A Validation Study of the Persian Version of McKenzie's Multiple Intelligences Inventory to Measure Profiles of Pre-University Students
Scientific Essay 2009 13 Pages
Traditionally, 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) that encompasses 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 ninth areas (naturalist and existential) in 1999. Based on the theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI), a person may proven to have pedagogic implications. McKenzie’s MI questionnaire (1999) is one of the established tools to identify 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. This paper describes the validation exercise of the abovementioned questionnaire that involved 173 pre-university students of both genders in Tehran. In addition, the variables gender and discipline were also considered in Persian version of the questionnaire has a high the students.
Keywords: Multiple-intelligence theory, McKenzie’s MI Inventory, pre-university students
Preparing students to deal with the workplace culture, a foreign culture, or the mainstream culture, which may be different from their own, is one of the main responsibilities of educational institutions. Therefore, schools usually tend to assess students based on the same criteria that the society in which it is situated does. A culture which puts maximal value on the verbal- linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences will result in a focus on these abilities in schools. Armstrong (2003) states that our culture is dominated by linguistic intelligence and most
Received: 1 October 2009 Accepted: 1 February 2010
educators would agree that verbal-linguistic intelligence dominates the teaching-learning environment in our classrooms. Such a limited view of intelligence has alienated numerous students (Armstrong, 2003; Levine, 2003; Ruggieri, 2002), and society cannot afford to continue with this line of thought (Cetron and Cetron, 2004; Eisner, 2004). Similarly, Pearson and Stephens (1994) acknowledge that the information taught and tested in schools has been based on one type of knowledge, while ignoring “other kinds of knowing” (p. 39). They also remind readers that we “have contrived a way of Karim Hajhashemi and Wong Bee Eng ‘doing school’ that bears little resemblance to the real learning and teaching that motivate human (p. 39). Meanwhile, Eisner (2004) claims that the “primary aim of education is not to enable students to do well in school, but to help them do well in the lives they lead outside of school. We ought to focus on what students do when they can choose their own activities” (p. 10).
The failure of a single general intelligence (g factor) to explain human performance has led many psychologists and educators to believe weaknesses, can be conceptualized as having multiple abilities (Chan, 2006; Karolyi, Ramos- Ford and Gardner, 2003; Sternberg, 1986: 1997: 2000).
Gardner (1983) disagrees with previous models of intelligence because they focused too much on logic and language and ignored other ability of a person to respond to new events and situations successfully and his or her capacity to learn from past experience (1983, p.21). He propounded the theory of MI and identified seven intelligences which he claimed were distinct. These are relatively autonomous human intelligences or ways through which people learn. The seven intelligences Gardner put forth in 1983 are verbal/linguistic, musical/rhythmical, logical/mathematical, spatial/visual, bodily/ kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. In 1995, the eighth intelligence, i.e. Naturalistic intelligence, was added. Existential intelligence, which is the ninth intelligence, is still under consideration as it is yet to fully satisfy empirical and neurological evidence needed to include it on the list of intelligences (Gardner, 1999; Viens and Kallenbach, 2004).
Thus, to fulfil the educational goals of students, some points which are taken from Gardner (2004) should be mentioned, and these include: 1) individuals use different strategies to process information and solve problems depending on the type and level of their intelligence abilities, and 2) in order to provide suitable learning experiences for students, teachers need to assess the students’ talents carefully and properly, and then guide them to utilize the maximum capacity of their intelligence and talent in the direction of the educational goals.
In order to reach the above mentioned !
is therefore required. According to Lazear (1991:1992), the students’ needs, intelligence models, and learning strategies should be considered on the basis of the MI theory and the emphasis should not be strictly on the verbal- lingual and mathematical-logical intelligences alone. On the contrary, Lazear (1991:1992) claims that such an emphasis is unfair due to students’ individual and group differences in Gardner’s different models of multiple intelligences.
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING
The area of MI and English language learning of students have received attention from researchers. Since this study has focused on one of the tools " of students, that is, McKenzie’s (1999) MI Inventory, the studies that used this questionnaire would also be reviewed. Some of the researchers have used this questionnaire as they have found it an applicable and useful tool to measure the multiple-intelligence profiles of the students (see for e.g., Al-Balhan, 2006; Marefat, 2007; Mokhtar et al., 2008; Pasha Sharifi, 2008; Razmjoo, 2008; Razmjoo et al., 2009; Sung, 2004).
Sung (2004) used instructional strategies based on the MI theory to improve the teaching and learning of Korean among foreign language learners, and to help equip the Korean language teachers in broadening their pedagogical repertoire so that they could accommodate linguistically, culturally, and cognitively diverse students. This study used McKenzie 1999’s MI Inventory to measure the multiple-intelligence applying MI theory to Korean teaching in the classroom setting for Korean language instructors.