For Final Hehe

8/14/2019 For Final Hehe

1/80

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND LEARNING STYLES

OF THE EDUCATION STUDENTS

A Thesis Proposal

Presented to

The Faculty of the College of Education

Liceo de Cagayan University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Course Requirements of

Bachelor of Science in Education

Research Team Leader: MR. AZEL M. VALLE

Members:

Leizl C. Magallanes

Trifon E. Mosal

Jinda T. Bangkal

Rhea B. Beruan

Melissa P. Paloma

September, 2008

APPROVAL SHEET


2/80

This thesis entitled MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND LEARNINGSTYLES OF THE EDUCATION STUDENTS prepared and submitted by LeizlC. Magallanes, Trifon E. Mosal, Jinda T. Bangkal, Rhea B. Beruan, andMelissa P. Paloma , in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN EDUCATION , has been examined andrecommended for acceptance and approval for Oral examination.

AZEL M. VALLE, M.A. Adviser

___________________________________________________________

PANEL OF EXAMINERS

Approved by the Committee on Oral Examination with a grade of ________.

MARTINA A. BROBO, Ed.D.Chair

MANUEL B. CHAVO, M.A. RENITA R. BALARIAS, Ed.D.Member Member

___________________________________________________________

Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for thedegree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN EDUCATION .

Proposal Defense: September 30, 2008

___MARTINA A. BROBO, Ed.D_ Editor: _____________________ Dean, College of Arts and SciencesDate: ______________

2


3/80

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Success is not an overnight sacrifice, it needs time and patience toachieve it and there is no sweet success than to succeed under intensepressure.

We wish to thank the following for their valuable contributions toward the

completion of this study:

First of all, God, who is the author and finisher of our faith. For without Him,

we would not have people to assist us in pursuing this thesis. We thank Him for His

faithfulness, for His unconditional love, for reminding us always that without Him, we

would not be able to accomplish this educational endeavor.

Dr. Luceno Badoles, our instructor, for his support and for all his contributions

towards the success of this research.

Prof. Azel Valle, our adviser, for the suggestions in the improvement of this

paper and for all the efforts contributed in helping us finish the paper.

Prof. Manuel Chavo, for editing this paper and for being so approachable.

Dr. Martina Brobo, dean College of Education, for her support that serves as

an inspiration.

And thank you, to our parents and guardians, for their love and for all the

financial supports given to us for the completion of this paper.

DEDICATION

3


4/80

This study

is humbly dedicated

To

Our dear parents, families, and friends:

Our Almighty GOD;

To the researchers for their efforts, pains, hurts, tears,

Pride, conflicts, laughter and respect for each other;

To the special people who served as our inspirations;

To the students of Liceo de Cagayan University, College of Education

Determined to develop the multiple intelligences and different learning style;

To all the people who became a part of our study.

ABSTRACT

4


5/80

The study was conducted to determine the dominant multiple intelligences

and preferred learning styles among Education students of Liceo de Cagayan

University.

This study focused on the following major points: (1) the dominant multiple

intelligences of the Education students in terms of: verbal- linguistics, mathematical-

logical, visual- spatial, bodily- kinesthetic, musical- rhythmic, interpersonal,

intrapersonal and naturalist;(2) the preferred learning styles of the Education

students in terms of: auditory, kinesthetic or tactile and visual; and (3) test the

significant relationship of the dominant multiple intelligences and the preferred

learning styles of the education students.

In answering these major points, the researcher used the descriptive

correlation design. A modified questionnaire of multiple intelligences and learning

styles was used as main tool in data gathering. The study was conducted at Liceo

de Cagayan University. a permit was secured from the college dean. The researcher

personally administered the instrument to the respondents with appropriate

directions on how to answer the questions. The statistical techniques used were the

the frequency, percentage, weighted mean, correlation T-test and F-test or ANOVA.

The analysis yielded the following results: in terms of. . . .

Based from other Research

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

TITLE PAGE ------------------------------------------------------------------- i

5


6/80


7/80

INTERPRETATION OF DATA --------------------------- 16

3 SUMMARY, FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS ------------------------------ 17

BIBLIOGRAPHY --------------------------------------------------------------- 18

APPENDICES

Questionnaire --------------------------------------------------------- 19

Letter request --------------------------------------------------------- 20

CURRICULUM VITAE -------------------------------------------------------- 21

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMSOF VERBAL-LINGUISTIC ------------------------------------------ 35

2 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMSOF MATHEMATICAL-LOGICAL ---------------------------------- 37

3 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMSOF VISUAL-SPATIAL ------------------------------------------------ 39

4 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMSOF BODILY-KINESTHETIC ---------------------------------------- 41

5 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMSOF MUSICAL-RHYTHMIC ------------------------------------------ 43

7


8/80

6 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMSOF INTERPERSONAL ----------------------------------------------- 45

7 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMSOF INTRAPERSONAL ----------------------------------------------- 47

8 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMSOF NATURALIST ----------------------------------------------------- 49

9 SUMMARY OF THE TABLES IN

DOMINANT MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES --------------------- 51

10 LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF AUDITORY ------------- 53

11 LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF KINESTHETIC --------- 5512 LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF VERBAL----------------- 5713 LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF VISUAL ------------------ 5914 SUMMARY OF TABLES IN LEARNING STYLES ------------ 61

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE STUDY ---------------------- 7

8


9/80

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND RESEARCH DESIGN

INTRODUCTION

The question of how an individual learns is a matter of debate. Individuals

think and learn in distinct ways. In any group of learners, there will always be

different learning characteristics, particularly in the learners manner of processing

information. Some would absorb the lesson better when they work with their hands

than when they just listen. Some would prefer to write, while others want to draw or

even dance and sing. Others say, learning happens only through direct contact.

They learned only what they had experienced themselves. To some people, learning

involves action such as manipulating things, experimenting, observing, and doing

9


10/80

something with the thing to be learned. These preferences involve learning styles

and multiple intelligences.

Plato defined learning as being able to think and debate logically and

critically, to Aristotle, learning meant being able to apply what individuals know to

real life activities. To John Dewey, learning was the ability to reflect on experience,

to make sense of what came their way and to grow personally and socially as a

result. To Arthur Bestor and E. D. Hirsch, an essential component of learning is

mastering information. To philosopher Maxine Greene, learning opens the minds to

new realities. To Pablo Freire, learning improves ones understanding of politics and

his ability to improve his social conditions (Breitborde, et al, 2006).

To sum up, learning is the act of acquiring knowledge or skill. Learning

implies much more than training. It requires thought and reflection. It is permanent

in that it changes the person doing the learning in some fundamental way, large or

small. Learning implies growth; it may lead individuals to new understandings, new

ways of behaving, even a change of values.

The term "learning styles" is commonly used throughout various educational

fields and therefore, has many connotations. In general, it refers to the uniqueness

of how each learner receives and processes new information through their senses.

The National Association of Secondary School Principals defines learning style as,

"the composite of characteristic cognitive, affective, and physiological factors that

serve as relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with, and

responds to the learning environment." Other phrases are used interchangeably

with learning styles. Some include perceptual styles, learning modalities, and

learning preferences.

10


11/80

In other words, it is the way people prefer to learn and process information. It

is commonly believed that most people favor some particular method of interacting

with, taking in, and processing stimuli or information. Hilliard describes learning

style as the sum of the patterns of how individuals develop habitual ways of

responding to experience. There are three most common learning styles. These are

visual, aural/auditory and kinesthetic/tactile (http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/).

In visual learning styles, visual learners will be able to recall what they see

and will prefer written instructions. These students are sight readers who enjoy

reading silently. Visual learners process information most effectively when the

information is seen. Depictions can include charts, graphs, flow charts, and all the

symbolic arrows, circles, hierarchies and other devices that instructors use to

represent what could have been presented in worlds.

Students with the auditory learning style will be able to recall what they hear

and will prefer oral instructions. They learn by listening and speaking. These

students enjoy talking and interviewing. They are phonetic readers who enjoy oral

reading, choral reading, and listening to recorded books. Aural learners process

information most effectively when spoken or heard. These learners respond well to

lectures and discussions and are excellent listeners. They also like to talk and enjoy

music and dramas. When trying to recall information, aural learners can often "hear"

the way someone told them the information.

In kinesthetic learning styles, Kinesthetic/Tactile learners process

information actively through physical means. Kinesthetic learning refers to whole

body movement while tactile learning refers only to the sense of touch. These

learners gesture when speaking, are poor listeners, and lose interest in long

11


12/80

speeches. Most students that do not perform well in school are kinesthetic/tactile

learners. The crux of this learning style is that the learner is connected to real

situations through experience, example, practice, or simulation. Kinesthetic learners

also learn by touching or manipulating objects

(http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php ).

Howard Gardners groundbreaking work (1983) deepened learning style by

exploring the meaning and nature of intelligence. Gardner contended that

intelligence was not a characteristic that could be measured on a single intelligence

test but there were in fact multiple intelligences, or many ways of being smart. All

possess the intelligences but in varying degrees of strength and skill. These are the

tails leading to students learning that teachers should address in their classrooms

all the time. They are: verbal-linguistic, mathematical logical, visual-spatial, bodily

kinesthetic, musical-rhythmic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist.

Verbal linguistic intelligence is a word-think. People strong in this

intelligence like words. They like talking, reading, writing and thinking with words.

They like to express themselves through spoken and written language.

Mathematical logical is the arithmetic part of the 3Rs equation: number-think.

People strong in this intelligence like logical, systematic and sequenced ideas. They

enjoy patterns, abstract symbols, math problem solving, and puzzles. They are

scientists, mathematicians, strategic planners, accountants and financial analysts.

Visual-spatial involves picture- and space- think. People strong in this

intelligence like pictures, colors, shapes, and the space around them. They like to

use their imaginations, to daydream and to visualize the future or a story they are

reading. They are good at finding their way around new places. They can design

12


13/80

space and ways to use it. They are artists, decorators, photographers, architects,

filmmakers, and mapmakers (Bonita, 1999).

Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is the ability to control body movements and

handle objects skillfully. These learners express themselves through movement.

They have a good sense of balance and eye-hand co-ordination. (e.g. ball play,

balancing beams). Through interacting with the space around them, they are able to

remember and process information. They are our athletes and coaches,

choreographers and dancers, inventors and sculptors.

Musical-rhythmic intelligence is the ability to produce and appreciate music.

These musically inclined learners think in sounds, rhythms and patterns. They

immediately respond to music either appreciating or criticizing what they hear. Many

of these learners are extremely sensitive to environmental sounds (e.g. crickets,

bells, dripping taps). They are musicians, singers, dancers, sound-effect engineers,

and composers.

Interpersonal intelligence incorporates group think. It is the ability to relate

and understand others . These learners try to see things from other people's point of

view in order to understand how they think and feel. They often have an uncanny

ability to sense feelings, intentions and motivations. They are great organizers,

although they sometimes resort to manipulation. Generally they try to maintain

peace in-group settings and encourage co-operation. They use both verbal (e.g.

speaking) and non-verbal language (e.g. eye contact, body language) to open

communication channels with others. They are team leaders, managers,

psychologists, mediators and diplomats.

13


14/80

Intrapersonal intelligence reflects self think. It is the ability to self-reflect and

be aware of one's inner state of being . These learners try to understand their inner

feelings, dreams, relationships with others, and strengths and weaknesses. They

are philosophers, diary writers, and essayists.

Naturalist involves outdoors think. Most closely associated with the ability to

identify, categorize, and memorize the many varieties of plant and animal life.

People, who have this, enjoy studying and interacting with animals and plants. They

are our botanist, entomologists, marine biologist, and naturalist (Bonita, 1999).

It may seem somewhat simplistic to ask people how they learn best but it can

be thinking and reflection exercise that helps both the learner and the teacher un-

derstand the individual better. An emerging body of the knowledge makes it clear

that learners will learn best when they are put through activities that allow them to

be comfortable in their own learning skin. Bell (1986) suggests that students who

learn in their preferred styles achieve better results, show more interest in the ma-

terial, enjoy how they learned, and want to learn more in the same way.

Experts believe that the integration of learning styles and multiple intelli-

gence theory may minimize their respective limitations and enhance their strengths.

Learning styles' emphasis on the individual learning process and Gardner's content-

oriented model of multiple intelligences are surprisingly complementary. Without

multiple intelligence theory, style is rather abstract, and it generally undervalues

context. Without learning styles, multiple intelligence theory proves unable to de-

scribe different processes of thought and feeling. Each theory responds to the

weaknesses of the other; together, they form an integrated picture of intelligence

and difference (http://www. ascd.org/authors/ed_ lead/el199709_silver.html).

14


15/80

Based on the contentions above, the researchers decided to conduct this

study in order to determine the dominant multiple intelligence and to identify the

preferred learning styles of the selected Education students. This study focuses on

the multiple intelligence and learning styles of the education students and this

sought to test if there is significant relationship between the dominant multiple

intelligence of the students and their preferred learning styles. The researchers are

confident that through the study, they can provide information to the students that

could help them to succeed in all the endeavors in the learning process as well as

to the teachers for them to be able to choose the teaching approaches and

pedagogy that would cater the needs of the students.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study will be anchored on Dunn and Dunns learning styles theory,

Gregorcs mindstyles theory and Gardners theory of multiple intelligences.

Dunn (1984) found that learning styles are not affected by just one aspect of

the learning environment. Based on observations and surveys of the ways people

prefer to learn, Rita and Kenneth Dunn theorize that learners vary in the conditions

that they need in order to learn most easily. These conditions include their way of

perceiving information, their physical environment, their emotional orientation, their

sociological structure and their biological needs. Dunn and Dunns research shows

that individuals vary in the primary ways they pay attention to information. They

believe that these preferred modes of perception or ways of receiving information

through the senses, are inborn. Individuals may receive information more easily in

15


16/80


17/80

or may even be looking through the multiplication learning process at a

fundamentally deeper level that hides a potentially higher mathematical intelligence

than in the one who memorizes the concept easily. The theory suggests that, rather

than relying on a uniform curriculum, schools should offer "individual-centered

education", with curriculum tailored to the needs of each child.

Gardner identifies kinds of intelligences based upon eight criteria. His eight

criteria for describing something as an independent kind of intelligence (rather than

merely one of the skills or abilities included in a kind of intelligence, or a synonym

for, or combination of other kinds of intelligence) include: Verbal/Linguistic

intelligence refers to an individual's ability to understand and manipulate words and

languages; Bodily/Kinesthetic intelligence refers to people who process information

through the sensations they feel in their bodies. These people like to move around,

touch the people they are talking to and act things out; Naturalistic intelligence is

seen in someone who recognizes and classifies plants, animals, and minerals

including a mastery of taxonomies; Musical intelligence refers to the ability to

understand, create, and interpret musical pitches, timbre, rhythm, and tones and the

capability to compose music; Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to interpret and

respond to the moods, emotions, motivations, and actions of others. Interpersonal

intelligence also requires good communication and interaction skills, and the ability

show empathy towards the feelings of other individuals; and Intrapersonal

Intelligence, simply put, is the ability to know oneself. It is an internalized version of

Interpersonal Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_

multiple_intelligences).

17


18/80

In this study, two variables are involved. These are the independent and

dependent variables. The former included the multiple intelligences in terms of:

verbal-linguistic, mathematical logical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical-

rhythmic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist. The latter included the

learning styles in terms of: visual, aural/auditory, and kinesthetic/tactile. Figure 1

shows the schematic diagram of the study.

18


19/80

Schematic Diagram

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Figure 1. The schematic diagram of the study showing the relationship between the

independent variables and dependent variables of the study.

19

Multiple Intelligences

Verbal-linguistic

Mathematical-logical

Visual-spatial

Bodily-kinesthetic

Musical-rhytmic

Interpersonal

Intrapersonal

Naturalist

Learning Styles

Auditory

Kinesthetic or Tactile

Visual


20/80

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This study seeks to identify the multiple intelligences and the learning styles

of the education students in Liceo de Cagayan University.

Specifically, these are the following objectives:

1. To determine the multiple intelligences of the Education students in terms

of: verbal-linguistic, mathematical-logical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical-

rhythmic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist.

2. To determine the learning styles of the Education students in terms of:

auditory, kinesthetic or tactile, and visual.

3. To test the significant relationship of the multiple intelligences and the

learning styles of the Education students.

HYPOTHESIS

The null-hypothesis was stated at 0.05 level of significance.

Ho: There is no significant relationship between the multiple intelligences

and learning styles among the Education students of Liceo de Cagayan University.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study will render valuable benefits to all individuals in the educative

process specifically; the following will be benefited by this study:

Students. Upon knowing their multiple intelligences and learning styles, they

can gain ideas on how to improve their attitudes towards learning. They will also

benefit because once the teachers will modify their teaching styles based on their

20


21/80

needs as will be revealed by the results of this study, they can learn more and they

will enjoy in the learning process.

Teachers. The results of this study will help the teachers diagnose their

students so as to know their strengths and weaknesses . This will then guide them

in choosing learning activities that would help develop the students strengths and

improve their weaknesses.

School Administration. The result of the study will provide baseline data to

school administrators for them to improve the academic and co-curricular activities

they will promote that will enhance the students interest based on their multiple

intelligences and learning styles. The results of this study will serve as the profile of

the Education students in terms of multiple intelligences and learning styles as

recommended by PACU-COA and this will help the school administrators to

evaluate the students they have and for them to come up with a plan on how to

produce quality graduates.

Parents. The results of this study will help the parents know the strengths

and weaknesses of their sons and daughters. In such case, they can help and

support their sons and daughters develop their strengths and guide them to improve

their weaknesses.

Future researchers. The results of this study will serve as a spring board for

other related studies to be conducted in the future.

SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The study is limited to ascertain the multiple intelligences and the learning

styles of all the Education students in Liceo de Cagayan University during the

21


22/80

academic year 2008-2009. This study will be conducted in the College of Education

in Liceo de Cagayan University for the reasons that there is no profile of the

Education students in terms of Multiple Intelligences and Learning styles as

recommended by PACU-COA. The independent variables in this study were limited

to the multiple intelligences such as verbal-linguistic, mathematical-logical, visual-

spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical-rhythmic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and

naturalist. The dependent variables were limited to the learning styles such as

auditory, kinesthetic or tactile, and visual.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The study will utilize the descriptive correlation design. Correlation is a

statistical technique that can show whether and how strongly pairs of variables are

related. Ariola (2005), descriptive correlation design is used to determine whether

or not there is a relationship that exists between two or more quantifiable variables,

and if there is, to what extent or degree the relationship is. In other words, when a

relationship is determined, the researcher must identify whether such relationship is

positive (+) or negative (-) and the degree or extent (strength) of relationship.

The descriptive correlation design is appropriate for the study which aimed

to determine the relationship of multiple intelligences and learning styles as

correlates to academic performance.

RESEARCH SETTING

This study will be conducted at Liceo de Cagayan University at RN Pelaez

Blvd., Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro City. A post liberation institution, the Liceo de

22


23/80


24/80

RESPONDENTS AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES

The respondents will be the 206 Education students from the total population

(N =206) in the College, hence, universal sampling will be used in the study which

means that all the Education students will be included.

INSTRUMENTATION

The research instruments to be used in the study will be the questionnaire

patterned after the Self-Inventory Multiple Intelligence Test created by Gayle H.

Gregory (2005), and the Learning Styles Self- Inventory by Jeffrey Barsch, (2007).

Part I contains the Questionnaire on Multiple Intelligences Test. Part II comprises

the students learning style inventory model as patterned from Barsch (2007), such

as auditory learning style, kinesthetic learning style, and visual learning style.

DATA GATHERING PROCEDURES

A letter requesting permission to conduct the study will be addressed to the

Dean of the College of Education. Upon approval, the researchers will distribute the

questionnaires to the respondents. The respondents will be assured of the

confidentiality of their responses and explained the purpose of the study as well as

the importance of the research output. The questionnaires will be retrieved after the

respondents completed its answers. The same will be submitted to the university

statistician of the Research and Planning Office of Liceo de Cagayan University for

data processing.

STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES

24


25/80

The data that can be collected from the respondents will be processed

accordingly with the help of the university statistician and the researchers adviser.

Problem 1 will utilize ranking and frequency distribution, Problem 2 will used the

weighted mean, and Problem 3 will utilize Pearson Product Moment Correlation (r).

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND STUDIES

25


26/80

To broaden the researchers knowledge about the study the following

literature reviews are included. These reviews serve as the foundation of insights

that give weight to this investigation.

Learning-style theory begins with Carl Jung (1927), who noted major differ-

ences in the way people perceived (sensation versus intuition), the way they made

decisions (logical thinking versus imaginative feelings), and how active or reflective

they were while interacting (extroversion versus introversion). Learning-style theor-

ists generally believe that learning is the result of a personal, individualized act of

thought and feeling.

Most learning-style theorists have settled on four basic styles namely: The

Mastery style learner absorbs information concretely; processes information

sequentially, in a step-by-step manner; and judges the value of learning in terms of

its clarity and practicality; The Understanding style learner focuses more on ideas

and abstractions; learns through a process of questioning, reasoning, and testing;

and evaluates learning by standards of logic and the use of evidence; The Self-

Expressive style learner looks for images implied in learning; uses feelings and

emotions to construct new ideas and products; and judges the learning process

according to its originality, aesthetics, and capacity to surprise or delight; and The

Interpersonal style learner, like the Mastery learner, focuses on concrete, palpable

information; prefers to learn socially; and judges learning in terms of its potential

use in helping others.

Learning styles are not fixed throughout life, but develop as a person learns

and grows. Most learning-style advocates would agree that all individuals develop

and practice a mixture of styles as they live and learn. Most people's styles flex and

26


27/80

adapt to various contexts, though to differing degrees. In fact, most people seek a

sense of wholeness by practicing all four styles to some degree. Educators should

help students discover their unique profiles, as well as a balance of styles

(http://www.ascd.org/authors/ed_lead/el199709_silver.html).

Students use different approaches when faced with learning tasks and

problems the way in which the students approach the learning tasks, and the

behavior in learning situations determine their learning style, Rosenberg (1968)

defines learning style as referring to an individuals characteristic pattern of

behavior when confronted with a problem. It is pointed out that the learning style of

an individual has relation to factors such as prior learning experiences, physical

facilities and learning environment.

On the basis of the work of researchers on learning, Rosenberg has arrived

at four general learning patterns which are rigid-inhibited style, indiscipline style,

acceptance-anxious style and creative style. Learners with a rigid inhibited style of

learning require constant supervision as they get confused easily. The indiscipline

learner exhibits characteristics such as refusal to obey commands, showing

disrespect to teachers, deceiving, stealing, bullying, etc. Such learners invariable

leave their learning task unfinished due to lack of tolerance. Learners of creative

style are self-confident, and able to evaluate their own performance with objectivity.

They are prepared to learn from the mistakes and show divergent thinking ability

(Chapman and King, 2005).

According to Dunn, Dunn and Perrin (1994), learners are self-oriented,

peer oriented and adult oriented or the combination of these sociological

structures. Peer oriented learner may like to work with others, enjoying the feeling of

27


28/80

contributing to a group project, or they may like to get on with the task by

themselves. On the adulthood, adult oriented learner need to check in with their

teacher from time to time. They ask, Am I doing this right? or What do you think of

what Ive done so far? The questions may come as much from a need for adult

company and concerns about their performances. Without the social input, they

may lose concentration. Conversely, the learner who likes to work alone needs time

and space to focus.

It is logical to conclude that students in school classroom have the same

variations in the conditions they need and the modes in which they learn best. It is,

of course, impossible for teachers to adapt classrooms and instruction to meet each

students particular set of preferences; if the teacher decided to have music playing

as students engage in their school work, she would be helping some students focus

while destructing others. What good teachers do, however, is provide as much

flexibility as possible in their modes of instruction and in classroom configurations

(Swiniarski, 2006).

Researchers have identified different learning styles and these have been of

great interest to classroom practitioners. Dryden and Vos (1994) have linked

Gardners work to the way students learn. They believe that each of the learners

has a preferred learning and a preferred working style, and further identified five

learning preferences.

Some of the learners, they suggest, are mainly visual learners: their learning

is helped when they see pictures or diagram. Others learn more by listening or are

kinaesthetic learners: they learned best by using their sense of touch or by moving

their bodies. Some of them are print oriented: they learn most easily by reading

28


29/80

books. Others learn best when interacting with others. They suggest that learners

can and do use a combination of these strategies to learn, but one approach maybe

dominant.

No doubt a contributory factor to some pupils disaffection at school is that

they do not have sufficient opportunity to learn in a way that helps them to access

the curriculum. Schools with which some experts have worked have found that it is

useful to be aware of the range of learning style in their classroom and, more

importantly, for their learners to be aware of these too. Students who identified

themselves as weak in one or more of the areas need to consider how they develop

strategies to be able to learn through these approaches. However, given the

argument about both intelligence and learning being learnable, experts think this

are best treated as a range of possibilities for enriching learning rather than further

fixed views of students. In a culture that is prone to label and categorize they need

to be aware of this danger with learning styles ( Mayers and Reed, 2004).

On the other hand, research suggests that intelligence can be expanded

through learning in real situations. It can be enhanced through instruction, self-

instruction and experiences that cultivate metacognition. Students can develop their

latent potentials if teachers will provide activities that will unfold and enhance these

capacities and tendencies and teach them to develop their potentials through effort-

based learning.

Dweck (1999) suggests that the development of mastery or learning

orientation depends on the way how people understand the nature of their

intelligence. She has identified two very different ways that people understand and

internalize intelligence. The first is an entity view; the idea that intelligence is

29


30/80

something fixed and unchangeable within. For others, intelligence is something that

can be developed through learning. This is an incremental view of intelligence and

what Claxton means by learning being learnable. Dweck calls this the theory of

malleable intelligence.

According to the psychologist, Howard Gardner (1999), all learners have the

capacity to develop and extend a number of different aspects of their intelligence.

They would caution limiting learners in any way to these and suggest that the

following list of Gardners intelligences are expansive rather than reductive. They

are not for either labelling students or limiting learning. Believing that all of the

learners have the capacity to develop these areas, though some may need more

help than others has an impact on the view of ability and consequently on teaching

strategies (Reed et. Al 2004).

Gardners work has helped educators to see that the content of learning is

not just about the types of cognition traditionally associated with school. Goleman

(1996) supports this view. He demonstrates the nature and important of emotional

intelligence and the need to become emotionally literate. This means realizing that

the man and the emotions are working in a fruitful partnership when learning is

taking place. What Claxton (1999) refers to as drawing on the rich mud of

someones experience.

Samples, (2000) found out approaches using learning modalities, learning

styles and multiple intelligences can create more viable teaching methods that are

realistically linked to the increasingly complex world. Diverse instructional

approaches have been seen to nurture flexibility, reinforce the idea that there are

30


31/80

many different ways to learn, show a deeper appreciation for the individual and

increase chances of students actually being successful in the learning environment.

Nolen, (2003) discussed how this knowledge of multiple intelligences might

be applicable in the classroom. She noted that Many teachers struggle with finding

ways to reach individual learning styles and needs, and that Gardners concepts

might provide some solutions. It is clear that these same ideas about multiple

intelligences can be practically applied. Linguistic intelligence can be approached

with teaching the student through verbal instruction as well as the sharing of

anecdotes and cultural information with the class. Those who are strong in this skill

will best understand movement through the verbal explanation. This encourages

those who are strong in this intelligence and helps to develop it in others.

Musical intelligence can be approached through an actual formal musical

analysis and representation, and in the beginning class, as a way of capturing and

understanding feelings which the music brings forth, and how to express the

physical. Music also ties to other kinds of intelligences, for example logical

intelligence, since it is math oriented. Logical intelligence is a skill of people who

are academically inclined in the traditional sense because of the logical sequence

of teaching format, and are usually considered to be good students in any traditional

classroom. These are people who will respond well to a strictly formatted class and

to choreography. Spatial intelligence can be approached through the use of picture

and drawing elements as a teaching tool. A student with this intelligence usually

learns well if films, diagrams and other picture elements are involved in the process.

Classes in which videos of dancers are utilized are often very valuable to students

who learn in this way.

31


32/80

Body/kinesthetic intelligence can be fostered through the use of hand-on

methods in the classroom. Being allowed to touch the instructor or have the

instructor touch them in order to feel the physical movement is helpful to people with

this learning style. Interpersonal intelligence is best utilized in the classroom

through having students work in teams and interact, for example through practicing

and allowing interaction between the students; having a partner in class or learning

a choreography that is practiced in the classroom as a group. Group activity

stimulates this type of learning which is basic to many people. Intrapersonal

intelligence can be approached in the learning environment by frequent

acknowledgement from the teacher and through the use of positive reinforcement or

praise. People with this learning ability are often very good at a long term

commitment to studying the dance. Natural intelligence can be best utilized through

actually going into the work environment as opposed to the classroom setting. This

allows the student to actually get the experience of performing or watching other

perform. Student nights in a restaurant or other type of realistic environment are a

good way to support this intelligence. Also, it is good for the student to go to events

and venues where there is professional dancing in order to see it in action.

Most people will have at their disposal more than one of the intelligences

discussed so that they may be linguistic-kinesthetic- natural learners, for example.

Nolen states that it is possible for teachers to structure learning and teaching so

that most intelligence is approached in presenting the material to be learned. She

says, Teachers who teach towards the multiple intelligences realize the benefits,

such as active learners and successful students (http://www.raqsazar.com/mi.html).

32


33/80

Based on the above reviews, the researchers learned that learners have

different learning styles and all learn at different paces. Some can put in a minimal

effort and receive a high grade meanwhile others have to work very hard to achieve

an average grade. The good news is that teachers can modify the learning activities

and learners can modify the methods they use to learn. If one maximizes his

opportunities for his personal learning needs to be met, he can enhance and ensure

that he is more comfortable in his learning environment. One method of doing so is

applying the theories of Multiple Intelligence to each learning styles. One cannot do

it of course without determining his dominant multiple intelligences and knowing his

preferred learning styles. The researchers upon reviewing the above literature have

learned that though the theory of multiple intelligences and the learning styles

theory are both different theories but they are related to each other. Multiple

intelligences and learning styles are the same factors that may affect the students

learning performance. To help the students improve their performance, the

researchers believe that it is a necessity to know their dominant learning styles and

identify their preferred learning styles.

33


34/80

CHAPTER 3

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of data.

PROBLEM 1. Determine the dominant multiple intelligences in terms of verbal-linguistic, mathematical-logical; visual-spatial; bodily-kinesthetic;musical-rhythmic; interpersonal; intrapersonal; and naturalist.

TABLE 1

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF VERBAL-LINGUISTIC

INDICATORS WEIGHTED MEAN STD DEVN VERBALDESCRIPTION

1. I love to read. 3.99 0.78 Dominant2. I like to tell andlisten to jokes.

4.14 0.84 Dominant

3. I just knowwhen thingssound right.

3.88 0.83 Dominant

4. I like wordsthat are fun tosee.

3.93 0.88 Dominant

5. I like to writestories andpoems.

3.11 1.02 Moderatelydominant

Overall 3.81 0.59 Dominant

Table 1 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of verbal-linguistic. As

shown, the overall mean (3.81) verbally described as dominant, it means that verbal

linguistic intelligence is one of the dominant intelligences among the education

students.

The highest mean (4.14) falls in item 2 (I like to tell and listen to jokes)

verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.11) falls in

item 5 (I like to write stories and poems) verbally described as moderately

dominant.

34


35/80

The data in the highest mean reveals that most of the education students

who like to tell and listen to jokes are verbal-linguistic intelligent. As cited by Brown

and Mayer, 2008 in their journal Children and Libraries that verbal-linguistic

people like to work with language and can use it appropriately in writing or

speaking. Most likely, they enjoyed to tell and listen to funny stories.

The data in the lowest mean reveals that some of the education students

who like to write stories and poems are verbal-linguistic intelligent. Brown and

Mayers, 2008 pointed out in their journal that verbal-linguistic people also like to

write but not as much as they like to talk.

"Linguistic Intelligence", however, appears to have greater implications for

auditory and speech modalities because Gardner includes "meanings of words and

different functions of language" under this "intelligence."

TABLE 2

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF MATHEMATICAL-LOGICAL

35


36/80

INDICATORS WEIGHTEDMEAN

STD DEVN VERBALDESCRIPTION

1. I love mysteries, puzzles,and games.

4.06 1.03 Dominant

2. I like reading science

fiction and abouttechnological discoveries.

3.55 1.07 Dominant

3. I think it is fun to workwith numbers andproblems.

4.01 1.28 Dominant

4. I like things organized inpatterns and groups.


5. I like computers andworking with them.

3.41 1.10 Dominant


Table 2 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of mathematical-logical. As

shown, the overall mean (3.68) verbally described as dominant.

The highest mean (4.06) falls in item 1 (I love mysteries, puzzles, and

games) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.36)

falls in item 4 (I like things organized in patterns and groups) verbally described as

moderately dominant.

The data in the highest mean reveals that most of the mathematical- logical

intelligent education students love mysteries, puzzles, and games. Studies have

emerged from investigators in intellectually related fields that identify intellectual

functioning (cognition), as central to theories of personality. The growth of individual

personality is viewed as a process that is shaped by the individual's assessment of

their social context, with the application of problem solving and reasoning at its core

(Kelly, 1955; Mischel, 1973; Bandura, 1986).

The data in the lowest mean reveals that some of the mathematical- logical

intelligent students like computers and working with them.

36


37/80


38/80

TABLE 3

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF VISUAL-SPATIAL

INDICATORS WEIGHTED MEAN STD DEVN VERBALDESCRIPTION1. I like to go newplaces and I doso easily.

3.75 1.00 Dominant

2. I notice other peoples clothesand personalities.

3.35 1.00 Dominant

3. I can find myway around citiesand personalities.

3.25 1.21 Dominant

4. I alwaysdoodling or drawing whilethinking andlistening.

3.80 0.97 Dominant

5. I enjoy TV,videos, andmovies.

4.16 0.89 Dominant


Table 3 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of visual-spatial. As shown,

the overall mean (3.66) verbally described as dominant. The highest mean (4.16)

falls in item 5 (I enjoy TV, videos, and movies) verbally described as dominant. On

the other hand, the lowest mean (3.25) falls in item 3 (I can find my way around

cities and personalities) verbally described as dominant.

The data in the highest mean reveals that most of the education students who are

visual- spatial intelligent enjoy TV videos, and movies. The data in the lowest mean

on the other hand reveals that most likely visual-spatial intelligent can find their

ways around cities and personalities.

Concerning the cognitive style Breadth of Categorization-- sometimes

referred to as Conceptual Differentiation, Kogan describes it as: When a person is

38


39/80

made aware of the central-tendency or is given a focal exemplar of a particular

category, wide individual variation has been observed in the setting of boundary

limitations for that category. Some individuals are relatively narrow in the sense of

rejecting instances that, in their subjective opinion, stray too far from the central or

focal value; others are able to accommodate a broader range of instances of

subjectively setting category boundaries a considerable distance from the central-

tendency or vocal exemplar (Kogan, 1976, p.60).

TABLE 4

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF BODILY-KINESTHETIC


39


40/80

1. I am wellcoordinated andmove abouteasily.

4.15 0.85 Dominant

2. I like to tinker

with things andfix them.

3.37 1.20 Moderately

dominant3. I often movemy hands andbody while I talk.

3.33 1.16 Dominant

4. I like gameslike charades andhamming it up.


5. I have hobbiesthat let me buildand make things.

4.20 0.90 Dominant


Table 4 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of bodily-kinesthetic. As

shown, the overall mean (3.65) verbally described as dominant.

The highest mean (4.20) falls in item 5 (I have hobbies that let me build and

make things) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean

(3.20) falls in item 4 (I like games like charades and hamming it up) verbally

described as moderately dominant.

The data in the highest mean reveals that most of the bodily- kinesthetic

intelligent education students have hobbies that let them build and make things.

The data in the lowest mean reveals that some of the education students who move

their hands while they talk, are bodily-kinesthetic intelligent.

A study conducted in Syracuse, New York public schools reported that

black children from moderate to low income urban environments performed learning

tasks with a more sensor active cognitive style than their white peers (Morgan,

1990). Similar patterns were found among children of Hispanic descent (Ramirez &

Price-Williams 1974; Ramirez & Castaneda, 1974).

40


41/80

In urban school settings that promote quietness and docility, it is often

difficult for black children from moderate and low income families to comply with the

demands made upon them by the system (Witherspoon, 1987). Their behavior can

be termed disruptive when the planned environment lacks the elements which could

accommodate their sensor motor style (Einstein, 1979; Elias, 1979).

41


42/80

TABLE 5

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF MUSICAL-RHYTHMIC

INDICATORS WEIGHTED MEAN STD DEVN VERBALDESCRIPTION1. I sing alongwith music when Ilearn some.

3.65 0.95 Dominant

2. I like to play aninstrument.

3.44 0.84 Dominant

3. I turn on musicwhen it is quiet.

3.56 1.13 Dominant

4. I like to sing,hum, whistle, or tap on the desk.


5. I get songsstuck in myhead.

3.87 0.92 Dominant


Table 5 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of musical-rhythmic. As

shown, the overall mean (3.56) verbally described as dominant. The highest mean

(3.65) falls in item 1 (I sing along with music when I learn some) verbally described

as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.28) falls in item 4 (I like to

sing, hum, whistle, or tap on the desk) verbally described as moderately dominant.


who sing along with music when they learn some are most likely musical-rhythmic

intelligent. On the other hand, the data in the lowest mean reveals that some of

those who like to sing, hum, whistle, or tap on the desk belong to musical-rhythmic

intelligent education learners.

Gardner's "End States" identifies musical intelligence as the capacity to

perform professionally as a violinist and/or composer. Monsaas and Engelhard

(1990) concluded from a study in four talent fields that highly competitive home

42


43/80


44/80

TABLE 6

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF INTERPERSONAL


1. I know whensomeone isupset, angry or depressed.

3.93 0.94 Dominant

2. I sometimesimagine how itwould be to besomeone else.

4.30 0.87 Highly dominant

3. I like to belongto a club or agroup.

3.58 1.03 Dominant

4. I like to be withmy friends and

just hang out.

3.74 0.79 Dominant

5. When I meetnew people, I aminterested tolearn about them.



Table 6 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of interpersonal. As shown,

the overall mean (3.74) verbally described as dominant.

The highest mean (4.30) falls in item 2 (I sometimes imagine how it would be

to be someone else) verbally described as highly dominant. On the other hand, the

lowest mean (3.17) falls in item 5 (When I meet new people, I am interested to

learn about them) verbally described as moderately dominant.


who sometimes imagine how it would be to be someone else are interpersonal

intelligent. On the other hand, the data in the lowest mean reveals that most likely

44


45/80


46/80


1. I keep a diaryor journal andwrite down my

thoughts.


2. I need quiettime by myself.

4.07 1.15 Dominant

3. I like to dothings by myself.

4.06 1.09 Dominant

4. I know what Ilike and what Imcapable of.

4.30 0.84 Highly dominant

5. I like achallenge and setgoals for myself.

4.06 0.90 Dominant


Table 7 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of intrapersonal. As shown,

the overall mean (3.92) verbally described as dominant.

The highest mean (4.30) falls in item 4 (I know what I like and what Im

capable of) verbally described as highly dominant. On the other hand, the lowest

mean (3.09) falls in item 1 (I keep a diary or journal and write down my thoughts)

verbally described as moderately dominant.

The data in the highest mean reveals those who know what they like and

what they are capable of. The data in the lowest mean reveals that some education

students who keep a diary or journal and write down their thoughts are good in

intrapersonal aspects.

Gurian, et. Al;2005, in their papers noted that intrapersonal people

understand their own strengths and weaknesses. They know themselves well and

often spend time in self-reflection.

Another positive comparison with Gardner's inter/intrapersonal intelligence

can be found in the work of Bieri (1961) who identified the bimodal cognitive style

46


47/80

labeled Cognitive Complexity vs. Cognitive Simplicity. These constructs are defined

as the cognitive process utilized by individuals in defining their personal and social

world. This compares with Gardner's "capacities to discern and respond

appropriately to the moods, temperaments, and desires of other people." Work by

others expanded the Cognitive Complexity psychological style to include the nature

of individual choices and their associated values (Signell, 1966; Kogan, 1971).

TABLE 8

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF NATURALIST


1. I likecollections andsaving things.

4.16 0.91 Dominant

2. I love being 3.96 0.97 Dominant

47


48/80

outdoors andenjoying theworld.3. I like to listento the birds

singing and thecrickets chirping.

3.75 1.05 Dominant

4. I like to putthings incategories andclassify them.

3.64 1.09 Dominant

5. I know a lotabout animalsand plants.

4.08 0.94 Dominant


Table 8 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of naturalist. As shown, the

overall mean (3.92) verbally described as dominant. The highest mean (4.16) falls

in item 1 (I like collections and saving things ) verbally described as dominant. On

the other hand, the lowest mean (3.64) falls in item 4(I like to put things in

categories and classify them) verbally described as dominant.


who like collections and saving things are naturalist. On the other hand, the lowest

mean reveals that those who like put things in categories and classify them are also

naturalist. Booth and Hockey, 2002, noted in their papers that naturalist people are

highly observant about their environment and can classify and organize what they

see. They may be able to differentiate between different types of flowers, birds, or

even architectural styles in buildings.

In problem 1, the data in the above tables show that the eight multiple

intelligences are dominant among the education students which means that the

education students are multiple intelligent. Based on the results, most of the

education students excel in intrapersonal and naturalist which have the highest with

48


49/80

the overall mean of 3.92. This implies that most of the education students have a

good access to one's own feelings and have the ability to discriminate among them

and draw upon them to guide behavior; knowledge of one's own strengths,

weaknesses, desires, and intelligences. Most of the education students are persons

with detailed accurate self-knowledge . The results implies that as naturalists, most

of the education students learn best when the subject involves collecting and

analyzing, or is closely related to something prominent in nature; they also don't

enjoy learning unfamiliar or seemingly useless subjects with little or no connections

to nature.

The results are supported by what Gardner emphasized that it is important to

note that, without exception, each intelligence received a higher importance than

effectiveness rating for each content area. This may not be as dire a situation as it

appears at first blush-In his recent formulations, Gardner (1999, p. 334) makes an

important distinction between "means of acquiring information" and "material to be

mastered." He suggests that a specific intelligence can be a tool or way of learning

even when the educational intent is not to develop the intelligence. The results are

somewhat similar also to the studies with the Teele Inventory for Multiple

Intelligence (Teele, 1996; Rhina, 2001) which have revealed some interesting data

that could affect the way instruction is provided at different grade levels. Students at

the primary level demonstrated a much stronger preference for linguistic and

logical-mathematical intelligences than students at the middle and high school

levels. Primary students' most dominant intelligences were spatial, bodily-

kinesthetic, linguistic and logical-mathematical while upper elementary students

were spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and musical. Middle and high school

49


50/80

students were strongest in interpersonal, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial and musical

intelligences.

Teele (1994) noted that linguistic intelligence was the strongest from

kindergarten through to fourth grade and then dramatically declined. Logical-

mathematical intelligence was strongest from first through fourth and began to

decline. Spatial and bodily intelligence remained the two most dominant

intelligences throughout elementary school, while spatial intelligence was very

strong in all grades. She also reported that first grade students were lower in

musical and intrapersonal intelligences until they went to high school. The study

conducted by Teele (1994) demonstrated that students enter school at primary level

strong in both linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences and leave high

school level with those two areas sharply in decline, even though those are the two

intelligences that are predominate in schools. If schools are to provide opportunities

for all students to learn and develop the ability to read, write and compute, then

instruction must be presented in ways that address the students' dominant

intelligences. This enables students to process information through their strengths

and then translates into the less dominant intelligences.

The translation process is a way to empower students, enabling them to

learn through their dominant intelligences while also strengthening their weaker

intelligences. Teele also argued that when teachers are able to present information

through all seven intelligences, all students can engage in the learning process and

gain strength in all of the intelligences.

50


51/80

TABLE 9

SUMMARY OF THE TABLES

DOMINANT MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES

INDICATORS WEIGHTEDMEAN

STANDARDDEVIATION

VERBALDESCRIPTION

VERBAL-LINGUISTIC 3.81 0.59 DominantMATHEMATICAL-

LOGICAL3.68 0.80 Dominant

VISUAL-SPATIAL 3.66 0.56 DominantBODILY-KINESTHETIC 3.65 0.65 DominantMUSICAL-RHYTHMIC 3.56 0.64 Dominant

INTERPERSONAL 3.74 0.58 Dominant

INTRAPERSONAL 3.92 0.73 DominantNATURALIST 3.92 0.62 Dominant

51


52/80

PROBLEM 2.Determine the learning styles in terms of auditory, kinesthetic or

tactile, verbal and visual.

TABLE 10

LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF AUDITORY


1. I remember more about asubject throughlistening thanreading.

3.75 0.87 Dominant

2. I can tell if sounds matchwhen presented

with pairs of sounds.

3.90 0.83 Dominant

3. I do better atacademicsubjects bylistening tolectures andtapes instead of reading books.

4.14 0.81 Dominant

4. I would rather listen to a good

lecture or speechthan read aboutthe samematerial.

3.70 0.91 Dominant

5. I prefer listening to thenews on the radiothan reading

3.86 0.94 Dominant

52


53/80

about it in thenewspaper.6. I follow oraldirections better than written ones.


Overall 3.77 0.55 DominantTable 10 shows the learning styles in terms of auditory. As shown, the overall

mean (3.77) verbally described as dominant.

The highest mean (4.14) falls in item 3 (I do better at academic subjects by

listening to lectures and tapes instead of reading books ) verbally described as

dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.30) falls in item 6 (I follow oral

directions better than written ones) verbally moderately dominant.


who do better at academic subjects by listening to lectures and tapes instead of

reading books are auditory learners. On the other hand the data in the lowest mean

reveals that some of those who follow oral directions better than written ones are

auditory learners too.

As noted by Pyryt, and Sandals, et al, 1998 in their Journal of Research that

Auditory learners are those who learn best through hearing things. Auditory learners

even like to read to self out loud, are not afraid to speak in class, like oral reports,

are good at explaining and follow spoken directions well.

53


54/80


55/80


who enjoy working with tools are kinesthetic learners. The data in the lowest mean

reveals that some of those who feel very comfortable touching others (handshaking)

are also kinesthetic learners.

Beck, 2001 in his paper cited that about 10% of the general population is

kinesthetic learners. They prefer to learn by getting their body into action and

moving around. They are hands-on types who prefer doing to talking. Dunn, Rita

in her journal pointed out that the younger the children, the more likely they learn

tactually (by touching and manipulating resources) or kinesthetically (by

experiencing; Dunn and Dunn 1992, 1993; Dunn and Perrin 1994).

55


56/80

TABLE 12

LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF VERBAL

INDICATORS WEIGHTED MEAN STD DEVN VERBALDESCRIPTION1. I enjoy readinggraphs, grids,chart anddiagrams.


2. I prefer to havean oralexplanation of diagrams andgraphs.

3.63 0.95 Dominant

3. I canunderstand andfollow directionsby reading maps.


4. I learn to spellbetter byrepeating theletters of theword out loudthan by writingthe word in paper.

3.68 1.16 Dominant

5. I can better understand anduse article byreading about inthe newspaper than by listeningto the radio.


6. I like to obtaininformation oninterestingsubject byreading relevant

materials.


Overall 3.32 0.57 Moderatelydominant

Table 12 shows the learning styles in terms of verbal. As shown, the overall

mean (3.32) verbally described as moderately dominant.

56


57/80

The highest mean (3.68) falls in item 4 (I learn to spell better by repeating

the letters of the word out loud than by writing the word in paper) verbally

described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (2.93) falls in item 3 (I

can understand and follow directions by reading maps .) verbally described as



who learn to spell better by repeating the letters of the word out loud than the word

in paper are verbal learners. On the other hand, the data in the lowest mean reveals

that including those who can understand and follow directions by reading maps can

be considered as verbal learners.

As pointed out by Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1990), verbal learners are

involved both in the written and spoken word. They find it easy to express

themselves both in writing and verbally. They love reading and writing. They like

playing on the meaning or sound of words, such as in tongue twisters, rhymes,

limericks and the like. They know the meaning of many words, and regularly make

an effort to find the meaning of new words and use these words, as well as phrases

they have picked up recently, when talking to others.

57


58/80

TABLE 13

LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF VISUAL

INDICATORS WEIGHTED MEAN STD DEVN VERBALDESCRIPTION1. I try toremember something bypicturing it in myhead.


2. I like to writethings down or take notes for visual review.


3. I remember best by writingthings downseveral times.


4. I follow writtendirections better than oraldirections.

3.80 0.73 Dominant

5. I am good atworking andsolving jigsawpuzzles andmazes.


6. I prefer reviewing writtenmaterials insteadof discussing thesubject matter.


Overall 3.38 0.50 Moderatelydominant

Table 13 shows the learning styles in terms of visual. As shown, the overall

mean (3.38) verbally described as moderately dominant.

The highest mean (3.80) falls in item 4 (I follow written directions better than

oral directions.) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest

58


59/80

mean (3.19) falls in item 1 (I try to remember something by picturing it in my head)

verbally describe as moderately dominant.


who are visual learners follow written directions better than oral directions. The data

in the lowest mean reveals that those who try to remember something by picturing it

in their head can be considered also as visual learners in some extent.

As emphasized by Linda Kreger Silverman. Ph.D. in her journal, visual-

spatial learners are individuals who think in pictures rather than in words. They

have a different brain organization than auditory-sequential learners. They learn

better visually than auditorally. They learn all-at-once, and when the light bulb goes

on, the learning is permanent. They do not learn from repetition and drill. They are

whole-part learners who need to see the big picture first before they learn the

details. They are non-sequential, which means that they do not learn in the step-by-

step manner in which most teachers teach. They arrive at correct solutions without

taking steps, so show your work may be impossible for them. They may have

difficulty with easy tasks, but show amazing ability with difficult, complex tasks.

They are systems thinkers who can orchestrate large amounts of information from

different domains, but they often miss the details. They tend to be organizationally

impaired and unconscious about time. They are often gifted creatively,

technologically, mathematically or emotionally.

The above data in problem 2 reveals that most of the education students

prefer auditory learning style since based on the overall results the dominant

learning style is auditory and the three learning styles are determined to be

59


60/80


61/80

TABLE 14

SUMMARY OF TABLESLEARNING STYLES

INDICATORS WEIGHTED STANDARD VERBAL

61


62/80

MEAN DEVIATION DESCRIPTIONAUDITORY 3.77 0.55 Dominant

KINESTHETIC 3.27 0.54 Moderatelydominant

VERBAL 3.32 0.57 Moderately

dominantVISUAL 3.38 0.50 Moderatelydominant

CHAPTER 4SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary, findings, conclusions, and

recommendations of the study.

62


63/80

SUMMARY

This study was conducted to determine the dominant multiple intelligences

and preferred learning styles of the Education students of Liceo de Cagayan

University.

The descriptive method of research was used in which a standardized

questionnaire was the primary tool used in acquiring the data.

The study was conducted at Liceo de Cagayan University campus with one

hundred eighty (180) Education students as respondents and subject of the study.

The questionnaires were personally distributed to the student respondents by

the researchers. Some instructions were explained before the respondents were

allowed to answer.

After retrieving the questionnaires, the data were statistically tested,

analyzed and interpreted using the frequency counts, weighted mean, standard

deviation, their relationship and analysis of the variance.

SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

The findings of the study are summarized as follows:

In terms of verbal linguistic intelligence, the overall mean is (3.81)

verbally described as dominant, which means that verbal linguistic intelligence is

one of the dominant intelligences among the education students. The highest mean

(4.14) falls in item 2 (I like to tell and listen to jokes) verbally described as

dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.11) falls in item 5 (I like to write

stories and poems) verbally described as moderately dominant.

63


64/80

In terms of mathematical-logical , the overall mean (3.68) verbally described

as dominant. The highest mean (4.06) falls in item 1 (I love mysteries, puzzles, and

games) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.36)

falls in item 4 (I like things organized in patterns and groups) verbally described as


In terms of visual-spatial , the overall mean (3.66) verbally described as

dominant. The highest mean (4.16) falls in item 5 (I enjoy TV, videos, and movies)

verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.25) falls in

item 3 (I can find my way around cities and personalities) verbally described as

dominant.

In terms of bodily-kinesthetic , the overall mean (3.65) verbally described as

dominant. The highest mean (4.20) falls in item 5 (I have hobbies that let me build

and make things) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest

mean (3.20) falls in item 4 (I like games like charades and hamming it up)


In terms of musical-rhythmic , the overall mean (3.56) verbally described as

dominant. The highest mean (3.65) falls in item 1 (I sing along with music when I

learn some) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean

(3.28) falls in item 4 (I like to sing, hum, whistle, or tap on the desk) verbally


In terms of interpersonal , the overall mean (3.74) verbally described as

dominant. The highest mean (4.30) falls in item 2 (I sometimes imagine how it

would be to be someone else) verbally described as highly dominant. On the other

64


65/80

hand, the lowest mean (3.17) falls in item 5 (When I meet new people, I am

interested to learn about them) verbally described as moderately dominant.

In terms of intrapersonal , the overall mean (3.92) verbally described as

dominant. The highest mean (4.30) falls in item 4 (I know what I like and what Im

capable of) verbally described as highly dominant. On the other hand, the lowest

mean (3.09) falls in item 1 (I keep a diary or journal and write down my thoughts)


In terms of naturalist , the overall mean (3.92) verbally described as

dominant. The highest mean (4.16) falls in item 1 (I like collections and saving

things ) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.64)

falls in item 4(I like to put things in categories and classify them) verbally

described as dominant.

In terms of auditory , the overall mean (3.77) verbally described as dominant.

The highest mean (4.14) falls in item 3 (I do better at academic subjects by

listening to lectures and tapes instead of reading books ) verbally described as

dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.30) falls in item 6 (I follow oral

directions better than written ones) verbally moderately dominant.

In terms of kinesthetic , the overall mean (3.27) verbally described as

moderately dominant. The highest mean (3.50) falls in item 2 (I enjoy working with

tools) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (2.65)

falls in item 6 (I feel very comfortable touching others (handshaking) verbally


In terms of verbal , the overall mean (3.32) verbally described as moderately

dominant. The highest mean (3.68) falls in item 4 (I learn to spell better by

65


66/80


67/80


68/80

the naturalist learners. On the other hand, mathematical-logical, bodily-kinesthetic,

and naturalist intelligent learners rarely preferred verbal learning style. Then, the

findings revealed that visual learning style is commonly used but then this is not

best suited to develop most of the multiple intelligences of the learners except the

naturalist.

RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of the results of this study, the researchers suggest the

following:

1. The Education students should engage in co-curricular and extra-cur-

ricular activities to enhance their way of learning by thinking of ways on

how to deal with things, how to accomplish things, finding ways to work

with other students, understanding ideas and concepts and exploring

things related to real life situation.

2. The teachers must approach a concept, subject matter or discipline in a

variety of ways, not necessarily eight ways, but in a number of ways that

prove pedagogically appropriate for the topic at hand and that would en-

68


69/80

hance the dominant multiple intelligences and preferred learning style of

the learners as well as develop their less dominant intelligence and less

preferred learning style.

3. The Education student must develop all their multiple intelligences and try

to practice the different learning style for as future teacher, these are all

important in catering the needs of the learners who also have different

multiple intelligences and learning style. These could be done by explor-

ing things around, reading books, be an active participant in any activities

and express themselves the best way they can.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. BOOK

Breitborde, Marry-Lou; Louse Boyle Swiniarski. (2006 Teaching on Principleand Promise. USA. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Chapman, Carolyn; King, Rita. (2005). Differentiated Assessment Strategies: OneTool Doesnt Fit All. USA. Corwin Press.

Gayle, Gregory H. (2005). Differentiating Instruction with Styles: AligningTeachers and Learner Intelligences. USA. Corwin Press.

Kumar, Ranjit. (1996) Research Methodology: A step by step guide for Beginners. Australia . Addison Wesley Longman.

Lucas, Maria Rita; Brenda Corpuz. (2007). Facilitating Learning: A MetacognitiveProcess. Quezon City. Lorimar Publishing, Inc.

Mac Gil Christ, Barbara; Jane Reed; Kate Mayers. (2004), 2 nd edition. TheIntelligent School. London. SAGE Publication.

B. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

Aguinaldo; et al. Learning Styles of Radiologic Technology Students in

69


70/80

Liceo de Cagayan University March, 2006

Ponce; et al. Creative Teaching Activities Among Elementary SchoolTeachers. March,2007

C. JOURNAL

The Journal of Educational Research Volume 101 number 2,November/December 2007

D. DICTIONARY

Mirriam, Webster. Mirriam Webster Dictionary. Mirriam (2001). USA.Websters Inc.

Morehead, Philip The New American Rogets College Thesaurus. USA.(1985 ). Penguin Group

Signet The New American Desk Encyclopedia 3 rd edition. (1993). USA.Penguin Group.

WEBLIOGRAPHY

Giles, E., Pitre, S., Womack, S. (2003). Multiple intelligences and learning stylesemerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved:September 10, 2008 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/.

Silver, H.F., and R.W. Strong. (1997). Teaching for multiple intelligences.Retrieved: September 5,2008 from http://www . Ascd.org/authors/ed l ead/el199709 silver.html

A'isha, Azar. (2003). Multiple intelligences: An informative paper for teachers of dance.Retrieved September 18, 2008 fromhttp://www.raqsazar.com/mi.html.

Theory of multiple intelligence. Retrieved: September 8, 2008 fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.

70


71/80

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE

Name:____________________________________ Date:_________________

Part 1. Multiple Intelligences Inventory (Patterned from Gayle H. Gregory,2005)Directions: Please encircle the numbers that best describes you.

1. I love to read.

2. I sing along with music when you learn some.

3. I love mysteries, puzzles, and games.

4. I like to go to new places and you do so easily.

5. I am well coordinated and move about easily.

6. I like collections and saving things.

7. I keep a diary or journal and write down your thoughts.

8. I know when someone is upset, angry, or depressed.

9. I like to tell and listen to jokes.

10. I like to play an instrument.

71


72/80

11. I like reading science fiction and about technological discoveries.

12. I notice o her peoples clothes and personal things.

13. I like to tinker with things and fix them.

14. I love being outdoors and enjoying the world.

15. I need quiet time by myself.

16. I sometimes imagine how it would be someone else.

17. I just know when things sound right.

18. I turn on music when its quiet.

19. I think it is fun to work with numbers and problems.

20. I can find your way around cities and buildings.

21. I often move your hands and your body while you talk.

22. I like to listen to the birds singing and the crickets chirping.

23. I like to do things by myself.

24. I like to belong to a club or a group.

25. I like words that are fun to say.

26. I like to sing, hum, whistle, or tap on the desk.

27. I like things organize in patterns and groups.

28. I am always doodling or drawing while thinking and listening.

29. I like games like characters and hamming it up.

30. I like to put things in categories and classified them.

31. I know what I like and what Im capable of.

32. I like to be with friends and just hang out.

33. I like to write stories and poems.

34. I get songs Stuck in your head.

72


73/80

35. I like computers and working with them.

36. I enjoy TV, videos, and movies.

37. I have hobbies that let you build and make things.

38. I know a lot about animals and plants.

39. I like a challenge and set goals for myself.

40. When I met new people, I am interested to learn about them.

73


74/80

Part II. Learning Style Inventory (Patterned from Barsch Learning Style byJeffry Barsch, Ed. D. , 2007)

Verbal Interpretation5 Almost Always4 Usually3 Sometimes2 Seldom1 Almost Never

Directions : Check the appropriate column that best describes you.

Indicators 5 4 3 2 11. I remember more about a subject throughlistening than reading.2. I follow written directions better than oraldirections.3. I like to write things down or take notes for visual review.4. I bear down extremely hard with pen or pencil in writing.5. I enjoy working with tools.6. I enjoy reading graphs, grids, chart anddiagrams.7. I prefer to have an oral explanation of diagrams and graphs.8. I can tell if sounds match when presentedwith pairs of sounds9. I remember best by writing things downseveral times10. I can understand and follow directions byreading maps.11. I do better at academic subjects bylistening to lectures and tapes instead of reading books.12. I like to play with coins and keys in mypockets.13. I learn to spell better by repeating theletters of the word out loud than by writing theword in paper.14. I can better understand and used articleby reading about in the newspaper than bylistening to the radio.

74


75/80

15. I like to chew gum or eat snacks whilestudying.16. I try to remember something by picturing itin my head.17. I learn to spell a new word by tracing a

word with a finger.18. I would rather listen to a good lecture or speech than read about the same material.19. I am good at working and solving jigsawpuzzles and mazes.20. I prefer reviewing written materialsinstead of discussing the subject matter.21. I prefer listening to the new on the radiothan reading about it in the newspapers.22. I like to obtain information on interestingsubject by reading r

Documents

For Final Hehe