• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
A validation study of the persian version of mckenzie's (1999) multiple intelligences inventory to measure mi profiles of pre university students
 

A validation study of the persian version of mckenzie's (1999) multiple intelligences inventory to measure mi profiles of pre university students

on

  • 823 views

Hajhashemi, K., & Wong, B. E. (2010). A Validation Study of the Persian Version of Mckenzie's (1999) Multiple Intelligences Inventory to Measure MI Profiles of Pre-University Students. Pertanika ...

Hajhashemi, K., & Wong, B. E. (2010). A Validation Study of the Persian Version of Mckenzie's (1999) Multiple Intelligences Inventory to Measure MI Profiles of Pre-University Students. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities (JSSH), 18(2), 343-355.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
823
Views on SlideShare
823
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    A validation study of the persian version of mckenzie's (1999) multiple intelligences inventory to measure mi profiles of pre university students A validation study of the persian version of mckenzie's (1999) multiple intelligences inventory to measure mi profiles of pre university students Document Transcript

    • ISSN: 0128-7702Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 18 (2): 343 - 355 (2010) © Universiti Putra Malaysia Press A Validation Study of the Persian Version of McKenzie’s Multiple Intelligences Inventory to Measure Profiles of Pre-University Students Karim Hajhashemi* and Wong Bee Eng Department of English Language, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia * E-mail: gs20553@mutiara.upm.edu.my ABSTRACTTraditionally, intelligence was viewed as a single static entity. Revolutionizing the once-dominated “single-static entity” conceptualization, Gardner initially (1983) proposed his theory of Multiple intelligences (MI) thatencompasses seven different areas of intelligence (verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical-rhythmic,visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal), and later on added the eighth and ninthareas (naturalist and existential) in 1999. Based on the theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI), a person maybe viewed as intelligent in any of these areas, and the identification of the dominant intelligence type hasproven to have pedagogic implications. McKenzie’s MI questionnaire (1999) is one of the established tools toidentify the typology of intelligence. The present study aims to validate the Persian version of the MI Inventory(questionnaire) proposed by McKenzie (1999). This instrument provides an objective measure of MI. Thispaper describes the validation exercise of the abovementioned questionnaire that involved 173 pre-universitystudents of both genders in Tehran. In addition, the variables gender and discipline were also considered inthis study. The findings of the study indicate that overall, the Persian version of the questionnaire has a highreliability. In addition, the results show a moderate to high relationship between gender and MI profiles ofthe students.Keywords: Multiple-intelligence theory, McKenzie’s MI Inventory, pre-university students INTRODUCTION educators would agree that verbal-linguisticPreparing students to deal with the workplace intelligence dominates the teaching-learningculture, a foreign culture, or the mainstream environment in our classrooms. Such a limitedculture, which may be different from their own, view of intelligence has alienated numerousis one of the main responsibilities of educational students (Armstrong, 2003; Levine, 2003;institutions. Therefore, schools usually tend Ruggieri, 2002), and society cannot afford toto assess students based on the same criteria continue with this line of thought (Cetron andthat the society in which it is situated does. A Cetron, 2004; Eisner, 2004). Similarly, Pearsonculture which puts maximal value on the verbal- and Stephens (1994) acknowledge that thelinguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences information taught and tested in schools has beenwill result in a focus on these abilities in schools. based on one type of knowledge, while ignoringArmstrong (2003) states that our culture is “other kinds of knowing” (p. 39). They alsodominated by linguistic intelligence and most remind readers that we “have contrived a way ofReceived: 1 October 2009Accepted: 1 February 2010* Corresponding Author
    • Karim Hajhashemi and Wong Bee Eng‘doing school’ that bears little resemblance to the talents carefully and properly, and then guidereal learning and teaching that motivate human them to utilize the maximum capacity of theirsocieties to create schools in the first place” intelligence and talent in the direction of the(p. 39). Meanwhile, Eisner (2004) claims that educational goals.the “primary aim of education is not to enable In order to reach the above mentionedstudents to do well in school, but to help them goals, the assessment of the students’ MI profiledo well in the lives they lead outside of school. is therefore required. According to LazearWe ought to focus on what students do when they (1991:1992), the students’ needs, intelligencecan choose their own activities” (p. 10). models, and learning strategies should be The failure of a single general intelligence considered on the basis of the MI theory and the(g factor) to explain human performance has led emphasis should not be strictly on the verbal–many psychologists and educators to believe lingual and mathematical–logical intelligencesthat individuals, with their specific strengths and alone. On the contrary, Lazear (1991:1992)weaknesses, can be conceptualized as having claims that such an emphasis is unfair duemultiple abilities (Chan, 2006; Karolyi, Ramos- to students’ individual and group differencesFord and Gardner, 2003; Sternberg, 1986: 1997: in Gardner’s different models of multiple2000). intelligences. Gardner (1983) disagrees with previousmodels of intelligence because they focused too MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES ANDmuch on logic and language and ignored other LANGUAGE LEARNINGabilities. Gardner defines intelligence as theability of a person to respond to new events and The area of MI and English language learning ofsituations successfully and his or her capacity students have received attention from researchers.to learn from past experience (1983, p.21). He Since this study has focused on one of the toolspropounded the theory of MI and identified used to identify the multiple-intelligence profilesseven intelligences which he claimed were of students, that is, McKenzie’s (1999) MIdistinct. These are relatively autonomous human Inventory, the studies that used this questionnaireintelligences or ways through which people would also be reviewed. Some of the researcherslearn. The seven intelligences Gardner put forth have used this questionnaire as they have foundin 1983 are verbal/linguistic, musical/rhythmical, it an applicable and useful tool to measure thelogical/mathematical, spatial/visual, bodily/ multiple-intelligence profiles of the studentskinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. In (see for e.g., Al-Balhan, 2006; Marefat, 2007;1995, the eighth intelligence, i.e. Naturalistic Mokhtar et al., 2008; Pasha Sharifi, 2008;intelligence, was added. Existential intelligence, Razmjoo, 2008; Razmjoo et al., 2009; Sung,which is the ninth intelligence, is still under 2004).consideration as it is yet to fully satisfy empirical Sung (2004) used instructional strategiesand neurological evidence needed to include it based on the MI theory to improve the teachingon the list of intelligences (Gardner, 1999; Viens and learning of Korean among foreign languageand Kallenbach, 2004). learners, and to help equip the Korean language Thus, to fulfil the educational goals of teachers in broadening their pedagogicalstudents, some points which are taken from repertoire so that they could accommodateGardner (2004) should be mentioned, and linguistically, culturally, and cognitively diversethese include: 1) individuals use different students. This study used McKenzie 1999’s MIstrategies to process information and solve Inventory to measure the multiple-intelligenceproblems depending on the type and level profiles of the participants, as well as to practiceof their intelligence abilities, and 2) in order applying MI theory to Korean teaching into provide suitable learning experiences for the classroom setting for Korean languagestudents, teachers need to assess the students’ instructors.344 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 18 (2) 2010
    • A Validation Study of the Persian Version of McKenzie’s Multiple Intelligences Inventory Investigating whether or not there is intelligences and language proficiency in theany relationship between students’ multiple- Iranian context.intelligence profiles and their writing products, Mokhtar et al. (2008) conducted a researchMarefat (2007) conducted a research study in study entitled, “Teaching information literacywhich she collected data from 72 male and through learning styles: The application offemale EFL Iranian undergraduate students Gardner’s multiple intelligences”. They believe(aged 19-27 years) who studied English literature that making the students independent learnersand translation. The data were collected through and knowledge workers of tomorrow lies inthe students’ average scores on three essays being information literate (IL). Therefore,and McKenzie’s MI Inventory. She found they hypothesized that the students’ innatethat kinesthetic, existential, and interpersonal interests are stimulated when they grasp ILintelligences made the greatest contributions skills more effectively and apply them to theirin predicting the writing scores of the students. work. Accordingly, the quality of the work Meanwhile, a study carried out by Razmjoo produced would be better. For this purpose, theet al. (2009) was aimed at identifying the researchers designed an IL course to preparerelationship between multiple intelligences, the students with the necessary IL skills andvocabulary learning knowledge, and vocabulary divided them into experimental and controllearning strategies among EFL Iranian learners. groups. Later, the quality of the project work ofThe subjects of the study were 100 senior the experimental group who received IL coursestudents who were studying English Language training was compared to that of the controlTeaching at Shiraz Azad University between group. It was found that the students who had2006 and 2007. The data analysis of the findings received IL training (experimental group) hadrevealed that there was a relationship between better performance in their project work asmultiple intelligences and vocabulary learning compared to those who had not received suchknowledge. It was also found that among the training (control group).different domains of intelligence, the linguistic In a research study conducted amongand natural intelligences made statistically middle-school Kuwaiti children, Al-Balhansignificant contributions to the prediction of (2006) investigated the effectiveness of students’vocabulary learning knowledge. multiple intelligence styles in predicting the In order to determine the relationship improvement of their reading skills throughbetween multiple intelligences and language academic performance of both genders and fromproficiency, another study was carried out by grades one to four. They had received their firstRazmjoo (2008) to investigate the relationship quarter grades and enrolled in an after-schoolbetween multiple intelligences and language tutoring programme. The students were dividedproficiency of Iranian PhD candidates, and to into an experimental group who received trainingexplore whether one of the intelligence types or a on the basis of Gardner’s multiple intelligencescombination of the intelligences are predictors of and a control group who was subject to alanguage proficiency, and to examine the effect traditional tutoring programme. The dataof gender on language proficiency and the types revealed that the students in the experimentalof intelligences. The subjects of the study were group performed better than the students in278 male and female PhD candidates at Shiraz the control group. It was also found that theUniversity. The data revealed that there was female students in the experimental group didno significant relationship between language significantly better than the males.proficiency and the combination of intelligences In his paper entitled, “The introductoryin general and the types of intelligence in study of Gardner’s multiple intelligence theoryparticular. Similarly, it was found that there in the field of lesson subjects and the students’was no significant difference between the male compatibility”, Pasha Sharifi (2008) describesand female students and between multiple the questionnaires and tools used for assessing Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 18 (2) 2010 345
    • Karim Hajhashemi and Wong Bee Engvarious types of intelligence in education chosen from among 19 school districts in Tehran.processes. Among them, he highlighted the Similarly, the students were also randomlymultiple intelligence tests for children by selected from two different segregated highNancy Fairs, multiple intelligence questionnaire schools in that particular region. Randomby Harms and Douglas, and the multiple sampling was used to create homogeneousintelligences which were compiled by McKenzie groups without involving any potential biasesin 1999. The study was conducted with a group or judgments.of 120 secondary school students in differentbranches. It was found that there was a low Instrumentto moderate, but significant correlation amongdifferent kinds of intelligence and related school In order to identify the intelligence profilesubject scores. Additionally, it was found that of the participants, the MI questionnaire wasthe female students in the study were superior in distributed to the students. Armstrong (1994)intrapersonal intelligence, while the male were states that the MI Inventory is a form that wassuperior in visual-spatial intelligence. However, designed to assess the strengths of the individualno significant difference was found between as determined by each of the intelligences. Inthem in relation to other kinds of intelligences. this study, McKenzie’s (1999) MI inventory The studies discussed here have focused was used. Some researchers have claimed theon multiple intelligences and classroom overall internal consistency in the range ofapplications. To the researchers’ knowledge, 0.85 and 0.90 for the questionnaire (Al-Balhan,no study has been done to produce a reliable and 2006; Razmjoo, 2008; Razmjoo et al., 2009). Itvalid Persian version of the McKenzie Inventory comprises 90 statements related to each of thefor a typical Iranian pre-university classroom. nine intelligences proposed by Gardner (1999). In the study each respondent was required to complete the questionnaire (see Appendix A) AIM OF THE STUDY by marking yes/no next to each statement. IfThe aim of this study was to examine the the statement accurately described them, theyreliability and validity of the Persian version of would then mark the yes option. However, ifMcKenzie’s (1999) MI Inventory in measuring the statement did not describe them, their answerthe multiple intelligences of Iranian Pre- should be no.University students. Additionally, the studyalso attempted to find out if there are statistically Proceduresignificant differences between genders andbranches of study of the students and their The original English version was translatedmultiple intelligences. into Persian by the researcher to ensure that the individuals could easily understand the items as well as to avoid any difficulty related to their METHODOLOGY (lack of) foreign language proficiency. TheIn this section, the subjects, instruments used back-translation procedure was carried out toto collect data and the procedures adopted are ascertain that the translated version had the samediscussed. interpretation. However, some of the contents had to be altered without losing their original intent to fit the local context. The accuracy ofSubjects the Persian version was then checked by twoThe subjects for this study were 176 pre- Iranian independent professional translatorsuniversity students (grade12, 18 years old) of of ESL. Later on, the translated version of theboth genders studying in Tehran in the academic MI inventory was checked and revised by twoyear 2008-2009. The district was randomly experts in the field of education. Finally, the346 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 18 (2) 2010
    • A Validation Study of the Persian Version of McKenzie’s Multiple Intelligences Inventoryresearcher asked two psychologists to check the and the lowest score for the interpersonaltranslated version to ensure that it is suitable for intelligence. Nonetheless, the findings of thisstudents at that age (18 years) according to the study support those found by Currie (2003) indifficulty of the words or sentences, and that an ESL reading class.it is culturally suitable for the Iranian society. TABLE 3Cronbach’s alpha for this translated version Descriptive statistics of MI subscales inwith a sample of 173 and by the use of SPSS descending orderversion 16 was found to be 0.90, indicating ahigh reliability of the test. N Mean Std. deviation RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Interpersonal 173 24.83 5.72The subjects of the study were initially 176 Verbal 173 23.86 5.83students, out of which three did not complete Logical 173 21.34 5.30the questionnaire. Therefore, the total number Naturalist 173 20.29 5.07of respondents was 173, with 78 males and95 females, respectively (see Table 1). The Visual 170 19.61 5.38respondents’ disciplines of study are summarized Kinesthetic 173 19.56 5.17in Table 2. Existential 173 19.32 5.23 TABLE 1 Musical 173 19.01 5.21 Number of students by gender Intrapersonal 173 17.16 4.93 Frequency Percentage Male 78 45.1 In order to check for the internal consistency of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha for the Female 95 54.9 Persian version of the questionnaire and also Total 173 100.0 for each of the intelligence subscales were calculated. The overall reliability coefficient for TABLE 2 the above-mentioned questionnaire was found Number of students by discipline to be r = 0.90 (see Table 4). This indicates the large magnitude of reliability coefficient (r) for Frequency Percentage the translated version as well as the homogeneity Mathematics 55 31.8 of the items within the scales. This reliability Experimental 19 11.0 is considered as “very good”, based on the Science guidelines provided by George and Mallery Humanities 99 57.2 (2002). Among the intelligences, intrapersonal intelligence has the highest coefficient alpha Total 173 100.0 (0.75), and logical intelligence demonstrates the lowest coefficient alpha (0.60), as presented Table 3 summarizes the descriptive statistics in Table 5.for the MI subscales of the students. Based onthe data, the entire group is strong in terms of TABLE 4their interpersonal intelligence (M=24.83) as Cronbach’s alpha for the Persian version of McKenzie’s MI Inventoryperceived by them. However, intrapersonalintelligence was scored the lowest by the students Cronbach’s alpha No of items(M=17.16). These findings contradict withthose found by Marefat (2007), who reported 0.90 90the highest score for intrapersonal intelligence Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 18 (2) 2010 347
    • Karim Hajhashemi and Wong Bee Eng TABLE 5 both the males and females (see Table 7) in Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale of relation to their MI profiles. intelligences TABLE 7 Intelligence Cronbach’s alpha = Reliability by gender Gender Cronbach’s alpha N of Items Intrapersonal 0 .75 Female 0.89 90 Existential 0.70 Male 0.91 90 Naturalistic 0.66 Visual 0.66 Meanwhile, to investigate patterns of Musical 0.65 intelligence in terms of the extent of dominance Verbal 0.64 (strength/weakness) between genders, the same Interpersonal 0.62 procedure was done for each subscale. It was found that the male students in the study were Kinesthetic 0.61 stronger in their intrapersonal intelligence (0.80) Logical 0.60 but weaker in logical intelligence (0.58), while the females showed their strength in existential In order to have further assurance of the intelligence (0.72), but were weaker in terms ofreliability of the instrument, the Split-Half kinesthetic intelligence (0.54) (see Table 8). Thereliability coefficient was also run on the data. findings of the present study seem to contradictCronbach’s alpha for the first part was found to those of Teele (1995) and Bouton (1997), whobe 0.82 and for the second part, 0.85. Similarly, observed that interpersonal, kinesthetic, andthe Spearman-Brown Coefficient was also found that spatial intelligences predominate in bothto be 0.82 (see Table 6). male and female participants of their study. The TABLE 6 findings in the present study also contradict Split-Half Reliability Coefficient with those which did not find any significant difference in the multiple-intelligence profiles Cronbach’s Part Value .823 of the male and female respondents (Pish alpha 1 N of Items 45a Ghadam and Moafian, 2008; Razmjoo, 2008). In his study, Pasha Sharifi (2008) found that the Part Value .847 female subjects were superior in intrapersonal 2 N of Items 45b intelligence while the males in visual-spatial Total N of Items 90 intelligence. However, similar results were Correlation Between Forms .691 not found in the findings of the present study. Hence, further research is needed to clarify the Spearman- Equal Length .817 relationship between gender and MI profiles of Brown Unequal Length .817 the Iranian pre-university students. Coefficient Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .815 TABLE 8 Reliability of MI subscales by gender The next step was to find out whether therewas a significant relationship between gender Intelligence Cronbach’s alphaand the MI profiles of the students. Cronbach’s Male Femalealpha for the female and male students was found Naturalist 0.65 0.67to be 0.89 and 0.91, respectively, revealing thatthere was a moderate to high relationship for Musical 0.60 0.65348 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 18 (2) 2010
    • A Validation Study of the Persian Version of McKenzie’s Multiple Intelligences Inventory Logical 0.58 0.59 intelligence (0.46) (see Table 10). It seems quite logical for those studying Mathematics to have a Existential 0.68 0.72 higher combined value of logical-mathematical Interpersonal 0.67 0.54 intelligence, as reported by Hashemi and Kinesthetic 0.67 0.54 Bahrami (2006). Verbal 0.64 0.64 TABLE 10 Intrapersonal 0.80 0.66 Intelligence subscales and mathematics Visual 0.70 0.63 Cronbach’s alpha The present study also attempted to find Intelligence Mathematicsout the probable relationship between multiple Intrapersonal 0.71intelligences and students’ disciplines. Since the Existential 0.69students were from three different disciplines(namely Experimental Science, Mathematics, Visual 0.67and Humanities) and as the study did not Verbal 0.66have access to the female students studying Logical 0.65in Experimental science, it was decided not Naturalist 0.64to consider their male counterparts in thispart of data analysis. Thus, the analysis was Musical 0.54done among those studying Mathematics and Interpersonal 0.53Humanities only. In the first phase, Cronbach’s Kinesthetic 0.46alpha for the students studying Mathematicsand Humanities was calculated to find out the The calculation of the Cronbach’s alphaprobable relationship between their multiple for the students studying Humanities revealedintelligence profiles and the disciplines they were that the intrapersonal intelligence registeredenrolled in. Cronbach’s alpha for the students the highest value (0.76) as compared to logicalstudying Mathematics was found to be 0.88, intelligence (0.55) with the lowest value (seeand for the Humanities 0.91, demonstrating a Table 11).moderate to high relationship between students’multiple-intelligence profiles and the disciplines TABLE 11they were enrolled in (see Table 9). Intelligence subscales and humanities TABLE 9 Cronbach’s alpha Reliability by discipline Intelligence Humanities Discipline Cronbach’s No. of of study alpha items Intrapersonal 0.76 Existential 0.73 Mathematics 0.88 90 Musical 0.72 Visual 0.66 Humanities 0.91 90 Naturalist 0.64 Interpersonal 0.63 In the next phase, the subscales of the MIinventory for the students in above-mentioned Verbal 0.59branches of study were calculated. Among Kinesthetic 0.59those studying Mathematics, intrapersonal Logical 0.55intelligence was shown to be stronger (0.71), andthe weakest value was indicated for kinesthetic Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 18 (2) 2010 349
    • Karim Hajhashemi and Wong Bee Eng Therefore, the findings of the present Questionnaires or inventories to measurestudy are consistent with the study of Hashemi learners’ multiple intelligences are not tooand Bahrami (2006) who also reported that many; therefore, the most useful tools for suchthe students studying Mathematics scored a purpose should be investigated so that they arehigher in logical-mathematical intelligence as accessible and readily available to measure thecompared to those studying Arts and Humanities. individuals’ strengths and weaknesses.Additionally, they also found that students In the present study, the findings shouldstudying Mathematics had higher verbal- be treated with caution. Further research withlinguistic intelligence than the other groups. other learners from different levels of educationTheir findings are rather similar to those found and more diverse disciplines would confirm thein this study, as the Cronbach’s alpha for the findings and add to the existing data. Moreover,Mathematics students was 0.66 while those it would be interesting to conduct a similar studyenrolled on courses in the Humanities was 0.59. with learners from other L1 backgrounds to findIn general, the relationship between some of the out whether similar results would be obtained.components of the students’ multiple intelligenceprofiles and their academic discipline could be REFERENCESseen. Al-Balhan, E. M. (2006). Multiple intelligence styles in relation to improved academic performance in CONCLUSIONS Kuwaiti middle school reading. Digest of MiddleThis study set out with the aim of assessing the East Studies, 15(1), 18-34.reliability and validity of the Persian version Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple Intelligence in theof McKenzie’s (1999) MI inventory with Classroom. Alexandria, VA: The AssociationIranian pre-university students. The findings of Supervision and Curriculum Development.indicate that the questionnaire has a high Armstrong, T. (2003). The Multiple Intelligencesreliability (0.90). Meanwhile, the component of of Reading and Writing: Making the Wordsintrapersonal intelligence was found to have the Come Alive. Alexandria, VA: Association forhighest coefficient alpha (0.75), and the lowest Supervision and Curriculum Development.(0.60) was observed for logical intelligence. Bouton, D. A. (1997). Operationalizing multiple In addition, the study also compared the intelligences theory with adolescent males.gender of the individuals. The data of the Unpublished Ph.D., Virginia Commonwealthstudy revealed a moderate to high relationship University, Virginia, United States.between genders and multiple intelligenceprofiles of the students. The findings indicated Cetron, M. and Cetron, K. (2004). A forecast for schools. Educational Leadership, 61(4), 22-29.that the male respondents were stronger intheir intrapersonal intelligence but weaker in Chan, D. W. (2006). Perceived multiple intelligenceslogical intelligence, whereas the females were among male and female Chinese gifted studentsstronger in existential intelligence but weaker in in Hong Kong: The structure of the studentkinesthetic intelligence. A comparison of their multiple intelligences profile. Gifted Childbranches of studies and multiple intelligence Quarterly, 50(4), 325-338.profiles revealed a moderate to high relationship Currie, K. L. (2003). Multiple Intelligence Theory andas well. the ESL classroom: Preliminary considerations. The important point that should be noted The Internet TESL Journal, IX(4).is that Gardner’s theory has attracted the Eisner, E. W. (2004). Preparing for today andinterest of many teachers and educational tomorrow. Educational Leadership, 61(4), 6-10.curriculum planners. Therefore, to improvethe learning process, identifying the learners’ Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.multiple intelligence profiles seems crucial.350 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 18 (2) 2010
    • A Validation Study of the Persian Version of McKenzie’s Multiple Intelligences InventoryGardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple the field of lesson subjects and the students’ intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi Delta compatibility. http://www.bamshad.com/wp- Kappan, 77, 200-209. content/uploads/c-e-f11-1-pasha-sharifi.Doc.Gardner, H. (1999). Are there additional intelligences? Pearson, P. D. and Stephens, D. (1994). Learning The case of naturalist, spiritual and existential about literacy: A 30-year journey. In R. B. intelligences. In J. Kane (Ed.), Education, Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell and H. Singer (Eds.), information and transformation (pp. 111-131). Theoretical models and processes of reading Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (pp. 22-42). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Gardner, H. (2004). Audiences for the theory of multiple intelligences. Teachers College Record, Pish Ghadam, R. and Moafian, F. (2008). The role 106(1), 212-220. of Iranian EFL teachers’ multiple intelligences in their success in language teaching at highGeorge, D. and Mallery, P. (2002). SPSS for Windows schools. Pazhuhesh-e-Zabanha-ye- Khareji, Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, (42), 5-22. 11.0 update (4th Edn.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Razmjoo, S. A. (2008). On the relationship betweenHashemi, V. and Bahrami, H. (2006). The relationship multiple intelligences and language proficiency. between Gardner Multiple Intelligence, academic The Reading Matrix, 8(2), 155-174. discipline choices & academic achievement of students. Journal of Educational Innovations, Razmjoo, S. A., Sahragard, R. and Sadri, M. 4(11), 11-34. (2009). On the relationship between Multiple Intelligences, vocabulary learning knowledgeKarolyi, C. V., Ramos-Ford, V. and Gardner, H. and vocabulary learning strategies among the (2003). Multiple intelligences: A perspective Iranian EFL learners. The Iranian EFL Journal on giftedness. In N. Colangelo and G. A. David Quarterly, 3, 82-110. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education, 3, 100-112. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ruggieri, C. A. (2002). Multigenre, multiple intelligences, and transcendentalism. EnglishLazear, D. G. (1991). Seven Ways of Knowing: The Journal, 92(2), 60-68. Artistry of Teaching with Multiple Intelligences; A Handbook of Techniques for Expanding Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triarchic theory of Intelligence. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight. intellectual giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness.Lazear, D. G. (1992). Teaching for Multiple Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Intelligences. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). A triarchic view of giftedness: Theory and practice. In N.Colangelo and G. A.Levine, M. (2003). Celebrating diverse minds. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education, 2, Educational Leadership, 61(2), 12-18. 43-53. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Marefat, F. (2007). Multiple Intelligences: Voices Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Patterns of giftedness: A from an EFL writing class. Pazhuhesh-e- triarchic analysis. Roeper Review, 22, 231-235. Zabanha-ye Khareji, 32, 145-162. Sung, H. (2004). Enhancing teaching strategies basedMcKenzie, W. (1999). Multiple Intelligences Survey on Multiple Intelligences. Paper presented at Retrieved from http://surfaquarium.com/MI/ the AATK. MIinvent.htm. Teele, S. (1995). The Multiple Intelligences School:Mokhtar, I. A., Majid, S. and Foo, S. (2008). Teaching A Place for All Students to Succeed. Redlands, information literacy through learning styles: The CA: Citrograph. application of Gardner’s multiple intelligences. Journal of Librarianship and Information Viens, J. and Kallenbach, S. (2004). Multiple Science, 40(2), 93-109. Intelligences and Adult Literacy: A Source Book for Practitioners. New York: Teachers CollegePasha Sharifi, H. (2008). The introductory study Press. of Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory, in Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 18 (2) 2010 351
    • Karim Hajhashemi and Wong Bee Eng352 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 18 (2) 2010
    • A Validation Study of the Persian Version of McKenzie’s Multiple Intelligences Inventory Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 18 (2) 2010 353
    • Karim Hajhashemi and Wong Bee Eng354 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 18 (2) 2010
    • A Validation Study of the Persian Version of McKenzie’s Multiple Intelligences Inventory Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 18 (2) 2010 355