ESL teachers' multiple intelligences and teaching strategies: Is there a linkage?

Abstract

The multiple intelligences (MI) theory has been widely applied to literacy education and English as a second language (ESL) teaching in informing curriculum development and instructional strategies. Using the framework that intelligence shapes human behavior, this study examines the correlations between ESL teachers' MI preferences and their use of MI‐framed teaching strategies in the ESL classroom. Data collected from 67 ESL teachers in a midwestern U.S. state by completing the Intelligence Index and the MI‐Framed Teaching Strategies Index were analyzed using Pearson correlations. Results indicate that ESL teachers used linguistic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal teaching strategies more frequently. The strength of the relationships between ESL teachers' self‐perceived MI domains and their uses of the relevant MI‐framed teaching strategies were weak or not significant. Whether such linkage actually exists may also depend on the experiential, motivational, and contextual factors of the instructional settings. Discussion of results includes the specific levels of the paired relationships examined and their implications for ESL teaching and teacher education.

A Conceptual Analysis of the Semantic Use of Multiple Intelligences Theory and Implications for Teacher Education

“…When testing MI theory to ascertain if it holds validity in assessing instructional strategies aligned to its concept of multiple intelligences, many studies have found no widespread statistical correlation or validity in MI theory’s concepts of multiple intelligences and instructional strategies aligned to those purported intelligences (e.g., Waterhouse, 2006 ; Willingham et al, 2015 ; Luo and Huang, 2019 ). However, some case studies have found statistical significance for some of the MI domains (e.g., Dolati and Tahriri, 2017 ; Yidana et al, 2022 ), or partial significance for one but not the other domains (e.g., Rogowsky et al, 2015 ).…”

“…Some studies that emphasized qualitative observation in assessment practices and semantically infer that the use of the word intelligences is practically synonymous with preferences suggest more positive results, though not generalizable (e.g., Mokhtar et al, 2008 ; Baş and Beyhan, 2010 ). However, when testing MI theory’s application in how assessment of student learning is conducted in an MI theory-based curriculum, findings from studies suggest ambiguity or little scientific foundation for MI theory ( Luo and Huang, 2019 ). This, taken together with other studies that raise questions of MI theory’s generalizable significance or lack of correlation between it and assessment strategies based upon it ( Waterhouse, 2006 ; Willingham et al, 2015 ), provide additional support for explicit direct instruction (EDI) in the teaching of English as a second language, as well as in the teaching of several other content areas.…”

“…This is despite the long-standing critical debate on the theory’s efficacy and validity from the technical perspectives of educational psychologists ( Schulte et al, 2004 ; Bordelon and Banbury, 2005 ; Visser et al, 2006 ; Waterhouse, 2006 ; McGreal, 2013 ; Rogowsky et al, 2015 ; Willingham et al, 2015 ; Rousseau, 2021 ). Additionally, a study by Luo and Huang (2019) of English as a second language (ESL) teachers’ self-perception of MI theory and the uses of the defined multiple intelligences found either ambiguity or no significant correlation between MI theory and its instructional strategies, further supporting the critics of MI theory based on it not having statistical validity. These findings prompt the question of why?…”

“…While most of the critique of MI theory is in the technical use of the word “intelligences” and the testing of MI theory’s validity in correlating the intelligences to teaching and learning that have found no correlation between MI theory and its instructional strategies (e.g., Schulte et al, 2004 ; Visser et al, 2006 ; Waterhouse, 2006 ; Rogowsky et al, 2015 ; Willingham et al, 2015 ; Luo and Huang, 2019 ), there are a number of studies that demonstrated favorable findings that partially validate MI theory, though there are qualifying limitations (e.g., Mokhtar et al, 2008 ; Furnham, 2009 ; Wu and Alrabah, 2009 ; Dolati and Tahriri, 2017 ; Prast et al, 2018 ; Yidana et al, 2022 ). However, Pashler et al (2008) suggested that some studies that suggest favorable findings of learning styles theories there might be ambiguity in the study design leading to inconclusive findings.…”

Gardner Intelligence in Physics Students in Maluku, Indonesia

“…GI theory extends the traditional view of intelligence beyond verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe it as an educational philosophy or attitude to changing the way people think about learning (Luo & Huang, 2019).…”