Promoting Students Engagement Actively In Learning Process by Multiple Intelligence

Instructional Strategies

Suleyman Celik, PhD

Education Faculty, Ishik University

Arbil/ Iraq

suleyman.celik@ishik.edu/iq

Abstract:

Students’ actively engaging to the learning process is one of the key points of effective teaching. The amount of time that
the students devote to learning process in the classroom can make the lessons efficient and fruitful. However, students’
actively engaging to the lessons is related to teachers’ task orientations and teachers’ way of teaching. Teaching methods in
the classrooms should provide a great opportunity to learn and practice the subject. This study examines how sophomore
students in English Language Teaching department at Ishik University were engaged actively to the reading classes by the
implementation of multiple intelligence teaching ways. A questionnaire was used to identify the students’ dominant
intelligence to form groups relevant to their dominant intelligence, and an interview was used to collect data about the
students’ assumptions towards how the Multiple Intelligence teaching methods affected their engagement to the lessons.
The preliminary results of the research show that students devoted a great amount of time in learning in the classroom. By
providing multiple intelligence teaching strategies have also been found beneficial to the small groups that had been formed
regarding their dominant intelligence. The conclusion can also be drawn that using multiple intelligence strategies correlates
positively with the students’ actively engagement in learning.

Key words: reading, multiple intelligence, actively engagement, learning groups, learning process

Introduction
Student engagement in the learning process, or engaged learning time, is one of the key behavior that refers to the
amount of time students devote to learning in the classroom. The main primary focus of the student engagement is upon to
increase the students’ achievements, positive behaviors, and students’ belonging to the class or school. So far, the literature
reviews have shown that research on student engagement pointed at middle schools and high schools where disengagements
have been really a big problem and concern(Willms, Frisen & Milton, 2009)l. As the time passed, student engagement had
been seen and implemented as a way of classroom management. Obviously, in a peaceful and positive classroom
environment teaching and learning process will be better than those chaotic ones. Nowadays the main focus of the student
engagement is to enhance students’ abilities to learn how to learn or to become lifelong learners in a knowledge- based
society (Gilbert, 2007, p1).
As the literature has been reviewed, it has been seen that a large number of researchers have studied student
engagement. Nevertheless, there was no consensus on what the student engagement is. Several types of definitions were
focused on academic, cognitive, intellectual, institutional, emotional, behavioral, social and psychological (Taylor &
Parsons, 2011). One of the best and relevant description of the student engagement is ‘’the amount of time students devote
in the learning process” (Borich, p.12). ‘’Student engagement in the learning process is the time that students are actively
engaged in learning the material’’ (Borich, p.12). Students’ engagement to learning is when the students are actually on
task, engaged with the instructional material and benefitting from that activities being presented.
Although the teachers may be task oriented and try to provide maximum content coverage, students might be
disengaged due to lack of motivation, interest or needs. Disengaging means that they are not thinking about, working with,
or paying interest and attention to what is being taught.in these circumstances the quality of and the level of the learning
process will be down and there will be classroom problems. It has been seen that disengaged students cannot stay stable and
cause disciplinary problems.
It is obvious that the consequences of student engagement will improve the level and the quality of the teaching
and learning process. Thus, educators must endure to explore specific, well-considered, and effective strategies that support
student engagement in the learning process.
However, it is clear that we are living in a technology and information era, and everything is changing rapidly.
Students live in a world that engages them totally different than the world their parents lived in (Taylor & Parsons, 2011).
As a result of the technology development and other developments tied with the technology, students’ needs, interests, goals
and learning preferences and the ways of teaching all these items have shifted. The impact of those changes should be taken
into consideration and students’ voice and students’ perspectives must be noted to determine how to best engage them in
learning (Carlson, 2005; Young & Carnival, 2006). By saying students’ perspective it is meant that to gain the students
motivation, implying attractive instructions which arouse the students’ curiosity and activities which are in their field of
interests. If the students can be focused on the content by applying attractive instructional strategies students can be engaged
more than usual and ordinary lessons.
One of the best ways to engage students to learning process is to use multiple intelligence teaching strategies.
According to Gardner (2000), all human beings possess different intelligences in varying degrees and each individual
manifests varying levels of those different intelligences and thus each person has a unique “cognitive profile”. The multiple
intelligence theory is the idea that rather than thinking of intelligence as a unitary and general ability that can be measured
and reduced to an intelligent quotient (IQ), we should acknowledge a range of intelligences. Among multiple intelligence,
Gardner names:
Linguistic Intelligence is the ability to use language effectively and to communicate both in speaking and writing.
Logical-mathematical intelligence is the ability to handle long chains of reasoning and to recognize patterns. Musical
intelligence is the ability to recognize and use the nonverbal sounds: pitch, rhythms, and total patterns. Spatial Intelligence is
the ability to comprehend mental models, manipulate and model them spatially and draw them in detail. Bodily-Kinesthetic
Intelligence is the ability to use the body skillfully to express ideas and feelings, to solve problems, create products or present
emotions. Interpersonal Intelligence is the ability to be empathetic and to understand others, to feel and think readily.
Intrapersonal Intelligence is the ability for self-analysis and reflection, to understand and know about oneself and to be able to
quietly contemplate and assess one’s accomplishments. Naturalistic Intelligence is the ability to recognize and classify both
the animal and plant kingdoms, to make other consequential distinctions in the natural world and to use this ability
productively. Existential intelligence involves an individual's ability to use collective values and intuition to understand
others and the world around them. Individuals who excel in this intelligence typically are able to see the big picture.
Those learners learn in different ways because their learning system is different from each other. The
implementation of Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory to the education field gives many opportunities to the individuals
to use their abilities to be successful, and to minimize their weakness in some areas and emphasize their strengths in others.
His theory gives a better chance for teaching at-risk learners and students with special needs, some whom really cannot
engage to the learning process in the traditional classroom setting use the traditional teaching ways. Gregory&Chapman
(2006) indicate that teaching methods cab be differentiated according to multiple intelligence theory. Multiple intelligence
instruction strategies allow students to engage more often to the learning process, thus allow students to display their best
performance.

Method of the Study

This study has been designed in qualitative research approach in which action study research has been chosen. To
find out the interactions between the variables, this is very important, detailed data should be gathered through open ended
questions that provide direct quotations in which qualitative research can be used. This differs from quantitative research
which attempts to gather data by objective methods to provide information about relations, comparisons, and predictions
and attempts to remove the investigator from the investigation. Besides, this study aims to get deeper understanding from
the perspectives of different instructional strategies not attempt to generalize the result. Moreover, this study does not
attempt to generalize the results, but aims to obtain deeper understanding of experience from the perspectives of the
teachers.
Participants of the study
The subjects of this study were sophomore students of Ishik University where I have been teaching for seven years.
Those students were at the adequate level of English. During the experiment two Reading classes took part with the size of
21 students, and gender differences haven’t been taken into consideration as a variable.
Data Analysis Process

In my research I used a paper-pencil based MI survey -MI Inventory - was copyrighted by Walter McKenzie and gained
from the internet web site: //surfaquarium.com/MI/inventory.htm. to find out the students’ dominant intelligences. In
addition to that survey I also carried out some different techniques to assess the learners’ MI. Those techniques were
observations, interviewing other teachers, and interviewing parents.

The subjects’ overall MI distributions according to McKenzie’s test in the experimental groups were analyzed by SPSS
19.0. The analytical results of SPSS 19.0 showed the Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.748, and p is <0.0001. Therefore the results of
the survey were acceptable.

The total participants of the intermediate level of English Language experimental group was 21, and 12 of them were
female, 8 of them – male. As Gardner states (1983), individuals can have more than one dominant intelligence; generally
females showed the Intrapersonal Intelligences dominantly in the first or second rank among their MI. Male participants
also showed their dominant strength as Intrapersonal Intelligence, but not as much as the female subjects did. Below the
table gives the general statistical information about the frequencies of distribution of the MI in the intermediate
experimental group

Table 1.1 MI survey statistics for intermediate experimental group (McKenzie’s test)

KINESTHETIC
PERSONAL

PERSONAL
NATURAL

MUSICAL

LOGICAL

VERBAL

VISUAL
INTRA
INTER
ISTIC
Valid 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
N Missin
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
g
63. 60. 74.
Mean 69.2 57.2 61.6 58.4 62
2 8 8
Mode 60 60 60 60 50 60 80 70
Std.
14. 19. 15.2 17.4 22.4 19.7 20. 18.9
Deviatio
1 1 5 5 9 2 6 3
n
Minimu
40 30 50 30 10 10 10 20
m
Maximu 10 10
90 100 90 100 90 90
m 0 0
Percentil
21 55 40 60 40 50 45 65 50
es
50 60 60 70 60 60 60 80 60
75 70 75 80 70 80 70 90 70

All 21 participants responded all the items in the questionnaire in different ratios. According to this result among the
21 participants, Intrapersonal Intelligence (m=74.8) and Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (m=63.2) were the most
dominant traits. The less dominant ones were Interpersonal (m=57.2) and Linguistic-Verbal (58.4) Intelligences. 2 students
scored all the 10 items relevant to the Intrapersonal intelligence, 5 students marked 9 items and interestingly 11(44%)
students marked 7 items of the Intrapersonal intelligence in this questionnaire. And the other students marked 1 item which
illustrates the Intrapersonal intelligence. By the effect of the culture, generally all the students at the university seemed to be
Intrapersonal both in their school lives and in their social lives. Many of them, also including the male students, were very
shy. It was also observed that many of the participants liked working alone or with just one friend who, too, liked to work
alone.

After having decided on the students’ dominant intelligence types (see table 1.1) and holding the reading pretest I created
for experimental groups eight different Learning Centers (sections in the room), each of them to represent one type of
intelligence in the classroom. This kind of classroom arrangement still permitted the students to take part in all kind of
activities, but created a special “climate” for holding the activities according to their type of intelligence. I hoped that
restructuring the classroom to create “intelligence-friendly” activity centers could greatly expand students’ reading
comprehension as well as develop the parameters for student exploration in each center.
Table 1. 2. Reading and reading-based activities and contributing to the development of intelligences

A large cross (X) stands for dominant intelligence, while a small one (x) – for accompanying intelligences
Logical- Bodily- Inter Intra
Intelligences Verbal- Music Natura
mathemat Spatial kinesth person person
/ activities linguistic al listic
ical etic al al
storytelling X x x
brainstorming X X x
tape recording X x
journal
X X X
writing
publishing X X X
classification
and x X x
categorization
Socratic
x X x
questioning
heuristics x X X
jigsaw x X x X
visualization x X
color cues x X
graphic
x x X
symbols
idea sketching x X
role play x X x
miming x X
moving while
x X
reading
rhythms,
songs, raps, x x X
and chants
rhythms,
songs, raps, x x X
and chants
musical
x X
background
sharing the
x X
contents
projects x x X
one-minute
x X (x)
reflection
personal
x X
connections
choice time x X

After teaching reading skills based on MI activities for experimental groups an interview, in which qualitative data
was collected, was conducted to all experiment participants. This interview allowed the researcher to speak directly to the
students and have them explain their answers on the questionnaire and their reflection on the MI teaching styles and
traditional teaching methods in reading.

Findings and discussion

During the experiment held in 2011/2012 academic year all the students involved in the study were taught reading
with the Multiple Intelligence teaching strategies and activities. After implying MI strategies their scores were improved,
the classroom problems were minimized, the students participated and so on. To clarify how satisfied the students were I
applied an interview to the students. By applying this interview I tried to explore the reasons behind the significant gain in
the reading courses within the whole year. There were about 35 volunteer students from both experimental groups. Most of
the students who were interviewed in both groups expressed an enjoyment for active participation, change, variety of
different activities, self-correction and self-reflection which were all integrated into reading lessons through the use of very
wide range activities that incorporated different intelligences in the experimental classes.
It can be seen from the comments that the students felt they were growing in confidence and motivation, e.g.:

The typical comments were:

 I was a shy person, therefore I hated to read or make comments in the class, but I liked to work in the groups and
felt more comfortable to participate and read in the groups. Reading aloud in the classroom was a torture for me
but now I like reading more than ever.
 In the group work, when sharing learning tasks, everyone was assigned a role, I felt that I had less pressure and
would like to do my best to complete the assignment and duty. This self-esteem made me a good reader and now I
think that my teachers like to listen to me while I am reading.
 I was very happy with the work we do in the groups because we all had choices. We didn’t have to do the same
activities as the other students do. I never thought that reading would be as enjoyable as now. My parents cannot
believe that I am a bookworm now.
 The most important thing was that I felt more confident to read to answer the comprehension and to guess the
meaning of the words from the content even though many guesses were false.
 Though my exam results were unsatisfactory, my teacher gave me a chance for assessment. I could choose my own
way to present a reading project. I sang two English songs and searched a lot of pictures that had English
vocabularies on them to present it in class. Now I don’t think that I will forget those vocabularies. I like reading.
 Multiple intelligence based learning activities provided me a learning environment where I felt I was a necessary
part in the group. Those activities helped me to like reading not only in the classroom but also when I am out of the
school.
 By multiple intelligence learning activities, my classmates who were too shy to ask help from the teachers became
more willing to read, speak and ask questions. This collaboration between the classmates created a positive
learning environment where more or less every student became more enthusiastic not only in reading lessons but
also in other classes.
 The method of multiple intelligence learning activities in reading courses provided us the opportunities to work
together and share opinions, feelings, knowledge, and understanding. Those interactions helped us to feel that
learning is fun.
 I learned many reading strategies from multiple intelligence based activities. To guess the meaning of a vocabulary
from the context strategy was one of the best strategies that I will never forget. In addition, when we started the
lessons, I was thinking that my reading in English was awful and my teachers were unsatisfied with my reading,
but now I think that I am a good reader than ever.
 I used to think that reading was unbearable. I wasn’t a good reader, but, with the help of my teacher’s new way of
teaching and collaboration in the classroom, made me a good reader.
 I am motivated to learn through visuals teacher and classmates brought to the class because I can see better what I
read. I feel that I can understand the vocabularies or reading with the chart or pictures provided in class. Besides, I
like to draw pictures for the English words. It can help me memorize the new words.

The important thing was that the interview was open and these comments were voluntary. From this perspective many
students may have answered in this way if they were asked a specific question. All participants appreciated the dynamic
atmosphere inside the classroom in the reading classes. The use of the MI teaching activities seems to be important.
Besides, many students recognized that using different teaching strategies to different learners with individual work has an
important role to improve the understanding of reading. It is very valuable. Students’ comments to those interview questions
support the results of the questionnaire findings.

Conclusions and recommendation

With the advent of ‘’humanism’’ in the 1960s, the conventional authoritative teacher-centered instruction has given
way to the learner-centered mode of education. Thus, by today the most important variable in teaching a language
(including reading) is the individual approach in the classroom.
Multiple Intelligence (MI) theory introduced by Howard Gardner in the 1990s suggests that there is not just one
concrete measure of intelligence and by implication a single way of teaching, but several: Mathematical-Logical, Linguistic-
Verbal, Musical, Spatial, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Bodily-Kinesthetic and Naturalistic (more intelligence are still under
discussion).
 The rationale of my research was to apply the findings of this theory to teaching reading in order to increase the
engagement of the students in learning process, the quality of reading skills and the motivation of reading. An experiment
(accompanied by questionnaires and interviews) was held, with 2 groups taught with an MI treatment. The dominant
intelligences of the students in the experimental groups were diagnosed; the students were grouped according to them and
offered corresponding classroom tasks and homework.
The study showed that today’s learners want to connect, communicate and feel free constantly in the learning
environment. Besides the learning environment should increase the engagement of the students. During the experiment, the
students learn from each other and with each other. While learning from and with each other they had more opportunity to
have more dialogues, more conversation and more self-esteem. All those factors ended up with the actively engagement of
the students.
Multiple intelligence teaching activities were effective learning and teaching experiences and they were shaped by
student-teacher interaction that support the development of the young peoples’ social and emotional competencies. When
students had opportunities to express themselves, especially the introvert individuals, they made a unique contribution to
the lessons with adaptive capacity, self –sufficiency, confidence and knowledge of themselves as learners.
To conclude that, there are many ways to improve the students’ engagement in the learning process such as,
embedded collaboration, inquiry-based learning, assessment for learning and etc. One of the most effective ways of
engaging students to learning process is to motivate and arouse their interests toward the content. By implying multiple
intelligence teaching strategies teachers can attract the students’ interest where they can find something from themselves.
Multiple intelligence provides opportunities to have pleasure, to adapt and to have fun while learning.
 References

Borich, G. (2011). Effective Teaching Methods: research-based practice (seventh edition). Boston. Allyn & Bacon

Carlson, S.(2000). The net generation goes to college. The chronicle of higher education. Section: information technology,
52(7), A34.

Carnivale, D. & J.R. Young. (2006). The challenges and benefits of requiring students to buy laptops: The chronicle of
higher education, May26.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.10th Anniversary Edition. New York: Basic
Books.

Gardner, H. (2000). Intelligence reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

Gilbert, J. (2007). Catching the Knowledge Wave: Redefining knowledge for the post- industrial age. Education Canada,
47(3), 4-8. Canadian Education Association. www.cea-ace.ca

Gregory, G., & Chapman, C. (2006). Differentiated instruction: one size does not fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin

McKenzie, W. (2005). Multiple Intelligences and Instructional technologies (2nd ed.).Washington, DC: International
Society for Technology in Education

Taylor, L & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1). www.cie.asu.edu

Willms, J. D., Friesen. S & Milton, P.(2009) What did you do in school today? Transforming classrooms through social,
academic and intellectual engagement. (First National report) Toronto: Canadian Education Association