2397891

BARILANUNIVERSITY
The Relationship between Learning Styles

and Multiple Intelligences among Gifted and
Non-Gifted Students
Zina Moshebuyev
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters

Degree in the School of Education
Bar-Ilan University
Ramat-Gan, Israel
2015
This work was carried out under the supervision of
Dr. Itzhak Weiss and Dr. Josef Klein

School of Education, Bar-Ilan University
Acknowledgments
IwouldliketoacknowledgemydeepestgratitudetoDr.Itzhak
Weiss and Dr. Josef Klein for their professional and dedicated
guidancethroughoutthestudy.
Myheartfeltgratitudegoestomybelovedfamilyforyearsof
patience,supportandunderstanding.Tomyfatherandmother,
Ithankyouforthepricelessencouragementyouhavegivenme.
Iwouldalsoowedeepestthankstomyhusbandandmydear
childrenfortheirconstantsupport,patienceandstrengthsto
completethisstudy.
TableofContents
Abstract
Chapter 1- Theoretical Background

Introduction
Literature Review
Giftedness
What is a Style?
Definitions of Learning styles
10
The Dunn and Dunn Model
12
Learning Style Researches in Gifted Students
15
Multiple Intelligence
16
Approaches to Understanding Intelligence
16
Multiple Forms of Intelligence
20
Multiple Intelligence Theory
21
Intelligence Types in Multiple Intelligence Theory
23
Multiple Intelligence Differences by Group
25
Multiple Intelligence Differences by Gender
26
Relationship between Intelligences and Styles
27
Chapter 2- Methodology
The Purpose of the Study
29
Research Questions and Hypotheses
31
Method
33
Participants
33
Research Variables
33
Instruments
33
Procedure
34
Chapter 3- Research Findings

Data analysis for the Study Measures
35
Descriptive Statistics
35
Research Question 1: Are there differences between gifted and non-gifted
37
students as related to learning style? Univariate Analysis of Variance

(ANOVA)
44
students as related to multiple intelligence? Univariate Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA)
Research Question 3: Is there a correlation between learning styles and
53
multiple intelligences? Matrix correlation analysis

Hierarchical Regression Analysis
57
Chapter 4 Discussion
63
students as related to learning style?

66
students as related to Multiple Intelligence?

Hypotheses 3: Relationships between learning styles and multiple
69
intelligences in both groups

Hierarchical Regression Analysis
71
Chapter 5 Conclusion
Conclusion
73
Limitations and Recommendation for Future Research
74
Practical Implications
75
Bibliography
76
Appendixes
88
Appendix 1: Dunn & Dunn Learning Styles Questionnaire (1996)
89
Appendix 2: Details of the components of the learning style questionnaire
92
Appendix 3: Mackenzie Multiple Intelligences Questionnaire (1999,2002)
93
Appendix 4: Details of the components of the multiple intelligence
98
questionnaire
List of Tables
Table 1: Descriptive statistics
36
Table 2: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of gender by age in

the visual learning style
38
Table 3: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of gender by group in

the visual learning style
39

the auditory learning style
40

the tactile learning style
43

the spatial intelligence
44

the linguistic intelligence
46
Table 8: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of age by group in the

natural intelligence
50
Table 9: Summary table of analyses of variance (ANOVA)
52
Table 10: Results of the matrix correlation analysis between learning

styles and multiple intelligences
53
Table 11: Results of the matrix correlation analysis between learning
56
styles and multiple intelligences for gifted and non-gifted groups
54
Table 12: Summary table of the matrix correlation analyses

Table 13: Results of regression analysis predicting auditory learning style
among non-gifted group by demographic variables and multiple
57
intelligence
Table 14: Results of regression analysis predicting auditory learning style
among gifted group by demographic variables and multiple intelligence
Table 15: Results of regression analysis predicting visual learning style
among non-gifted group by demographic variables and multiple
58
intelligence
59
Table 16: Results of regression analysis predicting visual learning style

60
Table 17: Results of regression analysis predicting tactile learning style

61
Table 18: Summary table of the hierarchic regression analysis predicting

learning styles among gifted and non-gifted by demographic variables and
multiple intelligence
62
Table 19: Factors of the Dunn & Dunn (1996) instrument
92
Table 20: Factors of the Mackenzie (1999, 2002) instrument
98
List of Figures
Figure 1: Means interaction of visual learning style of gender by age
38
Figure 2: Means interaction of visual learning style of gender by group
39
Figure 3: Means interaction of auditory learning style of gender by group
41
Figure 4: Means of gender in tactile learning style
42
Figure 5: Means of group in tactile learning style
42
Figure 6: Means interaction of tactile learning style of gender by group
43
Figure 7: Means interaction of spatial intelligence of gender by group
45
Figure 8: Means interaction of linguistic intelligence of gender by group
47
Figure 9: Means of gender in interpersonal intelligence
48
Figure 10: Means interaction of natural intelligence of age by group
50
Figure 11: Means of gender in logic-mathematics intelligence
52
Abstract
Learning styles and multiple intelligences have been investigated in the last
decades as important variables that impact the learning processes among
students.
The present study hypothesizes that there will be a strong relationship between
learning styles and their corresponding multiple intelligences among gifted and
non-gifted students. This study aims to find parallels between the two concepts,
learning styles and multiple intelligences, and on the other hand to emphasize
the differences between them as two separate concepts. While trying to
understand individual differences during the learning process, it became clear
that information about general intelligence and personality gives only a partial
explanation. Learning styles and multiple intelligences contribute to a better
understanding of the difference between individuals among the gifted and nongifted in their process of learning. Learning style refers to an individuals natural,
habitual, and preferred ways of absorbing, processing, and retaining new
information and skills (Reid, 1995). The term learning style was a raised at the
beginning of the 20th century and merged into many theories and models ever
since then.
In this paper, we chose to focus on the model that was proposed by Dunn and
Dunn (1993). This model categorizes humans learning process through four
preferences: through visual, auditory, tactile and kinesthetic preferences.
It is important to distinguish between the concept style and close concepts such
as: ability and strategy. These concepts have different meanings. Abilities refer to
competencies and they have specific definitions while styles refer to something
more general.
The literature explains that the awareness to learning style is a part that benefits
the learning processes among the students. Teaching classes in different
learning styles will be significant for a wider range of students learning
preferences. Studies that have been conducted among gifted and non-gifted
students show that the exposure and the awareness to the different learning
styles influence the learning process. Studies also presented gender and group
as influential variables on learning styles.
The multiple theory of Gardner (1983) tries to expand the human potential and
ability beyond the boundaries of general intelligence, which measures
intelligence through the I.Q test. Gardner defines intelligence as ability or abilities
that allows an individual to solve problems or produce products within a defined
social structure. He claims that there are multiple intelligences which exist and
they are independent; it opposes the notion of the existence of just general
intelligence.
The multiple intelligences that are proposed by Gardner are: verbal,
mathematical, logical, spatial, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal
and natural intelligences.
According to Gardners theory all intelligences have the same importance. In
addition, each individual has a different level of multiple intelligences. Finally,
each one of the intelligences has its own course of development.
The theory also relies on three basic principles: first, the intelligence is not only
one entity. Moreover, multiple intelligences do not depend on each other and
finally, there is interaction between the multiple intelligences. The theory of
multiple intelligences and learning styles provide an equal educational
opportunity for a range of learners with different and diverse styles and
intelligences.
The main questions of the study are:
1. Are there differences between gifted and non-gifted students as related to
learning style?
2. Are there differences between gifted and non-gifted students as related to
Multiple Intelligence?
3. Is there a correlation between learning styles and multiple intelligences?
200 students participated in the study. Two groups of Israeli secondary school
students, gifted and non-gifted students, took part in the study. Ages ranged from
12-16 years old. Data was collected on learning styles and multiple intelligences
by two questionnaires, the Learning Style Inventory that was developed by Dunn
II
and Dunn (1996) and the Multiple Intelligences Survey that was developed by
Mackenzie (1999, 2002).
The findings present that there are differences in the preferences of learning
styles between gifted and non-gifted students. The auditory, visual and tactile
learning styles results presented differences in both groups while the kinesthetic
style results showed no significant statistical differences were found in both
groups.
The results have shown significant differences between the gifted and the nongifted as related to the tactile style; the non-gifted students prefer to use the
tactile learning style more than the gifted students. This finding contradicts our
hypothesis, that gifted students will present higher preference for using the tactile
learning style. Price and Milgram (1993) studies reported that kinesthetic and
tactile learning styles discriminated the most between gifted and non-gifted
students, gifted students preferred kinesthetic and tactile more than non-gifted
students because they like to be active participants in the discovery process in
order to be motivated and engaged in class (Rohaizad, Yeop & Anuar, 2008).
These differences of the results may be attributed to the changes that the
educational system in Israel has been making in the methods of teaching at
schools. This method believes that knowledge can be actively constructed by the
students interaction with the world in different ways and encourages the student
to engage in hands-on explorations such as: building models, doing experiments,
and using technology that fuel the constructive learning process and make it
meaningful for him (Papert, 1980).
The findings also show that there are significant statistical differences in the
tactile style due to the gender variable; and when we inquired the differences
separately for the female and the male group, the results indicated that the gifted
female group presents higher preferences in the use of tactile style than the
gifted male group. This finding partially supports our hypotheses because when
we focus on the gifted group, we found that the gifted females are more tactile
than the gifted males. This result is similar with research findings (Alsafi, 2010),
which also indicated that females demonstrated higher preference for tactile style
III
than males.
Another difference that this study has indicated between gifted and non-gifted is
related to visual learning style due to the interaction of age by gender factors.
The differences in results in this style were in favor of the older female group
rather than the younger female group. Wehrwein, Lujan & Dicarlo (2007) in their
study proved that females present higher preference of the visual style. Ozbas
(2014) in his study also proved that the most important difference is beneficial for
the female group.
The results also report a significant difference between gifted and non-gifted as
related to the auditory style due to the interaction of gender by group factors; the
non-gifted male students preferred auditory style more than the gifted male
group. This finding supports our hypothesis claiming that non-gifted students will
present higher preferences for auditory learning styles than the gifted.
It can be concluded that there are significant differences among gifted and nongifted as related to learning styles due to different factors. The innovation in my
study is that the non-gifted students can also be characterized as tactile learners.
In the light of the presented findings of the study, future studies should
investigate more preferences of the tactile learning style among gifted and nongifted.
The findings of the study also confirm that there is a direct correlation between
different multiple intelligences and parallel learning styles. For instance, there is a
significant correlation between spatial intelligence and the visual learning style
and the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence strongly correlates with the kinesthetic
learning style. This confirms our hypothesis which recognizes a clear correlation
between the different multiple intelligences and the corresponded learning styles
in both groups. The findings indicate that correlations do exist in the majority of
the different learning styles and intelligences. These relationships might be set
forth in the other way; that is to say, gifted students with a higher preference for
auditory learning style seem to be stronger in all the intelligences and the nongifted students with higher preference for auditory style seem to be stronger in
linguistic, logical, kinesthetic, naturalistic and spatial intelligences.
IV
These findings are similar to the results of the studies conducted by Seifoori &
Zarei (2011) and Tekiner (2005). The results of these studies also indicate
positive correlations between the learning styles with some of the intelligences.
The results obtained indicate that each participant uses a combination of different
learning modalities to learn effectively. Students with dominant linguistic
intelligence are more sensitive to spoken and written language, they possess the
ability to learn languages easily, and use language to express oneself rhetorically
or poetically; listen and respond, imitate sounds, read, write and take part in
discussions (Campbell, Campbell, & Dickinson, 1996).
Therefore, the use of the different learning styles contributes to this intelligence.
These results also conclude the idea articulated by Nolen (2003) that individuals
possess intelligence to a certain level, but as a result of exposure to specific
social and instructional conditions designed for a certain intelligence type; this
intelligence type develops to a higher level. That is to say, one type of
intelligence becomes stronger while others do not develop fully.
Gardner claimed that intelligence can function as a separate intellectual
intelligence, he also pointed out an integral relationship between a certain
intellectual ability to some other aspects of the intellect.
Gardners theory (1995) also presents correlations between the intelligences.
The fact that Gardner found relationships between different types of intelligences,
explains the correlation between the learning styles and the intelligences. Thus,
the auditory learning style positively correlates with the linguistic intelligence; it
also serves as a resource to other intelligences as well. This explains the results
of the present study.
In conclusion, the results of the hierarchical regression analysis report on a
positive prediction of the auditory style by linguistic intelligence and a negative
prediction of the visual style by musical intelligence. However, the findings
indicate more predictions among the gifted group. This may suggest that among
the gifted, intelligence has more impact on the learning style; the intelligences
are more connected to the learning styles in the gifted group. The auditory style
is predicted by intrapersonal and logical intelligences. The visual style is
V
predicted by spatial intelligence and the tactile style is predicted by linguistic

intelligence. The gifted are more focused and more attended to their intelligences
and that is why it predicts their learning style, while the non-gifted are more
diffused about their intelligences and that is why it does not predict their learning
styles.
These findings have importance in the field of research and implementation.
In the field of research, it is important to clarify that the assessment tools today
are not enough to recognize the exact characteristics of learning styles and
multiple intelligences among gifted and non-gifted. New self-report
questionnaires need to be developed that will allow more accurate identification
of the components of the various learning styles and multiple intelligences. These
questionnaires must include different assignments to investigate what learning
styles must be utilized in order to accomplish the different assignments. This will
predict the differences and the relationships between the two concepts and it
also will be possible to make an accurate assessment of the task components
according to different learning styles and multiple intelligences.
Future research should also integrate classroom observations and interviews
with the students in a longitudinal study to have more valid results; that will allow
more accurate identification.
In addition, this research should be carried out also among adults; the results
may reveal more on the interactions and differences in gifted various non-gifted
students.
VI
Chapter1TheoreticalBackground
Introduction
Thepurposeofthestudyistobringtogethertwomainconceptsthatarebeingexpressedinthe
processoflearning:learningstylesandmultipleintelligences.Theimportanceoftheseconcepts
andtheirimpactsineducationwerearaisedinmanyresearchesintherecentdecades.These
twoconcepts(learningstylesandmultipleintelligences)arebeingdiscussedinstudies,tryingto
investigateandunderstandtheirimpactsonthelearningprocesses.Thepremiseoftheresearch
isthattherearepossibleinterrelationsbetweenlearningstylesandmultipleintelligences.The
aimoftheresearchistoinvestigatetheparallelbetweenlearningstylesandmultiple
intelligencesamonggiftedandnongiftedstudentsontheonehand,whilealsoexaminingthe
twoconceptsseparatelyineachoneofthegroups.
Asitappearsintheliteraturereview,styleisdefinedasapreferredwayofthinkingordoing
things(e.g.,thinking,learning,teaching)(Sternberg&Zhang,2001).Astyleisnotanability,but
ratherapreferenceintheuseoftheabilitiespeoplehave.Gardnerdefinesintelligenceasa
biopsychologicalpotentialtoprocessinformationthatcanbeactivatedinaculturalsettingto
solveproblemsorcreateproductsthatareofvalueinaculture(Gardner,1983).Hebelieves
thatanindividualhasmultipleofintelligencesandtheyareindependent.
InthedifferentmodelsofthelearningstylesandthetheoryofGardnersmultipleintelligences
(1983)thereisacommonperceptionthatrecognizesthedifferencesthatexistinindividuals.
Eachindividualhashispotentialandstrengthandtherearevarietiesofwaystoexpressthem
(Sternberg&Zhang,2001;Gardner,1983).Yet,thetwotheoriesrelatetodifferentconcepts:
thetheoriesoflearningstylesrelatetotheconceptstyle,whilethetheoryofthemultiple
intelligencesrelatestotheconceptintelligence.
Styleisapreference.Intelligenceisabilities.Abilitiesareseenasanindicationof
permanentandcanbemeasurableandtheyanswerthequestion,whetheranindividualisable
tostudyandperformacognitivetaskornot.Whilestyleanswerthequestionhowanindividual
preferstousehisabilitiestoperformthetask(Sternberg,1994,1997).Stylesreflectsomething
moregeneralthanabilities.
Asaforesaid,thisresearchaimstofocusonthedifferencesandrelationshipsoflearningstyles
andmultipleintelligencesingiftedandnongiftedsecondarystudentsinIsraelandprovideand
accessibleoverviewtotheimportanceoftheattemptstointegratethesetwoconceptsinto
educationalfield.
Forthepurposeoftheresearch,wewillpresentthetheoreticalbackgroundaboutgiftedness,
learningstyles,multipleintelligencesanddiscussthedifferencesbetweenthetwoconcepts.
Finally,wewillinvestigatethedifferencesandthecorrelationsbetweenthemingiftedandnon
giftedstudents.
Thecontributionofthepresentresearchistoincreasetheawarenessthattherearedifferences
inthewaysstudentsprocessing,analyzing,internalizingandpracticinginformation.Thestudy
willalsopresentthedifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedasrelatedtotheirpreferred
waysoflearning.
LiteratureReview
Giftedness
Thedefinitionofgiftednessvariesfromthosewithanarrowfocusononehighlyexceptional
intellectualcapacitytothosewithabroadrangeofintellectual,motivationalandartistic
dimensions(Renzulli&Hoge,1993).Thedefinitionsfortheconceptgiftednesshavechanged
throughouttheyearsaccordingtodifferenttheoriesanddefinitions.Thefirsttwodefinitions
refertopsychologicalconstructs:geneticallybasedandcognitivelybased,whilethethirdone
focusesonachievementandaccomplishmentandthefourthtakesanenvironmentalapproach
(Heller,Monks,Sternberg&Subotkin,2000).
GeneticOrientedDefinitions
Inthe1950s,thepsychologistsdefinedgiftednessmainlyintermsofintelligenceasmeasured
byIntelligentQuotient(IQ)testsonintellectualabilitiesthatweredevelopedbyBinetin1904
(Sousa,2003).
TheinterestforthegiftedbeganwhenGalton(1869)reasonedthatindividualswhohadacute
sensesandwhocouldsenseapproachingdangerandfindviablefoodsourceswouldbefavored
fromanevolutionarystandpoint.Galtonassertedthatonlythesmartsurvives;accordingto
hisviewthoseindividualsthatpossessvisualandauditory,aswellastactileskillswerethose
deemedtobethemostintelligenthenceabletosurvive(Bonner,2010).Galtonstheory
establishedthehereditarybasisofintelligencemeaningthatindividualswhowererecognized
ordistinguishedbytheirintelligenceappearedtocomefromsuccessivegenerationswithin
particularfamilies.
Binet(1904)developedanimportantmeasurementtoolwhichmeasuredachildspotentialfor
schoollearning,andhelpingthosewhowerelaggingbehind.Binetworkedoutasetofgraded
intellectualexercisesfromwhicheachchildsscorecouldbecomparedwithothersofthesame
age.NowadaysthisBinetssetofgradedintellectualexercisesarecalledIQtestsandtheyareall
constantlyupdated.Terman(1922)inhisstudiesofthegiftedadaptedBinetsintelligencetests
andrenamedittheStanfordBinetIntelligenceTest.Hebelievedthatintelligence,asrevealedby
intelligencetests,isgeneticallydeterminedandthereforeitremainsstableovertime.These
intelligencetestsmeasurechildrensabilitiestohelpandguidethemselvestoanappropriate
education,agoodintelligencetestcansometimeidentifyagiftedchild(Freeman,2001).
3
EventuallyitwasconcludedthatIQtestswerenotasatisfactorymeasureofgiftednessandthat
apersoncouldbegiftedindifferentways;academicarts,sports,performingartsorinbusiness
ventures(Sousa,2003).TheIQtestsonlyassessanalyticalandverbalskillsbutfailtomeasure
practicalknowledgeandcreativity,whicharecriticalcomponentstoproblemsolvingand
successinlife.Furthermore,thepredictiveabilitiesofIQtestsdeteriorateoncesituationsor
populationschange(Sousa,2003).
AnotherdefinitionwasproposedbyMarland(1972)hestatedthatgiftedchildrenarethose
identifiedbyprofessionallyqualifiedpeoplewhoarecapableofhighperformancebyvirtueof
outstandingabilities.Moreover,heconcludedthatgiftedchildrenrequiredifferentiated
educationalprogramsandservicesbeyondwhicharenormallyprovidedbyaregularschool
programinordertorealizetheircontributiontoselfandsociety.Childrencapableofhigh
performanceincludethosewithdemonstratedachievementsand/orpotentialabilityinanyof
thefollowingareas:generalintellectualability,specificacademicattitude,creativeor
productivethinking,leadershipability,visualandperformingartsandpsychomotorability.
Marlandsdefinitiongoesbeyondintelligencetootherareasofhighabilityaswellas
achievementisacriterionforidentification.Nonetheless,thisdefinitionexcludesnoncognitive
factorslike:motivation,aswellasclearoperationalizationofthedifferentformsofgiftedness.
Gardner(1983)arguedthattheconceptofintelligenceisnotaunitaryqualityofthemindbut
ratherthatdifferentkindsofintelligencesaregeneratedfromseparatemetaphoricalpoolsof
mentalenergy.InhistheoryofMultipleIntelligence,Gardnersuggestedthathumanspossessat
leasteightintelligencesandanindividualispredisposedtodevelopeachoftheintelligencesto
differentlevelsofcompetence.Gardnerproposedthattheintelligencesrepresentwaysof
processinginformationandthinking;individualsatanygiventimeusethementioned
intelligencesthatallowthemtosolvespecificproblems,generatenewproblems,andcreate
productsandservicesofvaluetotheirparticularculture(Gardner1983).Healsobelievedthat
intelligenceistheproductofgeneticpredispositionandenvironment.AccordingtoGardners
theoryofMultipleIntelligences,giftednessisdefinedasachildbeingexceptionallycompetentin
oneormoreofthemultipleintelligences(Sousa,2003).Thistheoryhasencouragedtheideaof
akaleidoscopeofhumanabilitieswhichhashadaliberatingimpactonunderstandingthe
conceptofgiftedness(Freeman,2001).GardnerclaimedthattheIQtestswerenotenoughto
identifygiftedchildrenbecauseoftheirfocusonlyonlinguisticandlogicalskills;asaresult,the
MItheoryapproachwasusedasanalternativemeanofidentifyinggiftedchildren.
4
CognitiveModels
Cognitivedefinitionsfocusonthoughtprocess,memory,andrelatedskills.
Piagetwasmoreinterestedintheprocessofrespondingthanonthefinalresultsofthetests.
Inthistheoryofknowledge,knownasgeneticepistemology,Piagetwasinterestedinfindingout
howchildrenattainknowledgeanduseit.Inoneofhisstudiesheobservedandintervieweda
smallgroupofchildrenwhiletheywereperformingtasks;hewantedtofindouthowtheygotto
thefinalresults.Thisstudyattemptsdirectlyidentifythecomponentsofperformanceontasks
thathavebeengenerallyusedtoassessmentalabilities(Heller,Monks,Sternberg&Subotkin,
2000).
InhistheorySternberganimportantproponenttoPiagetsapproach,focusesontheinsightand
responsestonoveltyintaskperformance(Heller,Monks,SternbergandSubotnik,2000).Within
thisapproachadistinctionismadebetweenthreeseparatebutrelatedpsychologicalprocess
(Sternberg,1985):
1.Selectiveencodingsiftingoutrelevantinformationfromirrelevantinformation.
2.Selectivecombinationcombiningwhatmightoriginallyseemtobeisolatedpiecesof
informationintoaunifiedwholethatmayormaynotresembleitsparts(Sternberg,1985).
3.Selectivecomparisonrelatingnewinformationtothatwhichwasacquiredinthepast.
AccordingtoSternbergsapproach,insightfulperformancedemonstratedasproblemsolving
skillsorasknowledgeacquisitioncomponentsareindicatorsofgiftedness.Sternbergclaimsthat
thebettertheseskillsarethemoreintellectuallygiftedapersonis(Heller,Monks,Sternberg&
Subotkin,2000).Sternbergdistinguishesthreetypesofgiftednesswithhistriarchicmodeland
concludesthathumanintelligenceconsistsofthreetypesofintelligences:analytical,creative,
andpractical.
1.Analyticalintelligencepeoplewiththisintelligencehavetheabilitiesinanalyzing,critiquing
andevaluatingproblemsandsituations.ThisintelligencecanbemeasuredbyIQtests.
2.Creativelyintelligencepeoplethataregoodatdiscovering,inventingandcreating.
3.Practicallyintelligencepeoplethatexcelatapplying,utilizingandimplementing.
Inthismodel,intelligenceisdefinedbythesethreetypesofbehavior,andgiftednessisthe
resultfromtheabilitytoperformtheskillsinoneormoreoftheseareaswithexceptional
accuracyandefficiency.Thecombinationofthesethreetypesofintelligencesproduces
differentpatternsofgiftedness(Sousa,2000).Thisconceptwastestedinmanystudieswhere
5
studentswereassessedontheirmemoryaswellastheiranalytic,creative,andpractical
achievements.Theresultsofthesestudiesshowedthatthestudentsthatweretaughtinways
thatbestmatchedtheirachievementpatternsoutperformedthosewhosemethodofinstruction
wasnotsuitablewiththeirpatternofabilities(Sternberg,Ferrari,ClinkenbeardandGrigorenko,
1996;Sternberg,Griorenko,Jarvin,Clinkenbeard,FerrariandTorfi,2000).
Inaddition,Sternbergalsosummarizesthatthetheoryofgiftednessdescribesthegiftedasone
whomeetsthefollowingfivecriteria:excellence,rarity,productivity,demonstrability,and
value.
1.Excellencetheindividualissuperiorinsomedimensionorsetofdimensionsrelativeto
peers.
2.Raritytheindividualpossessesaskillorattributethatisrareamongpeers.
3.Productivitytheindividualmustproducesomethingintheareaofgiftedness.
4.Demonstrabilitytheskilloraptitudeofgiftednessmustbedemonstrablethroughoneor
morevalidassessments.
5.Valuetheindividualshowssuperiorperformanceindimensionthatisvaluedbythat
personssociety.
Thesecriteriaprovidethebasisforunderstandingwhysomepeoplearedefinedasgiftedwhile
othersarenot(Sousa,2003).
AchievementOrientedModels
TermanandStern(1916)wereconvincedthathighintelligencewasnecessarybutnota
sufficientconditionforhighlyablebehaviorand,asaresult,theyclaimedthatachievementand
personalitytraitslikemotivationandenvironmentallyappropriateconditionsareimportantas
anobservableoutputofgiftedness(Heller,Monks,Sternberg&Subotkin,2000).
ThemostinfluentialtheoryinthiscategoryisRenzullistheoryofthethreeringconceptionof
giftedness.Thistheoryattemptstoportraythemaindimensionsofhumanpotentialforcreative
productivity(Sternberg&Davidson,2005).Itdeterminesthatpeoplearegiftedbecauseoftheir
uniqueaccomplishmentandcreativecontributions.Theypossessarelativelywelldefinedsetof
threeinterlockingclustersoftraits,whichconsistof:1).aboveaverageability,2).aboveaverage
taskcommitment,and3).aboveaveragecreativity.Itisimportanttoemphasizethatthe
interactionamongthethreeclustersisnecessaryforcreativeproductiveachievementandeach
clusterplaysanimportantroleincontributingtothedisplayofgiftedbehavior(Renzulli,1998).
Theresearchoncreativeproductivepeoplehasconsistentlyshownthatidentification
6
proceduresoveremphasizesuperiorabilitiesattheexpenseoftheothertwoclustersoftraits
(Sternberg&Davidson,2005).Inhisapproach,Renzulliwantstobeabletoidentifyandto
nurturegiftednessappropriately,heclaimsthatgiftednesshastobeseenasamanifestationof
humanpotentialthatcanbedevelopedincertainpeople,atcertaintimes,andundercertain
circumstances(Renzulli,1990).
EnvironmentalModels
Theenvironmentalmodelspresentmanyothersystemsthathaveanimpactonthe
developmentofindividualssuchas:theeconomicsituation,thepoliticalorientationandthe
culturallydominantvaluesandbeliefs.Allofwhichwerestatedabovehaveagreatinfluenceon
humandevelopmentandthereforeonthedevelopmentofgiftedchildren(Heller,Monks,
Sternberg&Subotkin,2000).
inhisapproach,Tannenbaum(1983)statedhebelievesoutstandingachievementsare
determinedequallybythefollowingfivefactors:generalabilitygeneralintelligence,special
abilityaptitudeinaspecificarea,nonintellectivefactorsmetalearning,dedicationtoa
chosenfield,strongselfconcept,willingnesstosacrifice,mentalhealth,environmentalfactors
parents,classroom,peers,culture,andsocialclass,andchancefactorsaccidental,general
exploratory,sagacity,andpersonalizedaction.
Tannenbaumsdefinition,thestardefinition,arrangesthesefactorsintheshapeofastarand
viewsgiftednessasaninteractionofthefivefactors(Heller,Monks,Sternberg&Subotkin,
2000).OneofTannenbaumsmajorconcernsaboutthewaygiftednesswasidentifiedisthat
precocity,alongwithvariouscontextualandenvironmentalfactors,couldpotentiallybe
overlooked.Tannenbaumstates:thosewhohavethepotentialforsucceedingasgiftedadults
requirenotonlythepersonalattributesoftenmentionedindefinitionsofgiftedness,butalso
somespecialencounterswiththeenvironmenttofacilitatetheemergenceoftalent(Bonner,
2010).
Anotherdefinitionthatstronglyemphasizespersonalitytraitsisthemultidimensionalapproach
thatwasproposedbyMonk(1992)anditconsistsofpersonalityandenvironmentalaspects.
Monksstatesthatenvironmentalfactorsincludethemainsocialcontextsinwhichtheperson
maturessuchas:family,school,andpeergroups.Emergenceanddevelopmentofgifted
potentialdependgreatlyonasupportiveenvironment.Allchildrenneedpeerstointeractwith
andtolearnfromandthisisalsotruewiththegifted(Heller,Monks,Sternberg&Subotkin,
2000).Inconclusion,itseemsthattherearemanytermsfordefininggiftednessusingdifferent
theories.
Whatisastyle?
Astyleisapreferredwayofthinkingordoingthings(e.g.,thinking,learning,teaching)
(Sternberg&Zhang,2001).Astyleisnotanability,butratherapreferenceintheuseofthe
abilitiespeoplehave.Itisaninterfacebetweenabilityandpersonality(Sternberg,1994,1997).
Theinterestinthenotionofastyletriestodiscoverananswertotheinterfacebetweenabilities
ontheonehand,andpersonalityontheother.
ThefamouspsychologistAllport(1937)wasthefirstonetointroducetheideaofstyles,andhe
referredtostyleasameanofidentifyingdistinctivepersonalityorbehaviortypes.Hisdefinition
ofstylereferstohabitualpatternsorpreferredwaysofdoingsomething(Sternberg&Zhang,
2001).
Theresearchofstyles,istryingtounderstandtheindividualdifferencesinperformanceof
students,byusingquestionnairestoidentifystylepreferences.
Sternbergsaidastyleisnotalevelorevenakindofability,butratherawayofutilizingan
abilityorsetofabilities(Sternberg,1994).Sternbergtriedtoexplainthatastyleisnotatalent
butastrongtendency,andstylefunctionswithoutindividualconsciousness.Riding(2002)
presentedthatstylecanbeinbuiltordevelopedwithexperience,butitisapparentatanearly
age.Healsopredictedthatastylemightresultfromadifferencebetweentwocomplementary
abilities.
CanoGarciaandHughes(2000)claimedthattherearethreedifferentapproachestothe
conceptualizationofstylecenteredoncognitioncenteredstyles,personalitycenteredstylesand
activitycenteredstyles.
Thecognitioncenteredapproachfocusesuponindividualdifferencesincognitionand
perceptionresultingintheidentificationanddescriptionofseveralstyles,abilities,and
dimensionsofcognitiveprocessing(CanoGarcia&Hughes,2000).Theconceptofcognitivestyle
containsageneralmeaningrelatedtothewayinwhichinformationisprocessed(Sterenberg&
Zhang,2001).RidingandCheema(1991),Miller(1987,1991)andRidingcitingTennants(1988)
describecognitivestyleasapersonstypicalorhabitualmodeofproblemsolving,thinking,
perceivingandremembering.
Thepersonalitycenteredapproachinvolvesthestudyofstylesinrelationtootherindividual
personalitycharacteristics(RaynerandRiding,1997).
Theactivitycenteredapproachfocusesonactivitycenteredtheoriesoflearningstylesand
teachingstylesassociatedwitheducationistsaddressingenvironmentalandprocessbased
9
issuesrelatedtomeetingindividualdifferencesintheclassroom(Rayner&Riding,1997).
DefinitionsofLearningStyles
Manydefinitionsoflearningstyleappearinliterature,history,andinpsychology.Thissection
focusesonsomeofthem;manyofthemindicatesimilarinterpretationsoflearningstyleswhile
othersdescribeitdifferently.
Learninginvolvesthetotalityofhumanactivities:feelings,reflecting,thinkinganddoing.
Individualsaretaughttodevelopspecializedabilitiesandpreferencesforsuchactivitiesand
theyarecalledlearningstyles.Thelearningstyleconceptderivedfromthefieldofindividual
differencesininformationprocessing(Curry,2000).
Keefe(1979)illustratesthatlearningstylesrefertocognitive,affective,andphysiological
behaviorsthatperformasrelativelystableindicatorsofhowpeopleperceive,interactwith,and
respondtotheirenvironmentinalearningsituation.Learningstylesaredefinedasindividual
consistenciesinperception,memory,thinkingandjudgmentacrossanystimuluscondition
(Curry,2000).Sternberg&Zhang(2001)definedthatlearningstylesareconsideredasaction
orientedstylesandtheyarecenteredonthekindsofactivitiespeopleengageinatvarious
pointsintheirlives,whichmeansthatlearningstyleisthewayapersonprocesses,internalizes,
andstudiesnewandchallengingmaterial.
Alearningstyleisanindividualsuniquesetofdifferencesthatincludepersonalpreferencesfor
instructionoranassociationwithaparticularstyleoflearningactivity(Riding&Rayner,1998)
meaningthatlearningstylesexplainhowpeopleliketolearn.Learningstylesemphasizethe
characteristicsofthelearningenvironment,aswellascharacteristicsofthelearnerincluding
howthelearnerprocessesinformation.
FelderandHenriques(1995)explainthatlearningstylesarethewaysinwhichanindividual
characteristicallyacquires,retainsandretrievesinformation,theysummarizethatstudents
learninmanywaysbyseeingandhearing,reflectingandacting,reasoninglogically,and
intuitively(Sabatova,2008).
Kneefe(1979),citedbyWooldrige(1995)definedthatlearningstylesareamixtureof
characteristicelements,cognitiveabilities,affectiveandpsychologicalbehaviorsoflearners.
Theyaretheindicatorsofthewaysthelearnersperceive,interactwithandrespondtothe
learningenvironment(Wooldridge,1995).TheperspectivesofFelderandSilverman(1998)and
Anderson(1995)onlearningstylespresenthowalearnerreceivesinformation,aswellas,how
10
heprocessesthereceivedinformation.
Moran(1991),citingGorham(1986),identifiedthreemainassumptionsindifferentstudieson
learningstyles:
1)Peopledifferconsistentlyfromeachotherintheirpreferencesforcertainwaysofprocessing
information.
2)Theindividualdifferencesaremeasurable.
3)Matchingormismatchingstudentslearningstyleswithinstructionaltechniquesaffectthe
learningprocess.
Vermunt(2003)suggestedhisconceptualizationsoflearningstylesashabitual,traittypeand
stylelikelearningpatternsdealingwithcomponentsofprocessingstrategies,regulation
strategies,learningorientationsandmentallearningmodels.Healsoaddedaholistic
coordinatingaspecttotheconceptwherebyindividualspreferencesareinterpretedintermsof
interactionsbetweenparticulartypesofpersonalcharacteristicswithregardtolearning,andthe
contextsinwhichtheindividualattemptstolearn(Vermunt,1996).
InReidsdefinition(1995),learningstylesrefertoanindividualsnatural,habitual,and
preferredwaysofabsorbing,processing,andretainingnewinformationandskills.
Individualslearningstyleisamultidimensionalelementwithmanyvariablesthataffecteach
otherandproduceuniquepatterns.Reid(1998)claimedthatlearningstylesarenot
dichotomous,butexistonwidecontinuums.Learningstylesareinfluencedbyfactorssuchas
gender,age,culture,context,motivation,backgroundknowledge,andsubjectmatter(Cheng
andBanya,1998;Dunn,1999).Learningstylesareofvalueandareoftenlinkedtolearning
strategies,whicharedefinedasspecificmethodsofapproachingaproblemortask,modesof
achievingaparticularend,plannedend,planneddesignsforcontrollingandmanipulating
certaininformation(Brown,1994).SternbergandGrigorenko(2001)reofferedthatstyles
operatewithoutindividualsawareness.
Intheearly1960sresearchersverifiedthatstudentslearninwaysthataredifferentfromtheir
peers.Therefore,severaldozenlearningstyleinstrumentsandinventorieshavebeendeveloped
todetermineandidentifylearnerspreferredlearningstyles.Inthepresentresearch,theDunn
andDunnScaleofLearningStylesModel(1978)ismentionedduetothefactthatithasbeen
primarilyadoptedintheeducationalworld.
11
TheDunnandDunnModel
DunnandDunn(1993)believethatpeoplecanalsodemonstrateintelligencebythemannerin
whichtheyperceive,comprehend,solveproblems,criticallyanalyzeandmakeproductive
decisions(Denig,2004).DunnandDunn(1993,1999)focusontheconstructionoflearningstyle
andverifythatthereareindividualdifferencesinthewayanindividualbeginstoconcentrate
on,process,internalizeandremembernewanddifficultacademiccontext.
Dunn(2000)informsthatmostpeoplecanlearn,andanindividualhastheirownuniquewayof
masteringnewanddifficultsubjectmatter.Forinstance,formanypeoplelearningtoplaythe
pianopresentsabiglearningchallenge.Forsome,thatchallengeisagruelingordeal;iftheway
theyaretaughtdoesnotmatchthewaytheylearn.RitaDunn(1999)notedthatlargestpartof
learningstyleisbiologicalwhileasmallpartofitisdevelopmental,whichchangemore
predictably.Learningstylesdifferwithage,achievementlevel,gender,culture,andglobal
versusanalyticalbrainprocessing(Dunn,1999).
Thismodelfocusesonidentifyingindividuals'preferencesforspecificinstructional
environments,strategiesandresources,andtheextenttowhicheachapproacheitherfostersor
inhibitsacademicachievement.ThelearningstylescategorizationofDunn(1999)includesfour
physicalmodalitiesasvisual,auditory,tactileandkinesthetic.
Visuallearningstyles
Visuallearningstylereferstothosewhoprefertolearnthroughsight,thatis,visualchannel.
Oxford(1995)reportsVisualstudentsneedthevisualstimulationofbulletinboards,videosand
movies.Theylikereading,computers,picturesandwritteninstructions(Oxford,2002).
Learnerswhosedominantlearningstylepreferenceisvisualcanvisuallyrecalltheyhavereador
observed(Wooldridge,1995).Theyorganizeinformationintermsofspatialinterrelationships
amongideasandstoreitgraphically(Nilson,2003).
Auditorylearningstyles
Auditorylearnersprefertolearnthroughoralaurallearningchannelandtoengagein
discussions,conversations,andgroupwork(Oxford,1995).Theymayneedtohearwritten
textmaterial,askfortapesorpassagestobereadout,preferoralpracticewithoutbooks,and
soon(Erhman,1996).
12
Tactilelearningstyles
Tactilelearnersprefertolearnthroughhandsonactivities.Theyneedtotouchandhandle
objects(Oxford,1995).Theygenerallyunderlinewhentheyreadandtakenoteswhilelistening.
Theykeeptheirhandsbusy(Wooldridge,1995).Theyneedtousemanipulativeandmodels
(Dunn,1999).
Kinestheticlearningstyles
Kinestheticlearnerslearnthroughexperientiallearning,thatis,totalphysicalinvolvementwith
alearningsituation(Reid,1987).Kinestheticlearnersneedbodymovementtoabsorband
retainwhatislearned(Wooldridge,1995).Theypreferlearningthroughactivityandtheycannot
focusonchallenginginformationpassively(Dunn,1999).
Eachpersonhasaprimarylearningstyle,andcanbetaughthowtostudyandconcentrate
capitalizingonthatstyle(Denig,2004).However,studentsalsohaveasecondarystyle,which
canbeusedtoreinforceinitiallearningeffectively.Hall&Moseley(2005)presenttheories
whichdemonstratethatlearningstylesaredeterminedbeforehandduetogeneticinfluences,
inheritedtraits,theinteractionofpersonalityandcognition,whileothertheoriesbelievethat
learningstylescanchangeandexpandduetomotivationandenvironmentalfactorssuchas
cooperativeorindividuallearning.Tofunctioneffectivelystudentswillrequireskill
characteristicsofeachtypeofthelearningstyle:tobeabletoobserveandpayattentionto
detailofthesensory,imaginationandabstractthinkingabilityandsoon.Theoptimalteaching
styleisabalancedonethatsometimesmatchesstudentspreferences,sotheirdiscomfortlevel
doesnotsatisfythemandsometimesgoesagainsttheirpreferencesforcingthemtostretchand
growindirectionsthattheymightbeinclinedtoavoid(Felder&Brent,2005).Moreover,
studentslearneffectivelyandhavemoreopportunitiesforsuccesswheneducatorsteachina
mannerconsistentwitheachstudentsprimaryandsecondarylearningstyle(Dunn&Griggs,
2003).Studiesrevealedthatstudentslearningstylepreferenceswerethestrengthsthat
enabledthemtomasternewanddifficultinformationbyoneofthelearningstyles,auditory
style,visualstyleandkinestheticstyle.Sarasin(1998)explainsthatthelearningstyleapproaches
basedonbehaviorsandactionscanbeeasilyperceivedinaclassroomsituationusingprimary
senses(visual,auditoryandkinesthetic)involvedinlearning.Ithasbeenprovenscientifically
thatmatchingstudentslearningstylepreferenceswitheducationalinterventionscompatible
13
withthosepreferenceswasbeneficialtotheiracademicachievement(Dunn,Griggs,Olson,
Gorman&Beasley,1995).ExperimentalstudiesbasedontheDunn,DunnandPriceLearning
StyleModeltriedtoidentifythevalueofteachingstudentsthroughtheirlearningstyle
preferencesandtheresultsshowsthatstudentswhoselearningstylesareaccommodated
wouldbeexpectedtoachieve75%ofastandarddeviationhigherthanstudentswhohavenot
hadtheirlearningstylesaccommodated.Thisfindingindicatesthatmatchingstudentslearning
stylepreferenceswitheducationalinterventionscompatiblewiththosepreferencesisbeneficial
totheiracademicachievement(Prashnig,2000).
14
LearningStyleResearchesinGiftedStudents
Inthefield,learningstylesamonggiftedhavebeeninvestigatedtoexplainthedifferences
betweenthegiftedandnongiftedstudentsinthelearningprocess.Rohaizad,Yeop&Anuar
(2008),presentthefindingsofastudywhichprovethatlearningstylesarealsosignificantin
classroomperformanceforgiftedmiddleschoolstudentsthatrespondaccordinglytodifferent
classroomenvironments.Theirstudyresultsshowahighpreferencefortactileandkinesthetic
learningstylesamonggiftedbecausetheyliketobeactiveparticipantsinthediscoveryprocess
inordertobemotivatedandengagedinclass.Cody(1983)comparedthelearningstyle
characteristicsamongaverageandgiftedstudents,andfoundthattheaveragestudents
demonstratedahighpreferenceforvisuallearningstyleswhilethegiftedindicateahigh
preferencefortactile/kinestheticlearningstyles(Prashnig,2000).Anotherresearchthatwas
conductedbyDunnandPricealsoshowedthatgiftedstudentsprefertactileandkinesthetic
modesoflearningtoauditory(Dunn,Rita,&Price,1980).
TheresearchthatwasconductedbySueandPrice(1993)investigatedthelearningstylesof
academicallygiftedandnongiftedadolescentsandfoundoutthatacademicallygiftedstudents
showedgreaterpreferenceforvisualandkinestheticstyles.Similarly,InghamandPrice(1993)
alsofoundintheirstudythattheacademicallygiftedstudentsweremorevisualandless
auditorythannongiftedstudents.
PriceandMilgram(1993)examinedthefindingsfromsevencountriesthatinvestigatedlearning
styleofgiftedandnongiftedstudentsinseveraldomains.Theyreportedthatkinesthetic
learningstylediscriminatedthemostbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsoversixcultural
groupsanditwasfollowedbytactile.Inallcountries,giftedstudentspreferredkinestheticand
tactilemorethannongiftedstudents.
Turki(2014)alsoinvestigatedthedifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsasrelated
tolearningstyles,theresultsofthestudyindicatedthatgiftedstudentsaremorekinesthetic
andmorelikelytobeencouragedusinghandsonactivitiesthatenablethemtoreachtheir
potential.
15
MultipleIntelligence
ApproachestoUnderstandingIntelligence
Thedefinitionsofintelligenceshowedsomechangesbytime.Sternberg(2000)claimsthatall
thedefinitionsofintelligencethatwereproposedin1921combinedtheissuesofadaptationto
theenvironment,basicmentalprocesses,andhigherorderthinking.In1986thedefinitionsof
intelligenceputmuchmoreemphasisontheroleofknowledgeandtheinteractionbetween
knowledgeandmentalprocesses,aswellastheroleofcontextandculture.Therearefour
differentapproachestounderstandingintelligencementionedintheliterature;Psychometric
approach,Developmentalprogressionapproach,Informationprocessingapproach,and
Psychobiologicalapproach.
Psychometricapproach
Thepsychometricapproachisprimarilyconcernedwiththemeasurementofintelligence
utilizingvarioustestingmethods(Embretson&Mccollan,2000).
ThisapproachhasbeeninitiatedbyGaltonanditemphasizesthedifferencesbetweenpeoplein
termsoftheircognitiveabilitiesinsolvingproblemsthatrelyoninductivereasoningprocesses
likeanalogies,seriescompletionsandclassifications(Lohman,2005;Necka&Orzechowski,
2005).Inthisapproachintelligenceisconsideredasasingleentityreflectingageneralability
(Tekiner,2005).
In1884,tofindoutindividualdifferences,Galtonstartedadministratingtestsofreactiontime,
vision,hearing(suchasrateofmovement),timefornamingcolors,numbersofletters
rememberedononehearing,reactiontimeforsound,pressurecausingpainandsoon.Galton
believedthatthereweretwoqualitiesthatdifferentiateindividuals:energyandsensitivity.
Galtonobservedthatinformationpassesthroughthesensestoreachindividualsandthatthe
moreperceptivethesensesareofdifferencesinluminescence,pitch,odor,orwhatever,the
betterwouldbetherangeofinformationonwitchintelligencecouldact(Sternberg,Lautrey,&
Lubart,2003).
In1890Cattellwasalsointerestedinindividualdifferencesandheadministeredmanyteststhat
wereutilizedformeasurementofpersonalityandhumanabilities(Brody,2000).
Sternberg(2004)proposedtheSpearmansgtheoryin1904.Spearmanstheoryshowedtwo
mainintelligencefactors:ageneralfactor(g)andspecialfactors(s).Thegfactoristhegeneral
factorthatisinfluentialinallmentalabilitytestsandcommontasksandsfactorisinfluentialin
16
asingletestorspecifictask.
Duringthesecondpartofthenineteenthcentury,theinterestinindividualdifferencesgot
higherthaninthepast.In1905,AlfredBinetbuiltthefirstscaleoftheintelligencetestonthe
assumptionsthatintelligencecorrelatedwithageandthatintelligenceisnecessaryforsuccess
inschool(citedinBrody,2000).Binetfoundoutthattheuniversaldevelopmentofintelligence
inchildhoodformedthebasisofconstructingameasurementscale(Anderson,2001).Thatis,
thedifficultyofatestitemdependsonthechildsage.
In1911,AlfredBinetandTheodoreSimonproposedaseriesofthesuccessorquestionsfor
measuringanindividualsintelligence.Thefollowingyears,SternproposedtheIntelligence
Quotient(IQ)astheratioofmentalagetochronologicalage.In1916,LewisTermanmodified
theBinetscalesandthenewformoftheStanfordBinetscale.Thetestswereeffectivebutall
thequestionsweredirectlyrelatedtomathematicsandlanguageskills,thusmeasuring
intelligencebyonlythesetwodomains,moreover,theentiretestwasanalytic,aprocessing
styleinhibitingtheeasewithwhichglobalpeoplecouldrespond(Brennan,1984).
Developmentalprogressionapproach
Sternberg,Lautrey,andLubart(2003)calleditacognitiveprocessingapproachand
divideditintothreesectionsbasedonthePiagetian,Vygotskian,andtheinformation
processingtheories.PiagetandVygotskydevelopeddifferentconceptsofintelligence;
Piaget(1972)claimedthatintelligenceconsistsofastateofanadaptiveequilibrium
betweentheindividualandhisorherenvironment.ForPiaget,individualsdevelop
continuallyatdifferentagesandatdifferentrates.Piagetwasinterestedinthe
developmentofhumanintelligence.AccordingtoPiaget,beginningfrominfancy,
humanbeingscreatementalrepresentationsthroughactingontheworld,whichis
centraltointelligence.Everyindividualgoesthroughstagesofdevelopmentsuchas
sensorymotor,preoperational,intuitive,concrete,operational,andfinally,formal
operationalstage.Eventually,allindividualsintheirownratesachievetheendstateof
humanintellect.
Ontheotherhand,someclaimedthatintelligencehasasocialorigin,inotherwords
intellectualdevelopmentisgainedthroughsocialinteractions.Theyalsoassertedthat
17
internalizationisbasictointelligenceandasaresultofit,whatindividualsobservein
thesocialenvironmentbecomeapartoftheindividualovertime.
Informationprocessingapproach
Thisapproachisconcernedwithconstructingmacrotheoriesofintelligenthumanor
nonhumansystemsataverydetailedlevel,thatis,atalevelwheretheoriescanbe
implementedandrunoncomputers(Sternberg,1990).Moreover,thisapproach
providesinformationaboutthementalactivitiesorprocessesofintelligentthinking.
Cognitionandmetacognitionarethecomponentsofthementalphenomena.The
componentsofcognitionrefertoregularinformationprocessing,whichisdirectly
responsiblefortheexecutionofcognitivetasks,whereasthelatterinvolvesthe
processesofmonitoringandcontrol.
Anothercrucialcomponenttounderstandintelligencearethemetacomponents.
Metacomponentsrefertothehigherordercognitiveprocesseswhichareresponsible
forexecutivefunctionssuchasattentionoperation,attentionswitching,updatingofthe
contentoftheshorttermmemory,andrestrainingirrelevantinformationorundesired
behavioraltendency(Necka&Orzechowski,2005).Psychologiststriedtorelate
informationprocessingcomponentstothescoresontheintelligencetests;however,it
hasnotbeenfullydescribed(Pertz&Sternberg,2005).Researchersthatinvestigated
therelationshipbetweencognitiveprocessesandthescoresontheintelligencetests
revealedthatprocessingspeed,functionalconnectivity,andfrontallobeactivation
arerelatedtointelligence(Pertz&Sternberg,2005).Therefore,theresearchresultsalso
showedthatworkingmemoryandattention,cognitiveflexibilityofstrategyuse,
learningability,andcontextbasedknowledgearestronglyrelatedtointelligence(Pertz
&Sternberg,2005).
AstudythatwascarriedoutbyLohman(2005)alsoexaminedtherelationshipbetween
individualdifferencesininformationprocessingandperformanceonintelligencetests
hefoundthatindividualdifferencesinperformanceininformationprocessingare
responsibleforsomepartofintelligence.Lohman(2005)arguedthatalthoughabstract
andanalytical,reasoningstronglyrelatedtointelligence,theyalsodependonother
18
resourcessuchaswillingandaffectcontext,experience,specificskillsandprior
knowledge.
Psychobiologicalapproach
Thisapproachattemptstoexplainintelligencebystudyingthebrainandtheoperations
ofthecentralnervoussystem(Sternberg,1990).Sometheoriesemphasizethat
cognitiveprocessingspeedandefficiencyareimportantvariableforexplaining
intelligence(Vernon,Wickett,Bazana&Stelmack,2000).
Ceci(1990)inhistheoryofintelligencesuggeststhatintelligenceincludes
metacognitive,biological,motivational,andenvironmentalvariables.Accordingtothis
theory,processesdependonaparticulardomainofknowledgeandoperateonlywithin
thatdomain.Forinstance,whena3yearoldchildisaskedhowmanypiecesitwould
makeifanappleiscutinhalf,heorshegivescorrectanswer.However,whenthe
questionisaskedaboutrugs,thechildaskshowbigtherugis.Thatis,some
assessmentoftheelaboratenessofknowledgewithinagivendomainisnecessaryin
ordertomakeinferencesaboutthecausesofindividualdifferencesincognitive
processing(Barnett&Ceci,2005).Additionally,Goleman(1996)andLeDoux(2004)
emphasizethattheemotionalvariablealsoimportantforlearning.Accordingto
NewmanandJust(2005),intelligencedoesnotlieinanyparticularbrainregion,butis
insteadafunctionofamoredistributed,dynamicallyconfiguredsetofareasandg
maybetheproductofanadaptive,flexibleneuralsystem.
19
MultipleFormsofIntelligence
Thislastapproachproposesthatintelligenceisnotunitary,butmultifaceted.Sternberg
andGardnerarethemainproponentsofthisapproach.SternbergsTriarchictheoryof
intelligenceconsistsofthethreesubtheories:componential,experiential,and
contextual,allofwhichareinterrelated(Sternberg,1990).Tostartwith,the
componentialsubtheoryreferstothecognitiveprocessesunderlyingthewhole
intelligentbehavior.Therearethreetypesofinformationprocessingcomponents;
metacomponents,performancecomponentsandknowledgeacquisitioncomponents.
Metacomponentsrefertothehigherorder,executiveprocesseswhichisusedtoplan
whattodo,monitortheactivityandevaluateitattheend(Sternberg,1990).
Performancecomponentsrefertothelowerorderprocesseswhichcarryoutthe
commandsofmetacomponents.
Knowledgeacquisitioncomponentsareexercisedtolearnhowtodowhat
metacomponentsandperformancecomponentseventuallydo.
Theexperientialsubtheoryclaimsthatthesecomponentsmaynotassessintelligence
uniformlyatdifferentlevelsofexperience,thus,intelligencecanbebestassessedatthe
levelsofexperience,whichmayinvolverelativelynoveltasksortasksbecoming
automatized.Thecontextualsubtheoryrelatesintelligencetoindividualscultural
context.
Sternberg(1997;2004)alsodevelopedthetheoryofSuccessfulIntelligencewhich
clarifiesthatsuccessfulintelligenceistheabilitytoadaptto,shape,andselect
environmentsoastoaccomplishonesgoalsandthoseofonessocietyandculture.
Successfulintelligenceinvolvesanalyticalabilities,creativeabilities,andpractical
abilities.Ineducationsettings,studentsmultipleabilitiesarenotexercised;instead
analyticalabilitiesareexploitedattheexpenseofcreativeandpracticalabilities.
Inconclusion,thegfactorisfoundaspredictiveofacademicachievements,however,it
isnotgoodatdifferentiating(Detterman,2000).Thatmeansthatthegfactordoesnot
differentiatetwopeoplewiththeidenticalIQlevelsastheymayperformvery
differentlyinsimilartasks.
20
MultipleIntelligenceTheory
ThepsychologistHowardGardner(1983)developedanimportantcontributiontothecognitive
science,thetheoryofMultipleIntelligences(MI),whichisanincreasinglypopularapproachto
characterizingthewaysinwhichlearnersareuniquetodevelopinginstructiontorespondtothis
uniqueness(Richards&Rodgers,2001).GardnersMultipleIntelligencetheoryisbasedon
threemainandfundamentalprinciples.Tostartwith,Gardner(1983)believedinmultiplicityof
intelligencesandaccordingtothisvieweveryintelligenceisconsideredasaseparatesystem.
ThetheoryofMIisadynamicconstructthatunderstandsintelligencesastoolsthatare
changeableandtrainableorcanbemodifiedtosomedegree:whiletraditionalintelligence
testsarebasedonthenotionthatthegeneralfacultyofintelligenceisaninbornattributethat
doesnotchangeoverthetime,theMItheoryassertsthatthereareskillsuniversaltohuman
species,relatedtotheculturenurturingthatdomainandthatdevelopaccordingtoexperience,
ageandtraining:(Armstrong,Kennedy&Coggins,2002).Thus,intelligencebasedonI.Q.testing,
istoolimitedtocapturethebreadthandadaptabilityofhumanintelligence.
GardnerclaimedthatintelligenceismorethananI.Q.scorebecause,ahighI.Q.intheabsence
ofproductivitydoesntequatetointelligence.Gardner(1983)definedintelligenceasa
biopsychologicalpotentialtoprocessinformationthatcanbeactivatedinaculturalsettingto
solveproblemsorcreateproductsthatareofvalueinaculture.
Thesecondprincipalisthatthedifferentintelligencesareindependentofeachotherwhich
meansthattheevaluationofindividualsabilitiesincertainintelligencecannotpredictthe
abilitiesinotherintelligences.
Thelastprincipaldiscussestheinteractionbetweentheintelligences.Anindividualalwaysuses
differentintelligencestoaccomplishatask,forinstance,amathematicaltaskwillrequirethe
useofthelogicalandlinguisticintelligencesinordertobeaccomplished.InGardners
conception,thesetwointelligencesoperatetogethertoaccomplishthetask.Everytask
accordingtoitscharacteristicswillrequiretheintegrationofdifferentintelligences(Gardner,
1996).Armstrong(1999)alsostressedthatthereisvirtuallynoactivityinlifethatcanbe
undertakenwithonlyoneintelligence.
Gardneralsopostulatedthatthereareseveralrelativelyautonomoushumanintellectual
competencies;thesehumanintelligencesexplainparticularphenomenaofhumanbehavior
(Bedford,2004)andwereevolvedinresponsetotheneedtounderstandhowcognitive
individualdifferencescanbeaddressedanddeveloped(Arnold&Fonseca,2004).Themultiple
21
intelligencetheory,identifiedeightdifferentintelligences,eachofwhichcanbesubdividedor
rearrangedandsomeofthemarecloserinsomesettings.Additionally,Gardner(1983)defined
eightdifferentcriteriatojudgewhetheratypeofabilitycanbecountedasintelligence:
1)Potentialisolationbybraindamage:
AccordingtoGardnerthetheoriesofintelligenceshouldbebiologicallybased.Heclaimedthat
thebrainconsistsofmanyintelligence,eachofwhichoperatesaccordingtoitsownrulesin
relativeautonomyfromtheothers,(Gardner,2003)andifaspecificpartofthebrainreceives
anydamage,aspecificcapacityislostorretarded,showingthatthecapacityisindependent
fromothers.Hestatedthattothatextendthataparticularfacultycanbedestroyedorspared
inisolation,asaresultofbraindamage,itsrelativeautonomyfromotherhumanfacultiesseems
likely(Gardner,1993).
2)Existenceofsavants,prodigies,andotherexceptionalindividuals.
3)Anidentifiablecoreoperationorsetofoperations:
Gardneridentifiedthatintelligencesoperateinrichenvironmentssothatagroupof
intelligencesoperateinconjunction.
4)Adistinctivedevelopmentalhistory,alongwithadefinitesetofendstatedperformances:
intelligenceshouldhaveadevelopmentalhistorythatallnormalindividualsincludinggiftedpass
through.Intelligenceshaveacertainstartingpointinchildhood;developatdifferentperiods
duringlife.
5)Anevolutionaryhistoryandevolutionaryplausibility:
oneshouldbeabletolocateevolutionaryantecedentoftheintelligence.AccordingtoGardner
(1999),evidenceabouttheevolutionofourspeciesiscrucialtoanydiscussionofthe
contemporarymindandbrain.
6)Supportfromexperimentalpsychologicaltasks:
Experimentalpsychologyrevealsoperationofintelligence.
7)Supportfrompsychometricfindings:
ifstandardtestsshowthattasksthatmeasureintelligencecorrelationwithcertaintasksbutnot
withtheothers,theideathataparticularabilityisindependentfromothersissupported.
8)Susceptibilitytoencodinginasymbolsystem:
Knowledgerepresentationandcommunicationofknowledgetakesplacebysymbols,whichare
culturallycontrivedsystemsofmeaningwhichcaptureimportantformsofinformation
(Gardner1993).
22
Mltheorycanbesummarizedasthefollowing:
1.Everypersonpossessesalleightintelligences,buttheydifferintheirprofileofintelligences.
2.Mostpeoplecandevelopeachintelligencetypetoanadequatelevelofcompetency.
3.Intelligencesusuallyworktogetherincomplexways.Nointelligenceexistsbyitself.
4.Therearemultiplewaystobesmartwithineachintelligencetype.
5.EachintelligencemodalitymeetstheeightcriteriaidentifiedbyGardner.
IntelligenceTypesinMultipleIntelligenceTheory
LinguisticIntelligence
Linguisticintelligenceinvolvessensitivitytospokenandwrittenlanguage,theabilitytolearn
languages,andthecapacitytouselanguagetoaccomplishcertaingoals.Thisintelligence
includestheabilitytoeffectivelyuselanguagetoexpressoneselfrhetoricallyorpoetically;and
languageasameanstorememberinformation.
LogicalMathematicalIntelligence
Logicalmathematicalintelligenceconsistsofthecapacitytoanalyzeproblemslogically,carry
outmathematicaloperations,andinvestigateissuesscientifically.Itentailstheabilitytodetect
patterns,reasondeductivelyandthinklogically.Thisintelligenceismostoftenassociatedwith
scientificandmathematicalthinking.
MusicalRhythmicIntelligence
Musicalintelligencerelatestothecapacitytoperceiveandproducerhythms,soundpatterns
pitch,beatandmelodies.Gardnerclaimsthatmusicalintelligenceisstructurallyparallelto
linguisticintelligence.Researchontheeffectsofmusicintheclassroomprovedthatstudents
whohadreceivedmusicaleducationorhadbeenexposedtomusic,hadhigheracademicresults
(Campbell,1997).Ingeneral,thedevelopmentofmusicalintelligenceintheclassroomcanhave
beneficialinfluencesashelpingstudentstoconcentrateandconnectwiththeirinnerself,
stimulatingcreativeprocesses,beingabletoeliminatedistractingnoisesfrominoroutsideof
theclassroomandfosteringarelaxed,motivatingandproductiveclassroomatmosphere(Arnold
&Fonseca,2004).
BodilyKinestheticIntelligence
BodilyKinestheticintelligenceentailsthepotentialofusingone'swholebodyorpartsofthe
bodytosolveproblems.Itistheabilitytousementalabilitiestocoordinatebodilymovements.
Thehumanneedformovementisoverlookedandtherefor,itspotentialvalueforcreating
23
higherenergylevelsandmaintainingattentionisgreatlyreduced.Theuseofroleplay,drama,
games,projectwork,andmanyactivitiesrelatedtogroupdynamicsaddressthebodily
kinestheticintelligence(Arnold&Fonseca,2004).
VisualSpatialIntelligence
Spatialintelligenceinvolvestheabilitytoperceivethecomponents(form,shape,line,space,
color)necessarytocreateamentalimageofsomething.AccordingtoArmstrong(1999)this
intelligenceincludesthinkinginpicturesandimagesandtheabilitytoperceive,transform,and
recreatedifferentaspectsofthevisualspatialworld.
InterpersonalIntelligence
Interpersonalintelligenceincludestalentinunderstandingandworkingwithothers,aswellas
respondingtofeelingsandintentionsofothers(Sternberg,1999;Rosnow,Skleder,Jaeger&
Rind,1994).Socialconstructivismineducationstressestheimportanceofinteractionofthe
participantsinthelearningprocess.
Additionally,interpersonalintelligencebuildsonacorecapacitytonoticeandmake
distinctionsamongotherindividualsandinparticular,amongtheirmoods,temperaments,
motivations,andintentions(Gardner1993).
IntrapersonalIntelligence
Intrapersonalintelligenceistheabilitytounderstandinnerself.Itreferstocognatefaculties
thatareinvolvedwhenweturnourcuriosityorattentioninwardonordertounderstand
ourselvestowardsthepersonalrealmofbehavior,feelings,andmotivations(Rosnow,1994).
Studiesonmetacognitiveknowledgeandlearning,wheremetacognitionreferstoknowledge
aboutoneselfprovedthatknowingpersonalcapacities,personality,feelings,motivation,
attitudes,learningstylesandlimitationsinordertooptimizepersonalperformanceisprecisely
oneofthemilestonesresearchappliedontheprocessoflearning(Christison,1999;Reid,1995,
1998).
NaturalistIntelligence
Naturalistintelligenceengagestheabilitytodiscriminateamongnumerousspecies,enjoyment
ofthenaturalworldandecologicalsensitivity.
24
MultipleIntelligenceDifferencesbyGroup
Multipleintelligencesaccountforabroaderrangeofhumanpotentialandreflectapluralistic
panoramaofpeoplesindividualdifferences.MIproposesthatintelligencescanbeunderstood
aspersonaltoolsthateachindividualpossessestoobtainnewinformationandtostoreitina
certainwaythatcanbeeasilyretrievedwhenneeded(Arnold&Fonseca,2004).
Gardnerproposesthatintelligencesareofneutralvalue;noneoftheseintelligencesare
consideredsuperiortotheothersandtheyarepresentedatsomeextentineveryone,although
anindividualwillgenerallybemoretalentedinsome,thaninothers.
Thetheoryofmultipleintelligences(MI)alsoprovidesausefulframeworkforunderstandingthe
basiccompetenciesofthegifted.Specifically,astudentcanbeconsideredgiftedinadiscipline
ofstudyordomainthatdrawsononeormoreoftheeightintelligences(Gardner,1993).
However,thereisnoonetoonemappingofintelligencesandgiftedness.Whilemathematical
activities,forexample,wouldoftenharnesslogicalmathematicalandvisualspatial
intelligences,goodperformanceonspatialtasksmightnotbenecessarilyassociatedwithvisual
spatialintelligenceforsomestudentswhoemploysemanticstrategiesthatrelyprimarilyon
verballinguisticandlogicalmathematicalintelligences.Studieshaveprovedthesignificant
connectionbetweentheMItheoryandidentifyingunderrepresentedandculturallydiverse
groupsofgiftedstudentsforparticipationingiftededucationprograms(Maker,Nielson,&
Rogers,1994;Sarouphim,1999).Whileitisgenerallyacknowledgedthatacomprehensive
understandingoftheneedsandpotentialofgiftedstudentsrequiresanassessmentthatcovers
differentaspectsofgiftednessandtalentsandincorporatesmultipleperspectivesormultiple
informants,thereislittleresearchonmultipleperspectives,andnorecentresearchonmultiple
informantsinthegiftedfield.Despiteit,Chans(2004)studyaimedtoassessgiftedstudents'
multipleintelligencesfromdifferentperspectives.Thestudyprovedthatgiftedstudentslogical
mathematicalintelligencereceivedthehighestratingswhereasbodilykinestheticintelligence
andnaturalistintelligencereceivedthelowestratings(Chan,2004).Eachstudent,includingthe
giftedstudent,hasauniqueprofileofstrengths,weaknesses,andneeds.ThefindingsofChans
studyhighlightsthatastudent'sprofilemightbeperceiveddifferentlybyjudgesfromdifferent
perspectives.Whileacknowledgingthatallperspectivesshouldberespectedandtheycouldbe
complementary,itisrecognizedthatstudentsdohaveexpertknowledgeaboutthemselvesand
theirperspectivesmighthavemoremeaningforthemselves.Contrarytotheconjecturethat
giftedstudentsmightbemorevulnerabletohavingproblemsrelatedtotheirinterpersonaland
25
intrapersonalintelligences,giftedstudentsinthisstudyjudgedthemselvesfavorablyin
interpersonalintelligencebutsomewhatpoorlyinintrapersonalintelligence,suggestingthat
theymighthaveproblemsinemotionalregulationandselfappraisal(Chan,2004).Inpredicting
students'perceivedcreativityandleadershipusingratingsonthemultipleintelligences,the
conventionalintelligences(verballinguistic,logicalmathematical,andvisualspatial
intelligences)emergedassignificantpredictorsforcreativity,whereasinterpersonaland
naturalistintelligencesemergedassignificantpredictorsforleadership.Theresultsalso
suggestedthatgiftedstudentswhoratedthemselveshighlyontheconventionalintelligences
alsoperceivedthemselvesasmorecreativeandcapableofdivergentthinking,andthosewho
ratedthemselveshighlyoninterpersonalandnaturalistintelligencesalsoperceivedthemselves
ashavingleadershipskillsinteamwork(Chan,2004).
MultipleIntelligenceDifferencesbyGender
Ksicinski(2000)andotherresearchersinvestigatedandidentifiedgenderdifferencesregarding
multipleintelligences.Itwasfoundthatfemalesratedthemselveshigherthanmalesinthe
differentintelligencesexceptthekinestheticintelligence.Indeed,thereisabodyofevidence
suggestingthatmalesandfemaleshaveseparatelyshowntohaveaconsistentadvantageover
theothergenderontheperformanceofcertaincognitivetasks(Halpern&LaMay,2000;Lezak,
1995).
26
RelationshipbetweenIntelligencesandStyles
AccordingtoRenzulliandDai(2001),abilitiesrefertowhethertheindividualiscapableof
learningorperformingcertaincognitivetasks.Cognitiveandlearningstylesquestioninwhich
waystheindividualapproacheslearningtasks.Thus,stylesreflectmoregeneralizedand
pervasiveaspectsofpersonalfunctioningthandoabilities(RenzulliandDai,2001).
StenbergandGrigorenko(2001)alsoemphasizedthedistinctionbetweenstylesandabilities:
stylesdonotrepresentasetofabilities,butratherasetofpreferences.Thedistinctionis
importantbecauseabilitiesandpreferencesmayormaynotcorrespond.Stylescanaccountfor
thevarianceinperformancethatcannotbeaccountedforbyvarianceinabilitytests.(Sternberg
&Grigorenko,2001)
Gardner(1999)pointedoutthedifferencebetweenastyleandintelligence,theconceptofstyle
designatesageneralapproachthatanindividualcanapplyequallytoanindefiniterangeof
content.Incontrast,intelligenceisacapacityoranability,withitscomponentcomputational
processes,thatisgearedtoaspecificcontentintheworld.Moreover,Gardnerhighlightsthat
intelligenceisnotonething,andtheMItheoryemphasizesthateachintelligencecanstandfor
itselfandthedifferentintelligencesareindependentofeachotherwhichmeanthatthe
evaluationofindividualsabilitiesincertainintelligencecannotpredicttheabilitiesinother
intelligence.Forinstance,anindividualwithhighmusicalabilitiesdoesnotindicatonhisabilities
intheotherintelligences.
Inaddition,Gardneralsodiscussedtheinteractionthatexistsbetweentheintelligences.He
claimedthatintelligencesalwaysoperatejointly.Anindividualalwaysusesdifferent
intelligencestoaccomplishatask,forinstance,amathematicaltaskwillrequiretheuseofthe
logicalandlinguisticintelligencesinordertobeaccomplished.InGardnersconception,these
twointelligencesoperatetogethersothatthetaskcanbeaccomplished.Everytaskaccordingto
itscharacteristicswillrequiretheintegrationofdifferentintelligencesinordertobesolved
(Gardner,1996).Armstrong(1999)alsostressedthatthereisvirtuallynoactivityinlifethatcan
beundertakenwithonlyoneintelligence.
Klein(2003)claimedthatGardners(1983)MultipleIntelligencetheoryisapartofthestudents
learningstyle,despitethefactthatthesetwoconceptshavedifferentmeaning;learningstyles
areconcernedwithdifferencesintheprocessoflearningwhilemultipleintelligencesfocuson
thecontentandtheproductsoflearning(Snyder,2000).However,theexistenceofmultiple
27
intelligencesisaprerequisitetotheexistenceofotherparallelintellectuallearningstylesamong
students(Snyder,2000).Gardner(1999)alsopointedoutthedifferencebetweenastyleand
intelligence:Theconceptofstyledesignatesageneralapproachthatanindividualcanapply
equallytoanindefiniterangeofcontent.Incontrast,anintelligenceisacapacity,withits
componentcomputationalprocesses,thatisgearedtoaspecificcontentintheworldand
perhaps,thedecisionabouthowtouseonesfavoredintelligencesreflectsonespreferred
style(Gardner,1999).Silver,Strong,andPerini(1997;2000)arguedthatlearningstylesand
multipleintelligencescomplementeachotherbyrespondingtoeachotherslimitations.While
MItheoryisfocusedonthecontentoflearning,itdoesnotpayattentiontotheperceptionand
processofinformation.Ontheotherhand,learningstyleiscenteredontheprocessoflearning
whileitisnotdirectlyconcernedaboutthecontentofthelearning.Therefore,Silver,Strong,
andPerini(1997;2000)createdamodelintegratingboththeoriesforpedagogicalpurposes.
Silver(1997)proposedapossiblerelationbetweenintelligenceandstyle.Heclaimedthatones
preferredstylereflectsthedecisionabouthowtousefavoredintelligences.Toillustrate,a
personwhosedominantintelligenceislinguisticmaywritepoetryornovels,takeplacein
debatesorlearnforeignlanguages.
Inlightofthis,inourresearchweclaimthatthesetwoconcepts,MultipleIntelligencesand
LearningStyles,representsimilartheoreticalstructurethatexistsinindividuals.
28
Chapter2Methodology
ThePurposeoftheStudy
MultipleIntelligenceandLearningStylearewidelyencounteredineducationnowadaysand
therehasbeenaparallelincreaseintheemphasisofthesetwoconceptssinceindividual
differenceswereshowntoconstituteimportantfactorsinthelearningprocess.Thetheoriesof
multipleintelligencesandlearningstylesareextremelysignificantinordertointerpret
individualdifferences,andthus,designeducationmodels.Thesetwotheoriesarebeing
regardedasdifferentapproachesandtheydonotcontainmutuallyexclusivecontext(Ozgen,
Tataroglu&Alkan,2011).However,despitetheirdifferingtheoreticalstructures,thesetheories
sharesimilarresultsinpractice(Guild,1997).ThetheoryofMultipleIntelligencedefinesthat
individualdifferencesresultfromthedifferenceintheircapacitytousetheirintelligences.
Humanshavedifferenttypesofdominantintelligences,andindividualsintelligenceconsistsof
differentcombinationsofintelligencesatcertainlevel(Ozgen,Tataroglu&Alkan,2011).
Gardner(2004)explainsthatindividualsalongwiththedominantintelligence,alsopossessnon
dominantintelligencedomainsandallintelligencedomainsareimportantasdifferent
intelligencescanbeindependentandanindividualmaywelllackanyabilityinaspecificdomain,
whilepossessingaveryhighlevelofabilityinanother.Therefore,theintelligencedomainsand
relatedabilitiesofindividualsshouldbeincorporatedintothelearningprocess.
Theconceptoflearningstyleisdefinedas:Thesetoffactorsthatdetermineindividuals
psychologicallyperceivetheirlearningenvironmentandthewaystheyinteractwithand
respondtotheirenvironment(Ozgen,Tataroglu&Alkan,2011).Dunn(1983)associatedthe
processoflearningwithenvironmentalstimuliandemphasizesthatthestimulipreferredby
individualsrevealthedifferencesintheirlearningstyles.Themodeloflearningstylesthatis
proposedbyDunnandDunnpresentsthatlearningstyleisapreferredwayoffocusingon,
processing,absorbingandstartingtorecallnewanddifferentcontents.Everyindividual
possessesadominantlearningstyleandanondominantlearningstyle(secondary,tertiaryand
soon)(Denig,2004).Rohaizad,Yeop&Anuar(2008),foundintheirstudythatgiftedmiddle
schoolstudentsshowahighpreferencefortactileandkinestheticlearningstylesbecausethey
liketobeactiveparticipantsinthediscoveryprocessinordertobemotivatedandengagedin
class.Cody(1983)comparedthelearningstylecharacteristicsamongaverageandgifted
29
students,andfoundthattheaveragestudentsdemonstratedahighpreferenceforvisual
learningstyleswhilethegiftedindicateahighpreferencefortactile/kinestheticlearningstyles
(Prashnig,2000).Dunn,PriceandRicca(1984)alsoreinforcedthefindingsthatgiftedstudents
prefertactileandkinestheticmodesoflearning(Dunn,RitaS.,andGaryE.Price,1980).
Theliteraturepresentedpointstoastrongrelationshipbetweenlearningstylesandmultiple
intelligencesintheprocessoflearning.Thepurposeofthestudyistodrawaparallelbetween
learningstylesandmultipleintelligencesamonggiftedandnongiftedstudentsontheonehand,
whilealsoexaminingthetwoconceptsseparatelyineachoneofthegroups.Gardnersstudy
notesthatlearningstylesandtypesofmultipleintelligencesarenotthesame(Checkley,1997);
hehighlightsthefactthatalearningstylecanbeassociatedwithmultipleintelligencedomains
andthetheoryofmultipleintelligenceisconnectedtothestylebasedapproaches.Nonetheless,
Klein(2003)andothersacknowledgethedifferencesbetweenthetwoconceptsstatingthat
learningstylesareconcernedwithdifferencesintheprocessoflearningwhilemultiple
intelligencesfocusonthecontentandproductsoflearning(Snyder,2000).Moreover,the
existenceofmultipleintelligencesisaprerequisitetotheexistenceofotherparallelintellectual
learningstylesamongstudents(Snyder,2000).Hence,thepurposeofthisstudyistoanalyzethe
relationshipbetweenlearningstylesandmultipleintelligencesamonggiftedandnongifted
students.Itmightbethatagiftedstudentwillusehispreferredlearningstyleonlyiftheparallel
intelligencetothisstylealsoexists.
30
ResearchQuestionsandHypothesis
Theresearchquestionsare:
1.Aretheredifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsasrelatedtolearningstyle?
2.AretheredifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsasrelatedtoMultiple
Intelligence?
3.Isthereacorrelationbetweenlearningstylesandmultipleintelligences?
Theresearchhypothesesare:
1.Significantdifferenceswillbefoundbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsasrelatedto
learningstyle.
a.Giftedstudentswillexhibithighpreferencesfortactileandkinestheticlearningstylesmore
thanthenongiftedstudents.
b.Nongiftedstudentswillratherpresenthighpreferencesforauditorylearningstylesthanthe
gifted.
Argument:Giftedstudentsprefertobeactiveparticipantsinthediscoveryprocessinorderto
bemotivatedandengagedinclass(Rohaizad,Yeop&Anuar,2008).
2.Significantdifferenceswillbefoundbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsasrelatedto
MultipleIntelligence.
a.Giftedstudentswillpreferinterpersonalintelligencemorethanintrapersonalintelligence.
Argument:Giftedstudentsmighthaveproblemsinemotionalregulationandselfperception
thatmightnotcorrespondwithperformanceandbehavioralmeasures(Chan,2004).
3.Positivecorrelationwillbefoundbetweenmultipleintelligencesandthesuitablelearning
stylesinbothgroups(giftedandnongifted).
a.Positivecorrelationwillbefoundbetweenthevisualspatialintelligenceandvisuallearning
style:studentswithhighpreferenceofvisualspatialintelligencewillprefervisuallearningstyle.
b.Positivecorrelationwillbefoundbetweenthebodilykinestheticintelligenceandkinesthetic
learningstyle:studentswithhighpreferenceofbodilykinestheticintelligencewillprefer
kinestheticlearningstyle.
31
Argument:Theexistenceofmultipleintelligencesisaprerequisitetotheexistenceofother
parallelintellectuallearningstylesamongstudents(Guild,1997,Checkley1997,Snyder,2002).
32
Method
Participants
ThesampleforthisstudyiscomposedoftwogroupsofIsraelisecondaryschoolstudents.The
schoolswereselectedaccordingtotheirspecialeducationalprogramsforgiftedandageneral
educationalcurriculumforregularstudents.Thefirstgroupconsistsof100studentsfromgrades
810ages1216,nominatedbytheirteacherstostudyinaspecialgiftededucationalprogram.
Thecomparativegroupconsistsof100normalachievingstudentsfromgrades810ages1416,
representasaverageintheiracademicperformance.
ResearchVariables
Independentvariables:
Groups:
1.Giftedstudents
2.Nongiftedstudents
Dependentvariablesmeasuresofdifferentkindsof:
1.LearningStyles
2.MultipleIntelligences
Instruments
LearningStyleInventory(appendix1)
ThecurrentresearchisusingtheLearningStyleInventorythatwasdevelopedbyDunnand
Dunn(1996).Themainaimofthepresentinstrumentistodiagnosestudentsindividual
learningstyleanddeterminetheconditions,underwhichastudentismostlikelytoproduce,
achieve,create,solveproblems,makedecisions,andlearn.Theinstrumentconsistsof32items
intendedtodeterminetheperceptualstrengthsrelatedtotheauditory,visual,tactileand
kinestheticlearningstyles.Todeterminethegeneralextentofpracticeofthelearningstyles,the
followingscaleisused:Never(0),Rarely(1),Occasionally(2),Frequently(3)and
Always(4).FortheuseofthisresearchtheLearningStyleInventorywastranslatedinto
HebrewandbacktranslatedintoEnglish.Inthetranslationprocess,everypossibleeffortwas
madetoensurethattheoriginalmeaningoftheitemswasretained.Thereliabilitythatwas
foundinpreviousstudiesis=0.82.
33
Thefactorsofthisinstrumentarepresentedintable20(seeappendix2).
MultipleIntelligencesSurvey(appendix3)
ThisresearchisalsousingtheMultipleIntelligencesSurveythatwasdevelopedbyMackenzie
(1999,2002).ThepurposeoftheinstrumentistoidentifyanindividualsMultipleIntelligences
profiles.Thisinstrumentconsistsof80itemswhicharedividedinto8sections,whereevery
sectionrepresentsoneofGardnerseightintelligencetypes.TodeterminetheMultiple
Intelligencesprofiles,thefollowingscaleisused:DontAgreeAtAll(1),Disagree(2),
Agree(3)andReallyAgree(4).Scoringoftheitemsrangedfrom1to4,eachfactorhasbeen
computedandthehighestscorefrom1to4inanyfactorindicatestheintelligence
characteristicsofthesubject.
Thereliabilitythatwasfoundinpreviousstudiesis=0.60.Thereliabilitythatwasfoundinthis
researchis=0.86.
Thefactorsofthisinstrumentarepresentedintable21(seeappendix4).
Procedure
Studentswillbeinformedabouttheresearchandtheiragreementtoparticipatewillbe
requested.ThestudentswillbeaskedtorespondanonymouslytotheLearningStyleInventory
andtheMultipleIntelligencesSurveywheretheywillratethemselvesontheirpreferencesfor
learningactivitiesandtheirdominantintelligencebyusingafourpointscale.Thestudentswill
providebackgroundinformationsuchasage,gender,gradeandtheireducationalprogram.The
learningstyleinventoryandthemultipleintelligencessurveywillbefilledoutduringtwo
classroomsessions.
34
ResearchFindings
DataAnalysis
Thedatawillbeprocessedbypresenting:descriptivestatisticsonthemeasuresofthe
inventories.OnewayAnovawillbeperformedforexplainingthedifferencesbetweenthetwo
groups,giftedandnongiftedstudents.Differentcorrelationsmatriceswillbepresentedfor
eachgroup,inordertofindthecorrelationsbetweenthedifferentlearningstylesandmultiple
intelligencesinbothgroups.
DescriptiveStatisticsfortheStudyMeasures
Thedescriptivestatistics,mean,standarddeviation,minimum,maximumandreliabilityare
displayedinTable1.Italsoshowstheinternalconsistencymeasuresoftheeightscalesof
multipleintelligencesandthefourscalesofthelearningstylepreferences.
Theeightscalesofmultipleintelligenceshadmoderateinternalconsistencyasreflectedinthe
valuesofCronbachs(.46to.70),whereasthefourscalesoflearningstyleshadslightlyhigher
values(.55to.75).
35
Table1:DescriptiveStatistics
Variable
Mean
Std.
Min
Max
Deviation
ALPHA
Cronbachs
()
MultipleIntelligences
Linguistic
199
2.30
0.47
1.30
3.70
0.62
Intrapersonal
199
2.50
0.42
1.00
3.67
0.46
LogicalMath
199
2.74
0.46
1.44
3.70
0.58
Musical
199
3.05
0.50
1.30
4.00
0.70
Kinesthetic
199
2.68
0.43
1.38
3.89
0.48
Natural
199
2.43
0.46
1.50
3.70
0.62
Interpersonal
199
3.01
0.43
1.56
3.89
0.63
Spatial
199
2.72
0.45
1.56
3.78
0.47
LearningStyles
Auditory
199
2.27
0.60
0.75
3.50
0.55
Visual
199
1.92
0.61
0.13
3.75
0.61
Tactile
199
1.72
0.81
0.13
4.00
0.74
Kinesthetic
199
1.56
0.80
0.00
3.75
0.75
36
ResearchQuestion1:Aretheredifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsasrelated
tolearningstyle?
UnivariateAnalysisofVariance(ANOVA)
Inordertoestablishthepreferenceratingsofgender,age,andgroupofthesecategories,a
2x4x2(2:gendermaleandfemale,4:age12,13,14,15,2:groupgiftedandnongifted)
univariateanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)wasperformedusingthecategoriesoflearningstyles
andmultipleintelligencesasdependentvariables.
Theresultspresentthefollowing:
A:VisualLearningStyle
TheresultsindicatethatthefirstmaineffectgenderisnotsignificantF(1,182)=1.263,p>.05.
ThesecondmaineffectagealsoisnotsignificantF(1,182)=.281,p>.05.
ThelastmaineffectgroupisnotsignificantF(1,182)=.069,p>.05.
ThetripleinteractionofgenderbyagebygroupisnotsignificantF(3,182)=.428,p>.05.
Conversely,thereisasignificantinteractionofgenderbyageF(3,182)=3.046,p.03,=.05.
PostHocanalysisshowsthatthedifferencesinvisualstylewiththeinteractionofgenderand
agearesignificantamongthefemalegroup.Thismeansthattheolderfemales(M=2.02)prefer
usingvisuallearningstylemorethantheyoungfemalegroup(M=1.49).
Inthemalegrouptherewerenodifferencesbetweenagesthatprefervisual
learningstyle(p>.05)(seeTable2andFigure1).
37
Table2:MeansandS.E.ofasignificantinteractionofgenderbyageinthevisuallearningstyle
Gender
Age
Mean
S.E
Male
12
2.15
.21
13
1.86
.14
14
2.08
.13
15
1.81
.11
12
1.49
.20
13
1.99
.08
14
1.88
.13
15
2.02
.10
Female
2.5
Mean
VisualLearningStyle
2.15
1.5
1.86
1.99
2.08
2.02
1.88
1.81
female
male
1.49
1
0.5
male
female
12
male
female
male
13
14
genderbyageinteraction
female
15
*indicatesonsignificantdifferencesofthemeansp.05
Figure1:Meansinteractionofvisuallearningstyleofgenderbyage
38
Anothersignificantinteractionforvisualstyleingenderbygroup
F(1,182)=3.755,p.05,=.02.
PostHocanalysisshowsthatthedifferencesinvisualstylewiththeinteractionofgenderand
grouparesignificantsolelyamongthenongiftedgroup.Thisconcludedthatthenongifted
males(M=2.09)aresignificantlyhigherinthevisualstylethanthegiftedmales(M=1.77).In
addition,therewerenodifferencesbetweenthefemalegroupsoverpreferenceofvisual
learningstyle(p>.05)(seetable3andfigure2).
Table3:MeansandS.E.ofasignificantinteractionofgenderbygroupinthevisuallearning
style
Group
Gender
Mean
S.E
Nongifted
Male
2.09
.11
Female
1.77
.10
Male
1.86
.10
Female
1.95
.09
Gifted
2.2
2.1
Mean
VisualLearningStyle
2.09
1.95
1.9
1.86
1.8
*
1.77
1.7
1.6
male
female
male
female
nongifted
gifted
genderbygroupinteraction
Figure2:Meansinteractionofvisuallearningstyleofgenderbygroup
39
B:AuditoryLearningStyle
Theresultsindicatethatthefirstmaineffectgenderisnotsignificant
F(1,182)=.240,p>.05.ThesecondmaineffectagealsoisnotsignificantF(3,182)=.877,
p>.05.
ThelastmaineffectgroupisnotsignificantF(1,182)=.237,p>.05.
Thetripleinteractionofgenderbyagebygroupisnotsignificant
F(3,182)=.266,p>.05.
TheresultsaswelldemonstrateasignificantinteractionwithgenderbygroupF(1,182)=
3.077,p.05,=.01.
PostHocanalysisshowsahigherdifferencebetweenthemales(M=2.33)inthenongifted
groupcomparedtothemales(M=2.09)inthegiftedgroup.Thisindicatesthatthemalesinthe
nongiftedgroupdemonstrateagreaterpreferenceinusingtheauditorylearningstyle(p.05)
(seetable4andfigure3).
Table4:MeansandS.E.ofasignificantinteractionofgenderbygroupintheauditory
learningstyle
Group
Gender
Mean
S.E
Nongifted
Male
2.33
.11
Female
2.19
.10
Male
2.09
.10
Female
2.33
.09
Gifted
40
2.3
2.33
AuditoryLearningStyle
2.33
2.25
2.2
Mean
2.35
2.19
2.15
2.1
2.05
2.09
2
1.95
nongifted
gifted
Males
nongifted
gifted
Females
Figure3:Meansinteractionofauditorylearningstyleofgenderbygroup
C:TactileLearningStyle
Theresultsoftheunivariateanalysesshowthatthemaineffectageisnotsignificant
F(3,182)=1.927,p>.05andthetripleinteractionofgenderbyagebygroupisalso
notsignificantF(3,182)=.081,p>.05.
TheresultspresentthattheinteractionofgenderF(1,182)=4.887,p.05,=.02andgroup
F(1,182)=5.857,p.05,=.03issignificantwiththetactilestyle.
Theresultsdemonstratethatthefemalegroup(M=1.86)issignificantlyhigherinpreferringthe
tactilestyleincomparisontothemalegroup(M=1.55)(p0.5)(seefigure4)
Asregardingtothetactilestylecategory,thenongiftedgroup(M=1.87)issignificantlyhigherin
thetactilestylethanthegiftedgroup(M=1.54)(p.05)(seefigure5).
41
2
1.8
Mean
TactileLearningStyle
*
1.86
1.6
1.4
1.55
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Males
Females
gender
Figure4:Meansofgenderintactilelearningstyle
1.8
1.87
1.6
1.4
1.54
1.2
Mean
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Nongifted
Gifted
group
Figure5:Meansofgroupintactilelearningstyle
42
Ultimately,thetactilestylecategoryanalysisalsopresentsasignificantinteractionofgender
bygroupF(1,182)=4.018,p.04,=.02.
PostHocanalysisshowsthatthedifferencesinthecategoryoftactilestyleintheinteractionof
genderbygrouparesignificantexclusivelyamongthegiftedgroup.Thisrevealsthatthe
giftedfemales(M=1.83)aresignificantlyhigherinthetactilestylethanthegiftedmales
(M=1.25),whiletherearenodifferencesbetweenthenongiftedgroupsinpreferringtactile
learningstyle(p>.05)(seetable5andfigure6).
Table5:MeansandS.E.ofasignificantinteractionofgenderbygroupinthetactile
learningstyle
Gender
Group
Mean
S.E
Male
Nongifted
1.86
.15
Gifted
1.25
.14
1.88
.13
1.83
.12
Female
Nongifted
Gifted
Mean
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1.86
1.88
1.83
*
1.25
nongifted
gifted
Males
nongifted
gifted
Females
Figure6:Meansinteractionoftactilelearningstyleofgenderbygroup
43
ResearchQuestion2:Aretheredifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsasrelated
tomultipleintelligence?
A:SpatialMultipleIntelligence
F(3,182)=.838,p>.05.Thesecondmaineffectgroupisnotsignificant
F(1,182)=1.834,p>.05.Thethirdmaineffectgenderisnotsignificant
F(1,182)=.193,p>.05.Thetripleinteractionofgenderbyagebygroupisalsonot
significantF(3,182)=.188,p>.05.
However,thereisasignificantinteractionofgenderbygroupvariables
F(1,182)=2.926,p.08,=.01.
PostHocanalysisindicatesthattherearedifferenceswithgenderandgroupinthespatial
intelligence.Thereisasignificantdifferenceamongthefemalegroup,meaningthatthegifted
females(M=2.86)aresignificantlyhigherinthespatialintelligencethanthenongiftedfemales
(M=2.61).ThePostHocanalysisalsofoundthattherearenodifferencesbetweenthemale
groupsinthepreferenceofspatialintelligence(p>.05)(seetable6andfigure7).
Table6:MeansandS.E.ofasignificantinteractionofgenderbygroupinthe
spatialintelligence
Group
Gender
Mean
S.E
Nongifted
Male
2.72
.08
Female
2.61
.08
Male
2.69
.07
Female
2.86
.07
Gifted
44

2.9
SpatialIntelligece
2.85
2.86
2.8
Mean
2.75
2.7
2.72
2.69
2.65
2.6
*
2.61
2.55
2.5
2.45
nongifted
gifted
nongifted
Males
gifted
Females
Figure7:Meansinteractionofspatialintelligenceofgenderbygroup
45
B:LinguisticMultipleIntelligence
Theresultsforlinguisticintelligenceshowthatthemaineffectgenderisnotsignificant
F(1,182)=1.264,p>.05.ThesecondmaineffectageisnotsignificantF(3,182)=.370,p>.05.
ThethirdmaineffectgroupisnotsignificantF(1,182)=.625,p>.05.
Thetripleinteractionofgenderbyagebygroupisalsonotsignificant
F(3,182)=.990,p>.05.
Thecategoryoflinguisticintelligenceanalysisalsoexemplifiesasignificantinteractionof
genderbygroupvariablesF(1,182)=5.357,p.02,=.02.
PostHocanalysisshowsthattherearesignificantdifferencesamongthegiftedgroup,implying
thatthegiftedfemales(M=2.44)aresignificantlyhigherinthelinguisticintelligencethanthe
giftedmales(M=2.16).Theanalysisalsofoundthattherearenodifferencesbetweenthenon
giftedgroupsastothepreferenceoflinguisticintelligence(p>.05)(seetable7andfigure8).
Table7:MeansandS.E.ofasignificantinteractionofgenderbygroupinthe
linguisticintelligence
Gender
Group
Mean
S.E
Male
Nongifted
2.29
.09
Gifted
2.16
.07
Nongifted
2.19
.08
Gifted
2.44
.07
Female
46
Mean
LingusticIntelligence
2.5
2.45
2.4
2.35
2.3
2.25
2.2
2.15
2.1
2.05
2
*
2.44
2.29
*
2.19
2.16
male
female
male
female
gifted
nongifetd
Figure8:Meansinteractionoflinguisticintelligenceofgenderbygroup
47
C:InterpersonalMultipleIntelligence
F(3,182)=.741,p>.05.ThesecondmaineffectgroupisnotsignificantF(1,182)=.131,p>.05.
ThetripleinteractionofgenderbyagebygroupisalsonotsignificantF(3,182)=1.303,
p>.05.
Thecategoryofinterpersonalintelligenceanalysisdemonstratesthatthegendermaineffectis
significantF(1,182)=5.194,p.02,=.02.
Themaineffectofgenderissignificantamongthefemalegroup.Thefemalegroup(M=3.1)is
significantlyhigherintheinterpersonalintelligencethanthemalegroup(M=2.92)(p>.05)
(seefigure9).
3.15
3.1
3.1
3.05
Mean
3
2.95
2.9
2.85
2.8
*
2.92
Males
Females
gender
Figure9:Meansofgenderininterpersonalintelligence
48
D:MusicalMultipleIntelligence
Theresultsshowthatthemaineffectageisnotsignificant
F(3,182)=2.103,p>.05.ThesecondmaineffectgroupisnotsignificantF(1,182)=.518,
p>.05.Thetripleinteractionofgenderbyagebygroupisalsonotsignificant
F(3,182)=1.991,p>.05.
Theanalysisdemonstratesthatthemaineffectgenderissignificant
F(1,182)=10.443,p.00,=.05.Themaineffectofgenderissignificantamongthefemale
group.Thefemalegroup(M=3.13)issignificantlyhigherinthemusicalintelligencethanthe
malegroup(M=2.86)(p>.05).
E:NaturalMultipleIntelligence
F(3,182)=1.672,p>.05.ThesecondmaineffectgroupisnotsignificantF(1,182)=.022,p>.05.
Thetripleinteractionofgenderbyagebygroupisalsonotsignificant
F(3,182)=1.167,p>.05.
ThecategoryofnaturalintelligenceanalysisexposesasignificantofgendermaineffectF(1,
182)=5.186,p.02,=.02.Themaineffectofgenderissignificantamongthemales.The
males(M=2.50)aresignificantlyhigherinthenaturalintelligencethanthefemales(M=2.32)
(p0.5)(seefigure10).
Inaddition,theanalysisalsoexposesasignificantinteractionofagebygroupvariablesF(3,
182)=2.447,p.06,=.04.
PostHocanalysisshowsthatthedifferencesinnaturalintelligencewiththeinteractionofage
andgrouparesignificantamongnongiftedgroup,theoldergroup(M=2.57)presentshigh
preferencesforthenaturalintelligencethantheyoungergroup(M=2.15).PostHocalso
indicatesthatthegiftedgroup,theoldergroup(M=2.58)presenthighpreferencesforthe
naturalintelligencethattheyoungergroup(M=2.23)(p.05)(seetable8figure10).
49
Table8:MeansandS.E.ofasignificantinteractionofagebygroupinthenaturalintelligence
Group
Age
Mean
S.E
Nongifted
12
2.15
.17
13
2.57
.10
14
2.48
.10
15
2.42
.08
12
2.43
.14
13
2.43
.06
14
2.23
.10
15
2.58
.08
Gifted
2.5
2
2.43
2.48
2.23
2.15
2.58
2.42
12
13
14
agebygroupinteraction
gifted
nongifted
0
gifted
nongifted
0.5
gifted
2.57
nongifted
2.43
1.5
gifted
Mean
nongifted
NaturalIntelligence
15
Figure10:Meansinteractionofnaturalintelligenceofagebygroup
50
AuditoryStyle
Gender
AgebyGroup
AgebyGender
GenderbyGroup
male
nongifted>gifted
M=2.33>M=2.09
VisualStyle
TactileStyle
females>males
M=1.86>M=1.55
KinestheticStyle
SpatialIntelligence
NaturalIntelligence
males>females
M=2.5>M=2.32
Interpersonal
Intelligence
MusicalIntelligence
females>males
M=3.1>M=2.29
females>males
M=3.13>M=2.86
Logicmathematics
Intelligence
Group
female
older>young
M=2.02>M=1.49
nongifted >gifted
M=1.87>M=1.54
gifted
females>males
M=1.83>M=1.25
gifted
female>male
M=2.44>M=2.16
female
gifted>nongifted
M=2.86>M=2.61
gifted
Nongifted
14vs.15
12vs.13
M=2.23M=2.58 M=2.15M=2.57
gifted>nongifted
M=2.79>M=2.59
p.05*p.01**
Table9:Summarytableofanalysesofvariance(ANOVA)establishingthepreferenceratingsofLearningStylesandMultipleIntelligencesbythe
interactionsofgender,age,andgroupvariables
51
E:LogicMathematicsMultipleIntelligence
Theresultsoftheunivariateanalysesshowthatthemaineffectgenderisnotsignificant
F(1,182)=2.597,p>.05.Thesecondmaineffectageisnotsignificant
F(3,182)=2.105,p>.05.Thetripleinteractionofgenderbyagebygroupisalsonot
significantF(3,182)=.023,p>.05.
Theanalysisdemonstratesthatthemaineffectgroupissignificant
F(1,182)=5.687,p.00,=.05.Themaineffectofgroupissignificantamongthegifted
group.Thegiftedgroup(M=2.79)issignificantlyhigherinthelogicmathematicsintelligence
thanthenongiftedgroup(M=2.86)(p>.05).(seefigure11).
2.85
LogicMathematicsIntelligence
*
2.8
2.79
2.75
Mean
2.7
2.65
2.6
2.55
*
2.59
2.5
2.45
Nongifted
Gifted
group
Figure11:Meansofgenderinlogicmathematicsintelligence
52

ResearchQuestion3:Isthereacorrelationbetweenlearningstylesandmultipleintelligences?
Inordertotesttherelationshipsbetweenthetwosetsofvariablesdefinedbylearningstyles
andmultipleintelligences,acorrelationanalysisofthesubscaleswascarriedoutasshownin
Table10.
Table10:Resultsofthematrixcorrelationanalysisbetweenlearningstylesandmultiple
intelligences
Intelligence
Style
Auditory
Visual
Tactile
Kinesthetic
Lingu
Intra
Logi
Musi
Kines
Natur
Inte
.36**
.33**
.29**
.30**
.29**
.32**
.28**
.27**
.36**
.38**
.26**
.18*
.23**
.19**
.30**
.28**
.27**
.30**
.27**
.33**
.16**
.19**
Spat
.27**
.38**
.26**
.23**
p.05*p.01**
Theresultsshowthefollowingsignificantcorrelations:
Thehighestcorrelationisbetweenvisuallearningstyleandallthemultipleintelligence
categoriesexcludingmusicalandinterpersonalintelligences,thecorrelationsrangedfrom
r=.28**forkinesthetictor=.38**forspatialandlogicalintelligences.
Thesecondhighestcorrelationisbetweentheauditorylearningstyleandalltheintelligence
categoriesrangedfromr=.18*formusicalintelligencetor=.36**forlogicalandlinguistic
intelligences.
Theresultsalsoindicatecorrelationsbetweenthekinestheticlearningstyleandmostofthe
intelligencecategoriesexcepttheinterpersonalintelligence,rangedfromr=.19**formusical
intelligencetor=.30**forlinguisticandkinestheticintelligences.
Thetactilelearningstylewhichindicateslesscorrelationswiththemultipleintelligences,ranged
fromr=.23**forthemusicalintelligencetor=.29**forthelinguisticintelligence.
Itisnoticeablethattheinterpersonalandmusicalintelligencesdemonstratelowercorrelation
coefficientwiththedifferentlearningstyles.
53

Inordertodeterminetherelationshipsbetweenthetwosetsofvariablesdefinedbylearning
stylesandmultipleintelligencesforthetwogroupsseparately,giftedandnongifted,two
correlationmatrixanalysesofthesubscaleswerecomputedasshowninTable11.
Table11:Resultsofthematrixcorrelationanalysisbetweenlearningstylesand
multipleintelligencesforgiftedandnongiftedgroups
Intelligences Lingu
Styles
.33**
Auditory
.38**
.31**
Visual
.35**
.26**
Tactile
.34**
.38**
Kinesthetic
.27**
Intra
Logi
Music
Kines
Natur
Inter
Spat
.15
.40**
.36**
.30**
.32**
.28**
.23**
.31**
.30**
.42**
.46**
.33**
.37**
.02
.27**
.24*
.11
.24*
.02
.20*
.27**
.28*
.33**
.05
.21*
.39**
.35**
.22*
.33**
.22*
.32**
.28**
.23*
.29**
.43**
.26**
.20
.00
.23*
.11
.13
.24*
.20*
.06
.18
.04
.18
.08
.27**
.28**
.40**
.38**
.38**
.18
.23*
.22*
Correlationsabovethediagonalrelatetothenongifted.p.05*p.01**
Correlationsunderthediagonalrelatetothegifted.
Theresultsofthecorrelationmatrixforthegiftedandnongiftedgroupsshowthe
followingresults:
Forthenongiftedgroup,thehighestcorrelationcoefficientwasfoundbetweenthe
visuallearningstyleandalltheintelligencecategoriesrangedfromr=.20*for
interpersonalintelligencetor=.46**forlogicalintelligencewhilemusicalintelligence
doesnthaveanycorrelationwithanyofthelearningstylecategories.
Forthegiftedgroup,thehighestcorrelationcoefficientisfoundbetweenauditory
learningstyleandalltheintelligencecategoriesrangedfromr=.24*forthemusicaland
54
interpersonalintelligencestor=.42**forlogicalintelligence.Thisconcludedthatthe
nongiftedpresentstrongerabilitiesinthevisualstyleasthegiftedgrouppresents
strongerabilitiesintheauditorylearningstyle.
Inthetactilestylecategoryonlythenongiftedgroupindicateshighcorrelation
coefficientwithalltheintelligencecategoriesexceptforthenaturalandinterpersonal
intelligences.Ontheotherhand,thegiftedgroupindicatesonlowercorrelation
coefficientwiththetactilestylecategory.Howeverthelinguisticandintrapersonal
intelligencehavehighcorrelationcoefficient,rangedfromr=.28**forintrapersonalto
r=.34**forlinguisticintelligence.
Forthekinestheticlearningstylecategorythenongiftedgrouparebettercorrelated
withalltheintelligencecategoriesexceptforttheinterpersonalintelligencesforthe
giftedgroup.
Inconclusion,theresultsemphasesthestrongrelationshipsarefoundbetweenlearning
stylesandmultipleintelligencesinthegiftedandnongiftedgroupsindifferentareas.
55
Table12:SummarytableofmatrixcorrelationanalysesbetweenLearningStylesandMultipleIntelligencesforgiftedandnongifted
Auditory
Linguistic
Intrapersonal
Logical
Musical
Kinesthetic
Natural
Interpersonal
Spatial
General
Nongifted
Gifted
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
Visual
General
Nongifted
Gifted
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
+
+
0
Tactile
General
Nongifted
Gifted
General
Nongifted
Gifted
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
0
+
+
+
Kinesthetic
p.05*p.01**
56
HierarchicalRegressionAnalysis
Inordertoestablishtherelationshipbetweenlearningstylesandmultipleintelligence,a
hierarchicalregressionanalysiswasusedtopredictlearningstylesaspredictedbygender,age
andmultipleintelligenceseparately.
A:AuditoryLearningStyle
Table13:Resultsofregressionanalysispredictingauditorylearningstyleamongnongifted
groupbydemographicvariablesandmultipleintelligence
Predicted:auditorylearningstyleamongnongifted
Model
Block1
Block2
Sig.
(Constant)
2.55
.01
gender
.00
.01
n.s.
R=.00
F=.01
age
14
n.s.
(Constant)
.01
.50
n.s.
gender
.05
.49
n.s.
age
.00
.01
n.s
lingu
.27
2.02
.04
intra
.08
.69
n.s.
logic
.93
.62
n.s.
music
.09
.77
n.s.
Kines
.07
.60
n.s.
natural
.00
.04
n.s.
inter
.06
.53
n.s
Spati
.15
1.11
n.s.
R=.16
F=1.65
p.05*p.01**
Resultsgivenintable14indicatethatthecategoryoflinguisticintelligenceisasignificant
predictoroftheauditorylearningstyleamongthenongiftedgroup(=.27,t=2.02*p.05).
57
Table14:Resultsofregressionanalysispredictingauditorylearningstyleamonggiftedgroup
bydemographicvariablesandmultipleintelligence
Predicted:auditorylearningstyleamonggifted
Model
Block1
Block2
Sig.
(Constant)
1.79
n.s.
gender
.24
2.48
.01
age
.34
n.s.
(Constant)
.03
R=.05
F=3.10
.14
n.s.
gender
.17
1.72
n.s.
age
.06
.77
n.s.
lingu
.08
.71
n.s.
intra
.22
2.23
.02
logic
.32
2.82
.00
music
.01
.19
n.s.
Kines
.11
.94
n.s.
natural
.02
.24
n.s.
inter
.05
.56
n.s.
Spati
.03
.33
n.s.
R=.34
F=4.77***
p.05*p.01**
Resultsgivenintable15indicatethatinthefirststep(block1)ofthehierarchicregression
analysis,thevariableofgenderpredictstheauditorylearningstyleamongthegiftedwhich
meansthatthegiftedfemalehavemoreauditorylearningstylesthanmales.However,the
predictionofauditorylearningstylebythegendervariabledisappearsinthenextstep(block2).
Inthesecondstep(block2),theresultsshowthatthecategoryofintrapersonalintelligenceisa
positivesignificantpredictorofauditorylearningstyleamongthegiftedgroup
(=.22,t=2.23***)aswellasthecategoryoflogicalintelligence(=.32,t=2.82***).
58
B:VisualLearningStyle
Table15:Resultsofregressionanalysispredictingvisuallearningstyleamongnongiftedgroup
Predicted:visuallearningstyleamongnongifted
Model
Block1
Block2
Sig.
(Constant)
2.76
.00
gender
.09
.91
n.s.
R=.01
F=.51
age
.55
n.s.
(Constant)
.05
.70
n.s.
gender
.06
.70
n.s.
age
.13
1.42
n.s.
lingu
.04
.35
n.s.
intra
.18
1.67
n.s.
logic
.24
1.89
n.s.
music
.26
2.56
.01
Kines
.08
.79
n.s.
natural
.14
1.24
n.s.
inter
.10
1.03
n.s.
Spati
.13
1.11
n.s.
R=.37
F=4.94***
p.05*p.01**
Resultsgivenintable16indicatethatthevisuallearningstyleamongthenongiftedgroupis
negativelypredictedbythecategoryofmusicalintelligence(=.26,t=2.56***),meaningthat
lessmusicalintelligencepredictshighervisuallearningstylesamongthenongiftedgroup.
59
Table16:Resultsofregressionanalysispredictingvisuallearningstyleamonggiftedgroup
Predicted:visuallearningstyleamonggifted
Model
Block1
Block2
Sig.
(Constant)
.64
n.s.
gender
.13
1.32
n.s.
R=.03
F=1.67
age
1.32
n.s.
(Constant)
.13
1.12
n.s.
gender
.06
.62
n.s.
age
.10
1.06
n.s.
lingu
.15
1.32
n.s.
intra
.11
1.09
n.s.
logic
.16
1.39
n.s.
music
.01
.12
n.s.
Kines
.07
.61
n.s.
natural
.00
.04
n.s.
inter
.06
.59
.s.
Spati
.24
2.19
.03
R=.24
F=3.01***
p.05*p.01**
Resultsgivenintable17indicatethatthecategoryofspatialintelligenceisapositivesignificant
predictorofvisuallearningstyleamongthegiftedgroup(=.24,t=2.19***),meaningthatmore
spatialintelligencepredictsmorevisuallearningstyleamonggifted.
60
C:TactileLearningStyle
Table17:Resultsofregressionanalysispredictingtactilelearningstyleamonggiftedgroup
Predicted:tactilelearningstyleamonggifted
Model
Block1
Block2
Sig.
(Constant)
1.15
n.s.
gender
.31
3.36
.00
R=.13
F=7.49***
age
2.07
.04
(Constant)
.19
1.63
n.s.
gender
.15
1.52
n.s.
age
.18
1.92
n.s.
lingu
.23
2.00
.04
intra
.13
1.27
n.s.
logic
.19
1.60
n.s.
music
.04
.42
n.s.
Kines
.15
1.22
n.s.
natural
.15
1.24
n.s.
inter
.08
.83
n.s.
Spati
.13
1.21
n.s.
R=.26
F=3.40***
p.05*p.01**
Resultsgivenintable18indicatethatinthefirststep(block1)ofthehierarchicregression
analysis,thecategoryofgenderisasignificantpredictoroftactilelearningstyleamongthe
giftedgroup(=.31,t=3.36***)whichmeansthatbeingfemalealsopredictsthetactilelearning
style.Agevariablealsosignificantlypredictsthetactilestyleamongthegiftedgroup(=.19,
t=2.07***),meaningthatastheparticipantsbecomeoldertheyprefertousethetactilelearning
style.However,thesignificantpredictionofthesevariablesdisappearinthesecondstep
(block2)andthecategoryoflinguisticintelligencefoundtobeapositivesignificantpredictorof
thetactilestyleamongthegifted(=.23,t=2.00***).
Theresultsofregressionanalysispredictingkinestheticlearningstyleamongnongiftedand
giftedparticipantsdidnotindicateonasignificantpredictionbyanyofthevariables.
61
D:SummarytableoftheHierarchicRegressionAnalysis
Table18:Summaryofthehierarchicregressionanalysispredictinglearningstylesamonggifted
andnongiftedbydemographicvariablesandmultipleintelligence
Block1
Block2
Predictedlearningstylesamongnongiftedby
demographicalvariablesandmultipleintelligence
Predicted Auditory Visual Tactile Kinesthetic
Predictedlearningstylesamonggiftedby
demographicalvariablesandmultipleintelligence
Auditory
Visual Tactile
Kinesthetic
Predictors
Gender
0
0
0
0
+*
0
+**
Age
0
0
0
0
0
0
+*
Gender
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Age
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Linguistic
+*
0
0
0
0
0
+*
Intrapersonal
0
0
0
0
+*
0
0
Logical
0
0
0
0
+**
0
0
Musical
0
*
0
0
0
0
0
Kinesthetic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Naturalist
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Interpersonal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spatial
0
0
0
0
0
+*
0
+positivedirection0nopredictionp.05*p.01**
negativedirection
Thesummarytableshowsthefollowingcomparisons:theauditorystyleamongthenongifted
predictedpositivelybythecategoryofthelinguisticintelligencewhileamongthegiftedgroupit
ispositivelypredictedbygenderinthefirststepmeaningthatmorefemaleuseauditorystyle
andinthesecondstepitispositivelypredictedbyintrapersonalandlogicalintelligences.
Thevisuallearningstyleamongnongiftedisnegativelypredictedbythecategoryofmusical
intelligencewhileamonggiftedonlyspatialintelligencepredictsthevisualstyle.
Thetactilelearningstyleamongthenongiftedisnotpredictedbyanyofthevariablesproving
thatitdoesnothaveanyconnectionwithintelligencewhereasamonggiftedthetactilestyleis
predictedbygenderasmorepreferablestyleamongfemale,itisalsopredictedbyageandby
linguisticintelligence.
Thekinestheticlearningstyleisnotpredictedbyanyofthevariablesthathavebeenusedinthe
hierarchicregressionanalysis.
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chapter4Discussions
Thepurposeofthestudywastoinvestigatelearningstylesandmultipleintelligence
preferencesamonggiftedandnongiftedstudents.Aftercollectingthedataandthe
statisticalanalysiswearegoingtodiscusstheresultsaccordingtothefollowingresearch
questions:
ResearchQuestion1:Aretheredifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsas
relatedtolearningstyle?
OnewayANOVAwasutilizedtoestablishwhetherdifferencesarebetweengiftedandnon
giftedgroupsusingthecategoriesoflearningstylesasdependentvariablesbytheinteractions
ofgender,ageandgroupvariables.Theresultspresentthattherearedifferencesanddiversities
inthepreferencesoftheauditory,visualandtactilelearningstyleswhilethekinestheticstyle
resultshaveshownthatnostatisticalsignificancedifferenceswerefoundinthispreferencein
bothgroups.
KinestheticLearningStyle
Hypothesis1aclaimsthatgiftedstudentswillexhibithighpreferencesfortactileandkinesthetic
learningstylesmorethanthenongiftedstudents.However,theresultshavedemonstratedthat
therearenodifferencesinthepreferencesofkinestheticstyleamongthetwogroups.Thisis
contrastingtheconclusionsofdifferentstudiesthathavebeeninvestigatinganddetermining
learningstylesofgiftedandnongiftedstudents,alltheresultshaveindicatedthatgifted
studentsaremorekinestheticandmorelikelytobeencouragedusinghandsonactivitiesthat
enablethemtoreachtheirpotential(Turki,2014).Thislackofsignificantdifferencebetween
thetwogroupscanbeexplainedwhithintheIsraelieducationsystemandthemethodof
teachingwhichhasbeenmodifiedinthelastfewyears.ThemethodofteachinginIsrael
advocatesforactivelearningmethodsthatengageallstudentsinthelearningprocessand
requiresthemtotakepartinmeaningfullearningactivities,thismethodoflearningcontrasts
thetraditionalmethodofteaching,wherestudentspassivelyreceiveinformationfromthe
teacher(Price,2004).Thisisthemainreasonforthelackdifferencesinthepreferenceofthe
kinestheticstyleamongthebothgroups.
63
VisualLearningStyle
Anotherdifferencethatthisstudyhasindicatedbetweengiftedandnongiftedisrelatedto
visuallearningstyleduetotheinteractionofagebygenderfactors.Theresultsinthisstylewere
infavoroftheolderfemalethantheyoungerfemalegroup.Wehrwein,Lujan&Dicarlo(2007)in
theirstudyprovedthatfemalespresenthigherpreferenceofthevisualstyle.Ozbas(2014)inhis
studyalsoprovedthatthemostimportantdifferenceonvisuallearningisbeneficialforthe
femalegroup.
Someresearchersclarifythatyoungchildrenprefermoretactileorkinestheticstyles,andthere
isagradualdevelopmentofvisualstrengthsthroughouttheolderyearswhichleadsustothe
conclusionthatolderfemalewillprefervisualstylemorethantheyoungergroupduetothe
developmentoftheirvisualstrengths.Thevisuallearnersmustbeabletoformmentalimages
withthethingstheylearnandkeepthemintheirmind(Dunn&Dunn,2003,ascitedinPender
&Tekavcic,2009).
Theresultsreportasignificantdifferencebetweengiftedandnongiftedasrelatedtothe
auditorystyleduetotheinteractionofgenderbygroupfactors;thenongiftedmalestudents
preferredauditorystylemorethanthegiftedmalegroup.Thisfindingsupportsourhypothesis
1bclaimingthatnongiftedstudentswillratherpresenthighpreferencesforauditorylearning
stylesthanthegifted.
ThisfindingofWehrwein,Lujan&Dicarlo(2007)researchsupportsourresultsandprovesthat
maleswereevenlydistributedinunimodalpreferenceoftheauditorystyleandSimilarily,
InghamandPrice(1993)foundthattheacademicallygiftedstudentsweremorevisualandless
auditorythannongiftedstudentssincemostofthegiftedhavestrongrighthemispherewhichis
responsibleforthepictorialareaofthebrainandtheythinkinimagesasopposedtowords,
theylearnbydoingandwatching,ratherthanbeinggivenaseriesoforaldirections(Silverman,
2002).
Theresultshaveshownsignificantdifferencesbetweenthegiftedandthenongiftedasrelated
tothetactilestyle;thenongiftedstudentsprefertousethetactilelearningstylemorethanthe
giftedstudents.Thisfindingcontradictsourhypothesis,thatgiftedstudentwillpresenthigher
preferenceforusingthetactilelearningstyle.Thisfindingalsoincontrastwiththeresultsofthe
PriceandMilgram(1993)studiesthathavebeeninvestigatinglearningstyleofgiftedandnon
64
giftedstudentsinseveraldomains.Theyreportedthatkinestheticandtactilelearningstyles
discriminatedthemostbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsoversixculturalgroups.Inall
countries,giftedstudentspreferredkinestheticandtactilemorethannongiftedstudentsasthe
giftedliketobeactiveparticipantsinthediscoveryprocessinordertobemotivatedand
engagedinclass(Rohaizad,Yeop&Anuar,2008).Thesedifferencesoftheresultsmaybe
attributedtothechangesthattheeducationalsysteminIsraelhasbeenmakinginthemethods
ofteachingatschools.Asitismentionedbefore,thenewmethodofteachinginIsraelfocuses
onactivelearning,inotherwordslearningthroughmaking.Thismethodbelievesandeducates
thatknowledgecanbeactivelyconstructedbythestudentininteractionwiththeworldin
differentwaysandencouragesthestudenttoengageinhandsonexplorationssuchas:building
models,doingexperiments,usingtechnologythatfueltheconstructivelearningprocessand
makeitmeaningfulforhim.
Severalresearcheshavedeterminedthatlearningstyledifferstatisticallybygender(Greb,
1999).Thefindingsofthisstudyshowthattherearestatisticallysignificantdifferencesinthe
tactilestyleduetothegendervariable;andwhenweinquiredthedifferencesseparatelyforthe
femaleandthemalegroup,theresultsindicatedthatthegiftedfemalegrouppresentshigher
preferencesintheuseoftactilestylethanthegiftedmalegroup.Thisfindingpartiallysupports
ourhypothesesbecausewhenwefocusonthegiftedgroup,wefoundthatthegiftedfemales
aremoretactilethanthegiftedmales. Thisresultissimilarwithresearchfindings(Alsafi,2010),
whichalsoindicatedthatfemalesdemonstratedhigherpreferencefortactilestylethanmales.
ThisfindingcanbeclarifiedduetotheteachingmethodinIsraelandaccordingtotheresultsit
canbeconcludedthatthisnewmethodofteachinghashigherimpactonthemalegroupinboth
groupsandthereasonthattherearenodifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedmales.
Itcanbeconcludedthattherearesignificantdifferencesamonggiftedandnongiftedasrelated
tolearningstylesduetodifferentfactors.Almostalltheresultsinthepresentstudyareparallel
todifferentresearchesthathavebeeninvestigatinglearningstylesamonggifted.Howeverthe
innovationinmystudyisthatthenongiftedalsocanbecharacterizedastactilelearners.Inthe
lightofthepresentedfindingsofthestudy,futurestudiesshouldinvestigatemorethe
preferencesofthetactilelearningstyleamonggiftedandnongifted.
65
ResearchQuestion2:Aretheredifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedstudentsas
relatedtoMultipleIntelligence?
OnewayANOVAwasutilizedtoestablishthedifferencesbetweengiftedandnongiftedgroups
usingthecategoriesofmultipleintelligencesasdependentvariablesbytheinteractionsof
gender,ageandgroupvariables.
SpatialIntelligence
Theresultsofthestudyfurtherindicatethatthespatialintelligencedifferencesonlyamongthe
female;thegiftedfemalepresentedsignificantlyhighertendencyforspatialintelligencethan
thenongiftedfemalegroup.Thisfindingissimilartotheconclusionofstudy(Bahmannia,
Khosravi&Khorshidi,2014)thatgiftedfemalesaresignificantlyhigherinthespatialintelligence.
Anotherstudy(Shahazada,Ghazi,Khan,Iqbal&Shabbir2011)thatexploredthedifference
betweenstudentsselfperceivedmultipleintelligencesofmaleandfemale,indicatedthat
femalesratedthemselveshigherthanmalesintermofperceivedspecialintelligence.
Findingsrevealedthatbasedontheselfratingandestimationofmultipleintelligencesamong
thegiftedandthenongifted,thefemalegiftedgroupinthisstudydemonstratedstronger
tendencyforlinguisticintelligencethanthemalegiftedgroup.Thestudiesthatwereconducted
alsoprovedthatfemalesscorehigheronthelinguisticscaleascomparedtomalesand
accordingtothefindingsofourstudyisevenmoresignificantamongthegiftedfemalessince
themalesarelesssensitivetoexpressivelanguageandlessskilledintheacademictasksof
readingandwriting(Shearer,2006).
Kaur&Chhikara(2008)alsofoundthatfemalesweresignificantlydifferentinthelinguisticskills
thanmalesandthereasonliesinthedevelopmentprocessofmalesandfemales;femalesare
aheadinlanguageprogressthanmales.Theybegintotalkearlierandshowfastervocabulary
growth.Moreover,throughouttheschoolyears,femaleattainhigherscoresonreadingand
writingachievementtests(Campbell,Hombo&Mazzeo,2000).Inaddition,femalesearly
advantageinlanguageskillsmaybefosteredbytheirfasterrateofphysicalmaturation,believed
topromoteearlierdevelopmentofthelefthemisphereofthecerebralcortex,wherelanguage
functionsusuallyarelocalized(Kaur&Chhikara,2008).
Diamond,Jhonson,Young&Singh(1983)claimthatleftsideofthecerebralcortexinfemalesis
slightlylargerandmorematurethaninmales.
66
Genderdifferencesregardingmultipleintelligences
Ksicinski(2000)inhisresearchinvestigatedandidentifiedgenderdifferencesregardingmultiple
intelligences.Itwasfoundthatfemalesratedthemselveshigherthanmalesinthedifferent
intelligencesexceptthekinestheticintelligence.Indeed,thereisabodyofevidencesuggesting
thatmalesandfemaleshaveseparatelyshowntohaveaconsistentadvantageovertheother
genderontheperformanceofcertaincognitivetasks(Halpern&LaMay,2000;Lezak,1995).
Theresultsofthisstudyhavedemonstratedgenderdifferencesininterpersonal,musicaland
naturalintelligences.
Theresultsexposedthatfemalespresentedhighertendencyfortheinterpersonalintelligence
thanmales.Thisfindingdoesnotapprovehypothesis2awhichclaimedthatgiftedstudents
wouldpresenthighertendencyfortheinterpersonalintelligencesincethefindingonly
presentedgenderdifferences.
Furnham's(1999)studyprovidedsomedirectevidencefortheassumptionthatestimatesof
intelligencearesusceptibletogenderstereotypes;Bennett(1996)observedthatmales
respondentselfestimatetheirintelligencequotient(IQ)higherthanfemales,butmalesdidnot
attributehigherlevelsofinterpersonalintelligenceoverfemales.Gardner(1993)statedthat
multipleintelligenceshaveaculturalcomponent.Fromthisperspective,thedifferenceinthe
interpersonalintelligenceisnotbiological,butrathersocial.Theoriginofthesedifferencesis
foundinsinglerolesandpositionsinsociety.MuhammadSohailAlietal.(2009)listedthatone
ofthepossiblefactorsaffectthegenderdifferencesintheinterpersonalintelligencearesocial
influences,includinggenderroles,selfconception,outsideinfluence,education,and
personality.
MusicalIntelligence
Thefindingsindicatedthatfemalespresentedhighertendencytomusicalintelligencethan
males.
Thedifferencescanbeattributedtothegenderstereotypephenomenonthatiscommoninour
societythatconsidersmusicanddanceasmorefeministtraits;femaleareusuallyfoundtobe
moreinterestedinmusicthanmaleandareseendiscussingaboutmusicintheirfreetimewith
theirfriends.TheseresultsareinaccordancewithFurnham's(1999)findingsthatmalesdonot
generallyestimatetheirintelligencehigherthanfemalesandfemalesratetheirmusical
intelligencehigherthanmales.
67
NaturalisticIntelligence
Thepresentstudyalsoindicatedthatmalesratedthemselveshigheronnaturalisticintelligence
thanfemales.Theybelievetheyunderstandthetaxonomicfunctionofnaturalintelligence
betterthanfemaleasalsopresentedinFurnhams(2001)studythatthemultipleintelligence
malesgavethemselveshigherratingsinthenaturalisticdomains.
Inaddition,theresultsdemonstratethedifferencesinthenaturalintelligenceamongthetwo
groupsseparately;itwasfoundthatinthebothgroupstheolderstudentsselfratingwere
higherthantheyoungerstudents.
LogicMathematicIntelligence
Thefindingsrevealedthatbasedontheselfratingamongthegiftedandthenongifted,the
giftedgroupinthisstudydemonstratedstrongertendencyforlogicmathematicintelligence
thanthenongiftedgroup.Thegiftedgroupdemonstratedhighersensitivitytologicalpatterns
usingnumberseffectively,enjoyingcomplexoperations,representingconcreteobjectsand
solvingcriticalproblemsthanthenongifted.ThisfindingissimilartothatofKoura,Abdellaand
Zafer(2010)wheretheyalsohaveprovedthatgiftedseemedtohaveananalyticapproachin
handlingproblems(Koura&AlHabaishi,2014).
Itcanbeconcludedthattherearesignificantdifferencesamonggiftedandnongiftedasrelated
tomultipleintelligencesduetodifferentfactors.Almostalltheresultsinthepresentstudyare
paralleltodifferentresearchesthathavebeeninvestigatingmultipleintelligencesamonggifted
andnongifted.
68
ResearchQuestion3:Positivecorrelationwillbefoundbetweenmultipleintelligencesandthe
suitablelearningstylesinbothgroups(giftedandnongifted).
Thepresentstudyinvestigatedthedifferencesandthecorrelationsbetweenlearningstylesand
theircompatiblemultipleintelligences.Klein(2003)claimedthatthetheoryofMultiple
Intelligenceisasignificantpartofthestudentslearningstyles.Thus,thevariablesofthe
learningstylesandmultipleintelligencesrepresentthetheoreticalstructurethatexistsinthe
personalityofaperson.Kleintriedtodistinguishbetweenthetwoconcepts(learningstylesand
multipleintelligences)statingthatlearningstylesareconcernedwithdifferencesintheprocess
oflearningwhilemultipleintelligencesfocusonthecontentandproductsoflearning(Snyder,
2000).Moreover,theexistenceofmultipleintelligencesisaprerequisitetotheexistenceof
otherparallelintellectuallearningstylesamongstudents(Snyder,2000).Thesetheoriesleadto
thehypothesisthatapositivecorrelationwillbefoundbetweenmultipleintelligencesand
learningstyles.
Thefindingsofthestudyconfirmthatthereisadirectcorrelationbetweendifferentmultiple
intelligencesandparallellearningstyles.Forinstance,thereisasignificantcorrelationbetween
spatialintelligenceandthevisuallearningstyleandthebodilykinestheticintelligencestrongly
correlateswiththekinestheticlearningstyle.Thisconfirmshypothesis3thatrecognizesaclear
correlationbetweenthedifferentmultipleintelligencesandthecorrespondedlearningstylesin
bothgroups.Theresultsindicated:
Resultsshowthattherearestrongandpositivecorrelationsbetweenauditorylearningstyleand
allthemultipleintelligencesspecificallyamongthegiftedstudents,thisindicatesthatthegifted
groupinthesampleofthisstudytendstohaveastrongpreferenceforlearningthroughtheir
auditoryskills.Whileforthenongiftedtherewasalackofcorrelationbetweenintrapersonal,
musicalandinterpersonalintelligenceswiththeauditorystyle.
VisualLearningStyle
Theresultsindicateonalackofcorrelationbetweeninterpersonalintelligencewiththevisual
styleamongthegiftedwhileamongthenongiftedthereisasignificantlackofcorrelation
betweenthemusicalandtheinterpersonalintelligenceswithvisualstyle.Thesefindingsconfirm
hypothesis3athatindicatedapositivecorrelationbetweenvisuallearningstyleandthevisual
spatialintelligence;studentswithhigherpreferenceofvisualspatialintelligencewillprefer
69
visuallearningstyle.Ourresultsfoundapositivecorrelationbetweenvisuallearningstyleand
thevisualspatialintelligenceamongthenongiftedandthegiftedgroups;however,amongthe
nongiftedthecorrelationishigherthanamongthegiftedgroup.Thiscanbeattributedtothe
factthatthegiftedgroupinourstudypresentshigherpreferencesfortheauditorylearning
styleswherewecanseestrongcorrelationbetweentheauditorystyleswiththeintelligences.
Forthegiftedgroup,thetactilestylefindingsindicatealackofcorrelationwiththelogical,
naturalistic,interpersonalandspatialintelligences.Forthenongiftedgroup,thetactilestyle
resultspointonlackofcorrelationwiththenaturalisticandinterpersonalintelligences.
KinestheticLearningStyle
Thefindingsindicatedonlackofcorrelationofkinestheticstylewiththemusical,naturalistic
andtheinterpersonalintelligencesamongthegiftedwhileamongthenongiftedthereisalsoa
significantlackcorrelationwiththeinterpersonalintelligence.Thesefindingsconfirmhypothesis
3bthatastrongcorrelationwillbefoundbetweenkinestheticlearningstyleandbodily
kinestheticintelligence;studentswithhigherpreferencesofbodilykinestheticintelligencewill
preferkinestheticlearningstyle.Guild(1997),Checkley(1997)&Snyder(2002)explainedthat
theexistenceofmultipleintelligencesisaprerequisitetotheexistenceofotherparallel
intellectuallearningstylesamongstudents.
Thefindingsindicatethatcorrelationsdoexistinthemajorityofthedifferentlearningstylesand
intelligences.Theserelationshipsmightbesetforthintheotherway;thatistosay,gifted
studentswithahigherpreferenceforauditorylearningstyleseemtobestrongerinallthe
intelligencesandthenongiftedstudentswithhigherpreferenceforauditorystyleseemtobe
strongerinlinguistic,logical,kinesthetic,naturalisticandspatialintelligences.
ThesefindingsaresimilartotheresultsofthestudiesconductedbySeifoori&Zarei(2011)and
Tekiner(2005).Theresultsalsoindicateonpositivecorrelationsbetweenthelearningstyles
withsomeoftheintelligences.
Theresultsobtainedindicatethateachparticipantusesacombinationofdifferentlearning
modalitiestolearneffectively.Studentswithdominantlinguisticintelligencearemoresensitive
tospokenandwrittenlanguage,theypossesstheabilitytolearnlanguageseasily,anduse
languagetoexpressoneselfrhetoricallyorpoetically;listenandrespond,imitatesounds,
reading,writingandtakingpartsindiscussions(Campbell,Campbell,&Dickinson,1996).
70
Therefore,theuseofthedifferentlearningstylescontributetothisintelligence.Theseresults
alsoconcludetheideaarticulatedbyNolen(2003)thatindividualspossesseachintelligencetoa
certainlevel,butasaresultofexposuretospecificsocialandinstructionalconditionsdesigned
foracertainintelligencetype,thisintelligencetypedevelopstoahigherlevel.Thatistosay,one
typeofintelligencebecomesstrongerwhileothersdonotdevelopfully.
Gardnerclaimedthateveryintelligencecanfunctionasaseparateintellectualintelligence,he
alsopointedonanintegralrelationshipbetweenacertainintellectualabilitytosomeother
aspectsoftheintellect.
Gardnerstheory(1995)alsopresentscorrelationsbetweentheintelligences.Thefactthat
Gardnerfoundrelationshipsbetweendifferenttypesofintelligences,explainsthecorrelation
betweenthelearningstylesandtheintelligences.Thus,theauditorylearningstyleispositively
correlatedwiththelinguisticintelligence;italsoservesasaresourcetootherintelligencesas
well.Thisexplainstheresultsofthepresentstudy.
HierarchicalRegressionAnalysis
Hierarchicalregressionanalysissummateswhichintelligencepredictsdifferentstylesingifted
andnongiftedstudentsusingdemographicvariables(genderandage)andmultiple
intelligences.
Predictedlearningstylesamongnongifted
Theresultsdemonstratethatonlythelinguisticandmusicalintelligenceswereeffectivein
predictingpreferablelearningstylesamongthenongiftedgroup.Indetail,Linguistic
intelligenceisstatisticallysignificantandpositivelypredictstheauditorylearningstyle.This
indicatesthatnongiftedstudentswithstrongtendencyforlinguisticintelligencewillpresent
higherpreferencesforutilizingauditorylearningstyle.
Inaddition,musicalintelligencealsofoundtobestatisticallysignificantnegativepredictorfor
visuallearningstylepreference.Thatistosaythatlessmusicalintelligencepredictshigher
visuallearningstylepreferencesamongthenongifted.Itisnotclearwhymusicalintelligence
hasanegativeeffect.
71
Predictedlearningstylesamonggifted
Theresultsalsoshowthattheintrapersonalintelligencepreferenceisapositivesignificant
predictorofauditorylearningstyle.Thisindicatesthatgiftedstudentswithstrongtendencyfor
intrapersonalintelligencewillpresenthigherpreferencesforauditorystyle.
Logicalintelligencealsodemonstratesapositivesignificantpredictorofauditorylearningstyle;
thismeansthatgiftedstudentswithstrongtendencyforlogicalintelligencewillpresenthigher
preferencesforauditorystyle.
Thespatialintelligencepreferenceillustratedhighcontributiontothepredictionofthevisual
learningstyleamongthegiftedstudents.Thisindicatesthatgiftedstudentswithhigher
tendencyforspatialintelligencewillprefertoutilizetheirvisuallearningstyle.
Thefindingsindicatethatthelinguisticintelligencewasalsofoundtobeapositiveand
significantpredictorofthetactilestyleamongthegiftedstudents.Thisindicatesthatgifted
studentswithhighertendencyforlinguisticintelligencewillprefertoutilizetheirtactile
learningstyle.
Thegendervariablewasstatisticallysignificantinpredictingtheauditorylearningstyle
preferenceamongthegifted.Thegiftedfemalesusemoreauditorylearningstylesthanmales.
Thegendervariablewasalsostatisticallysignificantinpredictingthetactilelearningstyle
preferenceamongthegifted.Thismayindicatethatfemaletendtousethetactilelearningstyle.
Agevariablealsowasstatisticallysignificantinpredictingthepreferenceofthetactilelearning
styleamongthegiftedgroup.Thisindicatesthatasthestudentsbecomeoldertheypreferto
usethetactilelearningstyle.
Inconclusion,theresultsofthehierarchicalregressionanalysisreportontwopredictions
amongthenongiftedgroup;apositivepredictionoftheauditorystylebylinguisticintelligence
andanegativepredictionofthevisualstylebymusicalintelligence.However,thefindings
indicateonmorepredictionsamongthegiftedgroup.Thismaysuggestthatamongthegifted
intelligencehasmoreimpactonthelearningstyle;theintelligencesaremoreconnectedtothe
learningstylesinthegiftedgroup.Theauditorystyleispredictedbyintrapersonalandlogical
intelligences.Thevisualstyleispredictedbyspatialintelligenceandthetactilestyleispredicted
bylinguisticintelligence.Thegiftedaremorefocusedandmoreattendedtotheirintelligences
andthatiswhyitpredictstheirlearningstyle,whilethenongiftedaremorediffusedabout
theirintelligencesandthatiswhyitdoesnotpredicttheirlearningstyles.
72
Chapter5Conclusion
Thepresentstudydiscussestheparallelsbetweenlearningstylesandmultipleintelligences
amonggiftedandnongiftedstudents.Thestudyattemptedtoexamineboththerelationships
betweentheseconceptsandthedifferencesbetweenthemastwoseparateconcepts.
Remarkablefindingsthatemergefromthestudyshowsignificantdifferencesamongthegifted
andthenongiftedgroupsasrelatedtolearningstyles,multipleintelligencesandthe
interactionsbetweenthem.Uniquecharacteristicsforgiftedandnongiftedareprovendueto
differentfactorsaccordingtoliterature.Themostcontradictorydifferenceasrelatedtolearning
stylesisthatnongiftedalsocanbecharacterizedastactilelearnersdespitethefactthatitis
contrastingmanyoftheresearchesthathavebeendone.Thestudyprovesthatthedifferences
relatedtolearningstylesandmultipleintelligencesdoexistinbothgroupsanditimpliesthat
thesedifferencesmustbetakenintoaccountintheprocessofteaching.
Inaddition,theresultsalsoidentifysomerelationshipsbetweenlearningstylespreferencesand
multipleintelligencesinbothgroups.Whilepositivecorrelationarefoundinallofthelearning
stylevariablesinbothgroupswithmultipleintelligencesas:linguisticintelligenceissignificantly
correlateswithauditorystyleandspatialintelligencesiscorrelateswithvisualstyle,more
correlatedandpredictionsarefoundinthegifted,especiallyinpredictinglearningstyleinboth
groups.
Anotherfindinginourstudyisthattheinterpersonalintelligencepresentedthelowest
correlationwiththelearningstyles.Numberoflearningstylescanbeappropriatetodifferent
intelligences,asitisprovenintheliterature.Thiscanexplainthatestablishingandcreating
interpersonalrelationshipscanbecorrelatedwithdifferentlearningstylesandthereisno
uniquecorrelationbetweeninterpersonalintelligencewithauniquelearningstyle.
ThisimpliesthatasRenzulli&Dai(2001),Curry(2000),Ehrman(1996),Riding(2001)andMartin
(2005)pointedout,possibleinterrelationsbetweenintelligencesandlearningstyles,these
resultsprovidedatadrivenevidence.Tosomeextent,studentstendtopreferlearningstyles
thatarecompatiblewiththeirintelligencepreferences.Butthisconclusionisrepresentedbythe
resultsamongthegiftedgroup.
Oneofthemainconclusionsfromourstudyisthatthegiftedgroupismorefocusedandmore
attendedtotheirintelligencesandthatiswhyitpredictstheirlearningstyle,itdependsontheir
73
awarenesstotheirintelligences,whilethenongiftedaremorediffusedabouttheirintelligence
andthatiswhyitdoesnotpredicttheirlearningstyle.
Accordingtothisconclusionthereismoreneedtodeepenthedistinctionbetweenintelligence
thatisdefinedasabiopsychologicalpotentialtoprocessinformationthatcanbeactivatedina
culturalsettingtosolveproblemsorcreateproductsthatareofvalueinaculture(Gardner,
1983)andstyleisdefinedasapreferredwayofthinkingordoingthings(e.g.,thinking,
learning,teaching)(Sternberg&Zhang,2001).Astyleisnotanability,butrathera
preferenceintheuseoftheabilitiespeoplehave.Thegiftedknowtolinkbetweenthe
twoconceptswhilethenongiftedarelackofthisability.
LimitationsandRecommendationforFutureResearch
Thecurrentstudyprovideddatadrivenevidencefordifferencesandcorrelationsbetween
learningstylesandmultipleintelligencespreferencesamonggiftedandnongifted.Future
researchshouldintegrateclassroomobservationsandinterviewswiththestudentsina
longitudinalresearchtohavemorevalidresultsthatwillallowidentifyingmoreaccuratelythe
characteristicsoflearningstylesandmultipleintelligencesamonggiftedandnongifted.
Inaddition,thisresearchshouldbecarriedoutalsoamongadults;theresultsmayrevealmore
ontheinteractionsanddifferencesingiftedvariousnongiftedstudents.
Additionally,newselfreportquestionnairesneedtobedevelopedthatwillallowmoreaccurate
identificationofthecomponentsofthevariouslearningstylesandmultipleintelligences.These
questionnairesmustincludedifferentassignmentstoinvestigatewhatlearningstylesmustbe
utilizedinordertoaccomplishthedifferentassignments.Thiswillpredictthedifferencesand
therelationshipsbetweenthetwoconceptsanditalsowillbepossibletomakeanaccurate
assessmentofthetaskcomponentsaccordingtodifferentlearningstylesandmultiple
intelligences.
74
PracticalImplications
Differentresearchershaveattemptedtoinvestigatelearningstylesandmultipleintelligences
amonggiftedandnongiftedintheirowncontextandthefactorsthatmightpromotestudents
learningprocess.Itcanbeconcludedthatresearchersworkinginthisareahavereacheda
consensusontheimportanceoftheawarenessofindividualslearningstyleandmultiple
intelligencepreferencesandthekeyroleitcanplayinfosteringonesabilities.Everylearning
styleraisesthesuccessrateofeachstudentespeciallywhenitmatcheswithindividualmultiple
intelligencepreferences.Sincewedonothaveaprecisedefinitionofwhichintelligencesand
stylesareparallel,wemustprovidestudentsvarietycharacteristicsofthedifferentlearning
stylesandmultipleintelligencesinordertoallowthemtofunctioneffectivelyanddelineating
theirstrengths,aswellasweaknesses.Felder&Brent(2005)pointthatteachersmustexpose
thestudentstodifferentlearningstylesinordertoraisetheawarenessoflearningstylesand
multipleintelligencepreferencesbecauseeverylearningstyleraisesthesuccessrateofeach
student,giftedandnongifted,especiallywhenitmatcheswithindividualneed.Webelievethat
themoretheteachersareawareoftheirstudentsstyleandintelligencepreferences,themore
effectivelytheycanorienttheirteaching,aswellasstrategyteachingthatcanbeinterwovenin
theteachingprogramforthegiftedandthenongiftedstudents.
75
Bibliography
Ali,M.S,Suliman,M.I,Kareem,A.&Iqbal,M.(2009).Comparisonofgenderperformance
Alsafi,A.(2010).LearningstylepreferencesofSaudiMedicalstudents.Materthesis.Essex
University.
Anderson,M.(2001).Annotation:Conceptionsofintelligence.JournalofChildPsychologyand
Psychiatry,42(3),(pp.287298).
Armstrong,T.A.,Kennedy,T.J&Coggins,P.(2002).Summarizingconceptsaboutteacher
education,learningandneuroscience.NorthwestPassage:NWATEJournalofEducation
Practice,2:1,913.
Armstrong,T.(2000).Multipleintelligencesintheclassroom.Alexandria,VA:Associationfor
SupervisionandCurriculumDevelopment.
Arnold,J.&Fonseca,M.C.(2004).IntelligenceTheoryandForeignLanguageLearning:ABrain
basedPerspective.InternationalJournalofEnglishStudies4(1),pp.119136.
Anderson,J.A.(1995).Towardsaframeworkformatchingteachingandlearningstylesfor
diversepopulationsInR.J.Sims&S.J.Sims(Eds.),theimportanceoflearningstyles:
Understandingtheimplicationsforlearning,coursedesignandeducation.London:
GreenwoodPress.
Bahmannia,H.,Khosravi,A.A.,&Khorshidi,A.(2014).IdentifyingIntelligenceEffectiveFactors
inGiftedEducationStudentsinTehran.JournalofEducationandManagementstudies,
4(1),(pp.2935).
Barnett,S.M.&Ceci,S.J.(2005).Theroleoftransferableknowledgeinintelligence.InR.J.
Sternberg&J.E.Pretz(Eds.)Cognitionandintelligence:Identifyingthemechanismsof
themind(pp.208224).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Bedford,T.A.(2004).Learningstyles:areviewofliterature(firstdraft,August2004),
Toowoomba,OPACS,TheUniversityofSouthernQueensland.
Binet,A.&Simon,T.(1905).Newmethodsforthediagnosisoftheintellectuallevelofthe
abnormal.LanneePsychologique,11,236245.
76
Bonner,F.A.(2010).AcademicallyGiftedAfricanAmericanMaleCollegeStudents.A
PhenomenologicalStudy.NationalResearchCenterontheGiftedandTalented,
UniversityofConnecticut.
Brannan,P.K.(1984).Ananalysisoftherelationshipsamonghemisphericpreferenceand
analytic/globalcognitivestyle,twoelementsoflearningstyle,methodofinstruction,
genderandmathematicsachievementoftenthgradegeometrystudents(Doctoral
dissertation,St.JohnsUniversity,1985).DissertationInternational,45(11),3271A.
Brody,N.(2000).Historyoftheoriesandmeasurementofintelligence.InR.J.Sternberg(Ed),
Handbookofintelligence(pp.1633).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Brown,H.D.(1994).Principlesoflanguagelearningandteaching(3rdEd.).NJ:Prentice
HallRegents.
Campbell,B.(1994).Themultipleintelligenceshandbook.Lessonplansandmor.Stanwood:
Campbell&Associates.
Campbell,D.(1997).TheMozartEffect.NewYork:Quill.
Campbell,J.R.,Hombo,C.M.&Mazzeo,J.(2000).TrendsinAcademicProgress.U.S.
DepartmentofEducation,Washington,DC.
CanoGarcia,F.,&Hughes,E.H.(2000).Learningandthinkingstyles:ananalysisoftheir
interrelationshipandinfluenceonacademicachievement.EducationalPsychology,
20(4).Cassidy,S.(2004).LearningStyles:AnOverviewoftheories,models,and
measures.EducationalPsychology,24(4),pp.419444.
Ceci,S.J.(1990).Onintelligencemoreorless:Abioecologicaltreatiseonintellectual
development.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J:PrenticeHall.
Chan,D.W.(2001).LearningStylesofGiftedandNongiftedSecondaryStudentsinHongKong.
GiftedChildQuarterly,45,pp.3543.
Chan,D.W.(2004).MultipleintelligencesofChinesegiftedstudentsinHongKong:
perspectivesfromstudents,parents,teachers,andpeers.27(1).p18(7).
77
Checkley,K.(1997).Thefirstsevenandtheeighth.AconversationwithHowardGardner.Educ.
Leadership,55(1),pp.813.
Cheng,M.H.&Banya,K.(1998).Bridgingthegapbetweenteachingstyleandlearningstyles.In
J.Reid(ed.).Understandinglearningstylesinthesecondlanguageclassroom(pp.80
84).UpperSableRiver,NJ:PrenticeHallRegents.
Chhikara,S.&Kaur,G.(2008).Assessmentofmultipleintelligencesamongyoungadolescents.
J.Hum.Ecol.,23(1),(pp.711).
Christison,M.A.(1999).Multipleintelligences.ESLMagazine,2(5),pp.1013.
Claxton,C.S.&Murrell,P.H.(1987).Learningstyles:Implicationsforimproving
educationalpractices.WashingtonD.C.:AssociationfortheStudyofHigherEducation.
Curry,L.(2000).Reviewoflearningstyles,studyingapproach,andinstructionalpreference
researchinmedicaleducation.InR.J.Riding&S.G.Rayner(Eds.),International
perspectivesonindividualdifferences:Vol.4.Cognitivestyles.Stamford,CT:Ablex
Publising.
Denig,S.J.,(2004).Multipleintelligencesandlearningstyles:twocomplementarydimensions.
TeachersCollegeRecord,106(1),pp.96111.
Detterman,K.D.(2000).Generalintelligenceandthedefinitionofphenotypes.InG.R.Bock,J.
A.Goode&K.Webb(Eds.)TheNatureofIntelligence:NovartisFoundationSymposium
233.(pp.136148).Chichester:Wiley.
Diamond,M.,Jhonson,R.,Young,D.&Singh,S.Agerelatedmorphologicdifferencesintheart
cerebralcortexandhippocampus:MaleFemale;rightleft.ExperimentalNeurology,81,
(pp.113).
Dunn,R.&Dunn,K.(1992).Teachingelementarystudentsthroughtheirindividuallearning
styles:practicalapproachesforgrades36.NeedhamHeights,MA:AllynandBacon.
Dunn,R.(1999).Introductiontolearningstyles.InR.Dunn&K.Dunn,Thecompleteguidetothe
learningstylesinservicesystem(99.1129).NeedhamHeights,MA:Allyn,Bascon.
78
Dunn,R.(2000).Learningstyles:Theory,research,andpractice.NationalForumofApplied
EducationalResearchJournal,13(1),pp.322.
Dunn,R.,&Dunn,K.(1993).Teachingsecondarystudentsthroughtheirindividuallearningstyle.
Boston:Allyn&Bacon.
Dunn,R.,&Dunn,K.(1999).Thecompleteguidetothelearningstylesinservicesystem.Boston:
Allyn&Bacon.
Dunn,R.,&Griggs,S.A.(2003).SynthesisoftheDunnandDunnLearningStyleModelResearch:
Who,what,when,where,andsowhat?NewYork:St.JohnsUniversitysCenterforthe
StudyofLearningandTeachingStyles.
Dunn,R.,Bruno,J.,Sklar,R.I.,&Beaudry,J.S.(1990).Effectsofmatchingandmismatching
minoritydevelopmentalcollegestudentshemisphericpreferencesonmathematics
scores.JournalofEducationalResearch,83,pp.283288.
Dunn,R.,Griggs,S.A.,Olson,J.,Gorman,B.,&Beasley,M.(1995).Ametaanalytic
validationoftheDunnandDunnmodeloflearningstylepreferences.Journalof
EducationalResearch,88,pp.353361.
Embretson,S.E.&Mccollam,K.M.S.(2000).Psychometricapproachestounderstandingand
measuringintelligence.InR.J.Sternberg(Ed),Handbookofintelligence(pp.423445).
NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Erhman,M.E.(1996).Understandingsecondlanguagelearningdifficulties.California:Sage
Publications.
Fasko.D.Jr.(2001).Ananalysisofmultipleintelligencestheoryanditsusewiththegiftedand
talented.RoeperReview,23,pp.126130.
Felder,R.&Brent,R.(2005).UnderstandingStudentDifferences.JournalofEngineering
Education,94(1),5772.
Felder,R.M.(1996).MattersofStyle.ASEEPrism,6(4),pp.1823.
Felder,R.M.,&Silverman,L.K.(1998).Learningandteachingstylesinengineering
education.JournalofEngineeringEducation,78(7),674681.
Freeman,J.(2001).GiftedChildrenGrownUp.FultonPublication.
79
Furnham,A.&Ward,C.(2001).Sexdifferences,testexperienceandtheselfestimationof
multipleintelligences.NewZealandJournalofPsychology,30(2).
Furnham,A.,Clarke,K.,&Bailey,K.(1999).Sexdifferencesinestimatesofmultipleintelligences.
EuropeanJournalofPersonality.
Bennett,M.1996.MensandWomensSelfEstimatesofIntelligence.TheJournalofSocial
Gardner,H.(1983).Framesofmind:Thetheoryofmultipleintelligences.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Gardner,H.(1993).Multipleintelligences:Thetheoryinpractice.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Gardner,H.(1999).Intelligencereframed:Multipleintelligencesforthe21stcentury.NewYork:
BasicBooks.
Gardner,H.(2003).Threedistinctmeaningsofintelligence.InR.J.Sternberg,J.Lautrey&T.I.
Lubart(Eds.),ModelsofIntelligence(pp.4354).Washington,DC:American
PsychologicalAssociation.
Gardner,H.(2004).FramesofMindmultipleintelligencetheory.Istanbul:Alfa.
Goleman,D.(1996).Emotionalintelligence.WhyitcanmattermorethanIQ.Learning,24(1),
(pp.4950).
Graf,S.,Viola,S.R.,Leo,T.&Kinshuk(2007).InDepthAnalysisoftheFelderSilvermanLearning
StyleDimensions.JournalofResearchonTechnologyinEducation,40(1).
Greb,F.M(1999).Learningstylepreferencesoffifththroughtwelfthgradestudents
medicallydiagnosedwithAttentionDeficitHyperactivity/Disorder.EdDDissertation.St.
JohnsUniversity.
Griggs,S.&R.Dunn.(1996).HispanicAmericanstudentsandlearningstyle.EastLansing,MI:
NationalCenterforResearchonTeacherLearning.ERIC.DocumentReproduction
Serviceno.ED393607.
Guild,P.B.(1997).Wheredothelearningtheoriesoverlap?Educ.Leadership,55(1),pp.3031.
GulapShahzada,G.,Ghazi,S.R.,Khan,H.S.,Iqbal,S.&Shabbir,M.N.,(2011).Self
PerceivedMultipleIntelligencesofMaleandFemale.MEDITERRANEANJOURNALOF
SOCIALSCIENCES,2(1),(pp.176187).
80
Hall,E.&D.Moseley.(2005).IsthereaRoleforLearningStylesinPersonalizedEducationand
Training.InternationalJournalofLifelongEducation,24(3)pp.243255.
Halpern,D.F.,&LaMay,M.L.(2000).Thesmartersex:Acriticalreviewofsex
differencesinintelligence.EducationalPsychologyReview,12,(pp.229246).
Lezak,M.D.(1995).Neuropsychologicalassessment(3rded.).NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Chan,D.W.(2006).PerceivedMultipleIntelligencesAmongMaleandFemaleChineseGifted
StudentsinHongKong:TheStructureoftheStudentMultipleIntelligencesProfile.The
GiftedChildQuarterly,
50(4)
,(pp.325338).
Heller,H.A.,Monks,F.J.,Sternberg,R.J.,&Subotnik,R.F.(2000).InternationalHandbookof
GiftednessandTalent.SecondEdition.
Keefe,J.W.(1979).Learningstyle:Anoverview.InJ.W.Keefe(Ed.)Studentlearningstyles:
Diagnosingandprescribingprograms(pp.117).Reston:NationalAssociationof
SecondarySchoolPrincipals.
Klein,P.D.(2003).Rethinkingthemultiplicityofcognitiveresourcesandcurricular
representations:alternativestothelearningstylesandmultipleintelligences.J.Curricul.
Stud.,35(1),pp.4581.
Ksicinski,J.M.(2000).AssessmentofaRemedialCommunityCollegeforMultipleIntelligences,
(EricDocumentReproductionsServiceNo.Ed457924).
LeDoux,J.E.(2004).ModulatingMemory.AmericanScientist,92(2),(pp.180200).
Lohman,D.F.(2005).Reasoningabilities.InR.J.Sternberg&J.E.Pretz(Eds.)Cognitionand
intelligence:Identifyingthemechanismsofthemind(pp.225250).NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Maker,C.J.,Nielson,A.B.,&Rogers.J.A.(1994),Giftedness,diversity,andproblemsolving.
TeachingExceptionalChildren,27.(pp.419).
Marton,F.(1986).Phenomenographyresearchapproachtoinvestigatingdifferent
understandingsofreality.Journalofthought,21,(pp.2849).
81
Merriam,S.B.,&Caffarella,R.S.(1991).Learninginadulthood:Acomprehensiveguide.San
Francisco:JosseyBass
Monks,F.J.(1998).Backtotherootsofgiftededucation:aEuropeanperspective.Paper
presentedattheHenryB.andJocelynWallaceNationalResearchSymposiumonTalent
DevelopmentattheUniversityofIowa.
Moran,A.(1991).Whatcanlearningstylesresearchlearnfromcognitivepsychology?
EducationalPsychology,11(3/4),pp.239246.
Necka,E.&Orzechowski,J.(2005).Higherordercognitionandintelligence.InR.J.Sternberg&
J.E.Pretz(Eds.)Cognitionandintelligence:Identifyingthemechanismsofthemind(122
141).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Nilson,LindaB.(2003).TeachingatItsBest.AResearchbasedResourceforCollegeInstructors.
2nded.Bolton:Heinle&Heinle.Onanintelligencetestamongmedicalstudents,JAyub
MedCollAbbottabad,21(3)
Oxford,R.L.(1995).Genderdifferencesinlanguagelearningstyles:Whatdotheymean?InJ.M.
Reid(Ed.),LearningstylesintheESL/EFLclassroom(pp.3446).NewYork:Heinle
Publishers.
Oxford,R.L.(2002).Sourcesofvariationinlanguagelearning.InR.B.Kaplan(Ed.),TheOxford
handbookofappliedlinguistics(pp.243252).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Ozbas,S.(2014).Theinvestigationofthelearningstylesofuniversitystudents.TheOnline
JournalofNewHorizonsinEducation,3(1),(pp.5358).
Ozgen,K.,Tataroglu,B.&Alkan,H.(2011).Anexaminationofmultipleintelligencedomainsand
learningstylesofpreservicemathematicsteachers:Theirreflectionsonmathematics
education.EducationResearchandReviews,6(2),pp.168181.
Pender,S.&Takavcic,M.(2009).TestingDunn&Dunns&HoneyandMumfordslearningstyle
theories:thecaseoftheSlovenianhighereducationsystem.Management,14(2)(pp.1
20).
Piaget,J.(1972).Thepsychologyofintelligence.Norwood,NJ:LittlefieldAdams.
82
Prashning,B.(2000).Originallearningstylesresearch.TechnologyBasedSolutions.
Pretz,J.E.&Sternberg,R.J.(2005).Unifyingthefield:Cognitionandintelligence.InR.J.
Sternberg&J.E.Pretz(Eds.)Cognitionandintelligence:Identifyingthemechanismsof
themind(306318).NewYork:CambridgeUniversity.
Sanders,W.(1980).Readingachievementandlearningstylecharacteristics.TheClearingHouse,
5,(pp.223226).
Prince,M.(2004).DoesActiveLearningWork?AReviewtheResearch.J.Engr.Education,93(3),
(pp.223231).
Rayner,S.&Riding,R.(1997).TowardsaCategorisationofCognitiveStylesandLearningStyles.
EducationalPsychology,17(1,2),pp.527.
Rayner,S.&Riding,R.J.(1997).Towardsacategorizationofcognitivestylesandlearningstyles,
EducationalPsychology,17(12),pp.527.
Reid,J.(1995).LearningstylesintheESL/EFLclassroom.Boston:Heinle&Heinle.
Reid,J.(Ed).(1998).Understandinglearningstylesinthesecondlanguageclassroom.Upper
SaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHallRegents.
Reid,J.M.(1998).Perceptuallearningstylepreferencesurvey.InJ.Reid(Ed.).Understanding
learningstylesinthesecondlanguageclassroom(pp.162167).UpperSableRiver,NJ:
PrenticeHallRegents.
Reid,J.M.(Ed.).(1995).LearningstylesintheESL/EFLclassroom.Boston,MA:HeinleandHeinle
Publishers.
Renzulli,J.S.(1990).Torturingdatauntiltheyconfess:ananalysisoftheanalysisofthethree
ringconceptionofgiftedness.JournalfortheEducationoftheGifted,13(4),
(pp.309331).
Renzulli,J.S.(1998).TheThreeRingConceptionofGiftedness.InS.M.Baum,S.M.Reis&L.R.
Maxfield(Eds.),NurturingtheGiftsandTalentsofPrimaryGradeStudents.Mansfield
Center,CT:CreativeLearningPress.
83
Renzulli,J.S.,Smith,L.H.&Rizza,M.G.(2002).LearningStylesInventory:AMeasureofStudent
PreferenceforInstructionalTechniques.MansfieldCenter,CT:CreativeLearningPress.
Renzulli,J.S.&Dai,D.Y.(2001).Abilities,interests,andstylesasaptitudesforlearning:
Apersonsituationinteractionperspective.InR.J.Sternberg&L.Zhang(Eds),
Perspectivesonthinking,learning,andcognitivestyles(pp.2346).Mahwah,NJ:
LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Publishers.
Richards,J&Rodgers,T.(2001).Approachesandmethodsinlanguageteaching.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Riding,R.J.&Cheema,I.(1991).Cognitivestyleanoverviewandintegration,Educational
Psychology,11,pp.193215.
Riding,R.J.(2002).SchoolLearningandCognitiveStyle.London:DavidFultonPublishers.
Sabatova,J.(2008).LearningstylesinELT.DiplomaThesis.MasarykUniversityBrno.
Sarasin,L.C.(1998).LearningStylePerspectives.ImpactintheClassroom.Madison:Atwood
Publishing.
Sarasin,L.C.(1999).Learningstyleperspectives:Impactintheclassroom.Madison,W1:Atwood
Publishing.
Sarouphim,K.M.(1999).DISCOVER:Apromisingalternativeassessmentfortheidentificationof
giftedminorities.GiftedChildQuarterly.43,pp.244251.
Seifoori,Z.&Zarei,M.(2011).TherelationshipbetweenIranianEFLlearnersperceptual
learningstylesandtheirmultipleintelligences.ProcediaSocialandBehavioralSciences
29,(pp.16061613).
Shearer,C.B.(2006).ReadingSkillandtheMultipleIntelligences:AnInvestigationintotheMI
ProfilesofHighSchoolStudentswithVaryingLevelsofReadingSkill.KentState
University.
Silverman,L.K.(2002).Upsidedownbrilliance:Thevisualspatiallearner.Denver:DeLeon
Snyder,R.(2000).Therelationshipbetweenlearningstyles/multipleintelligencesandacademic
achievementofhighschoolstudents.TheHighSchoolJournal,83(2),pp.1120.
84
Sternberg,R.J.(2004).NorthAmericaapproachestointelligence.InR.J.Sternberg(Ed),
InternationalHandbookofIntelligence(pp.411444).NewYork:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Sternberg,R.J.,Lautrey,J.&Lubart,T.(2003).Modelsofintelligence:International
perspectives.WashingtonD.C:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.
Sternberg,R.J.&Grigorenko,E.(2001).Acapsulehistoryoftheoryandresearchonstyles.InR.
J.Sternberg&L.Zhang(Eds),Perspectivesonthinking,learning,andcognitivestyles(pp.
121).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Publishers.
Sternberg,R.J.&Pretz,J.E.(2005).Cognition&Intelligence:IdentifyingtheMechanismsofthe
Mind.CambridgeUniversityPress.
Sternberg,R.J.&Zhang,L.(2000).StylesofThinkingasaBasisofDifferentiatedInstruction.
TheoryintoPractice,44(3),pp.245253.
Sternberg,R.J.&Zhang,L.(2001).PerspectivesonThinking,Learning,andCognitiveStyle.
LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Publishers,London.
Sternberg,R.J.(1990).MetaphorsofMind:Conceptionsofthenatureofintelligence.Canada:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Sternberg,R.J.(1997).Successfulintelligence.NewYork:Plume.
Sternberg,R.J.(2004).NorthAmericanapproachestointelligence.InR.J.Sternberg(Ed),
InternationalHandbookofIntelligence(pp.411444).NewYork:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Sternberg,R.J.,&Davidson,J.E.(2005).ConceptionsofGiftedness.SecondEdition.Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Sternberg,R.J.,Ferrari,M.,Clinkenbeard,P.R,&Grigorenko,E.L.(1996).Identification,
instruction,andassessmentofgiftedchildren:Aconstructvalidationofatriarchic
mode.GiftedChildQuarterly,40,pp.129137.
85
Sternberg,R.J.,Grigorenko,E.L.,Jarvin,L.,Clinkenbeard,P.,Ferrari,M.,&Torfi,B.(2000,
spring).Theeffectivenessoftriarchicteachingandassessment.NationalResearch
CenterontheGiftedandTalentedNewsletter,pp.38.
Sternberg,R.J.(2000).Theconceptofintelligence.InR.J.Sternberg(Ed),Handbookof
intelligence(pp.315).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Turki,J.(2014).LearningstylesofgiftedandnongiftedstudentsinTafilaGovernorate.
InternationalJournalofHumanitiesandSocialScience,4(5),(pp.114124).
Vermunt,J.D.&Minnaert,A.(2003).Dissonanceinstudentlearningpatterns:Whentorevise
theory?StudiesinHigherEducation,28(1),pp.4961.
Vermunt,J.D.(1996).Metacognitive,cognitiveandaffectiveaspectsoflearningstylesand
strategies:Aphenomenographicanalysis.HigherEducation,31,pp.2550.
Vernon,P.A.,Wickett,J.C.,Bazana,G.&Stelmack,R.M.(2000).Theneuropsychologyand
psychophysiologyofhumanintelligence.InR.J.Sternberg(Ed),Handbookof
intelligence(pp.245264).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Wehrwein,E.A.,Lujan,H.L.,&Dicarlo,S.E.(2007).Genderdifferencesinlearningstyles
preferencesamongundergraduatephysiologystudents.AdvencesinPhysiology
Education,31(pp.153157).
Wooldridge,B.(1995).Increasingtheeffectivenessofuniversity/collegeinstruction:Integrating
theresultsoflearningstyleresearchintocoursedesignanddelivery.InR.R.Sims&S.J.
Sims(Eds.),TheImportanceoflearningstyles:Understandingtheimplicationsfor
learning,coursedesign,andeducation(pp.4667).London:GreenwoodPress.
Wooldridge,B.(1995).Increasingtheeffectivenessofuniversity/collegeinstruction:Integrating
theresultsoflearningstyleresearchintocoursedesignanddelivery.InR.R.Sims&S.J.
Sima(Eds.),Theimportanceoflearningstyles:Understandingtheimplicationsfor
learning,coursedesign,andeducation(99.4967).Wesport,Ct:GreenwoodPress.
Yamazaki,Y.(2005).Learningstylesandtypologiesofculturaldifferences:Atheoreticaland
empiricalcomparison.InternationalJournalofInterculturalRelations,29,pp.521548.
86
Zhang,L.&Sternberg,R.J.(2006).TheNatureofIntellectualStyle.London:LawrenceErlbaum
Associates,Publishers.
Zhang,L.&Sternberg,R.J.(2009).ThePerspectivesontheNatureofIntellectualStyles.Springer
PublisherCompany,NewYork.
Zhang,L.(2005).Thinkingstylesandthebigfivepersonalitytraitsrevisited.Personalityand
IndividualDifferences,40,11771187.
Zhang,L.(2006).DoesStudentTeacherThinkingStylematch/mismatchmatterinstudents
achievement?EducationalPsychology,26(3),pp.395409.
87
Appendixes
88
Appendix1
) Dunn&DunnLearningStylesQuestionnaire(1996
(Dunn&Dunn,1996)
, .
.
* .
.1 1.
: 2.
2.___________
3._____________
4. / 1. :
.2 ) (
5. : ______ ______ _______

, - 0 4 :
0 1
3 4

4
3
2
1
, .
.
89
, '.
, , ,
, ,

90
91
Appendix2
Detailsofthecomponentsofthelearningstylequestionnaire
Table19:FactorsoftheDunn&Dunn(1996)instrument
Learningstyle
Itemintheinventory
Auditory
1,2,4,5,7,8,12,17
Example

.
Visual
6,9,13,15,19,23,29,30
Tactile
3,10,11,18,21,22,24,26
,
.
Kinesthetic
14,16,20,25,27,28,31,32

, ' .
92
Appendix3
MackenzieMultipleIntelligencesQuestionnaire(1999,2002)
) (Mackenzie,1999,2002
.
.
.
, ,
:
1 2

, .
'.
/ .
93
, :
: .
1 2

16. .
:,,,
'.
"("
?).
, .
94
1 2
, , ,
, , .
" "
" " " "

.
, ,
95
1 2
( ,
,' ,').
" ".
96
.
12 3
, .
97
Appendix4
Detailsofthecomponentsofthemultipleintelligence
questionnaire
Table20:FactorsoftheMackenzie(1999,2002)instrument
Intelligence
ItemintheSurvey
Linguistic
1,9,18,25,33,41,49,58,65,73
Logical
2,10,19,34,39,40,50,57,67,74
Example

Musical
6,14,22,30,38,46,54,62,70,77
Bodilykinesthetic
4,12,21,28,29,45,53,61,69,76
Visualspatial
3,11,13,27,35,44,52,60,68,75
Interpersonal
7,15,23,31,37,47,55,63,71,79
Intrapersonal
8,16,24,32,48,56,59,64,72,80
Naturalist
5,17,20,26,36,42,43,51,66,78
98

,
.
, .
,
. ,
.
,
.
,
.

) .(Reid,1995
20- . ,
) (Dunn&Dunn,1993
. : , , .
"" " :" "" .
.
.

.
.
) (Gardner,1983
,
.I.Q
, ,
. ,
, .
: ,-
, , , ,- ,- .
,
, .
, :
.1 .
.2 .
.3 .
:
.1 ?
.2 ?
.3 ?
200- ,
, . 12-16.
, .
.

. , ,
.
.

: .
,
, ,
.

: , , 21-
).(Papert,1980
, ;
,
.
,
. ) ,(2010
.

.
) (14-16
) .(12-13 , ) (2007
) (

.
.

.

.
,
:
.

) (.

. ,
, .

:
,
).(Campbell,Campbell,&Dickinson,1996
) (2003

,
.
.
,
.
.

.

. ,
.
,

.

.
' '
- -.

- -
"

2397891

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2397891

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

BARILANUNIVERSITY

The Relationship between Learning Styles

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters

This work was carried out under the supervision of

Dr. Itzhak Weiss and Dr. Josef Klein

Chapter 1- Theoretical Background

Definitions of Learning styles

The Dunn and Dunn Model

Learning Style Researches in Gifted Students

Approaches to Understanding Intelligence

Multiple Forms of Intelligence

Multiple Intelligence Theory

Intelligence Types in Multiple Intelligence Theory

Multiple Intelligence Differences by Group

Multiple Intelligence Differences by Gender

Relationship between Intelligences and Styles

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Chapter 3- Research Findings

Research Question 1: Are there differences between gifted and non-gifted

students as related to learning style? Univariate Analysis of Variance

students as related to multiple intelligence? Univariate Analysis of

multiple intelligences? Matrix correlation analysis

students as related to learning style?

students as related to Multiple Intelligence?

intelligences in both groups

Limitations and Recommendation for Future Research

Appendix 1: Dunn & Dunn Learning Styles Questionnaire (1996)

Appendix 2: Details of the components of the learning style questionnaire

Appendix 3: Mackenzie Multiple Intelligences Questionnaire (1999,2002)

Appendix 4: Details of the components of the multiple intelligence

Table 2: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of gender by age in

Table 3: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of gender by group in

Table 4: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of gender by group in

Table 5: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of gender by group in

Table 6: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of gender by group in

Table 7: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of gender by group in

Table 8: Means and S.E. of a significant interaction of age by group in the

Table 9: Summary table of analyses of variance (ANOVA)

Table 10: Results of the matrix correlation analysis between learning

Table 11: Results of the matrix correlation analysis between learning

styles and multiple intelligences for gifted and non-gifted groups

Table 12: Summary table of the matrix correlation analyses

Table 16: Results of regression analysis predicting visual learning style

Table 17: Results of regression analysis predicting tactile learning style

Table 18: Summary table of the hierarchic regression analysis predicting

Table 19: Factors of the Dunn & Dunn (1996) instrument

Table 20: Factors of the Mackenzie (1999, 2002) instrument

Figure 2: Means interaction of visual learning style of gender by group

Figure 3: Means interaction of auditory learning style of gender by group

Figure 4: Means of gender in tactile learning style

Figure 5: Means of group in tactile learning style

Figure 6: Means interaction of tactile learning style of gender by group

Figure 7: Means interaction of spatial intelligence of gender by group

Figure 8: Means interaction of linguistic intelligence of gender by group

Figure 9: Means of gender in interpersonal intelligence

Figure 10: Means interaction of natural intelligence of age by group

Figure 11: Means of gender in logic-mathematics intelligence

predicted by spatial intelligence and the tactile style is predicted by linguistic

Predicted Auditory Visual Tactile Kinesthetic

5. : ______ ______ _______

" " " "

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

5. : ___