Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 850–855

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Pre-service English as a foreign language teachers' perceptions of the relationship

between multiple intelligences and foreign language learning
Perihan Savas ⁎
Middle East Technical University, Department of Foreign Language Education, Faculty of Education, METU, 06800, Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The relationship between intelligence, language, and learning is a challenging field of study. One way to study
Received 3 June 2011 how this relationship occurs and works is to investigate the perceptions of advanced language learners.
Received in revised form 6 March 2012 Therefore, this paper reports a study that was conducted to explore 160 pre-service English language
Accepted 1 May 2012
teachers' perceptions about which type(s) of multiple intelligence(s) play a role in foreign language learning.
The findings of the study indicated that virtually all participants (97%) agreed on making use of all intelli-
Keywords:
Pre-service teachers' perceptions
gence types in the process of foreign language learning and linguistic intelligence alone does not guarantee
Multiple intelligences success in learning a foreign language. The results of the study also illustrate that multiple intelligences
English as a foreign language learning and foreign language learning have an ongoing, complex, and interactive relationship. Finally, a foreign
language learning discipline MI profile is suggested.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Background to the study
Intelligence, language, and the ability to learn are three important
human traits. These three distinctive human abilities and their
interdependent relationship is a difficult field to study. Howard
Gardner's (1983) Multiple Intelligences Theory (MI) has been used as
a tool for understanding the relationship between language, learning,
and intelligence because, as Christison (1998) points out, MI theory
and its principles are widely accepted by practitioners in the field of
foreign language learning. Christison (2005) also claims that MI theory
can provide an effective framework for language learning as it can
match the very complex nature of language learning.
MI theory, first introduced in Gardner's (1983) Frames of mind: The
theory of multiple intelligences, has attracted considerable attention be-
cause it made educators and researchers question the notion of intelli-
gence as one single entity. Gardner, who opposed the overemphasis of
the linguistic/verbal and mathematical/logical domains in the assess-
ment techniques of IQ tests, suggested that there can be “a more plural-
istic cognitive universe” (Gardner, 1995, p. 16). According to his
approach, “intelligence entails the ability to solve problems or fashion
products that are of consequence in a particular setting or community,”
(Gardner, 1993, p. 15). Gardner (2006) proposes eight main types of
intelligences instead of one broad category of intelligence (logical–
mathematical, linguistic, musical, spatial, bodily–kinesthetic, interper-
sonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic).
According to MI theory there is more than one way to be smart
(Christodoulou, 2009) because “the human mind can be quite modular
Abbreviations: MI, multiple intelligences; EFL, English as a foreign language.
⁎ Tel.: +90 312 210 4071 (office), +90 542 574 1420 (mobile); fax: +90 312 210 4854.
E-mail address: perihans@metu.edu.tr.
in design” (Gardner & Hatch, 1989, p. 6), and “the human mind seems
to receive and express ideas in myriad ways” (Fogarty & Stoehr, 1995,
p. 7). Everyone possesses all of these intelligences to varying degrees,
and each individual has a unique intelligence profile. No two people,
not even twins, have the same intelligence profile (Gardner, 2008) be-
cause the development of intelligence is not determined by genetics
alone; cultural and environmental factors also influence the type of in-
telligence individuals have. Armstrong (2003) indicates that the devel-
opment of intelligences depends on three main factors:
a) Biological endowment, including hereditary or genetic factors
and insults or injuries to the brain before, during, and after birth;
b) Personal life history, including experiences with parents,
teachers, peers, friends, and others who either awaken intelli-
gences or keep them from developing; c) Cultural and historical
background, including the time and place in which you were born
and raised and the nature and state of cultural or historical devel-
opments in different domains (p. 7).
In addition, Christison (1998) outlines several other points about
MI theory with implications for foreign language learning:
a) Each person possesses all eight intelligences, b) Intelligences
can be developed, c) Intelligences work together in complex ways.
No intelligence really exists by itself in life. Intelligences are al-
ways interacting with each other, and d) There are many different
ways to be intelligent (p. 2).
Studies done on the relationship between MI and language learning
mostly focused on uncovering the dominant types of intelligences pos-
sessed by foreign language learners. For example, Currie (2003), who
gave an MI questionnaire to students in an English Language reading

1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.003
 P. Savas / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 850–855
class, found out that linguistic and musical intelligences were the most
highly developed among the students. Mathematical intelligence was
the least common intelligence among students in class. Isisag (2008)
studied student tendency toward various intelligences in foreign lan-
guage teaching at the college level. First and second year students in
a foreign languages department were given MI questionnaires
and the results showed that interpersonal, linguistic, and intra-
personal intelligences were most common and naturalistic intelligence
was the least dominant intelligence. Mahdavy (2008) arrived at similar
conclusions in a study in which the TOEFL and IELTS listening scores of
117 language learners were compared with their Multiple Intelligences
Development Assessment Scale (MIDAS) questionnaire results.
Mahdavy (2008) reports that “performances of the participants who
took MIDAS, TOEFL, and IELTS listening tests indicated that participants
performed best on the interpersonal section and obtained the lowest
mean score on the naturalist section of MIDAS” (p. 119). The results
showed that scores on all intelligences positively correlate with
TOEFL and IELTS listening scores, but only linguistic intelligence can
predict listening performance.
Investigating foreign language learners' dominant intelligence
types with the help of multiple intelligences surveys is essential to
understand the relationship between MI and foreign language learn-
ing. However, there is also another way of investigating this relation-
ship, which is examining the perceptions of pre-service English as a
foreign language (EFL) teachers' about the relationship between in-
telligence, language, and learning. There is a need to investigate
foreign language pre-service teachers' perceptions about the relation-
ship between multiple intelligences and their role(s) in foreign lan-
guage learning for three main reasons. First, even though there have
been several studies in the research literature (Akbari & Hosseini,
2008; Arnold & Fonseca, 2004; Campbell & Plevyak, 2008; Green &
Tanner, 2005; Haley, 2004; Kim, 2009; Stanford, 2003; Steward,
2009) in support of using MI theory to enhance foreign language
learning, little is known on the extent of the role each multiple intel-
ligence type plays in the success of foreign language learning. Second,
pre-service teachers in a foreign language department generally dem-
onstrate high levels of proficiency in English, and their experiences
and opinions may give us clues to understanding language aptitude
and developing effective language learning strategies. In addition, it
is important to give future teachers a voice on the subject because
studies done with this specific participant profile regarding this
topic are limited in number.
Therefore, the purpose of the study presented here was to explore
the relationship between intelligence, language, and learning. This
was accomplished by evaluating the attitudes of 160 pre-service for-
eign language teachers toward language learning and multiple intel-
ligences. The main research questions that were investigated were:
1. What are the perceptions of pre-service English as a foreign lan-
guage (EFL) teachers regarding the relationship between MI theo-
ry and foreign language learning?”
a. To what extent does each intelligence type play a role in
learning a foreign language based on perceptions of pre-
service English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers as ad-
vanced foreign language learners?
b. Does addressing linguistic intelligence alone guarantee suc-
cess in foreign language learning based on perceptions of
pre-service English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers as
advanced foreign language learners?
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Participants in the present study were 160 college students in a
department of foreign language education in Turkey. Their native
851
Table 1
Demographic information about participants.
Gender distribution
Year in BA program Female Male Average age
Year 2 63 17 19
Year 3 65 15 20
language was Turkish and their major was English as a foreign lan-
guage education. In other words, all participants were being trained
to be English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers after their gradua-
tion, and they were all proficient in English. Half of the participants
were in their second year and half were in their third year of a B.A.
program. Table 1 below shows demographic information about the
participants:
Second and third year students in the EFL B.A. program were se-
lected as the participants of the study because they had the following
characteristics:
a. All participants had had readings and lectures on MI theory and its
possible application in foreign language learning classrooms in
their EFL methodology courses. Before the study was carried out
the second year students had had theoretical input on MI theory.
The third year students had also had the chance to apply the the-
ory during micro-teaching, which they conducted in class before
their instructors and peers. Thus, they were familiar with the mul-
tiple intelligences theory and multiple intelligence types.
b. All participants had been learning English as a foreign language for
a minimum of 10 years at the time of the study.
c. Attending a second foreign language course except English was a
must in the B.A. program. At the time of the study, all participants
were in the process of learning a second foreign language (Italian,
German, and French) in addition to English, their first foreign lan-
guage. Second year students had been learning their second for-
eign language for a year and a half whereas third year students
had been learning their second foreign language for 2 years and
a half. Thus, participants had the background and experience in
learning a foreign language both as a young learner (learner of En-
glish) and as adults (learner of Italian, German, or French).
2.2. Instruments and data analysis
Being advanced and experienced language learners themselves,
the participants reflected on their language learning and micro-
teaching experiences, and each participant wrote a paragraph of a
minimum of 300 words to indicate and illustrate their views on the
type(s) of multiple intelligences that are important in foreign lan-
guage learning. In their 300 word paragraphs the participants were
asked to address the following question in English: “In your opinion,
which type of intelligence(s) play(s) an important role in foreign lan-
guage learning? Why? Explain your reason by giving examples.”
The participants' responses to the question were analyzed with
both quantitative and qualitative means of data. Frequency analysis
was employed to count the number of occurrences of each intelli-
gence type and to calculate percentages. To explore the reasons be-
hind the participants' selection of intelligences and to analyze the
examples given, the ‘Constant Comparison Method’ (Maykut &
Morehouse, 1994) was used. With the Constant Comparison Method
the participants' essays were read line by line to identify the emerg-
ing patterns of similar meanings or patterns. These patterns of mean-
ings were coded through ‘open, axial, and selective coding’ (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990). Through open coding the data were examined in order
to select and name the categories that described reasons behind par-
ticipants' selection of intelligence types. During axial coding the cate-
gories identified in open coding were analyzed to explore possible
relationships and links between these categories. Finally, by using
852 P. Savas / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 850–855
Fig. 1. Results of data analysis done on participants' responses to the research question.
selective coding the existing categories were organized into one main
core category, which had links to each subcategory. Throughout this
process the researcher sought to finalize the categories derived
from qualitative data through ‘theoretical saturation,’ or the point at
which no further relevant data regarding categories or variables
emerges (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Hatch, 2002). When theoretical sat-
uration was achieved the categories representing the participants'
reasons for the selection of each intelligence or the combination of in-
telligences were listed.
3. Results
The data analysis revealed that the participants' responses to the
research question could be grouped under three main categories:
a) linguistic + various other intelligences, b) all intelligences com-
bined and c) linguistic intelligence play(s) an important role in for-
eign language learning. As Fig. 1 illustrates, more than half of the
participants (51%) believed that linguistic intelligence and several
other intelligences played an important role in foreign language
learning. Nearly all the rest of the participants (46%) reported that
they believed the activation of all intelligences combined was impor-
tant in foreign language learning. Only 3% of the participants, 5 out of
160, reported that linguistic intelligence alone plays are role in
foreign language learning.
The findings of the study indicate that linguistic intelligence by it-
self is not enough to be successful in the foreign language learning
process. In fact, participants overwhelmingly believed that linguistic
intelligence has to interact with other intelligences while learning a
foreign language. If we consider linguistic + other intelligences and all
intelligences combined as one category, 97% of the participants believe
in making use of multiple intelligences in foreign language learning
rather than linguistic intelligence alone (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Two broad categories suggested by the participants of the study as a response to
the research question.
Fig. 3. Results of the frequency analysis done on Linguistic + other intelligences type
category.
This is a significant finding and because all of the study partici-
pants were advanced and proficient foreign language learners who
had been learning English for over a decade and had recently started
learning other foreign languages, such as French, German, and Italian
in their departments.
Some of the reasons behind the participants' choices, and the ex-
amples that they gave for each category are listed below together
with their explanations.
3.1. Linguistic + other intelligences
In this category, 51% of the participants mainly indicated that even
though linguistic intelligence is an important variable in foreign lan-
guage learning, it's not enough to guarantee the success of learners
because foreign language learning is a complex and multidimensional
process. Some participants combined intelligence with one other in-
telligence whereas others combined it with more than two some-
times up to five other intelligences. Fig. 3 shows the percentages of
each intelligence type mentioned by the participants in linguistic +
other intelligences category.
As Fig. 3 shows, interpersonal intelligence is the most common
type of intelligence that is combined with linguistic intelligence. Nat-
uralistic intelligence is the least common, and only 1% of the
linguistic + other intelligences category respondents considered it im-
portant in foreign language learning. The intelligence types that
were mentioned by the participants in the order from the most fre-
quently to least cited were: linguistic + interpersonal, visual–spatial,
intrapersonal, musical, bodily–kinesthetic, logical–mathematical,
and naturalistic intelligence.
3.2. Linguistic + interpersonal intelligence
Participants in this group stated that communication is an integral
part of foreign language learning, and the ability to understand other
people's emotions, moods, and intentions, especially during oral com-
munication, can make the learning process easier. In addition,
participants pointed out that the real purpose of language is commu-
nication, and effective communication requires empathy and the un-
derstanding of social relationships. The ability to use language in
different contexts and with varying degrees of formality was also con-
sidered an important characteristic of interpersonal intelligence, and
one that had a positive effect on foreign language learning. Five par-
ticipants in this group also mentioned that students with dominant
interpersonal intelligence are generally extroverted people, who are
eager to participate in conversations both in and out of the language
classroom. As a result, they have many opportunities to practice the
foreign language in a real context and may be able to learn more ef-
fectively. Participants argued that when students interact with peers
and/or native speakers, it optimizes their language acquisition.
 P. Savas / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 850–855
3.3. Linguistic + visual–spatial intelligence
All students in this category believed that creating mental images
is essential in foreign language learning because verbal explanations
may be too abstract for students. In order to transform the abstract
terms into concrete ones, participants suggested that visual–spatial
intelligence should be activated in foreign language learning. The
most common use of this intelligence was related to vocabulary
learning and recall. Participants believed that when new words are
presented with pictures, charts, or diagrams, their meanings are bet-
ter learned and retained. Particularly for young learners, providing
meaningful input, pictures, and real objects enhances vocabulary
and reading lessons. Creating visual metaphors or using flashcards
were also suggested by the participants as ways to integrate linguistic
and visual–spatial intelligence into foreign language learning. One
participant also mentioned the necessity of visual–spatial intelligence
in learning sign language, which he considered a foreign language.
3.4. Linguistic + intrapersonal intelligence
Participants who combined linguistic and intrapersonal intelli-
gence believed that learners of a foreign language should know
their strengths and weaknesses so that they can be better learners.
Through self-monitoring and self-evaluation learners may be more
aware of their own needs in the foreign language learning process.
As a result they are better able to set and achieve their foreign lan-
guage learning goals. One participant related the use of intrapersonal
intelligence to the acquisition of language by saying that “one of the
characteristics of the brain is that learners with dominant intraper-
sonal intelligence like to work alone similar to learners with domi-
nant left brain and left brain is more responsible for language
learning”. Another participant, who referred to Stephen Krashen's
(1981) theory on affective filter said that “if we don't address intra-
personal intelligence, learners won't trust themselves and affective
filter can block learning”. Another common theme in this category
was the importance of reflection through journal keeping in foreign
language learning. Participants believed that if learners have the
chance to reflect they can be better writers, communicators, and lan-
guage learners.
3.5. Linguistic + musical intelligence
Participants in this group stated that musical intelligence is impor-
tant in foreign language learning because it aids in the acquisition of
pronunciation, rhythm, and pitch. One participant's response summa-
rized this idea: “Every language has its own rhythm. Languages are
like songs. They have a kind of musical side with their intonation
and stress patters”. Another participant said, “We can say that lan-
guage itself has a music which can be defined as pronunciation or
stress”. Thus, participants believed that each language has its own
unique harmony, and to learn a foreign language effectively musical
intelligence is needed. These participant views are in line with what
Milovanov et al. (2010) found. According to the results of their
study, “musical and linguistic skills are interconnected”, and “music
and language seem to share similar structure” because “the greater
the general musical aptitude the participant indicated in the musical-
ity testing, the better the results obtained were in the English pronun-
ciation test” (p. 50). Another common theme in the participants'
responses in this group was related to feelings and the affective factor
in learning a foreign language. Most participants stated that music ap-
peals to our feelings, and through music it is easier to process and re-
tain new information. One participant stated that music “reaches our
soul and it is fun”, so it has a positive impact on foreign language
learning. Participants believed that learning words through songs
and playing music during reading and writing enhanced foreign lan-
guage learning.
853
3.6. Linguistic + bodily–kinesthetic intelligence
This combination is believed to be important by the participants
because they stated that language also includes nonverbal messages
and in order to make themselves understood foreign language
learners need to understand and make use of gestures, body move-
ments, and other contextual cues. Especially for young learners, the
participants believed that when foreign language learning is carried
out by addressing bodily–kinesthetic intelligence it can be more mo-
tivating, fun, and effective. Acting out a play or story, miming an ac-
tion and guessing what it refers to, and going on field trips are
examples of some of the tasks that participants suggested to address
bodily–kinesthetic intelligence in foreign language learning by young
learners.
3.7. Linguistic + logical–mathematical intelligence
There were two main common themes suggested by the partici-
pants in this group. The first one was related to learning the grammar
rules in a foreign language. Participants believed that learning gram-
mar rules and making categorizations and classifications was
important, and this can be done effectively by involving logical–
mathematical intelligence. Especially while learning grammar induc-
tively, or inferring rules from given examples, logical thinking is be-
lieved to be essential. Logical thinking also takes place mainly in the
left hemisphere of the brain. As a result, there is a relationship between
language learning and logical–mathematical intelligence, according to
the participants. The second theme was related to the type activities
done in the process of learning a foreign language in general. Partici-
pants stated that learners need to use their logical–mathematical intel-
ligence to solve puzzles, carry out information gap activities like
investigating a crime, or complete problem solving tasks in the foreign
language. One participant pointed out that this type of intelligence is
vital in learning computer languages, which he considered a second
or foreign language.
3.8. Linguistic + naturalistic intelligence
In this group, there were only two participants. If we disregard the
participants who believed in the activation of all intelligences com-
bined, not much importance was given to this intelligence in foreign
language learning. One of the participants believed that this type of
intelligence was important because “language is a part of nature”
and field trips can be useful to make use of this intelligence. The
other participant stated that naturalistic intelligence is important for
learning vocabulary in a real context. For example, learners can go
to the zoo so that the students' learning will be more permanent.
3.9. All intelligences combined
Almost half of the participants, 46%, believed that all intelligences
combined are important in foreign language learning. One of the most
common arguments that participants brought up was related to the
interdependency of the intelligences. Participants stated that we can-
not separate one intelligence type from the other in foreign language
learning because they are all connected and they should be addressed
together. Participants also said that four language skills; reading,
writing, speaking, and listening, cannot be separated. In other words
intelligences that appeal to different language skills cannot be used
in isolation. In addition, participants pointed out that the type of in-
telligence required may vary depending on each learner's needs, the
topic, and the material. As a result, the isolation of skills in foreign
language learning would be a mistake. Each learner is viewed as
unique with unique combination of dominant intelligences, and
omission of one or more types of intelligences would alienate some
learners. Language, like intelligence, is seen as very complex and
854 P. Savas / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 850–855
multisensory, and it requires the activation of all intelligences.
Watching movies and interacting with multimedia that appeal to
most intelligences combined were considered powerful foreign lan-
guage learning tools by the participants.
3.10. Linguistic intelligence only
Only 3%, 5 out of 160, of participants selected linguistic intelli-
gence as the only important intelligence in foreign language learning.
The main reason behind their selection was the belief that linguistic
intelligence includes all abilities in language learning and manages
the entire language learning process. Participants in this group be-
lieved that students with dominant linguistic intelligence are good
language learners who can easily remember words, and manipulate
and paraphrase complex structures. In order to be successful at the
four skills involved in language learning, linguistic intelligence should
be constantly triggered through debates, words games, stories, and
similar activities in foreign language learning situations. However,
as mentioned earlier, the majority of participants believed in the
use of other types of intelligences in addition to linguistic intelligence.
4. Discussion
Current theories of MI suggest that all intelligence types, to one
degree or another, have to interact (Moran, Kornhaber, & Gardner,
2006) and cooperate (Torresan, 2007). Christison (1998) also states
that “intelligences work together in complex ways. No intelligence re-
ally exists by itself in life. Intelligences are always interacting with
each other” (p. 2). Due to the complex nature of human language
learning and processing, interaction of intelligences plays even a big-
ger role. Bellanca, Chapman, and Swartz (1997) also claim: “because
language distinguishes human behavior and identifies the ability of
humans to reason, the verbal/linguistic intelligence crosses all disci-
plines. It is also connected to the display of all the intelligences” (p.
83). In addition, Gardner (2006) himself points out the complexity
of language learning as he states:
the view that learning a new language simply involves substitut-
ing one language for another turns out to be oversimplification
and different cultures and subcultures use language in different
ways… In addition, language may interact with other modes of
communication, such as gesturing, singing, or demonstrating what
one means (p. 143).
Thus, language learning involves making use of all intelligence
types to varying degrees, and linguistic intelligence alone cannot be
responsible for language learning. The participants in the study pres-
ented here seem to agree with this almost unanimously because vir-
tually all participants (97%) believed that linguistic intelligence alone
cannot be responsible for language learning.
Although the importance of interaction among intelligence types
is stated and emphasized by many authors and researchers in the
field of MI, the current theories of MI does not provide a framework
on understanding how this interaction occurs, what degree(s) of in-
volvement each intelligence type has in this interaction, and whether
the interaction of intelligences show variation in different disciplines
of study. In other words, if intelligence types are seen as cognitive
processes working in collaboration as a team in achieving a certain
task, solving a problem, and/or taking part in the process of learning
in a certain discipline, current theories of MI do not present how
much each intelligence type contributes to the interaction/collabora-
tion as a member of this cognitive team.
The findings of the study presented in this paper may shed new
light on understanding the nature of interaction/cooperation among
intelligences in a discipline, learning a foreign language in this case.
For example, the findings of the study revealed that each intelligence
Fig. 4. Foreign language learning multiple intelligences profile based on the responses
of the participants.
type has a role in learning a foreign language and the extent of the
role each intelligence plays varies. Some play a bigger role whereas
some play a smaller role. To understand the degree of involvement
each intelligence type has in language learning process, the results of
the present study can be used as a starting point. By calculating the de-
gree(s) of involvement each intelligence type has based on the percep-
tions of the participants, an MI discipline profile can be formed. Based on
the results of the present study the MI discipline profile for foreign lan-
guage learning might resemble the bar graph in Fig. 4. Linguistic intel-
ligence is chosen by all participants, interpersonal by 88% of
participants, all intelligences + linguistic + interpersonal intelligence
(73 + 82= 141, 141/1.6 = 88) and so on.
The percentages representing the contributions of intelligence
types in the MI foreign language learning discipline profile in Fig. 4 in-
dicate parallelisms with the findings of some studies done previously
on MI. For example, Fig. 4 shows that interpersonal intelligence plays
a significant role (88%) in language learning process. This finding is
similar to what Mahdavy (2008) and Isisag (2008) found. Mahdavy
(2008) investigated the TOEFL and IELTS listening scores of 117 lan-
guage learners and compared these scores learners' Multiple Intelli-
gences Development Assessment Scale (MIDAS) questionnaire
results. Isisag (2008) analyzed the dominant intelligence types of
first and second year students in a foreign language department via
MI questionnaires. Both researchers identified interpersonal intelli-
gence as a decisive and dominant intelligence type in relation to lan-
guage learning assessment and learners.
Musical intelligence, which contributes 61% to foreign language
learning according to participants' responses in the present study,
was also found as an important intelligence in language learning by
several other researchers. In line with the perceptions of the partici-
pants study, Richards and Rogers (2001) state that “there is more to
language than what is usually subsumed under the rubric linguistics.
There are aspects of language such as rhythm, tone, volume, and pitch
that are more closely linked, say, to a theory of music rather than to a
theory of linguistics” (p. 117). Moreover, both Currie (2003) and
Milovanov et al. (2010) found evidences indicating that musical intel-
ligence and linguistic intelligence are interconnected. On the other
hand, unlike Currie (2003), who found that mathematical intelligence
was the least common intelligence type among students in an English
reading class, participants in the present study believed that mathe-
matical–spatial intelligence plays an important role in foreign lan-
guage learning. Even though, logical–mathematical intelligence is
considered as the second least importance intelligence type in
Fig. 4, this intelligence type still has 53% contribution in foreign lan-
guage learning process. In the present study naturalistic intelligence
was considered as having the least important role in language learn-
ing (1%). This finding is parallel to the ones of Isisag's (2008) and
Mahdavy's (2008), who concluded that naturalistic intelligence was
the least dominant intelligence as a result of their studies.
 P. Savas / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 850–855
In short, the findings of the study presented here imply that there
may be two areas of possible refinements to the current theories of
MI. Ninety seven percent of all participants agreed that foreign lan-
guage learning cannot be confined to the realm of one type of intelli-
gence; that is, linguistic intelligence only. All intelligences have to
interact with one another at varying degrees to enhance foreign lan-
guage learning. Researchers of MI theory need to take this interaction
into consideration and study the combinations of intelligence types to
reflect the complex nature of human language and language learning
process. An eclectic approach is needed to study the connections
among intelligence types rather than viewing each intelligence type
in isolation to better understand the role of intelligence in language
processing and learning. This idea may also be supported by
Richards and Rodgers (2001) statements:
Language is not seen as limited to “linguistics” perspectives but
encompasses all aspects of communication. Language learning
and use are obviously linked to what MI theorists label “Linguistic
Intelligence”.… Other intelligences enrich the tapestry of commu-
nication we call “language”. In addition, language has its ties to life
through senses. The senses prove the accompaniment and context
for the linguistic message that give it meaning and purpose. A
multisensory view of language is necessary, it seems, to construct
an adequate theory of language as well as an effective design of
language learning. (p. 117).
In light of Richards and Rogers' (2001) suggestions and based on
the perceptions of participants about the relationship between intel-
ligence and language learning, there is a need to revisit and/or change
the initial label that Gardner (1983) used. Instead of “Linguistic Intel-
ligence”, Communication Intelligence may be used in MI theory to refer
to the multisensory nature of human language and interconnected re-
lationships intelligence types have in learning and using language. In
this way, all aspects of communication, whether verbal of non-verbal,
could be embraced to explain and study the relationships between
human intelligence and human language.
The findings of the study also revealed that just as each individual
learner has an intelligence profile, disciplines may also have intelli-
gence profiles. An MI discipline profile might tell us which intelli-
gence types are more dominant in a particular discipline and to
what degree a type of intelligence play a role in a certain field of
study. Researchers on MI can also consider studying MI in relation
to disciplines as well as learners. Different disciplines may call for dif-
ferent cognitive processes, tasks, and experiences. Types of multiple
intelligences that are dominantly used in a certain discipline should
also be studied to see if there is a match or mismatch with the
learners' dominant intelligence types. It is also important to note
that an MI discipline profile may be dynamic As Gardner (2009)
states “disciplines themselves change, contexts change, as do the de-
mands on individuals who have achieved initial mastery. One must
continue to educate oneself and others over succeeding decades.”
(p. 16). Therefore, MI discipline profiles may change over the years
in much the same way an individual's MI profile changes throughout
his or her life. Ongoing examination of MI discipline profiles should
be a regular task for scholars, researchers and practitioners.
5. Conclusions and future research
In short, the study presented here shows how complex the rela-
tionship between intelligence, language, and learning is. Human
learning, cognitive capacity, and language use are so interwoven
that it is difficult to study one of these traits in isolation. Therefore,
the need to explore the relationships between these traits continues.
As it is possible that the perceptions of study participants are
influenced by their readings and lectures on MI theory and its use
in foreign language learning, it is especially important to carry out a
855
similar study across various institutions, participant groups, and/or
disciplines.
References
Akbari, R., & Hosseini, K. (2008). Multiple intelligences and language learning strate-
gies: Investigating possible relations. System, 36(2), 141–155.
Armstrong, T. (2003). The multiple intelligences of reading and writing: Making the words
come alive. Virginia: ASCD.
Arnold, J., & Fonseca, C. (2004). Multiple intelligences and foreign language learning: A
brain-based perspective. International Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 119–136.
Bellanca, J., Chapman, C., & Swartz, E. (1997). Multiple assessments for multiple intelli-
gences. Illinois: Skylight Professional Development.
Campbell, K. L., & Plevyak, L. H. (2008). Multiple intelligences: Analysis of a language
arts curriculum. Ohio Journal of English Language Arts, 48(2), 53–58.
Christison, M. A. (1998). Applying, multiple intelligences theory: In pre-service and
in-service TEFL education programs. Forum, 36(2) Retrieved February 20, 2008,
from http://eca.state.gov/forum/vols/vol36/no2/p2.htm
Christison, M. N. (2005). Multiple intelligences and language learning: A guidebook of the-
ory, activities, inventories, and resources. San Francisco: ALTA Book Center
Publishers.
Christodoulou, J. A. (2009). Applying multiple intelligences. The School Administrator,
66(2), 22–26.
Currie, K. L. (2003). Multiple intelligences theory and the ESL classroom: Preliminary
considerations. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(4) Retrieved June 1, 2009, from
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Currie-MITheory.html
Fogarty, R., & Stoehr, J. (1995). Integrating curricula with multiple intelligences: Teams,
teams and threads. Illinois: Skylight Professional Development.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1995). “Multiple Intelligences” as a catalyst. English Journal, 84(8), 16–18.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2008). Using multiple intelligences to improve negotiation theory and
practice. Negotiation Journal, 16(4), 321–324.
Gardner, H. (2009). The five minds for the future. The School Administrator, 66(2),
16–20.
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational impli-
cations of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4–10.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualita-
tive research. Chicago: Aldine.
Green, C., & Tanner, R. (2005). Multiple intelligences and online teacher education. ELT
Journal, 59(4), 312–321.
Haley, M. N. (2004). Learner-centered instruction and the theory of multiple intelli-
gences with second language learners. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 163–180.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State Uni-
versity of New York.
Isisag, K. U. (2008). Implementing multiple intelligences theory in foreign language
teaching. EKEV Academic Review, 12(35), 351–362.
Kim, I. (2009). The relevance of multiple intelligences to CALL instruction. The Reading
Matrix, 9(1), 1–21.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisitions and second language learning. Oxford:
Pegamon.
Mahdavy, B. (2008). The role of multiple intelligences (MI) in listening proficiency: A
comparison of TOEFL and IELTS listening tests from an MI perspective. The Asian
EFL Journal, 10(3), 109–126.
Maykut, P. S., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and
practical guide. Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.
Milovanov, R., Pietilä, P., Tervaniemi, M., & Esquef, P. A. A. (2010). Foreign language
pronunciation skills and musical aptitude: A study of Finnish adults with higher
education. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 56–60.
Moran, S., Kornhaber, M., & Gardner, H. (2006). Orchestrating multiple intelligences.
Educational Leadership, 64(1), 22–27.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stanford, P. (2003). Multiple intelligences for every classroom. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 39(2), 80–85.
Steward, P. (2009). Using co-operative learning infused with multiple intelligences:
The teaching strategy that works. Access, 23(1), 21–26.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Torresan, P. (2007). Intelligences and styles in language teaching: What is the differ-
ence? Didáctica (Lengua y Literatura), 9, 315–325.
Perihan Savas is an Assistant Professor Dr. in the Department of Foreign Language Ed-
ucation at Middle East Technical University in Turkey. She received her Ph.D. degree in
TESOL with a cognate in Educational Technology and a minor in Educational Adminis-
tration from the University of Florida in U.S. She taught English as a foreign language
(EFL) in various settings to a variety of student profiles. Currently she is training pro-
spective EFL teachers. Her research interests and areas are language aptitude, multiple
intelligences theory, applied linguistics, integrating technology into EFL curriculum
and teacher training/faculty support in online education.