Multiple Intelligences MI Representation PDF

Multiple Intelligences (MI) Representation in Prospect Series and the MI Profile of
Iranian Junior High School Students: A Compatibility Perspective

[PP: 52-62]
Seyyedeh-Mahsa Amini
Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Humanities, Arak University
Arak, Iran
Moussa Ahmadian
(Corresponding Author)
Arak, Iran
Hooshang Yazdani
Arak, Iran
Hamid-Reza Dowlatabadi
Arak, Iran
ABSTRACT
Textbooks play a central role in teaching and learning processes, and textbook evaluation helps
teachers to be familiar with merits and demerits of a particular textbook, to adapt and supplement
textbooks, and to develop new materials. This study aims to evaluate Prospect series, the junior high
school English textbooks in Iran, based on Bothelho‟s (2003) checklist on the representation of
Gardner‟s (1983) multiple intelligences (MI) theory and to analyze their compatibility with Iranian
junior high school students‟ (IJHSS) MI profiles based on Multiple Intelligences Developmental
Assessment Scale )MIDAS-kids( questionnaire. To this end, 68 English teachers and 300 high school
students completed Bothelho‟s checklist and MIDAS questionnaire, respectively. Descriptive statistics
and chi square goodness-of-fit analyses were applied. The results revealed that visual/spatial,
verbal/linguistic, and intrapersonal intelligences were the most frequent types of intelligences
represented in Prospect series, while interpersonal, linguistic, and intrapersonal intelligences were
dominant in IJHSS‟ MI profiles. The paper concludes that student‟s books and workbooks of Prospect
series did not cater for the interpersonal, kinesthetic, musical, and naturalistic intelligences of IJHSS.
The findings of the study may have some implications for textbook designers to take into account all
types of intelligences to satisfy teachers and learners, and thus to make textbooks more interesting and
more effective.
Keywords: Textbook, Textbook Evaluation, Prospect Series, Multiple Intelligences (MI), MI Profile
ARTICLE The paper received on Reviewed on Accepted after revisions on
INFO 25/03/2019 20/04/2019 07/07/2019
Suggested citation:
Amini, S.M., Ahmadian, M., Yazdani, H. & Dowlatabadi, H.R. (2019). Multiple Intelligences (MI)
Representation in Prospect Series and the MI Profile of Iranian Junior High School Students: A Compatibility
Perspective. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 7(2). 52-62.
1. Introduction Razmjoo and Jozaghi (2010)

Textbooks are the most extensively emphasize the need for a framework for
applied resources in English teaching classes textbook analysis and evaluation based on
and provide a road map and security for students‟ different capabilities and needs.
learners (Bahumaid, 2008). A textbook or Accordingly, they refer to the MI theory
course book is a language-learning material (Gardner, 1983) as a framework for the
whose evaluation refers to the systematic analysis and evaluation of textbooks.
appraisal of its value with regard to its aims Enhancing students‟ understanding is the
(Tomlinson, 2011). McCullagh (2010) ultimate aspiration of the MI theory through
maintains that textbook evaluation helps which students‟ different capacities, needs,
teachers in deciding on an appropriate interests, preferences, and satisfactions are
textbook, in being familiar with merits and identified (Gardner & Hatch, 1989).
demerits of a particular textbook, in The MI theory refers to different
comparing different textbooks, in adaptation intelligences and capabilities of human
and supplementation of textbooks, and in the beings in processing information with
development of materials. respect to their specific intelligence profile
Multiple Intelligences (MI) Representation… S.M. Amini, M. Ahmadian, H. Yazdani & H.R. Dowlatabadi
(Gardner, 1983). Intelligences are important types of individual‟s capacities to process

dimensions in the discussion of individual information.
differences in education, language teaching, Primarily, Gardner (1983) introduced
textbook selection, and designing textbooks seven different and independent
(Gholampour, Kasmani, & Talebi, 2013; intelligences in human beings, namely
Nicholson-Nelson, 1998). Regarding the verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical,
role of the MI theory in language teaching musical, spatial-visual, bodily-kinesthetic,
and learning, Kirkgoz (2010) asserts that the interpersonal, and intrapersonal
MI theory can be used in the language intelligences. Later, due to the evidence of
curricula and the design of textbooks. By the presence of two new intelligences, he
analyzing ELT textbooks in terms of MI added naturalistic (Gardner, 1995) and
representation, the possible complementary existential intelligences (Gardner, 1999) in
exercises may be identified (Gholampour et order to extend his theory of MI.
al. 2013). In spite of the existing research According to Gardner (2011), verbal-
body on textbooks, the Prospect series has linguistic intelligence refers to the capacity
not been touched upon to date regarding the to use language through listening, speaking,
representation of MI. As the series makes reading, and writing. Musical intelligence
the textbooks which are used in Iranian high relates to the sensitivity to melody, tonal
schools, the evaluation of the series from patterns, and rhythm. Logical-mathematical
different perspectives, including the MI intelligence deals with logical thinking and
theory, may be of educational values and reasoning both inductively and deductively;
benefits for textbook writers and teachers. it involves the ability to work with abstract
Thus, to fill in the gap, the present study symbols and numbers. Spatial-visual
aimed to analyze these textbooks, including intelligence deals with space and visual
student‟s books and workbooks, in terms of perceptions like visual arts, architecture,
the representation of MI. By knowing and painting etc.. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence
understanding students‟ MI profiles and deals with the ability to express emotions
their preferences, appropriate learning and ideas by using one‟s body and physical
activities that improve their learning process skills like dancing and acting. Interpersonal
can be distinguished and effective classroom intelligence relates to the ability to
activities can also be designed (Emmiyati, communicate with others and being able to
Rasyid, Rahman, Arsyad, & Dirawan, demonstrate emotions and feelings in the
2014). In view of these, the study establishes community of others. Intrapersonal
Iranian junior high school students‟ (IJHSS) intelligence is the ability to understand
MI profiles through Multiple Intelligences personal feelings, thoughts, and one‟s own
Developmental Assessment Scale )MIDAS- manner. In defining naturalistic intelligence,
kids( and MI profiles of Prospect series via Gardner (2006) refers to the understanding
Botelho‟s (2003) checklist to explore the of nature, natural events, living things, and
amount of their compatibility. the ability to distinguish organisms from
2. Literature Review entities. Existential intelligence is the
Gardner (1983) introduced the theory capacity to locate oneself in the cosmos. It
of Multiple Intelligences (MI). His theory relates to the ability to understand the
“is biologically based…[and makes] a claim meaning of life and death and to the capacity
about how the brain has evolved and how it to ask questions about life and death
is organized … [each] intelligence has its (Gardner, 2006). Existential intelligence is
own developmental trajectory” (p.30). disregarded in this study due to using
Gardner (2006) states that after the demise Botelho‟s (2003) checklist and Shearer‟s
of the unitary concept of intelligence and (1996) MIDAS-Kids questionnaire in which
intelligence quotient (IQ), these concepts existential intelligence is not taken into
needed to be modified. Gardner (1983, account.
2011) defines intelligence in three different The MI theory concerns individuals
ways. To him, intelligence is “[a] property disparity in processing information; thus, an
of all human beings…[a] dimension on individual‟s profile of MI might well differ
which human beings differ…[t]he way in in doing different tasks and solving various
which one carries out a task in virtue of problems (Gardner, 1999). In this view, the
one‟s goals…” (2011: xv). This last MI profiles of students can aid knowing
definition is closely related to his theory of their preferences; therefore, appropriate
MI. Gardner (1983) maintains that IQ practices and activities can be designed and
concept needs to be redefined to include all presented to improve their learning process
(Emmiyati et al., 2014). To do so, textbooks,
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org) ISSN:2308-5460

Volume: 07 Issue: 02 April-June, 2019
Page | 53
by providing learning activities, which In their analysis, they observed some

should satisfy students‟ needs (Byrd & patterns in the frequency and distribution of
Schuemann, 2014) and be appropriate to intelligences concerning the levels of
their learning styles, emotions, and textbooks. Estaji and Nafisi (2014)
intellectual engagements (Tomlinson, 2011), examined four EFL young learners‟
may motivate them to use their intelligences textbooks of Up and Away in English series
(Currie, 2003). Furthermore, MI-based in terms of MI representation. They realized
teaching materials and strategies positively that existential intelligence was absent in the
affect the development of students‟ MI that, given textbooks. Taaseh, Mohebbi, and
later, will influence their future success in Mirzaei (2014) scrutinized Right Path to
their education (Winarti, Yuanita, & Nur, English series to analyze the types of
2019). intelligences represented in these textbooks
Some studies have been conducted on based on Botelho‟s (2003) checklist and
the evaluation of English textbooks in terms explored Iranian students‟ preferred
of the representation of the MI theory. For intelligences. They found that the
instance, Kirkgöz (2010) investigated the intelligence profiles of students were not
frequency of representation of each type of compatible with the represented
intelligences in five ELT textbooks, which intelligences in textbooks. Ebadi, Sabzevari,
were locally published in Turkey. She and Beigzadeh (2015) studied the
identified naturalistic and existential representation of MI in Touchstone series
intelligences as the least represented and revealed that verbal and visual
intelligences in the textbooks. In addition, intelligences were the most frequent types,
Ibragimova (2011) evaluated the while musical, bodily, and naturalistic
representation of the MI theory in the intelligences were the least frequent types
English textbooks of intermediate-level that were represented in Touchstone series.
classes of Eastern Mediterranean University They also compared students‟ books with
in Cyprus. She also identified the students‟ workbooks and concluded that students‟
MI profiles. She concluded that the MI books reflected various types of
profile of students and textbooks were not intelligences in comparison with workbooks.
compatible. Arikan, Soydan, and İşler The above-mentioned studies, unanimously,
(2014) explored the extent of reflection of concluded that, in these textbooks, verbal-
MI theory in two English textbooks, namely linguistic intelligence was the most
Texture of English 4 and My English 5 that prominent type of intelligences; however,
were used in state schools of Turkey. the researchers did not pay attention to the
According to their findings, existential balance of distribution of the representation
intelligence was not included in the given of intelligences in textbooks.
textbooks. In addition, they revealed that As far as the balance of distribution of
verbal intelligence was the most represented MI was concerned, only Jado (2015)
type of intelligence in these textbooks. investigated the level of balance of MI in
Wattanborwornwong and Klavinitchai Arabic language textbooks in analytical
(2016) studied the similarities and descriptive approaches. He concluded that
differences of the representation of MI in all types of intelligences are required to be
locally-designed textbooks in English as a represented in these textbooks. He dealt with
foreign language (EFL) and in Chinese as a the quantitative as well as the qualitative
foreign language (CFL) textbooks used in representations of different intelligences in
primary schools in Thailand. Their study the Arabic textbooks. The quantitative
revealed that the representation of spatial representations were more highlighted and
intelligence in both textbook series was the featured.
most prominent intelligence. In the same Textbooks play a central role in
vein, musical and naturalistic intelligences teaching and learning processes (Richards,
were the least represented types. Likewise, 2001). The English textbooks that are
Omer (2017) analyzed the content of North currently used in Iranian junior high schools,
Star textbooks using Botelho‟s (2003) Prospect series, are the main resources for
checklist in Kurdistan region, Iraq. He teaching English to students at grades 7, 8
revealed that verbal intelligence was the and 9 at schools. Due to the significance of
dominant one. English textbooks in the first official
Similarly, in the context of Iran, presentation of the English language to
Razmjoo and Jozaghi (2010) investigated Iranian students and in language learning of
the representation of MI in Top Notch series. Iranian junior high school students (IJHSS),
Cite this article as: Amini, S.M., Ahmadian, M., Yazdani, H. & Dowlatabadi, H.R. (2019). Multiple Intelligences
(MI) Representation in Prospect Series and the MI Profile of Iranian Junior High School Students: A
Compatibility Perspective. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 7(2). 52-62.
Page | 54
this study focuses on the Prospect series EFL male and female junior high school
including Prospect 1 for grade 7, Prospect 2 English teachers participated in analyzing
for grade 8, and Prospect 3 for grade 9, in textbooks in terms of the representation of
order to analyze the representation of MI in MI using Botelho‟s (2003) checklist. Both
them through Botelho‟s (2003) checklist. male and female junior high school English
Furthermore, the research compares the MI language teachers and students was included
profiles of the textbooks with the MI profiles in this study; so, gender was not taken into
of IJHSS to see the amount of their account. All of the teachers were B.A.
compatibility. holders of translation studies, teaching
The steps to conduct the present study English as a foreign language, and/or
are three-fold: first, it quantitatively English literature, with 10-15 years of
analyzes the Prospect series with regard to experience in teaching English in Iranian
the amount and distribution of the junior high schools.
representation of MI. Second, the MI profile 3.2. Instrumentation
of IJHSS, which reveals the frequency and The textbook series including Prospect
dominance of different intelligences of 1, 2, and 3 designed for grades 7, 8, and 9 in
them, is established. Third, it examines the new junior high school educational
extent to which the MI profiles of IJHSS are curriculum were used for analysis from the
compatible with the MI profiles of the perspective of the representation of the MI.
Iranian junior high school English textbooks Botelho‟s (2003) checklist for
(IJHSET). Thus, the study attempts to textbook analysis and evaluation, which is
answer the following questions: based on the MI theory, was used to analyze
1. Is there any significant difference between the textbooks. It examines both the presence
MI representation in the student‟s book and and the frequency of the representation of
work book of Prospect 1 and the MI profiles each of the intelligences in textbooks.
of IJHSS at grade 7? Botelho (2003) presents an eight-part
2. Is there any significant difference between checklist consisting of the relevant
MI representation in the student‟s book and information about eight intelligences and
work book of Prospect 2 and the MI profiles records of the activities, techniques,
of IJHSS at grade 8? materials, and descriptions associated with
3. Is there any significant difference between each intelligence (Appendix). Taaseh,
MI representation in the student‟s book and Mohebbi and Mirzaei (2014) evaluated
work book of Prospect 3 and the MI profiles Botelho‟s (2003) checklist and estimated
of IJHSS at grade 9? Cronbach‟s Alpha reliability 0.81 for it. For
In response to the above-mentioned this study, the researchers themselves also
research questions, the following null estimated Cronbach‟s Alpha reliability as
hypotheses were formulated. 0.76 for the Botelho‟s checklist.
1. There is no significant difference between Furthermore, Multiple Intelligences
MI representation in the student‟s book and Developmental Assessment Scale (MIDAS-
work book of Prospect 1 and the MI profiles Kids) (Shearer, 1996), which has been
of IJHSS at grade 7. translated into Persian (P-MIDAS), was
2. There is no significant difference between used for measuring the students‟ MI profiles
MI representation in the student‟s book and at grades 7, 8, and 9. MIDAS-Kids is a 93-
work book of Prospect 2 and the MI profiles item self-report questionnaire for measuring
of IJHSS at grade 8. MI that can be run to participants of 10-15
3. There is no significant difference between years old; grades 7, 8, and 9 are included in
MI representation in the student‟s book and this age-range in Iran. It is a six-point Likert
work book of Prospect 3 and the MI profiles scale from never or very little to always that
of IJHSS at grade 9. takes 20-30 minutes to be completed.
3. Methodology Shearer (2012) investigated the reliability
3.1 Participants and validity of the original MIDAS and it
For establishing the MI profile of has been proven to be valid and reliable.
IJHSS, 300 Iranian male and female junior Saeidi, Ostvar, Shearer, and Jafarabadi
high school students who were randomly (2012) translated MIDAS questionnaire into
selected from Tehran state, Iran, participated Persian and estimated the reliability of P-
in the study. They were in grades 7, 8, and 9 MIDAS, ranging from .82 to .90 and proved
(each grade 100 participants) studying it as valid. For this research, the researchers
Prospect 1, 2, and 3, respectively, as their themselves also estimated Cronbach‟s Alpha
English course books. Furthermore, for reliability as 0.78. Due to the copyright
analyzing Prospect 1, 2, and 3, 68 Iranian

Page | 55
rules, MIDAS cannot be included in the

appendix.
3.3 Procedure
To begin with, the researchers trained
68 Iranian junior high school English
teachers about the MI theory and the
analysis of Prospect series using Botelho‟s
(2003) checklist. In this training, the
procedure for sorting the type of
intelligences and counting the frequency and
distribution of the representation of MI in all
the units of these textbooks was practiced.
Later, the teacher participants analyzed the
content of Prospect series to measure the
frequency and distribution of the
representation of MI in all these textbooks.
Then, the student participants completed
MIDAS-Kids for establishing their MI
profiles. The collected data were submitted
to data analysis for comparing the
compatibility of MI profiles of Prospect
series with the participants‟ MI profiles.
3.4 Data Analysis Based on Table 1, it can be observed
After collecting the data, descriptive that the interpersonal intelligence in each
statistics was used to analyze the data grade has the highest mean, followed closely
relating to the students‟ MI profiles at grades by linguistic and intrapersonal intelligences.
7, 8, and 9 and the data of MI profiles of Naturalist intelligence has the lowest mean,
student‟s books and workbooks of Prospect which is noticeably lower than that of other
1, 2, and 3. In addition, in order to find any intelligences in each grade. The following
significant difference between MI graphic representation (Figure 1) makes the
representations in student‟s books and result more easily noticeable.
workbooks of Prospect series and MI
profiles of IJHSS, goodness-of-fit chi-square
analyses were employed for analyzing and
comparing the nominal data. Then, for
calculating the strength of the relationship of
the data, Cramer's V was utilized.
4. Results
The research questions sought to
compare the MI profiles of IJHSET, namely,
Prospect 1, 2, and 3, including student‟s
books and workbooks, with the MI profiles
of IJHSS to see the amount of their
compatibility. For this purpose, the
descriptive statistics of the main scales of
the IJHSS‟ MI profiles was calculated
(Table 1).
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of IJHSS’ Main
Scales
Figure 1: Intelligence profiles of IJHSS
Furthermore, the frequency of
representation of each intelligence in
student‟s books of Prospect series was also
calculated. Table 2 displays the frequency.
Page | 56
Table 2: Frequency of representation of each the most frequent intelligences in Prospect 3

intelligence in IJHSET (student’s books) workbook. Figure 3 shows the graphic
representation of the intelligence profiles of
workbooks of Prospect series.
Table 2 demonstrates that in student‟s

books of Prospect 1 and 2, spatial,
linguistic, and intrapersonal intelligences
and in Prospect 3 student‟s book linguistic,
spatial, and intrapersonal intelligences are
frequently represented. In these textbooks,
naturalistic intelligence is the least
represented intelligence. The following
graphic representation displays the results of
the intelligence profiles of student‟s books Figure 3: Frequency of representation of each
intelligence in Prospect series (workbooks)
of Prospect series (Figure 2).
In order to find if there is any
significant difference between MI
representations in student‟s book and
workbook of Prospect 1 and MI profile of
IJHSS at grades 7, goodness-of-fit chi-
square analyses were run (Table 4).
Table 4: Chi-square statistics for the MI profiles
of Grade 7 students and of Prospect 1 student’s
book and workbook
Figure 2: Frequency of representation of each As it can be seen from Table 4, there

intelligence in Prospect series (student’s books) are significant differences between the
The same statistics was done for representations of musical, kinesthetic,
workbooks of Prospect series as Table 2; the logical, interpersonal, and natural
results are presented in Table 3. intelligences in Prospect 1 student‟s book
Table 3: Frequency of representation of each and workbook and the MI profile of IJHSS
intelligence in IJHSET (workbooks) at grade 7. As a result, the first null
hypothesis is rejected. Thus, there is not any
compatibility between most of the
intelligences, namely musical, kinesthetic,
logical, interpersonal, and naturalistic
intelligences represented in Prospect 1
student‟s book and workbook and the MI
profile of grade 7 students.
Table 3 reveals that while spatial, To answer the second research
linguistic, and intrapersonal intelligences, question, the goodness-of-fit chi-square
respectively, are the most frequent analyses were used to look for any
intelligences in Prospect 1 workbook, significant difference between MI
linguistic, intrapersonal, and spatial representations in student‟s book and
intelligences, respectively, are the most workbook of Prospect 2 and MI profiles of
frequently represented in Prospect 2 IJHSS at grade 8 (Table 5).
workbook. Moreover, linguistic, spatial and
intrapersonal intelligences are regarded as

Page | 57
Table 5: Chi-square test for the MI profiles of 6, the representations of musical,

Grade 8 students and of Prospect 2 student’s kinesthetic, interpersonal, and naturalistic
book and workbook intelligences in Prospect 3 workbook are
significantly different from grade 9 students‟
MI profile. According to Table 6, the third
null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, Prospect 3
student‟s book and MI profile of grade 9
students are not compatible in terms of
interpersonal and naturalistic intelligences.
In addition, it can be inferred that grade 9
students‟ MI profile is not compatible with
Prospect 3 workbook in terms of the
According to Table 5, there are representations of musical, kinesthetic,
significant differences between the interpersonal, and naturalistic intelligences.
representations of musical, interpersonal, In order to calculate the strength of
and naturalistic intelligences in Prospect 2 relationship of the findings, Cramer's V was
student‟s book and that of the MI profile of used (Table 7).
grade 8 students. The same analysis on Table 7: Strength of relationship of MI profiles
Prospect 2 workbook demonstrates that a of IJHSS and of Prospect series
significant difference exists between grade 8
students‟ MI profile and the representation
of MI in Prospect 2 workbook with respect
to musical, kinesthetic, interpersonal, and
naturalistic intelligences. Based on the
results of Table 5, the second null
hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there is no
compatibility between Prospect 2 student‟s
book and grade 8 students‟ MI profile in
terms of the representation of musical,
interpersonal and naturalistic intelligences.
In addition, the representations of musical,
kinesthetic, interpersonal, and naturalistic
intelligences in Prospect 2 workbook are not
compatible with the MI profile of grade 8 Table 7 shows that the values of
students. Cramer‟s V of the differences between MI
Concerning the third research profiles of IJHSS at grades 7, 8, and 9 and
question, to investigate any significant MI representations in Prospect series
difference between the representations of MI student‟s books and workbooks are
in Prospect 3 student‟s book and workbook significant. To be precise, there are
and MI profile of IJHSS at grade 9, significant differences between the MI
goodness-of-fit chi-square analyses were profile of grade 7 students and MI
calculated (Table 6). representation in Prospect 1 textbooks (for
Table 6: Chi-square test for the MI profiles of student‟s book ρ =.022<.05, Cramer‟s
Grade 9 students and of Prospect 3 student’s V=.089 and for workbook ρ =.027<.05,
book and workbook Cramer‟s V=.083). Similarly, there are
significant differences between the grade 8
students‟ MI profile and MI representation
in Prospect 2 textbooks (for student‟s book
ρ =.043<.05, Cramer‟s V= .063 and for
workbook ρ =.031<.05, Cramer‟s V= .071).
In the same way, there are significant
differences between the MI profile of grade
9 students and MI representation in Prospect
Table 6 indicates that there is a 3 textbooks (for student‟s book ρ =.041<.05,
significant difference between the Cramer‟s V=.062 and for workbook, ρ
representation of interpersonal and =.034<.05, Cramer‟s V=.070). Thus, Tables
naturalistic intelligences in Prospect 3 4, 5, and 6 reveal significant differences in
student‟s book and that of MI profile of the sub-intelligences between MI
grade 9 students. As it can be seen in Table
Page | 58
representation in Prospect series and the MI line with some studies and in contrary with
profiles of IJHSS. some others. For example, Hosseini‟s (2011)
4.1. Discussion conclusion that linguistic intelligence of
The present study aimed to investigate Iranian female EFL learners is dominant
the MI representation in Prospect series, does not support the findings of the present
student‟s books and workbooks, the MI study in which interpersonal intelligence
profiles of IJHSS at grades 7, 8, and 9, and was the dominant intelligence type in IJHSS.
the amount of their compatibility. Regarding It seems that although these two studies
the first research question, the results were carried out in the Iranian culture and
indicated that the MI representation in the context, the difference in findings refers to
student‟s book and workbook of Prospect 1 the difference in the age and gender of the
predominately catered for spatial, linguistic, participants because her study focused on
and intrapersonal intelligences respectively, Iranian female university EFL students and
while grade 7 students, who study Prospect explored their MI profile, while the present
1 textbooks, were highly intelligent in study attended to Iranian male and female
interpersonal, linguistic, and intrapersonal junior high school students. In this regard,
intelligences respectively. As a result, the gender difference seems to be influential in
representations of interpersonal, kinesthetic, the estimates of dominant intelligences
logical, musical, and naturalistic (Furmham, Clark, & Bailey, 1999) and
intelligences in Prospect 1 student‟s book females yield higher scores on verbal
and workbook were not compatible with the intelligence (Furnham, 1996), whereas the
MI profiles of grade 7 students. present study does not take gender
As far as the second research question difference into consideration.
is concerned, the findings were similar to The findings of Ibragimova (2011)
that of the first question in the way that the about the MI profile of Turkish students
representation of MI in Prospect 2 indicated that intrapersonal, logical, and
textbooks, including its student‟s book and kinesthetic intelligences were the most
workbook, chiefly contributed to spatial, dominant and interpersonal and linguistic
linguistic, and intrapersonal intelligences intelligences were the least dominate
respectively, while the MI profile of grade 8 intelligences in Turkish students‟ MI profile.
students, who study Prospect 2 textbooks, In addition, she established the MI profile of
indicated that they were highly intelligent in an English textbook for Turkish students,
interpersonal, linguistic, and intrapersonal namely Success intermediate students‟ and
intelligences respectively. Thus, the workbooks. She found that linguistic,
representations of interpersonal, musical, logical, and naturalistic intelligences were
and naturalistic intelligences in Prospect 2 the most frequent and musical and
student‟s book and the representations of kinesthetic intelligences were the least
interpersonal, kinesthetic, musical, and represented ones. The age of the participants
naturalistic intelligences in Prospect 2 in her study was the same as that of the
workbook were not compatible with the MI present study while their contexts, cultures,
profiles of grade 8 students. and educational systems are different. These
Furthermore, concerning the third might be the causes of differences in
research question, the findings showed that findings. In addition, the English textbooks
interpersonal, linguistic, and intrapersonal including Success intermediate and Prospect
intelligences were dominant in the MI series were two dissimilar textbooks for the
profile of grade 9 students while linguistic, comparison with the MI profiles of students.
spatial, and intrapersonal intelligences were This may be another reason for the
frequently represented in Prospect 3. Thus, incongruity in the findings. Although her
the representations of interpersonal and results are not in agreement with our
naturalistic intelligences in Prospect 3 findings, her conclusion that the MI profiles
student‟s book and the representations of of students and of textbooks were not
interpersonal, kinesthetic, musical, and compatible supports our findings. Moreover,
naturalistic intelligences in Prospect 3 Taaseh, Mohebbi and Mirzaei (2014)
workbook were not compatible with the MI analyzed the MI profile of Right Path to
profiles of grade 9 students. English series and Iranian students‟
The findings show that the MI profiles preferred intelligences. Their conclusion that
of Prospect series student‟s books and the intelligence profiles of students were not
workbooks are not compatible with the MI compatible with the represented
profiles of IJHSS. On establishing the MI intelligences in textbooks supports the
profile of EFL learners, the findings are in results of the present study. It may be

Page | 59
because of the same context, culture, Based on the results, it was found that
educational system, and age of participants. visual/spatial, verbal/linguistic, and
In their study, they used preferred intrapersonal intelligences were the most
intelligences of IJHSS, whereas the present frequent types of intelligences represented in
research was based on the actual yielded Prospect series, while interpersonal,
scores of IJHSS on the MI assessment test. linguistic, and intrapersonal intelligences
Emmiyati et al. (2014) presented MI were dominant intelligences in IJHSS‟ MI
profiles of Indonesian junior secondary profiles. Thus, based on the findings of the
school students. Their results revealed that study, it can be concluded that Prospect
the existential intelligence was the strongest series did not cater for the interpersonal,
intelligence in the MI profiles of Indonesian kinesthetic, musical, and naturalistic
junior secondary school students. Since the intelligences of IJHSS.
present study used Botelho‟s (2003) The findings of the study may have
checklist and Shearer‟s (1996) MIDAS-Kids some implications for the educational
questionnaire in which existential system, textbook designers, teachers, and
intelligence is not taken into account, students. Students‟ different MI profiles lead
existential intelligence was disregarded in to their differences in choosing, learning,
this study. remembering, performing, and
The present study supports the comprehending materials (Gardner, 1999).
findings of Wattanborwornwong and Textbooks, by providing various learning
Klavinitchai (2016). They concluded that activities, which are appropriate for
spatial intelligence was the most prominent students‟ needs and intellectual
and musical and naturalistic intelligences engagements, can provide some
were the least represented ones in both opportunities to promote the students‟
textbook series. This may be attributable to potential capabilities, encourage them to
the focus of these textbooks on attracting employ their intelligences, and show their
students to learn through the wide use of performance (Byrd & Schuemann, 2014;
pictures (Gardner, 1999). Furthermore, Currie, 2003; Gardner, 2011; Tomlinson,
musical intelligence may be less represented 2011).
in textbooks owing to the religious issues or By preparing the MI profile of Iranian
poor facilities of schools in playing music in junior high school English language
the classroom (Wattanborwornwong & textbooks and by comparison of MI profile
Klavinitchai, 2016). of the given textbooks and students, possible
It can also be mentioned that since the strong points and weak points of these
aim of a foreign language teaching and textbooks can be identified. Accordingly,
learning is to enhance the linguistic these kinds of studies can probably reveal
knowledge and communicative knowledge the neglected learners‟ needs, differences,
of language learners, the content of and intellectual engagements in designing
textbooks as “language learning [student‟s English textbooks for IJHSS. By comparing
book] and use [workbook] are obviously the degree of compatibility of MI profiles of
closely linked to what MI theories label students with the MI profiles of textbooks,
„Linguistic Intelligence‟”(Richards & more appropriate and compatible
Rogers, 2001, p. 117). In addition, MIDAS supplementary materials, tasks, and
interprets linguistic knowledge as formal activities can be designed and employed to
knowledge and communicative knowledge reinforce textbooks with regard to the MI
(Akbari & Hosseini, 2008). In this regard, representation and to make them more
formal knowledge of language is classified suitable for different students with various
as the linguistic intelligence, and intelligence types. The results of the
communicative knowledge is classified as research may be constructive in enhancing
interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences the adequacy and efficiency of new editions
(Akbari & Hosseini, 2008). or perhaps the new series of junior high
5. Conclusions school English textbooks. The findings of
The present study aimed to answer the the study may have some implications for
question whether there is any significant the educational system, textbook designers,
difference between MI representation in teachers, and students.
Prospect series and the MI profiles of References
IJHSS. The implicit aim of this study was to Akbari, R., & Hosseini, K. (2008). Multiple
compare the compatibility of the MI profiles intelligences and language learning
of Prospect series with that of IJHSS.
Page | 60
strategies: Investigating possible relations. Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple
System, 36, 141-155. Intelligences go to school: Implications of
Arikan, A., Soydan, E., & İşler, Ö. (2014). A the theory of Multiple Intelligences.
Study of Two English Language Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-10.
Coursebooks in Turkey: Focus on Gholampour, F., Kasmani, M. B., & Talebi, S.
Multiple Intelligences. Başkent University H. (2013). An evaluation of the Iranian
Journal of Education, 1(1), 27-33. junior high school English textbooks,
Bahumaid, S. (2008). TEFL materials “English time books” and “Hip-hip
evaluation: A teacher‟s perspective. hooray” books based on Multiple
Poznan Studies in Contemporary Intelligences theory. Asian Journal of
Linguistics, 44(4), 423-32. Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(1),
Botelho, M. (2003). Multiple intelligences 244-252.
theory in English language teaching and Hosseini, S. (2011). A study of the relationship
analysis of current textbooks, materials, between Iranian EFL learners’ multiple
and teachers’ perceptions. Unpublished intelligences and their performance on
Master‟s Thesis. Ohio University, Ohio. writing. Unpublished Master‟s Thesis,
Byrd, P., & Schuemann, C. (2014). English as a Arak University, Arak.
second/foreign language textbooks: How Ibragimova, N. (2011). Multiple Intelligences
to choose them-how to use them. In M. Theory in Action in EFL Classes: A Case
Celce-Murcia, D. Brinton, & M. A. Snow Study. Unpublished Master‟s Thesis,
(Eds.), Teaching English as a second or Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU).
foreign language (4th ed., pp. 380-393). Jado, S. M. A. (2015). The level of Multiple
Boston, MA: National Geographic Intelligences in Arabic language textbooks
Learning. for grades from (1 - 4) in Jordan in light of
Currie, K. L. (2003). Multiple intelligence Gardner‟s theory. Creative Education, 6,
theory and the ESL classroom: 1558-1572.
Preliminary considerations. The Internet Kirkgöz, Y. (2010). Catering for multiple
TESL Journal, 4(4), 263-270. intelligences in locally-published ELT
Ebadi, S., Sabzevari, S., & Beigzadeh, M. textbooks in Turkey. Procedia Social and
(2015). The Representation of Multiple Behavioral Sciences, 3, 127-130.
Intelligence Types in Touchstone Series McCullagh, M. (2010). An initial evaluation of
Course Books. English for Specific the effectiveness of a set of published
Purposes World, 1(16), 1-23. materials for medical English. In B.
Emmiyati, N., Rasyid, M. A., Rahman, M. A., Tomlinson & H. Masuhara (Eds.),
Arsyad, A., & Dirawan, G. D. (2014). Research for materials development in
Multiple Intelligences Profiles of Junior learning: Evidence for best practice (pp.
Secondary School Students in 381-393). London: Continuum.
Indonesia. International Education Nicholson-Nelson, K. (1998). Developing
Studies, 7(11), 103-110. students’ multiple intelligences. New
Estaji, M., & Nafisi, M. (2014). Multiple York: Scholastic Professional Books.
intelligences and their representation in OERP. (2015). English for Schools: Prospect 1
the EFL young learners‟ textbooks. (student‟s book and work book).
International Journal of Research Studies Publishing Company of Iran Textbooks.
in Language Learning, 3(6), 61-72. OERP. (2015). English for Schools: Prospect 2
Furnham, A. (1996). Lay Theories. Whurr, (student‟s book and work book). PCIT.
London. OERP. (2015). English for Schools: Prospect 3
Furnham, A., Clark, K., & Bailey, K. (1999). (student‟s book and work book). PCIT.
Sex differences in estimates of multiple Omer, B. O. (2017). The representation of
intelligences. European Journal of multiple intelligences in North Star
Personality, 13(4), 247-259. coursebooks: A content analysis. JUHD,
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: 3(3), 590-594.
Basic Books. Razmjoo, S. A., & Jozaghi, Z. (2010). The
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple representation of multiple intelligences
intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi types in the Top-notch series: A textbook
Delta Kappan, 77(3), 200-209. evaluation. Journal of Pan-Pacific
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Association of Applied Linguistics, 14(2),
Multiple intelligences theory into the 21st 59-84.
century. New York: Basic Books. Richards, J. C. (2001). The role and design of
Gardner, H. (2006). The development and instructional materials. In Curriculum
education of the mind: The selected works development in language teaching (pp.
of Howard Gardner. London and New 251-285). NY: Cambridge University
York: Routledge. Press.
Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001).
of Multiple Intelligences (2nded.). New Approaches and methods in language
York: Basic books.

Page | 61
teaching (2nded.). UK: Cambridge Appendix: List of activities, techniques, materials

University Press. and descriptions of each intelligence (Botelho,
Saeidi, M., Ostvar, S., Shearer, B., & Jafarabadi, 2003, p. 144).
M. A. (2012). Content validity and
reliability of multiple intelligences
developmental assessment scales
(MIDAS) translated into Persian. The
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(11), 16-
33.
Shearer, C. B. (1996). Multiple intelligences
developmental assessment scales
(MIDAS). United States of America:
Author.
Shearer, C. B. (2012). An inter-rater reliability
study of a self-assessment for the multiple
intelligences. International Journal of
Psychological Studies, 4(3), 131-138.
Taaseh, Y., Mohebbi, A., & Mirzaei, F. (2014).
Intelligence profile of Iranian locally
designed and published ELT textbooks
and students‟ multiple intelligences.
International Journal of Language and
Linguistics, 2(4), 24-31.
Tomlinson, B. (2011). Introduction: Principles
and procedures of materials development.
In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Material
development in language teaching (2nd
ed., pp. 1-31). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wattanborwornwong, L., & Klavinitchai, N.
(2016). The differences of multiple
intelligence representation in English and
Chinese textbooks: The case of EFL &
CFL textbooks in Thailand. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, 6(2), 302-
309.
Winarti, A., Yuanita, L., & Nur, M. (2019). The
effectiveness of multiple intelligences
based teaching strategy in enhancing the
multiple intelligences and science process
skills of junior High School
students. Journal of Technology and
Science Education, 9(2), 122-135.
Page | 62

Multiple Intelligences MI Representation PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multiple Intelligences MI Representation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multiple Intelligences (MI) Representation in Prospect Series and the MI Profile of

Iranian Junior High School Students: A Compatibility Perspective

1. Introduction Razmjoo and Jozaghi (2010)

(Gardner, 1983). Intelligences are important types of individual‟s capacities to process

International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org) ISSN:2308-5460

by providing learning activities, which In their analysis, they observed some

International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org) ISSN:2308-5460

rules, MIDAS cannot be included in the

Table 2: Frequency of representation of each the most frequent intelligences in Prospect 3

Table 2 demonstrates that in student‟s

Figure 2: Frequency of representation of each As it can be seen from Table 4, there

International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org) ISSN:2308-5460

Table 5: Chi-square test for the MI profiles of 6, the representations of musical,

International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org) ISSN:2308-5460

International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org) ISSN:2308-5460

teaching (2nded.). UK: Cambridge Appendix: List of activities, techniques, materials

You might also like