belief anxiety strategy styles MI gender major t -.804 -.129 4.322 6.582 2.120 -8.820 2.427 -.828 -3.650 4.015 10.020 motivational intensity (t=6.582, sig=.000), attitude (t=4.322, sig=.000), gender (t=3.151, sig=.002), multiple intelligences (t=-3.650, sig=.000) (negatively), strategy (t=2.427, sig=.015), and belief (t=2.120, sig=.034). All are shown below:

4-6-2.Factors related to English reading performance sig .421 .898 .000 .000 .034 .000 .015 .408 .000 .000 .000 (6) (5) (1) (4) (3) (8) (2) (7) rank

Dependent variable: English reading performance 4.6.3 Factors related to English total performance Much to the same as that of reading scores, except for motivation and styles, factors related to students total scores are major (t=11.326, sig=.000), anxiety (t=-10.807, sig=.000) (negatively), motivational intensity (t=6.466, sig=.000), attitude (t=4.762, sig=.000), multiple intelligences (t=-4.283, sig=.000) (negatively), gender (t=4.054, sig=.000), strategy (t=2.767, sig=.006), and belief (t=2.672, sig=.008). All are shown below:

4-6-3.Factors related to English total performance Factor (Constant) motivation attitude intensity
16

t -.011 .045 4.762 6.466

sig .991 .964 .000 .000

rank

(4) (3)

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language

17

Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan belief anxiety strategy styles MI gender major 2.672 -10.807 2.767 -.597 -4.283 4.054 11.326 .008 .000 .006 .550 .000 .000 .000 (5) (6) (1) (8) (2) (7)

Dependent variable: English total performance 4.7 Gender and English performance There is a significant difference in English listening, reading, and total scores between boys and girls (p<.01). Girls tend to have higher scores than boys in the three scores, shown below:

Table 4-7Gender and English scores English Gender 1.boy 2.girl Total/average
929 1497 2426 56.02 59.57 58.21 39.64 43.92 42.28 95.67 103.50 100.50

listening

reading

total

4.8 Major and English scores Among the six departments, students of Foreign Language Department, as expected, have the highest scores in English listening, reading, and total scores, while students of Dental Laboratory Table 4-8 Major in English scores English Major 1.Nursing Department 2.Physical Therapy Department 3.Optometry Department 4. Information Management Department 5.Foreign Languages
707 827

Technology Department and Physical Therapy Department rank either number 2 or number 3, then Nursing Department, and Information Management Department and Optometry Department, shown below:

listening
54.88 (4) 59.94 (2)

reading
39.49(4) 43.08 (3)

total
94.38 (4) 103.02(3)

281 243

50.79 (5) 50.58 (6)

35.17(6) 35.85(5)

85.96 (6) 86.44 (5)

320

73.07 (1)

56.72 (1)

129.79(1)

17

18

Department 6.Dental Laboratory Technology Department Total V. Discussion and implication

49 59.67(3) 46.44 (2) 106.12(2)

2428

58.09

42.26

100.46

Some discussions of the study are described as follows: 5.1 Most of the students are graduated from public junior high schools and 17.1% of their fathers and 10.8% of their mothers have college (or above) education. In terms of parents occupation, 59.4% of their fathers and 41.9% of their mothers are skilled workers or businesspersons. 5.2 Factors related to students overall English performance are major, anxiety, motivational intensity, MI, gender, strategy use and belief. 5.3 Students are motivated to learn English 5.6 Some implications derived from the findings are listed below:

more instrumentally. They have favorable attitudes toward English learning but have high anxiety and low motivational intensity when learning English. 5.4 MI plays an important role in foreign language learning, including students learning behavior and English performance. 5.5 In particular, musical intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, and interpersonal intelligence are strongly related to students learning behavior, while musical intelligence, verbal/linguistic intelligence and visual/spatial intelligence are good predictors of English performance. successful learning. 5.6.3 Teachers should take students individual differences into consideration when designing curriculum, instruction, and assessment to provide more potential ways for a balanced attention on diverse learners to an individualized learning environment.

5.6.1

Intelligences are crutial in effective learning. Students should be aware of their individual intelligences.

5.6.2 Students should be encouraged to appreciate their strengths (i.e. musical intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, and interpersonal intelligence) and improve their weakness (i.e. logical intelligence, verbal intelligence, and naturalist intelligence) to lead to a more
18

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan

19

References [1] Christison, M. A. (1996a). Teaching and learning languages through multiple intelligences. TESOL Journal 6 (1), 10-14. [2] Christison, M. A. (1998). An introduction to Multiple Intelligence Theory and second language learning. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom (pp. 1-14), 1998. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents. [3] Dunn, R. B, J. & Klavas, A. (1989). Survey of research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 50-58. [4] Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning style: Practical approaches for grades 7-12. Boston, MA: Allyn and Vacon. [5] Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. NY: Basic Books. [6] Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books. [7] Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed. New York: Basic Books. [8] Gardner, H. (2000). The Disciplined Mind: beyond facts and Standardized Tests. The K-12 Education that Every Child Deserves. New York: Penguin Putnam. [9] Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple Intelligences After Twenty Years. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 21, 2003.

[10] Gardner, H. (2004). Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our Own and Other Peoples Minds. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. [11] Gardner, H. (2006). The Development and Education of the Mind: The Collected Works of Howard Gardner. London: Routledge. [12] Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons. New York: Basic Books. [13] Gardner, H. (2007). Five Minds for the Future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. [14] Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitude and motivation. Edward Arnold, Baltimore, Maryland. [15] Gay,L.R. & Airasian (2003). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications (Seventh Edition). Merrill Prentice Hall, NJ. [16] Horwitz, E. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university students. Modern Language Journal,72, 182-193. [17] Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal,70, 125-132. [18] Oxford, R. L. (1990a). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. [19] Reid, J. M. (1984). Perceptual Learning Style Preferences Questionnaire. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning style in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 202-205),

19

20

1995. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. [20] Reid, J. M. (Ed.). (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Appendix : Questionnaire I. Background 1. 1. I graduated from 1.public school 2. My father's education 3.college or above. 3. My mother's education 3.college or above.

Publishers. [21] Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 117-131.

(N=2545)
1 % 2 % 3 % 1.5

2.private school 3.others 2.senior high

90.3 8.2

1.junior high or below

28.3 54.4 17.1

1.junior high or below 2.senior high

33.9 55.2 10.8

4. My father's occupation 1.Military officer /Police/ Government Service/teacher 2.Skilled worker/ businessperson 3.Others 5. My mother's occupation 1.Military officer /Police/ Government Service/teacher worker/ businessperson 3.Others II. Orientation Index: Reasons for studying English 2.Skilled

11.1 59.4 29.5

5.3

41.9 52.8 9

(1=agree 2= disagree
contents 6. To fulfill a school requirement.

3= no comment)
1 % 62.0 46.2 2 % 15.8 12.6 3 % 22.1 41.2 2.46 .75 2.33 .69 M SD

7. To understand English speaking people and their way of life. 8. To get a better job. 9. To make friends with foreign language speakers. 10. To be an educated person. 11. To think and behave like an English speaking person 12. To read the original publications. 13. To leave Taiwan and become a member of American society. 14. To study abroad. 15. To promote educational and cultural background. 16. To pass exams. 17. To merit social recognition.
20

76.1 41.3 43.8 8.1 32.3 12.8

5.7 11.3 16.9 53.0 20.8 41.9

18.2 47.3 39.3 38.9 46.9 45.3

2.70 .57 2.29 .66 2.26 .73 1.55 .64 2.11 .72 1.70 .68

34.7 59.6 73.6 49.8

17.7 8.1 6.3 13.5

47.6 32.3 20.0 36.6

2.16 .70 2.51 .64 2.67 .59 2.36 .71

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language

21

Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan 18. To travel abroad. 19. I like the countries in which English is spoken. 20. English seems of great importance today. 21. I like the English speaking people. Instrumental Orientation (even numbers) Integrative Orientation (odd numbers) Total
III. Attitudes toward English learning (1=agree 2= disagree 3= no comment) 1 % 2 % 3 % 20.5 2.64 .61 M SD 65.6 30.9 67.0 27.4 7.2 20.1 6.9 18.8 27.2 49.0 26.0 53.7 2.58 .62 2.10 .70 2.59 .61 2.08 .67 2.44 .35 2.12 .38 2.28 .32

contents

22. English is important, because the people who speak it are 72.2 7.3 important. 23. English is an international language, everyone should learn English. 24. Every educated person should learn English. 25. I am not really interested in English; I learn it just because it is a required course in school. 26. I wish I could speak English fluently. 27. I hope to make friends with English speaking people. 28. I enjoy listening to English songs and news broadcasts. 29. I enjoy speaking English. 30. I enjoy reading English newspaper, magazines, or original publications. 32. In addition to English, I want to learn an additional foreign language in the future.
66.0 7.9

26.1

2.58 .63

38.8 38.2

21.2 31.9

39.9 29.9

2.17 .75 2.06 .83

71.6 40.5 30.6 17.0 9.1

4.5 11.0 22.4 30.5 44.7

23.8 48.4 46.9 52.5 46.2

2.67 .55 2.29 .65 2.08 .72 1.86 .67 1.64 .64

31. I enjoy writing diary, letters, or compositions in English. 4.7

58.1

63.5 10.9

31.8 30.9

1.41 .58 2.30 .66

33. I like to have chances to know other country's culture, so 47.7 13.1 39.2 2.17 .83 I hope to study abroad. 34. I have more difficulties in speaking and listening when I 57.3 16.7 25.9 2.19 .64 learn English. 35. Generally speaking, most Americans are friendly, and courteous. 36. I hope to travel to an English speaking country. 37. I expect to have more practical teaching material for us to learn, because I am not satisfied with the present textbook we use.
21 36.5 17.5 45.9 2.13 .73

43.3 16.7

12.4 16.5

44.3 66.8

2.13 .64 1.92 .49

22

34.7 13.6 51.6 1.76 .61

38. I expect to have teachers who are native speakers of English. 39. I hope to have more English classes in school. Total
IV. Motivational Intensity (1=agree 2= disagree

20.5

19.6

59.8

1.88 .52

40. I hope to study abroad in the summer or winter vacation. 42.6 11.6 45.7 2.47 .68
2.19 .29 3= no comment) 1 % 2 % 27.2 3 % 45.0 2.34 .70 M SD

contents 41. If English were not taught in school, I would: 1) not bother learning English at all. 2) pick up English in everyday situations (i.e., read English books and newspapers, try to speak it whenever possible, etc.). 3) try to obtain lessons in English somewhere else.

27.8

42. When I have a problem understanding something we are 13.1 54.6 32.2 2.40 .76 learning in English class, I: 1) just forget about it. 2) only seek help just before the exam. 3) immediately ask the teacher for help. 43. Considering how I study English, I can honestly say that 20.6 44.7 34.6 2.18 .71 I: 1) will pass on the basis of sheer luck or intelligence because I do very little work. 2) do just enough work to get along. 3) really try to learn English. 44. When it comes to English homework, I: 1) just skim over it. 2) put some effort into it, but not as much as I could. 3) work very carefully, making sure I understand everything.
14.7 57.3 28.0 2.30 .68

45. I actively think about what I have learned in my English 16.3 74.8 8.9 class: 1) hardly ever. 2) once in a while. 3) very frequently. 46. When I am in English class, I: 1) never say anything. 2) answer only the easier questions.
33.0 57.2 9.7

2.00 .57

2.21 .66

22

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language

23

Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan 3) volunteer answers as much as possible.

47. If my teacher wanted someone to do an extra English assignment, I would: 1) definitely not volunteer. 2) only do it if the teacher asked me directly. 3) definitely volunteer.

20.1 70.9 9.0

2.00 .63

10.2 55.1 34.6 2.24 .62 48. After I get my English assignments back, I: 1) just throw them in my desk and forget them. 2) look them over, but don't bother correcting mistakes. 3) always read carefully, or rewrite them, correcting my mistakes. 24.1 39.8 36.0 2.11 .76 49. When I hear an English song on the radio, I: 1) change the station. 2) listen to the music, paying attention only to the easy words. 3) listen carefully and try to understand all the words.

50.If there were a local English TV station, I would: 1) never watch it. 2) turn it on occasionally. 3) try to watch it often. Total

25.3 65.9 8.8

1.83 .56

2.04 .38

V. Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (1=agree 2= disagree 3= no comment)

contents 51. I like to think or read about math questions. 52. I like to set up what if experiments. 53. I can calculate numbers easily in my head. 54. I enjoy computer and any math games.

1 % 33.7 65.1 11.6 17.5

2 % 32.5 11.2 52.5 43.6

3 % 33.7 23.6 35.8 38.9

SD

2.00 .81 2.53 .69 1.58 .68 1.73 .73

55. I organize things according to categories and in patterns. 39.2 21.1 39.6 2.17 .75 56. I enjoy math classes in school.
12.3 60.6 27.0 1.51 .70

57. I like to use different methods to solve problems in math 15.8 54.8 29.4 1.60 .74 class. 58. I like to use numbers or symbols to express my ideas. 59. I believe that most things are logical and rational.
23.5 33.9 40.9 27.2 35.6 38.9 1.82 .78 2.06 .77

23

24

64.4 11.1 24.5 2.53 .68 1.95 .41

60. I like to find out how things work. total

VI. Verbal/Linguistic Intelligence (1=agree 2= disagree 3= no comment)

contents

1 %

2 %

3 %

SD

61. I can grasp the main ideas easily when I read something. 35.7 21.5 42.8 2.14 .74 62. English, social studies, and history were easier for me in 56.3 20.7 23.0 2.35 .80 school than math and science. 63. I feel comfortable to give a speech and talk to people. 64. I consider myself with good writing ability. 65. I can remember names, places and numbers easily. 66. I can pronounce every word with ease. 67. I easily remember nice turns of phrase or memorable quotes and use them deftly in conversation. 68. I can keep the point when talking or writing. 69. I enjoy word games, such as doing crossword puzzles. 70. I get more out of listening to news on the radio and hearing speeches. Total
VII. Visual/Spatial Intelligence (1=agree 2= disagree 3= no comment) 1 % 2 % 23.6 9.4 13.8 32.3 39.0 29.1 3 % 34.4 20.0 31.8 39.6 34.4 36.4 2.18 2.40 2.40 1.95 1.87 2.05 .79 .72 .72 .77 .80 .79 M SD 19.8 43.6 36.6 1.76 .76 11.9 51.1 36.9 1.60 .69 35.3 23.0 41.6 2.12 .75 23.2 29.1 47.6 1.93 .72 15.9 41.8 42.3 1.74 .71

17.9 34.7 47.4 1.83 .70 15.9 36.0 48.0 1.79 .69 32.1 24.7 43.1 2.07 .75

1.93

.40

contents 71. I prefer a map to written directions. 72. I prefer movies to books. 73. I like to create visual images to help to learn. 74. I can easily find my way around unfamiliar territory. 75. I enjoy constructing models. 76. If I have to memorize something, I drew a diagram to help me remember. 78. I like to visualize some solution. 79. I enjoy putting puzzles together. 80. I pay attention to the colors. Total

42.0 70.6 54.4 28.0 26.6 34.5

77. I pay attention to the prettier or special things around me. 70.0 6.8
26.5 24.2 41.1 25.8 27.0 12.2

23.2 47.7 48.8 46.6

2.63 2.00 1.97 2.28 2.19

.60 .72 .71 .67 .38

VIII. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (1=agree 2= disagree 3= no comment)

contents

SD

24

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language

25

Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan

% % 21.8 % 32.9 2.23 .78

81. I enjoy running, jumping, etc.

45.3

82. I like working with my hands at some concrete activities, 23.2 36.8 39.9 1.86 .76 such as model-building. 83. I frequently use hand gestures or other forms of body language when conversing with someone. 84. I can easily imitate others gestures or talking. 85. I can master new sports easily. 86. I enjoy dancing to the music. 87. I am good at some physical activities. 88. I can dance beautifully. 89. I like to construct models. 90. I find it hard to sit quietly for a long time. Total
IX. Musical Intelligence (1=agree 2= disagree 3= no comment) 1 % 2 % 12.9 43.2 4.2 3 % 25.0 26.7 12.2 2.48 1.86 2.79 .71 .84 .50 M SD 36.4 21.0 42.6 2.15 .74

34.2 28.2 37.4 34.9 15.6 31.7 53.6

24.7 34.8 23.7 32.0 41.2 37.0 18.6

40.9 36.9 38.8 33.0 43.2 31.2 27.8

2.09 1.93 2.13 2.02 1.74 1.94 2.34 2.04

.76 .79 .77 .81 .71 .82 .77 .42

contents 91. I tend to hum to myself when working. 92. I play a musical instrument quite well. 93. I like to have some background music when working or studying. 94. I can tell when music sounds off-key. 95. I know the tunes to many different songs or musical pieces. 96. I am easily touched by music. 97. I have a good sense of rhythm. 98. I participate in many musical competitions. 99. I can remember the melodies of many songs. 100. I enjoy music and reading related information. Total

62.0 30.0 83.5

35.4 27.9

30.3 29.9

34.2 42.1

2.04 1.97

.81 .76

73.3 27.9 19.8 54.2 56.3

8.2 26.0 56.2 15.7 13.0

18.4 46.1 23.9 29.9 30.7

2.64 2.01 1.63 2.38 2.43 2.22

.62 .73 .79 .74 .71 .42

X. Interpersonal Intelligence (1=agree 2= disagree 3= no comment)

contents 101. I have several very close friends. 102. I always participate in group activities. 103. I like working with others in groups.
25

1 % 63.3 37.4 71.5

2 % 7.0 20.4 5.9

3 % 29.7 42.1 22.6

SD

2.56 2.16 2.65

.62 .74 .58

26

59.6 14.7 31.8 25.4 30.4 32.7 34.2 6.5 43.6 22.2 18.9 22.9 25.4 26.8 33.9 41.6 46.0 55.7 46.6 41.8 39.0 2.52 1.71 2.09 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.20 (1=agree 2= disagree 3= no comment) 1 (%) 2 % 13.7 18.9 47.3 35.4 8.6 17.3 3 % 35.5 32.9 34.1 38.3 33.8 37.6 2.37 2.29 1.71 1.90 2.48 2.27 .71 .76 .76 .78 .65 .74 M SD .61 .70 .72 .66 .72 .76 .77 .39

104. I care about others. 105. People have called me a born leader. 106. I consequently participate in group discussion. 107. People often come to see me for help and advice. 108. I can sense clearly how other people feel about me. 109. I get along well with people. 110. I join such activities as to keep friendship with people. Total
XI. Intrapersonal Intelligence

contents 111. I recognize my own strengths and weakness. 112. I like to work alone. 113. I always work alone without cooperating with others. 114. I know my goal and work for it. 115. I accept others comments. 116. I can express myself precisely. 118. I tolerate others mistakes 119. I learn from my mistakes. 120. I keep a journal and record my thoughts. total
XII. Naturalist Intelligence (1=agree 2= disagree

50.8 48.1 18.6 26.3 57.6 45.0

117. When I get hurt or disappointed, I bounce back quickly. 41.3 25.1 33.6 2.16 .79
53.2 52.8 33.3 10.8 9.2 37.2 36.0 37.9 29.5 2.42 2.43 1.95 2.20 3= no comment) 1 % 2 % 3 % M SD .67 .65 .83 .35

contents

121. I am good at recognizing different types of animals and 20.7 40.3 39.0 1.80 .75 plants. 122. I collect specimens of animals and plants. 123. I care about small animals. 124. I collect many special stones and stuff. 125. I feel happy and confident to spend time in the outdoors, such as camping. 126. I enjoy learning the names of living things in our environment, such as flowers and plants. 127. I enjoy collecting information about historical sites. 128. I enjoy reading books related to astronomy.
10.0 37.3 12.2 46.3 63.2 23.8 59.1 19.5 26.8 38.9 28.7 34.1 1.46 2.13 1.52 2.26 .67 .77 .70 .76

16.8

40.4

42.7

1.76

.72

15.7 19.9

48.0 44.3

36.3 35.8

1.67 1.75

.73 .76

26

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language

27

Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan 129. I support environmental protection activities.

25.1 26.1 48.7 1.98 .71

130. I spend some time reading newspaper, watching TV, or 49.9 14.1 36.0 2.35 .71 listening to radio for getting current information. Total
XIII. Belief about foreign language learning (1=agree 2= disagree 3= no comment) 1.87 .38

Contents 131. It is important to speak English with anexcellent pronunciation.

1 % 69.3

2 % 6.9

3 % 23.8

SD

2.62 .61

132. You shouldn't say anything in English until you can say 23.3 46.9 29.7 1.76 .80 it correctly. 133. People who are good at mathematics or science are not 18.2 51.0 30.7 1.66 .76 good at learning foreign languages. 134. I have a special ability for learning foreign languages.
18.4 40.4 41.2 26.8 1.77 .73 2.53 .66

135. The most important part of learning a foreign language 63.5 9.7 is learning vocabulary words.
65.1 9.2 136. If beginning students are permitted to make errors in English without correction, it will be difficult for them to speak correctly (to correct errors) later on.

25.7

2.55 .65

137. The most important part of learning a foreign language 55.9 12.3 31.8 2.43 .70 is learning the grammar. 138. The most important part of learning English is learning 45.0 17.3 37.6 2.27 .74 how to translate from my native language. 139. It is easier to read and write English than to speak and understand it. 140. Language learning involves a lot of memorization. total
VI. Anxiety about foreign language learning (1=agree 2= disagree 3= no comment) 1 % 2 % 3 % M SD 34.8 29.3 35.9 2.05 .79

67.1

8.9

24.0

2.58 .65 2.22 .32

contents

141. I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in 35.5 27.9 36.5 2.07 .79 my English class. 142. I don't worry about making mistakes in English class. 143. I tremble when I know that I am going to be called on in English class.
21.8 61.8 45.3 12.7 32.9 25.5 2.23 .78 2.49 .71

27

28

144. It frightens me when I don't understand what the teacher 52.7 13.3 34.0 2.39 .71 is saying in English class. 145. During English class, I find myself thinking about things that have nothing to do with the course. 146. It embarrassed me to volunteer answers in my English class. 147. Even if I am well prepared for English class, I feel anxious about it. 148. I am afraid that my English teacher is ready to correct every mistake I make.
51.4 14.9 33.6 2.36 .73

45.9

19.3

34.8

2.26 .76

48.3

21.1

30.6

2.27 .78

45.0

21.0

33.9

2.23 .77

149. I always feel that the other students speak English better 61.8 10.5 27.7 2.51 .67 than I do. 150. I feel more tense and nervous in my English class than 24.8 38.5 36.7 1.86 .78 in my other classes. Total
VII. Strategies of foreign language learning (1=agree 2= disagree 3= no comment) 1 2 % 3 % M SD 2.27 .42

contents

151. When learning a new word, I create associates between 40.7 22.0 37.2 2.18 .77 new material and what I already know. 152. I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them. 153. I use flashcards to remember new English words. 154. I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign.
23.8 33.8 42.3 1.89 .75

28.2 35.0

34.3 25.8

37.4 39.2

1.93 .78 2.09 .77

155. I watch TV shows or movies spoken in English or listen 29.6 30.0 40.4 1.99 .79 to English radio programs. 156. When I can't think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures. 157. I read English without looking up every new word. 158. I try to find out a better way to learn English. 159. I encourage myself to speak even when I am afraid of making a mistake. 160. If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again. Total
28 32.7 30.5 36.8 2.02 .79

46.0 46.8 35.9

19.6 14.8 23.2

34.3 38.4 40.8

2.26 .76 2.31 .71 2.12 .75

54.9

13.9

31.2

2.40 .72

2.12 .42

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language

29

Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan

XIII. Learning style preferences (1=agree 2= disagree 3= no comment) 1 % 2 % 3 % 31.1 2.52 .64 M SD

contents

161. When the teacher tells me the instructions I learn better. 60.7 8.1

162. I learn better by reading what the teacher writes on the 42.8 13.4 43.8 2.29 .69 chalkboard. 163. I learn more when I study with a group. 164. When I study alone, I remember things better.
59.4 18.6 9.1 40.5 31.5 40.8 2.50 .65 1.77 .73

165. I understand things better in class when I participate in 28.2 27.8 43.9 2.00 .75 role-playing. 166. I learn more when I can make a model of something. 167. I remember things I have heard in class better than things I have read. 168. When I do things in class, I learn better. 169. I prefer to study in a quiet place. 170. I prefer to study in the early morning. total
35.1 37.7 21.3 17.5 43.6 44.7 2.13 .73 2.20 .71

48.4 60.6 20.9

15.0 8.1 31.7

36.6 31.4 47.3

2.33 .72 2.52 .64 1.89 .71 2.21 .34

29

30

2545 (80 ) (45 )40 (Gardner, H.,1993 Gardner, R.C.,1985Horwitz, et.al., 1986Oxford, 1990Reid, 1984 SPSS 15 :

30

Hou Yi-anEd.DMultiple Intelligences and Foreign Language

31

Learning- A Case Study in Taiwan

31