Multiple Intelligences of Senior High School Learners at Cabatuan National High School

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Background of the Research
Theories of intelligences are extensive in educational and psychological literature.
Regardless the number of theories studied in regard to intelligences as a subject of education that
seems to have no exhaustion point (McFarlane, 2011). One of these is the Multiple Intelligences
Theory of Howard Gardner who is a psychologist and Professor at Harvard University.
According to Research Starters Enotes.com, Inc. in 2017 entitled “Multiple
Intelligences”, Multiple Intelligence is theory developed by Gardner which views human
intelligence as a complex web of abilities that are evident in one's products and preferences for
learning. He developed this theory based on his study of many people from many different
walks of life in everyday circumstances and professions where he performed interviews with and
brain research on hundreds of people. His theory has been adapted by many educators as an
explanation for the many ways their students learning and achievement. The students learn and
succeed in different ways and have an individual profile of strengths and weaknesses that can be
exploited to deliver effective instruction.
In the definition given by the Wikipedia, the theory of MI differentiates intelligence into
specific ‘modalities’, rather than seeing intelligence as dominated by a single general ability.
Multiple Intelligence is based on the belief that human being possessed a complex set of abilities
beyond what is measure through traditional intelligence quotient. According to web.cortland.edu,
Gardners’ MI Theory challenged traditional beliefs in the field of education and cognitive
science. In the traditional definition, intelligence is all about the uniform cognitive capacity
people are born with which can be measured by short-answer tests. According to Gardner,
1
intelligence is the ability to solve problems, or to create products, that are valued within one or
more cultural settings.
According in his theory, identifying each student’s intelligences has strong ramification
in the classroom. Wherein, if teachers know their students’ intelligences then they accommodate
them more successfully according to their orientation to learning. Gardner defined the first seven
intelligences in “Frames of Mind” in 1983. These are Linguistic, Logical Mathematical, Musical,
Bodily Kinesthetic, Spatial, Intrapersonal and Interpersonal.
Linguistic intelligence refers to the ability to understand both spoken and written
language, as well as their ability to speak and write themselves. Verbal-linguistic intelligence
which is also called “word smart” are intelligence which involves understanding the order and
meaning of words in both speech and writing and how to properly use the language. People with
linguistic intelligence love and are talented with words. They enjoy writing, reading, and
learning languages just like limericks, rhymes and the like. They have the ability to teach and
explain things to others.
Logical Mathematical Intelligence refers to the ability to detecting patterns, think
logically, deductive reasoning and perform mathematical operation. People with this intelligence
are good at scientific investigations and identifying relationships between different things. They
are also good at understanding complex and abstract ideas.
Musical Intelligence involves the ability to express and fills ideas and feelings musically.
Rhythmic people are “Music Smart”. They have talents in playing musical instruments and
composing music and dance. They recognize patterns of music and understand the relationship
between sound and feeling. They may pursue careers as performing musicians, composers,etc.
2
Bodily Kinesthetic Intelligence refers to the ability to use one’s body to solve problems
and the ability to organize oneself in space, such as in dance. They are also called “body smart”
and skilled at using their body to convey feelings and ideas. They have good hand-eye
coordination. Their fine and gross motor skills are more advanced than the average person’s.
These individuals excel in athletics/dance or may gravitate towards careers that require more
physical activity like Physical Education teacher and many more.
Spatial Intelligence is the ability to visualize and use space. They have the ability to
comprehend three-dimensional images and shapes which is the primary function of the right side
of the brain and is used when solving puzzles, figuring out maps, etc. According to Gardner,
Spatial Intelligence is a human computational capacity that provides the ability or mental skills
to solve spatial problems or navigation, visualization of objects from different angles and space,
faces or scenes recognition.
Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to discern the feelings, desires and motivation of
other people. The people who possessed this intelligence are regarded as “People Smart”. They
have excellent people skills and quite social. This is the ability to understand and to have an
effective model of one. This type of intelligence is exhibited by therapists, leaders, politicians,
etc. They can interpret moods from facial expressions, demonstrate feelings through body
language, can take care of human contact, communication, co-operation and team work.
Intrapersonal intelligence refers to the understanding of one's self. These people are “self-
smart”. They are remarkably aware of their own feelings, beliefs and desire. These “self-smart”
people are always engaged in decision making about one’s aim and decide options for
development. They rely on self- reflection and self-discovery. They can perceive other people’s
feeling, interpret their behavior and communicate and understand the relationship between
3
people and their situations.
Furthermore, Gardner added two more intelligences in “Intelligence Reframed” in 1999.
These are Naturalist and Existentialist. Naturalist Intelligence has to do with observing,
understanding and organizing patterns in the natural environment. A naturalist is someone who
shows expertise in the recognition and classification of plants and animals. While Existentialist
Intelligence involves an individual’s ability to use collective values and intuition to understand
others and the world around them. The people who excel in this intelligence typically able to see
the big picture.
These nine multiple intelligences may possessed by a person. Some people are aware of
their multiple intelligences while some are not. So the researchers conducted a study regarding
this matter focusing on senior high school learners at Cabatuan National High School for them to
be aware of their intelligences and make use of them. The objectives are to identify multiple
intelligences they possess and associate these in their academic performance level. Whereas,
Cabatuan National High School offers Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
(STEM), Accountancy, Business, and Management (ABM), General Academic Strand (GAS),
and Technical-Vocational-Livelihood (TVL).
4
Statement of the Problem
The study entitled, “Multiple Intelligences of Senior High School learners at Cabatuan
National High School” aimed to identify the multiple intelligences possessed by grade 12
learners and its association in their academic performance level. The study sought to answer the
following questions:
1. What is the profile of respondents in terms of:
a. Gender
b. Age, and
c. Strand?
2. Which of the multiple intelligences are mostly possessed by senior high school learners
at Cabatuan National High School?
3. What are the other factors why they chose their strand?
4 5. How many students have multiple intelligences that is associated in the strand chosen
by senior high school learners at Cabatuan National High School?
6. Is there a relationship between the learners’ multiple intelligences and their academic
performance level when classified according to strand and grade level?
Hypotheses
Ho: There is no relationship between the multiple intelligences that students possess and their
academic performance level when classified according to strand and grade level.
HA: There is relationship between the multiple intelligences that students possess and their
5
academic performance level when classified according to strand and grade level.
Objectives of the Study
Specifically, the study aimed to identify the dominant multiple intelligences of SHS
learners at CNHS and to identify if there is a significant relationship between the multiple
intelligences of SHS learners and their academic performance level.
Scope and Delimitation
The study entitled, “Multiple Intelligences of Senior High School learners at Cabatuan
National High School” focused on identifying which of the multiple intelligence are mostly
possessed by senior high school learners and its association in their academic performance level..
It was conducted at Cabatuan National High School on the first semester from July 2017 to
October 2017. This study will be limited to senior high school learners’ age 15-20 years old.
Significance of the Study
The success of the study will give benefits to the following:
1. Students
This study may help them to be aware of their intelligences that they possess and may
serve as guidance in choosing path wisely.
2. Teachers
This study may inspire them to know their students’ multiple intelligences for them to
teach more effectively.
3. Department of Education (DepEd)
6
Helps DepEd to strategize their ways in teaching for the students to make use of their
intelligences.
4. Future Researchers
This study may serve as a reference for future researchers.
Definition of Terms
Bodily-kinesthetic Intelligence. People who love movement, have good motor skills and are
aware of their bodies.
Existentialist Intelligence. People’s ability to use collective values and intuition to understand
others and the world around them and; they are able to see the big picture.
Howard Gardner. A professor of education at Harvard University who developed the theory of
multiple intelligences in 1983.
Interpersonal Intelligence. People who are good with people and thrive in social interactions
and; they have the ability to understand and interpret verbal and nonverbal behavior of others.
Intrapersonal Intelligence. People who are adept at looking inward and; they have the ability
to reflect on their actions and to understand them.
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence. People who are driven by logic and reasoning.
Multiple Intelligences. This is a theory of Howard Gardner about people and their different
types of intelligences.
Multiple Intelligences Test. Set of questions to be answered to identify one’s intelligences or
strengths.
Musical Intelligence. People who are musically gifted and have a “good ear” for rhythm and
composition.
Naturalist Intelligence. People who have sensitivity to and appreciate for nature.
7
Spatial-Visual Intelligence. People who are good at remembering images and are aware of
surroundings.
Traditional Intelligence Quotient. A measure of the intelligence of an individual derived from
results obtained from specially designed tests.
Verbal/Linguistic Intelligence. People who are naturally good with writing or speaking and
memorization.
8
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Howard Gardner argued that the concept of intelligence in its traditional definition in
psychometrics (IQ test) does not sufficiently describe the wide variety of cognitive abilities
humans display. For example, theory states that a child who learns and multiply easily is not
necessarily more intelligent than a child who has stronger skills in another intelligence area.
Multiple intelligence theory is like a window opening to human mind and explains the specific
functions pertaining to different parts of the human brain. Moreover, MI theory tries to explain
how the human mind reacts to world contents, how it internalizes, and how it reaches to a valid
conclusion (Urgup, Aslan, 2015, p.2069).
According to Armstrong (2009), MI theory is the theory of cognitive functioning, and it
proposes that each person has capacity in all eight intelligences. Some people can possess all of
the intelligence or lack all but most of the people fall somewhere in between these two poles
wherein they possess some intelligences and underdeveloped in the rest. Gardner suggests that
everyone has the capacity to develop all eight intelligences to a reasonably high level of
performance with appropriate encouragement, enrichment, and instruction.
There are various test which were developed to determine the intelligences of an
individual. In the study of Rosca (2013), she used McKenziés (1999) MI survey which explores
students’ dominant profile. In the study of Saricaoglu and Arikan (2009), they used Multiple
Intelligence Inventory for adults. “Multiple Intelligence Scale” designed by McGlellan and Conti
was the medium of the data collection procedure of the study of Urgup and Aslan (2015). This
indicator is highly recommended to address student needs & abilities. In the study of Y.S.
Anitha, et.al, (2013), they used Multiple Intelligence profiling questionnaire which developed by
Tirri and Nokelainen to identify the students MI which consist of 40 statements. In the study of
9
Al-kalbani and Al-luahaibi (2016), they used Rogers Indicator of Multiple Intelligence (RIMI)
which is a self-inventory created by Dr. Keith Rogers based on Howard Gardner’s theory. The
indicator used Likert Scale ranging from rarely to almost always which consist of 56 items that
measured 8 types of intelligences.
MI theory is the most effective platform for global 21st century educational &
instructional methodologies and those educators who embrace this perspective will find
themselves meeting and surpassing stakeholders’ demands for accountability in the classroom
and education (McFarlane, 2011). Same with the study of Yoalmanci and Gozum (2013), where
the theory of MI is effective in learning wherein, students can be academically more successful
through education based on MI Theory in which they can be more effective, use the materials by
themselves, speak and discuss freely, learn by seeing and acting, and use their undiscovered
intelligences fields.
There were previous studies conducted by researchers on the determination of dominant
MI of an individual. According to the study conducted by Omela (2016), among the MI defined
by Howard Gardner, the most dominant intelligence among the students from Cristo Rey
Regional High School is the Naturalist intelligence. The same result was found in the study of
Xie and Lin (2009) in their study entitled, “Research on MI Teaching and Assessment”.
Moreover, it was found that the dominant intelligence is naturalist intelligence because in Cristo
Rey Regional High School, it was always been imposed inside the campus to learn to love the
nature. In contrast, naturalist intelligence is the least dominant to Taiwanese students and to
Oman students (Shu Wu and Alrabah, 2009; Al-kalbani and Al-Wahaibi, 2016).
In the study of Heming (2008), in the two groups she studied teacher two’s classroom
was found to have the highest number of indicators in logical mathematical intelligence. Here,
10
the teacher teaches math primarily to her students. Similar result was found in the study of
Saricaoglu and Arikan (2009) where their respondents are students who attended English courses
at Erciyes University’s School of Foreign Languages
According to Shu Wu and Alrabah (2009), Taiwanese students most dominant
intelligences is visual intelligence then followed by interpersonal intelligence. Teacher in Taiwan
recognize their students strengths as visual learners who have high interpersonal skills and at the
same time extroverted to Kuwaiti students followed by visual where teachers in Kuwaiti
recognize their students strength as interpersonal learners who are extroverted and who have
visual intelligences. Same with the study of Heming (2008) and Bautista (2015) where the most
dominant intelligence is interpersonal. The faculty have developed their social relationship for so
many years of teaching.
In the study of Bautista (2015), the students have interpersonal intelligence. Here, the
students are still working on to establish interrelationship with other individuals. Similar result
was found in the study of Urgup and Aslan (2015) entitled, “Investigation of the School of
Physical Education & Sports”.
According to Al-kalbani and Al-Waibi (2016), the most dominant intelligence of Oman
students is linguistic. In contrast, the study of Xie and Lin (2009), the least intelligence is
linguistic where most of the students’ background belonged to vocational education.
Furthermore, the teachers were weak in linguistic and logical mathematical intelligence.
In the study of Shu Wu and Alrabah (2009), the least intelligence of Kuwaiti students is
musical. Same with the study of Saricaglu and Arikan (2009) about their study entitled, “A Study
of Multiple Intelligences, Foreign Language Success and Some Selected Variables” wherein the
11
respondents are students of Erciyes University’s School of Foreign Languages. Meanwhile, the
least intelligence in the study of Dulo and Urek (2016) is the bodily kinesthetic domain among
gifted.
Research studies about MI theory being applied to various aspects were made. There
have been researchers where two groups have been compared; the experimental group where MI
based in teaching and the control group where there is traditional teaching. In the study of Abdi
et,al. (2013), students who were instructed through teaching strategy based on MI achieved
higher score than the ones which were instructed through the traditional instructions. Similar
study made by Xie and Lin (2009), results showed that students from experimental group
wherein there are MI teaching performed significantly better than the groups who practice
traditional teaching.
A research study was conducted in determining if there is a relationship between MI and
Language Proficiency. In the study of Seyyed (2008), there is no significant relationship between
these variables among Iranian students. Furthermore, none of the intelligence types was
diagnosed as the predictor for language proficiency in the Iranian context. In the study of
Mohammadi, et,al. (2012) entitled “The Relationship between Students’ Strengths in MI and
Their Achievement in Learning English Language”, the study suggests that in the learning
environment where multiple intelligence may not be actively used, there is a tendency to have
weak and negative correlation between MI and English Language achievement.
In the study of Mourad (2009), MI-based program was effective in improving the reading
comprehension and word recognition skills of 5th year primary learning disabled students.
Meanwhile, the study of Sadeghi and Farzizadeh (2012) concluded that components of MI had a
significant correlation with writing ability.
12
In US, students performed poorly on mathematics that is why the National Council of
teachers of math suggest that constructivist-based instruction such as connected mathematics
projects (CMP) be used with other theory based instructional strategic like MI Theory. In the
study of Gibson (2008), by using drill and skill exercise (MI) together with CMP, results showed
that 5/7 dominant intelligence groups improved more. Thus, it is potentially effective way to
teach Mathematics. Another study was conducted by Lituglu and Asdin (2005) where results
showed that successful readers in English as a Foreign language (EFC) seemed to use more
global strategies.
According to McFarlane (2011), MI Theory offers the opportunity to develop our
perspective, selves, and institutions by allowing us to recognize and appreciate an expanse of
human skills and abilities. MI theory opens the door to a wide range of teaching strategies that
can be easily implemented in the Classroom (Armstrong, 2009). The Theory of MI has many
benefits and Potential for the implementation of the curriculum (Leidy, et. al, 2017).
Education is now a global process and in order to reflect children’s different learning
styles to understand and accept the power and Potential of MI to change ways in which we think,
learn, and teach (Mc Garland, 2011). The study showed that there is importance in using
Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory in the Classroom. Students will better understand the
material if it is presented in multiple ways (Heming, 2008, p. 29). According to Gibson (2008),
education may use the MI theory to create classrooms that meet the needs of all students by
allowing them to utilize their dominant intelligence(s). This might help students relate better to
what is being thought and in turn, gain a deeper understanding and mastery of mathematical
concepts. According to Mourad (2009) by using Gardner's Multiple Intelligence in the
classroom, students will be able to display their strength and interest.
13
According to Heming (2008, p.29), teachers in the field often teach to their strengths, but
also try to incorporate the strength of the majority of their students. Teachers should have
knowledge about the education based on MI theory in order for them to identify the i. Profiles of
the students having difficulty in comprehending the subject and the appropriate activities for
those profiles (Yalmanci, Gozumy, 2013). The students’ intelligences influenced the way the
teachers present the materials (Heming, 2008). According to Mourad (2009) using various
teaching styles and strategies will help meet the needs of the students inside the classroom.
Students will not lose their basic strengths by trying something new; they will simply develop
other aspects of their intelligences and learning styles (Shu wu and Alrabah,2009).
All children have different dominant in the eighth intelligences, so any particular
strategy is likely to be successful with one group of students and less successful with other
groups (Armstrong, 2009). According to Heming (2008 p.29), students today are much different
than students who were in school even ten years ago. They are more technologically savvy and
they have had more opportunities in life; therefore, we cannot treat or teach them as if they are
the same person. An increase in student’s awareness of their strong and weak points will be
experienced (Rosca, 2013). According to Folio and Urek (2014) determination of students’
intelligence might be beneficial for teachers in order to capture gifted and talented interest and
also might be beneficial for the motivation approaches to the course. Every student should be
exposed to courses, projects or programs that focus on developing each of their intelligences, not
just the standard verbal and logical abilities that for decades have been exalted above every form
of human potential (Armstrong,2009).
Teachers need to avoid developing only one intelligence type of the students and should
address all intelligence type. Teachers should try to develop their students intrapersonal
14
intelligence so that this particular intelligence type will help improving the students overall
language learning (Saricauglu, Arikan, 2009). MI combinations of students must be considered
individually by their teacher in order to enhance their educational activities while for the weak
domains, these should also be considered for their improvement by the teacher and families
(Dolu, Urek, 2014).
According to Urguk and Asland (2015), the curriculum and learning methods applied to
the students should be re-evaluated by taking the differences in the dominant intelligence areas
between the departments into consideration. Everyone should identify their inner capacities, they
should develop their skills in that area (7.S. Aritha, et.al.2013).
Theoretical Framework
This study used a theoretical concepts of Multiple Intelligence proposed by Howard
Gardner. He defined intelligence as one's ability to seek out and decipher problems and create
valuable products in one's culture. Gardner's theory emerged from recent cognitive research and
documents the extent to which individual possesses different kind of minds and therefore learn,
remember, perform and understand in different ways. The multiple intelligence theory proposed
by Howard Gardner in 1983 which introduce seven initial intelligences namely logical
mathematical intelligences, linguistic intelligence, spatial intelligence, musical intelligence,
bodily kinesthetic intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, and intrapersonal intelligence. In 1999,
he added two intelligences in “Intelligence Reframed” which is naturalistic and existential, but
existential intelligence might manifest when an individual begins to question about how things
exist, and created (Roberts, 2010). Therefore, this intelligence still being subjected to further
investigation.
15
Gardner's multiple intelligences theory contribute the following ideas: individuals varies
in their multiple intelligence; intelligences varies in degrees, quantity and quality wherein it can
be nurtured and; every individual possesses several intelligences but differ in intensity quality
and quantity. According to Armstrong (2009), MI theory is all about the cognitive functioning. It
proposes that every individual has capacities in all eight intelligences. Some people can possess
all or lacks all but most of the people fall somewhere in between. Moreover, Charles Spearman
proposed the theory of the two factors which is the general ability and special ability. His main
idea was people who is gifted will always be gifted and dull people are generally dull the same
way.
Research Paradigm
Independent Variables Dependent Variable
Profile of the Respondents

Gender
Age Academic
Strand
Performance level of
Factor
Multiple Intelligences
SHS Learners
Figure 1: Research Paradigm of the Study
Figure 1 shows above the independent variables which include the profile of the
respondents such as the gender, age, and chosen strand; and the factor which is multiple
intelligences that the SHS learners possessed that will be identified in this study. While the
dependent variable is the academic performance level of learners which is their general average
in the first quarter of first semester school year 2017-2018. These variables will be used in
16
determining whether there is relationship between them.
Hypothesis
Ho: There is no relationship between the multiple intelligences that students possess and
their academic performance level when classified according to strand and grade level.
17
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study used quantitative research method as its design. Correlational research was
utilized to determine if there is a relationship between multiple intelligences that students possess
and their academic performance level.
Respondents of the Study
The targeted population was limited to Senior High School learners in Cabatuan National
High School, enrolled in the school year 2017-2018. With the aim of identifying the MI’s that
students possess and identifying if there is a relationship between their MI and their academic
performance level. Out of 501 learners, 222 is the number of respondents. Stratified random
sampling and simple random sampling were used in determining the respondents
Research Instrument
The research tool was used in gathering information are questionnaires to determine the
responses of the respondents. The first part of the questionnaire is all about the demographic
profile of the respondents. The Multiple Intelligence Test by Chislett MSc and A Chapman
(2005-06), based on Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Model is the second part of the
questionnaire which comprised of 70 items. Ten (10) for each of the seven intelligences. Each
item is a description of one of the multiple intelligences that is manifested in their behaviors,
feelings and attitudes. For each item, the subjects were instructed to choose from a 4-level scale
namely: Mostly Disagree, Slightly Disagree, Slightly Agree, Mostly Agree. As there are 10 items
with a maximum of 4 marks for each item, the total score for each set of intelligence is 40. The
intelligence with the highest total represents the student’s strongest intelligence. For the last
18
section of the questionnaire, it was also be composed of questions related to their multiple
intelligences.
Data Gathering Procedure
The data for this research was collected using survey questionnaires. Researchers
explained the purpose of the study. The questionnaires were validated by the researchers. These
were distributed to the chosen Senior High School learners of CNHS. The respondents answered
the questionnaire during their free time and then will collected by researchers. The researchers
collected the grades of the chosen respondents to determine their academic performance level.
Analysis of Data
The responses of the learners in the Multiple Intelligence test were categorized and
organized. The same process was used in the other questions of the questionnaires. SPSS v. 16,
which is an app of statistical tools, was used as a medium in the computation of Pearson r
between multiple intelligences and academic performance level.
19
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Table 1.1: Demographic profile of senior high school learners according to gender
Frequency
Total
ABM STEM GAS TVL
Gende Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
r
Femal
30 22 9 18 30 13 10 11 143
e
Male 12 8 4 12 25 3 11 4 79
Total 72 43 71 36 222
Table 1.1 shows the demographic profile of senior high school learners according to
gender. Whereas, majority (64.41%) of the respondents are female while the rest (35.59%) are
male.
Table 1.2: Demographic profile of senior high school learners according to age
20
Frequency
ABM STEM GAS TVL
Age Total
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
15-
39 3 13 0 43 3 15 1 117
16
17- 97
3 26 0 25 11 13 6 13
18
19- 8
0 1 0 5 1 0 0 1
20
222
Total 72 43 71 36
Table 1.2 indicates the demographic profile of senior high school learners according to
age. Majority (52.70%) of the respondents are 15-16 years old. Most of the respondents in this
age group belong to Grade 11. Respondents aged 17-18 years old consist 43.69% of the total
sample, while, 3.60% of them belong to ages 19-20 years old.
21
Table 1.3: Demographic profile of senior high school learners according to strand
Strand Total
ABM STEM GAS TVL
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Frequenc
42 30 13 30 55 16 21 15 222
y
Total 72 43 71 36
Table 1.3 presents the demographic profile of senior high school learners according to
strand. Cabatuan National High School only offers Academic Track in Senior High School such
as ABM, STEM, GAS, and TVL. Among the respondents, 32.43% consists of ABM students;
followed by 31.98% GAS students; then, 19.37% of STEM students; and lastly, 16.22% of TVL
students.
Table 2: Number of learners who answered multiple intelligence test previously.
22
Overall
Strand
Total
Total of STEM
ABM STEM GAS TVL
Total of ABM
Total of GAS
Total of TVL
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Yes
23 21 44 9 27 36 35 10 45 9 6 15 140
Frequency
No
14 9 23 4 3 7 20 6 26 12 9 21 77
Total 217
Delving deeper into Table 2 above which is about the number of learners who answered
multiple intelligence test previously, majority (64.52%) of the respondents attests to answering
Multiple Intelligence Test before while the rest (35.48%) have not answered yet.
Table 3: Number of learners who are aware of their multiple intelligences
23
Overall Total
Strand
Total of STEM
ABM STEM GAS TVL
Total of ABM
Total of GAS
Total of TVL
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Yes
31 19 50 9 25 34 43 12 55 12 11 23 162
Frequency
No
11 11 22 4 5 9 12 4 16 9 4 13 60
Total 222
As reflected in Table 3 about the number of learners who are aware of their multiple
intelligences, majority (72.97%) are aware of their multiple intelligences wherein the highest
number of learners who are aware is in the strand of STEM (79.07%), followed by GAS
(77.46%), then ABM (69.44%) and lastly, TVL (63.89%). While the rest (27.03%) are not aware
of the multiple intelligences that they possessed wherein TVL strand (36.11%) has the highest
percentage of learners who are not aware of their multiple intelligences followed by the ABM
strand (30.56%), then GAS (22.54%), and lastly, STEM (20.93%).
24
Table 4: Type of multiple intelligences that the learners are aware they possess
Strand
Total
ABM STEM GAS TVL
Type of Multiple Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Intelligences
Linguistic 4 3 1 1 10 1 3 2 25
Logical-Mathematical 10 6 3 6 6 4 1 0 36
Musical 13 13 2 4 22 3 8 8 73
Bodily-Kinesthetic 6 7 0 6 9 3 3 2 36
Spatial-Visual 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 15
Interpersonal 6 8 3 6 7 1 3 4 38
Intrapersonal 9 12 2 6 10 2 1 5 47
Total 102 43 83 42 270
As reflected in table 4 which is all about the type of multiple intelligences that the
learners are aware that they possessed before answering the Multiple Intelligences Test in this
research study, majority (27.04%) say that their multiple intelligence is Musical Intelligence;
followed by 17.41% of respondents with multiple intelligence of intrapersonal intelligence.
Then, interpersonal intelligence with 14.07%. Next are bodily-kinesthetic intelligence and
logical-mathematical with 13.33%; then, Linguistic Intelligence with 9.26%; and lastly, spatial-
visual intelligence with 5.56%.
25
Table 5: Number of learners who list their multiple intelligences which match the result of the
multiple intelligences test
Strand
Total
ABM STEM GAS TVL
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Matches
13 18 9 19 18 11 8 6 102
Frequency
Not
18 1 0 6 25 1 4 5 60
matches
Total 50 34 55 23 162
Table 5 shows above the number of learners who list their multiple intelligences which
match the result of the multiple intelligences test. Majority (62.96%) of the respondents match
what their list to the result of the multiple intelligence test while the rest (37.04%) do not match.
Table 6: Number of learners who chose their strand based on their multiple intelligences
Strand
Total
ABM STEM GAS TVL
26
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Yes
21 17 8 19 35 13 14 6 133
Frequency
No 21 13 5 11 20 3 7 9 89
Total 72 43 71 36 222
Table 6 indicates the number of learners who chose their strand based on their multiple
intelligences. Most (59.91%) of the respondents chose their strand based on Multiple
Intelligence. While the rest (40.09%) of the respondents did not.
Table 7: Number of learners who said that it is important to know their multiple intelligences in
choosing their strand
Strand Total
ABM STEM GAS TVL
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
27
Yes
40 27 11 25 50 15 17 10 195
Frequency
No 2 3 2 5 5 1 4 4 26
Total 72 43 71 35 221
Table 7 shows the number of learners who said that it is important to know their multiple
intelligences in choosing their strand. Majority (88.24%) of the respondents say that knowing
their multiple intelligence is important in choosing their strand while the rest (11.76%) said it is
not important.
Table 8: Other factors why the learners chose their strand
Strand Total
ABM STEM GAS TVL
Other Factors
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Course-related 3 3 2 0 0 4 1 0 13
Dream 25 7 3 6 2 0 0 0 43
28
Interest 3 9 1 6 0 7 15 14 55
Passion 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 6
Wants 0 4 0 4 2 0 0 0 10
Based on own skills 10 1 0 5 0 0 3 0 19
Personal Decision 2 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 9
Decision of Family 9 2 3 4 2 1 0 0 21
Influence of Friends 9 6 1 0 5 0 0 0 21
Enhancement of
2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 6
Skills
In-demand job
3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6
Undecided 0 0 2 4 0 4 0 0 10
As observed in table 8 about the other factors why the Senior High School learners
choose to be in their designated strand, interest is the topmost factor they consider with 25.11%
because the strand attracts their attention and they wanted to learn more about their tracks. The
second factor is their dream with 19.63% of respondents because they want to achieve their
biggest goals and dreams in life. Then, factors such as influence of friends and parent’s decision
with 9.59% where students just ‘go with the flow’ and followed the decision of their parents on
what they want their children to pursue. They also consider their own skills that they possessed
with 8.68%. Next is 5.94% of respondents in the factor course-related where they want to
continue their studying in the strand that is the most capable in providing knowledge in their
chosen course. Other respondents (4.57%) consider their wants. With the same percentage is the
respondents that are still undecided. Respondents (4.11%) chose their strand based on their
personal decision. Lastly, with the same percentage which is 2.74% falls to factors such as
passion, enhancement of skills, and in-demand job because their chosen tracks have a high salary
and they wanted to develop their skills that they already have.
Table 9: Scores of ABM senior high school learners in each multiple intelligence
29
Scores of ABM Learners
Type of Multiple
Total x̅
Intelligences Grade 11 Grade 12
Apoll
Aristotle Galileo Zeus
o
27.22
Linguistic 481 646 438 395 1960
27.51
Logical-Mathematical 498 636 420 427 1981
30.06
Musical 529 686 497 452 2164
25.88
Bodily-Kinesthetic 416 592 438 417 1863
26.04
Spatial-Visual 470 590 425 390 1875
27.24
Interpersonal 486 614 435 426 1961
Intrapersonal 537 688 463 459 2147 29.82
Delving deeper into the table 9 which shows the scores of ABM Senior High School
learners in each Multiple Intelligences, the dominant type of intelligence that the ABM students
possessed is the Musical Intelligence; followed by Intrapersonal Intelligence; Logical-
Mathematical Intelligence; Interpersonal Intelligence; Linguistic Intelligence; Spatial-Visual
Intelligence; and Bodily-Kinesthetic as being the least possessed type of Multiple Intelligence.
Table 10: Scores of STEM senior high school leaners in each multiple intelligence.
Type of Multiple Tota

Scores of STEM Learners
Intelligences l
x̅
Grade 11 Grade 12
30
Artemi
Einstein Aphrodite
s
27.51
Linguistic 373 386 424 1183
28.14
Logical-Mathematical 367 431 412 1210
29.47
Musical 406 396 465 1267
27.81
Bodily-Kinesthetic 363 405 428 1196
27.95
Spatial-Visual 377 392 433 1202
28.02
Interpersonal 380 397 428 1205
Intrapersonal 410 458 482 1350 31.40
The table 10 indicates the scores of STEM Senior High School Learners in each Multiple
Intelligences. The most dominant type of intelligence that the STEM Senior High School
Learners possess is the Intrapersonal Intelligence; followed by Musical Intelligence; Logical-
Mathematical Intelligence; Interpersonal Intelligence; Spatial-Visual Intelligence; and Linguistic
Intelligence being the least possessed type of Multiple Intelligence.
Table 11: Scores of GAS senior high school leaners in each multiple intelligence
Scores of GAS Learners
Type of Multiple
Total x̅
Intelligences Grade 11
Grade 12
Plat
Socrates Hermes
o
26.51
Linguistic 785 671 426 1882
26.49
Logical-Mathematical 777 675 429 1881
31
29.51
Musical 851 767 477 2095
25.90
Bodily-Kinesthetic 775 660 404 1839
25.65
Spatial-Visual 766 640 415 1821
26.73
Interpersonal 781 686 431 1898
Intrapersonal 861 729 479 2069 29.14
As reflected in table 11 about the scores of GAS Senior High School learners in each
Multiple Intelligence, the most dominant type of intelligence that the GAS Senior High School
learners possessed is Musical Intelligence; followed by Intrapersonal Intelligence; Interpersonal
Intelligence; Linguistic Intelligence; Logical-Mathematical Intelligence; Bodily-Kinesthetic
Intelligence; and Spatial-Visual Intelligence being the least possessed type of Multiple
Intelligence.
Table 12: Scores of TVL senior high school leaners in each multiple intelligence.
Type of Multiple Scores of TVL Learners Tota

x̅
Intelligences l
Grade 11 Grade 12
Pascal Athena
25.03
Linguistic 536 365 901
25.78
Logical-Mathematical 542 386 928
29.72
Musical 632 438 1070
26.14
Bodily-Kinesthetic 561 380 941
32
24.22
Spatial-Visual 511 361 972
26.67
Interpersonal 555 405 960
Intrapersonal 579 459 1038 28.83
The Table 12 shows the scores of TVL senior high school learners in each of the multiple
intelligences. The most dominant intelligence that they possess is the musical intelligence;
followed by intrapersonal intelligence; interpersonal intelligence; bodily-kinesthetic intelligence;
logical-mathematical intelligence; and spatial-visual intelligence being the least type of
intelligence that the TVL senior high school learners possess.
Table 13: Mean scores of each multiple intelligence
Mean Scores x̅
Type of Multiple Intelligences AB
STEM GAS TVL
M
26.5
Linguistic Intelligence 27.22 27.51 25.03 26.57
1
26.4
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence 27.51 28.14 25.78 26.98
9
29.5
Musical Intelligence 30.06 29.47 29.72 29.69
1
25.9
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence 25.88 27.81 26.14 26.43
0
25.6
Spatial-Visual Intelligence 26.04 30.28 24.22 26.55
5
Interpersonal Intelligence 27.24 28.02 26.7 26.67 27.17
33
Intrapersonal Intelligence 29.82 31.40 29.1 28.83 29.80
Delving deeper into the table 13 which shows the overall mean scores of each multiple
intelligence of senior high school learners. The most dominant intelligence that they possessed is
Intrapersonal Intelligence; followed by Musical Intelligence; Interpersonal Intelligence; Logical-
Mathematical Intelligence; Linguistic Intelligence; Spatial-Visual Intelligence; and lastly Bodily-
kinesthetic Intelligence.
Table 14: Most dominant multiple intelligences of senior high school learners
Frequency
Total
ABM STEM GAS TVL
Type of Multiple
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Intelligences
Linguistic 3 2 1 2 7 0 2 1 17
Musical 17 12 4 5 27 5 8 4 78
34
Spatial-Visual 3 0 3 3 6 2 0 0 17
Intrapersonal 11 7 2 12 16 6 4 10 58
Total 240
The table 14 shows the most dominant multiple intelligence of Senior High School
learners. Majority (31.42%) of the respondents dominantly possess the Musical Intelligence;
followed by 26.01% of them who acquire the Intrapersonal Intelligence. However, 10.73%
among the respondents acquire Interpersonal Intelligence then 9.96% of the respondents acquire
the Logical Mathematical Intelligence. Moreover, 8.43% of the respondents possessed the Bodily
Kinesthetic Intelligence and lastly, least (6.90%) of them acquire the Linguistic Intelligence.
Table 15: Least dominant multiple intelligences of senior high school learners
Frequency Total
ABM STEM GAS TVL
Type of Multiple
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 12
Intelligences
Linguistic 9 5 1 7 12 2 5 6 47
Musical 6 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 21
Spatial-Visual 11 12 4 6 15 4 5 7 63
35
Intrapersonal 2 2 0 1 4 0 2 0 11
Total 254
The table 15 indicates the least dominant multiple intelligence of Senior High School
learners. Most of the respondents (24.80%) least multiple intelligence is Spatial Visual; followed
by Linguistic Intelligence with 18.50%. However, 18.11% of the respondents least multiple
intelligence is Bodily Kinesthetic; followed by 13.79% which is Logical Mathematical. In
addition, 12.60% of the respondents least multiple intelligence is Interpersonal; followed by
8.27% which is the Musical Intelligence. Lastly, 4.33% among the respondents’ least multiple
intelligence is Intrapersonal Intelligence.
Table 16: Correlation of multiple intelligences and academic performance of grade 11 students
Type of Multiple Strand
Intelligences ABM STEM GAS TVL

.177, .446, .372, .347,
Linguistic
.263 .126 .005 .123
Logical- .432, .171, .277*, .085,
Mathematical .004 .577 .040 .715

-.087, .300, .220, .279,
Musical
.585 .320 .107 .221
Bodily- .019, .698, .141, .235,
Kinesthetic .904 .008 .306 .205

-.234, .379, .214, .069,
Spatial-Visual
.136 .202 .117 .768
36
.218, -.021, .336*, .355,
Interpersonal
.165 .945 .012 .115
.156, .566*, .439, .384,
Intrapersonal
.324 .044 .001 .086
*Pearson r, p value *Correlation is significant at 0.05 level of significance.
Table 16 presents the computed Pearson r value and p value for the correlation of the
multiple intelligences and academic performance of grade 11 students. Correlation coefficients
range from -1.0 (a perfect negative correlation) to positive 1.0 (a perfect positive correlation).
The closer correlation coefficients get to -1.0 or 1.0, the stronger the correlation. The closer a
correlation coefficient gets to zero, the weaker the correlation is between the two variables. Data
are interpreted using 0.05 level of significance.
In the grade 11 ABM strand, the computed Pearson r of 0.177 and a p value of 0.263
shows that there is no significant correlation between linguistic intelligence and academic
performance level. The computed Pearson r of 0.432 and a p value of 0.004 indicates that there is
no significant correlation between logical-mathematical intelligence and academic performance
level. The computed Pearson r of -0.087 and p value of 0.585 shows that there is no significant
correlation between musical intelligence and academic performance level. The computed
Pearson r of 0.019 and p value of 0.904 shows that there is no significant correlation between
bodily-kinesthetic intelligence and academic performance level. The computed Pearson r of
-0.234 and p value of 0.136 shows that there is no significant correlation between spatial-visual
intelligence and academic performance level. The computed Pearson r of 0.218 and p value of
0.165 shows that there is no significant correlation between interpersonal intelligence and
academic performance level. The computed Pearson r of 0.156 and p value of 0.324 shows that
there is no significant correlation between intrapersonal intelligence and academic performance
37
level.
In the grade 11 STEM strand, the computed Pearson r of 0.446 and a p value of 0.126
indicates that there is no significant correlation between linguistic intelligence and academic
performance level. The computed Pearson r of 0.171 and a p value of 0.577 shows that there is
level. The computed Pearson r of 0.300 and p value of 0.320 shows that there is no significant
0.379 and p value of 0.202 shows that there is no significant correlation between spatial-visual
intelligence and academic performance level. The computed Pearson r of -0.021 and p value of
there is significant correlation between intrapersonal intelligence and academic performance
level.
In the grade 11 GAS strand, the computed Pearson r of 0.372 and a p value of 0.005
significant correlation between logical-mathematical intelligence and academic performance
38
0.012 shows that there is significant correlation between interpersonal intelligence and academic
performance level. The computed Pearson r of 0.556 and p value of 0.044 shows that there is
significant correlation between intrapersonal intelligence and academic performance level.
In the grade 11 TVL strand, the computed Pearson r of 0.347 and a p value of 0.123
level.
39
Table 17: Correlation of multiple intelligences and academic performance of grade 12 students
Strand
Type of Multiple
ABM STEM GAS TVL
Intelligences
.375*, .376*, .245, -.105
Linguistic
.041 .040 .360 .710
Logical- .167, .437*, .220, .302,
Mathematical .377 .016 .413 .274

.159, .238, -.287, .289,
Musical
.402 .206 .281 .296
Bodily- .174, .465, -.019, .047,
Kinesthetic .357 .010 .944 .867

.506, .334, .379, .245,
Spatial-Visual
.004 .071 .147 .378
40
.406*, .286, .008, .366,
Interpersonal
.026 .125 .975 .180
-.014, .171, -.175, .403,
Intrapersonal
.943 .366 .517 .136
Pearson r, p value *Correlation is significant at 0.05 level of significance.
Table 17 shows the computed Pearson r value and p value for the correlation of the multiple
intelligences and academic performance of grade 12 students. Correlation coefficients range
from -1.0 (a perfect negative correlation) to positive 1.0 (a perfect positive correlation). The
closer correlation coefficients get to -1.0 or 1.0, the stronger the correlation. The closer a
correlation coefficient gets to zero, the weaker the correlation is between the two variables. Data
are interpreted using 0.05 level of significance.
In the grade 12 ABM strand, the computed Pearson r of 0.375 and a p value of 0.042
shows that there is significant correlation between linguistic intelligence and academic
0.026 shows that there is significant correlation between interpersonal intelligence and academic
performance level. The computed Pearson r of -0.014 and p value of 0.943 shows that there is no
significant correlation between intrapersonal intelligence and academic performance level.
41
In the grade 12 STEM strand, the computed Pearson r of 0.376 and a p value of 0.040
shows that there is significant correlation between linguistic intelligence and academic
significant correlation between logical-mathematical intelligence and academic performance
level.
In the grade 12 GAS strand, the computed Pearson r of 0.245 and a p value of 0.360
level. The computed Pearson r of -0.287 and p value of 0.281 shows that there is no significant
Pearson r of -0.019 and p value of 0.944 shows that there is no significant correlation between
42
academic performance level. The computed Pearson r of -0.175 and p value of 0.517 shows that
level.
In the grade 12 TVL strand, the computed Pearson r of -0.105 and a p value of 0.710
Pearson r of -0.047 and p value of 0.867 shows that there is no significant correlation between
level.
43
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary of the findings, conclusions and recommendations of
the study.
Summary and Conclusions
The study aimed to know the dominant multiple intelligences that the senior high school
students possessed. It also aimed to identify whether there is a significant relationship between
their multiple intelligences and academic performance level per strand and grade level. The
researchers also aimed to identify the respondents’ demographic profile such as their age,
gender, and strand. Furthermore, it aimed to know the number of students who are aware of their
multiple intelligences, the number of students whose multiple intelligences is associated in the
44
strand they have chosen, and the other factors why they chose their strand.
This study benefited the following: students which helped them to be aware of their
intelligences that they possess and may serve as guidance in choosing their strand wisely; the
teachers wherein the study inspired them to know their students’ multiple intelligences for them
to teach more effectively; Department of Education (DepEd) where the study helped them to
strategize their ways in teaching for the students to make use of their intelligences; and future
researchers which the study served as a reference for them.
Two hundred twenty-two (222) senior high school students at Cabatuan National High
School were chosen as the respondents of the study aged 15-20 years old. Quantitative research
method was used as the study’s design. The researchers used Pearson r to determine if there is a
relationship between multiple intelligences that students possess and their academic performance
level. The researchers used questionnaires in gathering the data which is composed of Multiple
Intelligence Test by Chislett MSc and A. Chapman (2005-06), based on Gardner's Multiple
Intelligences Model, and questions related to their multiple intelligences.
Based from the results, the following conclusions were arrived at: in terms of their
demographic profile, out of 222 respondents, there are more female respondents which has a
frequency of 143 or 64.41% while male gender has 79 or 35.59%. Most of the respondents ages
15-16 years old with 52.70%. While 43.69% consists of respondents from ages 17-18 years old
and 3.60% from ages 19-20 years old. Most of the respondents are from the ABM strand with
32.43%. Meanwhile, 31.98% are GAS students; 19.37% are STEM students and the remaining
16.22% are TVL students.
In the awareness of the respondents in their multiple intelligences, 162 out of 222
45
(72.97%) are aware of the multiple intelligences that they possess wherein mostly are STEM
students. In the comparison between the multiple intelligences that they listed and the result of
the Multiple Intelligence Test of the respondents who are aware of their multiple intelligences,
majority (62.96%) matches while the rest (37.04%) do not match.
According to the responses of the respondents aware of multiple intelligences that they
possess, the most dominant multiple intelligence is musical intelligence with 27.04% and the
least is spatial-visual intelligence with 5.56%.
Among the respondents, 59.91% of them chose their strand which is associated with their
multiple intelligences wherein most (88.24%) of the respondents give importance in knowing
their multiple intelligences in choosing their strand. As for the other factors the respondents
chose their strand, interest is the most influential factor garnering 25.11% wherein their chosen
strand attracts their attention and they wanted to learn more about their tracks.
Other factors include dream, influence of friends, parent’s decision, their own skills,
course-related, wants, personal decision, passion, enhancement of skills, and in-demand job.
The dominant type of intelligence that the ABM, GAS, and TVL students possess is the
musical intelligence while STEM students’ dominant intelligence is intrapersonal intelligence.
The least intelligence of ABM students is bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. The least intelligence
of STEM students is linguistic intelligence. Meanwhile, the least intelligence of both GAS
students and TVL students is spatial-visual intelligence.
Among the overall multiple intelligences of the senior high school learners in Cabatuan
National High School, the most dominant intelligence that they possess is intrapersonal
intelligence. Next in succeeding ranks are musical intelligence, interpersonal intelligence,
46
logical-mathematical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, spatial-visual intelligence, and lastly
bodily-kinesthetic intelligence which is the least intelligence that they possess. Similar to this
result is the study of Dulo and Urek (2016) where the least intelligence is the bodily-kinesthetic.
In terms of the most dominant multiple intelligence that the respondents possess, majority
of them dominantly possess the musical intelligence with 31.42%; intrapersonal intelligence with
26.01%; interpersonal intelligence with 10.73%; logical-mathematical intelligence with 9.96%;
bodily kinesthetic intelligence with 8.43; and the least intelligence is linguistic intelligence with
6.90%. The same with the study of Xie and Lin (2009) wherein the least intelligence is linguistic
intelligence.
In terms of the least multiple intelligence that the respondents possess, most of the
respondents least multiple intelligence is Spatial Visual with 24.80%; Linguistic Intelligence
ranked 2 with 18.50%; Bodily-Kinesthetic ranked 3 with 18.11%; Logical Mathematical ranked
4 with 13.79%; Interpersonal Intelligence ranked 5 with 12.60%; Musical Intelligence ranked 6
with 8.27%; and Intrapersonal ranked 7 with 4.33%.
In the correlations of Grade 11 ABM strand, there are no significant correlations between
each multiple intelligence and the academic performance level. In STEM Strand, there are no
significant correlations between the multiple intelligences and academic performance level
except the intrapersonal intelligence which has significant correlation with their academic
performance level with computed Pearson r of 0.566 and p value of 0.044. In GAS strand, there
are significant correlations between logical-mathematical and academic performance level with
computed Pearson r of 0.277 and p value of 0.040; and intrapersonal intelligence and academic
performance level with Pearson r of 0.336 and p value of 0.012; while the rest intelligences do
not have significant correlations with their academic performance level. In TVL strand, there are
47
also no significant correlations between each multiple intelligences and academic performance
level of the learners.
In grade 12 ABM strand, there are significant correlations between linguistic intelligence
and academic performance level with computed Pearson r of 0.375 and p value of 0.041; and,
interpersonal intelligence and academic performance level with computed Pearson r of 0.406 and
p value of 0.026. Meanwhile, there are no significant correlations between on the remaining
intelligences and academic performance level. In STEM strand, there are significant correlations
between the linguistic intelligence and academic performance level with computed Pearson r of
0.376 and p value of 0.040; and, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence and academic performance level
with computed Pearson r of 0.437 and p value of 0.016. While the rest multiple intelligences
have no significant correlations in their academic performance level. In GAS strand, there are no
significant correlations between each MI and academic performance level. Same result in the
grade 12 TVL strand.
Recommendations
Policy Recommendation
The research study should indicate policy that can help the respondent in
using their multiple intelligences. The future research study within this area is
recommended in order to solidify any correlation between the theory of MI and
increased academic, social, emotional success for students. The research study
should study more about the strategies of teachers in finding ways to encourage
students to use their natural multiple intelligences that will make lessons more
productive, students more successful and the classroom a more positive
environment for everyone.
48
Recommendations for future researchers
1. Future researchers should look into the application of multiple intelligences in
other age groups.
2. Future researchers should include observation studies inside the room of students
for a more reliable result.
3. Future researchers should study about the teaching strategies of students to
enhance their multiple intelligences.
4. Future researchers should conduct study on the effect of multiple intelligences in
the academic performance level of the students.
5. Future researchers should conduct study on the effect of the students who are
aware of their multiple intelligences compared to the students who are not aware
of their multiple intelligences in their academic performance.
49
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mohamadi, Majid Pour. Abidin, Mohamad Jafre Zainol. Yang Amad, Khairul Anuar Bin. "The
Relationship Between Students' Strengths in Multiple Intelligences and Their
Achievement in Learning English Language" (2012). Journal of language teaching and
research. Academy Publisher Manufacturer in Finland, Vol.3 no.4pp.677-686.
Saricaoglu, Aysel. Arikan, Arga. "The Study of Multiple Intelligences Foreign Language
Success and Some Selected Variables" (2009). Journal of theory and practice in
education. http://eku.komu.educ.tr/index/5/2asaricaoglu_aarikan_pdf.
Iyitoglu, Orhan. Aydin, Hasan. "The Relationship Between the Multiple Intelligence Profiles and
Reading Strategy Used of Successful English of Foreign Language (EFL) Readers"
(2015). South African journal of education, vol.35 no.2.
http://digitalcommons.wku.educ/stu_hom_theses.
Wong, Peter W. Dr et.al,. "Education Research and Reviews" (2015). Academic journals. Vol.10
Xie, Jingchen. Lin, Ruilin. "Research on Multiple Intelligences Teaching and Assessment"
(2009). Asean journal of management and humanity Sciences, Vol.4, no.2-3 pp.106-124
Rosca, Andrea. "The Benefit Using a Teaching Program Based on Multiple Intelligences Theory
in Spanish EFL Learners Productive Vocabulary Knowledge" (2013).
50
Abdi, Ali. Laei, Soosan. Ahmadjan, Hamze. "The Effect of Strategy Based on Multiple
Intelligences on Students Academic Achievement on Science Course" (2013). Universal
Journal of Educational Research. http://www.hrpub.org.
Hajhashemi, Karim. Shakarami, Alireza. Anderson, Neil. Yazdi-Amirkhiz Seyed Yasin. Zau,
Woyi. "Relationship Between Language Learnings Strategies, Language Proficiency
and Multiple Intelligences. (2013). Academic Research International, Vol.4 no.6
Bautista, Florencia Dr. "Multiple Intelligences of Faculty and Selected Student in the College of
Science: Input to Faculty and Student Development Programs" (2015). International
Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, vol.24, no.5 pp.290-300
. Journal for the education of the young scientist and giftedness. vol.2 issue2,58-66.
Abdulkader, Fathi Abdul Hamid PhD. Gundogdu, Kerim PhD. Ali Eissa, Mourad. "The
Effectiveness of Multiple Intelligences Based Program on Improving Certain Reading
Skills in 5th-year Primary Learning Disabled Students" (2009). Electronic journal of
Research and Educational Psychology.
Uygulama, Egitimde Kuram Ve. "Multiple intelligence Theory: The Construct and its
Components" (2009). Journal of theory and practice in education.
Sagedhi, Karim. Farzizadeh, Bahareh. "The Relationship Between Multiple intelligences and
Writing Ability of Iranian EFL Learners" (2012). English Language Teaching
Published by Canadian Center and Science Education. Vol.5 no.11
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/2677258676
Cuta, Marilyn Amor. Omela, Gemma Getes. "Multiple Intelligences Profile of Cristo Rey
Regional High School [Compatibility Mode] (2017).
Heming Andrea Lauren, "Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom" (2008). Honors College
Capstone Experience/ Thesis Projects. Paper 138.
http://digitalcommons.wku/stu_hon_theses/138
Bautista, Florence V. M.D. (2015) " Multiple Intelligence of faculty and selected students in the
51
College of Science: Input of faculty and student development programs ". International
Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research. Volume 24, No. 5, pp 290-300.
http://www.urs.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/4737-12369-1-PB.pdf
V Chislett MSc and A Chapman (2005-06). “Multiple Intelligence Test based on Howard
Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Model
http://www.businessballs.com/freepdfmaterials/free_multiple_intelligences_test_manua
l_version.pdf
Hanafin, Joan. (2014) "Multiple Intelligences theory, action research and teacher professional
development: the Irish MI project." http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EI1017627.pdf
McFarlane,Donovan A. Ph.D., D.B.A Ed.D (2011). "Multiple Intelligences: The most effective
platform for global 21st century educational and instructional methodologies".
http://collegequarterly.co./2011-vol14-num02-spring/mcfarlane.html
Al-kalbani, muna said and al wahaibi, (2016) "Testing the multiple intelligences theory in
oman". Volume 190, pp.575-581.http://dpi.org/10.2016/j.sbspro.2015.04.923
Seyyed, Ayatollah Razmjoo (2008). "On the relationship between multiple intelligences and
language proficiency". The Reading Matrix. Vol. 8, No. 2.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Seyyed_Ayatollah_Razmjoo/publication/239951180_on
_the_relationship_between_multiple_intelligences
Book
Armstrong, Thomas (2009). "Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, 3 rd Edition".
www.ascd.org/publications/books/109007.aspx
52
APPENDIX A (Questionnaire)
53
I. Demographic Data
Direction: Please check (/) in the appropriate box.
Name: _________________________________________ Grade: _______ Section: _________
Gender: Female Male Age: 15-16 years old
17-18 years old
19-20 years old
Others specify____________
Track: _____________________________________________________
Strand: ____________________________________________________
II. Multiple Intelligence Test – based on Howard Gardner’s MI Model
Direction: Please check (/) your choice. The following are the scores which corresponds your
choice:
1= Mostly Disagree
2= Slightly Disagree
3=Slightly Agree
4= Mostly Agree
Mostly Slightly Slightly Mostly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1. I find it easy to make up stories
2. When talking to someone, I tend to listen to the
words they use not just what they mean
3. I enjoy crosswords, word searches or other word
puzzles
4. I am a convincing liar (If I want to be)
5. I find it easy to remember quotes or phrases
6. At school, one of my favorite subjects is/was
English
7. I enjoy debates and discussions
8. I often talk to myself-out loud or in my head
9. When I am abroad, I find it easy to pick up the
basics of another language
10. I find pleasure in reading
11. I find budgeting and managing my money easy
54
12. I don’t like ambiguity, I like things to be clear
13. I enjoy logic puzzles such as “Sudoku”
14. People behaving irrationally annoy me
15. I like to be systematic and thorough
16. I find mental arithmetic easy
17. I like to think through a problem carefully,
considering all the consequences
18. I find it easy to remember telephone/cellphone
numbers
19. I don’t use fingers when I count
20. My favorite subject at school is/was Mathematics
21. I can play a musical instrument
22. I often have a song or piece of music in my head
23. Music is very important to me
24. I find that the music that appeals to me is often
based on how I feel emotionally
25. I enjoy a wide variety of musical styles
26. I can identify most sounds without seeing what
causes them
27. I like having music on in the background
28. At school, I love/loved music lessons
29. I have always dreamed of being a musician/singer
30. Singing makes me feel happy
31. I find it easiest to solve problems when I am doing
something physical
32. I have always been physically well-coordinated
33. I play a sport or dance
34. I can throw things well-darts, skimming pebbles,
Frisbees, etc.
35. I love adrenaline sports and scary rides
36. I enjoy and I’m good at making things- I’m good
with my hands
37. I am a very tackle person
38. I never use instructions for flat-pack furniture
39. To learn something new, I need to just get on and
try it
40. I find ball games easy and enjoyable
41. I find graphs and charts easy to understand
42. I can always recognize places that I have been
before, even when I was young
43. When I am concentrating, I tend to doodle
44. My house is full of pictures and photographs
45. I can easily imagine how an object would look
55
from another perspective
46. I often see clear images when I close my eyes
47. My favorite subject at school is/was Art
48. I can read a map easily
49. I never get lost when I am on my own in a new
place
50. If I am learning how to do something, I like to see
drawings and diagrams of how it works
51. I am a very social person and like being with other
people
52. I could manipulate people if I choose to
53. I care about how those around me feel
54. I can tell easily whether someone likes me or
dislikes me
55. I find it easily to talk to new people
56. I am very aware of other people’s body language
57. It upsets me to see someone cry and not be able to
help
58. I am good at solving disputes between others
59. I prefer team sports
60. My friends always come to me for emotional
supports and advice
61. I like to learn more about myself
62. I like to meditate
63. I am very interested in psychometric (personality
testing) and IQ tests
64. I can protect my feelings and behaviors in certain
situations fairly accurately
65. I enjoy individual sports best
66. I set myself goals and plans for the future
67. I always know how I am feeling
68. I am realistic about my strengths and weaknesses
69. I keep a diary
70. I am happy spending time alone
Add the scores:
56
Intelligence Type Total Score
1-10 refers to Linguistic Intelligence
11-20 refers to Logical-Mathematical Intelligence
21-30 refers to Musical Intelligence
31-40 refers to Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence
41-50 refers to Spatial-Visual Intelligence
51-60 refers to Interpersonal Intelligence
61-70 refers to Intrapersonal Intelligence
Score Intelligence Type

Highest
Lowest
III. Questionnaire
Direction: Put check (/) in your chosen box and answer truthfully each questions.
1. Did you answer multiple intelligence test before?
Yes No
2. Before answering the multiple intelligence test above, are you aware of the multiple
intelligence(s) that you possessed?
Yes No
If yes, which among the multiple intelligences do you belong?
Linguistic Intelligence
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence
Musical Intelligence Intelligence
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence
Spatial-Visual Intelligence
Interpersonal Intelligence
Intrapersonal Intelligence
3. Is your chosen track is based on your multiple intelligence that you possessed?
Yes No
4. Is knowing your multiple intelligence important to you in choosing your course?
Yes No
5. What are the other factors why you chose your track?
__________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
57
APPENDIX B (Letter)
58
Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Cabatuan National High School
=oOo=SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL=oOo=
Dear Ma’am/Sir,
As part of our subject requirement in Practical Research II, we are conducting a
quantitative research method entitled, “Multiple Intelligences of Senior High School Learners at
Cabatuan National High School”.
In this regard, we would like to request the general average for the first quarter of the
chosen respondents in your class. We would like to assure you that the data you will share to us
will be used strictly for research purposes only.
Attached with this letter is the list of students per section whose average we need. Thank
you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Very respectfully yours,

The Researchers
KIMBERLIE MARQUEZ CRISHA BALOY
VICTORIA CLAIRE BAYLON PRINCESS ANNE AQUINO
PRINCESS ANNE GERVACIO RITCHIE ROSE BARENG
FIONA AUDREY SANTOS CRISTIAN DAVE CALIBOSO
CHARLENE DAGODOG MICHAEL BERNARDINO
MELODY RAMBON MARY ANNE PANCHO
59
APPENDIX C (Curriculum Vitae)
60
Personal Background
Name: Michael B. Bernardino
Gender: Male
Age: 17
Address: Luzon Cabatuan, Isabela, Region II
Birthday: September 21, 2000
Birthplace: Paludpod, Talavera, Nueva Ecija
Cellphone Number: 09972757443
Email: Mikekiyoshi@gmail.com
Civil Status: Single
Father’s Name: Danilo Bernardino
Occupation: Farmer
Mother’s Name: Raquel Bernardino
Occupation: Housekeeper
Religion: Roman Catholic
Ambition: To be a Businessman someday.
Life quote: Think positive and magic will happen
Educational Background
Elementary: Luzon Elementary School
Brgy. Luzon, Cabatuan, Isabela
Year Graduated: 2012
Secondary (Junior): Cabatuan National High School
Del Pilar, Cabatuan, Isabela
Secondary (Senior): Cabatuan National High School
Del Pilar, Cabatuan, Isabela, Region II
Expected year of graduation: 2018
61
Personal Background
Name: Christian Dave S. Caliboso
Gender: Male
Age: 17
Address: Sampaloc, Cabtuan, Isabela
Birthday: November 9, 2000
Birthplace: Barsat East, Baggao, Cagayan
Email: DaveCaliboso09@gmail.com
Father’s Name: Ronald Caliboso, Sr.
Occupation: Driver
Mother’s Name: Rosana Caliboso
Occupation: OFW
Ambition: To become a Marine
Life quote: Trust in God’s plan for you.
Elementary: Barsat Eat Elementary School
62
Personal Background
Name: Princess Ann V. Aquino
Gender: Female
Age: 17
Address: Culing Centro, Cabatuan, Isabela
Birthday: August 19, 2000
Birthplace: Los Baños, Laguna
Email: aquinoprincess45@yahoo.com
Father’s Name: Francisco C. Aquino
Occupation: Brgy Kagawad
Mother’s Name: Esther V. Aquino
Occupation: Sewer
Ambition: To become Accountant
Life quote: If you believe, you can achieve.
Elementary: Culing Elementary School
Culing Centro, Cabatuan, Isabela
Del Pilar Cabatuan, Isabela
63
Personal Background
Name: Crisha M. Baloy
Gender: Female
Age: 17
Address: Namnama, Cabatuan, Isabela
Birthday: January 21, 2000
Birthplace: San Mateo, Isabela
Email: crishabaloy7@gmail.com
Father’s Name: Donald R. Baloy
Occupation: Mechanic
Mother’s Name: Dolores M. Baloy
Occupation: Regional Manager, ROPALI Corporation
Religion: Iglesia Ni Cristo
Ambition: To be a policewoman someday
Life quote: If you believe, you can achieve
Elementary: Namnama Elementary School
Brgy. Namnama, Cabatuan, Isabela
64
Personal Background
Name: Ma. Ritchie Rose S. Bareng
Gender: Female
Age: 17
Address: Sampaloc, Cabatuan, Isabela
Birthday: December 4, 1999
Birthplace: Ugad, Tumauini, Isabela
Email: Arceeshania61@gmail.com
Father’s Name: Eric U. Bareng
Occupation: Laborer
Mother’s Name: Rosa S. Bareng
Occupation: OFW
Ambition: To be a CPA Lawyer someday
Life quote: If there’s a will, there’s a way
Elementary: Cabatuan East Central School
Sampaloc, Cabatuan, Isabela
Secondary (Junior): Cabatuan National High school
65
Personal Background
Name: Victoria Claire C. Baylon
Gender: Female
Age: 17
Address: Sampaloc, Cabatuan, Isabela
Birthday: April 1, 2000
Birthplace: Provincial Hospital, Ilagan, Isabela
Email: erickaclairebaylon@yahoo.com
Father’s Name: SPO3 Rodel M. Baylon
Occupation: Police Officer
Mother’s Name: Ranibel C. Baylon
Occupation: Housekeeping
Ambition: Chef
Life quote: Smile! God has great things planned for you
Elementary: Cabatuan East Central School
Sampaloc, Cabatuan, Isabela
Secondary (Senior): Cabatuan National High school
66
Personal Background
Name: Charlene C. Dagodog
Gender: Female
Age: 18
Address: Abad St. Paraiso, Cabatuan, Isabela
Birthday: July 9, 1999
Birthplace: Cupang, Muntinlupa City
Email: chrlncntl@gmail.com
Father’s Name: Michael Dagodog
Occupation: Driver
Mother’s Name: Charity Dagodog
Occupation: Waitress
Ambition: To be a successful owner of a restaurant someday
Life quote: Success is just a matter of attitude.
Elementary: Sucat Elementary School
67
Personal Background
Name: Princess Anne C. Gervacio
Gender: Female
Age: 17
Address: Saranay Cabatuan Isabela
Birthday: April 17, 2000
Birthplace: Saranay Cabatuan, Isabela
Email: princessanne.corpuz17@gmail.com
Father’s Name: Antonio M. Gervacio
Occupation: Farmer
Mother’s Name: Judith C. Gervacio
Occupation: Housewife
Ambition: Flight Attendant
Life quote: Aim High, Fly High
Elementary: Ortiz-Saranay Elementary School
Saranay, Cabatuan, Isabela
68
Personal Background
Name: Kimberlie R. Marquez
Gender: Female
Age: 17
Address: #128 San Juan, Aurora, Isabela, Region II
Birthplace: Aurora, Isabela, Region II
Email: along_cute01@yahoo.com
Father’s Name: Michael A. Marquez
Occupation: OFW
Mother’s Name: Rosalie R Marquez
Occupation: OFW
Course: Bachelor of Science in Accountancy
Ambition: To be a successful individual someday.
Life quote: There’s no impossible, just believe in yourself that you can do it. Fighting!
Elementary: Aurora Central School
Sta. Rosa, Aurora, Isabela, Region II
Secondary (Junior): Doña Aurora National High School
Sta. Rita, Aurora, Isabela, Region II
69
Personal Background
Name: Mary Anne C. Pancho
Gender: Female
Age: 17
Address: Del Pilar Cabatuan, Isabela, Region II
Birthplace: Del Pilar Cabatuan, Isabela
Email: maryannepancho@yahoo.com
Father’s Name: Zosimo M. Pancho
Occupation: C.I Collector
Mother’s Name: Lilibeth C. Pancho
Occupation: Barangay Health Worker
Ambition: To be a businesswoman someday.
Life quote: Think positive because everything will be alright.
Elementary: Cabatuan West Central School
70
Personal Background
Name: Melody A. Rambom
Gender: Female
Age: 17
Address: prk.7 Nueva Era, Cabatuan, Isabela
Birthday: March 25, 2000
Birthplace: Nueva Era Cabatuan, Isabela
Email: melodyrambon@yahoo.com
Father’s Name: Felix Rambon
Occupation: Duck Raiser
Mother’s Name: Benita Rambon
Occupation: Housewife
Ambition: To be a successful business woman someday
Life quote: You should never regret anything in life. If it’s good, it’s wonderful. If it’s bad, it’s
experience.
Elementary: Nueva Era Elementary School
Brgy. Nueva Era, Cabatuan, Isabela
71
Personal Background
Name: Fiona Audrey B. Santos
Gender: Female
Age: 17
Address: San Andres, Cabatuan, Isabela
Birthday: June 24, 2000
Birthplace: San Andres, Cabatuan, Isabela
Email: fionaaudreysantos@yahoo.com
Father’s Name: Farley B. Santos
Occupation: Driver
Mother’s Name: Floresma B. Santos
Occupation: Police Woman
Ambition: Flight Attendant
Life quote: Fake it ‘til you make it
Elementary: Cabatuan West Central School
Del Pilar Cabatuan Isabela
Del Pilar Cabatuan Isabela
72
Appendix D
(Computation)
73
Sample Size
Slovin’s Formula
n = N / (1+Ne2)
n=501/ [1+(501) (0.05)2]
n=222
Pearson r
Correlations between Grade 11 ABM strand multiple intelligences and their academic
performance level
Average Intrapersonal
ABM11 ABM11
AverageABM11 Pearson
1 .156
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .324
N 42 42
IntrapersonalABM11 Pearson
.156 1
Correlation
N 42 42
74
Average Interpersonal
ABM11 ABM11
AverageABM11 Pearson Correlation 1 .218

N 42 42
InterpersonalABM11 Pearson Correlation .218 1

N 42 42
AverageABM11 SpaVisABM11
AverageABM11 Pearson Correlation 1 -.234

N 42 42
SpaVisABM11 Pearson Correlation -.234 1

N 42 42
75
AverageABM11 BodKinABM11
AverageABM11 Pearson Correlation
1 .019

N 42 42
BodKinABM11 Pearson Correlation
.019 1

N 42 42
AverageABM11 MusicalABM11
AverageABM11 Pearson Correlation 1 -.087

N 42 42
MusicalABM11 Pearson Correlation -.087 1

N 42 42
AverageABM11 LogMathABM11
N 42 42
LogMathABM11 Pearson Correlation .432 1

N 42 42
76
Average Linguistics
ABM11 ABM11
N 42 42
LinguisticsABM11 Pearson Correlation .177 1

N 42 42
Correlations between Grade 11 STEM multiple intelligences and academic performance
level
77
STEM11 STEM11
AverageSTEM11 Pearson Correlation 1 .566*

N 13 13
IntrapersonalSTEM11 Pearson Correlation .566* 1

N 13 13
STEM11 STEM11
AverageSTEM11 Pearson Correlation 1 -.021

N 13 13
InterpersonalSTEM11 Pearson Correlation
-.021 1

N 13 13
78
AverageSTEM SpaVis
11 STEM11
AverageSTEM11 Pearson Correlation 1 .379

N 13 13
SpaVisSTEM11 Pearson Correlation .379 1

N 13 13
Average BodKin
STEM11 STEM11
AverageSTEM11 Pearson Correlation
1 .698

N 13 13
BodKinSTEM11 Pearson Correlation
.698 1

N 13 13
79
Average Musical
STEM11 STEM11

N 13 13
MusicalSTEM11 Pearson Correlation
.300 1

N 13 13
Average LogMath
STEM11 STEM11
AverageSTEM11 Pearson Correlation
1 .171

N 13 13
LogMathSTEM11 Pearson Correlation
.171 1

N 13 13
80
Average Linguistics
STEM11 STEM11

N 13 13
LinguisticsSTEM11 Pearson Correlation .446 1

N 13 13
Correlations between Grade 11 GAS strand multiple intelligences and their academic
performance level
GAS11 GAS11
AverageGAS11 Pearson Correlation
1 .439

N 55 55
IntrapersonalGAS11 Pearson Correlation
.439 1

N 55 55
81
GAS11 GAS11
1 .336*

N 55 55
InterpersonalGAS11 Pearson Correlation
.336* 1

N 55 55
Average SpaVis
GAS11 GAS11
AverageGAS11 Pearson Correlation 1 .214

N 55 55
SpaVisGAS11 Pearson Correlation .214 1

N 55 55
82
AverageGAS11 BodKinGAS11

N 55 55
BodKinGAS11 Pearson Correlation .141 1

N 55 55
AverageGAS11 MusicalGAS11
N 55 55
MusicalGAS11 Pearson Correlation .220 1
N 55 55
83
AverageGAS1 LogMathGAS
1 11
1 .277*

N 55 55
LogMathGAS1 Pearson Correlation
.277* 1
1
N 55 55
Average Linguistics
GAS11 GAS11

N 55 55
LinguisticsGAS1 Pearson Correlation .372 1
1
N 55 55
Correlations between Grade 11 TVL strand multiple intelligences and their academic
84
performance level
TVL11 TVL11
AverageTVL11 Pearson Correlation 1 .384

N 21 21
IntrapersonalTVL11 Pearson Correlation .384 1

N 21 21
TVL11 TVL11

N 21 21
InterpersonalTVL11 Pearson Correlation .355 1

N 21 21
AverageTVL11 SpaVisTVL11

N 21 21
SpaVisTVL11 Pearson Correlation .069 1
85
AverageTVL11 BodKinTVL11
N 21 21
BodKinTVL11 Pearson Correlation .235 1
N 21 21
AverageTVL11 MusicalTVL11

N 21 21
MusicalTVL11 Pearson Correlation .279 1

N 21 21
AverageTVL11 LogMathTVL11
N 21 21
LogMathTVL11 Pearson Correlation .085 1
N 21 21
86
AverageTVL11 LinguisticsTVL11
AverageTVL11 Pearson Correlation AVE Interpersonal
1 .347
ABM ABM12
AVEABM Pearson Correlation 1 .406*
N 21 21
LinguisticsTVL11 Pearson Correlation .347 1
N 30 30
Sig. (2-tailed)
InterpersonalABM12 Pearson Correlation .406*.123 1
N Sig. (2-tailed) .026 21 21
N 30 30
AVEABM IntraABM12
AVEABM Pearson Correlation 1 -.014
N 30 30
IntraABM12 Pearson Correlation -.014 1
N 30 30
Correlations between Grade 12 ABM strand multiple intelligences and their academic
performance level
87
AVEABM SpaVisABM12
AVEABM Pearson Correlation 1 .506
N 30 30
SpaVisABM12 Pearson Correlation .506 1
N 30 30
AVEABM BodKinABM12
AVEABM Pearson Correlation
1 .174

N 30 30
BodKinABM12 Pearson Correlation
.174 1

N 30 30
AVE Musical
ABM ABM12
N 30 30
MusicalABM Pearson Correlation .159 1
12 Sig. (2-tailed) .402
N 30 30
88
AVE LogMath
ABM LinguisticsAB
ABM12
AVEABM M12
AVEABM Pearson Correlation 1 .375*
N 30 30
N 30 30
LogMathABM12 Pearson Correlation .167 1
LinguisticsABM12 Pearson Correlation *
.375 1
NSig. (2-tailed) .041
30 30
N 30 30
89
Correlations between the Grade 12 STEM strand multiple intelligences and academic
performance level
AVE Ling
AVESTEM
STEM IntraSTEM12
STEM12
AVESTEM
AVESTEM Pearson Correlation
Pearson Correlation 1 .171
*
1 .376
Sig.Sig.
(2-tailed)
(2-tailed) .366
.040
N 30 30
N 30 30
IntraSTEM12 Pearson Correlation .171 1
LingSTEM12 Pearson Correlation .376* 1
N 30 30
N 30 30
AVESTEM InterSTEM12
AVESTEM Pearson Correlation 1 .286
N 30 30
InterSTEM12 Pearson Correlation .286 1
N 30 30
90
AVESTEM SpaSTEM12
AVESTEM Pearson
1 .334
Correlation
N 30 30
SpaSTEM12 Pearson
.334 1
Correlation
N 30 30
AVESTE BodSTEM1
M 2
AVESTEM Pearson
1 .465
Correlation
N 30 30
BodSTEM1 Pearson
.465 1
2 Correlation
N 30 30
91
AVESTEM LogSTEM12
AVESTEM Pearson Correlation 1 .437*

N 30 30
LogSTEM12 Pearson Correlation AVESTEM
.437* MusSTEM12
1
AVESTEM Pearson Correlation 1 .238
N 30 30
N 30 30
MusSTEM12between
Correlations Pearson
GradeCorrelation .238 and their
12 GAS strand multiple intelligences 1
academic performance level
N 30 30
AVETVL
AVETVL BodTVL12
InterTVL12
AVEGAS IntraGAS12
AVETVL LogTVL12
AVETVL PearsonCorrelation
Pearson Correlation 1 1 .366 .047
AVEGAS
AVETVL Pearson
Pearson Correlation
Correlation 1 1 .302-.175
Sig.(2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed) .180 .867
Sig.
N (2-tailed)
NSig. (2-tailed) 15 15 .274 .517
15 15
BodTVL12
InterTVL12 NPearson
N
PearsonCorrelation
Correlation 15 16 .047 15 16
.366 1 1
LogTVL12
IntraGAS12 Pearson
Pearson
Sig. Correlation
Correlation
Sig.(2-tailed)
(2-tailed) .302
.180 .867 1
-.175 1
Sig.
NN (2-tailed) .274 15 15 15 15
N 15 15
N 16 16
AVEGA InterGAS1
S 2
AVEGAS Pearson
1 .008
Correlation
N 16 16
InterGAS1 Pearson
.008 1
2 Correlation
N 16 16
e
AVEGA 92
S SpaGAS12
AVEGAS Pearson
1 .379

Multiple Intelligences of Senior High School Learners at Cabatuan National High School

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multiple Intelligences of Senior High School Learners at Cabatuan National High School

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Background of the Research

Theories of intelligences are extensive in educational and psychological literature.

Theory of Howard Gardner who is a psychologist and Professor at Harvard University.

According to Research Starters Enotes.com, Inc. in 2017 entitled “Multiple

Intelligences”, Multiple Intelligence is theory developed by Gardner which views human

exploited to deliver effective instruction.

beyond what is measure through traditional intelligence quotient. According to web.cortland.edu,

more cultural settings.

Bodily Kinesthetic, Spatial, Intrapersonal and Interpersonal.

explain things to others.

Logical Mathematical Intelligence refers to the ability to detecting patterns, think

are also good at understanding complex and abstract ideas.

physical activity like Physical Education teacher and many more.

faces or scenes recognition.

Furthermore, Gardner added two more intelligences in “Intelligence Reframed” in 1999.

the big picture.

and Technical-Vocational-Livelihood (TVL).

1. What is the profile of respondents in terms of:

at Cabatuan National High School?

by senior high school learners at Cabatuan National High School?

performance level when classified according to strand and grade level?

Objectives of the Study

intelligences of SHS learners and their academic performance level.

Scope and Delimitation

Significance of the Study

The success of the study will give benefits to the following:

serve as guidance in choosing path wisely.

teach more effectively.

3. Department of Education (DepEd)

This study may serve as a reference for future researchers.

aware of their bodies.

multiple intelligences in 1983.

to reflect on their actions and to understand them.

Logical-Mathematical Intelligence. People who are driven by logic and reasoning.

Multiple Intelligences Test. Set of questions to be answered to identify one’s intelligences or

Traditional Intelligence Quotient. A measure of the intelligence of an individual derived from

results obtained from specially designed tests.

conclusion (Urgup, Aslan, 2015, p.2069).

According to Armstrong (2009), MI theory is the theory of cognitive functioning, and it

performance with appropriate encouragement, enrichment, and instruction.

measured 8 types of intelligences.

There were previous studies conducted by researchers on the determination of dominant

at Erciyes University’s School of Foreign Languages

According to Shu Wu and Alrabah (2009), Taiwanese students most dominant

intelligences is visual intelligence then followed by interpersonal intelligence. Teacher in Taiwan

many years of teaching.

Physical Education & Sports”.

linguistic where most of the students’ background belonged to vocational education.

A research study was conducted in determining if there is a relationship between MI and

weak and negative correlation between MI and English Language achievement.

significant correlation with writing ability.

teachers of math suggest that constructivist-based instruction such as connected mathematics

According to McFarlane (2011), MI Theory offers the opportunity to develop our

perspective, selves, and institutions by allowing us to recognize and appreciate an expanse of

concepts. According to Mourad (2009) by using Gardner's Multiple Intelligence in the

classroom, students will be able to display their strength and interest.

of human potential (Armstrong,2009).

language learning (Saricauglu, Arikan, 2009). MI combinations of students must be considered

(Dolu, Urek, 2014).

should develop their skills in that area (7.S. Aritha, et.al.2013).

This study used a theoretical concepts of Multiple Intelligence proposed by Howard

mathematical intelligences, linguistic intelligence, spatial intelligence, musical intelligence,