Brooke Gupton Action Research Project Master Copy FINAL 5-31-11

Multiple Intelligences 1

Running Head: MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES: IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM USE

Multiple Intelligences: Implications for Classroom Use

Brooke Gupton

ED 690

Supervision of Instruction

May 17, 2011


Table of Contents

I. Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………………………..4

a. Introduction………………………………………………………………………..4

b. Problem Statement/Research Question……………………………………………5

c. Design of Study……………………………………………………………………6

d. Summary…………………………………………………………………………..7

II. Chapter Two: Literature Review…………………………………………………………9

a. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….....9

b. What is Multiple Intelligence Theory…………………………………………….9

c. Myths About Multiple Intelligence Theory……………………………………...14

d. Curriculum and Assessment Planning with MI Theory………………………….16

e. Can Intelligences Be Determined in People?.......................................................19

f. Musical Intelligence In and Outside the Music Classroom……………………...22

g. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….24

III. Chapter Three: Research Design………………………………………………………..26

a. Introduction………………………………………………………………………26

b. Problem Statement/Research Question…………………………………………..26

c. Audience for Research…………………………………………………………...27

d. Significance of Multiple Intelligence Theory……………………………………27

e. Research Methods and Design…………………………………………………...28

f. Summary…………………………………………………………………………32

IV. Chapter Four: Analysis………………………………………………………………….33

a. Introduction………………………………………………………………………33

b. Analysis…………………………………………………………………………..34

i. Multiple Intelligence Survey Analysis…………………………………...34

ii. Instruction Reflection…………………………………………………….36

iii. Assessment Analysis……………………………………………………..37

c. Results……………………………………………………………………………38

i. Control Group Results…………………………………………………...38

ii. Experimental Group Results……………………………………………..39


d. Summary…………………………………………………………………………40

V. Chapter Five: Results……………………………………………………………………41

a. Introduction………………………………………………………………………41

b. Results……………………………………………………………………………41

c. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………44

d. End Note…………………………………………………………………………45

VI. References………………………………………………………………………………..47

VII. Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………....49

VIII. Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………51

IX. Appendix C………………………………………………………………………………53

X. Appendix D………………………………………………………………………………55


Chapter 1

Introduction

Do all students really think the same? Should all students be required to do the same

assignments and be graded in the same manner? After doing much research it is my opinion that

all students do not think the same and at times it may be best practice to let students choose their

assignments based on their intelligences needs. “Howard Gardner’s work around multiple

intelligences has had a profound impact on thinking and practice in education—especially in the

United States” (Smith, 2008, pg. 1).

Multiple Intelligence Theory has been quite misunderstood since Howard Gardner first

introduced it in 1983, when at the time most students were placed in classes based on a score

from an general Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test. This general cognitive ability, known as the g

factor was derived from Charles Spearman. “In a famous article, General Intelligence

Objectively Determined and Measured, Spearman proposed the idea that intelligent behavior is

generated by a single, unitary quality within the human mind or brain” (Human Intelligences,

2007, pg. 2). Gardner felt that there was more to people than how well they could read or

perform math skills.

“Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory says that instead of one kind of general

intelligence, there are at least seven different kinds, which include verbal intelligence, musical

intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, spatial intelligence, body movement intelligence,

intelligence to understand oneself, and the intelligence to understand others” (Plotnik, 2002, p.

283). Even though Gardner has never endorsed an MI based curriculum, he is quoted in a TIME

magazine article by James Collins (1998), “Here’s a credo I’ve never stated before. I’m sure

there are lots of different intelligences. I’m sure kids differ in their profiles. I’m sure an

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Spearman/



education approach that pays attention to this is going to be more effective than one that denies

it” (p.1). I think teachers can make good use of the principles of Gardner’s ideas in their

classroom. In this study I will be examining how students perform on assignments that are

geared towards their intelligence domain.

Problem Statement/Research Question

In only five years of teaching, I have found that not only do all students think and learn

differently, but how they think effects how interested they will be in the subject at hand. The

students whose intelligence falls in the linguistic domain do not mind to write papers, and write

them very well. On the other hand students that are more kinesthetic do not perform well on

assignments that are centered on writing.

Also it has been my experience that students are unmotivated to do assignments that are

not of interest to them. Students either don’t do the work or try to get away with very little. This

results in a number of negative things. First, the student will suffer academically. When

students don’t complete assignments or do not complete them correctly, it results in a lower

score, thus affecting their overall grade point average. I have had many excellent students pass

through my classes, which are not well loved, and try to squeak by, but end up with a bad grade.

Another negative is that students sometime display poor conduct when they are not interested or

motivated to do assignments. This easily becomes a distraction for other students who might

typically display good behavior.

The dependent variable in this study will be the type of instruction and the assessment

given at the end of the lesson. The independent variable will be the content of the lesson.

Ultimately, this study will attempt to answer the following question: will students achieve higher

scores on assessments when given instruction geared toward their given Multiple Intelligence


domain?

Design of Study

This study will be a quantitative study. Subjects in the study will include students from

two music classes at Green County Intermediate School, a rural school housing students between

the grades three and five, located in Greensburg, KY. The control group for this study will

consist of twenty-six fifth graders ranging in ages from ten to twelve. This class also has two

students with Individualized Education Plans (IEP) who receive special education services. In

addition to students with IEP’s there are six students identified as gifted and talented and receive

services under a Gifted Student Service Plan (GSSP). The experimental class consists of twenty-

five students, also in the fifth grade ranging in ages from ten to twelve. This class has four

students who receive services through the counties special education program. Students in each

class will receive accommodations in the lesson according to their IEP’s. For the most part, the

general populations of students in each class, which is the students who do not have IEP’s, are at

or above grade level in reading and math. There are several in each class, however, that do

receive Response to Intervention (RTI) services in one or both areas, but do not qualify for

special education services. So in general, neither class, as a whole, has an exceptionally high

ability level and would be considered average.

At the start of the study, all students, both in the control and experimental group, will be

given a survey that will help me to determine which intelligence domains the students are most

drawn toward. The Multiple Intelligence (MI) survey will consist of thirty-five statements to

which students will respond and will measure student’s strengths in verbal, mathematical, visual,

kinesthetic, musical, intrapersonal, and interpersonal MI domains. They will be answering either

true, the statement applies to me, or false this statement does not apply to me. From these


surveys I hope to get a good idea of which intelligence domains are the strongest in each class. I

will primarily be looking for strengths in verbal, math, visual, kinesthetic, and musical domains.

Following documentation of these results the control class will receive a lesson on a

musical topic that will consist solely of lecture style instruction. The control class will receive

the same lesson; however the instruction will consist of techniques related to the following

multiple intelligence domains: musical, kinesthetic, linguistic (or verbal), logical (or

mathematical), and spatial (or visual). Following the lesson, both the control and experimental

classes will take an identical teacher made assessment that will determine whether the MI

techniques helped improve student learning. I do want to go on and address the possibility that a

written teacher made assessment may not be the best avenue for assessing the use of MI

techniques in a lesson. In the article “Reflections on Multiple Intelligences: Myths and

Messages,” written by Howard Gardner (1995) for the Phi Delta Kappan, he addressed that

“Now that seven intelligences have been identified, one can – and perhaps should – create seven

tests and secure seven scores” (p. 202). Gardner (1995) continued to say that although

assessments should be “intelligent fair,” seven different paper and pencil tests are not the answer

to assessing students using MI Theory. A paper pencil test, is most often, only going to appeal to

those with high linguistic intelligence. A child who has high kinesthetic intelligence isn’t going

to benefit from a test simply asking questions about bodily activities.

Summary

I think this study will appeal to a wide array of audiences. I think teachers,

administrators, parents, and students can all benefit from seeing the results. Teachers in all

subjects may be willing to try out some MI techniques in their classroom if they see positive

results from the study. In conversations I have had with my fellow teachers, I have seen that


they are also having motivation and achievement issues in their classes, as well. If I am able to

see that if by tweaking assignments and instructions just a little improves achievement, then this

study has done its job.

Administrators can then have some basis for encouraging their teachers to try MI in their

classrooms, and on a grander scale, maybe implement a MI based curriculum. However, the

results should not be the only basis for starting an MI based curriculum, but it could be a basis

for looking into the possibility of it. Teachers in schools that decide that MI curriculum is not

the best idea for them could still use some of the ideas and techniques presented in this study in

the their everyday classroom activities.

Students and parents will benefit because students will learn what their intelligences.

Hopefully, this could start guiding them on a career path and make important decisions that will

impact their future. Also, if students are aware of their intelligences it may assist them in being

able to complete assignments more efficiently. They will also, hopefully, learn techniques to

stimulate their intelligence domain and find ways to use them across the curriculum. Parents,

then, will be able to be more encouraging to their children and help in finding sources of

motivation to help them to succeed. All individuals can benefit from benefit from knowing how

their intelligences influence their achievement in a school or a work environment.

It is important for educators to remember that Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory is

not the same as a learning style. There has been much research done as to how teachers and

school administrators can use MI Theory in a positive manner in their classrooms. In chapter

two, literature related to MI Theory and research will be examined and reviewed. This will help

bring light to how educators can begin to see how MI Theory is being used currently in the

classroom


Chapter 2

Introduction

“Howard Gardner's work around multiple intelligences has had a profound impact on

thinking and practice in education--especially in the United States” (Smith, 2008, pg 1). Public

school educators have been researching for many years different ways that we can help all

students succeed in the classroom. Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory (MI Theory)

is one way some educators feel we can reach out to students who may not be successful in all

areas of academics. However, MI Theory has found a lot of critics through the years. Many

times its ideas are taken out of context, and when it is used, it is not used correctly. This review

of the literature on Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory will focus on these five

questions and ideas.

1. What is Multiple Intelligence Theory?

2. Myths about MI Theory

3. Curriculum and Assessment Planning with MI Theory

4. Can intelligences be determined in individuals?

5. Musical Intelligence in and outside the music classroom.

What is Multiple Intelligence Theory

MI Theory has been quite misunderstood since Howard Gardner first introduced it in

1983. At this time, most students were placed in classes based on a general intelligence test,

otherwise known as an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test. This general cognitive ability was known

as the g factor and was derived from Charles Spearman. “In a famous article, General

Intelligence Objectively Determined and Measured, Spearman proposed the idea that intelligent

behavior is generated by a single, unitary quality within the human mind or brain” (Human




Intelligences, 2007, p. 2). Gardner felt that there was more to people than how well they could

read or perform math skills. “Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory says that instead of one kind

of general intelligence, there are at least seven different kinds, which include verbal intelligence,

musical intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, spatial intelligence, body movement

intelligence, intelligence to understand oneself, and the intelligence to understand others”

(Plotnik, 2002, p. 283).

Verbal intelligence, also known as linguistic intelligence, basically refers to people who

are good with words. In the book Frames of Mind: The Theories of Multiple Intelligences

Gardner (1983) said “In discussing the meanings or connotations of words, we find ourselves in

the area of semantics, that examination of meaning which is universally considered central to

language” (p. 75). Gardner saw people that were verbally intelligent as not only being able to

speak well, but also being able to understand meanings of words and how to use them in both

writing and speaking.

Music educators of the time were very excited to see that Gardner had identified an

intelligence marked as musical. This was something that these educators had known was true for

many years. Gardner’s theory would most certainly be helpful in advocating music education

programs in the public schools. According to Annie Guignon (1998), of the website Education

World, musical intelligence can be defined as “the ability to understand and create music” (p. 1).

Guigon (1998) also went on to state, “musicians, composers and dancers show a heightened

musical intelligence” (p. 1). Gardner (1983) felt very strongly about this intelligence and even

stated in Frames of Mind “of all the gifts with which individuals may be endowed, none emerges

earlier than musical talent” (p. 99). He shared an interesting story about three different children

who displayed amazing musical talent at a very young age. In his attempt to explain music as


intelligence he used this explanation for the differences:

The first child could be a Japanese youngster who has participated since age two in the

Suzuki Talent Education program and has, like thousands of her peers, mastered the

essentials of a string instrument by the time she enters school. The second child could be

a victim of autism, a youngster who can barely communicate with anyone else and who is

severely disturbed in several affective and cognitive spheres; still he exhibits an isolated

sparing of musical intelligence, such that he can sing back flawlessly any piece he hears.

The third could be a young child raised in a musical family who has begun to pick out

tunes on his own--a throwback to the precocious young Mozart, Mendelssohn, and Saint-

Saens. (Gardner, 1983, p. 99-100)

In this, Gardner was attempting to show that intelligence, specifically musical intelligence, can

stem from a number of sources. In the first example the child gained his musical ability by

continued practice. The brain of a young child is like a sponge and it has been proven time and

time again that the early years can be an essential time of learning. The second child had limited

skills in all other areas, because of a disability. Their musical talent, like the talents of thousands

of other autistic individuals, stems from that one area in the brain that seems to have the most

heightened functioning. The last child, the one who was raised in a musical family, probably

gained their musical abilities through genetics. Musical talent is not just being able to play an

instrument or sing, but being able to understand how music works, and how it blends together to

be a beautiful art form.

A third intelligence that Gardner (1983) identified was the logical-mathematical

intelligence. People who lean toward this intelligence tend to do well in math classes, and

typically are good problem solvers. R.A. Hirsh (2004) had this to say about this intelligence:


Mathematical intelligence involves a process. A problem must be identified, recognized

as something worth solving, an algorithm is then identified and/or created, and a solution

is attempted. Intelligence in this area requires a true understanding of how mathematics

and logic work in the real world, in everyday life. Understanding the why in mathematics

truly indicates an understanding of mathematic processes. (p. 2)

Individuals with heightened logical-mathematical intelligence are also found to be proficient in

recognizing patterns and relationships, making generalizations, and using the scientific method

to form hypotheses, and come to conclusions.

Architects, painters, film makers, and even navigators are people who are found to have

high levels of spatial intelligence, sometimes referred to as visual intelligence. Spatial

intelligence is referred to as “the ability to think in pictures, to perceive the visual world

accurately, and recreate (or alter) it in the mind or on paper” (Guigon, 1998, p. 1). Many times

we refer to people with this intelligence as having an eye for something. It could refer to any

number of things. Filmmakers and photographers have an eye for taking beautiful photographs

or shooting amazing movies. Painters and sculptors know how to take reality and portray them

on canvas, in marble, or in clay. A chess player with heightened visual intelligence can see

hundreds of moves available on a chessboard without moving a single piece. There are lots of

career opportunities for people who are gifted with this intelligence.

Body movement intelligence is also referred to as kinesthetic intelligence. Those who

have this bodily intelligence are able to use their body in numerous ways to perform any number

of skills. In the book The Arts, Young Children, and Learning, Susan Wright (2003) described

bodily intelligence in this way, “This is the ability to solve problems or fashion products using

one's body. Highly developed bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is exhibited by people such as


dancers, athletes, surgeons, artisans, and musicians” (p. 86). These people usually exhibit skills

such as good timing, excellent fine motor skills, and many times a good sense of direction.

Dancers typically display both excellent abilities in kinesthetic movement, as well as touches of

musical intelligence. Not only do dancers need to know how to use their body to tell stories and

communicate ideas through movement, but also they must be able to do this with music. This

requires being able to establish tempo, rhythms, and timing movements to line up with certain

sections of the song. The best example of individuals skilled in both kinesthetic intelligence and

musical intelligence are those who dance professional ballet.

The last two intelligences that Gardner identified were the interpersonal and intrapersonal

intelligences. Interpersonal intelligence is “an ability to perceive and understand other

individuals -- their moods, desires, and motivations” (Guigon, 1998, p.1), where as intrapersonal

intelligence “entails the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and

motivations” (Smith, 2008, p. 4). Well-rounded, emotionally healthy individuals usually display

characteristics of both intelligences. These individuals are able to not only recognize their own

emotions and know how they affect their functioning, but they are also able to recognize

emotions in others and use that ability to help other people. However, there are some people

who are either only interpersonal, or who are only intrapersonal.

Most people indentified as leaders are considered to have interpersonal intelligence.

They are able to listen and relate to people, and make decisions based not only their own agenda,

but on others. Parents, teachers, mental health professionals, and in many cases clergymen and

government leaders are found to have good interpersonal relations. Those who are considered to

be more intrapersonal are very aware of their own feelings, like being alone, and are capable of

setting and meeting certain goals.


In recent years, Howard Gardner has begun to discuss the possibility of an eighth

intelligence. Gardner suggested that there may be an intelligence that could be identified as a

naturalist intelligence. Little research has been done in this, but it is starting to become more

prevalent and more recognizable in the study of MI Theory. Leslie Owen Wilson (1998) of the

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point used the following descriptions of the naturalist

intelligence:

Naturalist intelligence deals with sensing patterns in and making connections to elements

in nature. Using this same intelligence, people possessing enhanced levels of this

intelligence may also be very interested in other species, or in the environment and the

earth. Children possessing this type of intelligence may have a strong affinity to the

outside world or to animals, and this interest often begins at an early age. They may enjoy

subjects, shows and stories that deal with animals or natural phenomena. Or they may

show unusual interest in subjects like biology, zoology, botany, geology, meteorology,

paleontology, or astronomy. (p. 2)

There is still much research to be done in this possible eighth intelligence, and for the most part

it is still not recognized by many educators. If this intelligence exists, how many more

intelligences could we expect to be identified in the future?

Myths About Multiple Intelligence Theory

As mentioned previously, since the inception of Gardner’s intelligence theory, it has been

misunderstood and implemented in the wrong way in the classroom. In an article written for the

Phi Delta Kappan, entitled “Reflections on Multiple Intelligences: Myths and Messages,”

Gardner attempted to address some of these common misconceptions. Gardner (1995) addressed

myth number one as follows “Now that seven intelligences have been identified, one can - and


perhaps should--create seven tests and secure seven scores” (p. 202). Gardner (1995) then went

on to say even though assessment should be “intelligent fair,” seven different paper and pencil

tests are not the answer to assessing students using MI Theory. A child who has high kinesthetic

intelligence would not benefit well from a paper and pencil test with some questions related to

bodily activities. A closer examination of MI Theory and assessment will be found later in this

review.

A second myth Gardner (1995) identified was that intelligences were the same as a

learning domain or discipline. Intelligences are related more to constructing information than

studying a specific subject or examining a specific domain of knowledge. Most of Gardner’s

intelligences can encompass many domains and be used to study a variety of subjects.

The next myth Gardner (1995) spoke of was “an intelligence is the same as a learning

style, a cognitive style, or a working style” (1995, pg.202). Gardner went on to explain that style

is related to the way we learn and can be applied to all subject areas, whereas intelligence is

more specific. For example, a student that is a visual learner may have to see a math problem

worked out several times before they can work one on their own. That same student may have to

see notes on a page before they can play a simple musical melody, even though they have heard

it once already. They also may need a written outline to help follow a lecture in a social studies

class. On the other hand that same student may display heightened verbal intelligence, and uses

that, in conjunction with being a visual learner, to write spectacular English papers. Another

way this myth often presents itself is when a teacher knows that he or she has several students in

their class who have been identified as being musically intelligent. In turn when students take

tests or are doing seat work, the teacher plays music. It has been proven on many occasions that

playing instrumental music during study time or assessments aids in student brain functioning.


However, playing music during a math test for these musically intelligent students will neither

impair nor benefit their ability to do the problems presented on the exam.

One last message that Gardner (1995) addressed was that “MI Theory is incompatible

with g (general intelligence), with hereditarian accounts, or with environmental accounts of the

nature and causes of intelligence” (p. 203). Gardner is not denying the existence of general

intelligence. It is possible that MI Theory is simply further proof for the existence of the g

factor. Most individuals feel that general intelligence is inherited and that one’s abilities will be

based on how smart their parents were. It is obvious that Gardner is trying to help uncover the

intelligences that g does not cover. We are all capable of learning, and we should not be held to

the same standards as our parents. It is possible to gain more knowledge, and be more intelligent

in different areas than our parents.

Curriculum and Assessment Planning with MI Theory

In the years that followed the introduction of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory,

teachers, administrators, and curriculum specialist began to examine the possibility of a practical

classroom use of MI Theory. It has been applied to curriculum, instruction, teaching methods,

and assessment. There are many people that agree with it and then there are those who do not

agree with it. These curriculum and assessment approaches to curriculum should not be

confused with Gardner’s original theory. “Gardner has never laid down a detailed plan for

applying his theory in schools, and the consultants and publishers who offer training in MI

operate independently of him, so there is a wide range of actual practices” (Collins, 1998, p. 3).

Even though Gardner has never endorsed an MI based curriculum, he is quoted in a TIME

magazine online article by James Collins (1998), “Here’s a credo I’ve never stated before. I’m

sure there are lots of different intelligences. I’m sure kids differ in their profiles. I’m sure an


education approach that pays attention to this is going to be more effective than one that denies

it” (p.1).

Many schools have started to implement curriculum based on MI Theory. In an article

for the The Journal of Education Research, entitled “Attitudes Toward a Multiple Intelligence

Curriculum,” authors Gwendolyn Mettetal, Cheryl Jordan, and Sheryll Harper (1997), examined

a K-5, suburban, predominantly white, economically diverse elementary school in Indiana, called

Farmington Elementary. The authors continued to describe the background of Farmington

Elementary.

For many years, Farmington students from first grade through fifth grade changed

classes for each subject. Reading and math classes were ability grouped, whereas

homeroom, science, social studies, music, physical education, and other subjects were

heterogeneously grouped. The gifted and talented program pulled top students out of their

regular classrooms for periods of enrichment. The curriculum could be described as

traditional. (p. 116)

This article also discussed how changes in administration lead to an implementation of MI

curriculum. There were lots of changes that went on at the school. For the most part most of the

changes were school wide but there were a lot of changes that went on in specific classrooms

(Mettetal et al., 1997). “Some classes had choice centers where students could work on activities

in which each intelligence is used. Some teachers consciously incorporated teaching to Multiple

Intelligences into their lessons, and a few also allowed students a choice in how they would

demonstrate knowledge of a unit” (p. 116).

After research was conducted at this school as to the effectiveness of MI in curriculum,

Mettetal, Jordan, and Harper (19978) came to the following conclusions:


1. Acceptance by Everyone of the Concept of Multiple Intelligences

2. Generally Positive Reactions to the Schoolwide Implementation (Flow, Activity

Room, Enrichment Clusters) of the MI Curriculum

3. Uneven Implementation of an MI Curriculum Across Classrooms (p. 118-119)

Basically the authors and researchers saw that all people involved in the school were very

accepting to MI Theory in the curriculum. There was little resistance and most all of the parties

involved made an effort in implementation. Also most of the teachers and staff in the school

reacted positively. There was not a lot of negativity. However, not all teachers got it.

During the 1st year, there were significant differences among teachers in how they

implemented MI Theory in their classrooms. Although some were trying to provide more

choices to students along the lines of MI, others seemed overwhelmed by the task of

designing those learning tasks and evaluation. (p. 116)

This uneven implementation is why many schools are steering clear of using MI Theory in

curriculum.

Collins (1998) said in his TIME article that “No one says that using MI in schools is

directly injurious. The danger is that it leads to wasted time, to an emphasis on less important

skills and to a false sense that learning has taken place when it has not” (p. 1). In most cases

teachers are not using MI Theory in its truest form. In Gardner’s (1995) “Myths and Messages”

article, he went on to address messages that have been sent out concerning use of MI Theory in

curriculum and real classroom environments that have bothered him.

1. The attempt to teach all concepts or subjects using all the intelligences.

2. The belief that it suffices, in and of itself, just to go through the motions of exercising

an intelligence.


3. The use of materials associated with an intelligence in the background.

4. The use of intelligences primarily as mnemonic devices.

5. The conflating of intelligences with other desiderata.

6. The direct evaluation (or even grading) of intelligences, without regard to context or

content. (p. 206-207)

Gardner viewed all of these applications of MI Theory in the classroom as superficial. MI

Theory cannot always be used in every classroom, and if it is being used in all classrooms, it is

probably not being used correctly. Educators realized that all their students learn differently and

that we must consider that some of our students will be able to perform better in some areas than

in others. However, equality of Multiple Intelligences in the curriculum could be more harmful

than good.

If we go through a closer examination of what has been considered an equal application

of intelligences, we discover that equal means diluting the intelligences to application of

their lowest common denominator, then we must continue to evaluate, revise and seek

other interpretations and solutions and not content ourselves with quick fixes or panaceas.

(Kassell, 1998, p. 60)

If educators wish to use MI Theory in their curriculum and assessment it is important that the

activities be a practical and useful application.

Can Intelligences Be Determined in People?

Not long after Howard Gardner released his MI theory, people began to attack him

because the intelligences could not be proven, and they could not be assessed. In a 1994

response to Gardner’s criticizing critique of one of his papers, Robert. J. Sternberg (1984)

addressed the unproven theory. “In fact, no experiments designed to test Gardner’s theory exist


yet, and Gardner’s tests of his intelligences do not exist yet either, so it may be premature to

compare them with other tests” (p. 700). Sternberg’s studies related mostly to general

intelligence and cognition. As mentioned previously Gardner felt that most people were

proficient in one area or another and that intelligence was not general. One IQ score should not

determine a child’s educational future. “Educators have often attempted to account for the

discrepancies between the abilities we see in students and end results such as grades or

standardized test scores” (McClaskey, 1995, p. 56). Gardner (1984) does not disagree that there

are some skills or traits that can be accurately measurable, but he also felt that these skills are

only skimming the top of the full range of intelligence. There is a lot more to cognition than a

few basic skills. Gardner went on to say about cognition “it is more concerned with a range of

kinds of information, or, more precisely, separate contents, that simply cannot be collapsed into

one intellectual heap” (p. 699).

Thomas Armstrong (2000) thinks much the same as Sternberg and in his book Multiple

Intelligences in the Classroom he said “No test can accurately determine the nature or quality of

a person’s intelligence” (p. 12). However, Armstrong does believe testing intelligence through

paper and pencil tests would only be tapping into the logical and linguistic intelligences.

Armstrong went on to describe what he thought to be the best method to determine intelligence,

“The best way to assess your own multiple intelligences, therefore, is through a realistic

appraisal of your performance in the many kinds of tasks, activities, and experiences associated

with each intelligence” (p. 12). He felt intelligences could only be fostered through real life

experiences, and he suggested three factors that would influence intelligence development.

Armstrong (2000) believed that a person’s biological background, personal experiences, and

cultural and social background would play an important role in which of Gardner’s intelligences


would emerge later in life. Gardner has also said on many occasions that all people possess all

of the intelligences, but life events will determine which ones are nurtured.

In determining intelligence, some researchers say we should look to brain functioning.

There has been significant research done in determination of which hemisphere of the brain is

responsible for all life functioning. “When the corpus callosum, or bundle of nerves connecting

the two hemispheres, is severed the left hemisphere responds better to verbal, sequential, and

linear processing while the right hemisphere is inclined toward nonverbal, spatial-visual, and

simultaneous processing” (Campbell and Scott-Kassner, 2002, p. 27). The authors of this

previous passage do not find fault with Gardner’s theory and say that it could stand on its own,

but that there may be some truth to intelligences falling in one hemisphere or another.

Left-hemisphere processes are emphasized in linguistic and logical-mathematical

intelligences, while spatial intelligences reflects right-hemisphere excellence.

Interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences emanate from right-hemisphere functions.

Musical intelligence is balanced by processes of both hemispheres, for it allows

sequential (left-brained) processing through its perception of durational and pitch patterns

and phrases, and simultaneous (right-brain) processing through its perception of various

polyphonic textures, including harmony. The bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is the only

emphasis that appears to stem more from the motor and sensory parts of the cortex than

from either hemisphere in particular. (Campbell and Scott-Kassner, 2002, pp.27-28)

From this information it is possible that researchers need to examine brain functioning during

activities that apply to each intelligence to determine where the heightened activity is. However,

this would only tell us that activities relating to certain intelligences actually exist on the left,

right, or both sides of the brain. It would not go the extra step in showing if that person has a


heightened ability in certain intelligences. So, it is apparent that even though individuals may

show heightened acuity in one intelligence or another, it is close to impossible to determine

which of Gardner’s intelligences they actually have.

Musical Intelligence In and Outside the Music Classroom

When Gardner published his theory in the early eighties, music educators were very

excited. To this day, those who teach music know there are students who perform exceptionally

well in music, but may struggle in math, science, or even reading. It is, however, possible today

that Gardner’s original theory of the musical intelligence is not being held true to form in

classrooms, both musical and non-musical.

Many schools are incorporating MI Theory into their curriculums and that has left many

music educators wondering how they will incorporate all seven into their class, let alone foster

the students who are musically intelligent. In an article for the Music Educators Journal, Cathy

Kassell (1998) said “Music educators need to stop and reflect critically before applying the

Multiple Intelligences theory and consider the integrity of music and learning in general” (p. 29).

As educators we know that we can only make decisions that are best for our students when we

have clear goals for their achievement. Gardner didn’t think any less than this. Kassell went on

to say “Armed with a philosophy of music education, music educators will then be better

equipped to answer demands that are made on them by the public and administrators to include

MI activities in their music programs” (p. 29).

Music tends to be used in several types of activities closely associated with MI Theory.

These activities usually tend to lessen the value of a proper music education. Kassell (1998)

went on to mentioned, “Much of the MI literature suggests exercises that link memorizing

academic content with rhythms and simple songs” (p. 30). Simply singing a song to learn


prepositions, multiplication tables, or the capitals of the states, is not an efficient use of the

musical intelligence. In this case “music is simply a tool for enhancing memory” (p. 30). It is

using music in a logical and or linguistic function. “As musicians we realize…that the material

is not being taught through an application of musical intelligence” (p. 30). Students are not

learning the true meaning of the notes, the pitches, or patterns of the music.

Kassell addressed the next activity, “Writing the lyrics to songs to demonstrate ones’

understanding of the content of a lesson is a consistent suggestion from many sources for

integrating the intelligences into the lessons” (1998, p. 31). Again, are students really fostering

their musical intelligence, or just using music as an aide to foster linguistic intelligence?

Students are not learning much about actual music, but examining patterns and writing new

words.

The last activity Kassell addressed was about spelling. Music teachers for years have had

students spell out words to help learn the names of the lines and spaces, but Kassell (1998, p. 31)

described an activity where the keys of the piano are labeled with the letters of the alphabet and

students learn to spell words by pressing the keys. She said teachers think that students will be

able to match the pitch patterns and then be able to spell the world back. Kassell said “This is

blatantly unmusical for several reasons. Labeling the keyboard using the entire alphabet can not

only be confusing to students who are already familiar with the musical alphabet, but it is simply

not an authentic musical experience” (1998, p. 31). There are too many questions and loopholes

with this activity, and it would not only hurt the integrity of the musical intelligence, but could

be harmful in fostering other intelligences as well. Kassell said that to avoid these unauthentic

uses of the musical intelligence “Teachers need to become more wary of pulling skills out of

context and equating memorization with understanding, both of which facilitate an environment


that simply relies on rote learning and transmission of information” (p. 31).

Kassell (1998) suggested that because of this that educators may need to look closely at

whether some specific skills, whether they be music or something else, may not be able to be

taught in a unit based on MI Theory. It is possible, however, that music educators can create

units based on MI Theory. Kassell said that “links can be made that make use of music as a

discipline and as a way of knowing, rather than making superficial connections that compromise

integrity of a music program” (p. 32). Music educators can do this by simply going beyond

teaching students how to play the music, but by really starting to have students examine the

meaning behind the music, how and why the music was composed, and the theoretical

components of compositions. Many high school band and choral students leave high school with

a limited knowledge of music, and only know how to sing, or to play there instruments. Many

choral students leave high school not knowing how to read music.

Kassell (1998) also said that it was possible to have connections across the curriculum in

which music was involved. She suggested activities “in which students are asked to actively

experience music through listening, creating, and improvising, or performing” (p. 32). One

example would be to have students examine music from different time periods and discuss how

the music of the time period influenced the culture and social climate, and vice versa. Another

example would be to have students listen to music; examine the dynamics, the texture, as well as

other elements and have them write a story to accompany the music. Students should be able to

explain why their story goes with the song. This is reaching across curriculum and across MI

Theory as well, fostering both students with musical and linguistic intelligences.

Conclusion

It is apparent that MI theory encompasses a lot of research and ideas. It has been praised


and attacked by educators, psychologists, and curricularlists since its inception. Needless to say,

most people cannot doubt the possibility of its existence, however, most will argue with the lack

of assessment tools, it would be hard to apply in the classroom. I feel, however, as educators we

take the possibility of MI Theory into account more often than not, even if it is not in the way

Gardner would see fit. It helps us to see that all people are capable of success, even though they

may not have made the best grades in high school, or they attended a vocational school. All

humans wish to be loved, feel accepted, and feel they are worthwhile. Thanks to Gardner, these

individuals can have this feeling.


Chapter 3

Introduction

It is apparent from the research that has been done that using Multiple Intelligence (MI)

Theory in the classroom is a viable option for teachers looking for solutions to everyday

classroom problems. Even though there are not tried and true assessments available that a)

determine the intelligences of students and b) assess students based on their identified

intelligence, there are things that teachers can do to help foster the intelligences of the students in

their classrooms. This study will examine the role MI Theory plays in getting students to

perform better on everyday classroom assignments.

Problem Statement/Research Question

It has been my experience that students are unmotivated to do assignments that are not of

interest to them. Students either don’t do the work or try to get by with as little as possible. This

results in a number of negative things. First and foremost, the student will suffer academically.

When students either don’t complete assignments, or do so poorly, this results in lowered scores,

thus affecting their overall grade point average. Many excellent students have passed through

my music class, a class that is not well loved by many, and try to squeak by, but end up with a

bad grade. Another negative is that the student sometimes displays poor conduct when they are

not interested or motivated to do daily assignments. This in turn could distract other students

who normally would have good behavior. The dependent variable in this study will be the type

of instruction and the assessment given at the end of the lesson. The independent variable will

be the content of the lesson. The purpose of this study is to see if by giving students instruction

geared toward their intelligence domain they will achieve a higher score on an assessment over

the given material?


Audience for Research

The results of this study could appeal to a wide number of audiences. First will be

teachers in all subjects. If teachers can see results from even one small study, they may be

willing to try out some MI techniques in their classrooms. In talking with colleagues it is

apparent that motivation and achievement issues are being seen in all subjects. If teachers can

see that by tweaking assignments just a little, this will improve achievement, then hopefully this

study has done its job. Another audience will be school administrators. By presenting the

results to the administrators that will be either be a catalyst to help implement school wide MI

Theory curriculum, or if the results don’t show a positive correlation in favor of MI Theory, the

administrators can continue to look for more ideas to help teachers. I hope that at the end of this

study that other teachers and administrators will be interested in trying out the MI Theory

techniques in their schools and classrooms. Lastly, both students and their parents can benefit

from the results of this study. In the end, this study will be showing students where their

intelligences are. This may guide students who may be undecided on a career path to start

making decisions about their future, and it may guide parents in finding sources of motivation

and encouragement for their child. All individuals can benefit from knowing how Multiple

Intelligences affect their overall learning and functioning.

Significance of Multiple Intelligence Study

This study is significant because it will help teachers see that all students are not the same

and that they could learn the same material by doing different assignments or using different

instructional techniques rather than everyone doing the same thing or using the same

instructional techniques in all classes. Teachers have always looked at student learning styles,

but Multiple Itelligences are different. It is more how we think, than how we learn. If teachers


can find ways to identify the intelligences of their students, it will help them in building a

repertoire of activities and assignments to suit the needs of all students in the class. It is

important to note that it would be near impossible to come up with a paper and pencil test for

each of the intelligences, because by doing that you are limiting that to students that have strong

linguistic skills. At the end of this study I hope to be more aware of the intelligences of my

students and will use that in planning activities and assignments. It may require more work, but

it will benefit the students in the long run.

Students could benefit from the results of the study. If students are aware of their

intelligences it may assist them in being able to complete assignments more efficiently. They

can learn techniques that stimulate their intelligence domain and hopefully find ways to connect

the techniques across the curriculum.

Another significance of the study is that schools could use the information to see if

further research could be conducted by implementing MI curriculums. The results of this study

should not be the sole basis for starting an MI curriculum based education, but it could be used

as a basis for looking into the possibility of it. Teachers in schools that decided that MI

curriculum is not the best fit for them could still use some of the ideas in their day to day

classroom activities.

Research Methods and Design

This study will use quantitative research methods. Subjects in the study will be a sample

of convenience which will include 60 students from two music classes at Green County

Intermediate School (GCIS). GCIS is located in Greensburg, KY, a rural community located in

central Kentucky. The school is home to approximately 400 students in grades three through

five and has a teacher to student ratio of one to fifteen. Green County Intermediate School is


predominantly made up of Caucasian students, with 98% of the students identifying with this

ethnicity. Two percent of students identified as being black, and less than 1% each as Hispanic

and other. Seventy-three percent of the school’s population participates in the free and reduced

lunch program. I will be the only researcher conducting the study. I hold a Bachelors Degree in

Music Education from Campbellsville University and currently am pursuing a Masters of Arts in

Education with special emphasis in Gifted Education.

The initial research will start with making students aware of the research that will be

conducted. Students will be made aware that at no time will their names be used in the final

draft of the research results. After making students fully aware of their participation, an

intelligence survey (Appendix A) will be administered to all participating students. The survey

will consist of thirty-five statements in which students will identify whether a statement

describes them or not. Because these students are still considered elementary age and to

accommodate all IEP’s I will read each statement to the class and clarify the meaning if needed.

Also the general population in each class, those that do not receive special education services,

does contain a significant number of students who receive reading intervention through Response

to Intervention services at the school. To ensure validity and reliability students will not score

their own surveys. The results will be reviewed to see how high students scored in what I will

call the “Big Five” intelligence domains. These five domains are the ones that I feel are most

used in daily classroom experiences and are musical, spatial/visual, kinesthetic, linguistic/verbal,

and mathematical/logical. The results will be documented and filed to be used to relate further

data results to.

Following the review of the survey both classes will then receive a lesson of a musical

topic. I made the decision to re-teach a topic covered earlier in the year to help students prepare


for upcoming school common assessments. Both classes will receive a teacher designed lesson

on rhythmic notation. Topics that will be covered in the lesson will be definitions of rhythm,

beat, and time signature; values and symbols for whole, half, quarter, and eighth notes and rests;

dotted rhythms; and, writing and performing rhythms. In the control class I will only be using the

lecture method of instruction. I will be changing my instructional delivery method for the

experimental class, using techniques that will appeal to the various Multiple Intelligences present

in the class. These students will receive a guide sheet that will help pace the instruction

(Appendix B). This will appeal to the students with high visual intelligence. The visual students

in the class will also be drawn to being able to see the note and rest symbols and the breakdown

of the note tree. I will also be going over the sheet orally, which will appeal to the students with

verbal intelligences in the class. These students need to not only see and do things, but benefit

from being able to hear it as well. Also by hearing how certain rhythmic note values sound, they

may be able to apply that later on an assessment. The students with mathematical/logistical

strengths will be able to see the breakdown of the notes in the note tree, how musical notes and

rests relate to mathematical fractions, recognize the logistical patterns in writing musical

rhythms, and the breakdown of what a dot does to a note when added to it (adds half the value of

the note). For those with kinesthetic strengths, I will be doing an activity where we perform

rhythms using different bodily movements (kicks for quarter note, punches for eighth notes,

etc.). This will get them up out of their chairs and let them think about musical notation in a way

they may had not before.

I determined that these techniques were reliable and valid by visiting the website for the

group Innovative Teaching Concepts (2009). There website states that they are “providing the

educational community a resource for curriculum integration, instructional technology, and


classroom management in the elementary grades” (p. 1).

After each class receives the instruction they will take an a short ten question test that

consists of nine multiple choice questions covering topics from the lesson and one question that

has them write a short two measure rhythm in four four time. This test will be worth 100 points

and I will be looking to see how students performed in each class. To prove my hypothesis, I

will be looking for higher scores in my experimental class.

In addition to the actual graded assignments, I will also be giving students a survey to see

how well they liked the lesson and the delivery method in which it was taught. In addition I will

re-give the intelligence survey to see if I get similar results. At the conclusion of the study, I

hope to see that there is a link to the students’ results on the intelligence surveys, the grade they

received on the assessment, and the classes’ reactions to the instructional method (lecture versus

Multiple Intelligences). This will serve as the triangulation in this research project.

This project and research will take place over a course of several weeks due to the fact

that students only come to music class once a week.

Week 1

o Students made aware of research study being conducted

o Intelligence survey administered

Week 2

o Students receive the instructional lesson

o Assessment administered

Week 3

o Students re-take MI survey

o Students fill out evaluation survey over lesson


Week 4

o All data analyzed and results shared with students.

This research project will not require a set budget. Normal classroom materials and

departmental funds will be used for basic supplies such as making copies. Students will provide

their own writing utensils. All assignments will take place within related units of study

Summary

It is important to note that though results from this study will be important to me for

future use in my classes, the study and results cannot be generalized. This is because of the

nature of the population and sample size. Also an important note is that it is possible that the

results will not show any correlation at all. However, from this study I hope to learn the

strengths and weaknesses in intelligence domains of my students, and how they perform when

multiple intelligence techniques are used in instruction.


Chapter 4

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the condition of the classrooms on the days the

data was collected, explanations of how the data was collected and analyzed, and the results that

the data presented. Again I will be looking to see whether students receiving instruction geared

toward their Multiple Intelligences (MI) will perform better on an assessment than students who

do not. First let’s look at the conditions of the classes. My original research design had called to

break down my research over three weeks, but due to the time constraints all data was collected

over a period of 2 weeks. This breaks down only into two class period because the students only

have music once a week for one hour. The control class had twenty-six out of thirty students

present on the days I collected data and the experimental class had twenty five. So, in total, fifty-

one fifth grade students participated in my study.

Both classes come to music at the same time during the day, at two o’clock and are there

for one hour each. Students sit at tables in groups of five to six students. There is a large white

board at the front of the class, the teacher’s desk is to the far left hand corner of the room, and

there is also a teacher computer and projector system that can be used during lesson. Upon

entering the classroom the students were told what would be going on and the purpose of the

research that was being done. In the next section I will breakdown the data that was collected

and analyzed.

Analysis

Multiple Intelligence Survey Analysis

The first piece of data that was collected was the MI survey. As mentioned earlier in this

paper the survey consisted of thirty-five statements in which the students responded either true or


false in relation to their interests and abilities. Students were informed as to what the survey was

measuring and told to be as accurate as possible with their answers. I read each statement to the

students. The first purpose of this was to accommodate any student that had an IEP that called

for them to have a reader. Secondly, this gave me the opportunity to clarify the meaning of any

statement if it seemed confusing to the student. The quiz that was used (Appendix A) was

geared toward older elementary students, but some statements did need some explanation. The

survey did have the option to let students tally their own scores, but I felt it necessary to tally the

scores myself to ensure accuracy. Analysis of these surveys follows.

The surveys were quite easy to analyze. At the end of the survey there was a scoring

guide that broke the survey down into seven categories. As previously mentioned those

categories were verbal, mathematical, visual, kinesthetic, musical, intrapersonal, and

interpersonal. There were five statements from the survey that corresponded with each section.

According to the creator of the survey, Dr. Carla Piper (2002) from Chapman University, a total

of four or more indicators in any category would signify a strong ability. I simply ready through

each students surveys and marked the questions they responding true to. I would then be able to

go back and look for the categories in which they scored four or more.

For my control group a total of twenty-six students completed the survey. Once I started

my analysis of the surveys, I found that only twenty of the surveys, or 69.23%, were useable. I

found that one of the six was not useable due to the fact that the student had answered true on

every question. Even if the student was being honest, I felt the survey was inaccurate and I could

not count it as being valid or reliable for my study. The remaining five surveys that were not

scored were not done so because students did not respond to all statements. Even though some

students only left out one or two this would not have allowed me to get an accurate picture of


their MI strength areas. Not responding to one statement could mean the difference between

displaying a strength area or not.

After determining which surveys were useable and which were not, I begin to go through

and look for students that displayed strengths in certain areas. As I began to do this my useable

sample began to decrease as well. For the control group eighteen of the twenty useable surveys

displayed totals of four or more in at least one category. The two that did not only had two or

three indicators in a few categories. From this point I entered into an Excel document the

number of students with strength areas in each category. I then broke these numbers down into

percentages. I will share these results in my results section, but it will be worth noting that the

percentages do not equal one hundred because the majority of students had more than one

strength area. After looking at the percentages for each category I then ranked the “Big Five”

categories (verbal, math, visual, kinesthetic, and musical) in order of the highest number of

students displaying the strengths to the lowest.

For my experimental group a total of twenty five students were surveyed. Of

those twenty-five, I found that twenty-three of the surveys were useable, as two of the

surveys were not completely filled out. I decided not to use these for the same reason I

did not use them for my control group. Using the same analysis techniques as my control

group, I began to total the indicator statements for each student. Again I was looking for

totals of four or more in any one category for the data to be included in my final results.

After examining all the surveys for the experimental group, I found that twenty-one of

the twenty-three useable surveys had at least one MI strength area with a score of four or

more. As with the control group I then looked for the number of students displaying

strengths in each area and placed in the Excel document for my personal use and


continued data analysis. I will use this in my results in comparing the results of the two

classes. I also ranked the “Big Five” categories in order of the highest number of

students displaying strengths to the lowest.

I also collected one other piece of data from the MI survey. I was interested to see how

many students displayed strengths in more than one area. I was able to determine that and I will

share those in my results section. Students took this survey again following the day they

received the instruction and took the assessment. This was primarily for me to look to see if

there was any major changes in results of the first survey.

Instruction Reflection

After students took the MI survey the lesson that would be assessed at the end of the

study was presented. A reminder that the control group was instructed using only the lecture

format. In relationship to Multiple Intelligences this style of instruction is only going to appeal

to students with strengths in the verbal domain. The experimental group’s instruction was based

in Multiple Intelligences and included a student guide sheet and activities based in the “Big

Five” domains of verbal, mathematical/logical, visual, kinesthetic, and musical. The topic for

the lesson was rhythm. Students had done several activities and received several lessons earlier

in the year on rhythm so I was expecting this to be a review. It was apparent once I started

teaching in both classes that students had forgotten some of the topics from earlier in the year.

Specific material that was covered included definitions of important terms related to

rhythm. They included rhythm, beat, and time signature. Also the following notes and rests and

their rhythmic values were reviewed: whole, half, quarter, and eighth. Students were reminded

of the specific symbol for each note or rest and the number of beats each is worth. Students also

were instructed in why each note has its specific name and how many notes can be used to make


up another note. This can be seen in the Appendix B for the experimental group’s student guide

sheet.

I also briefly introduced a new topic to the students, the dotted rhythm. Students were

instructed that the dot added to a note added half the value to the existing note. I showed the

students some examples. With the control group they were simply told what a dot does and

showed examples and told the value. With the experimental group to help to appeal to the visual

and mathematical strengths, I actually gave them examples to figure out. That way they were

able to see it and actually do the math to reach a conclusion.

The last topic that was covered was actually writing and performing rhythms. For the

control class I just showed them rhythms on the board and performed them. The experimental

group assisted me in coming up with the rhythms, wrote their own rhythms on their guide sheet,

and even looked at a partially written rhythm to figure out the pattern and complete the

remaining measures. This class also performed rhythms by using rhythm syllables, clapping, and

an activity where they got up out of their chairs and created movements for each note and rest

value. The goal with this was to appeal to my students with kinesthetic strengths.

Assessment Analysis

At the conclusion of the lesson material, both the experimental and the control groups

were given an identical assessment. The assessment consisted of ten questions. Nine of the

questions were multiple choice and related to definitions, note values, and note symbols. The

tenth question simply asked students to fill in the measures with the appropriate number of beats.

The review quiz was worth a total of 100 points, ten points per question. My goal was to

look for higher scores in the class that received the multiple intelligence instruction. Analysis of

these scores was quite simple. First, I scored each quiz using my answer key. Then I went


through and looked for the number of students scoring an A+ (100), A (90), B (80), C (70), D

(60) and F (scores of 50 and below). I looked for the number of each score and then converted

that score into a percentage. I also entered the results from both classes in to an Excel document

so I could compare the results of the classes side by side. Once I started examining the results I

also analyzed the difference between the two classes in a score of 90 or above on the assessment

Results

Control Group Results

As a reminder a total of eighteen surveys were deemed useable and had a score of four or

more in at least one multiple intelligence domain. Eighteen was the number I used to get my

percentages for each domain.

First, there were a total of 88.9% of the control group that presented strengths in two or

more domains. This was the majority of the class. From this point I only determined

percentages for the “Big Five” domains as mentioned earlier. Percentages for those five domains

are as follows: 16.7% verbal, 33.33% mathematical/logical, 27.8% Visual, 72.2% kinesthetic,

and 55.6% musical. There were seven students that displayed strengths in intrapersonal and nine

that displayed strengths in interpersonal, but these were not significant to my study because they

are hard to use in creating lessons and assessments. The results of the highest number of

students ranking in one domain to the least were 1) kinesthetic, 2) musical, 3) math, 4) visual,

and 5) verbal.

I can already draw a conclusion from these results before even examining the assessment

data. The majority of students in this class identified most closely with the kinesthetic domain.

My lesson format was based solely in lecture format and using the board. It easy to determine

before looking at the assessment results that students in this class are probably not going to learn


as well when receiving this type of instruction because visual and verbal strengths were the two

lowest domains.

The assessment data results were as follows (Appendix D): 7.69% A+, 7.69% A, 19.23%

B, 26.92% C, 11.54% D, and 26.92% F. The two highest scores were scores of 50 and below, an

F, and scores of 70, a C. Only a total of 15.38% of students who were assessed scored a 90 or

better. In my opinion I am contributing this to the fact that well over half of the class, 72.2%,

identified with the kinesthetic domain. The verbal domain, which the majority of the lesson was

geared toward, was the lowest, with 16.7% of the class identifying with it.

Students in this class also retook the Multiple Intelligence Survey. Differences in the

results from the first survey were not significant enough to report any differences and results of

the first survey stand. Further conclusions will be drawn in the close of this paper after the

results of the experimental group are reviewed.

Experimental Group Results

As a reminder a total of twenty-one surveys were deemed useable and had a score of four

or more in at least one multiple intelligence domain. Twenty-one was the number I used to get

my percentages for each domain.

First there were a total of 76.19% of the experimental group that presented strengths in

two or more domains. This was the majority of the class. From this point I only determined

percentages for the “Big Five” domains as mentioned earlier. Percentages for those five domains

are as follows: 19.05% verbal, 33% mathematical/logical, 23.81% Visual, 52.38% kinesthetic,

and 47.62% musical. There were nine students that displayed strengths in intrapersonal and six

that displayed strengths in interpersonal, but as with the control group these were not significant

to my study. The results of the highest number of students ranking in one domain to the least


were 1) kinesthetic, 2) musical, 3) math, 4) visual, and 5) verbal. It is interesting to note at this

point that both the control and experimental group had the some hierarchy of domains.

The assessment data results were as follows (Appendix D): 24% A+, 4% A, 16% B, 12%

C, 4% D, and 40% F. The highest number of students received scores of 50 and below, an F, and

scores of 100, an A+. A total of 28% of students who were assessed scored a 90 or better. In

comparison with the control group, a difference of 12.62% of students scored a A or A+ on the

assessment. I found it interesting that even though a higher number of students received an A in

this class, a higher number of students also scored an F on the assessment. My experimental

class had 40% of the students scoring a 50 or less, whereas the control group only had 26.92%.

This is a difference of 13.08%. A contributing factor could be the higher number of IEP students

in this class, however, not all students in the special education program scored an F. Another

factor could be general ability level between the two classes. The control class has a higher

number of students that are in the gifted and talented program, and the class, for the most part

from past observation, performs at a higher level. My experimental class also has more students

that receive Response to Intervention instruction in reading and that could have lead to lower

performance on a written exam.

Students in this class also retook the MI Survey. Differences in the results from the first

survey were not significant enough to report any differences and results of the first survey stand.

Summary

I found my results to be very interesting. As I move into chapter five, I will further

review the results from the study and begin to answer my problem question and see if my

hypothesis was proven. I will also be sharing whether the use of Multiple Intelligences in

designing instruction and assessment is practical for further classroom use.


Chapter 5

Introduction

In this chapter, I will once again review the results of my study, draw conclusions based

on the results, and answer my original question, “Will students achieve higher scores on

assessments when given instruction geared toward their given multiple intelligence domain?” I

will also draw conclusions based on my results, determining whether the results are useable in

the future in my classes and to others who may wish to use Multiple Intelligence Theory (MI

Theory) and techniques in their classrooms. Lastly I will also be looking at previous research

and studies in MI to see whether my study could be considered reliable and valid in comparison

to past research.

Results

In my control group eighteen of the original twenty-six multiple intelligence surveys

were useable and significant because those were the ones in which students displayed scores of

four or more in at least one intelligence domain. This signifies a strength area in the given

domain. Percentages of students scoring in the five domains I chose to focus on where: 16.7%

verbal, 33.33% mathematical/logical, 27.8% Visual, 72.2% kinesthetic, and 55.6% musical. The

results of the greatest number of students ranking in one domain to the least were 1) kinesthetic,

2) musical, 3) math, 4) visual, and 5) verbal.

In my experimental group a total of twenty-one surveys were deemed useable and had a

score of four or more in at least one MI domain. Percentages of students scoring in the five

domains I chose to focus on were: 19.05% verbal, 33% mathematical/logical, 23.81% Visual,

52.38% kinesthetic, and 47.62% musical. The results of the greatest number of students ranking

in one domain to the least were 1) kinesthetic, 2) musical, 3) math, 4) visual, and 5) verbal. The


reader should be able to note that this was the same as with the control group.

The assessment data results for the control group were as follows (Appendix D): 7.69%

A+, 7.69% A, 19.23% B, 26.92% C, 11.54% D, and 26.92% F. The two highest percentages

were scores of 50 and below, a F, and scores of 70, a C. Only a total of 15.38% of students who

were assessed scored a 90 or better. The assessment data results for the experimental group were

as follows (Appendix D): 24% A+, 4% A, 16% B, 12% C, 4% D, and 40% F. The two highest

percentages were scores of 50 and below, an F, and scores of 100, an A+. A total of 28% of

students who were assessed scored a 90 or better. In comparison with the control group, a

difference of 12.62% of students scored an A or A+ on the assessment.

The initial data collected do reveal that the class that received instruction based in

Multiple Intelligences had a higher number of students receiving the grade of an A on the

assessment given at the end of instruction. As noted the experimental group, the class receiving

MI based instruction had 28% of the students scoring a 90 or higher. The control group had

15.38% of students scoring the same score. Again this is a difference of 12.62%.

I found it interesting that even though a greater number of students received an A in this

class, a greater number of students also scored an F on the assessment. My experimental class

had 40% of the students scoring a 50 or less, whereas the control group only had 26.92%. This is

a difference of 13.08%. A contributing factor could be the higher number of IEP students in this

class, however, not all students in the special education program scored an F. Another factor

could be general ability level between the two classes. The control class has a higher number of

students that are in the gifted and talented program, and the class, for the most part from past

observation, performs at a higher level. My experimental class also has more students that

receive Response to Intervention instruction in reading and that could have lead to lower


performance on a written exam.

It would be hard to say whether these results could be used in all classrooms in the future

or be used as the basis for curriculum for a school. In an article for the The Journal of Education

Research, entitled “Attitudes Toward a Multiple Intelligence Curriculum,” authors Gwendolyn

Mettetal, Cheryl Jordan, and Sheryll Harper (1997) concluded that when multiple intelligence

theory is implemented across a school it tends to be implemented unevenly. Also, if not all

teacher buy into the idea of Multiple Intelligence theory, then those students who truly could

benefit from its use are missing out. Like the teachers in the school in which these authors

conducted their study, most teachers would probably become very overwhelmed with developing

lessons geared toward each student’s intelligence. In my study, I simply tried to prepare a lesson

that would reach out to all the identified intelligences in the class, but to truly paint an accurate

picture every lesson, assignment, and assessment would have to be specifically designed for each

student. This would bring new meaning to individualized education.

Also in my study I assessed all students the same way. Each student took a teacher

designed, multiple choice, pencil and paper assessment. Also each students’ intelligences were

assessed in the same way, a pencil and paper assessment. Relating back to chapter 2, Thomas

Armstrong(2000) in his book Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom he said “No test can

accurately determine the nature or quality of a person’s intelligence” (p. 12). However, he did

believe testing intelligence through paper and pencil tests would only be tapping into the logical

and linguistic intelligences. Armstrong went on to say, “The best way to assess your own

Multiple Intelligences, therefore, is through a realistic appraisal of your performance in the many

kinds of tasks, activities, and experiences associated with each intelligence” (p. 12). According

to him intelligences could only be fostered through real life experiences.


Conclusions

So after reviewing all results and relating them to past studies of Multiple Intelligences

can I say without a doubt that the use of MI theory in designing and assessing instruction will

result in higher assessment scores? I have two answers to this. First, according to my results,

yes the use of some MI techniques did play a role in the results of my study. I was looking for

improved scores between my control and experimental group and that was what my results

showed. In my control group, 15.38% of my students received an A and in my experimental

group 28% received an A. I saw in the control group that the majority of my students displayed

strengths in the kinesthetic intelligence domain. That class received instruction based solely for

students who have strengths in the verbal domain. This could account for why several students

received poor scores on the assessment.

Looking at the experimental group, the majority of students in this class also displayed

strengths in the kinesthetic domain, followed closely by the musical domain. During the

instruction with this class students were up out of their seats moving, clapping rhythms,

examining and analyzing musical concepts more closely, and thus receiving instruction more

closely associated with their intelligence domains. There were also techniques used that

appealed to the math, visual, and verbal domains. So, it is easy to draw the conclusion that

students scored better on this assessment because of the type of instruction they received.

I think this study could easily be viewed in several ways. Even though I did use

techniques closely associated with MI it would be easy to determine that there were other factors

involved that the higher scores could be attributed to. First, maybe the sole use of the student

guide sheet, or a study guide, could be the reason why students performed better. Another is

possibly this study looked more closely at learning styles and instructional delivery methods


rather than MI.

Because of these factors it is necessary to report that results from these findings cannot be

generalized across populations. First, the sample size was too small and was only a convenience

sample. Secondly, there were too many other factors that could have lead to the results of the

study being skewed. Was the study actually measuring the use of MI Theory? Did the way the

students were arranged allow them to cheat? Also to truly get an accurate picture of using

multiple intelligence theory in the classroom, again, I would have to customize instruction,

assignments, and assessments for each individualized students’ strength areas. Remember,

according to previous studies, it is next to impossible to ever really determine a person’s

intelligence by using a paper and pencil survey.

Will I continue to use these techniques in my classes in the future? I will probably

continue to implement some of the techniques I used with my experimental class. I cannot truly

say that they will always result in higher scores on assessments in all my classes though. Would

customizing the assignments and assessments for each individual student result in better scores?

This in of itself would be a whole study and require a lot of time and effort to determine. I can

conclude, however, from this study that one instructional method, based in one intelligence

domain, is not always best for all students.

End Note

So, in conclusion, I would say that if educators wish to try and implement multiple

intelligence techniques in their classroom they must be first willing to do a little research and

data collecting of their own. Yes, I believe there was some significance to my study, but to

further determine if MI Theory has a basis for use in my classroom and in other classrooms in

my school it would require further research. I believe that educators could use my initial


research design as a starting point to see if their students respond better to lessons taught with MI

in mind. My results, however, should not be the basis for a complete change in how a teacher

designs their lessons or how a school designs their curriculum. More research on this subject

would definitely be needed before any major decision such as that should be made.


Works Cited

Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria: Association for

Supervision in the Classroom.

Campbell, P.S., Scott-Kassner, C. (2002). Music in Childhood From Preschool Through The

Elementary Grades. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Collins, J. (1998, October). “How To Make A Better Student: Seven Kinds of Smart.” Time

Magazine Online. Retrieved November, 8, 2009.

<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989359,00.html>

Gardner, H. (1984). “Assessing Intelligences: A Comment on Testing Intelligence without IQ

Tests.” The Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 699-700.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theories of Multiple Intelligences. New York. Basic

Books.

Gardner, H. (1995). “Reflections on Multiple Intelligences: Myths and Messages.” The Phi Delta

Kappan, 77, 200-203 and 206-209.

Guignon, A. (1998).” Multiple Intelligences: A Theory for Everyone.” Education World. Online

Posting. Retrieved November 6, 2009.

<http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr054.shtml>

Hirsh, R.A. (2004). Excerpt from Early Childhood Curriculum: Incorporating Multiple

Intelligences, Developmentally Appropriate Practice, and Play. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Education, Inc. Online Posting. Retrieved November 6, 2009.

<http://www.education.com/reference/article/logical-mathematical-intelligence/ >

Human Intelligences. (2007, July 25). Charles Spearman. Retrieved from Indiana University

website May 10, 2011 <http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/Spearman.shtml>

http://www.education.com/reference/article/logical-mathematical-intelligence/

http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr054.shtml

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989359,00.html


Innovative Teaching Concepts. (2009, May 31). MI Acitivities. Retrieved from

http://www.todaysteacher.com/MILearningActivities.htm

Kassell, C. (1998). “Music and the Theory of Multiple Intelligences.” Music Educators

Journal,84, 29-32 and 60.

Mettetal, G., Gordan, C., Harper, S. (1997) “Attitudes toward a Multiple Intelligences

Curriculum. The Journal of Education Research, 91, 115-122.

McClaskey, J. (1995). “Assessing Student Learning through Multiple Intelligences.” The English

Journal, 84, 56-59.

Piper, C. (2002). “Multiple Intelligence Quiz.” Teaching With Technology. Online Posting.

Retrieved April 27, 2011.

<http://www1.chapman.edu/soe/faculty/peper/teachtech/miquiz.htm>

Plotnik, R. (2002). Introduction to Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Smith, M.K. (2008). “Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences.” The Encyclopeda of Informal

Education. Online Posting. Retrieved November 6, 2009.

<http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm>

Sternberg, R.J. (1984). “Fighting butter battles: A reply.” Phi Delta Kappan,65, 699-700.

Wilson, L.O. (1998). “The Eighth Intelligence: Naturalistic Intelligence.”Journeys: Inside out,

outside in. Chicago: Zephyr Press. Online Posting. New Horizons.Org. Retrieved

November 6, 2009.

http://home.avvanta.com/~building/strategies/environmental/wilson2.htm

Wright, S. (2003). Excerpt from The Arts, Young Children, and Learning. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Online posting. Retrieved November 6, 2009.

<http://www.education.com/reference/article/bodily-kinesthetic-intelligence/>

http://www.education.com/reference/article/bodily-kinesthetic-intelligence/

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm

http://www.todaysteacher.com/MILearningActivities.htm


Appendix A

Student Survey


Appendix B

Student Guide Sheet for Experimental Class


Appendix C

Assessment


Appendix D

Assessment Results: Control and Experimental Groups

Brooke Gupton Action Research Project Master Copy FINAL 5-31-11

Documents

Transcript of Brooke Gupton Action Research Project Master Copy FINAL 5-31-11