Mi theory 4

THE THEORY OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES

AND CRITICAL THINKING

by

Paula J. Zobisch

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

June 2005

UMI Number: 3174529

UMI Microform 3174529
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

Abstract

This study examines whether or not teaching critical thinking

by using the theory of multiple intelligences increases

critical thinking comprehension. Student perception of an

instructor’s use of multiple intelligence techniques was

assessed in critical thinking courses.

Dedication

This dissertation and all its hard work, hopes, and

dreams are dedicated to my sons, Brian and Matthew, and my

granddaughter, Riley. I’ve tried so hard to teach all of you

education opens doors that won’t open any other way; I hope

the example I have set will encourage you to dream big and

work hard.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge and thank my committee chair,

Elaine Guerrazzi, for having the courage to join my

dissertation committee midstream. I have appreciated your

candor and expertise, Elaine, and especially am grateful for

your encouragement. Thanks also to my committee members, Jerry

Roger, Keith Pratt, and Mary Dereshiwsky, for your

encouragement and expertise. Finally, I would like to express

a special thank you to my stats consultant, Don Platine, whose

guidance was immeasurable throughout this entire process.

iv

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 3

Statement of the Problem 4

Purpose of the Study 5

Research Questions 5

Nature of the Study 7

Significance of the Study 8

Definition of Terms 9

Assumptions and Limitations 13

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 14

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 16

Introduction 16

Rationale 16

Theoretical Framework 18

Academic Psychology 33

Measuring Multiple Intelligence 36

Applying MI in Higher Education Institutions 37

v

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 39

Introduction 39

Methodology 39

Theoretical Framework 40

Research Design 41

Sampling Design 44

Measures 45

Data Collection 47

Data Analysis 48

Statistical Procedures 50

Limitation of Methodology 51

Expected Findings and Ethical Issues 52

Pilot Testing 53

Time lines 54

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 55

Introduction 55

Description of Data 56

Data Analysis Process 57

Statistical Procedures 60

Findings and Results 62

Qualitative Analysis 67

vi

Summary 70

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS,
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 71

Introduction 71

Summary of the Study 71

Findings and Conclusions 74

Recommendations 77

Future Research 78

Implications 80

REFERENCES 82

APPENDIX A. STUDENT MI PREFERENCES 88

APPENDIX B. FINAL EXAM 92

APPENDIX C. STUDENT PERCEPTIONS 95

APPENDIX D. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION 99

APPENDIX E. CODING CATEGORIES FOR QUESTIONNAIRE 101

vii

List of Tables

Table 1a. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Critical Thinking 28

Table 1b. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Critical Thinking 29

Table 2a. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Multiple Intelligences 30

Table 2b. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Multiple Intelligences 31

Table 3. Research Question 1 63



viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Many adults are ill prepared to live, work, and function

effectively in our fast-paced and highly technical society

(Vaske, 2001). In fact, based on the 1992 test results of

adult literacy, nearly half of American adults do not perform

at the level of literacy considered by the National Education

Goals Panel to be necessary for competing successfully in a

global economy and for exercising the rights and

responsibilities of citizenship (Gronlund, 1993). The

challenge is how to develop the skills needed to be productive

and informed members of a world market led by constant change.

In response to this challenge, educators, employers, and

society at large began calling for the development of critical

thinking skills (Brookfield, 1987; Davis & Botkin, 1995;

Glaser & Resnick, 1991; Halpern, 1993; Kerka, 1992; Paul,

1990; Sternberg, 1985a). They argued that to thrive and

compete in the Information Age, individuals must ask

questions, challenge assumptions, invent new ways of solving

problems, connect new knowledge to information they already

have, and apply their knowledge and reasoning skills in new

MI and Critical Thinking 2

situations. In short, individuals must develop critical

thinking skills.

Adult educators, however, may not be using the best

methods of teaching adults to think critically. In the

traditional classroom, a teacher lectures while standing at

the front of the classroom and writes on the board, questions

students about assigned readings or handouts, and waits as

students finish written work (Stanford, 2003). Instead, the

academic literature supports the notion of different learning

styles or preferences (Knowles, 1980; McCarthy, 2000; Merriam

& Caffarella, 1999; Sternberg, 1997). A more effective method

of teaching and increasing student comprehension of critical

thinking is to implement Gardner’s (1993a) theory of multiple

intelligences (MI) into teaching strategies. The MI theory is

described as a philosophy of education or an attitude toward

teaching (Armstrong, 1994) in the spirit of John Dewey’s

(1916, 1938) ideas on progressive education, rather than a set

program of fixed techniques and strategies. It offers

educators a broad opportunity to creatively adapt its

fundamental principles to any number of educational settings.

Implications for school reform and classroom application

include expanded teaching strategies, curricular adaptations,

and expanded student assessment. In fact, unsuccessful,


unmotivated students have experienced academic growth when

exposed to the multifaceted techniques of MI (Janes,

Koutsopanagos, Mason, & Villaranda, 2000).

Berkemeir (2002) found the use of multiple intelligence

techniques in teaching math led to increased comprehension as

measured by final test scores. A review of the literature,

however, has not identified additional research studies on

multiple intelligences and learning outcomes.

Background of the Study

Although Gardner’s Frames of Mind was published in 1983,

further studies in the academic literature remain limited. It

is difficult to know what insight further studies would

provide in this area of education. One can only imagine the

possibilities of information and data that can be collected

regarding MI and the adult population. Brookfield (1990)

claims critical thinking is necessary for survival in personal

relationships, for survival in the workplace, and for

maintaining a democratic world. Merriam and Brockett believed

learning to think critically can lead to “empowerment,

transformation, and emancipation—in short, social action”

(1997, p. 255). Unfortunately, traditional methods of teaching

critical thinking leave many students bewildered with little


or no comprehension of the critical thinking process. There

are several reasons why the student population at an adult

education institution is important to the investigation of

teaching critical thinking through the use of MI techniques.

If critical thinking mastery can be improved through the use

of MI techniques, a democratic society could be stronger;

global competition could also be strengthened.

Statement of the Problem

Since the researcher teaches critical thinking courses at

a nontraditional adult education institution and is searching

for approaches to improve student comprehension, this raises

the question whether or not the use of MI techniques could

increase critical thinking comprehension. This question could

be approached from several directions; however, the focus of

this study will be on the student perception of the

instructor’s use of MI techniques.

If critical thinking is the ultimate goal of adult

education, as the literature suggests, how can educators teach

the skill in order to raise student comprehension? The

traditional method of higher education must be reexamined in

order to determine if additional teaching methods could be


introduced in order to increase learner comprehension of

critical thinking.

Purpose of the Study

Since so little research exists on this topic, this study

is an exploratory study to determine whether or not additional

research (which could lead to activities such as faculty

training and/or student exposure to MI techniques) would be

valuable.

Research Questions

1. The major research question for this study is, Does

perception of an instructor’s use of MI techniques

enhance critical thinking mastery as measured by

scores on a standard test?

2. Does an instructor’s use of MI techniques that match

students’ preferences help students achieve higher

critical thinking test scores?

3. Do students reporting more use of MI techniques by

an instructor achieve higher critical thinking test

scores?

Since the literature declares “perception is reality”

(Griffin, 2004, ¶ 1; Holland, 2004, ¶ 4), when working with


instructional techniques, it is more important to understand

what the learners perceive occurred than what MI technique

might actually have been used.

For example, if an instructor used a musical intelligence

MI technique that was not recognized by the class as an MI

technique, it would be ineffective and equivalent to not

having been used. Similarly, if the musical MI technique was

used but perceived as a different MI technique, the student

still recognized the use of an MI technique. Therefore, this

study will focus on the perception of the use of a variety of

MI techniques rather than the correct identification of the

actual MI technique used.

While much has been written about critical thinking as a

framework for adult education, little is known about the adult

educator’s perceived practice as to the most effective

teaching methods for the student comprehension of critical

thinking. Without this information, the field of adult

education might continue to espouse the relevance of critical

thinking skills, but adult learners might not develop the

critical thinking skills essential to the quality of their

lives. Examining what effect the theory of Multiple

Intelligence could have on the comprehension level of critical

thinking could improve the likelihood of greater understanding


and the grasp of the critical thinking skills so needed in

adult living.

Nature of the Study

The research study will utilize a mixed method of study,

including both qualitative and quantitative methods. According

to Jick (1979), using more than a single method of study can

cancel any potential bias of any one single method and serve

to triangulate data sources. This study will use

questionnaires to assess student perceptions, a matching-item

exam to assess content mastery, and a focus group to verify

student perceptions of instructor use of MI techniques. It is

hoped the focus group data collection will reinforce the

accuracy of the end-of-course questionnaire. Actual methods of

data collection will include an initial Multiple Intelligence

questionnaire to determine each student’s preferences

(Appendix A), a final exam (Appendix B), an end-of-course

questionnaire to assess student perception of instructor use

of MI techniques (Appendix C), and open-ended interviews

(Appendix D). Volunteer faculty members allow the researcher

to administer the respective questionnaires to their

respective classes; focus group discussions will be conducted

by the researcher during the last class of the critical


thinking course. The convenience sample will consist of

students taking critical thinking classes at an urban

nontraditional adult education institution. The sample will

contain approximately 60 students.

Significance of the Study

The study examines if increased comprehension of critical

thinking skills is achieved through the student perceived

instructor use of several MI presentation techniques. By

increasing comprehension of the critical thinking process,

more informed evaluation and scrutiny of information, better

decisions, and increased conflict resolution skills can be

achieved (Mettetal, Jordan, & Harper, 1997). This study may be

of interest to instructors and administrators at adult

education institutions who are concerned with increasing

success rates, improving retention, and improving curriculum

standards. Students may also experience improved instructional

techniques that will focus on different learning styles;

course materials may be presented in a manner more engaging

and encourage student learning. The results of this study may

also influence the type of faculty professional development

programs offered.


Definition of Terms

Terms used throughout this study are defined below.

Adult. An individual performing social roles typically

assigned by our culture to those it considered adults such as

the roles of worker, spouse, or parent. A person is adult “to

the extent the individual perceives herself or himself to be

essentially responsible for her or his own life” (Knowles,

1980, p. 24).

Adult education. “The process whereby persons whose major

social roles are characteristic of adult status undertake

systematic and sustained learning activities for the purpose

of bringing about changes in knowledge, attitudes, values, or

skills” (Darkenwald & Merriam, 1982, p. 9).

Adult educators. Individuals who are currently teaching

or previously have taught undergraduate and graduate level

courses in adult education institutions granting undergraduate

and graduate degrees.

Adult learners. Individuals who have multiple roles and

responsibilities and have accumulated many life experiences,

who, in passing through a number of developmental phases,

reinterpret and rearrange their past experience, and who

experience anxiety and ambivalence toward learning

(Brookfield, 1986).


Comprehension. “The inductive thinking and reasoning

patterns that start with observing factors in a given

situation and then making generalizations based on things that

have been observed time and time again” (Lazear, 1999, p. 41).

Comprehension is comparing something against a standard; this

pattern of thinking is very prevalent in our society. There

are preestablished standards, or generalizations, everywhere,

such as performance standards in the workplace, achievement

standards in the classroom, safety standards for the

construction industry, and standards of health, cleanliness,

and quality in the food industry. Standards are created by

human beings and can be changed as needed; however, skill in

applying preestablished standards and generalizations to

specific information, data, and situations is a key skill for

effective modern living.

Perkins (Campbell, Campbell, & Dickinson, 1999) describes

comprehension as understanding and the nature of human

insight. Perkins contrasts the concept of comprehension, or

understanding, with knowledge. When a person knows something,

the statement usually means he or she has mentally stored

information and can readily retrieve it. By contrast, when a

student comprehends, or understands, something, it is assumed

the skills surpass the stored information. Perkins maintains


that comprehension refers to what individuals can do with

information rather than what they have memorized. Insight

involves action more than possession; when students

comprehend, or understand, something, they can explain

concepts in their own words, use information appropriately in

new contexts, and make fresh analogies and generalizations.

Memorization and recitation are not indicative of

comprehension as measured by Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et

al., 2001; Bloom, 1956).

Confounding variables. The confounding variables for

purposes of this study potentially include ethnicity, gender,

age, prior multiple intelligence knowledge, and student

multiple intelligence preferences.

Critical thinking. There are many variations on the

definition of critical thinking, resulting in “considerable

confusion and vagueness about the concept” (Garrison, 1991, p.

287). After conducting a meta-analysis of 20 studies of

critical thinking, Bangert-Drowns and Bankert (1990) reported

that critical thinking has been equated with a multiplicity of

constructs, including intelligence, domain-specific expertise,

problem solving, logic and sound reasoning, and other higher

order mental activities.


Dependent variable. The dependent variable for purposes

of this study is the standard critical thinking test score

(Appendix B).

Independent variable. The independent variable for

purposes of this study is the end-of-course questionnaire

assessing student perception of an instructor’s use of MI

techniques (Appendix C).

Intelligence. Gardner defined intelligence as

A set of skills of problem-solving—enabling the
individual to resolve genuine problems or difficulties
that he or she encounters and, when appropriate, to
creative an effective product and must also entail the
potential for finding or creating problems thereby laying
the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge.
(1993a, p. 60)

Multiple intelligence. Howard Gardner’s (1993a) theory of

multiple intelligences was introduced in his book, Frames of

Mind. Gardner believes all humans are born with the following

eight intelligences in varying degrees: linguistic, musical,

logical/mathematical, spatial, bodily/kinesthetic,

interpersonal, intrapersonal, and nature. Gardner believes

each intelligence has its unique characteristics, and

educators who adapt their teaching methods to include all

intelligences have an increased opportunity to engage learners

in the learning process and to increase comprehension of the

subject studied.


Assumptions and Limitations

Assumptions

An assumption of this study is that students can

recognize the use of various MI techniques. In addition, it is

assumed the critical thinking test that will be given during

the last class of the critical thinking course will accurately

measure the concepts to be presented using MI techniques.

Limitations

A significant limitation is the student’s desire to

master the critical thinking course material. Another

limitation involves the data level. While the Likert scale

used in the questionnaire is assumed to be at least interval-

level data (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996), the data level may only

be ordinal, questioning the accuracy and appropriateness of

Pearson’s correlation. Since the focus group discussions will

be held after the formal end of the course, the students may

be more interested in leaving than in participating in the

discussion.

A limiting factor to the MI inventory relates to self-

reporting. Surveys or questionnaires do not represent complete

objectivity (Berkemeir, 2002). According to the Berkemeir


study, there are five factors that may generate misleading

information:

1. Surveys only tap respondents who are accessible and

cooperative.

2. Respondents have to feel that their participation is

a normal and natural process to avoid any form of

slanted or biased answers.

3. The researcher has to be careful of arousing

response sets.

4. Participants should be encouraged to not over rate

or under rate their responses.

5. Participants were unable to accurately identify

their self-perceived multiple intelligence.

Delimitation

The result of the study may not be generalizable beyond

the study due to the nonrandom nature of the sample selection.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature describing

the derivation, description, and educational implications of

Howard Gardner’s (1993a) MI theory. Various types of MI


instrumentation, such as the instrumentation selected for this

study, will be discussed and described.

Chapter 3 will address the qualitative and quantitative

methodology of the research study. This chapter also includes

information about the type of student population studied and

the instrumentation used for the data collection; proposed

data reporting and analysis procedures are also included.

Chapter 4 will present the analysis from the data, that

is, the findings and results. Chapter 5 will include the

summary of the research, conclusions drawn from the research,

recommendations for practical application of the study

results, recommendations for future related research, and

implications for future research.

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

According to Vaske (2001), many adults are not prepared

to function in the 21st century with its high technology.

Brookfield (1990) claims critical thinking is a necessary

skill in forming relationships and a democratic society, and

Merriam and Brockett (1997) declare thinking critically can

even lead to social action. Even though critical thinking

skills are seemingly the goals of education to benefit members

of a society and ensure its democratic governmental structure,

Hechinger (1987) claims the traditional methods attempting to

teach critical thinking have little or minimal relevance to

adult lives. Sternberg (1985a) also claims there exists a gap

between what is required for critical thinking as adults and

what educators are actually teaching as critical thinking.

Rationale

Given the increasing complexity of our society and the

different learning styles of students, the development of

critical thinking skills is a laudable goal and our best hope

of managing complex, day-to-day problems. Adult educators have

confirmed that critical thinking is within the purview of


adult education and, in fact, is a major goal of adult

education. Yet, little is known whether or not educators are

structuring their teaching methods to meet the different

learning styles and preferences of students. Are the best

teaching methods being utilized, or is there room for

improvement?

This study addresses a vital sector of today’s education

theory: Different learning styles and preferences of student

and MI theory and their relationship to student learning and

potential achievement in academic, professional, and personal

levels. Ultimately, if a determination can be made that MI

methods improve student comprehension, then perhaps MI should

be applied in all courses.

The New York Times reports, “The . . . schools have

discovered the importance of critical thinking, and many are

trying to teach how to do it” (Hechinger, 1987, p. 27). Yet

there seems to be no evidence that critical thinking skills

taught in schools have much relevance to the learning styles

and preferences of students. Many educators struggle with

finding ways to reach individual learning styles and needs;

one teaching method that can accommodate a variety of learning

styles is Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. Each of

the intelligences encompasses certain characteristics, and


these characteristics lend themselves to particular

professions. According to Gardner, educators need to alter

their instructional strategies to meet the needs of each

intelligence (Nolen, 2003). The literature suggests humans are

born with a certain amount of intelligence. Specific

intelligences are dominant while others are recessive; the

potential to develop all intelligences is possible (Brockman,

n.d.). Gardner (1993a) insists educators must have an

understanding of the importance of presenting course materials

using all the eight intelligences in order to reach learners

who each have a mixture of the intelligences. When educators

center activities focused toward learning within the needs and

learning styles of their students, students may become more

engaged in the classroom. Gardner believes educators who teach

toward the multiple intelligences realize the benefits of

active, engaged learners who have a higher chance of actually

learning course material by being capable of applying the

principles to other circumstances, thus reinforcing learning.

Theoretical Framework

Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Howard Gardner (1993a) disagrees there is only one single

method of teaching and is best known for his theory of


multiple intelligences. The work of Gardner has changed the

way people think and work in education, in the arts, in

cognitive psychology, and in medicine (Osciak, 2001). Through

his study of child prodigies, gifted individuals, brain

damaged patients, normal children, normal adults, experts in

different areas of work, and individuals from a variety of

cultures, Gardner (1993b) developed a theory that describes

and supports his belief of the existence of a number of

intelligences available to individuals. Educators can

significantly impact learning if they take the time to

understand and address the different types of MI

intelligences. Gardner stated, “Only if we expand and

reformulate our view of what counts as human intellect will we

be able to devise more appropriate ways of assessing it and

more effective ways of educating it” (1993b, p. 4).

Gardner defines intelligence as “the capacity to solve

problems or to fashion products that are valued in one or more

cultural settings” (Gardner & Hatch, 1989, p. 4). Many

educators struggle with finding ways to reach individual

learning styles and needs. One teaching method that can

accommodate a variety of learning styles is Gardner’s theory

of multiple intelligences. Each of the intelligences

encompasses certain characteristics, and these characteristics


lend themselves to particular professions. According to

Gardner, educators need to alter their instructional

strategies to meet the needs of each intelligence (Nolen,

2003).

Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences states all

humans are born possessing a certain amount of intelligence.

Specific intelligences are dominant while others are

recessive; the potential to develop all intelligences is

possible (Brockman, n.d.). One must have an understanding of

their intelligences’ strengths and weaknesses. Gardner

describes eight intelligences: linguistic, logical/

mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily kinesthetic,

interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. His

description for each intelligence is listed below:

Verbal/Linguistic. Verbal intelligence involves the

mastery of language; people with this intelligence enjoy

reading and tend to think in words. Their intelligence of

language leads them to fields such as teaching, journalism,

writing, law, and translation. Language helps them to be

better at memorizing information; verbal students are often

excellent at storytelling (Gardner, 1993a).


People with linguistic intelligence pay special attention

to grammar and vocabulary; they memorize best by using words.

Another advantage is they tend to be great at explaining;

people with this intelligence have a capacity for analyzing

language and creating a better understanding of what someone

actually means when using words. People with this intelligence

learn best by reading, writing, and giving oral reports about

something in their own lives.

Linguistic intelligence is one of the most highly

regarded intelligences and is a key component of the

traditional educational system.

Logical/Mathematical Intelligence. People with

logical/mathematical intelligence have the ability to detect

patterns, reason deductively, and think logically. Children

first experience this intelligence by setting items in order

or matching them with objects such as marbles. Later, children

are able to do math in their heads without the use of

manipulatives. As this intelligence grows, the love of

abstraction separates those with mathematical intelligence

from the rest. Students are able to follow long lines of

reasoning; these are usually the children who do well in a

traditional classroom because they are able to conform to the


role of the model student. This intelligence is also one of

the most highly regarded intelligences and a key component of

the traditional educational system.

Spatial Intelligence. Individuals with spatial

intelligence are able to visualize how something will look

before it is completed. Lazear (1999) suggests working with

artistic media, designing skills to communicate an idea or

opinion, or designing a house or color scheme.

Spatial intelligence grows out of the visual world,

although blind people can also form spatial intelligence. As

this intelligence gives a sense of direction and accuracy, it

is most common with hunters and travelers. Other professions

with this intelligence include a navigator, guide, architect,

or lighting designer. People with spatial intelligence often

enjoy playing chess. Other areas of enjoyment could include

painting or sculpting. Spatial intelligence relates with the

concrete world that is directly opposite to people who relate

to the world through logical/mathematical intelligence.

Musical Intelligence. This is one of the earliest

intelligences to emerge in children (Gardner, 1993a); those

with musical intelligence have a strong understanding of


pitch, rhythm, and timbre. Traditional education tends to

minimize the importance of music and music education, but

music can act as a way of identifying and expressing feelings.

Additionally, musical intelligence also relates to other

intelligences, such as the logical/mathematical intelligence,

because it contains musical patterns of rhythm and beat found

in the logical/mathematical intelligence.

Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence. Bodily/Kinesthetic

intelligence is the ability to understand the world through

the body; people with this intelligence have very fine motor

skills of their fingers and hands and have control of their

gross motor skills. Because of these abilities, people with

this intelligence are often surgeons, dancers, mimes,

sculptors, carpenters, plumbers, and athletes. Performers have

the ability to capture the intended emotion and express them

through body language. Kinesthesia is the ability to act

gracefully. Another beneficiary of bodily intelligence is the

athlete; exceptional athletes are graceful, powerful, fast,

and accurate. Individuals with kinesthetic intelligence are

animated in their actions and learn best by doing.

Teaching with bodily/kinesthetic intelligence can be

optimized through the use of manipulatives and physical


activity. Students with this intelligence could calm their

brain by holding something in their hands so thinking and

learning can occur. Corporations have seen this in their

meetings and bring executive toys into their meetings, as this

has been found to significantly increase creativity and

productivity.

Interpersonal Intelligence. People with this intelligence

have the ability to perceive and discriminate between people’s

feelings and motives. Although interpersonal intelligence has

many of the same characteristics as intrapersonal

intelligence, interpersonal intelligence is the ability to

perceive differences in people outside self.

People with interpersonal intelligence readily understand

and are able to communicate with people who are different from

themselves. People with this intelligence are frequently found

in professions such as teaching, religion, sales, therapy, or

skilled parenting. People like Adolph Hitler have been known

to have high degrees of interpersonal intelligence, proving it

can also be used for things other than good. This intelligence

has the ability of looking outside of oneself and

understanding other people, including the ability to analyze

emotions and predict reactions to various situations.


Intrapersonal Intelligence. People with intrapersonal

intelligence are commonly creative and have a high level of

self-respect, as this intelligence is developed from internal

resources. Students with intrapersonal characteristics possess

a need to be praised frequently. Intrapersonal intelligence

can be developed using imagination exercises and having

students work together, as observation and experience are the

tools to develop these skills. Individuals with intrapersonal

intelligence have the ability to form an accurate

representation of one’s self. This intelligence allows for

self-reflection and has an understanding of how other people

feel about themselves.

Naturalist Intelligence. Individuals with this

intelligence are expert at classifying and using features of

the environment. Like intrapersonal intelligence, this

intelligence also benefits from observation and experience.

Individuals with this intelligence truly appreciate nature and

have a great concern for the health of our planet.

People with naturalist intelligence commonly show an

expertise in the recognition and classification of plants and

animals. Washington Carver and Charles Darwin are considered

to have had naturalist intelligence. Naturalists benefit from


learning outdoors; educators can plan activities such as

observing nature, labeling and mounting specimens from nature,

noticing changes in the environment, or taking nature hikes or

field trips in nature.

Attention to these intelligences and their impact in the

classroom is significantly changing education. The theory of

multiple intelligences is an effort to understand how culture

and various disciplines shape human potential. By being

informed about multiple intelligences theory and its

applications to instructional environments, educational

professionals can make better decisions concerning the design

and style of delivery for effective learning. Evidence of this

theory is shown in primary and corporate educational systems,

educational software, instructional design strategies, media

programming, and management and professional development

programs (Pennar, 1996). According to Pennar, “From hiring and

promoting to the daily search for solutions, a multifaceted

approach that captures and takes advantage of all ways of

thinking and learning can only enhance creativity and

innovation” (p. 107).


Bloom’s Taxonomy

One of Benjamin Bloom’s (1956) most significant

contributions to the field of education was his three

classifications for types of learning: cognitive, psychomotor,

and affective. The cognitive domain is further divided into

six levels of increasingly more difficult higher order

critical thinking skills: knowledge, comprehension,

application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Bloom’s

taxonomy can be combined with multiple intelligences to ensure

students are learning critical thinking skills. Bloom’s

taxonomy combines all six levels of Bloom’s cognitive critical

thinking skills with multiple intelligences. The multiple

intelligence instructional methods make it possible for every

intelligence to grasp the course content and develop higher

order critical thinking skills (Tables 1 and 2; Armstrong,

2000).

Armstrong (2000) believes the critical thinking movement

provides an alternative to the traditional content expert view

of the educator. Instead, Armstrong suggests using the

Socratic method whereby the educator questions the student’s

views.


Table 1a. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Critical Thinking

Educational
Level objectives Verbs Questions

Knowledge Defined as the arrange, define, Who? What? When?
remembering of duplicate, label, Where? How?
previously learned list, memorize, Describe.
material; may name, order,
involve recall of recognize,
specific facts or relate, recall,
theories; lowest repeat,
level. reproduce, state

Comprehension Defined as the classify, Can you explain,
ability to grasp describe, retell, rephrase?
the meaning of discuss, explain, What is the main
material; shown by express, idea? How would
translating identify, you summarize?
material from one indicate, locate,
form to another recognize,
(words to report, restate,
numbers), review, select,
explaining, translate
summarizing,
estimating; lowest
level of
understanding

Application The ability to use apply, choose, How would you
learned material demonstrate, solve _____ using
in new situations; dramatize, what you have
may include rules, employ, learned? What
methods, concepts, illustrate, examples can you
principles, laws, interpret, find to show?
theories; solve operate, What approach
mathematical practice, would you use?
problems, correct schedule, sketch, What other way
usage of a method solve, use, write would you plan?
or procedure What would result
if…?


Table 1b. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Critical Thinking

Educational
Level objectives Verbs Questions

Analysis The ability to break analyze, appraise, What is the theme?
down information calculate, How would you
into parts by categorize, classify? What
identifying motives, compare, contrast, conclusions can you
analysis of criticize, draw? Can you
relationship; differentiate, identify the
recognize unstated discriminate, different parts?
assumptions, logical distinguish, What evidence can
fallacies, examine, you find? How does
distinguish between experiment, _____ compare/
facts and question, test contrast with ___?
inferences; evaluate Classify _____
relevancy of data according to _____.

Synthesis The ability to put arrange, assemble, What changes would
parts together to build, choose, you make to solve?
form a new whole; compile, collect, How would you
combination of ideas compose construct, improve? What would
to form a new whole; create, design, happen if? Can you
may include develop, formulate, invent? Can you
communication, plan manage, organize, propose an
of operations, or a plan, prepare, alternative? What
set of abstract propose, set up, way would you
relations; learning write design? What could
stresses creative be combined to
behaviors with improve? How would
emphasis on the you test? Can you
formation of new predict the outcome
patterns or for _____? What
structure facts can you
compile? Can you
think of an
original way for
the ____?

Evaluation The ability to judge award, choose, Can you assess the
the value of conclude, value of? How would
material; present criticize, decide, you evaluate? What
and defend opinions defend, determine, would you select?
by making judgments dispute, evaluate, How would you
about the judge, measure, prioritize? What
information, compare, recommend, judgment would you
validity of ideas or interpret, make? Based on what
quality of work appraise, support, you know, how would
based on a set of prove, disprove, you explain? How
criteria assess would you prove or
disprove? What data
was used to make
the conclusion?


Table 2a. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Multiple Intelligences

Verbal/ Logical/ Visual/ Musical/
Level Linguistic Mathematical Spatial Rhythmic

Evaluation recommend, assess, critique, critique,
verify measure, appraise judge, rate
test, rank,
value

Synthesize propose, build, create, create,
synthesize, combine, design, produce,
compose translate, invent, compose
formulate organize

Analysis criticize, analyze, compare, differentiate,
relate, infer, deduce contrast, distinguish,
question diagram classify

Application communicate, solve, prove, illustrate, perform,
discuss, compute, apply, chart produce
derive convert

Comprehension explain, simplify, code, group, recognize,
infer, account for, locate show
describe express

Knowledge name, define, label, find, select, state, recite
state list write

Evaluation select, measure, define, evaluate,
measure, rate select, test argue, validate
support

Synthesize invent, make organize, present, imagine,
up, reconstruct summarize integrate
construct,
assemble

Analysis separate, sort, debate, determine,
diagram, discover, draw, simplify
sort, take examine, conclusions
apart categorize

Application demonstrate, record, translate, interpret,
construct, investigate, interview, model, plan
dramatize keep records discuss

Comprehension express, group, paraphrase, interview,
locate classify, report review
recognize


Table 2b. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Multiple Intelligences

Verbal/ Logical/ Visual/ Musical/
Level Linguistic Mathematical Spatial Rhythmic

Knowledge label, select name, find, recognize, memorize,
identify quote know, recall

Rather than providing answers, the educator enters into a

conversation with the student in an attempt to guide the

student into discovering his/her owning rightness of his/her

perspective. The purpose of the exercise is not to embarrass a

student but instead help them sharpen their critical thinking

skills so they will no longer take a position or form an

opinion out of strong emotion.

Cognitive psychology has become the dominant focus in

education; multiple intelligence theory provides a context for

all students’ cognitive skills, as each of the eight

intelligences is cognitive capacities (Armstrong, 2000).

Gardner’s (1993a) theory of multiple intelligence can be

combined with Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational outcomes.

Bloom’s taxonomy is a widely accepted educational evaluation

tool that can be used to encourage higher order thinking

skills. Bloom’s taxonomy demonstrates how multiple

intelligence can be integrated into virtually every subject


and in a manner that encourages higher order, critical

thinking skills.

Critical evaluation is the highest level in Bloom’s

cognitive skills taxonomy, because it contains all the other

levels, including value judgments (Castle, 2003). Castle

claimed higher order thinking skills demonstrated by critical

evaluation are important, because

Non-critical thinking skills may result in rigid or
narrow thinking (thinking based on past practices without
considering current information), prejudicial thinking
(gathering evidence to support a particular position
without questioning the position itself), or emotive
thinking (responding to the emotion of the message rather
than the content. (p. 372)

Critical evaluation skills are needed as an important element

in successfully living in a technologically advanced society.

Learning to access and judge the value of knowledge is key to

this process; examining the logical consistency of written

material and the validity by which conclusions are supported

by the data will aid students when making professional or

personal decisions.

Traditional success in schools typically involves using

Gardner’s verbal/linguistic and logical/mathematical

intelligences (Gray & Waggoner, 2002). Using Bloom’s taxonomy

combined with the multiple intelligences, however, engages all

learning styles by teaching students to think in ways that are


meaningful to them. Tomlinson stated, “In a differentiated

classroom, the teacher fashions instruction around the

essential concepts, principles, and skills of the subject”

(1999, p. 9). There are various ways to present course

concepts; not all students learn in the same manner (Gardner,

1999). Gardner suggests students will learn more quickly and

be able to demonstrate their knowledge of material through

ways that ensure learning is a personal, enjoyable journey.

Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence links brain research

suggesting diversified instruction carries a potential of

reaching an increasing number of learners.

Academic Psychology

Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences has not been

readily accepted within academic psychology. There are

criticisms of the conceptualization of multiple intelligences;

White argued there “are questions around the individual

criteria; for example, do all intelligences involve symbol

systems; how the criteria are to be applied; and why these

particular criteria are important” (1998, p. 9). White states

he has not been able to find any answer in Gardner’s writings;

Gardner himself admits there is an element of subjective

judgment involved.


Researchers and scholars who traditionally view

intelligence as what is measured by intelligence tests may

continue to have difficulty with Gardner’s theory, because

they can still point to a substantial contribution of research

that demonstrates correlation between different abilities.

Those traditional researchers and scholars can still argue for

the existence of a general intelligence factor (Smith, 2002).

Gardner (1993b), however, disputes much of the evidence and

states it is not yet possible to know how far intelligences

actually correlate. In fact, recent developments in thinking

regarding intelligence such as Robert Sternberg’s (1985b,

1997) advancement of the triarchic model have shared Gardner’s

dislike of such standard intelligence theory.

A common criticism of Gardner’s work is the lack of

empirical evidence to support his conceptualizations.

Gardner’s theories appear to derive more strongly from his own

intuitions and reasoning than from a comprehensive and full

grounding in empirical research (Smith, 2002). There is, to

date, little in the research literature testing Gardner’s

theory.

Although scholars may criticize Gardner’s work, cognitive

psychologists and educational researchers give Gardner high

praise for helping the public understand intelligence is


multifaceted. Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence has

helped educators understand and value the various talents a

learner has (Collins, 1998). Although empirical evidence is

needed in order for Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences

to gain the respect and acceptance among educational

psychologists, Gardner insists an educational approach, paying

attention to the different intelligences, is going to be a lot

more effective than one that denies the existence of

intelligences beyond the linguist/verbal and

logical/mathematical intelligences. Gardner points out that

the overall trend in neurology and cognitive psychology

support his view that intelligence comprises many abilities

(Collins).

While there may be significant issues around Gardner’s

theory of multiple intelligences, it has met with strong

positive response from many educators. It has helped numerous

educators question their work and look beyond the narrow

confines of the accepted (and reinforced by the empirical data

so valued by the individuals with logical/mathematical

intelligence) education evaluation methods.

A review of the literature indicates Gardner’s work

appears to be focused not just on describing our world, but

positioning ourselves to help create conditions to change our


world and make it better (Brockman, n.d.). He questions

whether we will assume a passive view with respect to

intelligence by receiving a test score and allowing the score

to determine our life’s options, or whether we will see

intelligences as flexible opportunities which we can shape and

enhance for ourselves as well as those under our care, such as

our students or our children (Gardner, 1999).

Understanding all the intelligences and their unique

learning needs are a better way for educators to understand

and accommodate different learning styles. Educators must

learn to present course material in a style that engages most

of the intelligences. Educators who teach toward the multiple

intelligences realize the benefits, such as active, engaged

learners. Each of the intelligences is a potential ability in

every learner, and it is the educator’s job to nurture and

help learners develop their own intelligences (Nolen, 2003).

Measuring Multiple Intelligence

Berkemeir’s (2002) instrument was based on combining the

2000 version of Weber’s MITA and the 2000 version of

Armstrong’s MI surveys. Berkemeir’s instrument reworded some

of the questions for reading comprehension. Berkemeir

identified there were difficulties measuring MI and found that


her instrument did not completely remove all the difficulties,

particularly issues involving self-perceived MI.

Applying MI in Higher Education Institutions

“Most scholars . . . are now convinced that enthusiasm

over intelligence tests has been excessive and that there are

numerous limitations in the instruments themselves and in the

uses to which they can (and should) be put” (Gardner, 1993b,

p. 16). Gardner (1993b) believed that despite exposure to

theoretical knowledge, college students often revert to the

uninformed opinion of the unschooled mind of a 5-year-old.

Gardner’s confidence in his MI theory derives from cognitive

research evidence where many of the early cognitive

representation theories are powerful and difficult to change.

Consequently, once a student learns a new idea for the very

first time, it is difficult to change that perception or

knowledge if the information learned was incorrect.

The MI approach would design curriculum and instruction

around the students’ needs while offering a variety of methods

of “learning and understanding” (Hoerr, 1996, p. 18). Gardner

(1993b) asserted the MI approach develops a student’s full

potential for mastering core information. Jordan supported

Gardner’s enthusiasm on the power of MI as a teaching tool,


because “by emphasizing students’ abilities rather than

disabilities, Gardner validated such accomplishments as

significant products of right brain function, which are seldom

evaluated in standardized tests” (1996, p. 30).

Bolanos (1996) believed any potential wind of change in

teaching methodology at higher educational institutions

required modification of traditional mental models of

intelligence and teaching, something with which higher

education instructors are not comfortable. However, with

demand for student retention, experimentation with enhancement

courses through the Internet, and experimentation with

nontraditional methodologies such as distance learning, there

is an increasing need for reaching students from all

modalities of learning. In short, today’s education system is

confronted with a more diverse set of learners who possess a

broad spectrum of interests and abilities. MI is key in

filling that niche by providing critical insight to improving

assessment and instructional methodology (Lantham, 1997;

Visser, 1996).

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The ability of instructors to enhance students’ mastery

of course material is a primary objective of education. This

study examined whether the use of MI techniques helped achieve

this objective.

Methodology

Two key variables in this study involve student

perceptions. One variable is their perception of their

preferred MI techniques. The second variable is their

perception of an instructor’s use of MI techniques. These

variables were assessed by questionnaires. The questionnaires

enabled the researcher to determine the self-reported MI

preferences of the students and the students’ perception of

their instructor’s approaches for teaching critical thinking.

A third variable in this study was the student mastery of

the critical thinking course material. This was assessed by a

standard test employing matching developed by the

nontraditional adult education institution. Matching tests are

useful when small samples are to be used (Gall et al., 1996).


Theoretical Framework

Information on the effectiveness and use of MI techniques

in a critical thinking classroom was gathered using

quantitative questionnaires and a qualitative focus group

approach. Questionnaires are commonly used with quantitative

research (Gall et al., 1996); a survey design provides a

quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or

opinions of a population by studying a sample of that

population (Creswell, 2003). According to Creswell,

“qualitative researchers . . . seek to build rapport and

credibility with the individuals in the study” (p. 181). Focus

group discussions are viewed as qualitative measures because

they allow “patterns in feelings, motivation, attitudes,

accomplishments, and experiences of individuals” (Gall et al.,

p. 288). The researcher conducted focus group discussions

consisting of one group per class. The focus group discussions

in this study were unstructured and used open-form questions

designed to encourage the identification of MI techniques used

by the instructor in presenting the critical thinking course

content.

The use of questionnaires and a focus group allowed a

triangulation of the data. This mixed method approach ensures

greater understanding of what the students perceived. The


mixed methods approach is supported by the research of

Creswell (2003), Gall et al., (1996), Greene, Caracelli, and

Graham (1989), and Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003). Creswell

stated a mixed methods approach is one in which the researcher

tends to “base knowledge claims on pragmatic grounds” (p. 18)

and is the theory behind this study.

The literature review in chapter 2 suggests MI techniques

help achieve various educational objectives as identified by

Bloom’s Taxonomy. The specific question unanswered by the

literature review is, Does perception of an instructor’s use

of MI techniques enhance critical thinking mastery as measured

by scores on a standard test (Appendix B)?

Research Design

This study involved an exploratory study of the impact of

MI techniques in classroom presentation. Churchill (2001)

states exploratory research is used when the problem is not

yet clearly defined; it is a broad-based type of research

whose major objective is to collect ideas and provide insights

into the problem at hand.

This study is a mixed methodology using both quantitative

and qualitative measures. Words used to describe this approach

include integrating, synthesis, quantitative and qualitative


methods, multimethod, and multimethodology; however, recent

writings use the term mixed methods (Tashakkori & Teddlie,

2003). It is believed the idea of mixing research methods may

have originated in 1959 when Campbell and Fiske used multiple

methods to study the validity of psychological traits

(Creswell, 2003). Approaches associated with field methods

such as observations and interviews (qualitative data) are now

combined with traditional surveys (quantitative data; Sieber,

1973).

Recognizing the fact that all methods have limitations,

researchers felt potential biases in any single method could

be cancelled through the use of multiple research methods. As

a result, “triangulating data sources, a means for seeking

convergence across qualitative and quantitative methods, was

born” (Jick, 1979, p. 12). The mixed method is selected when a

researcher uses two different methods in an attempt to

confirm, cross-validate, or corroborate findings within a

single study (Greene et al., 1989; Morgan, 1998; Steckler,

McLeroy, Goodman, Bird, & McCormick, 1992). This study used

questionnaires and focus groups as the means to offset the

weaknesses within one method with the strengths of the other

method. The data collection approach was sequential and

integrated the results of the two methods. The interpretation


can either note the convergence of the findings as a way to

strengthen the knowledge claims of the study, or explain any

lack of convergence that may result.

Gall et al. (1996) support the complementary use of both

quantitative and qualitative measures in research. By

utilizing both methodologies, numerical and semantic data can

be analyzed at the same time and applied to this study.

According to Gall et al., qualitative research is used to

discover meanings and interpretations; quantitative research,

on the other hand, involves collecting data on observable

behaviors and drawing implied contrasts. Although qualitative

research is perceived as performing a discovery role and

quantitative research is perceived as performing a

confirmatory role, both types of research methodology can

perform separate yet complementary functions by providing

different types of data to analyze in this study.

Collecting research data by using questionnaires and

focus group discussions combined the complementary use of both

qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. The

process of inventory creation involves detailed planning that

began with identifying goals and objectives (Gall et al.,

1996). The development of the inventory types (questionnaires

and focus group discussions) connected the individual


questions that were developed to address the specific goals

and objectives as identified. An inventory can combine the use

of both types of qualitative and quantitative forms in seeking

the research data.

Sampling Design

Theoretically, the population for this study would be all

adult learners, any adult interested in learning. However,

this population is not feasible to sample in this study.

Therefore, the population of interest is narrowed to working

adult learners enrolled in a nontraditional adult educational

institution. The sample group was a convenience sample and

consisted of students enrolled in critical thinking courses

during the 2004 fall term at a nontraditional adult education

institution in the central United States. A convenience sample

is based on the availability of research individuals (Worthen,

Sanders, & Fitzpatrick, 1997). The researcher approached the

instructors and the students of the critical thinking course

for their voluntary participation. These students were

randomly assigned to these classes based upon their enrollment

dates at the institution. The classes ranged from 15 to 25

students. Research data were collected from seven classes.


Measures

According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), reliability and

validity of a research study can be established by the use of

triangulation exercises, such as the ones used in this study.

The results from the questionnaire regarding the students’

perceptions of the instructor’s teaching methods (Appendix C)

were compared with the results from the focus group

discussions (Appendix D), allowing triangulation of method and

data to validate the accuracy of the questionnaire. The focus

group discussion questions were developed using eight summary

descriptors from Berkemeir’s (2002) instrument as well as

additional descriptors from other multiple intelligence

scholars (Armstrong, 1993; Campbell et al., 1999; Lazear,

1999). Berkemeir states no existing multiple intelligence

measurement has been fully validated as the correct approach

to measure multiple intelligences. In addition, Linda Elder

(personal communication, June 7, 2004) is unaware of any

existing academic studies comparing these two. The design of

this study incorporated one assessment of students’ self-

perception of their multiple intelligence preferences, two

assessments of student perceptions of instructors’ use of MI

techniques, and an assessment of student critical thinking

mastery.


The study collected data on four constructs:

1. Self-perceived MI preferences were assessed through

the responses to the questions of the instrument

(Appendix A). This variable is the rank-ordered

scores for the eight MI intelligences. This

instrument was developed by Berkemeir (2002). Self-

perceived MI preferences referred to responses

generated by descriptions of broad learning

activities.

2. Measurement of student comprehension of the critical

thinking concepts taught in the course through the

use of a standard exam developed through the

nontraditional adult education institution (Appendix

B).

3. Student Perceptions of Instructor Use of MI

Techniques (Appendix C) measured whether or not

students recognized MI techniques being used. Each

MI technique was measured through a set of five

descriptors. These descriptors were developed by

listing terms used to define the MI techniques by

other researchers (Armstrong, 1993; Berkemeir, 2002;

Campbell et al., 1999; Lazear, 1999).


4. The variable measured from the focus group (Appendix

D) discussion was the number of examples provided

for each MI technique. Examples provided by students

were counted in the MI category mentioned,

regardless of whether the category was correct or

not. If the same example was used under multiple

categories, for instance, it was counted in each

mentioned category. The reason for this is the

recognition of any MI technique is more important to

this study than the correct assignment of such MI

technique. The descriptions used in the focus group

discussions (Appendix D) were developed by Berkemeir

(2002) and align with the MI descriptors in Appendix

A.

Approval from the Human Subjects Review Committee at the

nontraditional adult educational institution in the central

United States and Capella University was obtained.

Data Collection

After obtaining permission from course instructors, the

researcher distributed the questionnaire (Appendix A) at the

start of the course. The second questionnaire (Appendix C) was

administered after the final exam (Appendix B) on the final


night of the course. The focus group discussion followed

immediately; the exam scores (Appendix B) were provided to the

researcher within one week from the instructor.

The collection of data occurred after Institutional

Review Board (IRB) approval was granted from both

institutions. The students were informed their participation

was voluntary; no rewards or inducements for such

participation were granted.

Data Analysis

Data Coding

The student MI preference questionnaire (Appendix A)

consisted of 40 questions regarding MI descriptors. These 40

questions were grouped into the eight MI categories with five

questions per category (Appendix E). Each question was

measured by a Likert scale ranging from “A. Not at all like

me” to “E. Definitely Like Me.” The alphabetic response

options were coded from 1 to 5, with A equals 1 to E equals 5.

The preference score for each MI was the sum of the

numerically coded responses for the questions related to that

intelligence.

The focus group discussions (Appendix D) were scored by

counting the number of unique examples provided by the


students in response to each of the eight questions. The focus

group discussions were recorded, and the data collection

occurred from the analysis of the recording. In conducting the

focus group discussions, the facilitator read each question

sequentially. After each question was read, the facilitator

paused for student comments. After the first pause in the

student responses, the facilitator asked, “Any other

examples?” If other examples were presented at this point, a

final probe of “Anything else?” was used. Each question was

discussed for no more than 5 minutes before moving to the next

questions.

The measurement of student perception of instructor use

of MI techniques (Appendix C) involved a second set of 40

questions. These questions were scored using a 1 to 5 scale

ranging from “1. Not at All” to “5. A Lot.” These questions

were grouped into their related MI technique using the key in

Appendix E. The scores for each MI technique were the sum of

the responses related to each MI technique.

The instructor graded the final exam (Appendix B) and

provided the researcher with the results. The student

preference questions were identified by a student-generated

code. This code was provided to the instructor, but not the

researcher, during the first week of the course. The


instructor had the student/code list available during the last

session of the course in case any students forgot their code.

This list was used by the instructor to link the final exam

grade to the code and, by extension, to the questionnaire

responses. Exam scores were provided to the researcher by the

individual’s code.

Data Cleaning

The only problem was student use of inconsistent codes.

If only one instance occurred per class, these two were

matched. However, when more than one instance occurred and the

codes appeared approximately similar, they were matched. Any

students who did not complete at least the two questionnaires

and the final exam had their data excluded from this study.

Statistical Procedures

The first question to be answered is, Do students

reporting higher instructor use of MI techniques achieve

higher critical thinking test scores? This was measured by a

Pearson’s correlation between the sum of the responses for all

the questions in Appendix C and student final exam scores.

The second question is, Does an instructor’s use of MI

techniques that match student preferences achieve higher


critical thinking test scores? Three measures were involved

for this question. The individual MI technique scores from

both questionnaires were summed and correlated using Pearson’s

correlation. This showed the degree to which the instructor’s

use of MI techniques matched the individual student

preferences. This correlation was correlated with the final

exam score, again using Pearson’s correlation. This showed the

relationship, if any, between using appropriate techniques for

student preferences and comprehension.

The third question to be answered was, Do students

reporting more use of MI techniques by an instructor achieve

higher critical thinking test scores? One correlation was

between the average number of MI techniques reported (Appendix

C). The other correlation was between the focus group

discussion (Appendix D) sum of reported instances and the

average final exam (Appendix B).

Limitation of Methodology

The relationship between instructor use of MI techniques

and student achievement was based on perception, as mentioned

in chapter 2. If students do not perceive the use of MI

techniques, then there would be no expected relationship. The

key limitation, then, was the accuracy of the perception; the


correct MI technique is unimportant but the perception of an

MI technique being used at all is critical to this study. This

limitation was addressed by the use of multiple descriptors in

the questionnaires.

Since this study was based on a convenience sample, the

findings from this study cannot be generalized to the larger

population of adult learners in a nontraditional educational

institution. Samples were drawn from two cities in an effort

to minimize this limitation.

Expected Findings and Ethical Issues

The expected findings were the more the instructor used

the full variety of multiple intelligence methods, the greater

the student mastery.

A limiting factor to the MI inventory relates to self-

reporting. Surveys or questionnaires do not represent complete

objectivity (Berkemeir, 2002). According to the Berkemeir

study, there are five factors that may generate misleading

information:

1. Surveys only tap respondents who are accessible and

cooperative.


2. Respondents have to feel their participation is a

normal and natural process to avoid any form of

slanted or biased answers.

3. The researcher has to be careful of arousing

response sets.

4. Participants should be encouraged to not over rate

or under rate their responses.

5. Participants were unable to accurately identify

their self-perceived multiple intelligences.

It is possible an instructor would be unwilling to alter

current teaching techniques given the expected findings of

this study; this would raise ethical issues in the performance

of such instructors, as learning is the primary educational

objective.

Pilot Testing

A pilot test was conducted in May 2004, using the

research instruments described in this study. In order to

verify the expected analysis procedures, the researcher

distributed the questionnaires during the first and last

course sessions and conducted a focus group discussion during

the last session after the final exam. The final exam score

results were matched to the individual questionnaire results.


Preliminary statistical results indicated the analysis

procedures worked as designed.

Time Lines

The data were collected November 2004 through January

2005. Data analyses were completed February 2005. The findings

and recommendations of the study were completed May 2005.

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

This chapter will present the findings and results of the

data collected in the attempt to answer the three research

questions:

1. The major research question for this study is, Does

perception of an instructor’s use of MI techniques

enhance critical thinking mastery as measured by


2. Does an instructor’s use of MI techniques that match

students’ preferences help students achieve higher

critical thinking test scores?

3. Do students reporting more use of MI techniques by

an instructor achieve higher critical thinking test

scores?

The first two questions include the statistical

procedures used for analyzing the data. The third question

includes a discussion of the quantitative and qualitative

results.


Description of Data

Student MI Preferences

The student MI preferences questionnaire (Appendix A)

assessed the students’ self-perceptions of their preferred MI

techniques through the responses of a set of five descriptors

for each of the eight intelligences. The data from this

question is used to answer research question 2, matching

student preferences.

Final Exam

The measurement of student comprehension of the critical

thinking concepts taught in the course was measured by a

standard exam (Appendix B) from the nontraditional adult

education institution. This data is the basic success

criterion and is used in all three research questions.

Student Perceptions

Whether or not a student recognized an MI technique used

by an instructor through the responses of a set of five

descriptors for each of the eight intelligences was measured

(Appendix C). This data is used in the analysis of all three

research questions.


Focus Group

Counts of MI techniques used in each classroom were

assessed in the focus group (Appendix D) by members of the

discussion giving an example for each of the eight

intelligences. A ranking of the number of MI techniques

mentioned was provided. The data from the focus group

discussion is used in the analysis of the third question.

Data Analysis Process

Relationship Between Student Perception and Preference

Student MI preferences (Appendix A) and student

perceptions (Appendix C) were correlated to determine whether

there is any relationship between a student's self-perceived

MI preferences and a student's perception of MI techniques

used by an instructor.

Data Coding

The student MI preference questionnaire (Appendix A)

consisted of 40 questions regarding MI descriptors. These 40

questions were grouped into the eight MI categories with five

questions per category (Appendix E). The 40 questions and

their assignment into each of the eight MI categories were

developed and used by Berkemeir (2002). Each question was


measured by a Likert scale ranging from “A. Not at all like

me” to “E. Definitely Like Me.” The alphabetic response

options were coded from 1 to 5 with A equals 1 to E equals 5.

The preference score for each MI was the sum of the

numerically coded responses for the questions related to that

intelligence.

The focus group discussions (Appendix D) were scored by

counting the number of unique examples provided by the

students in response to each of the eight questions. The focus

group discussions were recorded, and the data collection

occurred from the analysis of the recording. In conducting the

focus group discussions, the facilitator read each question

sequentially. After each question was read, the facilitator

paused for student comments. After the first pause in the

student responses, the facilitator asked, “Any other

examples?” If other examples were presented at this point, a

final probe of “Anything else?” was used. Each question was

discussed for no more than 5 minutes before moving to the next

questions.

The measurement of student perception of instructor use

of MI techniques (Appendix C) involved a second set of 40

questions. These questions were scored using a 1 to 5 scale

ranging from “1. Not at All” to “5. A Lot.” These questions


were grouped into their related MI technique using the key in

Appendix E. The scores for each MI technique were the sum of

the responses related to each MI technique.

The instructor graded the final exam (Appendix B) and

provided the researcher with the results. The final exam data

were numerical scores ranging from 0 to 100, indicating the

percent of correct responses to the exam questions. The

student preference questions were identified by a student-

generated code. This code was provided to the instructor, but

not the researcher, during the first week of the course. The

instructor had the student/code list available during the last

session of the course if any students forgot their code. The

list was used by the instructor to link the final exam grade

to the code and, by extension, to the questionnaire responses.

Exam scores were provided to the researcher by the

individual’s code.

Data Cleaning

Students appeared to have used different codes for pre-

and post-class questionnaires in several instances. When

students used an inconsistent code, an attempt was made to

match the codes if there was only one instance in a class.

When there was more than one instance, the data were excluded


from pre- and post-analyses. Students who did not complete the

questionnaires using a code that could be matched between pre,

post, and final exam were included in the focus group

discussion. The instructor told the class this researcher’s

study was the reason they were having a final exam. Although

the final exam was a requirement of the course and the

instructor was joking, the resulting data had inappropriate

responses such as pictures and doodling rather than the scale

of numbers. As a result of this biased data, data from three

additional courses were collected in an attempt to increase

the sample size.

Statistical Procedures

The key issue being measured and evaluated in this study

involves relationships, how changes in one variable

(instructor use of MI techniques) impacts other variables

(final exam scores and perceptions of MI techniques).

Relationships are measured by correlations. Two types of

correlations were used in this study. The first type used in

this study was Spearman's rho correlation. According to Cooper

& Schindler (2003), Spearman's is used for ordinal, or rank-

ordered data. Results from student preferences (Appendix A)

and student perceptions (Appendix C) were rank ordered for


correlation purposes. The analysis between these two

appendixes was concerned with matches on relative frequency,

that is, did the ordered frequency of MI techniques used by

the instructor match the desired order of MI techniques

preferred by students.

Pearson's product movement correlation was used on

interval level data. This included the Spearman's correlation

results and final exam scores. The significance of these two

correlations was tested using the correlation t test (Cooper &

Schindler, 2003). The significance level was chosen as alpha

equals .05.

The first question to be answered was, Do students

reporting higher instructor use of MI techniques achieve

higher critical thinking test scores? This was measured by a

Pearson’s correlation between the sum of the responses for all

the questions in Appendix C and student final exam scores.

The second question was, Does an instructor’s use of MI

techniques that match student preferences achieve higher

critical thinking test scores? Three measures were involved

for this question. The individual MI technique scores from

both questionnaires were summed and correlated using Pearson’s

correlation. This showed the degree to which the instructor’s

use of MI techniques matched the individual student


preferences. This correlation was correlated with the final

exam score, again using Pearson’s correlation. This showed the

relationship, if any, between using appropriate techniques for

student preferences and comprehension.

The third question to be answered was, Do students

reporting more use of MI techniques by an instructor achieve

higher critical thinking test scores? One correlation was

between the average number of MI techniques reported (Appendix

C). The other correlation was between the focus group

discussion (Appendix D) sum of reported instances and the

average final exam (Appendix B).

Findings and Results

The findings for each research question are listed below

by question:

Quantitative Findings

Research Question 1. The major research question for this

study is, Does perception of an instructor’s use of MI

techniques enhance critical thinking mastery as measured by


For this question, student perception (Appendix C)

provided student counts of how often an instructor used an MI


technique. If increased use of MI techniques did, in fact,

impact final exam scores, then instructors reported as having

higher uses of MI techniques would achieve better results. For

this question, the reported use of MI techniques used by an

instructor was averaged by class. This average was correlated

to the average final exam score per class.

Results from 78 participants were used to provide a

Pearson's correlation between the average MI technique rating

given to the instructors (Appendix C) and the final exam

scores (Appendix B) received by the students. The correlation

was .07, with a nonsignificant t value of 0.630 and associated

p value of 0.265.

Table 3. Research Question 1

Student
perception
rating Final exam

Average 3.1 83.6

Standard deviation 0.6 12.2

Count 78

Correlation 0.072

t value 0.630

p value 0.265


Research Question 2. Does an instructor’s use of MI

techniques that match students’ preferences help students

achieve higher critical thinking test scores?

Two correlations were required for this question. The

first correlation (Spearman's rho) measured the relationship

between student MI preferences (Appendix A) and student

perception of MI techniques used by an instructor (Appendix

C). The second correlation (Pearson's) measured the

relationship between Spearman's rho and the final exam.

Results from 68 participants (one class had a faulty

questionnaire and had to be eliminated from this analysis)

showed a high average correlation between the student

preferences (Appendix A) and student perceptions (Appendix C)

ratings. This Spearman's rho correlation averaged .80. This

indicates a high degree of consistency between students'

preferred MI techniques and instructors' use of the preferred

MI techniques. Correlation between this correlation and the

final exam was a -.16, resulting in a t value of -1.35 with an

associated p value of 0.09. This was a nonsignificant

correlation.



Student preference Student perception

Standard Standard
Average deviation Average deviation

Visual/Linguistic 3.26 0.65 3.58 1.01

Logical/Mathematical 3.73 0.58 3.28 0.81

Visual/Spatial 3.15 0.70 3.21 0.94

Musical 3.29 0.59 1.77 1.06

Bodily/Kinesthetic 3.42 0.65 2.90 1.06

Interpersonal 3.33 0.66 3.92 0.82

Intrapersonal 3.36 0.74 3.36 0.92

Naturalist 2.90 0.72 2.13 1.05

Spearman's rank order correlation

Average 0.80

Standard deviation 0.24

Pearson's correlation

Value -0.163631

t -1.347504

p value 0.0912128

Count 68

Research Question 3. Do students reporting more use of MI

techniques by an instructor achieve higher critical thinking

test scores?


Two approaches were utilized for this question. The first

approach was the average rating of instructor use of MI

techniques (Appendix C) correlated to each student's final

exam score (Appendix D). The second approach was a correlation

between the average number of MI techniques recalled by the

students in each class during the focus group discussion and

the average final exam score for each class.


Class

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Student
perception
frequency average 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.1

Focus sum 33 48 11 67 14 20 28

Final average 90.9 86.1 75.0 91.0 81.3 78.5 92.1

p
Correlation t value

Correlation between student perception
(Appendix C) average and final exam (Appendix
D) 0.450 1.008 0.185

Correlation between focus group count and
final exam 0.684 2.094* 0.045

Note. *Significant .05 level


Qualitative Analysis

When focus group members were asked to identify examples

of the eight MI techniques, responses were varied. Positive

responses included listing examples of when the instructor

used different methods to emphasize a particular point.

Positive comments included, "He/She did a lot of different

ways of teaching us," "I really enjoyed all the different

methods," and "It's great to have more than one way of

learning something."

The negative responses included, "I don't like to play

games," "School should be more serious and focused on the

textbook rather than contests or personal reflection," and

"The instructor wanted to entertain us rather than help us

learn," "All the instructor did was read from the PowerPoint

slides," "I didn't even need to come to class; all I needed to

do was read the book," and "Why don't instructors learn more

than their favorite way of teaching?"

The students gave the following comments on each MI:

1. Verbal/Linguistic. Examples given for this method

included telling a story and illustrating how the

instructor was trying to teach her granddaughter

about using critical thinking skills with the

neighborhood bully; making the decision to buy a


house, get married, and so forth; used words to draw

a mental picture; and wrote key points on the board.

2. Logical/Mathematical. Examples given for this method

included making an outline on the board of what

would be covered in each class, used an equation to

show the components of an argument, and used a

formula to test the validity of an argument.

3. Visual/Spatial. Examples given for this method

included using colors when writing on the board to

emphasize different parts of the argument, provided

handouts, and used PowerPoint slides.

4. Musical. Examples given for this method included the

rhythm and pace used by an instructor, and the

instructor referred to lyrics in a popular song.

5. Bodily/Kinesthetic. Examples given for this method

included moving around the room when working in

pairs or teams, standing in front of the class for

oral presentations, instructor brought manipulatives

to class to use during the fallacy role modeling,

and moving to the computer lab during class.

6. Intrapersonal. Examples given for this method

included class members working in pairs to reflect

on each individual's assumptions, and listened in


conversations outside class to analyze the soundness

of an argument.

7. Interpersonal. Examples given for this method

included class members worked in pairs or teams to

analyze a case study, collaborated in a class

conversation discussing real-world examples of

fallacies in advertising and politics, and role-

playing and demonstrating the use of fallacies.

8. Naturalist. Examples given for this method included

the instructor referring to spring as the season of

renewal and growth and then compared spring to

opening a person's mind with critical thinking.

Focus group members were able to identify examples of MI

techniques used by their instructor. It became obvious from

the number of examples given that students were able to

perceive differences in teaching styles. Comments such as,

"Why do I have to take a final exam to prove my knowledge?"

and "What difference does it make how many ways an instructor

presents material?" were made. This indicated students did not

understand the value of MI and may not have been truly

receptive to taking the time and effort in identifying them.

When focus group members were asked to identify examples

of the eight MI techniques, enthusiastic responses included,

Mi theory 4

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Mi theory 4

Similar to Mi theory 4 (20)

More from Magdy Aly

More from Magdy Aly (20)

Mi theory 4