PROCEEDINGS JOURNAL OF EDUCATION,
PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH
www.e-­‐journaldirect.com Open Access ISSN 2423-­‐1924 Presented in 1st International Conference in Education, Psychology, and Social Science (ICEPSS) International Research Enthusiast Society Inc. (IRES Inc.) May 22-­‐24, 2014 Multiple Intelligences: Learners VS Teachers
Aaron Christopher G. Fabian, Shane Reza Amath, Harry Canlas, Sandra Dimal, Pamela Mercado
Don Honorio Ventura Technological State University
Bacolor, Pampanga, Philippines
Abstract
The study investigated the relationship of the multiple intelligences of the Bachelor of Secondary Education
students and their teachers in their major subjects. Four hundred eighty-five (485) BSED students and twenty-two
(22) teachers in their respective major subjects participated. The result demonstrates statistically significant in the
multiple intelligences of the Bachelors of Secondary Education Major in Technology and Livelihood Education and
Music, Arts, Physical Education and Health and their teachers in their respective major subjects. However, result
also demonstrates no significance in the multiple intelligences of the Bachelors of Secondary Education Major in
Filipino, English, and Mathematics and their teachers in their respective major subjects. The study shows that the
dominant intelligences of the BSED students and their teachers in their major subjects are the interpersonal,
intrapersonal, and their suited intelligences for their major subjects. The result evidently showed that the BSED
students and their major teachers are people and self smart. This only shows that as a teacher, one should know
how to socialize appropriately with others and have a deeper understanding with themselves. It also showed that
the teachers are really smarter than their students in their major field of specialization. Educators must also
consider the multiple intelligences of their students to fully develop their learning capabilities.
Keywords: Multiple Intelligences, dominant intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence
Aaron Christopher G. Fabian*, Shane Reza Amath, Harry Canlas, Sandra Dimal, Pamela Mercado
[email protected]
Paper Reference Number: ICEPSS 14039
*Corresponding Author
Published by Sons and Daughters Publishing House Inc. © 2014 The Authors Peer review under the responsibility of International Research Enthusiast Society Inc. WWW.E-­‐JOURNALDIRECT.COM Aaron Christopher G. Fabian*, Shane Reza Amath, Harry Canlas, Sandra Dimal, Pamela Mercado
Paper Reference Number: ICEPSS 14039
ISSN 2423-­‐1924 Introduction
Defining intelligence is an endeavor that has long consumed the human mind. Being intelligent does not always
mean that someone performs well in a test-- a problem with which teachers and school administrators have
struggled since the earliest days of organized education. Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences helps
educators think differently about "IQ," and about what being "smart" means. The theory is changing the way some
teachers teach (Guignon 2010). In his landmark book, “Frames of Mind: The Theory Of Multiple Intelligences”,
published in 1983, Harvard University education professor Howard Gardner unveiled a theory of multiple
intelligences that famously rejected the traditional and long-held view that aptitude consists solely of the ability to
reason and understand complex ideas. Instead, he identified seven separate human capacities: musical, verbal,
physical, interpersonal, visual, logical, and intrapersonal. And not all of them, including the category he added
years later -- naturalistic -- could be easily evaluated by the standard measuring stick of the time: the IQ test.
Gardner has defined at least eight of the intelligences as stated in his Theory of Multiple Intelligences. These
Multiple Intelligences are: (1) Verbal/Linguistic Intelligence; (2) Logical/Mathematical Intelligence; (3)
Visual/Spatial Intelligence; (4) Musical/Rhythmical Intelligence; (5) Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence; (6)
Interpersonal Intelligence; (7) Intrapersonal Intelligence; and (8) Naturalist Intelligence (Lazear: 1999). It should
be understood that the teacher’s role in making the teaching and learning process possible using the theory of
Multiple Intelligence is imperative. Even if the emphasis of the theory is upon learning rather than teaching, the
teachers should also know how to properly maximize these Multiple Intelligences for their student’s progress.
Also, they should know how teaching and learning through the multiple intelligences helps solve many common
school problems and optimized the learning experience for students and teachers alike. According to Margaret
Mead, we educate to engage the “whole gamut of human potentialities” in the classroom, society will benefit by
enabling “each diverse human gift to find its fitting place.”
Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom
There are many ways to incorporate Multiple Intelligences theory into the curriculum, and there is no set method
by which to incorporate the theory. Some teachers set up learning centers with resources and materials that
promote involving the different intelligences. Other instructors design simulations that immerse students into real
life situations. Careful planning during the lesson design process will help to ensure quality instruction and
valuable student experiences in the classroom. (Read et,al. 2006)
Other instructional models, such as project-based and collaborative learning may be easily integrated into lessons
with Multiple Intelligences. Collaborative learning allows students to explore their interpersonal intelligence, while
project-based learning may help structure activities designed to cultivate the nine intelligences. This particular
instructional model allows students to work together to explore a topic and to create something as the end
product. This works well with Multiple Intelligences theory, which places value on the ability to create products. It
is important for teachers to carefully select activities that not only teach to the intelligences, but also realistically
mesh with the subject matter of the lesson or unit. Multiple Intelligences theory should enhance, not detract from
what is being taught.
Benefits of Multiple Intelligences
Using Multiple Intelligences theory in the classroom has many benefits: (1) As a teacher and learner you realize
that there are many ways to be "smart". (2)All forms of intelligence are equally celebrated. (3) By having students
create work that is displayed to parents and other members of the community, your school could see more parent
and community involvement. (4) A sense of increased self-worth may be seen as students build on their strengths
and work towards becoming an expert in certain areas. (5) Students may develop strong problem solving skills
that they can use real life situations.
Methodology
Design. This study utilized the descriptive survey type of research. It classified the multiple intelligences of the
BSED students and described if there is a significant difference to the multiple intelligences of their teacher in
their major subjects.
Sampling and Procedure. Using a stratified random sampling technique, four hundred eighty-five (485) BSED
Students and twenty-two (2) teachers in their major subjects during the first semester of the academic year 20102011 participated in the study. One set of questionnaire was given for the purpose of the study and they were
Published by Sons and Daughters Publishing House Inc. © 2014 The Authors Peer review under the responsibility of International Research Enthusiast Society Inc. 62 WWW.E-­‐JOURNALDIRECT.COM Aaron Christopher G. Fabian*, Shane Reza Amath, Harry Canlas, Sandra Dimal, Pamela Mercado
Paper Reference Number: ICEPSS 14039
ISSN 2423-­‐1924 given ample time to fill the questionnaire. During distribution of survey questionnaire, they were informed about
the purpose of the study. Also, interview was conducted to further explain the responses of students on the
questionnaire.
Questionnaire. A 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was lifted from the book of Thomas Armstrong entitled
“Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom – Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curricular Development, 1994”
was adapted by the researchers. It contained eight intelligences such as (1) linguistic intelligence, (2) logicalmathematical intelligence, (3) musical intelligence, (4) visual-spatial intelligence, (5) bodily kinesthetic intelligence,
(6) interpersonal intelligence, (7) intrapersonal intelligence, and (8) naturalist intelligence.
Data Analysis. Data was analyzed with the aid of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive
statistics were used to describe the dominant intelligences of the BSED students and their teachers in their major
subjects. T-test was conducted to test the difference of the MI of the BSED students and their major teachers.
Results and Discussion
Table 1: Mean Comparison of the Multiple Intelligences of the BSED Students and their Teachers in their Major
Subjects
Major Subject Respondents Linguistic Logical Musical Visual Bodily Kinesthetic Interpersonal Intrapersonal Naturalist
Teachers 22.25 21 17.25 21
22.75
23.5
24
20
TLE
Students 16.38 14.01 13.11 15.94
16.42
19.2
17.93
14.36
Teachers
23
17 16.67 19.67
20
22
22
18.67
FILIPINO
Students
18 14.57 13.39 16.53
16.21
19.92
18.19
14.22
Teachers
20
17 15.8 18.8
22.2
23.4
20.8
18
MAPHE
Students 17.11 15.04 15.32 16.59
17.73
19.29
18.46
14.99
Teachers
20 23.75 12.5 17.5
18
21.75
20.75
16.75
MATHEMATICS
Students 16.35 18.11 13.39 15.60
15.86
19.16
17.78
13.91
Teachers
22 15.6 13.4 14.4
16.6
21.6
21
14.4
ENGLISH
Students 17.76 14.32 13.21 16
15.99
19.88
18.89
14.37
Legend: red numbers -­‐ 1st dominant intelligence; violet numbers -­‐ 2nd dominant intelligence; green numbers -­‐ 3rd dominant intelligence
As can be seen on the table, two of the three dominant intelligences of the BSED students and their teachers in
their major subjects are the interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. As cited by Zulueta (2002) interpersonal
intelligence is used in person-to-person relationships. It includes the ability of a person to communicate with
others and to have the empathy for their feelings and beliefs. Likewise to the words of Gines (1998), interpersonal
intelligence is the ability to function well in social situations, understand the needs of the people, and predict the
behaviour. This means that a person who is dominant in this kind of intelligence has the ability to work with
people, respond to other’s feelings and personalities and help people identify and overcome problems.
Moreover, as proved by Zulueta (2002) Intrapersonal intelligence is based on knowledge of the “self”. It includes
metacognition, emotional responses, self – reflection, and an awareness of metaphysical concepts. Gines (1998),
states that intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to know yourself well and understand what motivates your
behaviour. It means that people who are intrapersonal intelligent are sensitive to their own strengths,
weaknesses, goals and desires.
Published by Sons and Daughters Publishing House Inc. © 2014 The Authors Peer review under the responsibility of International Research Enthusiast Society Inc. 63 WWW.E-­‐JOURNALDIRECT.COM Aaron Christopher G. Fabian*, Shane Reza Amath, Harry Canlas, Sandra Dimal, Pamela Mercado
Paper Reference Number: ICEPSS 14039
ISSN 2423-­‐1924 As reflected also on the table, the TLE and MAPEH students and their teachers in their respective major subjects
have the bodily – kinesthetic intelligence as one of the dominant intelligences that they possess. As mentioned by
Zulueta (2002), bodily – kinesthetic intelligence is related to physical movement and the knowledge of the body
and how it functions. It also includes the ability to use the body to express emotions, to play a game, and to
interpret and to invoke effective “body” language. So people whose intelligence is dominant in kinesthetic, are
good in manipulating objects effectively and use their body expressively.
Furthermore, it is seen that the Filipino and English students and their respective major teachers have the
linguistic intelligence as one of the highest averaging intelligences that they have. According to Salandanan
(2009), people who are linguistically intelligent speak efficiently and write effectively. He also defines Linguistic
intelligence as the sensitivity to the sounds, meanings, structures and styles of language, which means that the
students pay more attention to words than to the scenery.
Lastly, the Mathematics students and their teachers in their major subjects have the logical intelligences as one of
their dominant intelligences. Mateo (2010) cited that logical – mathematical intelligence is the capacity in
reasoning abstractly and solving mathematical and logical problems. He even included that professionally inclined
people are mathematicians and scientists. Salandanan (2006) stated that people under this intelligence are
sensitive to patterns, numbers, and numerical data, causes and effects, objectives and quantitative reasoning.
They also have the ability to work effectively with numbers and reason out effectively.
Similar results were found on the study of Canlas, et.al entitled “Teaching Styles and Multiple Intelligences of
Teachers in the College of Education at Don Honorio Ventura Technological State University, Bacolor, Pampanga
2010 – 2011” that the interpersonal intelligence is the most dominant among the teachers. It indicates, as
expected, that teachers are people smart which occurs through relating, communication, teamwork, and
collaboration.
According to the study of Estravillo, et.al 2012 entitled “Multiple Intelligences and the Academic Performance of
the Bachelor of Elementary Education at Don Honorio Ventura Technological State University” that most of the
students have interpersonal intelligence whereby only some had visual/spatial intelligence.
Table 2: t-test of the Multiple Intelligences of the BSED Students and their Teachers in their Major Subjects
Major Subjects
Respondents
Teachers
No. of
Respondents
INTELLIGENCE
t-value
p-value
Verbal Interpretation
Linguistic
6.462
0.0037
Reject Ho at 0.01 level of significance
Logical
6.178
0.0048
Reject Ho at 0.01 level of significance
Musical
3.158
0.0392
Reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Visual – Spatial
3.111
0.0453
Reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Bodily - Kinesthetic
6.951
0.0023
Reject Ho at 0.01 level of significance
Interpersonal
10.289
1.60E-07
Reject Ho at 0.01 level of significance
Intrapersonal
9.372
0.0003
Reject Ho at 0.01 level of significance
Naturalist
3.013
0.0502
Reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
4
TLE
Students
100
Published by Sons and Daughters Publishing House Inc. © 2014 The Authors Peer review under the responsibility of International Research Enthusiast Society Inc. 64 WWW.E-­‐JOURNALDIRECT.COM Aaron Christopher G. Fabian*, Shane Reza Amath, Harry Canlas, Sandra Dimal, Pamela Mercado
Paper Reference Number: ICEPSS 14039
ISSN 2423-­‐1924 Major Subjects
Respondents
Teachers
No. of
Respondents
INTELLIGENCE
t-value
p-value
Verbal Interpretation
Linguistic
4.164
0.0403
Reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Logical
1.564
0.2503
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Musical
1.384
0.2941
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Visual – Spatial
1.093
0.3856
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Bodily - Kinesthetic
2.422
0.1249
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Interpersonal
2.01
0.1657
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Intrapersonal
3.613
0.0497
Reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Naturalist
3.23
0.0708
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Linguistic
3.758
0.0107
Reject Ho at 0.01 level of significance
Logical
3.196
0.0175
Reject Ho at 0.01 level of significance
Musical
0.243
0.8191
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Visual – Spatial
2.641
0.0347
Reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Bodily - Kinesthetic
5.979
0.0008
Reject Ho at 0.01 level of significance
Interpersonal
5.564
0.0018
Reject Ho at 0.01 level of significance
Intrapersonal
1.681
0.1609
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Naturalist
2.546
0.0554
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Linguistic
2.013
0.1312
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Logical
6.945
0.002
Reject Ho at 0.01 level of significance
Musical
0.549
0.616
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Visual – Spatial
1.691
0.1648
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Bodily - Kinesthetic
0.976
0.3971
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Interpersonal
1.771
0.1689
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Intrapersonal
1.716
0.1782
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Naturalist
1.139
0.3333
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Linguistic
5.508
0.0019
Reject Ho at 0.01 level of significance
Logical
0.919
0.4063
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Musical
0.076
0.9433
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Visual – Spatial
0.701
0.5199
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Bodily - Kinesthetic
0.456
0.6689
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Interpersonal
1.388
0.2309
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Intrapersonal
1.953
0.1146
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
Naturalist
0.017
0.9875
Do not reject Ho at 0.05 level of significance
3
FILIPINO
Students
Teachers
100
5
MAPHE
Students
Teachers
100
4
MATHEMATICS
Students
Teachers
85
5
ENGLISH
Students
100
Published by Sons and Daughters Publishing House Inc. © 2014 The Authors Peer review under the responsibility of International Research Enthusiast Society Inc. 65 WWW.E-­‐JOURNALDIRECT.COM Aaron Christopher G. Fabian*, Shane Reza Amath, Harry Canlas, Sandra Dimal, Pamela Mercado
Paper Reference Number: ICEPSS 14039
ISSN 2423-­‐1924 As reflected on the table, it is found out that the suited multiple intelligence in the major subjects of the students
and the major field of specialization of their teachers have a significant difference, it may conclude that because
of the expertise and the experience of the teachers, the teachers are really significantly different in the level of
development of the suited intelligence compared to their students. Also for the BSED TLE and MAPHE students
and their major teachers, they have significant differences in general on their Multiple Intelligences. It suggests
that as a student, they really need to develop their suited intelligence and widen their knowledge on their field of
specialization. According to Marian Diamond, a neuropsychologist at the University of California-Berkeley, has
discovered that the human brain can change and improve with frequent use. Diamond's theory of the "Plasticity of
the Brain" implies that environmental conditions, interpersonal stimulation, and the way in which individuals think
and behave actually change the body, brain, and intelligence (Hinne 2008).
On the other hand, BSED students major in Mathematics, Filipino, and English generally do not have significant
differences on all the remaining multiple intelligences in relation to the multiple intelligences of their teachers. This
may suggests that the students may have the same intelligence as for their teachers in some aspects but they
differ in rank order.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This study attempted to ascertain the dominant intelligences and the relationship of the MI of the BSED students
and their teachers in their major subjects.
Results of the study accepted the hypothesis drawn in the Filipino, English and the Mathematics students and
teachers while the results from TLE and MAPHE students and teachers rejected the hypothesis drawn. It is also
evident and consistent that the dominant multiple intelligences of the BSED students and their major subjects are
the interpersonal, intrapersonal intelligences and their suited multiple intelligence for their major field of
specialization. The study also showed that the BSED students and their teachers in their major field of
specialization have the same dominant intelligence but they only vary in their rank order wherein mostly of their
teachers in their major subjects have the suited intelligence for their specialized subjects as their first dominant
rd
nd
intelligence (except for the TLE and MAPHE where their suited intelligence were ranked 3 and 2 respectively)
nd
rd
while for the BSED students, they have their suited intelligences as the 2 or 3 rated dominant intelligence.
These results provide evidences that each student possesses a unique profile of intelligence, school
administrators, educators, curriculum planners, and parents alike should design learning environment that
empowers children to maximize their learning potentials. Since that the students and teachers have the
interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences as one of their dominant intelligences, they should join and attend
seminars about enhancement of their social skills and personality development in order to enhance more their
interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. Teachers should utilize their multiple intelligences and align their
MSAT (Methods, Strategies, Approaches, and Techniques) that could really help in the maximization of the
learning and the multiple intelligences of their students. Students specializing in specific fields should exert more
effort in professional development to fully attain and enhance their suited multiple intelligence in their major field
of specialization.
However, the repercussion drawn from this study must be viewed in the light of the limitations inherent to the
research, primarily the size and scope of the samples. Although this study included limited respondents, future
researchers may pursue the same study, measuring the same construct but with greater and wider range of
samples, and consider some other factors like different courses, academic performance, learning styles, etc in
order to generalize the conclusions derived from this research.
References
Books
Bhakta, Upendra. Advanced Educational Psychology. Published by Random Publication, 4376 A/4B, GaliMurari Road
Daryaganj, New Delhi-110 002(India). Page, 115-119
Feldman,Robert S. Understanding Psychology. Published by McGraw –Hill an imprint of the McGraw- Hill Companies, Inc.,
1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY. 2009. Page 287-288
Frando, Ph. D, Milagros F. and Mores, Elmerando T. General Psychology-simplified.2009.page 78
Published by Sons and Daughters Publishing House Inc. © 2014 The Authors Peer review under the responsibility of International Research Enthusiast Society Inc. 66 WWW.E-­‐JOURNALDIRECT.COM Aaron Christopher G. Fabian*, Shane Reza Amath, Harry Canlas, Sandra Dimal, Pamela Mercado
Paper Reference Number: ICEPSS 14039
ISSN 2423-­‐1924 Gardner, Howard E., Cziksentimihalyi, M. and Damon, W. Good Work: Where Excellence and Ethics Meet. New York. Basic
Books. 2001
Salandana, Ph.D, Gloria G. Teacher Education.Published by KATHA Publishing Co., Inc, 388 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City
1113 Phillipines.Pages 85-86 and 89.
Tenedero, Henry S. Breaking the IQ Myth Learning Style, Multiple Intelligence and Emotional Learning in the Classroom
Environment. Manila. Hemp Publication. 1998
Wood, Samuel and Wood, Ellen Green.The world of psychology. Page 246-247
Woolfolk, Anita. Educational Psychology.Published by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Merrill. 2010.page 115-117.
Journals
Assist. Prof. Dr.Sibel GURBUZOĞLU YALMANCI Kafkas University, Faculty of Education “MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE
THEORY BASED TEACHING ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION OF KNOWLEDGE (EXAMPLE OF THE
ENZYMES SUBJECT)
Işık,D. (2007).International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications
Edward Garcia Fierros1, Villanova University, “How Multiple Intelligences Theory Can Guide Teachers’ Practices: Ensuring
Success for Students with Disabilities” November 2004
Theses and Dissertations
Anita C. Marasigan,TheMulitple Intelligences And Academic Performance Of The High School Students Of Olivarez College:
A Basis ForA Proposed Teacher Improvement Program, 2009
Canlas, Eloisa P. et,al. “Multiple Intelligences and the Academic Performance of the Bachelor of Elementary Education at Don
Honorio Ventura Technological State University”, 2012
Canlas, Myla D. et,al. “Teaching Styles and Multiple Intelligences of Teachers in the College of Education at Don Honorio
Ventura Technological State University”, 2011
Jay P. Cabrera, Cpa, Ph.D., Multiple Intelligences As Predictor Of Academic Performance In Accounting: Evidence From A
Private University In The Phlippines
Internet and other Interactive Media
http://gse.gmu.edu/research/mirs/miresources/
http://www.ttacnews.vcu.edu/2010/09/by-laura-c-peters-ma/
http://www.urbanschools.org/pdf/onPOINTS.multiple.intelligences.DOCUMENT.style.LETTERSIZE.pdf
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2158151
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+effects+of+the+multiple+intelligence+teaching+strategy+on+the...-a0181365766
http://www.ijonte.org/FileUpload/ks63207/File/04.yalmanci.pdf
http://www.spannj.org/BasicRights/appendix_b.htm
http://www.olivarezcollege.edu.ph/research/researches/GraduateSchool/8.pdf
http://www.edutopia.org/multiple-intelligences-theory-teacher
Published by Sons and Daughters Publishing House Inc. © 2014 The Authors Peer review under the responsibility of International Research Enthusiast Society Inc. 67