Introduction and background

Learning in general and EFL learning in particular is a complex process. Learning

at times requires great effort and at other times, proceeds with relative ease. It
compasses a multitude of competencies. The results of learning are often observable,
but the process is less obvious. Numerous theories of learning exist in an attempt to
explain learning. The theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) offers one perception into
the complexity and applicability in human learning.
As a cognitive psychologist at Harvard University, Howard Gardner is not the first
to recognize multiple brain abilities. However, Gardner is the first to acknowledge
diverse competencies as forms of human intelligence and points out that the concept of
intelligent behavior varies from culture to culture. He has put forth the MI theory to
define human intellect through a spectrum of content areas including verbal-linguistic,
mathematical-logical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic,
musical-rhythmic and naturalistic (Gardner, 1983, 1993). The theory of MI has
evolved through a complex series of investigations of human behavior and the brain
that found distinct ways humans can be smart. To qualify as intelligence, each ability
must meet certain requirements including: the potential for isolated breakdown from
brain damage; the existence of individuals who do not fit a typical cognitive profile
across a variety of abilities; and support from psychological and psychometric studies,
including correlations among assessments (Gardner, 1999). In addition, each
intelligence has a defined set of performance outcomes and a coding system or set of
observable operations that can be seen in symbols, e.g.; language, mathematics,
pictures, musical notes (Feldman, 1998).
In the past intelligence was considered a fixed, static entity defined as the ability
to answer items on IQ tests. Ever science the publication of his Frames of Mind
(1983), Gardner has postulated an alternative definition of intelligence which is
radically different. An intelligence, according to Gardner, entails the ability to solve
problems or fashion products that are of consequence in a particular cultural setting or
community (Gardner, 1993:15). There are many different, but autonomous
intelligence capacities that result in many different ways of knowing, understanding
and learning about the world.
Walters (1999:2-3) indicates that these capacities, or intelligences, are innately
endowed in all humans; but at the same time, they are manifested quite differently in
different cultures. For example, the linguistic intelligence, an innate and universal
capacity found in all societies, can appear through writing in one culture, public
speaking in a second, and a secret anagrammatic code in a third. Or the spatial
intelligence, another ability found in all societies, is displayed in many different ways,
from navigation, to the game of chess, to the science of geometry. So, the intelligences
are innate and universal, but they are distinctly shaped by the cultures they appear in.
Moreover, we know from studies of brain damage, that the linguistic capacity can be
damaged while other cognitive functions remain unchanged; this indicates that the
linguistic function is separate from those other functions. Studies of idiot savants, who
display one skill at a sophisticated level and yet are well below normal in other areas,
again help identify distinct cognitive functions.

1
 Gardner argues that there is both a biological and cultural basis for the MI.
Neurobiological research indicates that learning is an outcome of the modifications in
the synaptic connections between cells. Primary elements of different types of learning
are found in particular areas of the brain where corresponding transformations have
occurred. Thus, various types of learning results in synaptic connections in different
areas of the brain. For example, injury to the Broca's area of the brain will result in the
loss of one's ability to verbally communicate using proper syntax. Nevertheless, this
injury will not remove the patient's understanding of correct grammar and word usage
(Brualdi, 1996).
In addition to biology, Gardner (1983) argues that culture also plays a large role in
the development of the intelligences. All societies value different types of
intelligences. The cultural value placed upon the ability to perform certain tasks
provides the motivation to become skilled in those areas. Thus, while particular
intelligences might be highly evolved in many people of one culture, those same
intelligences might not be as developed in the individuals of another.

Gardner believes that there are at least eight intelligences that people may exhibit
to a greater or lesser degree. These intelligences are:
Verbal–Linguistic: The ability to use words and language and sensitivity to the meaning of
words. People who have this intelligence share sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, inflections, and
meters of words.
Logical–Mathematical: The ability to use numbers effectively, to recognize abstract patterns,
to discern relationships and to reason well.
Visual–Spatial: The ability to visualize objects and spatial dimensions, and create internal
images and pictures.
Bodily–Kinesthetic: The ability to use one's body to express oneself and to solve problems.
Musical: The ability to recognize tonal patterns and sounds, as well as sensitivity to rhythms
and beats.
Interpersonal: The ability to understand people's moods, feelings, motivations, and
intentions. It also includes the ability to work cooperatively with others in a group and
communicate verbally and non-verbally with other people.
Intrapersonal: The ability to understand the internal aspects of the self and to practice self-
discipline.
Naturalistic: The ability to recognize order in nature and to organize and categorize the
natural world.
The theory of MI stresses that humans display different types of intelligences
which can be measured , fostered, and evaluated as an isolated faculty of mind .What
is more , Gardner's theory proposed that intelligence is not strictly an innate , fixed
human property ; instead , it can be changed , developed and even taught
(Lazear,1991). Although all individuals posses all the intelligences in varying degrees
and may specialize and excel in at least one area, many individuals show strength in
three or four intelligences areas. Gardner stresses that additional intelligences may
exist and should not be limited by existing research. There are distinct attributes of
each of the MI areas, also known as sub capacities or functions. There are four key
points to Gardner's MI theory. One, everyone possesses a combination of all eight or
more intelligences. This random assortment of strengths and weaknesses makes each
person unique and fills a classroom with diversity of thought. Two, everyone can

2
develop his or her intelligences to adequate levels. Through encouragement,
enrichment, and proper instructions, any student or person can raise their intelligences.
Three, intelligences work together, they are always interacting with each other. Four,
no intelligence can exist by itself. Even when people have the same intelligences they
are different. One person may be a great reader and another a great writer, yet they are
both strong in the linguistic intelligence .In brief " MI theory emphasizes the rich
diversity of ways in which people show their gifts within intelligences as well as
between intelligences (Armstrong,2000,11-12).
Stein (2002, 7-9) states that MI theory has a number of positive aspects: one is its
flexibility to respond to different situations and different school settings. There is no
specific approach when it comes to MI, and teachers have the freedom to design their
own curriculum that suits their classrooms. Another aspect is authentic learning which
works best with MI because students can approach topics in a variety of ways and this
allows them to look at problems in their own way. A third positive aspect, MI requires
teachers to expand how they teach in order to accommodate various types of
intelligences. They need to use new techniques, to develop new ways of assessment
and to get beyond using only the linguistic and logical/mathematical intelligences
typically used in traditional schools.
A fourth positive aspect is that in a MI classroom the focus is continuously
shifting from intelligence to intelligence and the classroom will be very hands on and
interactive. Armstrong (1994, 45-48) states that MI shows that there is not a set of
teaching strategy to use in the classroom. One teaching strategy may be successful
with one group of students, but not with another, which supports the idea of varying
strategies from day to day. Finally, according to Emig, (1997, 49) MI can be used to
motivate underachieving students because they will be able to focus on what interests
them. MI gives students the opportunity to excel in what they do well, and through
that they become confident and begin to enjoy learning. Teachers also get the added
bonus of seeing what their students are learning and what they like.
It is very important to reiterate that the core spirit of MI theory is opposed to the
uniform view of schooling and the formal testing (standardized tests). Gardner (1993)
holds the view that assessment is an essential component of an MI education. It is
particularly important to use multiple modes of assessment that will allow students to
show their strengths and perform optimally. Many testing professionals nowadays
share the belief that authentic assessment, which emphasizes assessing what students,
knows (knowledge) and what students do (performance) from different perspectives
provides a complete picture of students' abilities , efforts, and progress during the
learning process.
In short, there is a need for diverse forms of product and /or process –based,
individualized-based, contextualized-based, performance –based and ongoing –based
assessment which includes paper-and-pencil tests, portfolios, journals/logs, projects,
exhibits, performances, and displays, etc. (Lazear, 1999) .
Applied to English language teaching (ELT) MI theory holds intact, Lin (2001)
argues that ever since the rising of the learner-centered instruction, every ELT
method/technique with its specific emphasis has been developed to meet students'

3
different needs , or interests ( somewhat as Gardner's intention of developing and/or
using different kinds of "intelligences"). The Silent Way, for example, emphasizes the
development of students' inner thinking (intrapersonal intelligence); Total Physical
Response, however, emphasizes language learning through physical action
(bodily/kinesthetic intelligence); Suggestopedia, on the other hand, emphasizes the use
of music (musical intelligence) to facilitate language cognition; both the
Communicative Approach and cooperative learning emphasize the importance of
interpersonal relationship (interpersonal intelligence) to language learning; and the
whole language learning not only emphasizes the wholeness and reality of language
(verbal/linguistic intelligence) but also believes in the coordination of bodily/
kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences to promote language
learning.
The announcement of Gardner's MI theory acknowledges a broader intellectual
spectrum in every leaner. The English language teachers today, are better aware of the
fact that students bring with them specific strengths, unique learning styles, and
different learning potentials. The theory of MI offers us a way to examine and form
our best teaching techniques and strategies in light of human differences. We can teach
our students to be more intelligent in more ways, and on more levels than we ever
dreamed.

To give examples, the logical/mathematical intelligence is reflected in puzzles,

pattern games and outlining; the musical intelligence in tapes, CD's, singing and vocal
tones; the verbal/linguistic in word games, reading books, and listening to stories etc.
Similarly in assessing students' MI a plethora of resources can be used. To give
examples, the bodily/kinesthetic intelligence can be assessed through dramatization,
invention projects, and impersonation; visual/spatial through creating posters, murals,
and collages; interpersonal through group jigsaws; explaining, and think–pair-share
etc.
It is believed that most of our EFL students are unaware of their talents on each of
these MI spectrums. Many often perceive themselves as educational washouts; they
fail to realize that they have a learning strength in, at least one of those strands. Such
students frequently become discouraged and withdrawn. Often they become aggressive
and rebellious to mask their low self-esteem, due, in part, to their ignorance of their
intelligences (Morris, 2003).Obviously, the MI theory helps learners strengthen their
already existing abilities and also lets them know and develop their 'weaker' areas. It is
possible-argues Vourexaki (2001:39) that such an educational experience that
introduces, promotes and facilitates all of their intelligences to a greater degree, will
make them feel more competent, more engaged and more motivated to achieve better
outcomes.
With regard to self-efficacy as a determining factor in the teaching and learning of
EFL it was hypothesized that students, whose MI are used in lessons in EFL
classrooms, would report higher self-efficacy, which has been found to lead to better
achievement (Einarson and Santiago, 1996; Mikulecky, 1996; Pajares, 1995).
Self-efficacy, defined by Bandura, (2001) as "people's judgments of their
capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated

4
types of performances" – provides the foundation for human motivation and personal
accomplishment. This is because unless people believe that their actions can produce
the outcomes they desire, they have little incentive to act or persevere in face of
difficulty. It also helps determine how much effort people will expend on an activity
and how resilient they will be in face of adverse situations. The higher the sense of
efficacy, the greater the effort, persistence and resilience (Pajares, 2002).
Self-efficacy has been proven to powerfully affect attainment in diverse fields and
to accurately predict the level of achievement in different subjects (see Stajkovic and
Luthans, 1998 for meta-analysis of research on the relationship between self-efficacy
beliefs and achievement outcomes). Recent studies also lend support to the correlation
of EFL students' self-efficacy beliefs and their academic performance (Shore, 2003
and Vourexaki, 2001 reviewed later in this research).
As for the tie of MI theory and student achievement, numerous studies have found
that the application of MI leads to impressive gains on standardized tests on the k-12
level (Campbell & Campbell, 1999).In elementary and secondary school classrooms
that have incorporated MI, students outperformed their district, county, and national
peers in basic skills (Campbell & Campbell, 1999; Kornhaber& Fierras, 2000) and at
the university level the use of MI activities significantly increased EFL students
achievement and led to higher self-efficacy ( Shore,2003 ).
A study that profiles the pre-university EFL students' and teachers' MI;
investigates the relationship between EFL students' and teachers' MI scores; finds out
the correlation between students' MI and their EFL self- efficacy; and verifies how
MI and EFL achievement are related is very much needed.

Review of the related literature

As indicated in the introduction and background of this study, the traditional
psychologists and psychometricians have maintained that intelligence as a fixed trait-
IQ tests can demonstrate that you are either “smart”, “normal”, or “deficient”.
Gardener, on the other hand, has argued that intelligence is multifaceted and dynamic-
expanding far beyond the linguistic and logical capacities that are traditionally tested
and valued in schools. The theory of MI urges a rethinking of how teachers should
approach subjects and topics. If children do not learn in any one way, then the teacher
truly must teach “in the way the child learns”. Guided by the very diverse intellectual
profiles of students in a classroom, teaching must become less of a single approach
aimed at all students and more of a crafted effort to engage the MI, or potentials,
represented in the room.
In the following pages an intensive review of the literature on MI application across
disciplines and its relationship to academic achievement, affective factors and
language skills. A section is added on miscellaneous studies on MI.

MI and achievement:
Project SUMIT (Schools Using Multiple Intelligences Theory), a three years
project directed by leading researchers at Harvard University’s Project Zero identified
schools that have been using MI for three or more years and that associate with the

5
theory improved outcomes for students. About forty-nine percent of the schools that
were interviewed reported that MI had been associated with positive outcomes on
standardized tests (Kofata, 2003). Project SUMIT seeks to identify, document, and
promote effective implementations of MI. Schools that teach using MI have seen an
increase of their students’ test scores, discipline, parent participation and skills for
those with learning disabilities. This and other research suggests that students are
showing improvements in many areas because their schools are teaching to MI
(Dobbs, 2002; Eisner, 1998; Gardner, 1993, 2003; Mettetal &Jordan, 1997).
Shore (2003) stated that the application of MI theory leads to impressive gains in
state assessment and achievement gains on standardized tests on the k-12 and cited
Campbell and Campbell,1999 to support her findings. She went further to consolidate
her views that MI incorporation in elementary and secondary school classrooms has
led children to outperform their district, county, and national peers in basic skills.
However, Shalk (2002) conducted a study on 132 high schoolers to validate the use
of MI profiles as a means of predicting success on standardized tests. The results
substantiate existence of distinct profiles of intelligence in relationship to state test
scores. For reading scale score, Linguistic and Interpersonal Intelligences emerged as
the key profile intelligences. For Mathematical scale score, Logical/Mathematical,
Linguistic and Interpersonal are the profile variables. However, the percentage of the
explained variance is low, suggesting that the relationship between MI and
standardized tests achievement is present but weak. The results of the study thus
suggest that the usefulness of MI profiles as predictors of achievement on standardized
tests is limited.
Al-Sherief (2001) aimed at identifying the effectiveness of two theories (i.e.
Theory of Planning, Attention, Successive and Simultaneous Processing “PASS” and
Theory of MI) in predicting academic achievement of primary school students in
Arabic, Science, Mathematics and Social Studies. Results showed significant
correlation between both the two theories and achievement for male and female
students. It was found that Linguistic, Logical/Mathematical, Spatial and
Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Intelligences were positively correlated with
predicting achievement. In addition results revealed no significant differences between
males and females in MI and PASS.
Geimer et al. (2001) conducted a research project to determine the effect of
incorporating MI strategies into language arts program on enhancing second, third,
and fifth graders students’ performance. The selected intervention led to a comparison
between traditional methods of teaching and MI strategies. Post intervention data
indicated a general trend toward an increase in achievement through the use of MI
strategies. A major increase was seen in students with Individual Education Programs
and lower achieving students. An improvement was also noted in homework
completion, quality of homework, student time on task, and student enjoyment of
activities.
Carlton and Thomas (2000) conducted a research study on the effects of using MI
activities in the classroom on students’ achievement in English as a second language.
Activities used ranged from transparency maps, small group reading, and vocabulary

6
worksheets to online research, games and simulation projects. After a period of 8
weeks pre-post tests were applied to both the control and experimental groups.
Assessment was in the form of a multiple-choice test, and a portfolio. Findings
revealed that the experimental group was 20 points higher than the control group’s
average.

Smith and associates (2000) examined the impact of applying MI theory on

students’ academic success in 10th grade English, Social Studies, Mathematics, and
Science classes. Overall the theory of MI was found to be unproductive in the areas of
student metacognitive activities and awareness as well as in the areas of student
academic success.

Studying the relationship between learning styles, MI, and academic achievement,
Snyder (2000) followed procedures very much similar to that of Smith and associate
(2000) but conducted his study on 128 high school students. Among the most related
findings of his study was that female students were stronger on Intrapersonal,
Linguistic, and Musical Intelligences, whereas male students were stronger on
Bodily/Kinesthetic, Logical/Mathematical, and Spatial Intelligences. Achievement was
found to increase when students were taught through their preferred styles and MI.
Ryue (1996) conducted a study to find out the developmental trend in MI and to
investigate the relationships between MI, IQ and school achievement. The subjects
were 1165 students in elementary, middle, high schools, universities and graduate
schools. The results showed that there are differences in MI according to increase of
grade (age) and sex. In relation to ranks of MI, roughly Intrapersonal Intelligence was
the highest in all grades and Bodily/Kinesthetic was the lowest. On the other hand,
Spatial Intelligence showed a relationship with IQ and school achievement. Linguistic,
Logical/Mathematical, and Interpersonal Intelligence showed affirmative correlations
with school achievement.
In brief, the above studies showed no consensus on a positive relationship between
the application of MI and an increase in academic achievement although studies
supporting that link are evidently bigger in number. One additional finding is that there
are differences in MI according to increase in age or school level.

MI and Affective Factors:

Many studies have revealed strong relationship between the application of MI
activities and a number of affective factors such as motivation, attitudes, self-esteem,
enthusiasm, etc. Following is a brief review of such studies.

Arnold (2004) conducted a study to determine if there is a relationship between

implementing Gardner’s theory of MI and fifth graders’ attitudes toward school.
Findings indicated that there was no significant difference in students’ attitudes
toward school among fifth graders attending schools implementing MI theory, fifth
graders attending schools partially implementing MI theory, and fifth graders
attending schools not implementing MI theory. There were no gender related
differences found. This study contradicts findings of Jones et al. (2001) and Mettetal
and Harpper (1997).

7
 Jones et al. (2001) examined the impact of a multifaceted intervention on student
motivation and achievement. Participating in the study were second and third graders
from 3 schools. MI activities and a series of engaged learning activities were
incorporated into classroom practices. The findings of the post-intervention data
illustrated that implementing the theory of MI had a positive effect on the targeted
classrooms. Students revealed positive attitude towards themselves and their school.
Students’ reading scores increased moderately from first to second quarter. Similar
findings were also reported by Baldes et al. (2000) and Blakes et al. (2000) who
added that MI activities also reduced inappropriate behaviors leaving more time
available for academic instruction.
Veins and Kallenback (2000) added that the application of MI in adult classrooms
led to improved self-esteem and increased enthusiasm. Other studies have also
demonstrated that teaching through MI increases motivation and achievement at
elementary and secondary school levels (Erb, 1996; Greenhawk, 1997; Naffsiger,
Steele and Varner, 1998).

MI and Language Skills:

A number of studies and action research has investigated the impact of the
application of MI on enhancing some language skills; Anderson (1999) experimented
on increasing retention of foreign language vocabulary by using MI approaches and
memory enhancement tools. The targeted population was approximately 100 seventh-
and eighth-grade Latin students. Students were instructed using methods that
introduce several MI strategies and several memory improvement techniques. The
teacher de-emphasized verbal-linguistic approaches in favor of a more
comprehensive approach. Post-intervention data showed an increase in scores on bi-
weekly vocabulary quizzes, increase in awareness of memory techniques for foreign
language vocabulary mastery, and awareness of varied learning style in both teachers
and students.
Becher et al. (1999) developed a program for improving spelling of high
frequency words in daily writing across the curriculum through the use of MI. The
targeted population consisted of second and third grade students in middle class
community in Illinois. Based on the presentation and analysis of results, students
showed significant improvement in spelling and transferring 100 high frequency
words. They understood they were accountable for spelling these words correctly in
all curriculum areas and were able to internalize and use these words in daily writing.
A program was developed by Gens (1999) for improving primary level student
intelligences in order to improve reading comprehension, prediction skills, and the
ability to apply targeted reading strategies. Reading comprehension was addressed
through child-centered activities designed to include the MI, and extensive reading
strategies were included. Post-intervention data indicated growth in reading test
scores and an increase in the number of students reading at home.
Utecht (1999) conducted a similar study on two sophomore English classes in a
low socio-economic level area. After a three- months term using various MI activities
and strategies students’ reading improved dramatically (i.e. in comprehension,

8
reading speed, and drawing inferences). Similar results were shared by Kuzniewski
and associates (1999) whose population was ninth, tenth, and eleventh grade students
in both English and Mathematics.
Studies above revealed that applying MI activities on various class levels could
enhance the learning and practice of some English language skills such as reading
and writing, as well as vocabulary and spelling.

Miscellaneous Studies on MI:

The application of MI theory has been widely spread across subject matter,
textbooks, teacher training programs, transfer of learning, and student giftedness.
Currie (2003) aimed at identifying the MI profile of a group of students enrolled
for a first semester reading class in English at the Federal University of Espirito
Santo in Brazil. Using a very simple MI questionnaire, she identified the two most
highly developed intelligences by the class as a whole to be Linguistic Intelligence
and Musical Intelligence. Findings also showed that the lowest scores obtained by the
majority of the students are registered in the area of Mathematical/Logical
Intelligence.
The purpose of an instrumental collective case study by Shore (2003) was to
provide an in-depth description of the change that transpired in two graduate level
teacher preparation courses that used MI theory. Two teacher educators and thirty-
five students of education participated in the case studies. These courses were chosen
as they were reported to produce high numbers of highly efficacious teacher
candidates. Qualitative analysis of teacher educator and student interviews,
observations of lessons, and reviews of course artifacts revealed that change was
initiated by the use of MI in the two classrooms. Teacher educator changes included
greater reflection on instructional formats, evaluation and assessment, and more
comfort with student-centeredness during the semester. In addition, for many of the
students in these two classrooms, the use of MI as a basis for their instruction
inspired teacher efficacy in instructional strategies and student engagement.
Palmberg (2001) conducted a study to analyze one of the most commonly used
EFL course books in Finland for the lower level comprehensive schools. The results
of the categorization of exercises were as follows: 97% of the 300 exercises catered
for verbal-linguistic learners, 76% for Intrapersonal learners, 25% for Interpersonal
learners, 5% for Bodily/Kinesthetic learners, 8% for Mathematical/Logical learners,
3% for Naturalist learners, and 2% for Musical/Rhythmic learners. No exercises
were found that catered for existential learners. The study recommended that in order
to be able to recognize good course books that can fulfill the general teaching
objectives of a particular teaching unit, they must know what the main criteria for
course book assessment are. They then can be able to select course books that best
coincide with the majority of intelligence profiles found for specific learner group.
Similarly, Snider (2001) evaluated foreign language instruction procedures and
materials in light of MI theory. Ten well-known, first-year college German textbooks
are analyzed to determine what kinds of activities are presented and to what extent

9
 the different activities engage MI in learners. The study shows that the texts typically
use a limited range of activity types in presenting material to students.
Aly (2000) conducted a study on MI of EFL teachers and their implications for in-
service teachers training. Subjects were 40 teachers (20 male and 20 female) of
various levels of experience, they were given a 4-hour workshop to introduce them to
the MI theory and activities menus. In addition the teachers’ sample was asked to
complete a MI inventory for EFL in-service teachers. The study hypothesized no
significant differences between the male and female teachers in the MI inventory nor
were there differences among teachers of various levels of experience in the MI
inventory. Results revealed the acceptance of the first hypothesis with the exception
that females outperformed males in both musical and intrapersonal intelligences. The
second hypothesis was accepted as well.

Al Sheikh (1999) aimed at identifying levels of Linguistic Intelligence among

UAE students, designing a suggested program for developing some aspects of their
Linguistic Intelligence, measuring through a standardized Linguistic Intelligence test-
the impact of the suggested program. Results indicated that the suggested program
had significant impact on students’ Linguistic Intelligence component of realizing
relationships, classification, analogy, and using appropriate meanings. The researcher
then put forward his suggested design for higher education and public schools in light
of levels of Linguistic Intelligence.
Finally, Morris and Le Blanc (1996) studied how verbal protocols were used to
compare the self-perceived intelligences of students to teacher nominations. Teachers
nominated students considered dominant in one of Howard Gardner’s seven
theorized intelligences. The students then verbalized aloud while ranking themselves
using scenarios depicting each intelligence. Concurrent and retrospective verbal
protocols were taped, transcribed verbatim to text, coded, and analyzed. Results
indicated a strong agreement between teacher nomination and student identification
of Gardner’s intelligences.
Studies reviewed above clearly show that the theory of MI has wider applications
and implications in the field of education in general and teaching and learning EFL
in particular.

Self-efficacy, MI, and Academic Achievement:

The differences in the patterns of self-efficacy among various groups of students
have been found to significantly affect skill development in academic activities
(Bong, 1998; Eaton& Dembo, 1996; Shore, 2002). These findings suggest that
higher self-efficacy might be reported in students whose MI or learning style are
incorporated into the lessons they study in the classroom. Research on the secondary
level found that instructors who incorporate MI- based lessons in their classrooms aid
in augmenting their students’ performance and discipline, and students with diverse
needs were reported to feel good about themselves (SUMIT, 2001).
Findings from the studies of children across age distribution and demographic
area have produced results that support self-efficacy’s tie to achievement in children
(Bandura & Joudan, 1991; Berry, 1987; Schunk, 1981; 1982; Zimmerman &

10
 Bandura, 1994). With the studies to support them, researchers in academics began to
examine self-efficacy in adult learners (Bong, 1997; Einarson & Santiago, 1996;
Huan & Chang, 1996; Mikulecky, 1996; Murphy & Shell, 1989; Pajares, 1995;
Scott, 1993). The question is how much an adult learner needs this sense of self-
efficacy in order to achieve better (Mikulecky, 1996; Murphy& Shell, 1989).
However, not all researchers who investigated a possible connection between
self-efficacy and academic achievement have found a significant relationship. Some
researchers in the area of adult academic achievement and self-efficacy have not
found a significant relationship between efficacy beliefs and academic outcomes.
Wilhite’s (1990) findings demonstrated that memory assessments were the greatest
predictors of academic achievement (GPA). However, he used a global measure of
self-efficacy, without clearly defined subject task or delineated skills.
Shore (2002) conducted a study to examine the use of MI in the university EFL
classroom. Sample included 67students and 10 teachers from public and private
universities. The correlation between MI used in the classroom and student self-
efficacy was examined. Findings indicate that 90% of the teachers in the study tend
to stress Mathematical/ Logical, Linguistic and Interpersonal Intelligences more than
others in these universities classrooms. Students reported the greatest strengths in
Mathematical/Logical, Visual/Spatial, Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Intelligences.
Correlation analysis revealed that highly significant positive correlations were found
between reading self-efficacy and Mathematical/ Logical and Interpersonal
Intelligences. In addition, strong positive correlations were found between writing
self-efficacy and Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Bodily-Kinesthetic and Linguistic
Intelligences. Finally, speaking self-efficacy was found to be positively correlated
with Interpersonal and Visual-Spatial Intelligence. The implication of this study is
that with the integration of intelligences into EFL lessons, there will be an effect on
self-efficacy in English Language Learning.
Huang and Chang (1996) investigated English as a second language (ESL)
learners’ self-efficacy and its relationship to achievement. Subjects were four
students from the highest level reading and writing class in Indiana University’s
intensive English program. It was found that the subjects’ self-efficacy was
significantly higher than their learning achievements. However, their achievement
did correspond to their perceptions of their own ability.

In conclusion and based on the above review of literature, the incorporation of MI

in the pre-university EFL classroom and its relationship to self-efficacy and
achievement requires further examination. Support for the use of MI in EFL
classrooms is growing and gaining momentum, but research to enhance its use is still
in the initial stages.

The Problem:
A good number of studies found that students' level in EFL is at best a mediocre
one. (ELKhamisy, 2001; ELSherbini, 2001; Numan, 1999; O'Brien, 1996; Snow,
1996) and to add to the complexity of the situation many teachers in some of our pre-

11
university EFL classrooms might not be employing methods of teaching that
adequately address students' learning strengths , or intelligences.
The lack of achievement in students' verbal and written English could contribute to
low self-efficacy in language learning (Bandura, 1994-quated in Shore, 2003, P.3).
A study that investigates the gap between intelligences used by both students and
teachers in EFL classrooms in pre-university education as well as correlations between
MI, self-efficacy, and achievement could lead to improved EFL courses, assessment
and instructional methodology.

Purpose of the Study:

The purpose of this study was to explore and describe pre-university EFL
classrooms by examining four factors: (1) intelligences students report as their most
highly developed or strongest, (2) intelligences that teachers report using in EFL
classrooms, (3) relationship (if any) between MI in EFL classrooms and self –efficacy,
and (4) relationship (if any) between MI in EFL classrooms and students’ achievement
scores.
Research Questions:
The following research questions were explored in this study:
1) What are the intelligences pre-university EFL students' report as their present
strengths? (Students MI scores).
2) What are the intelligences pre-university EFL teachers report using in their
classrooms? (Teachers' MI scores)
3) Is there a match/mismatch between students’ and teachers’ multiple
intelligences?
4) Do intelligences differ according to gender and school level? (Primary,
preparatory, and secondary)
5) Is there a significant relationship between students' intelligences and their EFL
self-efficacy?
6) How are MI and EFL achievement related?
7) Is there a significant relationship between students' self-efficacy and their EFL
achievement?

Hypotheses of the study

1. There is no significant difference at the .05 level between students'
intelligences according to: a. Gender.
b. School level.
2. There is no significant relationship at the .05 level between students' MI score
and their EFL self-efficacy score.
3. There is no significant relationship at the .05 level between students' EFL
achievement score and: a. MI Score.
b. Self –efficacy score.

12
Importance of the Study:
Findings of this study could very much benefit students who need to achieve better
in the language; establishing the connection between MI and achievement in the pre-
university EFL students would help educational professionals gain empirical support
for their use of MI in the classrooms.
In addition research on the relationship between self-efficacy and achievement
revealed that self-efficacy is influenced by prior achievement in a task or tasks.
(Bandura , 1986; Kolata ,2003). The application of MI theory in the EFL classrooms
ensures providing multiple opportunities for success which, in turn may lead to
students' higher self-efficacy. Redesigning EFL materials, means and methods of
assessment, and instructional practices are expected to ensue from the findings of this
study.

Methodology
Sample:
The sample comprised students from primary (N=335, M=135, F=200);
preparatory (N=268, M=140, F=128) and general secondary schools (N=374, M=183,
F=191) in Mansoura city. In addition EFL teachers (N=32, M=14, F=18) with teaching
experience ranging from 5 to 15 years participated in the study.
Instruments:
For the purpose of this study four instruments were used:
 Teachers' MI Questionnaire (TMIQ):
This 64-item instrument was adapted from MIDAS scale by Shearer (1996) and
modified by Shore (2002). It was used to examine teachers' reported use of MI in their
EFL classrooms (Appendix1). The questions are divided equally among the eight
intelligences. There was no particular order in presenting questions regarding each
intelligence, so that the questions concerning natural intelligence, for example, were
not all in one section. A score of one to four was used for each question teachers
answered.
 Students Multiple Intelligences Inventory (SMII):
Two inventories were used to determine the MI strengths in students: one version
for primary school pupils (64 items) based on Faris (2001) (Appendix 2). Language
and content of this inventory were made clear and easy to understand in order to suit
children at that stage. The second version (80 items) was for prep. and secondary
school students, and was developed by the researcher based on previous MI
inventories , indices, tests , and surveys by Armstrong (1994) ; Bohmer (2000) ;
Haztz (2002); Mackenzie (1999) ; Ronald (2001) ; River (1994) ; Sweeney & Botton
(1999).
Items in both inventories represented only the eight reported intelligences because
these types are the most suitable for the language learning and teaching (Kim, 2000).

* All instruments of the study are available upon request from the researcher.

13
In these self-assessment instruments students were asked to choose from among the
items (sectionized by intelligence type) any statement or statements that very closely
relate to them. The SMII was scored by adding up items chosen in each section in
order to be able to determine students' strengths or most preferred intelligences.

 Self –efficacy Questionnaire (SEQ):

Self-efficacy of the study sample was measured with a questionnaire adapted from
Shore (2002) and has been modified with a few changes that added greater reliability
(Appendix 3).
The SEQ was developed to uncover self-efficacy concepts of students. The Likert
scale was changed from a five –point scale to a four point scale to eliminate neutral
answers from respondents. Otherwise, the questionnaire format and purpose remained
the same.
This 24-item questionnaire highlighted students EFL self –efficacy regarding their
skills in speaking, reading, and writing. All instruments that were given to students
were in Arabic language in order to get reliable answers.

Validity
A panel of 6 TEFL faculty members and 6 Educational Psychology faculty
members examined and evaluated all instruments. The panel provided feedback on the
validity of questions in each instrument. This helped to support the content validity by
determining that the content and language used were appropriate to students' and /or
teachers' level. The percentage of juries' agreement on the items of the instruments
ranged from 82% to 84%.
After being judged by the panel of juries instruments were applied on 90 students,
30 from each school level as a pilot sample in order to make sure that the items are
clear and understandable. Complaints about 4 items of the SMII at the Preparatory and
secondary school levels led the researcher to rephrase them in a more suitable
language that added to their clarity.
Student and teacher questionnaires were identified only by number, which ensured
greater validity because students would not be prompted to answer in socially
acceptable ways as their questionnaires were anonymous.

Reliability
A Cronbach Alpha was used to calculate scale reliability for all the instruments
used in this study. The overall reliability for the teachers' use of MI Questionnaire was
.804 which suggests appropriate reliability for the instrument to collect data with. The
overall reliability rating of the SEQ was .881. This also suggests the suitability of the
instrument for collecting data on self –reported self –efficacy of the sample on both
schooling levels since self-efficacy was measured only at the prep. & secondary school
levels. Finally, the reliability for SMII was found to be .824 for the secondary and
preparatory students and .775 for primary pupils. Therefore, as all four instruments
had a reliability coefficient of >.77, they were suitable for collecting data for this
study.

14
 Descriptive statistics was used to answer questions # 1, 2, 3, and 4 about the
frequency of use and statistical mode of MI by students, teachers, and their
comparison. Inferential statistics was used to answer questions 5, 6, 7 regarding the
correlation between students' intelligence score and each of their self-efficacy and
achievement.
The researcher has chosen the alpha level of .05 for there analyses.
Results and discussion
In the following pages, results of the study are reported and discussed according to
the order of the study questions. Profiling, students, MI (question 1) is reported
through table (1) and figure (1) below:
Table (1) Descriptive Statistics for the Total Student Sample
Concerning MI

MI Mode
1- Logical/Mathematical (LM) 6
2-Verbal/Linguistic (VL) 5
3- Visual/Spatial (VS) 6
4- Bodily/Kinesthetic (BK) 5
5- Musical/Rhythmical (MR) 6
6- Interpersonal (I) 8
7- Intrapersonal (Ia) 6
8- Natural (N) 5

Mode for MIS

8
7
6
5
Mode 4
3
2
1
0
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

MI for Students

(MIS)
N= 987

Figure (1) Descriptive Statistics for the Total Student Sample Concerning MI

Examining both table (1) and figure (1) reveal that the statistical mode scores for the
students’ total sample can be categorized as follows: the highest intelligence that the
students report having is the Interpersonal (Statistical Mode= 8), whereas the lowest
are the Natural, Bodily/Kinesthetic and the Verbal/Linguistic (Statistical Mode=5). The
rest of intelligences are equal in rank and enjoy the golden middle.

15
 This means that students felt they had strengths in communicating, organizing,
mediating, and generally understanding people and how to work well with them.
Leading others is one of their obvious skills. In addition they often have an uncanny
ability to sense feelings, intentions, and motivations of others. They tend to encourage
cooperation and use both verbal (e.g. speaking) and non-verbal language (e.g. eye
contact, body language) to open communication channels with others.
It is essential for both teachers and instructional material writers to provide for
those students by imparting new information through giving them opportunities to
compare and contrast, interview others with and about information, sharing ideas
through pair and group work, and cooperating to accomplish any given task.
In assessing the language performance for this group of students teachers should
use cooperative games, board games or "jigsaws", stimulations, group brainstorming
sessions, random group quizzes, and interactive software (Armstrong 2000; Berman,
1998; Coleman et al, 2001; Sweeney, 1999). Next, in rank logical/Mathematical,
Visual /Spatial, Musical/Rhythmical, and Intrapersonal intelligences were reported as
highly developed by a substantial number of students (statistical mode =7). This result
might be considered surprising since the students are studying language not Music,
Math, or Logic. But if we analyze these disciplines we discover that they have much in
common. The study of language does involve the study of rhythm, stress, accent and
melody, which are also fundamental concepts in the study of music (Chipongion,
2001, Coleman, 2000). In addition the study of Logic and Math has also common
elements with language especially in the study of vocabulary, structure, and grammar.
Above all, these disciplines deal with abstract concepts (Al-Qoosi, 1984; Condis,
2000, Geimer, 2001).
Students whose strength are Logical /Mathematical like to use analogies to
understand concepts, are good at working with language games such as crossword
puzzles, and have an interest in categorization, classification, inference, and hypothesis
testing. To provide for those students, opportunities to classify, categorize, and work
with abstractions should be available in their student and work books. In order to
assess the learning of these students' assessment tools and techniques should focus on
higher-order reasoning, outlining, deductive& inductive reasoning, rationality
exercises, and logical analysis and critique.
Equally strong was Visual/Spatial intelligence (Statistical Mode=6). Students felt
they were skilled in using maps and graphs, drawing pictures to explain situations, and
seeing patterns when they are presented visually. In order to help these students learn
better, EFL book writers should pay special attention to presenting information
through charts, maps, pictures and color. Visual/Spatial students are better assessed
through imaginal-based assessment instruments such as graphic representation, visual
illustration, reading, understanding and creating maps, flowcharts, and graphs
(Armstrong, 1994; Christison, 1998; Kolata, 2003).
Musical/Rhythmical was reported to be on equal footing with the previous two
intelligences, those students have strong liking for music and often have favorite tunes
in their minds, drum their fingers while they work, and have music on while they listen
or study. Sample teaching tools or activities for those students would include songs,

16
chants, rhythms, and using background music while learning in class. To assess their
learning, on the other hand, it is recommended to use auditory-based assessment such
as illustrating with sound, linking music and rhythm with language concepts, and
recognizing tonal patterns (Gardner, 1993; Moon, et al 2001; Shore, 2003).
Last, but not least students reported intrapersonal intelligence as one of their
highly developed intelligences. Those students felt they had strengths in recognizing
their personal goals, their strengths and weaknesses, and their ability to solve personal
problems in creative ways. Among recommended teaching tools and activities that can
be used in EFL classroom that include those students are individualized projects and
games, one-minute reflection periods, options for homework , self –esteem activities ,
and journal keeping (Gardner, 1993). Intrapersonal intelligent students can be
assessed through psychological-based assessment instruments like autobiographical
reporting, feelings diaries, personal history correlation, and higher-order questions and
answers (Armstrong, 2000; Larson, 2001; Palmberg, 2001).

Students did not report strength in Verbal/Linguistic; Bodily /Kinesthetic; and

Natural intelligences. This does not mean that teachers and course designers neglect
the appropriate teaching and assessment tools based on these intelligences, on the
contrary teaching activities that enhance these intelligences such as providing
opportunity to hear, see, and say words, play word games, storytelling, dialogues,
reading aloud, and oral presentations should be provided for the Verbal-linguistic
students. In addition they are expected to be assessed through language arts-based
assessment instruments, for example; written essays, vocabulary quizzes, formal
speeches and debates, and journals. Students’ low score in Verbal-Linguistic
Intelligence is discussed further in comments concerning question # 4.

As for Bodily/Kinesthetic they could be helped through providing them with hands-
on experiences, field trips, body language, and role – playing. They can also be better
assessed using performance-based assessment such as dramatization and skill
demonstrations.

Naturalists are better taught using categorization exercises, observation,

classification, comparison, and model-making. Environment-based assessment
instruments are suitable for those students and include hands- on demonstrations,
species or natural pattern classification; nature observation, and sensory stimulation
exercises.

Based on the theory of MI, these less-developed intelligences could be nurtured

and developed (Lazear, 1991) through catering for them in our EFL course books and
MI based assessment.
Results for question 2 on MI teachers report using in their EFL classrooms are
illustrated by table 2 and figure 2 below.

17
 Table (2) Descriptive Statistics for the Total Teacher Sample
Concerning MI

MI Mode

1- (LM) 14

2- (VL) 19

3- (VS) 18
4- (BK) 15
5- (MR) 10
6- (I) 20
7- (Ia)
18
8- (N) 16

Mode for
MIT

20

15
Mode
10
5
0
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

MI for Teacher (MIT)

N =32

Figure (2) Descriptive Statistics for the Total Teacher Sample Concerning MI

Both table (2) and figure (2) show that the most frequently used intelligences in
EFL classrooms by teachers were the Interpersonal; Verbal/Linguistic, Visual/Spatial,
and Intrapersonal (statistical mode was 20, 19, and 18 respectively) while the lowest
intelligence used by teachers is the Musical/Rhythmical (Statistical Mode = 10).
Teachers thus, reported integrating activities that support interpersonal intelligence
into their EFL classrooms. These activities included (among others) cooperative
learning, role-playing and debating. This finding shows a good match between
students' strongest intelligences and teachers' most oftenly used ones. This situation is
an ideal one where teachers' teaching caters for students' highest well-developed
intelligence. In turn this match contributes into students' better learning (Gardner,
1999; Feeny, 1999;, Stein, 2002). The second most frequently used by teachers was
Verbal/ Linguistic intelligence. They used activities such as reporting previous
knowledge about a topic, paraphrasing a reading passage or a paragraph, organizing

18
and delivering presentations, and debating. It is expected that teachers report using this
intelligence excessively, they are EFL teachers after all.

Teachers also reported using Visual/Spatial intelligence which includes tools as

using and working with charts, graphs, colorful posters or visual displays to support
lessons. The last of the top most frequently used intelligences in pre-university
classrooms, was Intrapersonal intelligence which includes activities like recognizing
learning styles, incorporating learning strategies into the classroom lessons and self-
reflection. These findings paint a good picture of what teachers should do in their EFL
classrooms. They not only used various techniques and audio-visual tasks to help their
students, but also employed metacognitive strategies to help them learn how to learn.
Instructors did not report integrating other intelligences as frequently. The least
used was Musical/ Rhythmical which includes songs, rhythm or sounds to support
concepts learned. This finding coincides with that of Shore (2002) whose sample was
university ESL students. Although the use of songs, chants, and music is an effective
medium of teaching young children at the primary level, its use drastically decreases
as learners grow older.
Mathematical/Logical intelligence, which includes activities such as predicting
logical outcomes , finding patterns and connections in diverse concepts , and using
open ended questions for students to solve , was only used by a comparatively small
number of teachers (statistical mode = 14). Similarly, Bodily/Kinesthetic intelligence
was merely used by some teachers. This intelligence is incorporated in lessons by
teachers who have students build models of concepts studied, move around the
classroom in various pairings frequently, use cards for learning purposes or use
methods like total physical response in lessons. Again this finding is expected since the
design and furnishing of most of our classrooms do not help the teachers perform such
activities and tasks.
Finally, Naturalistic intelligence was used by few teachers who included
categorizing and classifying concepts according to themes, identifying aspects of how
things work, and using all the senses to understand aspects of the course. This finding
also supports that of Shore (2002).
Teachers and course book writers have to provide tasks and activities that cater for
all eight intelligences. Of course their stress on specific types of intelligences differs
according to the objectives, culture and age of learners. Generally speaking, however
findings of questions one and two partially support those of Currie (2003) Palmberg
(2002), Shalk, 2002, and Shore (2002). Culture, educational environment, school
level, and EFL learning priorities are among the basic factors that make consensus in
results among studies of that kind almost impossible.

Comparing students’ intelligences (question 3); this study yielded some interesting
results.

19
 Mode for MIS & MIT

20

15
Mode 10
Student
5
[

Teacher
0
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
MI
N1 = 977
N2 = 32

Figure (3) Descriptive Statistics for the Total student and Teacher Samples
Concerning MI

Figure (3) indicates that there was a match between students' and teachers' in using
Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, and Natural intelligences whereas a mismatch existed in
the rest of the eight intelligences. These outcomes show that about 62.5% of student
and teacher intelligences do not overlap; they do not report preferences for using the
same intelligences. In other words, teachers in this sample succeeded in catering for
37.5% only of the students' intelligences while the rest of the students ' intelligences
were left behind. Again, teacher preparation programs should equip teachers with the
necessary knowledge and skills in accommodating the various intelligences of their
students. Course-book writers- as mentioned above- must take students preferences
into consideration when writing their exercises, activities, content, and assessment
devices. In light of this theory effective EFL teachers are those who are highly
prepared to deal with multi-level and mixed ability classes.

In order to determine whether students’ intelligences differ according to their

school level and/or gender (question 4), table 4 and figure 3 were used to explain
findings.

Table (3) Descriptive Statistics for the Total Students MI across School Levels
(Stages) Students’ mode value for stages:

MIS elementary preparatory Secondary

(LM) 6 6 6
(VL) 4 5 5
(VS) 4 6 7
(BK) 5 7 5
(MR) 4 7 6
(I) 7 8 6
(Ia) 4 7 6
(N) 6 5 5

20
 Mode for MIS in different stages

Primary 8
6
Preparatory Mode for
Stages 4
Secondary 2
0
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
MIS

Figure (4) Descriptive Statistics for the Total Students MI across School Levels (Stages)
Students’ mode value for stages:

Table (3) in addition to figure (4) illustrate that Interpersonal intelligence

(Statistical Mode=7 &8 respectively) was reported by students at all school levels to
be their highest strength superseded only by Visual/ Spatial intelligence at the
secondary school level (Statistical Mode =7). On the other hand Verbal/Linguistic
intelligence was students' lowest intelligence at all school levels (Statistical Mode=
4&5) coupled with other intelligences at these levels (refer to figure 4).
It can also be noticed that Logical/Mathematical and Verbal/Linguistic
intelligences were almost constant across the three school levels whereas Visual/
spatial was steadily growing stronger across school levels.
These findings seem to be plausible since learning a new language requires
Interpersonal intelligence that incites verbal interaction between students and teacher
and among students themselves. The exclusive majority of language learning activities
at these school levels involve group work, group projects, peer correction, dialogs, and
language games that entail interpersonal interaction and team work.
As students grow older and join higher stages in their learning they rely more on
their Visual ability or intelligence than on their auditory one (Papalia & oldes, 1998).
As students move to a higher level (i.e. secondary school) their visual intelligence
intensifies. They receive new knowledge more through reading than through listening.
By that age they can read the lines, between the lines and behind the lines because
most of their knowledge comes from the printed materials (Sadek & AbuHatab, 1990;
Zahran, 1990).
Weakness in linguistic intelligence throughout pre-university stages could be due to
the fact that English is a foreign language and reflect the facts of life when we address
the TEFL profession in Egypt. A considerable number of our schools are not well-
equipped with technology that facilitates English language learning (Ex. Language
labs, computer facilities, etc). In addition many course-books currently used in our
schools do not reasonably nurture students MI including the Linguistic Intelligence,
and a considerable number of EFL teachers are not kept abreast with new advances in
the field of TEFL and suffer from dealing with overcrowded classrooms. These

21
conditions do not support and / or make provision for catering for students MI in
general and Linguistic intelligence in particular.
The weak growth of the Verbal/Linguistic intelligence (Figure 4) throughout
school levels testifies to the conditions of TEFL in pre-university classes as
represented by this sample.

Table (4) Descriptive Statistics for students' MI Concerning Gender

Students’ mode value according to gender:

MIS Male Mode Female mode

(LM) 6 6
(VL) 5 6
(VS) 6 6
(BK) 6 5
(MR) 4 6
(I) 7 8
(Ia) 6 6
(N) 5 6

Mode for male and female in

MIS

8
6
Mode 4

2
0
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

MI

Figure (5) Descriptive Statistics for students' MI Concerning Gender Students’

mode value according to gender:

Table (4) and figure (5) Indicate that Interpersonal intelligence was the strongest
reported by both male and female students while the Musical/Rhythmical was the
lowest for male students and Bodily/Kinesthetic for female students.
Logical/Mathematical, Visual/Spatial, and Intrapersonal intelligences were found to
be of the same weight for both male and female students.

Both genders in this study seem to have the ability to perceive and understand
other classmates, their moods, desires and motivations. They enjoy informally teaching
other students, like to play group games, and ready to give advice to colleagues who
have problems. Interpersonal intelligent students, thus, have a good number of

22
prerequisites for being successful language learners. After all language is
communication and communication takes place between and among people.
From the Developmental Psychology point of view males tend to excel in
Bodily/Kinesthetic ability whereas females tend to excel in Musical/Rhythmical ability
(Sadek & Abu Hatab, 1990, Papalia and Olds, 1998). This study supports that point
of view especially in the field of TEFL. Our EFL teachers have to be aware of these
gender differences and to accept them in order not make unfair comparisons between
males and females. Teachers could complement EFL textbooks by providing
additional creative language activities that help accommodate these differences.
To find out the relationship between students’ MI and their self-efficacy, the
correlation coefficient was calculated (see table 1).

Table (5) Pearson Correlation Coefficient between Students' MI and their

EFL Self-efficacy.

MIS Speaking Reading Writing

(LM) .232** .257** .286**

(VL) .130** .192** .237**
(VS) .080* .169** .173**
(BK) .109** .153** .177**
(MR) .095** .081* .088*
(I) .077* .069* .149**
(Ia) .127** .227** .171**
(N) .112** .185** .231**

Table (5) reveals that correlations between students' MI and their EFL self-
efficacy are all positive and statistically significant at both .05& .01levels.
This finding seems rational since self – confidence helps learners communicate
better using the language (Banadura, 1986; Pajares & Schunk, 2001). It is also
evident that students' language performance could differ from one day to another
according to some social, physical, or psychological circumstances that may affect his
self-confidence and consequently affect his language performance for good or bad.
Moreover, teachers who encourage students’ self-efficacy contribute greatly in
developing their various intelligences (refer to Bong, 1998; Eaton & Dembo, 1996;
Shore, 2002).
Teachers, therefore, are urged to encourage their EFL students by providing
positive feedback, supportive classroom management techniques, and multiple
assessment strategies that capitalize on students' strengths and tab their best resources.
In order to show the size and statistical significance of difference in correlation
coefficients between EFL Self-efficacy and each of the eight intelligences, the
difference between correlation coefficients using Fisher tables was calculated (Table,
6).

23
 Table (6) Differences between Correlation Coefficient for Students'
EFL Self-efficacy and MI.

MIS Skill Reading Writing

Speaking 0.5 1,07

(LM)
Reading - 0.57
Speaking 1.14 1.98
(VL)
Reading - 0.84
Speaking 1.61 1.70
(VS) Reading - 0.09
Speaking 0.82 1.27
(BK) Reading - 0.45
Speaking 0.21 0.13
(MR) Reading - 0.09
Speaking 0.18 1.25
(I) Reading - 1.43
Speaking 1.86 0.84
(Ia) Reading - 1.02
Speaking 1.32 2.20
(N) Reading - 0.88

The shadowed cells in table (6) above point out the Zr values greater than Zcv = ±
1.645 and Table (7) below illustrates the correlation coefficients values corresponding
to Z scores.
Table (7) Corresponding Correlation Coefficient Values of Z scores

MI Variables Z R Rank

(VL) S&W 1.98 0.963 2

(VS) S&W 1.70 0.937 4

(Ia) S&R 1.86 0.953 3

(N) S&W 2.20 0.978 1

A closer look at table (7) discloses that highly significant positive correlations
were found between students' reading self-efficacy and Intrapersonal intelligence.
This finding supports that of other studies (i.e.Shore, 2002). The indication here is that
when a teacher uses a particular intelligence in a class (e.g. Intrapersonal intelligence)
with students who have reported that intelligence in varying degrees, students will
report some degree of self-efficacy in reading. In other words, using Intrapersonal
intelligence in the classroom can support some students’ reading self-efficacy,
especially those with highly developed intrapersonal intelligence.
Intrapersonal intelligent students seem to have some skills and characteristics that
could qualify them as good readers. They are independent and like to work alone, self-
spaced, learn from their failures, have realistic view of their strengths and weaknesses,
and have high self-esteem.

24
 In addition, a strong positive correlation was evident between writing self-efficacy
and each of Verbal/linguistic, Visual/spatial, and Natural intelligences. This means
that using these intelligences in the classroom can support higher writing self-efficacy.
Again these three intelligences help enhance students' writing skill and consequently
their writing self-efficacy. Students having these intelligences as their strongest enjoy
word games, reading books, spell words accurately, write better than average for age,
read maps and charts, like to identify and classify data, and seem to be more in tune
with nature.
The correlation coefficient was used to verify if a relationship exists between
students’ MI and their EFL achievement score (question  6).
Table (8) Pearson Correlation Coefficient between Students' MI and their
EFL Achievement.

(LM) (VL) (VS) (BK) (MR) (I) (Ia) (N)

Table (8)
illustrates Pearson .078** -.018 -.011 -.68* -.005 .033 -.031 .032 that a
Correlation
significant
positive correlation
Pearson .078** -.026 -.014 -.086** -.014 .027 -.038 .012
(at.05) Correlation exists
between students'
Pearson .076** -.023 -.039 -.074** -.018 .040 -.033 .047
Correlation

Logical/Mathematical intelligence and their EFL achievement while a significant

negative correlation (at.05&.01) is evident between students' Bodily/Kinesthetic
intelligence and their EFL achievement. This means that students whose
Logical/Mathematical intelligence is high may probably be able to achieve better as
EFL learners. Al Qoosy (1984), Condis (2000), and Papalia and Olds (1998) proved
that there is a strong positive relationship between the ability to learn Logic,
Philosophy, Math and Language. All these disciplines deal with abstract concepts and /
or symbols.

The negative correlation between Bodily/Kinesthetic and EFL achievement could

be due to the fact that this type of intelligence is used only to overcome knowledge
limitation in all four language skills, but it does not really involve using the language.
A learner resorts to using body language when he does not know an expression, when
he fails to hear something clearly, or when he is faced with a situation in which the
meaning is only implicit or intentionally vague (Oxford, 1990). Another reason for this
negative correlation is that most, if not all, of our achievement tests do not include
speaking or oral conversation sections where a student can use his/or her body
language to get his message through. In this study, for instance, body language was not
assessed as a part of the speaking section of the achievement test. Therefore it was not
given a score.
For the rest of non-significant correlations negative ones constituted about 62.5%
of them (Nr - = 15 out of N r total = 24). This finding comes to add to the lack of
consensus on a positive relationship between high strength in certain intelligences and

25
an increase in EFL achievement scores. Studies conducted by Carlton & Thomas,
2000; Geimer, et al, 2001; Shalk, 2002; Shore, 2003; Smith et al, 2000; and
Snyder, 2000) reached some contradictory results in this concern . This chaos in results
could point to a need for more in depth studies on the topic and for the use of more
valid and more reliable tests of MI and even for bigger sample and longer period of
experimentation.
At last, question 6 of this study about how MI and EFL achievement scores are
related should remain open for more investigation.
Table (9) Pearson Correlation Coefficient between Students' EFL Self-efficacy and
their Achievement.

Speaking Reading Writing

AO Pearson Correlation .208** .138** .085*

AP Pearson Correlation .245** .169** .110**
AQ Pearson Correlation .247** .206** .136**

Table (9) shows that all correlations between students EFL Self-efficacy and their
EFL achievement are significant and positive. These results are in line with those of
Einarson and Santiago, 1996; Huang and Chang, 1996; Mikulecky, 1996; Pajares,
1995. The implication here is that when students' self-efficacy is high it provides the
foundation for their motivation and personal accomplishment. This requires EFL
teachers to constantly provide the appropriate positive oral and written feedback and
encouragement to their students in order to help them have more confidence in
themselves and in their ability to learn and excel in EFL. This is because unless
students believe that their actions can produce the outcomes they desire, they have
little incentive to act or persevere in face of difficulty (Pajares, 2002).

Conclusions and Recommendations

It can be concluded from this study that in order to be successful in educating
all our students, we need to be aware of their individual MI. To be more effective
EFL teachers of the diverse students, teachers need to use concise and efficient
ways to learn more about their students' strengths and weaknesses. For example,
students who have one area of intelligence which is more fully developed than the
others should be encouraged to approach their learning using that particular
intelligence as an entry point. Students in this study scored very high in
Interpersonal Intelligence, they should therefore be provided the opportunities to
develop their knowledge of English using their Interpersonal strength.
Teachers should not only observe the highest scores registered by each of their
students in order to discover appropriate entry points for effective learning, they
should also examine the lowest scores obtained by their students (i.e. Natural,
Bodily/Kinesthetic and Verbal/Linguistic intelligences in this study) in order to
discover which areas of intelligence need to be developed during the course. Some
of these areas strength and weakness might not normal by be obvious in a

26
traditional language learning classroom, but if teachers try to be flexible in their
approach to the learning process and use as many different entry points as possible,
then the students soon begin to appreciate that the best students have weaknesses
and the apparently weak students have strengths. It should therefore be possible to
build a much more cooperative approach to the EFL learning process. Kolata
(2000) states that by implementing MI into the curricula and instruction, educators
will encourage their students to accept not only themselves, but also others, for
who they are and how they learn.
It can also be concluded from this study that the gap that exists between
students' and teachers' MI scores must be addressed and worked on. Teachers, as
well as, course writers should think of all intelligences as equally important and not
to typically place a strong emphasis on the development and use of Verbal and
Mathematical intelligences only.
The differences in MI in terms of gender and school level revealed by this study
in addition to the results concerning the relationship between the application of the
MI theory and the increase in students' achievement scores makes one concludes
that students are more successful when they are taught the way that they are taught
the way that they are naturally inclined to perform better.
Finally the positive and statistically significant correlations between students'
MI scores and their EFL self-efficacy evidently demonstrate the importance of
providing supportive feedback to our students during teaching and in assessment.
Recommendations of this study are multifaceted. First, in conducting studies
that involves quantitative data of teacher application of MI theory in EFL
classrooms; it would be advisable to include examples of various activities
described in questionnaires. This would aid in comprehension and validity of
instrument.
Second, enhancing the quantitative data with interviews (with teachers) in order
to secure rich insight in describing teachers' perception and opinion of MI theory.
In future research, a more illustrative picture of the EFL classroom could be
created through systematic observations of teachers and students at regular but
unexpected intervals. The qualitative accounts would help verify the quantitative
data and aid in the reliability and validity of both teachers' and students' MI scores.
Third, greater degree of curriculum flexibility is recommended. This will help
both teachers and students utilize the MI they have and tab them to their best used.
In the case where teachers, for example, are able to exercise choice in deciding on
the material and teaching methodology, then the application of the MI theory
requires only that teachers have both on understanding of and willingness to
implement the theory . It also requires teachers to recognize their students' needs,
capacities and expectations.

Fourth, the assessment of the EFL learners' progress should vary and –if
possible –students should be involved in decision making. The MI assessment
tools that could be used in an EFL classroom are portfolio, artwork, projects,
presentations, songs, quizzes, drama, and performance, etc (Cambell, 1994).

27
 With the correlational findings in this research, other research involving pre-
university students and the use of MI theory should also be conducted. Perhaps
teacher training programs both pre-and in-service should be the issue with regard to
the content of these programs. A content that focuses- among other topics-on the
MI theory and how to apply it in our classrooms.
The researcher believes that catering for all eight intelligences is a very difficult
task, especially when class sizes are large, when educational resources are often
absent and school finances are scarce, and classroom teachers are underpaid, over
burned and faced with many bureaucratic procedures. However, there is intellectual
light at the end of the tunnel, with care professional dedication, and additional
work on the part of teachers and coursebook writers, the MI theory can be applied.

References

28
Anderson, V. (1999). Using Multiple Intelligences to Improve Retention in Foreign Language
Vocabulary Study. Resources in Education Journal, ED424745.
Albero, P. (1997). Improving Reading through the Use of Multiple Intelligences. M.A. Action
Research Project, Saint Xavier University.
Aly, M. (2000). Multiple Intelligences of EFL Teachers: Implications for Inservice Teacher
Training. Journal of Studies in Curriculum and Methods of Egyptian Association for
Curriculum and Methods of Teaching, 65, PP. 27 -53.
Armstrong, T. (1994a). Multiple Intelligences: Seven Ways to Approach Curriculum. ASCD,
52(3), PP.2-5
Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple Intelligence in the Classroom: 2nd edition Alexandria,
Virginia: ASCD.
Arnold, D. (2002). Relationship between Implementing Gardner's Theory of Multiple
Intelligences and Fifth Graders' Attitudes toward School. DAI-A, 62 (07), P.2292.
Baldes, A. (2000). Motivating Students to Learn through Multiple Intelligences, Cooperative
Learning, and Positive Discipline. Resources in Education Journal, ED443559.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentive Perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Berman, M. (2001). ELT Through Multiple Intelligences. London: Netlearn Publications.
Berman, M. (2002). Multiple Intelligences Revisited: Developing Teachers. (On line available
at: http://www.thestoryteller.or.uk/).
Blake, R. (2000). Improving Student Motivation through the Use of Cooperative Learning
and Multiple Intelligences. Resources in Education Journal, Eric# ED442539.
Bohmer, D. (2000). MI Survey: Family Education. (On line available at: com/
article/o/.2cll20% 2C4-3201%2coo.html).
Bong, M. (1998). Personal Factors Affecting the Generality of Academic Self-Efficacy
Judgment: Gender, Ethnicity, and Relative Expertise. Paper Presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Diego.
Brecher, R. (1999). Improving the Spelling of High Frequency Words in Daily Writing across
the Curriculum through the Use of Multiple Intelligences. Resources in Education
Journal, ED420866.
Brualdi, A. (1996). Multiple Intelligences: Gardner's Theory. ERIC Document Service,
ED410226.
Burhorn, C. (1999). Improving Student Motivation through the Use of Multiple Intelligences.
Educational Resources Information Center, ED433098.
Callahan, C. (1996). Project START: Using a Multiple Intelligences Model in Identifying and
Promoting Talent in High-Risk Students. The National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Campbell, L. (1997). Variations on a Theme: How Teachers Interpret MI Theory. Educational
Leadership, 55 (1), PP. 22-29.
Campbell, L., Campbell, B., and Dickinson, D. (1998). Teaching and Learning through the
Multiple Intelligences. Needham Heights, (MA): Allyn &Bacon.
Carlton, S. and Thomas, K. (2000). Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory: Testing it on Your
Language Minority Students. Fairfax Country (VA): Public Schools.
Carver, E. (2000). Increasing Student Ability to Transfer Knowledge through the Use of
Multiple Intelligences. Resources in Education Journal, ED.447908.
Checkley, K. (1997). The First Seven and then Eighth: A Conversation with Howard Gardner.
Educational Leadership, 55 (1), PP. 8-13.
Chipongian, L. (2000). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Part I: Assessment of
"Intellectual Profiles."(On line available at: http/www.Brainconnection.com).

29
Christison, M. (1998). Applying Multiple Intelligences Theory in Preservice and Inservice
TEFL Education Programs. Forum, 36(2), PP. 2-13.
Cobb, B. (2001). The Effect of Multiple Intelligences Teaching Strategies on the Reading
Achievement of Fourth-Grade Elementary School Students. DAI-A, 62(08), P. 2686.
Condis, R. (2000). Enhancing Vocabulary and Language Using Multiple Intelligences.
Resources in Education Journal. ED441269.
Currie, K. (2003). Multiple Intelligence Theory and the ESL Classroom: Preliminary
Considerations. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(4), PP. 1-5. (On line available at:
http://itestj.org.,http://ites1j.org).
Dobbs, R. (2002). The Relationship between Implementation of the Multiple Intelligences
Theory in the Curriculum and Student Academic Achievement at a Seventh-Grade at
Risk Alternative School. DAI-A. 62 (09), P.2960
Dunn, R. (2001). Two Sides of the Same Coin or Different Strokes for Different Folks? Teach
Librarian, 28(3), PP.1-9. (On line available at:
http://www.search.Epnet.com/direct.asp?an=4256926 &db=afh).
Eaton, M. & Dembo, G. (1996). Difference in the Motivational Beliefs of Asian Americans
and Non-Asian Students. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Association
the American Education Research Association, New York, Ny.
Einarson, M. &Santiago, A. (1996). Background Characteristics as Predictors of Academic
Self-Confidence and Academic Self-efficacy among Graduate Science and Engineering
Students: Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Association for Institutional
Research, Albuquerque, (NM).
Eisner, E. (1998). The Kinds of Schools We Need: Personal Essays. Portmouth, (NH):
Heinemann.
Emig, V. (1997). A Multiple Intelligences Inventory. Educational Leadership, 55 (1), PP. 47-
50.
ELKhamisy, N. (2001). The Effectiveness of Self-Directed Learning in Developing EFL
Teachers' Language Skills and Autonomy. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Mansoura
Faculty of Education, Egypt.
Elsherbini, S. (2001). The Effectiveness of Using Some English Vocabulary Learning
Strategies on Enhancing the Poor Learners' Lexicon in Preparatory Stage. Unpublished
MA Dissertation, Mansoura Faculty of Education, Egypt.
Faris, N. (2001). MI Test for Children. (On line available at: www.mitest.com% Omitest.htm).
Faris, N. (2001). MI Test for Adult Version. (On line available at:www.mitest. Com.07inte-
htm).
Feeny, M. (1999). The Impact of Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences on
Change in Middle School Language Arts Curriculum. Ed. D. Setion Hall University
(U.S.A). DAI–A, 60 (1), 54.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic
Books, Inc.
Gardner, H. (1987). Beyond the IQ: Education and Human Development. Harvard
Educational Review, 57 (2), PP.187-193.
Gardner, H. and Hatch, T. (1990). Multiple Intelligences Go to School: Educational
Implications of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Technical Report No 4, ERIC
Document Reproduction Service, ED324/ 366.
Gardner, H. (1991). Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach.
New York: Basic Books Inc.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on Multiple Intelligences: Myths and Messages. Phi Delta
Kappa, 77 (3), PP. 200 -209.

30
Gardner, H. (1996). Intelligence: Multiple Perspectives. Orlando (FL): Harcourt Brace
College Publishers.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New
York: Basic books.
Gardner, H. (2000). The Giftedness Matrix: A Developmental Perspective. Talents Unfolding.
(Eds.) Reva, C., Friedman; &Bruce M., Shore; Washington, D.C: American
Psychological Association, PP.77 -88.
Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple Intelligences after Twenty Years. Paper Presented at the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Geimer, M. (2001). Improving Student Achievement in Language Arts through
Implementation of Multiple Intelligences Strategies. Resources in Education Journal,
ERIC # ED 444185.
Gens, P. (1999). The Effects of Integrating a Multiple Intelligence Based Language Arts
Curriculum on Reading Comprehension of First And Second Grade Students. M.A.
Action Research Project, Saint Xavier University.
Greene, M. (1999). Writing Self-Efficacy, Gender, Aptitude, and Writing Achievement among
Freshman University Students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Alabama.
Haztz, D. (2002). Multiple Intelligences Survey. (On line available at:
http://www.evsc.k12.in.us/ Curriculum/math/mis).
Hearne, D. and Stone, S. (1995). Multiple Intelligences and Under Achievement: Lessons
from Individuals with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 28 (7), PP.
439-448 .
Hoerr, T. (2000). Becoming a Multiple Intelligences School. Alexandria, (VA): ASCD,
PP. 1-17.
Huang, S. and Chang, S. (1996). Self-Efficacy of English as a Second Language Learner: An
Example of Four Learners. (On line available at:http://
ericae.net/ericdb/ED396536.htm.)
Janes, L. (2000). Improving Student Motivation Through the Use of Engaged Learning,
Cooperative Learning and Multiple Intelligences. ERIC Document Reproduction
Service. ED443559.
Kallenbach, S. and Viens, J. (1999). Emerging Themes in Adult Multiple Intelligences
Research. Focus on Basics, 3 (A), PP. 1-10.
Kolata, K. (2003). Increasing Students' Efficacy through the Multiple Intelligences:
Promoting Diversity in the Classroom. Last Modified Sat. May 24 / 12:48, EST. (On
line available at: www.isub.edu Journal /2001 /Kolata.html).
Kornhaber, M. (1997). Project SUMIT Internet. (On line available at:
http://www.pz.harvard.ed/SUMIT/Default.htm).
Kuzniewski, F. (1998). Using Multiple Intelligences to Increase Reading Comprehension in
English and Math. M.A. Action Research Project, Saint Xavier University.
Laughlin, J. (1999). Multiple Intelligences. Inquiry, 4 (2), PP.4-18.
Lazear, D. (1990). Seven Ways of Knowing: Teaching for Multiple Intelligences. (2nd edition),
Skylight Training and Publishing Inc., USA.
Lin, Po-Ying (2001). Multiple Intelligences Theory and Language Teaching: The Proceedings
of the 18th. Conference On English Teaching and Learning-Taipei: The Crane Publishing
Co.
Martin, J. (2000). Assessment in Multiple Intelligences. ED. D., Loyola University of
Chicago (U.S.A). DAI, 60 (12), P.4305
Mckenzie, W. (1999). Multiple Intelligences Survey. Retrieved November, 15, 2003. (On line
available at :http:// surfaquarium.com/Miinvent.htm).

31
Mettetal, G. and Jordan, C. (1997). Attitudes toward a Multiple Intelligences Curriculum. The
Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), PP.115-122.
Mikulecky, L. (1996). Adult and ESL Literacy Learning Self-Efficacy Questionnaire.
Bloomington, (In): Adult, Career, and Educational Report.
Moon, Y. (1999). A Study of the Effectiveness of Multiple Intelligence Program. (On line
available at: aped.Snu.ac.kr/cyberedu/cyberedu1/eng21-d.html ).
Moon, Y. (2001). Measuring Multiple Intelligences in Korea. (On line available at
:aped.snu.ac.kr/cyberedu/cyberedu1/eng/eng21-02/html).
Morris, C. (1992). Gardner's Multiple Intelligences in our Classrooms: Students Are Smarter
Than We Think: Part I, II, and III. (On line available at:www.igs.net/-cmorris/cv-
papers.html).
Morris, C. and Leblanc, R. (1996). Multiple Intelligences: Profiling Dominant Intelligences of
Grade Eight Students. McGill Journal of Education, 31 (2), PP. 119 -141.
Morris, C. (2003). Working Smarter Not Harder: Applying Howard Gardner's Multiple
Intelligences to Our Lives (Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4) A Discussion Paper (On line available at:
www.igs.net/Cmorris/appendix-a.html).
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Heinle & Heinle,
Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Heinle
& Heinle Publishers, Boston, Mass. U.S.A
Palmberg, R. (2001). Catering for Multiple Intelligences in EFL CourseBooks. (On line
avilable at :www.htmag.co.uk/janoz/sartjano26.rtf).
Pajares, F. & Miller, M. (1995). Self –Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings. Review of
educational Research, 66(4), PP. 543 -578 .
Pajares, F. (1998). Current Directions in Self-Efficacy Research. In March & Pintrich
(Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 10, PP. 1-49, Greenwich, CT:
JAT Press.
Pajares, F. & Schunk, D. (2001). Self-Beliefs and School Success: Self –Efficacy, Self-
concept, and School Achievement. In: R.Riding &S. Rayner (Eds.), Self-Perception
(PP.239-266). London: Ablex Publishing.
Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of Social Cognitive Theory and of Self-efficacy. (Online
avilableat:www.emony.edu/EDUCATION/m6p/eff.ht/.Retrived19/11/2003).
Papalia, D. and Olds, S. (1998). Human Development. (Seventh Edition). MCGraw, Hill,
U.S.A.
Pat, P. (2000). Enhancing Vocabulary and Language Using Multiple Intelligences. (On line
available at: http://www.ascd.org/educationnews/eric/maips.htm/.
River, S. (1994). Checklists for Assessing Students’ Multiple Intelligences. (On line
availableat:http://www.spannj.org/basicrights/appendix.B.htm.exceptedfromArmstro
T.MI in the classroom, Alex. VA ASCD).
Roland, S. (2001). Multiple Intelligences Survey. (On line available at:
www.rolandsmith.comCurriculum/multipleintelligence/Multiple%20intelligence
%20survey%20. PDF.
Ryue, S. (1996). A Study on Group Differences in Multiple Intelligences and Relationships
among MI, IQ and School Achievement. Unpublished Master Thesis.SNU, Korea.
(Onlineavailableat:aped.Snu.ac.krf.cyberedu/cyberedu1/eng/eng 21-05.html).
Shalk, A. (2002). A Study of the Relationship between Multiple Intelligences and
Achievement as Measured by Delaware Student Testing Program (DSTP) Scores in
Reading, Mathematics, and Writing. DAI-A, 69(119), P. 3680.
Shearer, B. (1996). The MIDAS: A Professional Manual of Multiple Intelligences
Development Assessment Scales. Kent, OH: Greyden.
Shore, J. & Robin, J. (2002). An Investigation of Multiple Intelligences and Self-Efficacy in
the University English as a Second Language Classroom. DAI-A, 62(10), P. 3323.

32
Shore, J. (2003). Teacher Education and Multiple Intelligences (TEMI): A Case Study of
Multiple intelligences and Teacher Efficacy in two Teacher Preparation Courses: Paper
Presented at the Annual Meeting of AERA Chicago. (On line available at:
www.ets.or/legall/copyright).
Smith, W. (2000). The Typologies of Successful and Unsuccessful Students in the Core
Subjects of Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies Using the
Theory of Multiple Intelligences in a High School Environment in Tennessee. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid –South Educational Research Association,
ED.448190.
Snider, D. (2001). Multiple Intelligences Theory and Foreign Language Teaching. DAI-A,
61(12), P.4709.
Snyder, R. (2000). The Relationship between Learning Styles/Multiple Intelligences
and Academic Achievement of High School Students. High School Journal, 83
(2), P.11.
Stein, A. (2002). Multiple Intelligence and the Essential Academic Learning
Requirements: Can they Work Together? ERIC Document service:
ED.D.10283326.
Sternberg, R. &Troff, B. (1998). Teaching for Successful Intelligence Raises School
Achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 79 (9), P. 667.
Stajkovic, A. & Schunk, D. (1998). Self-Efficacy and Work-Related Performances: A Meta-
Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, PP. 240-261.
SUMIT (2001). Schools Using Multiple Intelligence Theory. [On line
Availableat:Host:pzweb.harvard.edudirectory:SUMIT/DEFACULT.HTM# December.
Sweeney, D. (1999). Multiple Intelligence Profiles: Enhancing Self-Esteem and Improving
Academic Achievement. DAI-A, 60 (6), P. 1909.
Utecht, J. (1999). Using Multiple Intelligence Approaches to Content Review. (On line
available at : http://www.indiana.edu/eric/ieo/bibs/multiple.html).
Vourexaki, E. (2001). A Consideration of the Extent to Which Greek Primary EFL Teachers'
Perceptions of Intelligences and Their Practices Reflect H. Gardener's Theory of
Multiple Intelligence. Unpublished MA Dissertation. University of Exeter,
England.
Walters, J. (1997). Applications of Multiple Intelligences in Alternative Assessment.
Proceedings of the 2nd National ResearchSymposium On Limited English Proficient
Students, OBEMLA .
Weber, E. (1995). A Multiple Intelligences View of Learning at the High School Level. DAI-
A, 56(4), 1237.
Wilson, L. (1998). Why Teachers are Drawn to Using MI Theory in their Class-
Rooms. New Harizons For Learning Electronic Journal, 3(5), (On line
availableat:FTP:Host:newhorizons.orgDirectory:Newsletter17File:html#1 wilson1.
Wilhite, S. (1990). Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, Self-Assessment of Memory
Ability, and Study Activities as Predictors of College Course Achievement. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 696-700.
Zhang, J. (1998). Research on Self-Efficacy of Distance Learning and its Link to Learners'
Attainment. (On line available at: www.buseco.monash.
edu.au/depts./mgt/research/working-papers/2002/wp.36-02).
Zimmerman, B. (1995). Self-Efficacy and Educational Development. Self-Efficacy in
Changing Societies, Ed. Bandura, A., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PP.202
-231.

‫المراجع العربية‬

33
‫‪1‬‬

‫‪ -‬إمام مصطفى سيد )‪ .(2001‬مدى فاعلية تقييم الداء باستخدام الذكاءات المتعددة لجارد نر في اكتشاف الموهوبين من تلميذ‬
‫المرحلة البتدائية‪ .‬مجلة كلية التربية‪ ,‬جامعة المنصورة‪ ,‬المجلد السابع عشر‪ ،‬العدد )‪ ،(1‬ص‪.250 -199 .‬‬
‫‪ -‬أمال صادق و فؤاد أبو حطب )‪ .(1990‬نمو النسان من مرحلة الجنين حتى مرحلة المسنين‪ .‬الطبعة الثانية‪ ,‬مكتبه‬
‫النجلو المصرية‪ ,‬القاهرة‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬حامد عبد السلم زهران)‪ .(1990‬علم نفس النمو‪ :‬الطفولة و المراهقة‪ .‬الطبعة الخامسة‪ ,‬عالم الكتب‪ ،‬القاهرة‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬جابر عبد الحميد جابر)‪ .( 2003‬الذكاءات المتعددة و الفهم تنمية و تعميق )الطبعة الولى(‪ .‬دار الفكر العربي‪ ,‬القاهرة‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬سعادة عبد الرحيم خليل ) ‪ .(2000‬توجهات معاصرة في التربية و التعليم – الذكاء المتعدد‪ .‬عالم المعرفة‪ ،‬العدد )‪،(88‬‬
‫ص‪.55 -51 :‬‬
‫‪ -‬عبد العزيز القوصى وآخرون )‪ .(1984‬اللغة والفكر‪ .‬مطبوعات معهد التربية العالي للمعلمين‪ ,‬القاهرة‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬صلحا الدين حسين الشريف) ‪ .( 2001‬التنبؤ بالتحصيل الدراسي في ضوء نظريتي معالجة المعلومات والذكاءات‬
‫المتعددة ‪ .‬مجلة كلية التربية ‪ ،‬جامعة أسيوط‪ ,‬المجلد )‪ ، ( 17‬العدد )‪ ،(1‬ص‪.151 – 112 :‬‬
‫‪ -‬محمد عبد الرؤوف الشيخ )‪ .( 1999‬مستويات الذكاء اللغوي لدى طلبا دولة المارات العربية المتحدة واقتراحا برنامج‬
‫لتنمية الذكاء اللغوي لديهم‪ .‬مجلة كلية التربية‪ ,‬العدد)‪.( 86‬‬
‫‪ -‬وليم عبيد ) ‪ .( 2001‬الضربا × ‪ 8‬و أثره على المنظومة المعرفية للمنهج‪ .‬الجمعية المصرية للمناهج و طرق التدريس‪.‬‬
‫المجلد الول لمؤتمر مناهج التعليم و الثورة المعرفية و التكنولوجية المعاصرة‪ ،‬ص‪.21 – 15 :‬‬

‫‪34‬‬