faculty lakehead...judgment, knowledge of subject ma=< and knowledge of how people learn - all in...
TRANSCRIPT
An Examination of t h e Rolc of the Multiple Intelligences in Studiee of Effective Tcaching
by
Eric Marsland
In partial îulfiilment for the requirernents for the degree of M a m r of Education (Curriculum Studiee)
Faculty o f Education
Lakehead Univedty
Thunder Bay, Ontario
Bibliothèque nationale du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395, nie Wellington Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre rë f&nu ,
Our file Narre dfdrence
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfom, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de rnicrofiche/fïlm, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.
The purpose of th& a u d y is to mahate selected teacher eKeGtiveness research for
elements of multiple intelligence (Ml) theory. ln order to acquire a more holistic picture o f the
nature of effective teaching, this study explores teacher efYectivenes5 research through a Ml
frarnewurk in the ehfart to create a better understanding of &&ive teaching practioes. The
importance of this research to teachers lies in i î z at-f%ntion to how ef fz t ive teaching is defined
and how Mective teaching can be better understood. This research also directs focus on a
greaia- awareness of the role of the teacher, especially when juri5dict;lons are demanding
serious evaluations and examinations of teache-' work.
7he reiul ix indicate a large discrepanw between the intelligences and their
representation in teacher e fk t i vene is re~earch. lnterpretation o f the numbem reveak t h a t
there is no clear balance in what i5 being rneasureâ or in what ha5 emerged as themes in
teacher &&iveness research. The study also indicates future d i r i i o n s for advancing MI
theory irrta the educational system.
Table o f Content5 ..............................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................... L k t of Tables
Acknowkdgmertt~ ..........................................................................................................................
INRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... Purpoie of the Study .......................................................................... Rationale and 5ignificance of the 5tudy .................................... . . Definrtion uf Terms ...............................................................................
ME7UODOLOGY. .................................................................................................. Re~earch Design ..................................................................................... Instrumentation .................................................................................... Limitations o f the Study ....................................................................
The Ef fmive Teacher Liera Cure. .................................................... P rocess- Product Research ................................................
Limitations .................................................. . . Frndlng~ ........................................................ 5tudent Evaluation 5tudies .............................................. Qua litat:Ve Resea rch Meta -A na /y& ..............................
......................................................................... Cu rren t Trends 7he History of Intelligence Research ..............................................
Factor Analytic Intelligence Resea rch .......................... &tiona/e for Background on Ml neory ........................ Gardner's Theory of Intelligence .......................................
7he Eigh t Intelligence5 ........................................... Verbal-Linguistic Intelligence ................ Log ica l- Ma thema tical Intdigence ..... Visual-Spa tial Intelligence ..................... Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence ............ Musical-Rhythmic lnelligence .............
..................... 7he Fernonal Intelligences lnterpemonal Intelligence ....... Intrapemonal Intelligence .......
iii .
Natura1içti.c Intelligence ........................... Ml iheory and Education ......................... Educating the IniMigences ..................... n e Role of MI in Creating More Effiztive Teachers ...................................... 5ummaty ........................................................
Ml Assessrnent5 ....................................................................................... MIDAS Assessrnent ................................................................. Teele lnventory Assessrnent ..................................................
............................................................ Lazea r's Beha vio ur Log Di5COVER Assessrnent ........................................................... Multipb IntelIigence inventury for Teache= .....................
Summary of Validity and Reliability of Assessrnent5 Using MI lheory ......................................................................................................
CHAPER IV. ANALYSE AND FlNDING5 ................................................................................. The Persona1 Intelligences & Teacher Effectiveness
..................................................................................................... Resea rch Verbal- Ling uistic Intelligence & Gacher
........................................................................ Effectiveness Resea rch Bodily-Kine~thetic Intelligence & Teacher
........................................................................... Effectivene55 Resea rch Logical-Mathematical Elementi in Teacher
........................................................................... Effectivene~s Research Musical-Khflhmic Intelligence & Teacher
........................................................................... Effectivene55 Re~ea rch Visual-Spatial l ~ l l i g e n c e & Teacher E f f t i i v n e 5 s Research ....................................................................................................... Naturalist Intelligence & Teacher Effectiveness
....................................................................................................... Re~ea rc h Ml Findings in Teacher Effectiveness Research ............................
CHAPlEiC V . Dl5CU55lON AND CONCLU5lON ....................................................................... . . ............................................................................. Discussion o f Find~ngs .................................................................................................. Conclusions
Crea ting a Ba lance in Teacher Effectivene55 ........................................................................................ Resea rc h
A Ml View o f the Teacher ......................................................... Ml Teacher Testing .................................................................... Alternative Apprm~hes to School Organization .......... Ml Theory in the Curriculum ...................................................
iv.
. . fmplrca t ~ o n s ................................................................................................. SuggeHions for Further Research ....................................................
Essential At t r ibues o f MI ..............................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................ Ml Assessment Menu
Ml Instructional Technique5 & Teacher Qualities ....................................................................
.......................................................................................... 5 e l e d Effective Teac ber Resea rc h
The Pemnal Intelligences a5 Represented in Teacher Eflectiveness .................................................................................................................................................. Resea rch
Verbal-Ling uistic lrrtelligence ai Represented in Teacher Effktivenesi Research ..................................................................................................................................................
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence as RepresenW in Teacher Effeotiveness .................................................................................................................................................. Resea rch
Log ical-Mathema tical Intelligence a5 Represented in Teacher Effectivene55 .................................................................................................................................................. Resea rch
Musical-Rhythmic lntelligence ai Represented in Teacher Effectiveneii Re~earch ..................................................................................................................................................
Viiual-Spatial Intelligence a5 Repreiented in Teacher Effectiveness .................................................................................................................................................. Resea rc h
Naturalist lntelligence a i Represented in Teacher Effectivene55 .................................................................................................................................................. Resea rch
MI Dimensions in Teacher Effectiveness Research .................................................................
Ml Elements in Teacher Effeotveneii Research (Bar Graph) ..........................................
vi.
l am greatiy appreciative to a number of people who have a i s i 5 W me in the completion
of th is thesis.
Fimt, l'd like to thank my supen&or, Dr. Waitzr Epp, who provided me with guidance,
enwuragement, and constructive criticism throughout the wr%ing of this thesis. I al50 extend
my gratitude my cornm%-ke mernbers, Dr. Juanita Epp and Dr. Fiona Blaikie, each gave the
thesis a fresh perspective and herptd ta further develop it.
1 would al50 iike to thank Dr. Linda Cameron, 015E for her review and critique of the final
c o w 7hanki tu Dr. Maureen Ford whoie carhg att i tude is one i aim to model in my clasiroorn.
Thanks to David Else a t Old Fort Wfliarn h o provided me with opportunitie5 t u explore ali my
'intelligencei.' Last~'y, l would like to thank my family for their on-going support throughout this
enterprise.
Researchem for neady a century have attempted to inidy and creatc meaiurei of
teacher effktivene55, exploring both nrtcrnal c o n s t r u ~ t s and extemal behavioum of teachers,
including teacher chamcteriit ics (%ans, 7960; 5yrnonds, 7955) and pemonality trait i
(Coopemmith, 1963, a i well a s their observable, olas~roorn behaviour (Rosenihine & Fumt, 7973:
Soar & Soar, 7976: Stallings, 7976). 'Ihe queaion of wntat Hec-tive teache- do ha5 been a
topic ofdiscu5sion for educational researchem and praditioners, but does research link teacher
efEectivenes5 direct:& to the theory of multiple itrklIigence57
Teachee are the key ta iucces&d learning in the ~Iassroom (Lortie, 7975: Lightfoot,
1903; Goodlad, 7984: Lieberman & Miller, 19845 Wiggenton, 7985; Carnegie Forum on Education
and the Economy, 7906; €verbon, 7906: Joyce & Weil, 7906; Zumwalt, 7986: Henson, 7980;
Levine, 7909: Hofmeister & Lubke, 1990). Researcheri aoknowledge t h a t "teaching i5 cornplex,
demanding, and uniquek human" (Clark & Petcmon, 7906, p. 2931, and t h a t "what makes a good
teacher i5 a highly pemonal matter having tu do with the teacher3 perional iyd%rn of beliefs"
(Combi, 7982, p.3). in order to reach the 5pectrum of dflererrt learnem, good teacheri are a b b
to prepare I e ~ m n s that help all learnem undemtand the materal.
f i e issue of effective teaching practicei ha5 been a focus of educational researchers.
The &&ive s h o o l i research ha i identifieci speciFic teaching behavioue aisooiated with
increaseà i t uden t achievement (Brophy and Good, 7906). This literature suggesti teacheri
can be more effective i f t h e y change elernents of their behaviour in their c la~a-oomi. Other
7
2.
researche~; suggest changes in the teaching culture. Teaohem operate under multiple
conarai>rts wfiich impact learning Ni the clasejroom (Lortie, 1975: Cusick, 1983: Sizer, 1984:
Jackson, 7986: Siivemail, 1986, CalderLiead, 19BZ Sizer, 7987; Bacharach, 1990). n e s e
c o n s t r a i m include larger class &es, inadequatc planning and conferencirq tirne; and
adminiitrative impedimen-B such a5 excessive paperwork, in~rrup-tions, and headstrong
student5 (Cusrik, 1983; Goadlad, 19W Grant, 7900).
5tandaraized test scores were once the sole standard for defining mccessiùl learning
and teacher effectivene55 (Worthen, 1993). But succe55ful e a c h w and learning i5 a complex
matter tha t involves more than academic achievement. Today'i emphaois on higher-level
thinking (cognitive) skilb as well ae equal-qualïty education for al1 iearnee, forges a new mode1 of
teaching effectivene55 (Wood, 7992). Today, W e want our classrooms to be just and caring"
(Greene, 7993). Consequently, researchem are in the p ro~ess of using knowledge from other
disciples such a5 psychology and sociology and divergent research methodi to examine
forerunneri which lead to successfid learning. They are paying closer attention to teachem'
att i tudes and beliAs and the &ec& of theie beliefs on studentz and on the quality o f school
liFe (Lunenburg & Schmidt, 7989). Attemion ta multiple intelligencei is becoming an acceptable
and important par t o f the teacherd task. 15 th13 acceptance being ref lectd in the aisesiment
and analysis o f tcacher Mectiveness?
Purpose of the Study
ln this study, the researcher's aim is t u analyze and chart selected areas of Hect ive
teaGher resear~h in light of multiple intelligence5 (Ml) theory (Gardner, 7903). The reiearcher
3.
will examine the role of Ml in relation to s-tudies of teacher effiztiveness. n i 5 f i t will be
appraised through an analysii of teacher &ectiveneii literature viewed through a framework
which provides a multiple itrtelligence theory leni o f Ml teacher qualities and instructional
techniques [see Table 31.
The purposes of this thei is are (a) to provide an ovewiew of the cacher &&ivene55
reseanh. (b) to review multiple intellbences theory . c ) to i d e n t e methods & which teacher
efFectiveness is measurd. d ) to examine the Actent to which the teacher eFFectiveness literature
ha5 applied elements of multiple imlligencei theory, and (e) to identify poiiible areai in whkh
Chere are appropnate canntztioni betwwn teacher effectiveness research and multiple
in?%lligence theory.
Rationale and 5ignficance of the 5tudy
lke teacher is the deliverer of curriculum in the educational s y m m . Research which
provides an underitanding of teacher characterïstici related tu good teaching practice is an
essential area of educational research. A greater understanding of the characteri&ics and
cornponeniz ofeffkztive initrucüunal and daiiy relational practices with audents i5 essential
for developing curriculum tha t ref7e- the development of multiple intelligences and which
fostem the full growth of aude- in irrkll&, skills, and value development.
One key element of change would involve altering the role of the teacher. Governments
are holding teachem more accountable. Thg. are creating governing bodies to provide inprrt into
teacher certification (for example. Ontario's College of Teachemi) and are developing and
implernenting standardized e5t5 of teacher and audent achievement. Teacher eFFèctivene5i
4.
continues to be a prevalent iisue. Y&, in spite of yeari of relentless and divergent probing,
reseirchers have not been able to uncover objective criteria with which to measure effective
teaching.
ldentifying the Ml dimensions wili help to direct füture studies on teacher ef%ectivenes-~
to addres5 salient areas t h a t have not been addresseci in previous itudies. The set of factom
identified here will serve as a cafalyst for discussion as to how teachers can become more
&&ive in their cla55room5 by utilizing MI theory. This study al50 provides a comprehensive
examination of what i t rneans ta be an effective teacher, and allows *ache= the opportunicy to
identis, alternative acceptable wayi in which to evaluate, asse55 and make accommodation for
the needs of their studen-t;s.
Definition of Terms
Teacher Effectiveness - "a combination of the best of human relations, intuition, sound
judgment, knowledge of subject ma=< and knowledge of how people learn - all in one
iimultaneoui a& (Kauchak & Eggen, 1989, pp. 3-4).
. Multiple lnteIli,ence Theorv - *a biopsychological potential to proces5 information t h a t can be
a c t i v a w in a cultural setting to solve problems or create produ- t h a t are of value ifi a
culture - t h e s potentiak are r e p r e s e w in varying degrees by the following eight intellQence5:
verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kineithetic, rhythrnic-musical, visual-spatial,
naturalist, interpemonal and intrapemonalw (Gardner, 1999, pp. 33-34).
CHAPfïl? II. METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this &udy b to evaluate tea~her &ectiveness research through a
multiple irrt;elligence (Ml) theory lem. ln order to acquire a more holistic picture of the nature of
&&ive teaching, this study explores the elementi of MI t h a t are being r e p r e ~ e d in current
research on teacher eFfectiveness. ne framework of this study is in the domain area of
knodedge of teacher efXiiveness. The question of how best to organize an undemtanding of
&&ive teaching methodologies is analyzed through a Ml filter to 5ee what's out there in the
teacher eVêctivene5s literature and to recomrnend how it can be irnproved. Thii study utilizes
MI theoiy in the context of t e a ~ h e r efXectiveness and examines the inffuences and ahent of MI
theory elernents in teacher effectivene55 re~earch. The importance of this research to teachem
lies in i t s attention to how effective teaching is ddned and how &&ive teaching can be better
understood. m is resear~h also directs focus to a greater awareness of the role of the teacher,
e~pecia lb whenjuriidictions are demanding ierious evaluations and examinations of teachec.5'
work.
Reaearch Desian
Twelve studies on teacher efkctiveness were examined for their Ml elements. The
descripc.5 of the a u d y used t~ look for Ml theoty components in teacher effectivenese
research were (a) MI Instructional bhn ique i , and (b) Ml Teacher Qualitiei. The measures and
themes in the twelve itudies were compared to theie descriptoe ("Ml Instructional Techniques
& Teacher Qua/ities Chart") [see Table 31 in order .ta designate what irrteiiigence was being
6.
represented in the study and in what area. The -Ml Instructional Techniques and feacher
Qualities Chartw adapted the "How to f e a ~ h to the Eight lntellgences" and "Multiple
fntelligencei Subcapacities" charts (Georg, 7997) to f o m the a i~e5ament tool utilized the
researcher to look for MI elemenîx in teacher &ectiveness research. Table 3 was used as the
criteria to measure MI instructional technique5 and teacher qualities in the twelve studies on
teacher &&ivenesis research. Table 5 show5 how the intelfr;3ences are represented in the
measures and/or themes in the teacher eFFectiveness studies.
The researoher is confident t h a t the twelve studiei selected are a valid representation of
the research on current teacher effectiveness. 7he twelve studies were selected because they
represent the varying degrees of research design5 and methodologie5 in tzacher &eGtivenesi
literature. The criteria used to seled the twelve studies was the diFFerent usages of research
rnethodologies. A b r the twelve dinerent research designs were noted, a redundancy of
research methodologies in macher eiXectiveness literature became evident. Saturation of same-
style methodologies was clea r a f ter the twelve methodulog ies were d i ~ t i n g uis hed. iherdore, the
researcher s e l e m the twelve Sudies based on the variance of methodologies used. 7he
diversw of research methodologies is comment& on undemeath and the full account of the
avelve i tud ie i on teacher eFFectiveneis is provided in Table 4.
The twelve studies were categonzed by the reiearcher into the following headings: Study,
Research tvfethods, School Level, Inelligences, and MeasuresAhemes. From this information, a
chart wai created t h a t survqe eFFective teaching research as it relates to Ml theoty. Each of
the headings i5 explaineci below
Z
5tudv: provides the name of the authors and the date of publication. ln order to maintain a
cu ren t focus, only those Sudie5 having a publication date of 1985 ta 1990 were 5elec-kd. ln
addition, the itudies have been alphabetically organked.
Research Metho&: consists of the methodolody the researchem used in their study to examine
teacher &ectivenesi. n i 5 includes one of t he follo wing: proce5e-product, e t udent evaluations,
teacher self evaluations, teacher evaluation5 of &ective teaching, principal evaluations of
teachee, interview5, ethnography-, or a mmbination ofany of these.
School Levei: r e f e ~ to the ducational in5titution where the study took place. This includei:
elementary (J.K. ta grade 51, middle (grade 6 .t;o grade 81, secondary (grade 9 to OAC),
univemit;y ( Iet year students ranging to a d d t learnem attending univemity], o r a combination of
any of these.
intellidences: represents the type of intelligence the i t u d y in queaion i5 making u5e a f (baied
on Gardner% theory of multiple Nitellgences). The l i i W intelligence con&ts of one of the
fo Uowing muitiple intelligences: verbal-ling uistic, log ica /-ma therna tical, bodiiy-kine&e-tic, visual-
spatial, pemonal (both intra and inter], naturalist, or any combination o f these.
Measuresrnernes: corrtains the eletnent5 thas were ~ t u d i e d or ernerged frorn being studied in
the research on eacher efiectiveneei. To ditferentiate between instructional techniques and
teacher characteristics that were measures or themes in the studiei, teacher characteristics
have been italicized.
The challenge for the re~earcher was to establish a way to evaluate existing Iitemture on
teacher eiXectivene55 Chat encompaiies the ei iential elemeirts of multiple intelligence theory.
The researcher h a i merged the "How to Teach ia the Eight It~telligence5~ and "Multiple
ln~l l igences Subcapacitiei" charts (Georg, 1997) to create the "MI Instructional Techniques &
Teacher Qualities Chart" to help a55e55 the exiaing Ml theme5 and meaiures of macher
efFectivenes5 research [see Table 31. W v e selected etudies were analyzed for their
representation of Ml in either instructional &zhniques or teacher qualities, then these themes
and measures were categorized into one of the following eight intelligences
Verbal-Linguistic Logical-Mathematical Visual-spatial Sodily-KinesShetic Rhythmic-Musical lnterpersonal lntrapemonal Naturalist
Onk the themes and meaaures t h a t were applicable to Ml theory were caqor ized in the study.
Limitations of the Studv
ln conducting Ulis research, the researcher looked for univemal teacher qualities and
in5truotional techniques based on Ml theory. A poisible h i t a t i o n could be the initrurnent used
to anaipe the studies. The subcategories of initruotional technique5 and teacher qualities
might be limiting in itself in attempting to look for effective teacher elements. ln 5uch a
pioneering area of research, i t could be possible t h a t other important teacher elements have not
been included in suneying teacher &&ivenesa research.
70.
CHAf7ER III: EACHER EFFECWENE55 RE5EARCH & MI W E O R Y
Teacher Effectiveness Research
The relevant select& literature t h a t providei a bac@-ound for this study comes from
several strands including: (a] the teacher and school re fom movernea; (b) teacher
Hectivene5s research; and Cc] multiple intelligence theory. Edu~ational refom ca nno t be
conducted without an examination of the role teacheri play. in this research, the literature
from exiiting audies becornes the data base for analyds. A ccmprehensive review of select&
Sudie5 comparing rating t o o k research methodoioay, and teacher characteri5tic5 is analped
and di5~u55eù. men, multiple intelligence theory i5 reviewed with emphaiis pointing towards
rela ting the theory to future teacher effectivenesi research.
The E ~ ~ i v e T-eacher Literature
Effective teacher litmature focuses on the argume- surrounding the definition of
efFective teaching practicei and the essential characteristics arsociated with teachem who
produce greater achievement gains in their student i than most other teachem. Under the
headingr of procesi-product: research, student evaluation studies and qualitative research
meta-analyîis, each of these themes is presemed in greater detail followed ty a summary of the
findings.
Process-P roduct Research
A major focus of teacher eFFectivenes5 research s tems from studies conducted on
proce55-pruduct research. Such research focuiei on stodying the relationship between teacher
behaviouri (proce55) and student achievement (product] in the hope of determining what
77.
teacher behaviours would lead t~ increased student achievement (Peterson, 7979). Ttie
validation procei i involves a t least three 5tages: (a) the description o f selected
teaching/initructional aotivities; (b] the correlation of this description with some rneasure of
student growth: and Cc) experimental audie5 h i o h test the derived variables h m correlational
studies to detcmine i f they were causative agents of student change (Burich & Fenton, 1977;
Smith, Petetson, Micceri, 790Z Burrell, 1994).
Studies in process-product research focus on the wnsequences of teaohem' actions on
scuderrt learning as measured by standardized achievement te.&z (Grant, 7997) Procese-
product research findings reinforce many of the beliefs already held by teachers. Cornmon
characterr'stics of th& research include t h e following:
7. Re5earch i5 conducted in naturalistic achool settings with normal populations.
2. Most studies are conducted for a cornplete school year.
3. The relationship between the process of instruction and i ts ~~5 on students is
emphaiized. A lthough predioting variables (teacher imlligence, leadem hip, enthusiasm, self-
, concept) and context variables (age, 5% ability level of students, iubjec t m a m r , type of
school) are often included, they are not emphasked.
4. 7he teacher is the unit of investigation. Focus rests on the instructor's function only.
CumGular and technological concerns are not studied.
5. Teacher &ect on student achievement i5 measured by residual gain scores on standardizeà
instruments. Att i tude may be measured, but only in relation to achievement gains.
6. Low-inference, objective instruments are used to observe and record teacher behaviouw.
Such insruments allow the observer to ta/& even- rather than asse55 the quality of observed
Brophy and Good (1986) point out chat under the above con-, "teacher &&ivenesi"
i5, in fact, a matter of definition. To equate teacher efi"ectivenes5 with gain on achievement
t e e only, is a rni5conmption:
Most definitions (of teacher eFFectiveness) include succe55 in socializing studerrti and promothg their affiztive and personal deveioprnent in addition to succe55 in foitering their m a a t y of formal curricula. (p. 320)
Limitations of Process-Product Research
The debaiz regarding proces5 (eaching style) and product @tudent outcornes) i s an on-
going issue in research and is not wi-t;hout iiz critics. A major concern is the use of
standardized achievement test5 a i the measure of student learning. Although appropriate for
camparing score5 to provincial or national noms, euch te5t5 lack content vahdity a t the
classroorn \evel (Berliner, 7976) and may be culturally biaseci a s well.
5ome i u g g e a t h a t student learning expectations are the ultimate criterion (Mckachie,
et al, 7980). Even as n o W by saadeh (7970), when using student learning solely as a measure
of teacher efFectvenes5, one m u a be aware t h a t as situations become more cornplex (ie
variances in learning styles, socio-economic background, etc.), the value of student learning as a
measure of teacher efectiveness, becornes harder M a55e55. I t is important to note t h a t i t is
not an argument against student learning as a measure of teacher effectiveness, but rather, as
notcd by Stroh (19861, focushg on one varfable in a cornplex situation i5 h i t l e s i and
researchem are b a r to concern themselves "with the whole situation in order tu be able to
Another area o f concern regarding procesi-product research i i the cost factor. To
carty out such research, many teachers, traineù observe= and school distr icts rnust be willing
to participate and cooperate.
A measurement problem anses when affective goals and student 5ocialiwtion outcomes
are ad& tu the ddinition of an effective teacher, Effective student outcomes are not usually
measured using objective methodi ofasse55ment which leaves the teachem' opinion a i the
primary source o f student evaluation. Studies indicate t h a t teachew' opinions do not tend to
be a reliable measurement instrument to asses5 student progress (Ebel and Frisbie, 1906).
This research al50 ha5 procedural lirnitation5. f i e design call5 for atomistic
teacher behaviours to be tallieà and aggregated f iom many classes throughout the schoolyear.
Whde such data collection is Mective for a universal anaiy!zjis, the intent of teacher behaviours
or the CO- in which the behaviourr. took place may not be identified accurately (5hulman,
1992). Teachers adept at behaviourist M5k5 or 'komfortable teaching facts and skills"
(Omstein, 7995) e n d ta be favoured in the evaluation instruments, s jnm the instmrnentz tend
tu focus on smali segmente of obsewab/e or rneasurable behaviours, and the te5ts Chat measure
student learning expettations stem from knowfedge-based item5
A teacher who Sresses abstract or divergent thinking, humanistic or moral practicei, i5 disoriminated againi t (and still i5) as these are hard- tu-measure proce55es which, a5 a result, are ignored by mo& evaluation instruments. (Ornstein, 7995)
74.
Finally, eaching is a complex occupation t h a t cannot be diitilled into a formula for
success, 5tudents, schools, class set t ing~, government regulati0n5~ and other variables
a f fm ing the teachers interaction constarrt;(y can not be r e f 7 e W by a set of andard ized
instrument6
Find i n ~ s
In spite of these short comings of the methodology, reiearchem have at-i%mpi& to
identify the common characteri5tic~ and praa3caI experiencei of teachem and teacher
educators which are support& & proceis-product research resuis. me s@nificance of this
research lie5 in the congruence of findingi acrom diveme sett ingq subject matter, age groups
and ability levek Process-produc-t research does suggeit t h a t *ache= make a difference in
the learning leveli o f their studenti, and t h a t certain observable teaching behaviours affect
s t udent achievemea positively.
In a iummary of the teacher etfèctiveneii research f indinpJ Porter and Brophy (7900)
found Chat effiztive teachem are semi-autonomou5 profe55ionab who:
* are knowfedgeable in content and teaching strategies;
a are knowiedgeable about their audents and their inflructional needs;
* are ciear about their inejtructional goals:
* mrnmunicate expectationi ta their students;
* teach for metacognition:
.P address high, a i weIl a i low, level cognitive learning expectation~;
.* rnonitor student undemtanding and offer appropria- feedback
75.
make expert u ie o f &ting instruotional materials i~ enrich and c l a m the content:
integrate their instruction with other subjeot areas;
accep-t responsibility for student omome i ;
are thoughtfbl and reflective about teaching.
Brophy and Good (1986) identfied two broad themes which recur throughout the
research in general: (a) "academic learning is influenced by arnourrt o f the time t h a t students
spend engaged in appropriate academic taakiw: and (b) %tudents learn more f l c ien t l y when
their teachem fimt structure i ~ o n n a t i o n for them and help them relate i t to what they already
know, and then monitur their performance and provide correct feedback during recitation, drill,
practice, or application activities" (p. 366).
nie findings of process-produot research have been used for preiervice and inservice
initructional improvement. Expiicit teaohing, or direct instruction, i i an example of bndgirrg
research practice (Rosenshine, 1903).
5tudent Evaluation 5tudies
In student evaluatiom, perceptions of learning and relationships are intertwineà in
rneasuring teacher eFFectiveness. Shepherd, e t al. (1989) maintains t h a t studentcj do not
distinguish between the two c o n c e p which he c a b 'taik' (aseesernent of student learning t h a t
takes place in the clas5room)and 'rela tiona l' (teacher/stodent rela tionihips) when they evaluate
their -aches. As a result, according .t;o th is study, teache- can assure high m a r k
from their Sudents if tfzy are perceived a s open, friertdiy, approa~hable, relaxed, and 50 on,
regardless of whether the students were taught anything.
16.
Other researchem befieve studen- can and do ma ke such distinctions in their
evaluationi. m e true relationships among student learning, teacherktuden-t: relationship
mncern5, and i tudent evaluations of teacher effectivenese are wmplex and dependent on a
number of factors inchding teacher chamcteri5tic5, ch55 content, timing of the evaluation, and
pertiaps m o i t obviausiy, individual dinerences in student evaluators (Powell & Arthur, 1982,
7985).
Fur-ther questions concerning tud dent evaluations of teacher Mectivene55 include
different kinds of classes (cla55room contexts). niese indude class ske, expected grade, courie
levei, and initial student i n t z r e ~ t in the subject matter. Mamh (1987) e5tirnates t h a t 72-14
percent o f these between-teacher varia blei Ni mean overall effectivene55 ra tings t -p ica lb would
be attributed to such factors. The f i e & of many of these "bias factors" (Koon & Murray-,
1995) are controlled or attenuated in multi ie&bn validity studies (for example, the courie level
is the same for all sections, and class size may be similar). Those t h a t are not controlled, either
by muftisectionality or by random assignment of i tudent claises, will appear as unexplained
between-teacher variance in the overall fiectiveness mtings. (Koon & Mumy, 7995).
ihe student evaluation literature of what students consider Hect ive teachers is
immense and definitek quantitative and ernpirical in nature. The use of snident evaluations is a
5ubject ofdebate. The question is not whether or not student i are qualified to judge teacher
effectivenesi, rather, are +tuden-& a s qualified to judge teacher &éctivenesi as professionab
themselves? (Stroh, 1906). According ta Mamh (1907), "Nearly al1 researchem argue strongb
that i t Q ab5olmly necessary to have multiple indicatori of&ect;ive ~ a c h i n g whenever the
77.
evaluation of teaching eFFectivene55 i i to be usedw (cited in Koon & Murray p.62). Research
needs ta focus n o t j u i t on objective/y te- learning gains, but on the summative exterrt; tu
which a variety of measures of student outcornes can explain variances in student evaluations !n
the mean overall teaching Hectiveness ratings.
Qualitative Research Meta -Analysis
Unfolding in the 1930s, research on teacher eflectiveness is branching into a more
qualitative arena. Qualitative research design i i based on Md-based methods - conversationq
interview, and ethnographies of one, two, or a few abject5 - usually written in a narrative form.
According to Peshkin (19331, the qualitative research deab wÏth description5 of people and
situations. ewplanations of knowfedge and behaviour, interpretations of theories and
aisumptions, and evaluatlon of practices and policies.
Eisner (1985) believes teaching is an art and the primay objective o fan eFfecT;ive
teacher is to lead the class tuward the 05ectives of the lesson h i l e con5tantS adjusting and
allo wing the s t u d e m to participa te in the lemon whenever the? talents and i n t e r e m will allow
them to engage in the l e ~ o n s . He compares teaching to basketball where there are certain
rulei you m u a follow to engage in the activity o f scoring points: however, the goab of eaching
do not remain con-nt. 7he goals of teaching change; they are not without ambiguity, and they
are certainly not the same for all stude-.
Another proponent of qualitative researzh in teacher Hectivene55, Allan Orn5tein
states t h a t i n m a d of dealing with rntistically-based catqot ies and verhîable data,
qualitative research in the area of teacher etfztivenes5 /en& iizàelf ta providing narratives and
portraya15 which are highk perional and moralk pemuarive (1995). Orn5tein feels t h a t more
humanistic or value-bai& teachers will benefit from qualitative research because i t describes
h a t teaching is about from peaonal and social aspects.
l t (qualitative research) i i viewed by feminist eâucators ai a meanî of undercutting the dominant podtion of male researchem & deemphasizing mathematical and iymbolic sk i k (a male fonn o f knowing) and e k a t i n g verbal skilis and lïterary prose (in which females have uiually excelled). l t is vieweà by the political left. . . a5 a meani of reàucing the influence of traditianal researche~ who t h w & e n label Ytechnocratic," overiy rational or behaviourïst, and po/itical/y bia~ed or con5ewative. I t is viewed by practitioners in general as a meani for exposing the rhetoric of theoretical posniring, or a t least reve-ing iome of the previous iilence teachers have had tu endure because they were unable ta understand the research and theoretical aspecti of teaching. (Om&ein, p. 5)
The m o i t common method of qualitative reiearch conducted in research on fxacher
&&iveness is the in-rview. Interviews have been used for manyyeam to help participants
recall and examine their thoughs and feelings about a ho& of topics. /n eki t ing a teacherk
pemunal or practical knowledge through interviews, p a m r n s of teacher thinking emerge.
Open-endcd di5cussions have been u ~ e d in recerrt: research to explore in depth the
meaning by which teachem acquire, develop, or use their expertise about teaching and learning
and the teacherb perionalb held systemi ofprinciples and values of teaching are made clear
(Ornstein, 7995). Thc intetviewer i5 required to have the interpemonal skiIl5 to enable them to
help the teacher move fmm implicitk held and private beIief systems to expiicit descriptions and
to organize a frame of reference t h a t can be used by other teachers (Omstein, 7995).
Although interviews have contributed much ta the undem-t;anding of teacher thinking and
19.
knowlcdge, they are not wfthout problemi. Thcy are predicated on the assumption Chat a
teacher can articulate their othenuise tac% knowledge. lntewieiur. assume t h a t what people say
accuratel' represents their thought processes or what t h w actuall' do in practice. fhey
preiuppoie t h a t al/ participanti &are the same vocabulary and perceptions and fail tu account
for the dHerence between teachers who are ofton focuaed on immediate ~oncerns and practical
issues, and reiearchem who are more concerned with general c o n c e p and theoretical issues
(Solas, 1992).
Ethnographic research in teacher effectivene5s places the least emphasis on analyzing
a u d e n t achievement levels. Ethnographic research ha5 contributed to the study of teacher
effectiveness by ernphasizing the contextual constraints and rules of everyday claseroom We, by
5treasing the importance of thoughçi, feelings, perceptions, and attitudes of clai iroom
paeicipants and pafiicularly, by calling into question our rational mode15 o f human behaviour"
(Weitbury, 1980, p. 138). lnstead of focusing on d&ning achievetnent, ethnographic researchem
anaiyze more the "context, conditions, and interaction5 t h a t lead to achievernent" (Westbury,
1900, p. 739). Ethnographe= seek to undemtand the meaning of particular classroom events,
unlike researcherr. in the process-product tradition h o look for patterns and predictabiliq.
Some branches of ethnographic research in ethnography include the sociological,
anthropolog ical, and linguistic pempectrectrves. For example, ethnographic ~uciolingui5tits
emphasizes communication, leading a number of researchem to focus on the coding and
qua!itative a n a e i s of claisroorn discourse (Cazden, 7972; Delamont, 1963; Green, 7903).
Frequen* audio and video recordinge o f clalassroom lifie are transcribed tu provide qualitative
and quantitative data.
There are obviou5 limieations to qualitative research. f i e time factor is the biggest:
threat to on-going research on teacher eiXectivenes5 using qualitative reiearch. l t ta& much
longer to deicribe a teacher's petfumance than to check off prearranged categories. The
phenomenological and ethnographie descripton i5 based on the obien/er'sjudgement, whereai a
checkliit count is coniidered more precise. (Wesebury, 1908) Furthemore, descriptive, col0 urful
language often influence5 readem to conclude Chat the researcher i5 biased. Wit;hout qualitative
dewription, important claisroom eveniz may be ignored, but with the description there is
suspicion o f bias.
Current Trends in Teacher Effectiveness Research
No reiearch paradigm ha5 an exclusive patent on how to generate knowledge. Frocess-
Product reiearch, with ici emphaii i on quantita Cive designs and methods, ha5 traditionaliy
dorninateù studies of teacher Hectiveness. Teacher effectiveness ha5 beerr defined as "the
ability of a clalaisroorn teacher t u produce higher-thhan-predic-ted gains on îtandardized
achiewment temw (Good, 1979). More remnt publications on t a c h e r evaluations have
expanded thi5 definition to indude the humanistic or pemnal charactet%tics and behavioum of
the tcacher as being essential for Hec t ive teaching (Cuny, 1993: Kondrat, 7909). Especialiy
within the la& decade, many interesting and provocative publications are evolving from the
qualitative a pproach, including a broader framework a bout teacher reiearch which inchdes
phenomenology and ethnography. Such qualitative methodologies in teacher &&tivenes5
research represent new ideas and ways of presenting knowledge about teaching and can perbaps
widen our knowledge on what i t means ta be an ef%ective teacher.
Teacher effectivene55 research may require a more holi5tic analysis o f what i t means ta
be an eff'ective teacher. By explohg the issue from a multi-methodological standpoint uiing a
combination of research methodi and u ~ i n g rnultipie methodologies a more comprehensive and
balanced understanding of the cûmplex meaning of what i t means be a good cacher might
corne to fruition. 5ome of the elements in such research might include the following: teaching
5Qk5, teacher qualitiei or characteri&im, behavioural component5, instructional Whniques,
and methods by which teacheri facilitate multiple intelligences in their classrooms. ln this
5tOdyJ teacher cha racteristics and instmctiunal techniques in existing teacher effectivene55
research are anafyzed for elements of multiple intelligences theory.
The Histurv o f Intelliaence
Complex a5 the issue of teacher &ect;ivene55 might be, an equalk complex ~ u f $ z t is
Chat of the meaning of intelligence. 7lroughout history, the detemina tion of intelligence has
depended on measures of how well individual5 function within their environment. The
rneasurernent of intelligence did not become fim(y entrenched in our thinking until the turn of the
centuty when Alfred Binet (7909 as c W in Teman, 7916) and his colleagues developed a test
to predict how well French students would perForm in whool. fhis initBiment, known a5 the
Binet-Simon intelligence Scale, provided a relatively efficient method to determine which
i tudent î would iucceed in school and which would ne& remediation. The original purpose of the
te& was not the ranking of s t u d e w but to provide a valuable cumkulum planning tool. I t wai
meant to be helpfuf for and not critical o f studen-.
22.
This concept of measuring inelligence w o n reached North America. ln 7976 a t Stanford
Univemity, Lewis Terman (1976) revi5ed the Binet-Simon Scale to make the test more applicable
to American iociety, and to addresi deficiencier he perceived in the m. k e deficiencies
induded: a ) ceihg and floor conitrictions, and b) initability of ~ m r e i over time (Terman, 7916).
Temian introduced the tem "intell@ence quotient" QG?]. The Stanford-Binet Scale, developed
Teman, became wideiy used in schoob for g rouping audents by ability level and predicting their
future educational succe55. The notion of uiing intelligence test5 a5 a meani ty which to rank
individua k wai t h u i e5tablish&, and the measurement of intelligence would piay a major role in
the education of North American children.
Fa-r Analvtic Intelliaence
nie nature of intelligence is a perplexing issue in the field o f cognitive 5cience. Ihe
contrasting nature of the views and theories clearly points to the wmplexity of defking Chi5
abstract concept.
The f a m r anaiytic view of inteliigence repreienti t h e pervading view of intelligence in the
school setting. Thi i view of intelligence is iupported by the work of Spearman (1904) who
believes t h a t al1 intelligence cornes from one general factor, known as '4.' The evidence for a
single general intelligence is the fac t t h a t there is. proof of a single general factor t h a t governs
the level of intelligence of an individual. This i5 al50 known ai the poiitive manifold (Spearman,
1904). Bpearrnan adrninistered different types of tes5 to many people covering ieveral
different a rea i oî cognitive abilsy. When he examineci the resul t i he found t h a t there w a i a
positive correlation between the teai for any given individual. In other wordq if a certain person
23.
performed well on a tes t of verbal abilitiei, then t h a t same perion peiforrned well on another
test of cognitive ability, such as, mathematics. bpearman propoied t h a t intelligence consias
o î t w o factors, a general factor or 'g' factor and a cluster of ipecific fac to r i (5pearman,1927).
This 'g' factor repreienti the mental abilîty t ha t underlies performance on al1 intellectual tasks.
Moreover, 4pearman contended t h a t the general factor along with one or more specific fac tor i
accourrt. for an individual's performance on intelligence tests. Jensen (1997) eupported the
theory of one general intelligence by itating, "the positive correlation between al1 cognitive test
i t e m i is a given, an inexorable fac t of nature. The al[-positive inkr item correlation matrix is not
an artffact of t e s t construction or item ielection, a5 some test critics mistakenly believe" (p.
î23). 7hough these theorist i view intelligence a5 having more than one dimension, the position
is taken t h a t general ability underlies intelligent behaviour.
The use of factor a n a l y i i ~ to investigae conitruGts of intelfigence represenm one
prominent whool of thought. Sternberg (1985) notes t h a t the differen~e in the factorial
theories centres on the number of factors froposed by the theory and the geometric
arrangement of the factors with one another. The worki of Spearman, Thumtone, and Goilford
ilIu5trate this viewpoint. Spearman represenix the general-factor theoty of intelligence;
whereas, ihur i tone and Guilford postulate t h a t intelligence i5 a composite of various
independent factori. Overall, the ie t h e o r i m adhere to the theuty of general intelligence with
the belief thas intelligence is multidimensional (Sattler, 1992).
Rationale for Background on MI 7heory
For the purposes of this mudy, it is ne~essary to explain Howard Gardner3 (7983)
theory of Multiple Intelligence5 (Ml theory). ln order to underitand what elements of Ml theory
are being represented in research on teacher eFfectivene55, i t i5 central to th& thesis to have a
thorough explanation of each of Gardner's intelligencei. A cleariy preiented picture of Mi
theory and Ml assessrnents o f ~ t u d e n t s helps to provide focus tu the details t h a t are both
absent and preierrt in studies on teacher &eGt;iveneii and gives emphasii to this the ib '
a t tempt to ernphasize Ml elements in teacher efYectivenesi re~earch.
Gardner's 7heory of Intelligence
Howard Gardner3 theory of multiple irrtelligences (7983) and i- application to education
ha5 been of growing interest to researchem and educational practioners. Hi5 book, Framei of
Mind (7983) ha5 given rise to a new conceptualization of intelligence. Previoui views of -
irttelligence had entaileà a single, though rnultifaceted, factor of inteIIigence labeled 3.' lhat
iome individuali posees5d more irr-klligence than othem wa5 an accepted fact and intelligence
wa5 viewed as staMe, capable of being measureà early in Me. Until recentiy, intelligence was
viewed as something t h a t was fixed a t birth, a result of heredity, and thaz nothing much could
aV& the given arnount a remon could ieam. With the development of plural istt views of
inMgence corne5 the poisibility t h a t educatow play a pivotal rob in developing and building on
children's lea rning.
Gardner suggested the existence of multiple itttzlligences in evety normal individual. And
by strengthening one's intzlligence5, he claimed, wa5 the whole purpose of education. Because
25.
Gardner situated intelligences in culture and in con- which proved them us&/, he argued
against the appropriateness of pencil and paper tests for a55essing intelligence. Although
these tests conceivably measure 3,' Gardner challengeci their validitiy as predictors of the ability
to solve problerns and succeed in real-wodd situations. Gardner (1993) wntei, "9 do not deny
t h a t '~$exisB: instead, l question ici expIanatory importance orrtside the relative& narrow
environment of f o m l ichooling" (p. 39). For Gardner, thk concep o f intelligence ieemed to
pas5 by rnany strikingly talented individuah and a focus on 'g' appeared biased and
unproductive.
Gardner (Gardner & Hatch, 7989) defines intelligence a5 the capacity to aolve problems
and fashion produots t k a t are valued in one or more cultural settings. I t might abo involve a
po-ntial for finding or creating problems (Gardner, 7983). DWerent intelligences involve
dist inct f o m s of p~ychological processes (Gardner & Hatch, 7989). fia act ae a
"biopsy~chological potentialw for dealing wiUi 5peciFic environmental content and can be hel@l&
underitood a5 procedural knowledge, rather than propo5itional knowledge. An individual with a
. high degree of a pat$icular i r r k l l ~ e n ~ e ha5 no obstacle preventing him or her from u ~ i n g that
intelligence when choosing to do 50; individuals particulaniy able to deal with certain Ends of
content can be considered "at promi~e" and may need iictle fuma1 education to deal W . t h a t
content. Othe= may be "at risk" with regard to Chat coniznt (Gardner, 7983).
According to Gardner3 original theory of multiple intzlligences (MI ) theory (7983), each
individua l possesses seven intelligences: linguiitic, log ical-mathema tical, musica la 5pa t ia 1, bodily-
kineithetic, intc'pemonal, and intraperional (Gardner, 1983). While each person poi iessei al1
26.
oF the ie intelligences, the degree of ability in each intelligence varies. This variation of abilities
produoes a unique multiple intelligences profile. Most people have high levels in some areas,
moderate in othem, and low levels in other areas, but very few people would ever demonstrate a
high levei or lo w level ability in ail seven areai. Table 7, adaptûd fi-om Lazear (1997, p. 1 6 0
i l l us t ra&~ j abilitiei associaCid with each of the seven intelligence areas.
Gardner (7983) hai deveIoped eight criteria by which ta judge whether or not a given
oa paciw could be considered an intelligence. These 'iigns' are ae follo w5:
7. me NltelIectual capacity demonarates potential isalation by bmin damage. It m u a
be relativek autonomous from other human faculties and localized in the brain. lnjury 12 t h a t
part o f the brain, then, could impede %, while not affecthg other intelligences.
2. The ~ a p a c i t y m u a be eviden~ed in idiot savants, prodigiei, and other exceptional
individuals. Gardner further argues Chat to the extent t h a t these conditions can be linked to
genetic factor i o r to specfic areas in the brain, the capaoity is more pewuasively an
intelligence.
3. An inteiligence mu& poi5e55 an operation or se t of operations integral to it, that i i ,
a basic information-prooessing meohanism t h a t can deal with 5pecific type5 of input. A human
intelligence could be viewed a s a "neural mechanism or cumputational sy5tern rYfii~h i5 genetically
programmed to ùe activated or biggered' ty certain kinds of internally or externally presented
information" (Gardner. 1903, p. 64). Computer simulation of these operations would provide
CO rnpeliing evidence.
4. An itrklligence mu& progrei i along a developmental hi i tory t h a t re5ulB in a
27.
dmnable set of end-&- (1983). l t begini with a paCterning abiiity in the fi& year of life:
next? % is encountered through a symbol5y5tem. iater, intelligencesy along with their ~ymbol
iy-ms, are represented in notational iy i tem5. Finally, during adolescence and adulthood, the
ïntelligencei manifest themselvei in vocational or avoca tional puwu&zj (Waitem & Gardner,
79&).
5. An inteIligence m u a al50 exhibit evolutionary anfzedem and plaui ib i l i t~~ including
capaci t ie~ çhareà with other organisrns (for scample, primate social organization). Gardner
stre5se.d the eludveness of finn fact~, however, in regard to this criterion.
6. hperimental psychology mu& support t he existence d a n inteligence. Suoh support
might take the fonn of a study oîiinguiitic or spatial proces5ing, or one Chat focuses on the
relative autonomy of an intelligence.
Z An Ïntellgence m u s al50 receive psyohornaric support. 7h-ough Gardner is highb
ri tic al of s t a n d a r d i d pencil and paper test5 and though inteyreting psychometric findings is
not always itraightfonvard, they Gan be used tu enhance hi5 theoryL credibility. For example,
positive correlation between tasks t h a t daim to asse55 one intelligence and les5 correlation with
t h m e t h a t a55e55 another intelligence can be conçidered iupporit.
8. i t muet be powible to encode the operations of an intelligence in a symboi iyitern.
5ymbol systerns, such as language, nurnbea, and musical notation, contribue to the usefulness
of an intelligence and might well be a prirnary character5tic of intelligence in humani (1903).
20.
7he Eight lntelli~ences
After delineating theie criteria, Gardner p r o c d 5 to describe those capacities which
have met them; Armstrong provides a summary chart of Gardner3 evidence (1994, p. 08).
Gardner (7903) initially identïfied seven intelligences an eighth (naturalist) was identified later
(1993). ln Frsrnes of Mind, he diaousses each of t h e fi& seven intelligences in light of hi5
criteria, positing them w%hin the context of one or more individuab exemplf@ng the inelligence
and describing their developrnental trajectories and arch-typical end-&a-5. l t i5 ineresting ta
note t h a t most other descriptions of the "core operationsw of these intelligences do nos follow
the order Gardner posed in Frames of Mind, though hi5 ordering there intentionally ref7ects
commonalities between certain intelIigences, Table 1 adapted from Georg (7997) illustratei the
easential amributes associated with each of the eight intelligence areas.
Verbal-Linguistic lntelli4ence
Linguistic intelligence (Gardner, 7983, p. 77) r d e w tu an individual's mastety in using
language oompetentl. for communication and expression and this cornpetence i i best exemplfied
by poet i and writem. Armstrong o f fen a comprehensive definition of the linguistic cornpetence:
The oapacity to use words Hectively, whether orally (e.g. storyteller, orator, or politician)
or in writing (e.g. a5 a poet, playwright, editor, o r j ou rna l i~ ) . This inteligence includes the ability
to manipulate the syntax or structure of language, the phonology or sounds of language, the
iemantics or meaninge of language, and the pragmatic dimeniioni or practical uses of language.
Some of these uaea include rhdoric (using language tu convince otherii to take a specKc coume
of action), mnemonioi (u5ing language to remember information), exflanation (uiing language to
idorni). and metalanguage (uiing language to talk about it5el9. (Annitrong, 1994, pz).
While poetty provides us the clearest initancei of linguistic ski l l , everyone exhibit5 5ome
command of "the linguisic =rad of phonologyt iyntax, semantics, and pragmatic5" (Gardner,
7983, p. 77'). In fa&, /inguiflic competence is the ir%dligence " tha t 5eem5 most wideb and rnoi t
dernocratically 5hared acro is the human species" (lb;d., p. 78). Gardner singles out four
a s p m of lingui&ic knowiedge t h a t are widt$y u5ed in the general populace: f i M y the rhetorical
a5pec-t of language to convince othem; secondly, the mnemonic use to maintain information;
thirdly, the eflanatory role for teaching and learning; and finaliy, the knowldge of language for
metalinguistic analy5is: ecpeeially valuable for clarifjhg meaning. (lbid., p. 78) Human share an
immense sensitivity to the meaning of words, the arder among words, the sound 2nd inflections
of words, and the different functions of words to suit goab and purposes.
LinguiStic intelligence i5 answerable for the compo5ition of language in aM i B elaborae
poiiibilitie5 in the f o m s of poetry, humour, reading, syntax, various genres of literature, cerebral
reasoning, symbolic analyzing, theoretical pattxming, and the written and spoken word (iazear,
7997, p. 74). Linguistic intelligence is awakened by the spoken word; ty reading someoneL ideas
or poetry: and by writing one3 own ideas, thoughts, or poetty (Ibid).
Mathematical inlzlligence emanatcs from the manipulating of objem, grows into the
abiliw to think con~rGt;e& about those obje-? then develops into the abil&y to think formal&
about relations without 06jec& (GTOW, 1995, p. 5). Gardner pain- out Chat the
mathematiciani must be mpable of writing their proof5 with meticulous accuracy, along with
having the expertise to reason precisely (lbid., p.6). "nie idea of log ical-ma thematical intelligence
dir- one3 attention to the precision of language and the preoiiion of thought in a piece of
Miting - whether the sustained structure d a long work, the organilation of paragraphi,
sentences, or transitions" (lbid.). Armstrong defines mathematical intelligence as:
'Ihe capaciiy to use numbem Hectively (e.g. a i a mathematician, tax accountant, or statistician) and to reason well (e.g., as a sc ient i~ t , cornputa- programmer, or logician). This intelligence includee sensitivity to logical patterns and relationships, 5tatement5 and proposition5 (if- then, cause-effect], fimctions, and other relatzà abstractions. ihe kinds afproceises uied in the service of logical-mathematical intelligence include: categorization, classification, inference, generalkation, calculation, and hypothe5is testing (ArmHrong, 1994, p.2).
Logical-mathematical ability does not just appear as the ability to do math ea+i/y. /t
abo can be demonstrated as a student uses logic to solve a problem in a m p - b y - m p
approach. The ability to figure out a variety of solutioni to a problem, or coming up with a
problem m i n a problem might al50 be an indication of ~ r e n g t h in this iWlligence.
Spatial intelligence &ers to the ~ a p a c h y to think visually, orient oneself ipatially, 5ee
the visua 1-spatial wodd dearly, and tc exeoutc transfonnatione on one's initial perception5
(Armstrong, 1994, p.6). The spatial cornpetence involves:
ne abil%- ta perceive the visual-spatial wodd accuratdy (e.g, a5 a hunter, scout, or guide) and to perFonn transformationioni upon those perception5 (e.g., as an interior decorator, architefi, artist, or inventor). The intelligence involves sensitivity to mlour, line, shape, fom, space, and the relationsh9s t h a t cxist between these elements. I t inchdes the c a p a ~ i t y to visualize, to g r ~ h i c a l l y represent viiual or spatial ideai, and to orient oneself appropria* in a spatial mat& (Armstrong, 1994, p.2). OFeen referred to a5 visual-spatial this intelligence involves the abikty to
understand, perceive, intemalire and/or transfonn spaoe . . . People who have this inteliigence o-hn enjoy chesi, like many colours, do jigsaw puzzle5 and can imagine the worid from a bird'i eye vieww (GaMiey, 1995, p. 8).
Gardner (1903) i t a e i t h a t spatial intelligence involves an array O? loowiy related ~ki l ls:
"The abilky to remgnize instances of the same element; the ability to transfonn or ta recognize
a transfomation of one element into another: the capacity to conjure u p mental imagety and
then to t r a n i f o m t h a t imageiy; the capacity ta produce a graphic likeness of spatial
idonnation; and the likew (p. 176).
nese spatial abilities are v%a& important in many arenas of Me over the wodd; in
orientating oneself on land and ocean: in recognking object and icenes when 5ome aspect of
their original surroundings has b e n alered or changed,. and in working wfth two or three
dimensions l depimions of real-life scenes, maps, and diagram5 (Gardner, 7903). Gardner goes
on to explain two other use5 of spatial capacitiei, the firrzt one being in Uie area of the a m :
Two other uses of spatial capacities prove more ab i t rac t and eluiive. One involves sensitivity to the various lines of force Chat enter int;o a visual or spatial display. / r&er here to the feelings of tension, balance, and composition t h a t characterize a painting, a work of sculpure, and many natural elements (like a fire or waterfall) as well. These facets, which contribute to the power o f a display, occupy the attention of art ists and viewem of the a m . (Gardner, 7983, p. 176)
Gardner3 (7983) second use of spatial intelligence concerni resemblances t h a t exist
between apparently different f o m ~ - for example, Uie metaphorical ability ta draw analogies
t h a t 5ee the 5ky as a membrane or mankind a5 a heap of earth: these kinds of resemblancei
may well have occurred ta one initially in spatial form (p. 176). Even icience employs spatial
metaphors:
Darwin's tree of lifie, Freud's unconscious submerged like an iceberg, Dalton3 t iny m la r sy-m. . . This ability to u5e mental rnodels and images may then likely play a rob in everyday problem-solving (Gardner. 1983, p. 776-775).
Bodiiy-kinesthetic intelligence requires the adeptne55 to cornprehend the world through
body experiences, to express ideai and emotioni, and communicate with othem physically
(Gaffhtey, 1995, p. 7'). This inteIligence is strongiy evidenced in ballet dance=, errt;et%ainers,
athletes, ~ c u l p t s , doctom, tradeimen, and craftspeople (Ibid.). Armstmng describes bodib-
kinest hetic intelligence a s ha ving:
& W i s e in u ~ i n g one's whole body to express ideas and feelings (e.g., as an actor, a mime, an a thlete, or a dancer) and facility in using one's han& to produce or transfomi thingi (e.g., as a craftspemon, iculptor, rnechanic, or iurgeon). This intelligence inchdes specifïc physical skiIl5 a i coordination, balance, dexterity, streng th, ff exibility, and speed, a i well a s proprioceptive, tadile, and haptic oapacities. (Armstrong, 1994, p.3)
7his intel1;gence often cornes to our attention with "children who cannot sit still for long,
those who are well coordinated, or those who need to touch things in order to learn" (Gaf iey,
Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence centres around a perion 3 "ability tu control one's body
movements and to handle objects skiIlful/y (Armstrong, 1994, p.6). Gardner look5 a t two
capacities when he speaki of the cores of bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. They deal with
exploiting g ross motor movementin and the ability to carry out t a s k i involving -fine motor
movements" (Gardner, 7983, p. 206). These two operations may be carried out separatek "SkiIl
in the use of the body for functional or expressive purpo5es tends to go hand in hand with skiIl in
t he manipulation of o6jectsn (Ibid., p.207).
Conceming al1 the intelligences, Gardner note5 ''Marly al/ cultural roles exploit: more than
one intelligence" (Gardner, 7983, p. 207). The ove* of various intelligence with each other ha5
been a criticall' important aspect with Our species for manyyears, if not millions ofyeaw
(Gardner, 7383, p. 207).
Gardner notes the Ancient Greeks' reverence for their bodies:
In speaking ofma5terful use o f the body, i t i5 natural tu think of the Greeks, and there is a sense in which this form of intelligence reached it5 apogee in the West during the Classical Era. n ie Greek revered the beauty of the human form and, by means of their arti5tic and athletic act iv i t ie~, sought to develop a body t h a t was perféctly proportioned and gracefid in movement, balance, and tone. More generally, thqy sought a harmony between mind and body, with the mind trained to use the body propet?., and the body trained to respond to the expres5ive powersi of the mind (Gardner, 7983, p. 207).
Recent culture has developed a separation between reasoning and physical activity. n i 5
divorce ùetween the mind and body has manageà to suggest Chat body activity Ys somehow le55
prïvileged, les5 special, than those problem-solving routines carried out chieffy through the use of
lang uage, logic, or some other relatively a bstract symbolic systemn (Gardner, 7983, p. 208).
Many cultures do not draw a sharp distinction between the use o f the body and other cognitive
intellectual po wers (Ibid.).
Musical-Rhythmic intelligence includei receptiveness to pit;ch, timbre, and rhythm and
ieneitivity to music (Nelson, 7995, p. 26). I t abo includes such abilities a5 the cogniwnce of
mnal patterns and rhythm, awarenes of sounds such ae human, animal, environment sounds,
and musical instruments (Lazear, 1997a, p. 75). Armstrong abo providei us with some of the
capacitiei t h a t a peeon with musical intelligence might exhibit:
The capaci?, perceive (e.g, a i a music aficionado), discriminate (e.g., ai a music critic], t ransfom (e.g, a5 a compo5er), and express (e.g., a i a perfomer) musical forms. 'Ihii intellligence includes sen~it iv i ty to the rhythm, pitch or melody, and timbre or tane colour of a musical piece. One can have a figura1 or "top-dom" undemtanding of music (global, intuitive), a forma1 or "bottom-upw understanding (analflic, teohnical), or both (Armstrong, 1994, p.3).
This intelligence involves the ability to undemtand the world and give information back to
the world fy using and undemtanding mund (Gaf iey, 7995, p. 6). Clearly, mu5ically intelligent
people are sensitive to rhythm, melody, and pitch a5 exemplified by singe=, musicians, and
compose= (Armstrong, 7994, p.3).
Musical intelligence is not litnitcd tu those who can play, but abo serve5 the millions of
music luvers, collectam and others who work in the industry. Y&, there is al50 a core set: of
abilities crucial to al1 participation in the mudoal e x p e n c e of a culture. These core abilities
should be found in any normal individual brought into regular contact with any kind of music"
(Gardner, 1903, p. 7 0 4 ) . Musical inteIl@ence ha5 considerable application in the world of science.
Phyiicians (Gaffney, 7995, p.6) musc listen carefuIIy to a cjtethoscope to give a prognosis to the
patient, thu5 conjOining an appreciation of sound and the pattzns i t creates. lndividuab are
sendtive to musical contour and ultimately have schemes; or %mes' for hearing music
(Gardner. 1983, pp. 707-100). Music has the capacky inspire us, intemi& and reflect Our
ernotions, and is used to express triumphs and helps u5 to endure great tragedies. A5 David
Musical-Rhythrnic Itrtelligence includes such capacities as the recognition and use of rhythrnic and tonal patterns, and sensitivity to sounds fi-om the environment, the hurnan voice, and musical inSruments. Many of us learned the alphabet through this inteMgence and the "A-0-C song." OF all forms of intelligence, the "consciousnes5 altering" &kt of music and rhy-thm on the brain i i the greatest. (iazear, 7997a, p. 15)
The Persona! Intelljqences: Interpemonal and lntrapemonal
AIthough the next two intelIigences (interpeeonal and intrapersonal) wilj be discuised
~eparately, neither intelIigence can develop total& without the other (Gardner, 1903, p. 247).
She ro/es t h a t diFFerent cultures play in stressing the values of the two intelligences may also
/end support in respect to their relative autonomy. Gardner's summary for hi5 rationale for
supporting the two pemonal intelligences follow:
There i5 an iàentifîable core to each, a CharaCteri5ti~ pattern o f development, a number
of specific end-states, as well a5 irnpressive evidence for neurological representation and for
diwernible patterns of breakdo wn (Gardner, 7983, p. 242). Definitions of these two
cornpetencies ihould initiate the distinction between these two f o m s of intelligence.
The iense of self and the development of personhood is equalk developed through both of
the petsonal intelli'gence5. Gardner defines the core capacim of the pewonal intelligences a5 "an
emerging i e n i e of self" (Gardner, 7983, p. 242). "The wide varie-& if 'selves' encountered
throughout the world suggests thaz this sense is better thought of a5 an amalgarn une tha t
emerges from a combination of one% intrapemonal and irr te~emonal knowiedge. . . l shall u5e the
term sense of self to refer ta the balance struck by every individual - and every culture - between
the promptingi o f "inner f&ingsU and the pressures of Uother pemonsW (Gardner, 1903, p. 242).
Thus, the sense of self can be traced in every pemon to two separate forms of pemonal
intelligence - one dire& inward and the other outward, and they can develop individuab and
merge with each other (lbid, 243).
Gardner -tes t h a t the ie two intelligences have much in commun in their capacity to
know self and others; yet they also reveal clear distinctions in respect: to each other and to
other f o m s of intellÏgence:
m e pemonal intelligences amount to information-proce5sing capabilities - one dire& inward, the other orrtward. . . The capacity to know oneseif and to know othets is as inalienable a part of the human condition as is the capacity ta know otject5 or iound5, and i t desetves tu be investigateà no less than these other u/es5 charges" forms. Pemonal intelligences may not prove complefzly cognate wiUi the forms of intelligence we have already encountered - but a i l pointed out a t the a r t of t h i i inquiry, there i5 no reason tu expect t h a t any pair of intelligen~es will be completely comparable. What is important i5 tha t they should be part of the human inteIIectual repertoire, and t h a t their origins should take roughly comparable forms the world over. (Gardner, 7903, p. 243)
Although these i ' l l i g e n c e s develop with each other, their core components have a
distinct realrn and deserve separate treatment.
Interpemonal intelligence includes the individual3 capacïty "to under'stand, perceive and
discriminate between people5 moods, feelings, motives, and i ~ n t i o n s " (Gaffney, 7995, p. 8).
Particulariy the artists, being the experts in the human terrain, know their audiences, how to
rnake them laugh or cry, while providing iniight into their lives (Gaf iey, 7995, p. 7). Armstrong
provides further mawhafing of th& concept by hi5 definition:
The ability to perceive and make distinctions in the moods, intentions, motivationi, and feelings of other people. This can include sensitivity to facial expressions, voice, and geîturei; the capacm for disctitninating among many dihCerent kinds of irrkrpemonal cues; and the ability f~ respond eFFectively to those ouei in iome pragmatic way (e.g., ta influence a group of people to follow a certain line of action). (Armstrong, 7994, p. 31
The core component4 of in?%rpemonal intelligence deal with a perion's uoapacity to
discem and respond appropriatey to the moodi, temperaments, motivations, and desires of
other peoplew (Armstrong, 1994, p. 3). Gardner describes the core capaciw of intmpersonal
intelligence to involve al1 the modalities of rnood, temprament, motivation and inentionality:
7he core capac%y here is the ability to notice and make d i ~ t i m t i o n s among other
individ uals and, in particular, among their moods, V e r a m e n t s , motivations, and intentions.
EXamined in its rnost elementary fonn, the interpeeonal intelligence entails the capacity of the
young child to discrimina* among the individuals around him and to dete& their variaus moods.
In advanced form, interpemonal knowidge permits a skilled adult to read the intentions and
desires - even when these have been hidden - of many other individuals and, potentialiy, M a c t
upon this knowiedge - for example, by influencing a group of di-rate individua b to behave along
deiireà lines (Gardner, 7983, p. 239).
lntrapemonal intelligence refem to the capacicy to accuratziy know one's sel6 have the
abil iw to undemtand one3 intemal makeup; and some wordi t ha t r d e c t leueli of the
irrt;mpersonal intelligence are: orig inality, di5cipline, imagination, self-respect, tempera ment,
inspiration, motivation (Gaffney, 7995, p. 8). Armstrong complementi t h i i definition:
Self-knowfedge and the ability to act adaptively on the bas& of t h a t knodedge. This intelligence includes having an accurate picture of meself (one's strengths and limitations): awareness of inner moods, intentiom, motivationsy temperamentsy and desirei; and the capacity for 5elf-di5cipIine, self-undeetanding, and ~etf-e5teern. (Armstrong, 7994, p. 3)
mi5 inelligence i5 valued in our society as reflecteù in "religious systernq p5ychological
theuries, r i t ~ j of passage. . . (Ibid., p. 7). The origins o f intrapemonal intelligence rnay be found
in people who make l i s t ~ ; not l i a 5 of things to do or buy, but k t 5 t h a t are made to motivate
themselves or take the initial a p in solving a pmblern (Gafiey, 1995, p. 0). Gaf%ney mention5
some other ways ofadvancing this intelligence may be through personal rdection, meditation or
spending Cime enjoying nature (lbid., p. 10). A i a footnote to intrapemonal inteiligence ~ o m e
5ources are proposing t h a t another intelligence be added to Gardner's lise. Emotional
intellr;3ence rnay sorneday have t h a t distinction, but for now i t i5 a vital par t o f the personal
intelligence (Gretchen, 1997, p. 7).
The core capacit ie~ of intrapemonal intelligences hclude the abiiity to gain entrance to
one2 own fecling life and the capabiliw t u differentiate among one% own emotioni; knowledge of
39.
one% own Srengths and weaknesse~ (Armi-t;rong, 19% p. 6). Gardner summarize~ the core
wmponenti of the intmperoonal in t h i i manner:
The core capacity a t work here is acces5 to one3 own feeling liFe - one3 range of af feot i
or emotions: the cap- in%antly to &&t disriminations among these feelings and,
eventually, to label them, tu enmesh them in 5ymbolio codes, to draw upon them a5 a rneans of
undetanding and guiding one's behaviour. in î% moet primitive form, the intrapersonal
intelligence amounts Co l i tt le more than the capacity t~ diitinguiih a feeling of pleaiure from
one ofpain and, on the basis of such di4crirninationJ to b m m e more involved in or to withdraw
frorn a iituation. A t i t5 m o i t advance level, intrapersonal knowleùge aliows one ta d&ct and
to symbolke complex and highly differentiated set5 of féelingi (Gardner, 1983, p. 239).
Naturalistic lntdligence ha5 been added t u the original ieven in 1996 Farnpbell, e t al.
7996 & Hoerr, 1997). Shi5 intelligence refers to pumuing, comprehending and mawhaling
patterns in the natural eurroundincp (McDennom, 1997a, pz). An example might be sotneone
. who seeki patterns in the world, seeing order instead of cham, and who showi prdcienoy in the
recognition and claisification &plant5 and animal (Barkman, 1997, p. 1). 7h i s could be anyone
from a rnolecular biologist to a traditional medicine man using herbal remediei" (Campbell, 1997,
p* 7)-
Gardner responds in an in-wiew that 'The core of the naturalist intelligence i5 the
human ability to recognize plants, animali, and other parts of the natural environment, like
clouds or rooki" (Durie, 1997, p. 1). This capacity has b e n a key to the suMval of mankind and
40.
ia hi5 clirnb up the evolutionary ladder. Althoug h al1 of us have some of this in-lligence, some
children become expert5 on dinoiaurs and some adults excel a t their purnui% in hunting, botany,
and anatomy (lbid., p. 7). m i l e the ability doubtless evolved to deal with natural kinds o f
eletne-) i-t has been extended to deal with the worid of man-made abjects. We are good a t
distinguishing among cari, ineakem, and jewelry, for example, because Our ancestom needed to
be able to recognize carnivoroui animali, po i ionou~ makes, and flavourful mushrooms (Durie,
1997, p. 7).
Gardner suggesti t h a t hi5 original li5c o f 5even intelligences wa5 only a temporary one,
and some other intelligences tha t have been proposeci are sensibility, humour, intuition,
c r e a t i m and spirituality (Gaffng, 1995, p. 9). G a f 7 h ~ al50 believe5 tha t spirituality may
poisibly be a function of intraperional intelligence. "ûther aothow have suggeited friendly
revisions, S U C ~ a i the need for a 'moral' intelligence* (Klien, 1997, p. 378). Gardner i i apparentiy
considering adding a ninth intelligence called existential intelligence which refers to the domain of
philo~ophers and pries5 (McDermott, 199% p. 2).
Ml Theorv and Education
ln light of: the great divemity i f leamers, Ml theory a s a tool suggests there may be more
than one way to achieve educational learning expectations. A presentation of the curriculum
Chat reflet% aM of the intelligences Gan offer ~ t u d e n t s multiple paths to understanding (White
e t al., 1992). l t is a poor assumption, however, to think t h a t evety intelligence needs to be
r&ected in evew lesson (Gardner, c W in Check& 199Z Hoerr, 7996). Walfzrrr and Gardner
(1984b) distinguish betwmn intelligences as "confm7.t: of instruction" and as the "means" for
41.
communicating Chat content. Ideally, the learner must learn the content of a domain through
the related intelligence (i.e. leam math in a logical-mathematical way) because content in one
domain cannot be "translateà" entirely ta another domain. However, i f a student struggles with
the content, the teacher can supply an altemate route to i t, perhaps through the medium of an
intelligence in which the individual is strong. Still, a t some point, the learner must Utranslate
back" intu the initial domain; o t h e d e , the content learned will remain euperficial.
Educa tind the Intelligences
Gardner makes several points about the intelligences in general. Fimt, each individual
ha5 hi5 or her own intelligence pr&le, normally po~se55ing al/ eight intellaence5 but to vatying
degrees (1903). In fact, a particular combination of intellbences might be greater than the
simple sum of b par-& because of how i t enables an individual to fit a niche uniquek well. Since
neariy evey adult cultural role involves a combina tion of irrkIligence5, Gardner prefem to think
of individuals as po55eming a set of aptitude5 and attribute5(Waltem & Gardner, 1904). Table
7 shows the essential amributes of MI theory.
Intelligences are educable. Though there may be genetic facto* t h a t set an upper limit
on an intelligence, 5uch a biological limit is rarely if mer approached. Srrf%icient exposure to the
materials of an intelligence would aUow any normal individ ual to attain significant intellectual
achievement in i t (Gardner & Waltem, c i t a i in Gardner, 7993). Educating the intelligences and
helping individuals reach vocational and avocational goa b appropriate to their particular
aptitudes i5, in Gardner'i view, the whole purpose of whool (Gardner, 1993).
Although a varie-& of goals and ta i ks Gan be accomplished through each intelligence,
42.
there are particuiar type5 of material and pmblems proper to e a ~ h one and manifie~ted in
5pecifït domains. Though a nrong intelligence might be mobilized to help a learner graip
material in a domain proper to a weaker intelligence, "a person cannot develop fuik or a55e55
accurate& one intelligence through the medium oîanother" (Wh& e t al., 1992, p. 183) .
Table 1:
Essential Attr ibutes a f MI
Verbal-Linguiitic: focuses thinking on language, both aura1 and symbolic
' a sensitivity to semantics - the meaning of words
" a sensitivity to syntax - the order among words
' a sensitivity to phonology - the sounds, rhythme, and influences oi words
* a sensitivity to the d%ferent ïundions of language, including i ts potential to excite,
convince, stimulate, convey information, or pleaae
Logical-Mathematical: orientated toward thinking: inductive and deductive logic, numeration, ab i t rac t patterns: contemplative problern solver
* the ability to use numbers effectively
" the ability to use inductive and deductive reasoning
* the ability to recognize a b s r a m patterns
Visual-Spatial: depende on visual and proximity thinking; thin k5 in images; imaginative
' the ability to perceive the visual-spatial world accurately
' the ability to think in pictures or visual imagery
* the ability to graphically represent visual or spatial ideas
* the ability ta orient the body in space
Musical-Rhythmic: responds to acoustic patterns, iounde rhythms, and tempo
* a wnsitivity to pitch (melody), rhythm, and timbre (tone)
* an appreciation of musical expresiiveneii
" an ability to expreie oneself through music, rhythm, or dance
Bodily-Kinesthetic involves phyiical movement and knowledge of the body: usually large muscle activity; coord inated
' the ability to control one's body movement~ ta express ideas and feelings
'the capacity to handle ob jec t~ 5killfully, inciuding the use of both fine and grose motor
" the ability to learn by movement, interaction, and participation
Interpersonal: orientated tavard social or group relationihip5; affeaively communicative; cooperative
" the a bility -ta focus outward to other individua 1s
" the ability to eenie other people's rnoods, temperamente, motivations, and intentions
'the ability to comrnunicate, cooperate, and collaborate with o ther i
Intrapersonal: identifies with intuition and introspection: self-knowledge (not neceiiarib introverted)
Yhe ability to look inward to examine one's own thoug h ts and feelings
" the ability to control one's thoughts and emotions and consciously work with them
'the ability to expre i i one's inner I fe
" the drive toward self-actualizaCion
Naturalist: recognizes and classifies plants, animais, and minerals including a rnasteiy of taxonomies
' the ability to undersand, appreciate, and enjoy the natural world
' the ability ro observe, underGand, and organize patterns in the natural environment
' the ability to nurture plants and animal5
45.
The Role of MI in Creatinu More E f k t i v e Teachem
MI theory can play an important rob in produchg more effective *achem. An awareneis of MI
theory can aimulate teachem to fînd more ways of helping al! audents in their cIaseroomsJ and
therefore, becorne more eiXective teachem. Linda Campbell (1997) outlines the curriculum
adaptations teachers are currentk rnaking in their claseroomi to help embrace Ml theory:
Lesson design: this rnight involve team maching (teachers focusing on their own intelligence strengths), using al! or several of the intelligences in their lessons, or asking student opinions about the best way to teach and learn certain topics.
Interdisciplinary uni*: s~hoo/5 o f k n inchde units t h a t inter-link su5ec-t areas.
5 tudent projeas: students can Iearn to initiate and manage cornplex projects when they are creating student projet-.
Assesements: are devised to allow students to show what they have learned. 5ometimes thi5 takes the fonn of allowing each student to devise the way he or i h e will be asse~sed, while meeting the teacher's criteria for qual%y.
Apprentice5hips: can allow Sudents ta gain mastery of a valued skill gradually, wîth effart and diszc!pline over time.
5urnmar-y
Gardner3 theory o f multiple inteIIIgence5 (Ml) ha5 becorne a valuable aid for educatom,
and for good reaeon. lndividua b have several intellectual potentiab which are defined, shaped,
and combineci by the surrounding culture. The theory" is not t ruk child centred, but educatiunal
adaptations of h lead tu ohild centred practices. 77-7~5 the focus i i on the chitd, rather than the
intelligence measure. Ihe rnulticultural implicationi of MI are i t rong because of an emphaeis
Chat accounts for diverse abilities, valueù to varying degrees, and found in df ierent culturee. MI
i5 a notion about the human being's intellectual endowment, a notion t h a t appeab to educatom'
views about children and cultures (Torff, 7997).
MI Assessments
A~sessing intell@ence Gan be a perplscing issue. How intelligence is defined directly
ifluences the assessrnent procedures u5ed. Traditionally, inelligence was viewed a5 a single
entity t h a t was -tic. However, reconcewlizat ions of the nature of intelligence are changing
th& view. ihe impiications of Ml theory for education are fimrk grounded in the area of
a55e55rnent. l t i5 d f icu l t . 8 not impossible, for teachem to dcvelop and »nplement activitiees
t h a t incorporate multiple intelligencei unlesi they can idem% and asse55 the intelligence
areas.
Much attention has been given to curriculum and instruction design to help teachem
create and tzach MI infus& lessons; much les5 has been written about alternative assessrnent
methods based on Ml. (TorfF, 7997') Gardner's ideas grew out of discornfart with the reign of
linguidic and logicaf-mathematical abilities - those measured by standard& te5t5
emphasized ùy upper/middle c l a s Anglo-Saxon sooiety. Tests were intended predict future
, adult euc~e55. yet cognitive ability tests account for only 4% of the variance in job perFormance
(Wigdor and Gardner, 7902).
Howard Gardner and David Perkine (7991), at the Harvard Graduate School of
Mucation, codirect Project Zero. an educational reiearch organization. This projed is aimed a t
improving educational practicei through sysizmatic studies of thinking, learning , and teaching.
The research is grant-fun&. Gardner and hi5 colleagues are building a research base on the
educatio~al implications of Ml, but make no a t i z m p t to form an uMl Method". Although
47..
reiearchew a t the project make suggestions for appking Ml to education, they al50 encourage
educators to develop their own ideas (Hatzh, 7993).
ln recent work, Gardner and hi5 colleagues a t Project Zero prornote the idea t h a t both
c u ~ ' c u l a and assessments need to ref7ect "aahentic" activities Chat students are likely tu
experience outdde ofschool. Pro- Co be completcd would be iimilar to those encountered
everyday by ca'perrtersy art i&s hiitorians (Gardner, 1997). fnitead of taking a te5t a t the end
of the project, audents couid rei?ect on the experiewe and gain a deeper undewtanding of the
material and possibb manne- in which products might be improved.
Gardner (1993) suggesti the following principles in a W h approach to asiessment.
Fimt, he emphasizes assessment rather than î%i-ting. He ddnes assessment as obtaining
information about the 5kill5 and potentials of individuab, with the dual goal of providing useful
feedback and data to the individual and cornrnunity. Secondly, Gardner &a- tha-t;
a55e55ment should be simple, natural, and shouid occur on a rehble s~hedule. Initialiy, the
assessment may be clean'y defined; afkr a h i le , however, much would occur naturally through
collaborative planning on the part of the student and teacher.
A probiem with many formal t e 5 ~ i5 their ecological validiw. lnteMigence tes- and
scholastic aptitude test5 are o f k n questioned because of their limiced usefulness in predicting
performance beyond the nextyear in whool. For thi5 reason, Gardner emphasizes t h a t
individuals mu& be assessed in situations Chat closely resemble "actual working conditionan.
Onk t h e n is i t possible tu make predictions about their ultirnae performance.
In Gardner's view, instruments used .t;o assess must be "Inelligence Fair". Most te5ting
48.
instruments are bksed heavily in favour of the lingui&ic and logical-rnathema tical intelligences.
5tudents adept in these areas usually pe&orm well on m o i t kinds offormal ixst5, but those
with dinSculties in either, or both, may fail because t h a cannot master the particular format of
mo& standard instrument5. 7he ~o lu t ion is to devise in&ruments Chat are "intelligence fair,"
t h a t look directly a t the intelligence in opera t i on For example, a test of musical intelligence
needs to involve music, not j u s written queMons regarding music.
Gardner iuggea5 t h a t multiple rneaiure~ be used to tap df lerent facets of the
capacity in question. For example, to -te t h a t a child is not g i M unless in the top 3% of
tho ie te i t ed i5 litniting; whereas, &ring ieveral optioni, in wf-~ich mnsideration is given to the
childk determination and goals, or giving a trial period bGfore refusirq admission inta a program
i5 les5 ohru5ive. This lead5 tO the need for sensitivity to individual dflerences, developmental
levek and forma of expertise. Good teachem have always realizcd that diKerent approachei will
be ef fk t ive with the vatying aptitudei, leaming styles, and dinSculties of the students. Such
5en5itivitie~ can be drawn upon in the coume of regular izaching as well as during asses~ment,
EKarnining and assessing the strengths of a child are beneficial tu al1 children and serve
a s an enhancement tool t h a t can be used in many different wayi. One example of a good
assessrnent instrument i i the child' learning aperience. The use o f intriniicaliy interesthg and
motivating materiali occum in a CO- of studentz working on probletni, proj-, or produ-
t h a t genuinely engage them, hold their interest, and rnotivate them ta do well. Finally, the
application of aswi rment for the student's benef7t serves to move away fmm the goal of
ranking s t u d e w to ipending time helping them. ldentming areai of i t rength i as well ae
49.
weaknesses, providing suggestions for a courîe of study, pointing out which habits are
productive, explaining what b expeoted in future asse i i r nem are al! helpful. Concrete
iuggeaions and appropriatû curricular enhancement in the area o f idem%& strength,
independent of rank within a comparable group of audents, i5 especially important.
Having cxarnined the research on teacher effectiveness and the theory of multiple
irrtelKgence5 (Gardner, 7903), a critical review of five MI theory based assessments follaws:
MIDAS (7997), Teele (1992), Lazear3 (1994), and the DISCOVER (1996) Ai5es5ment, and
Rivera3 (1996) Multiple Intelligences lnventory for Teachem. The as5essrnent;s seleoted for
review are different in admini&ration, yet all aim to i d e n t e areas of strength and are p u v r t e d
to be designed around an Ml framework Elements in each of the these could be adapteù as a
potential of teacher fiectiveness.
The MIDAS Assessment
The Multiple Intelligences Devclopment Asse55ment Scales (MIDAS) wa5 developed by
Branton Shearer (19973 with the intention of obtaining a descriptive assessrnent of a student's
multiple intelligence profile. l t is a self-generated report t h a t measurei intellectual disp05iticn~
and i5 to be f i I Ied out by either the child or parent. Two amessrnent5 are available, one for
adults, and one for children. Questions about each intelligence are to be answered by the
individual, in the form of "do you" or "how well do you". The reiponden- rate themselves on a
male of A - F, ''a l i t t ie bit" Co Yex~eI/ent" or "l don t know"., according to hi5 or her self-percepion.
The MIDAS assessrnent (-1997) includes a variety of queSion5 about each intelligence for
the individual to d e r m i n e which intellectua/ domain they prefer. me 5tricUy linguiaic
presentation i5 ~irni lar t~ tha t of a typical intelligence test: the comprehension of the reader
could affeot accurate results and prcferences. The imerpretation of ability i t r icUy rd- the
opinion o f the person answering the questions. Possibk ofgreatest concern is chat the
questions are not asked in relationship to problem-solving activities, a nece55ary component
according to Gardner's definition of intelligence. . . " f i e ability to solve a probiem or make
wmething t h a t is valueà by a culture." (Gardner, 1997) If the questions were applied to t he
usage of t he particular intelligence in a problem-solving situation, how might the results dinFeA
According Co* (1937J the Ml5A5 %ale is not a true assessment of ability, but rather an
as5esimerrt o f preferences and "feelings: (p. 19)
The Teele Inventont Assessrnent
m e Teele Multiple lntelligencecj Amessment, dedopeci by Dr. 5ue Teele (79921, involvei
looking a t a series of panda pictures, organized in sets of two. One picture might show a panda
dancing in a ballet costume; the other picture might show a group of pandas, engaged in what
appeam to be a game. Individuab choose the pMure t h a t best describes themselvei. Ihe
piotures can be viewd Ly watching a i ! / shot5 on a video tape, or by looking at a book. There are
twenty-six comparisons: each choice is them icored according to the intelligence i t represents,
and i i then tabulateci by courrting intelligences t h a t were selected most oftcn. There are four
areas of strength determined according to each viewer's picture choices.
The visual presentation this a5sesmnent employs, like the MlDA5, determinei the
preferenoes of the te5t taker, rather than aaaeiiing actual strength and ability. Uowever, as
with the MlDAf assessment, the Tee\e as5e~anent may tend identify learning style (Corùet,
51.
1997) rather than a particular intelleotual strength. Learning styles are very diKerent from
multiple intelligenceo. According to Gardner (7997) "Multiple lnîzlligences claimi t h a t we
reipond, individually, in dincerent ways to diflerent content, such a i language or music or other
people." One rnight say t h a t a child i.5 a viiual leamer, but t h a t does not infer t h a t the child has
Srong 5pa t ial inte(1igence.
Lazear's Behaviour Loq
David Lazear, author ofoeveral Ml books compiled an assortment of assessrnent t aob in
hi5 book, Multiple Intelli~ence Approaches ta Assessment (7994). in this book, he examines
paradigrni in asseoiments, then offeri suggestions as to how multiple inJMigence report car .5
might be utilized He suggesti methodo of assessing through the use of behaviour legs, skiIl
games, and complex problern-solving. The behaviour log lists five behaviouri Chat rnight be
obsewed within each of the seven intelligences f i rst indicateci by Gardner. Each behaviour i5
then ocored on a O - 4 wale with 4 equating a strong Ufit" to the student. An example of the
Verbal-Linguistic Behaviour is "Precisely expresie~ her - or himoelf both in writing and t a \king."
Under the Musical-Rhythrnic Behaviours kt is, "Can remember songs and rhyrnes easily."
intelligence profiles are then oreated by translating the scores on a scoring sheet. The result5
are available to help Sudents and educatow examine dominance in the varioui intelligences.
7he DI5COVER Assessrnent
The Dl5COVER As5e55rnent, created by Dr. June Maker, Dr. Judith Rogers, and Dr. Aileen
Neilion, i i aimed a t obsewing -den- in the actual proces5 of solving problems. f i e
assesiment consis% of five componenti. each intended to i d e n t e ouperior i t rcngth in a
52.
certain a rea. f i e hepecific intelligences being examined are ling uistio, log ioal-ma thema tical, and
spatiak however, the obsewers are trained to document interpemonal, intrapemonal, bodily-
kinesthetio, and musical influences. The a s ~ e i i m e n t requires t h a t observefi be trained in
underitanding the intelf@enoei, aa well a5 interpretation of studerrt actions. In addition to the
c o s of training, specific, reuiable supplies mu& be purchased t h a t are uied by the itudents
during the dflerent act iv i t ie~.
The fact t h a t there are five components involved in this asseesment, in compariion to
one in the MlDAS and Teele, and no sppec%z component in iazea~-5 book, set5 i t apart from the
other asiesemenm examined. The components are Pablo, tangrams, Wrytel l ing, i t o ry writing,
and ma th . The story writing and math sheet are ~ompleted in a traditional cla55room setting,
with each student doing work on an individual basis. Pablo, an activity incorporating the use o f
coloutful, geometrically deiigned, cardboard pieces i5 uied to idenci@ 5pa t ial intelligence.
Tangrams are uied to have Suden- c0mple-k puzzles of increasing difFicuky levek to i d e n t a
logical-mathematical a bility. 5 t~ryte l l ing i5 generateù through the use of seven non-descriFr
toys which are incorpowted into a -ry of the child's choice. Al1 activities are observeci in a
group setting where ~ t u d e n t s are asked to cornplete df lerent type5 of problema Problems in all
problem set5 move from a closed-ended eolution ta totally open ended posiibiiities.
A major drawback of this assessrnent is maintaining consistency between the observem.
A checklist is used document certain behaviours exhibited s tuden t~ , y& there are Cimes
when the criteria for rating auden* i5 di~agreed upon between observeri. (Corùet, 7997) By
virtue of i t5 open-ended foundation, the evaluation is adrnittedly ~ubjective and observerci of the
53.
multiple intelligences in their classroomi, are much more likely to be in agreement. Mindy
Kornhaber wrote a doctoral thesis on a similar subject, and cited similar concerns about
observer reliability, and unclea r woring procedurei (Ko rnha ber, 799v.
Rivera's Multiple irrkliikjences lnver~&~n/ for Teachers
f i e "Multiple Intelligences lnventory for Teachers; developed by Deborah Rivera (79961, is
an inventory for teacheri to use in observation of their student;s. The itudy provided teache*
o f fourth and R h graders to complete a checklist consisting of ninety-two behaviour
d e i c r i p r i aisociated with the seven inte1Iigence areai. A Likert %ale wa5 provided for
teachers ta rate the students. In this study, a seven factor solution was used, however, not in
direct corespmden~e with Gardner's seven irnlligence areas. Atthough th& a 5 e i i m e n t could
become a useful instrument to a55e55 student abilities, the question of whether i t could be used
to asse55 Gardner's theory of multiple inteIligences requirei f i r ther investigation. (Rivera,
1996, pp. W-14Z).
5urnrnaw of Validitv and Reliabilitv of Assessments Usin4 MI Theon/
In the school setting, the teacher3 role is to ascertain studenti' abilitiei, pinpoint areai
t h a t need strengthening, and target weaknesses. Eisner (1994) assertz the need to move away
ïrom a view of intelligence as a fixed entity and to an understanding on intelligence "involving
wipitaiization on arengthr and compensation for and remediation of weakne5sesU (p. 563).
Acknodedging t h a t a student may be intelligent in ways outside the traditional
conception of intelligence (linguistic and logical-mathematical) is the fisc step to enabiing
studen- to reach their full potentiâl and help teachers ta become more &ective a a educatom.
54.
Without. teacher affirmation, i t i i impossible for the other irrtell1;3ences outi ide of linguistic and
logical-mathematical to be addresied in the classroom. Since al/ o f the intelligence areai
contribute to student Iearning, the lac& of teacher emphaiis on multiple intelligences preserrti a
challenge.
Most of the irfonnation supporting the MI theory is pmctical in nature and not
empirfcally based. P ublished articles available in the literature provide descriptions of how
several schools have adoptai Ml theory and how they are implementing programi t h a t focus on
these eight intelligence areas (Ellison, 7992; Hatch & Gardner, 7986; Hoerr, 7992; Krechevsky,
7991). Table 2 adapted from Georg (1997) il luarates Whniques teachers Gan use following
Multiple Irrklligences theory as assessrnent strategies.
Table 2 MI Assessrnent Menu
Verba !-Ling u i s t i ~
wtftten essays vocabulary quizzes recall or verbal information casseCte recordings poetry writing linguisic humour forma1 speeches cogni-tive debates listening and reporting learning log5 and journal5
Logica 1-Mathematica 1
cognitive organizers complex reasoning pattern games outlining 10gk and rationality exercises mental menus and formulas deductive reasoning inductive reasoning ca lculation proceaies logical analyses and critiqueci
lab experiments dramatizations original and classical dance charades and mimes impersonations human tableaux invention projects phyiical exercise routines and gamee skill demonstrations illuitrations using body languages and geitures
Musica I-Rhythmic
creating concept songi and raps illustrating with sound discerning rhythmic patterns composing music lin king rnusic/rhythm with Iearned concepts orchestrating music creating percussion patterns recognizing tonal patterns and quality analyzing musical &ructure reproducing musical and rhythmic patterns
Visual-5 patial
murais and montages graphic representations and visual iilustrating visualization and imagination reading, understanding, and creating rnaps flowcharts and graphs sculpting and building imaginary conversations mind mapping video recording photography manipuiative dernonarations
Interpersonal
group jigsaws reciproca i t e x hing "think-pair-share" round robins giving and receiving feedback interviews, questionnaires, and "people 5ea rches" ern phatic processing random group quizzes assessing teammates testing, coaching, and ret;eaing group projects role-plays
a lho biog ra ph ica 1 reporting persona1 a ppiication 5cena rios metacognitive surv~ys and quest;ionnaires corn plex introspective questions a nd a n s w e ~ ~ concentration test5
feelings diaries and log5 persona 1 projection self-identification reporting personal hi-ry correlation personal priorftie5 and goals
taxonomy collections c ha r%5
dioramas field tr ip tour guide video collection nature observation log5 population analyses photo log5 ipecimen collection5 narrated travelogs
CHAFTER IV. ANALY5iS AND FlNDINGS
Twelve studies on teacher Hectiveness were chosen from North America and Australia
ûy the researcher ia look for MI elements. The twelve selected Sudies do not reflect a low
number or lack o f research in teacher efftectiveness. Rather, they were chosen once a saturation
point wa5 reached in the data collection of research methodologie5 in teacher effectivene5s
litemture. The fweliie studiei were then sorted alphabetically and are summarized under the
following headings: resea rch method (il, school lael, inteIligence(j), and measuredthemes. The
information gathered from these headingi i5 ind icatd in point form in the Table 3 "Ml
Dimeniions in Teacher Effectivenesi Research" Chart. The twelve studiei used qualitative and
quantitative resear~h rnethodologies, mixed methodologies, and waluations. l t is important
note, however, Chat evaluations on tzacher effiztiveness varied and were condu& by teachers
doing evaluations of etfective teacher t ra i ts (Ocepek, 79931, principal evaluations of efFective
teache* (Cloer and Alexander, 7992J .t;eacher self evaluations (Cloer and Alexander, 7992:
Currie, 7985), and student evaluations ofefXective teachers (Buntrock-Brodney, 7993;
Comadena, e t al, 1990; Patrick and Smart, 1998; Ryan and tiam'son, 7995). For student
evaluations in particular, it i5 important to note t h a t it i5 d f i c u l t ta do an evaluation of
teachers wxhout examining the intricacies and methods of audent evaluations. For instance,
the manner in which a dudent evaluates effective teacherr; may have more to do with the
teacher'5 pemonal appa l to the students than being representative of teaching &ectiveness.
As indicated in the previou~ c h a p r , asiessments on MI already exist, however, none
59.
relate directly to teacher qual i t ie~ and instructional techniques or t u the area of teacher
e f f k t i venes research. The researcher'i purpose i i to a n a l ~ e the -t;eacher quakties and
instructional kzhniques Chat have emerged as themes or were meaiured in teacher
effktiveness audiea. 73e "Ml Teacher Qualitie5 and Instructional T~hn iques Chartw i n w r a t e s
the "How to Teach to the Eig h t Intelligences" and "Multiple lntelligence5 5ubcapacitie5" charci
(Georg, 1997) ta form the lens chat the researcher use5 to examine the Ml elernents in teacher
fiectiveness research [see fable 31.
Table 3: MI hstructional Techniques & Teacher Quatities
Verbal-Ling uistic
instructional Tech niauce: Use of lectures, large and sma Il group discussions, books, worksheets, manuals, textq writing amivities, words on the cha lkboard or overhead projector, word gamei, iharing t h e , dudent speeches, itotytelling, "talkingn books and casiettei, extemporaneous speaking, oratory, debate, dramatic interpretation, choral reading, individualized reading, reading to the class, memoruing linguistic passages and facts, tape recordingi, printing presses, duplicating machine, ietter itencils, label makem, typewriters, word processors, g ives clea r inaructions
Tteacher Qualities: h ig hly a udftory, a reader, proceeses throug h li-n ing, a s%oryteller, understands diverse vocabulary, a good speller, a wordimith, etymology trivia, awakened by wordq loquacious, writes endings, "tape recordern rnernory
instructional Techniques: Uae o f calculaturs, statistical charts, mathematical problems on the board, scientific demonstrations, critical-thinking activities, linear outlining, logical problem- 501ving exercises, brain teasers, logic pualei, logic games (chess), computer programming lang uages, science experiments, mathematica 1 manipulativei, mental ca M a t i o n activities, log ica lfsequentia l presentation of su bject matter, use of pro bing questions, Piagetia n cognitive stretching exercises, science-fiction scenarios
Teacher Qualities: makes and use5 patterns, diicerns relationships, reasons logica liy devise experirnent5, thinks inductively, hypothesizes, use5 abstract 5yrnboii. easiiy draws concluaion5, inventive, likes challenges, makes observations, problem solves
Instructional Techniques: Use of touching, feeling, movement, drama, mime, improvisation, dance, corn petitive and noncornpetitive sporti, physica 1 awarenesi exercisei, "ha nds-on" activities, crafts, kinesthetic imagery, clay, cooking, gardening and other messy activities, rnanipulating materiali of al1 kirtds, acting out new concep, permission to squirm and fidget, jumping, running, t a pping and turn ing, body language, hand signals, tactile activitie~, facial expre55ion5, physica l relaxation exerciies, moves deliberately throug hout claseroom
Teacher Qualities: timing, direct involvement, concrete experiences, grace and precision, physical performance, motor skills, dexterity and balance, healthy standards, expresses with body, do, touch, act, touches and talks, energetic
Musica 1-Rhythrnic
In&ructional Technicrues: Use of einging; humming: whistling; playing recorded music from records, cas-% or CDS; pplying Iive music: group iinging; environmental 5ound recordings: listening to noises; background music while audying; Iinking old tune i with new concept5; creating new music for old concepts; listening to inner musical images
Teacher Qualieies: collects music, eings and playi, music vocabulary, creative, rememberi meIodies, hum5 and whides, rhythmic, pitch ~ensitivity, drawn to music, responds to sound, emotional and aeahetic, recog nizes variations in music
In&rudionaf Techniauei: Use of charts, graphs, diagrame, maps, graphic organizers, mind map, photmjraph5, videotapes, slides, puzzles, mazei, conitruction kits, visualization exerci~es, a r t activities, imaginative storytelling, meta phor, creative daydreaming, mechanical reasoning puzzles, drawing images on the board, colour, rearrangement of the room, visual thinking exercices, compter graphics software, viiual patterns, optical illusions, cameras, telewopes, microscopes and binoculars, visual awareness mercises
Teacher Qualitim: irrternal imagety , phy~icaf creator, 3-D irnagery, perceives patterns, abstract designi, visual rtlpresentations, astute observer, mazes and punlei, spatial navigator, image creator, photographie memory, external perceiver
InSructional Techniques: Use of cooperative Iearning, group activities aF al1 kinds, social games, drnulatione, interpemonal sensitivity activities, confl i c t rnediation, peer teaching, group discussions and problem-soolving se-ions, communfty involvement, apprenticeihipi, academic club5, noncompetitive learning groups, interactive software, frequent parties or social gatherings
Teacher Qualities: socia lizer, interactive, mediator, active listener, considers consequences, anticipates behaviours, opinion influencer, cooperative team player, communicator, knows where others are corning from, empathizer
Instructional Techniqueti: Uie of independent study, self-paced instruction, individua lized projedi and ga mes. private ipaces, time for introspection, patience, interem centres, biographies, autobiogra phical exerciies, options for assignments, choices for su bjects to be studied, self-inhiated activities, self-correcting materials, programmed instruction t ha t self- teaches, exposure to inipirational/rnotivational curricula, journal-keeping activities, goai-s&ting exercises, reflective li-ning
Teacher Qualities: asks why, arong-willed, self-refiective, marches to a different drummer, self- adualizer, intuitive, coneciousne5, introspection, self-directed, independent, accurate model of self, ethica t systern
Instructional Techniaue5: Use of- relationships among i ys temi or species: collections and real objecti for the purpoie of claisification and building taxonomies: intuitive concept5 and relationshipi; classification activities: relationshipi iuch as patterno. order, and compare-and- contram set5 of groups; collections t h a t can be expanded or rearranged; mind mapping to show how taxonomies and dasif ication sy%ems are interrelated; connections to real life and science issues: connectione between known classification iy i temo and new concept5
Teacher Qualities: holiaic thinker, relationships (formal: taxonomiei, cg., dinosauri, roses) & (infurmal: artficial taxonomies, e.g., cari, clothei), connedi capabilities, recognize~ specirnens. values the unusua 1, aware oî ipe~ies: flora/fau na, classifies ipecies, categorizei organisme
63.
Table 4 provides the background information on the twelve studies sele-d for this
research. m e table includes a br ie fabaram ty listing the research methodologies employed
and the findings in the studies. Following Table 4, the resuits of the study are organized irrb
ieven scctioni, with each section corresponding with Gardner's theory of multiple inteIIigenceej.
Under each intelligence heading, the section is further divided into an analys& o f the following:
5chool IeveI & reiearoh mcthods, initructional Whniques, tcacher qualities and description of
findings. The inteiligences' m e in teacher e f fk t i vene~s re5ear.h ha5 k e n ranked in accordance
with the number of Sudies containing e lemem of the intelligence and appeam in dewending
value.
ia&y, the studies anal@ have been categorized inta the "MI Dimensions in Teacher
Ef fec t ivene Research" chart [see Table 51 t h a t includes the authors and year of the study,
research methods employed, school Ievei the study wa5 conducted at, the intelligence5
represented ae compared to Table 3'5 "Ml Teacher Oualities and Instructional Tihniques" chart,
and the measures or themes t h a t were used to determine teacher effkztiveness in the study.
Table 4: 5 e l d Effective Teacher Research: A Summary of the Twelve 5tudies
7. Buntrock-Brodncy, 5 (7993): cxamined the relationship between student achievement, student attitude, and student perceptions of tcacher effectiveness. Students in an elernentary whool were asked to keepjoumals documemting their learning in mathematics and then given te- on Comprehensive T e ~ t of Basic Skills ((705) in math to meaiure achievement. 7he Our Cla i i and I ts Work inventory was al50 used to measure tud dent perception of teacher Hk t i veness in the teaching of mathematic5. I t contained eight subcales: Didactic Instruction, Enthusiasm, Feedback, Instructional m e , Opportunity to Leam, Pacing, Structuring Comme&, and Task Orientation. The Roland att i tude scale was then used tu asse55 suden t att i tudes toward mathematics and contained four scales: Confidence in Learning Mathematic5, Mathematics Male Domain, Teacher %ale, and Usefulness of Mathematics. Findinde There was a lack of signiFicance on the audent at t i tude scale. me researcher fel t this lack of aignificance can be attributed tu the 44 questions the audents were required to answer. A t the elementary level, the researcher felt it wai too long and oomplicated for the student5 (Buntroûk-Brodney, 7993, p. 79). However, the u5e d o f j r n a b impmved student perception of teacher &&ivene55 especialk for children h o were having problemi in mathematic5.
2. Burrell, D.L. (7994): adminisered the Teacher Locus of Control Scale (Rose and Medway, 1987) and the Rand EfYkacy Scale (Armor, e t al., 7976; Berman, e t al., 7977) tu 90 middle school teacheri and compared t h e ~ e results to fouryeaw worth of student achievement scores produced & McGraw-Hill (Craig, 1993). The Teacher Locus of Control %ale (TLC) consisted of 14 student success and student failure itcms t h a t required the teacher to react to 28 classroorn events by selecting either an interna/ or external locus of control choice. The scores r a n g 4 from 0-74 points. High scores indicated an intemal locus of control t h a t showed t h a t the teacher a c c e p the responsibility for student succes5 or failure. The Rand EnScacy %ale consiited of 5 e t e m e n t s t h a t required the teacher to range their response from strongly agree to strongly disagree (range of 6 choices). The remlts of the two instruments were then compared ta the value added gain w o r e i on î tudent achievement tests for al/ the studenti t h a t the teacher taught. Teachem'demographic variables includnig age, gender, race. certification and years of experience were al50 inoorporated into the study and contrasted with locus of cotrtrol and &cacy. Findinm: The study showGd no significant relationship between teacher &cacy, /ocus of oontrol and ~ t u d e n t achievement scores. However, i t was concluded t h a t female teachers tend to have a higher degree of &cacy and interna1 locus of control than do male teachem.
3. Cloer, K & Alexander. W.A., Jr. (1992) teachem were asked to respond to twenty statements a b o a ichools, -ache=, and s t u d e m bai& on a pupi/ corrtml ideolosy (Wower, Hoy, and Eidell, 7967). Teacherî could select reiponses from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagreen on a 5 point Likert wale. The higher scores pointed to more humanistic attitudes h i l e lower score5 favoured more rigid, autocratie attitudes. The second part of the a u d y had
principal rae teacher efFectivenes. Principals rated the 8ectiveness of the teacheri who cornpleted the fi?& part of the a u d y using a wa le of 7 to 5, w'th 7 being "low" and 5 being "supetïor." Higher scores on the principal's rating form represented higher Hectivenes5, lower wores representcd lower eKztivene55. A total of 235 teachem and their principab took part in the itudy. Teacheri were also asked to provide demographic da ta t h a t included their marital status, age, year i of teaching experience, and subject areas. Findinas: n e results of th& a u d y indicated t h a t teacher att i tudes t h a t parallel the concept of humanistic behavioum correlate with &&ive tcacher performance, ai measured by 5chooi principals. A statiit ically significant difference wai al50 found when teachem were analjzed according fx subject areas. Teachers in math were signifkant/y dif3erent from ail other subject areae in pupil control ideology and ef3ectivene5s (p. c.05). Math teache= tended to express le555 humani5tic and carhg att i tudes an5 a5 a group were rated les5 &&ive by their principals. No other significant differencei were found among demographic infomation.
4. Comadena, M, 5emlak W.D, & Escott, M. D. (7990): compared and contraited traditional undergraduates (those in their early twenties) and adult letlrners (average age was 36.50 yeam) (Comadena, e t al., 1990, p. 6) for the perceptuai dflerences amonga each group in their v iew on effective teaching and communication style. 792 traditional undergraduatc student i and 767adult learnem took part in the study. Teacher
communication style was assessed by Norton's Communicator Style Measure (C5M; Nomn, 7903). This instrvment contained 45 Likert-type items designed to measure the way one verbally and nonverbally i n t e r a m math others. Teacher effectiveenes5 was measured by students responding to five i t a temens to report the extent to which they agreeù or disagreed with each statement on a 5-point wale. 5tudentsi ratings on these 5 i~5rn5 were ad& together to produce a single teacher effectiveness score. Findinas: For the traditional undergradua* students, what they regarded as teacher eFtectivenes5 were the tzacher trait5 of impre~iiion leaving, fkiendly, and attentive. For the adult leamers, teacher &eGtiveness had the followhg elemerrts: irnprewion leaving, fiend&, relaxed, attentive, dominant, and precise style varia bles. The rewarcher iurtnised t h a t teacher communication s t y e i5 vety important to adult learnem and the behaviour or conduct of the teacher i5 a more important component of teacher &&iveness than traditional undergraduate students.
5. Currie, D.G. (7985): administered the Teacher SkiII5 Survey Instrument (Johnson, e t al., 1980) to 580 teachers to provide infomation on what teachem perceive to be essential cornpetzncie5 necessary td enhance student leaming. She insrurnent l i î ted 52 cornpetency statemento and as&& UIe responde- to rate the degree to h i c h each wa5 essential to eWective teaching. Findinas: Of the 52 competencie~ identfied on the survey in6tmment, more than 50% of the reipondenti mteà the following a5 teacher cornpetencies deemed "highly desirable? a. During eaching hehhe gives directions clearly and explains content 50 t h a t the Iearnem
understand. b. Reidorces (SUPPOT~S and encourages) the A f o r t i o f learneri during instruction. G. Plans inaruction to be compatible wiU, the learnem' persona! capabilities and needs. d. Dernonitrates enthusiasm for teaching and leaming and for the su6ject hebhe is teaching a t the time. e. Adjuiti teaching plans to changes in conditions a5 they normally anse (interruptions, propose. lesson =doesn9t take", r e s o u m didn't arrive, etc.). f Helps leamers deveiop positive c o n c e p of themselves (helps learnem 5ee their uniqueness, and encourages confidence and sef-respect]. g. Organizes time, space, materiab and quipment for instruction. h. Ediibits professional traits of character (prompt, rqu lar attendance, prepared for obligations, etc.). i. Expre5ses a positive pemonal at t i tude toward the teaching profession. j. 5pecifies ( w r i t ~ 5 ~ sel-, fomulatci) the learning objectives for the activitiei (lesioni, units, etc] which he/she plans to teach.
6. Delso, D.L (1993): u5ed McCmkenL (1900) qualitative long interview method ( u s 4 to probe the beliefs of individuals) .t;o ascertain wha t eig h t vetemn teachers (over five yea rs of izaching experience) believe is Hect ive teaching. Findinus: The veizran teachem interviewed considered the humanitarian aspects of good teaching vety important. nie &ective teacher negotiates social problems and dtuations t h a t arise in their students' pemonal lives to teach their a u d e n t i H i z t i v e k Good teachem spend time doing more than merely preienting sutje& matcrial to their student.5 (Delso, 1993, p. 105). f iemes generated from this study also included: teacher ffexibility: adapting instruction for individuals, meeting the individual n e e h of students; caring: taking a genuine interest in the people and everrix in their classrooms and teacher creativity and ingenuity.
Z Diûkey, M.R. (1900): inveitgateà and compared the eFFe~t5 of verbal initruction and modeling on middle school band students. 5tudents were tested for ea~to-band skills, kine~thetic response, and music discrimination skill. Findinm: Those students h o received modeling instruction mther than verbal instruction demonstmteù significantly greater earto-hand and kinesthetic response skilk. The reiearcher concluded t h a t modeling strategies and devices ihould play a greater role in instrumental music teaching.
0. Kondrat, P.C. (1909): conducted an ethnographie and interview-bawd i t u d y examining the characten'5tic5 of an ef fk t ive tûacher from the students' perspective. The S u d y reviewed the l i v d experiences of preient and former Students of a teacher using the Hurrter Model(1902) of teaching. ihis model is based on the following ef%ective teacher cri-ria t h a t Kondrat examined in hi5 research:
a. Motivation b. Providing Information Effectiveiy G. Teaching to 0 0 t h Halves of the Emin d. Making the Material Meaningful e. Checking for Undemtmding f. Extending their Thinking g. DigniS/ing Errors to Promote Learning h. Teaching so 5tudents Rernember f-indinas: 7he S u d y showed Chat students want a eacher who is prepared ta use ins2uctional techniques outlined in the Hunter Mode1 in the cla5sroom. The research findings al50 mgge i t t h a t in ident5 preferred teache* Chat not o n b employ effective teaching practice~, but exemplfied these characteriflics in Uleir daily claisroorn routine. 756
9. Ocepek, L.J. (7993): adminisered a 42-item questionnaire to 290 high whool izachersi wfiich indicated the practicality of Hudgini' (7990) s k selected elements o f effective teaching through value ratings and priority rankings. lhe six elementi of &ect:ive tcaching outlined by Hudgins (7990) are a5 follows: Classroom Climate, Queaioning, Set Induction, 5timulus Variation, Reinfbrcement, and Closure. Findinas: The positive learning climate a teacher eitablishes was perceived a5 the most important of Hudgina' (1990) &&ive teaching ctfizria by the high schooi teachers. lncluded under the Classroom Climate heading in the mrvey were statements centering on the teacheri beliefi concerning the following: physical environment, pqychological environment, enthuiiasm, task orientation, clas5room management, and discipline.
10. Patrick, J., & Smart, R.M. (7998): combined qualitative and quantitative research methodi. 140 undergraduate -en= took part in t h e qualitative part of the i tudy. Using Ramsden3 (7997) argument t h a t students are an essentiai source of iurfomation for the evaluation of Hect ive teaching, studen- were aaked to record, in their own words the qualities and or
. practices of effective teachem. The reseanhem than arranged the response~ intu thematic grouf5 (36 in total). 266 undergraduates took part in the quantitative portion of the study. 7hese students were asked to think of an effective teacher ( h m any stage of their education) and were then asked to rate Chat teacher on a 72 item questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scaie ranging h m 7 (doesn't describe the teacher very well a t al/) to 5 (describes the teacher almost perfedy). Findinai: Three intert-elateà elements were detennined to be qualitites of efXective teaching. First, the teacher who genuinely respecti students and treats them a5 equab i5 po~i t i vek regarded & undergraduate audents. Organiwtion and presentation ik i l l i encompass the 5emnd teacher efftectiveness factor h i l e the third factor, ability to challenge students, is characterized ùy setting high, but realistic Iearning goals for the studentxx
17. Percy, R (1990): compared selected efFective tcacher behaviours and teacher att i tudes tawards children befare and a fkr -chers attended a one week systernatic communication skills workshop. Bas& on Gordon3 (7974) Teacher Effectiveneii Training (77T) training model, 370 elementaty and secondary teachem voiuntecred ta participate in a one week inten5ive. sy iemat ic communication skilli training program. Each participant was adrnini~tered the communication SkiIl5 Burvey a t the bcginning and a t the end of the training program. The survey con5isted of three sub~cales: the Att i tude Toward Children Scale, the Active Listzning Scale and the /-Message Scale. nie Atti tude %ale required teachets tu answer 15 questions on a point s a l e 7-6. The Active Listening Scale and the l-Message %ale required teachers to write a vehatim responie t h a t demonstrated an ability to lisizn actively and to confmnt effectively. The latter two seale5 were scored on a scale from 7 to 5 ûy a single rater h o was trained teach the TETprogram and previoudy dernonstrated a high level o f p r d T c i e n ~ in woring the three scales. Findinas: For e a ~ h o f t h e three scales, there was a signiikant increaie from the pretest to the postte5t. f iese inmeases were al! sLgnificarrt; a t the Dû7 level.
1 2 Ryan, J. M., & Harrison, PD. (1995): bas& their research on Marsh's (1982) 5EEQ: 5tudents' Evaluations of Mucational Quality t h a t empiricaiiy meaiures i tudentd evaluations of teacher efectiveneeii on a 35-item nine point scale. 229 univemity dudents studying education, accounting, and geology were a s k d to r a e the ~ a t e m e n t s on a scale fkom 7 (very poor) to 9 (very good). The students were al50 aasked to base their answem on a hypothetical instructor. Findinm: The amount university students [earned in a class received the highest overall rating in judging teacher ef=fectiveness. The three groupi of studen- placed l i t t le value in courie diFficulty for detennining teacher ef%ctiveneii a i long ai there was a perception of signficant learning taking place. l t was abo found t h a t tud dent^ ~tudying a t a higher level (graduate-bel) were more concerned about learning.
69.
m e Personal IrTtelliuences & Teacher Effectiveness Resear~h
Table A: The Peeonal Intelligences as Represerrtcd in Teacher Effectivenes~ Reiearch
-- - - -
II out of 72
Research Methods
'Pmceii-Pmduct: 3 '%ud~rI'c Evaluations: 4 "Teachcr Self-Evaluations: 3 'Principal Evaluationd of Teacher Effectivenei5: 7 * I n t c ~ ~ i - ~ : 2 'Ethnography 7
Instructional Téchniques
*use ofjournali. motivation, co unselhg ski l ls, interaction with studenti, and clas5 discussions
Teacher Qualities
%ense of &hem, sense of seif (positive), humanistic qualities including: caring. f?iendly, ammtivet seff-sactifking, empa thy, rapport, pemonal imract ion, rdect ive listening, reiationshipti with mden-k, dignwng errors to promote Iearning, psychologiia l environment (care and respect)
Description of F indinas
The pemonal intelligences was highly representeù in teaoher eRéctivenes5 research. Not
on& did 77 oui: of the 72 etudiei (Buntrock-Brodney, 1993; Burd l , 7994: Cloer and Alexander,
1992; Cornedena, et al, 7990: Cunie, 7985: Delso, 1986; Kondrat, 7909; Ocepek 7993; Patrick
and srnafi, 7990; Percy, 1990: Ryan and Harrison, 1995) have signiFioant elernents of the
pemonal intelligenm in thema the peeonal intelIigences were a b o highly represented in research
methodologiei. The ipectrurn of research mcthodologies used to a n a l ~ e and explore the
perional intelligences can function a5 a beacon for future research in teacher efFectivene5s in
the other intGlligence areai. The more research methodologies used, the b e t k r pempective the
researcher will have in creating a holistic picture of what i t meani to be an &&ive teacher.
70.
Researcheri, in almoit every study, (Buntrock-Brodney, 7993; Durrell, 7994; Cloer and
Alexander, 7992; Comedena, e t al., 7990; Currie, 7985; Delso, 7986: Kondrat, 7909; Ocepelc, 7993;
Patrick and Smart, 7998; Perw, 7990: Ryan and Harrison, 7995) ernphasized the value of
pemonal intelligence5'teaching techniques and teacher qualities. f i e social skills o f Che teacher
appear ta have jus t as an important role as the teaching o f the curriculum in teacher
&ec-tiveness studies. These skiIl5 are modeled tirne and aga in in the classrooms of &&ive
teachers; t hu i , teaching their ~ t u d e n t s how to improve their own interactive skills.
Verbal- Linauistic Intelligence & Teacher Effectiveness Resea rch
Table 0: Verbal-Linguistic Intelligence a5 Represented in Teacher Ef-fectiveness Reiearch
6 out of 70
Instructional Techniques
5chool Level Teacher Qualities
Research Methods
*use of journals, explaini clean'y, clea r instructions, verbal instruction, and audents describe what thqy9ve learneà
Vehal-Linguiaic Intelligence wa5 found iz have a high repre~entation in teacher
effectiveness research (Buntrock-Brodney, 1993; Cornedena, e t al., 7990; Currie, 7985; Dickey,
7908: Ocepek, 1993; Ryan and Harrison, 1995). However, this repre5etation i i misleading
k a use most of the measures and themes involved instructional technique of giving directions
77.
cleady. 7he teacherb ability to articulate and provide clarity in learning expectationi is of
importance and the research on teacher effzztiveees5 indicatei this. The concentration of
research conducted in this intelligence ha5 it5 highest representation a t the polar ends of
education levels, namely a t the elementary and university levels.
Bodilv-Kinesthetk Intelliaence & Teac her Effectiveness Resea rch
Table C: Bodily-Kinesthetic irrtelligence a s Kepreiented in feacher Effiztiveneas Research
Number of 5tudiei
5 out o f 70
Research Methods
"ea r-to +and skilk, kinest hetic response, moving deliberately throughout the room
*E/ementary: 3 "Middle: 2
*5econdaw: ' 'Univemiw:
feacher Qua h ies
"Process- Produck 2 *5tudetrt Evaluations: 2 7eacher Setf-Evaluations: 1 l i a c h e r Evaluatione of EffeccAe Teaching: 1
Descriution of Findings
Teacher Hectiveness appeaw to overiook the importance of the kine5thetic eiemetrk in
eaching. Despite an Acteniive search by the researcher, no physical education clam 5tudie5 on
teacher eRectivenes5 research were found. However, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence should not be
str ict& relegated to a suf7jec-t specfic area like physical education clais. Maintaining a healthy
and active lifestyle should be an important part ofany culture, and yet, bodily-active teaching
techniques are not significantly representeà in *acher eftéctiveness research.
72.
Lo&ai-Mathematical IntzIIihence & Teacher Effkztiveness Research
Table D: Logical-Mathematical Intelligence a5 R e p e n t e d in Teacher Effkctivenes5 Research
Number of 5tudies
-- - -
Elementary: 3 Middle: O Secondary: 7 University= l
Research Methods
*Proess- Product;: 2 *5tuderrt Evaluations: 2 7eacher Evaluations of Effective Teaching: 1
Instructional Téchniques
*cpestioning, 5et induction (abil%y to st:ructure a lesson), use of organizers, reviews Iearning expe- tions (objectives), pre5entation 5 killi, problem-5olving, and decision- ma king
Teacher Qua lities
Description of Findinus
Being a faundation of the traditional ducational system, Logical-Mathematical
in&dl@ence wa5 represented poorl. in teacher eKectivene5s research ((Buntrock-Brodney, 7993;
Ocepck, 1993: Patrick and 5mart, 7990; Percy, 7990). TI105e t h a t were studied had a limiteù
Score in relying more on the instructional techniques employeà by teache- and their ability to
place learning in sequential patterns for the students. The sy5-t;ernatic manner is valued a5 a
teaching mol; however, logical-mathematical intelligence had a pour representation in teacher
fiectiveness research considering this intelligence i5 une of the m u a valu& in receiving a
traditional educa tion.
5ome areas Chat teacher eFFectivenes5 research mis~ed were including the cachet-3
abiiity to include deductive/inductive rreasuning ski115 and the proce55 of inquiry tha t are logical
73.
processes t h a t can be used by 8 k t i v e l y teachem. These are universal ski115 t h a t teacher
effectivene55 research nee& .t;o recognize.
The researcher found it iu@ing t h a t in such a stre55ed area of traditional views o f
intelligence, t h a t the logical-mathematical intelligence had such a small represerrtation. Perhaps
this &mi fi-om the methodi employed to look for elementi of logical-mathematical intelligence.
Musicai-Rhvthrnic Intelliaence & Teacher Effectiveness Research
Ta ble E: Musical-Rhythmic intelligence as Represented in Teacher Effèctiveneis Research
I Teacher Qualities
Description of FinAnas
Musical-Rhy-thmic intelligence elements in teacher effèctivene~s i5 clearly under-
represented (Dickq, 7980; Ocepek, 7993). Music is universal and is a common denominatar
shared amongit people. Music appreciation can be a unifjing and a soothing force in the
claisroom. One of the studies on teacher effectiveness was specificaliy in a muiic class. The
musical elements of teaching is undervalued by i s lack of represemtion as an instructional
tahnique and a teacher qualiw in teacher effectiveneis research. If music is a prevailing force
in Our culture, it does not appear to play an appreciable role in our undemtanding of an ei%ective
teacher. Moreover, innovative methods of integrating music into the ~ u r r i ~ u l u m are not
2 out of 12 *Elementary: 7 "Middle: 1
*Process-Product: 1 'Teacher Evaluations of Effk t ive Teaching: 1
"shifts sensory channels, music discrimination skills
*none repre5enteà
displayeù in teacher tdXectivenes5 research.
Visual5patial Intzlliaence & Teacher Effectiveness Research
Table F: Visual-Spatial intelligence a i Repreienteâ in Teacher Effectiveness Reiearch
Number of 5tudies
2 out o f 72 "€lemenZay: 1 "Middle: I
Research Methods
"Process-Produa: 1 Teacher Evalua t i o n ~ of Effèctive Teaching: 7
"using classroom art&&, using different sensory channels, using multi-media (aimulus va ria t io n), visual& modeling instruction
reacher Qua lities
Description o f Findinds
VHy few studies in teacher &ect;iveness research dealt wi%h the visual spatial
intekgence (ûickey, 1908: Ocepek, 7993). Despite a lo t of good teaching &hniques in t h i s
intelligenoe area, i t i i not being representeà in teacher efitectiveneii data. Researchee have
f a i M to incorporate this in their studies. Teacher eKèctivenes5 reiearch appeari to explore the
visual way5 to stimulate the studerrt including the use of classruom artefacts, shiftïng sensory
presentation of the material and using multi-media efEectively.
Natural ist lntel l i~ence & Teacher Effectiveness Research
Table G: Natural i i t tn~elligence a5 Repreiented in Teacher EfXect;ivene5i Research
Techniques 1 Qualities 1 Number o f Studies
7 out of 12
7he naturalist intelligence has a very limited showing in teacher eî%ectivenes5 research
(Kondrat, 7989). ferhaps this i5 because most of the elernents of naturalist intelligence are not
represented in the traditional clawmom. Experiential learning environmen= are one example o f
research Chat would have many elernerrts of the natura l ia intdigence. Interedingiy, only the
qualitative research meth& of an ethnography and using interviews drew out the natural i i t
intelligence elements in the one study.
Two reasons may account for this diwrepancy. me naturalist intelIQence represents a
new area of study in intelligence; however, none of the s e l m audies had dire& reference~ to
the theoty of multiple irrtelligences and, therefore, th3 can not be a reliable factor. The other
reaion for t h i i lack o f representation could be because natural i i t intelligence instructional
techniques and teacher characte&tic5 oocur ootside of the traditional cla5emom1, such a5 in
an acperiential education program where audents are exposed to the elements in nature.
5chool Level
*€lementary: 7
Research Methods
*interviews.. 7 *Ethnography: 7
Table 5: MI Dimensione in Teacher Effectivenese Research '""Under MeaeuredThemee heading ltallcized words denote teacher qualitiee 5tudy Re~earch MethodbJ Buntrock-Brodney, 5, "Procetiti-Product (1993) *5tudent Evaluatione
Burrell, DoL, "Proceee-Product (1 994)
Cloer, Tm; "Teacher self Evaluatione Alexander, W.Al *Principal Evaluatione of (1992) teachers
Comadena, ME, e t al, "5tudent Evaluationti (1990)
Currie, DG, "Teacher Self Evaluatione (1 985)
Dickey, D,R, (1 988)
"Interviews
"Process-Prod uct
5chool Level Elernentary
Middle
Elementary Middle Secondaty
University
Elementary Middle 5econdary Un ivereity
Elementary
Mlddle
Intellirencel6) Ling uistidPersonal Logical Kineethetic
Personal
Pereonal
Persona l
Kinesthetic Permnal Lingultitic
Pereonal
Kinesthetic Muei~al Visual llngul6tlc
-uee of journale -mathematics claes (su bject) -enthutilam
-locu6 o f control -eficacy
-pupi/ control ideologie5 -humanietic qualitieti
ofriendly, a ttentlve -motivation -explaine clearly
-en t hueiasm -positive self concept d e a r directions
-counseling & motivation tikill6 -relatlonddp wlth etudents, carlng. eelf- 6acrificing
-ear-to-hand ekille, kine~thetic response -muetc di6~riminatlon 6kili6 (music clam) -vieually modellng instruction -verbal lntitructlon
Kondrat, D,C. (1 989)
Ocepek, L.5. (1 993)
Patrick, J; Smart, KIM, (1990)
Ryan, J.M,; Harrison, P.D, (1 995)
'77, Research Method[e] 5chool Level Intelli4encele) MeaeureelThemee
"Ethnography "Interviewe
Elementary Personal -motivation, d/gn/&/ng erra@ to promotc lea rnlng, bulldng rela tlonejhpti
Naturaliet -extendhg tud dente' thlnking
Teacher Evaluations Elementary Personal -psychologlcal envlronrnen t of efYectlve teaching -ueing different interaction ~ t y l e t i
Kinestheti~ -enthue/am Logical -questioning
-set Induction: ability to titructure lewon Spat/MudPer6/Kln -6timuiu6 variation Lingui6tic/Pereonal -cloaure
"5tudent Evaluations U nivereity Pereonal -respect for tud dents Log ical -preeentation eklll6
Elementary Pereonal
5e~ondat-y Logicai
"5.t;udent Evaluatione Univerdty Klneethetic (Hypothetical) Personal
Linguistic
-ernpathy, rapport, personal lnteractlon wlth studen tg, reflectlve IlstRnlng -problem-eolving, decieion-making
-en thuelasm group Interactlon, lndividual rapport -char explanatione
70.
MI Findinqs in Teacher Effectiveness Research
A5 demonstrated in the graph [ iee Table 61, t he peeonal intelligences ranked the
highest: in Ml representation on teacher effecfivene55 research in both instructional techniques
and teacher characteristics (Buntrock-Brodney, 7993; Burrell, 19% Cloer and Alexander, 7992;
Comedena, e t al., 1990; Currie, 7985; Delso, 1986; Kondrat, 1989: Ocepek, 7993; Patrick and
Srnart, 7998,. F e r . , 7990; Ryan and Harrison, 1995). Although tmdÏtional schooling views have
placed emphasii on the verbal-linguistic and logical mathematical irrtdligence5, in eacher
effectveneii research the pemonal intelligences have an ovenvhelming repreientation. Pet-haps
thi5 i5 for good reaion. What effective teachers do in the way of supporting and caring for their
itudents, the way they reach out and build t r u s t and mu-tual respect, and how t h e - engage and
encourage their student i to grow and becorne their best poiiible selves is an element t h a t Gan
be overiooked by people involved in roles ocltside of the classroom (ûcepek 7993). ln this
connecf2on, teaching is no longer cofined to a set of goals, or only to some con%mt and skills,
rather it incorporates values and viflue5 t h a t are somervhat oblique and hard to explain. In
addition, the persona1 aspects of good teaching find the teacher negotiating social problemi
and situations t h a t arise in their audenci' pemonal lives to teach their student i ef7kctivel.y.
ihis aspect o f effective teaching where the teacher is able to relate to the student on a
peaonal level improvei the possibility of teaching the itudents more effedveiy. Good teache-
ipend time doing more than mereiy presenting subject material to their students (Delso, 1993).
Y& most research se& to undemtand a t least some elements of the perional intelligences.
If any of the intelligences was to have an abundant representation, this one is m o i t intangible
79.
element representing what the teacher bringo to the claiiroom. Ofany of the intelligences to
concentrate on, this one i5 perhapi the hardes to meaiure or examine and yet it i i most
repre5ented.
One univemal theme revealed in Ocepek (1993), i i the ability of the teacher to allow
audents the oppoeuniw to expre55 themselves in a variety of wayi. However, i t appears t h a t
the researcher ha5 to be present in the aaua l classroorn to evaluate this in the fomi d a n
ethnographie i t udy .
Other intcllgences with modemte repreientation in eacher effkztivene55 research
include verbal-linguistic intelligence wfth 6 out of 72 studies (0untrock-Brodnq, 7993;
Comcdena, e t ai., 7990; Curie, 1985: D icm, 7908: Ocepek, 1993; Ryan and Harrison, 1995)
although t h i i is misleading with m o i t o f t h i i repreientation sternming fmm the teacher% ability
to a r t h ~ l a t e instruction5 cieady, Wily-kinesthetic with 5 out of 12 studies (BuntrockSrodnty.,
7993; Currie, 1985; Dickey, 1988; Ocepek, 1993; Ryan and Harriion, 7995), and logical
mathematical i ~ l l i g e n c e with representation in 4 out of 72 audies (Buntrock-Brodng., 7993;
Ocepek, 7993; Patrick and Smart, 1998: Perqy, 1990).
The irrklligences Chat showed inadquate representation in teacher effkctivenes5
research inciude the following: musical-rhythmic (Dickey, 1908; Ocepek 7993) and visuai-spa tial
(Dickw, 1988: Ocepek, 7993) intelligence^ with mereb 2 out of 12 itudies, and the natoralist
intelligence w%h only 7 out of the 72 etudies (Kondrat* 7909).
7he findingi indicate t h a t teacher efXectivenes5 is measured and anal& in a number of
ways. However, when t h i i reiearch i5 analyzed through uiing Ml theory, most research focuses
80.
on t h e pemonal inMgence a t the expense of otheri. If reiearchem tmly deiire to undemtand
what it means to be an &&ive teacher, then a new conceptualiwtion in research itrategy i i
required.
The chart ii a reftection of t h e current statu5 of MI theory representation in teacher
Mectiveness research. Future studies need to be done to ensure Chat the diverse means
teache* facilitate and encourage learning are accounted for. Uaving a multiple intôlfigence5
research methodolog, on teacher efYièctiveneii could help both reiearchem and teachem better
unde-nd the nature of &ective teaching a5 well a5 be an aid in irnprovin~ qaching through
being a Me to provide a broader picture of what effective tcaching i5.
CHAFER V. DlSCU55lON AND CONCLU5ION
This resea rch evaluated twelve studies (Buntrock-Brodney, 1993: Burrell, 1994: Cloer and
Alexander, 7992; Cornedena, e t al., 7990; Curie, 7985; Delso, 7986; Dickey, 7988; Kondrat, 1909;
Ocepek, 7993; Patrick and Smart, 1998; Percy, 7990; Kyan and Hanison, 7995) on teacher
eK&iveness using a Ml theory bns. Research rnethodologie5 of the twelve selected studies on
teacher ef;fèctivene5s enoornpas5ed proces5-product research (Buntrock-Brodney. 7993: Burrell,
1994: Dickey, 7988; Percy, 1990). evaluation studies (BuntrockSrodnqy, 7993; Cloer and
Alexander, 1992: Comadena, et al, 7990: Currie, 1385; Ocepek, 7993; Patrick and Smart, 7990:
Ryan and Harrkon, 7995) and qualitative research techniques such as an ethnography
(Kondrat, 7989) and the use of in-kwiem ( M o , 1986: Kondr-at, 7909). Table 3 becarne the
lens to examine the degree of Ml theory representation in the twelve studies.
Disxssion of Findinus
The analy~is revealed a large d i s c r e p a n ~ between the intelIigences and their
representation in teacher effktiveness reiearch. lnterpretation of the numbers reveab t h a t
there is no clear balance in what is being rneasured or has emerged a s themes in teacher
eîfectiveneii reiearch. The irnbalanw occurred a t two ends of the 5pectrurn with 77 out of the 72
studies (Buntrock-Srodney, 1993: Burrell, 793% Cloer and Alexander, 1992; Cornedena, e t al.,
1990; Currie, 7985; Del~o, 7906; Kondrat, 7909: Ocepek, 7993; Patrick and Smart, 7998; Perw,
1990: Ryan and Hamion, 1995) evaluating the pemonal itrl~lligences while onk 1 out of the 72
(Kondrat, 7989) evaluatzà the na Cura kt intelligence. Verbal-/hg uistic intelligence was the
03.
second higheit: represented intelligence being represerrted in 6 out of the 12 itudies (Buntrock-
Brodnq, 1993; Cornedena, e-t al., 1990; Currie, 1905; Dickey, 1988; Ocepek 1993; Ryan and
Ham-son, 1995) while the bodiiy-kinesthetic (Buntrock-Brodney, 7993; Currie, 7985; Dickey,
7900; Ocepek 7993; Ryan and Harrison, 7995) and logical-mathematical intelligences
(üuntrock-Drodney, 7993; Ocepek, 7993; Patrick and Srnar-t, 7998; Peroy, 1990) were
represemd in 5 and 4 out of the 12 i t ud ie i reipectively. 5 tudie i containing teacher qualities
or in5tructional technique5 of rnudcal-hythmic and visual-spatial intelligence5 were highk
under-repreiemed with on& 2 out of t he 12 itudies (Di~key, 7988: Ocepek 7993) containing
these imlligence elernents.
Conclusions
Analysis o f t he findings led to conclusions regarding the representation of Ml
cornponents in teacher effectivene55 research. Using MI theory b an appropriate method for
aese55ing teacher Hect ivene~s because i t helpi researchem, admini5tratom, parents,
students, faculties o f education and teachers themselves to have a more holistic understanding
of the dynamism of what i t means ta be an ef'Fective teacher. Through utilizing a Ml lens in
addreiiing teacher effectvenei5, people in general will have a better view oî the qualitiei and
imtructional techniques of the classroom teacher. Teachem h o are aware of Ml theory and
recognize the theoried ben&= are better able to adapt the curriculum to suit individual n d .
ln addition, a practical approach to teacher testing oould be adopted through making use d a
Ml fiarnework. The nature of the school organkational m a u r e Gan al50 incorporate eletne&
of Ml theory to aid in the education of audertts.
Creating a Balance in Teacher Effect;iveness Research
7here is a c u r e n t need for creating a balance in our undemtanding of the &ect;ive
eacher. The persona! intellgente5 are currentk the most: crucial element present in teacher
Hectiveness l%erature. Analysis o f the Sudie5 reveals tha t the demeanor and instructional
tmhniques of the macher are highly valued rneasures when uied to assess teacher
&&ivenesi. The persona1 qualities of a teacher al50 represent something t h a t is an intangible
element in teaching and would be difficult to analyze unleis qualitative research methods are
employed.
The other in%digence areas have repre~entation; however, they are not used nearly as
much a s indicators of effective teaching. This leads the researcher to argue t h a t a more
holi~.t;ic view o f teacher &ect;iveness is necessaty in future teacher &êctiveness Hudies. A
balance in M u r e research on &&ive tzaching is desired because it will lead to a more
comprehensive conception of what i t means to be an ef%eGt;lie eacher. l t will al50 provide a
better view of the qualitiei and imtructional techniques teachers use on a regular baiis ta
promote learning. In addition, such future research will be a valuable a55d the claisroorn
teacher who wi/l be more aware and be able to recognize the changing needs of the student.
Children e n e r the classroom w%h learning g m and probiem~. Therdore, the classroom teacher
is in ne& of a variety o f teaching approaches to help facilitate the learning proce5s. Adoping a
Ml-bascd approach will help teachem to recognke and to adjust their teaching expertiie 50 t h a t
al1 audeni% will be able to leam confidently.
A MI View of the Tacher
The purpose of teacher ef%ktivene55 research i i tu look for the elementi t h a t make
people succe55iid educators. Utiliring a Ml framework like t h a t o f the one outlined in this i tudy
i5 a hel@l tool to make the classroorn teacher more aware and b-r able to recognize the
ingredients of &%&ive teaching by being able to address the variety of different learners in the
classroom and to allow each of these learnee t;o excel. Teachers who are aware and who are
able to recognize the dHerent learnem in their classrooms will be more &&ive teachem.
Awareness of Ml theory by teachers can a k o promote creating a 'safe and caring' learning
environment through chi5 insight into h uman dHerence. Adminisering assignmen t s and
aiieismen- t h a t SU% the variety of learnem will help to maxirnize the learning potential in
students. By being taught in a manner t h a t suit5 a variety of students' needs, MI theory
provides teacherrj with more mol5 in their mol kit. ihe researcher al50 feeb t h a t these studenB
become better citizen5 who are equipped ta deal with the challenges of an increasingly diverse
society.
ûf conoem for &?ache=, however, L the amount of t ime -hem have to implement MI
instructional and assessrnent strategies into their unit plans With the current debate over
teacher preparation time occurring in Ontario Mth the government desiring to i n c r e a ~ high
ichool teacheri' workioads, the ability for the teacher to mod* and expand the curriculum to
suit individual n&s is compromised.
MI Teacher Testing
The question of teacher testing h a i becorne a reality in Ontario. I n m a d of fighting euch
e5t5, educators ~hou ld be asking how -t;o make t h e m o s use of it. I f new te5t5 are to be
designeci, they must be non-threatening and relative to all teachem, and yet address the
question o f whether an educator is an &&ive teacher. Utiiizing a MI approach to eacher
testing could create a balanced te& t h a t s h o ~ the dimensions and dynamics a teacher brings
tu the claesroom. Lobbying the Ontario College of Teachem tu ensure Ml theory pemeates itself
in every discu55ion and policy is an important a p to creating a qua lm measure ofjudging
teacher &ectiveness.
Any teacher test; t h a t is c r e a w must allow for teachers to show an a w a r e n e ~ o f al/
the elements o f the curriculum. In addition, a test for teachers musc allow for the teacher to
have responsibilhy for identirying and reûogniring how S u d e m b e ~ t leam. A test, therefore,
must be able to show how the teacher is making use of the curriculum and how she is making
appropriate a d j u d m e w to her teaching styles in order to accommodate individual ne&.
A possible model for teacher e s h g could ask the teacher to describe a unit plan t h a t
addresses each of the eight intzllrgences. Such a test is straight-foward and would allow
teachem to demonstrate their awareness of t he curriculum, ability to adapt the curriculum for
individual needs, and would allow teachers to show their abiliw ta adjust instru~tional %/es
appropriatel' in euch an important way despite the imposition of a teacher tese.
The ultimate goal of th13 thesis is to have MI pemeate throughout the educational
5y5tem. The role of the faoulties of eduûation represents a starting point to help future
0%
teachers undemtand the diverie wayi in which people learn. Ml should be fundamentally
ingrained into the consciousness of the educational institutions because they are spawning the
next generation o f educatom. For this reason, this thesis is important because MI awareness
begins in the faculties of education. Every discussion and policy made in consultation between
the Ornario Collegs of Teache- and the faculties of education should have a MI represema tion
when addressing cumculum issues.
Work in the faculty of education to help develop Ml awarene55 in future teachem can be
accompli~hed iucceisfully. Faculty profeso w can play a vital role in accomplishing this task
The seeds of MI awarene55 can be planted ùy facuIty deducation professom by allowing the
prospective teachers examine the curriculum and prepare a lesson or unit plan t h a t i5 inclusive
of multiple intelligences theory. For example, in creating a lesson on W I , the prospective
teaohem could have students in the c la is arranged into groups that are representative of the
major countries involved in the com7ic-t: e a ~ h group would represent a diFFerent country t h a t wa5
involveà in W l . The requirernent of each group would be to prepare and present their country3
purpose, policy, and s t ra tew in the Great War. Each group would choose from a I im of Ml-based
methods of how they would present their countryk information. A rubric t h a t would outline how
the group would be assessed would also be provided to each group t h a t would be MI fair in lighZ
o f the different ways each group would choose to present their information.
Alternative Appmaches to School Organization
The present structure of whool organiza tions could benefit from Mi poisibilities. One
idea could be Go deveIop a mode1 where not only teacheri, but the organizational structure would
reflect a Mi conscioumess. 50 how could schouis be best organized in their intemal structure
to maximize student learning experienoe57 One model would be to organke the school s ta f l in to
rotating teachee who wouId teach d%erent classes with a mociel like Chat of most high schools
in Ontario. Students cuuld bendit from th is arrangement fy having teachers with deerent
qualities and instructional techniques to pmvide the i tudem with a broader 5pectrurn of
MI f ieory in the Curriculum
Ml theory contains within it: inherent bend ts t h a t relate to the curriculum. 'Jhese
ben&= include the following: a ) help-. students to u n d e m n d their abilities and the a bilitiei of
those around them; 6) show stude- how to use their Srengths both to learn and to work on
their weaknesws; c ) buildi confidence to begin taking risks: d ) provides for unforgett.able
learning, thereby helping studerrts to learn more (Silver, 5trong, & Perini, 7997). The new Ontario
curriculum compel educatow to make u i e of educational theories and reiearch. A5 indicated in
the new Ontario Senior Curriculum, multiple teaching approaches are an integral oomponent:
Since no single instructional approach can address al1 the curriculum expectations or meet ail the needs o f each leamer, cachers should select instructional stmtegies and classroom activitiei t h a t are based on an assessrnent of mudents' needs, proven learning theoty, and best practicei. ( m e Ontario Cut-riculum, Grades 17 and 12: English 2000, p. 7 )
As indicated in the above guideline, educators are being urged tu look for edum tional pracZice5
t h a t can enhance learning. Anytime we, a s ducators, are not doing this, we are not effective.
Implications
l t is the hope of the reiearcher Chat a balance corresponding to the multiple intelli@ences
be es-kablished in teacher eFFectivene5s research in order ta have a more thorough unders-nding
of eFFective tcachers. I f a balance is desired in understanding the nature of what it means to be
an effeccive teacher, then the question of how i i it best to encourage teachew to look in a MI
direction anses. Active irrkrvention ofpemeating Ml into teacher ef"FeGtiveness research tu
ensure qualfty teaching should be considered: it ihould be looked a t through facultie~ o f
education, inservice teaching pIacemenW, a d in the regular c l a ~ r o r n .
5ume&ions for Further Research
n i 5 research has identfied salient areas in teacher et'Ykdivene5s audies in addition ï%
describhg areae tha t have a thorough repre~errtation. Future teacher Hectivene~s re5earch
needs tu involve al/ aspects ofinteIl@ence. The effeotive teacher opera-5 a cla55roorn that
utilizes a variety of approachei, but researchem appear not ta be recognizing the full scope of
8ective ixaching. Research in efFective teaching n d s to investigate further the diveme ways
a teacher reaches studen-k.
Future skidies focusing on just one of the under-represented irr&lligence5 and
establishing it as the key research framework wuuld be an interesthg ares of research. The
researcher in such a study would keep the course content and learning expectations in
correspondence with the curriculum, but would adapt inatructional Whniques towards one type
of inkIIigence. A control group ehould be established to allow researchers to analyze, te56 and
asse55 resul- in order ta compare the two groups.
90.
Another area for future research would be to employ mked research rnet;hodologie~. By
using a multiple approach to gathet-ing reiearnh data, a more hoiiaic pimure might be deveIoped
that adheres ta understanding effective teachîng from a MI theory bearing.
References
Armor, D.. e t al. (1976). Analyiis of school preferrrred r d n g program5 in eele&ed Los Angeles minotity 5chook (K-2007-LAUW). Santa Monica: Rand.
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple inteilIgence5 in the cla5iroom. Alexa nd ria, VA: Ascjociation for Supetvision and Curriculum Development.
Bacharach, 5.0. (ed.) (1990). Mucational rdorm. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Barkman, R (1997). Pattëmi and the eighth intelligence. [CO-Line]. Available: h ~ p : / / w . n e w h o r i z o n i . o r g ~ t m r m m i p a ~ m , html
Berliner, DL. (1976). Impediment~ ta the study of t a c h e r efféctivene55. Journal of Tteacher Wucation, 27(1), 5-73.
Berman, P., et al. (797. Federal programi supporting educational change. Vol. VU: Fa&m affecting irnpIernentation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
Bori& G. D., & Fenton, 115. (1977). The Appraisal o f teaching: C o n c e p and proce55. Reading MÇ: Addison- Wesley.
Brophy, J.E., & Cood, T.L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wtttrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (Td ed., pp. 225-296). b!,w York: MacMillan.
Buntrock-Brodney, 5. (1993). The relationship between Sudent achievement, student attitude, and mudent perception of teacher effectiveneis and the use of journal5 a5 a learning tool in mathematic-, (Doctoral dissertation). Hattiesburg, M I 5 Univer5ity of 5outhern Missiiiippi Preee.
Durrell, DL. (1994). Relationihip among =ache& ehScacy, teachem' locus o f control, and suden t achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Johnson City, Ten: Eas t Tennessee 5tat-e University.
Calderhead, J. (ed.). (1987). Ewploring teachem' thinking. London: Cameil Educational Lirnited.
Campbell, L., Campbell, 6, & Dickinson, D. (1996). Teaching and leamhg through multiple iwlligences. Needham Heights, MA: Aliyn & Bacon.
Campbell, L. (1997). Variations on a therne: How teachers interpret MI theory. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 14-19.
Checkley, K. (1997). The f i r ~ ieven . . . and the eighth: A conversation with Howard Gardner. €ducational Leadership, 55(1), 6-15.
Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1906). Teachee' thought processes. In M.C. W i r o c k (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: MacMilIan.
Cioer, T, & Alexander, W.A. (1992). lnviting teacher characterifltics and txacher efYectiveness. Journal o f lnvitational 7heory and Practice, 1(1), 31 -41.
Comadena, ME., ct al. (1990). Communication -le and teacher ef%ectiveness A comparative m d y of the perceptions o f adult learnem and traditional undergraduate itudents. Paper presented a the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Aieociation, Chicago, IL.
Combi, A. (1902). A personal approach to teaching: Beliefs that make a dHerence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cooper5mith. 5. (1967). 'Ihe a-edem of self-esteem. 5a n Franiico: W.H. Freeman.
Corbet, E. (1997). Aisessrnent and the multiple intelligences. Prescott, AZ: Prescott College.
Craig, M. (1993). Achievernent testing and accountability points ponder. Tennessee Mucational Leademhip, 20(1), 13-20.
Currie, DG. (1985). Tmcher effkt ivene5i criteria: A i perceived by Saskattzhewan educators (M.M Thesis). Saskatoon, 5k University of Saskatchewan.
Curry, A G . (1993). Teacheri' perceptions of factors contributing to their self kScaq and satisfaction with teaching: A naturalistic study (Doctoral dissertation). Carbonale, 111: Southem Illinois University a t Carbonale.
Cuiick P.A. (1903). The equalitarian ideal and the American high school. New York Longman, Inc.
Delio, D.L. (1993). What good tcachers do: A qualitative d u d y of experienceù Oklahoma teachers'views on effective eaching (Doctoral dissertation). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Tulsa.
Demmon-Berger, D. (1986). Effiztive teaching: Obsenmtiona from research. Arlington, VA.: American Association o f Clchool Administrators.
Dickey, M.R (1900). A cornparison o f the eFFeCtS of verbal instruction and nonverbal tcacher- student rnodeling of instructional ~ ~ i v e n e s s in in&rurnental music ensembles. (Domra 1 dissertation, University of Miçhiga n). Dissertation A bstracts I nternationa 1, 49(12A), 3651.
Durie, R (1997). An interview with Howard Gardner. pn-LineJ Available: hCtp:/ /w~eph~'pre~~.comfgardner. h m
Eisner, E.W. (1994). Commentary: Putting multiple intelligencee in context: 5ome questions and O b~ewations. Iéachers College Record, 95(4), 555-569.
Eisner, E.W. (7905). f i e eàucational imagination: On the design and evaluatian of 5chool programa New York: Macmillan.
Ellimn, L. (1992). Using mubiple intelligences to set goals. Educational Leademhip, 50(2), 69- 72.
Evertson, C.M. (1986). Do teachers make a di-fference? Mucation and Urban SuciGy, 18(2), 195-21 0.
Gafhiey, K. (1 995). Multiple intzIIigences and the a m . [&-Linel. Availa ble: h~p://www.njcornmunity.org/ai~genesi~/chymali. html
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T.C. (1989). Multiple intelligences goes to schoo!: educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligence. Educational Reiearchem, 7û(0), 4-9.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple inteliigencei for the 2P' oentury. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1 997). Theory of multiple intelligences. [COnLine]. Availa ble: h ~ p = / / w . c y b c 1 " 5 p a c e . c o m / b u i l d i n g / t ~ ~
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intehk~ences: The theory in practice. New York: Baiic Boo ke.
Gardner, H. (1991). ne unschooltd mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Book Publishers, Inc.
Gardner, H. (1983). Framei o f mind: n e theory o f multiple inelligences. New York: Basic 000 ks.
Georg, M. (1997). Purposehl learning through multiple intelligences. Nevada City, CA: Performance Learning 5ymms, Inc.
Good, T. (1979). Teacher eFfectiveness in the elernentary school: What we know about it now. Journal of Teacher Education, 30,52-64.
Goodlad. J.I. (1984). A place calleci ichool. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Gordon, T. (1974). Teacher Hectiveness training. New York: Peter Wyden.
Grant, G. (1988). The w o M we created a t Hamirton High. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pretis.
Grant, G. (1991). Ways ofcondmcting classroom meaning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23, 397-408.
Greene, M. (1993). The paeeioni of pluralism: Multiculturalism and the expanding community, Mucational Researcher, S2(1), 13-10.
Gretc hen, L.R (1997). EQ Emotional intelligence Workshop. pn-Line]. Availa ble: - hCtp=//~.aha4f(id~.corn/E9, Work4hop.html
Grow, C. (1995). Writing and multiple intelligences. ED379662. 24pp.
Hatch, T.C., & Gardner, H. (1986). From te i t ing intelligence to a5wsing corn petcnciei: A pluralisic view of intellect. Roeper Review, 8(3), 147-150.
Hatch, T.C. (1993). From resea rc h to reform: Finding better ways to put theory into practice. Educational Horizons, 77(4), 197-202.
Henson, KT. (1988). M e t h o h and stra-ies for teaching in se~ondary and middlô ichook. New York: Long man.
Hoerr, T.R (1997). The naturalist intelligence. [On-line]. Available: h~pr//~~~.new)lorizons.org/tnn_hoerrmi.html
Hoerr, T.R (1992). How Our school applied multiple intelligences theory. Educational Leademhip, 50(2), 67-72.
Hohneister, A., & Lu bke. M. (1990). Reiearch into praotice: lmplementing &&ive teaching dxategies. Bo&on: Allyn and Bacon.
Hudgini, J.M., Cone, W.H., & Yoder, W.H., Jr. (1990). Guide for clas5roorn obiervation and &&ive teaching. Du buque, Iowa: Kenda IllHunt Pu blishing Company.
Huntcr, M. (1902). Mastery teaching. El Segundo, California: TIP Publications.
Jackson, ?.W. (1986). The prac t i~e o f teaching. New York Teac hers College Press.
Jensen. A.R. (1997). The piychometrici oi intelligence. In H. Nyborg (ed.), 7he icientific study of human nature. (pp. 221-239). New York: Elsevier.
JO hnsoon, C.E.¶ Ellett, C.D., & Capie. W. (1980). An introduction to the teacher pedumance assessrnent inarument5: 7heir uses and limitations. Athens, GA: tJniver5ity of Georg ia, College of Eûucation, Teacher Assessrnent Project.
Joyce, B., Weil, M. (1986). Mode15 of teaching. Englewood CI-fi5, NJ: Prentice-Hill, Inc. Iiaacson, R, McKeachie, W., & Milhoiland, J. (1963). Correlation ofteacher permnality variables and student ratinge. Journal of Eaucational P5ychology, 54-(2), 110-117.
Kauchak, D., & Eggen, P.D. (1909). Learning and *aching: Research bas& methods. 00-n: Allyn & Bacon.
Klien, P.D. (1997). Multiplying t he problems of intelligence by eig ht: A critique of Gardner's theory. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 377-394.
Kond rat, D.C. (1989). 5tudent iJ viewi of the Madeline Hunter Model of Teacher Effktivene55 (M.= thesis). Edmonton: Universiw of Alberta.
bon. J., & Murray. H.C. (1995). Ueing multiple outcomes to validate student ratingi of overall teacher flectiveness. Journal o f Higher Education, 66(1), 61-81.
Korn ha ber, M. (1997). Se8Cciiig ~ t r e n g t h i : Equitable identification for gif=teA education and the theory of multiple inteiligencei. (Doctoral di55ertation) Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate 5chool of Education.
Krechevslgr, M. (1991). Project Bpectrurn: An innovative assessrnent alternative. Educational Leadetship, 48(5),43-48.
Lazear, D. (1994). Multiple intelligent approaches to assesanent: 501ving the as ie isment conundrum. Tuscon, AZ: Zephyr Press.
Lazear, D. (1991). Seven wayi ofteaching. Palatine, IL, 5kylight Publi5hing.
Levine, J.M. (1989). 5econdary instruction. Boston: Al iyn and Bacon.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L (1984). Teachem, their world, and their w o k Alexandria, VA: Asociat ion for 5upervision and Curriculum Development.
Lig htfoot, 5.L (1983). The good high ichool. New York: Baiic Book5, Inc.
Lortie, DL. (1975). Schoolfzacher: A 5ociological Study. Chicago: University Prei i .
Lunenburg, F., & Schmidt, L. (1989). Pupil control idwlogy, pupil control behavior and quality of sc ho01 life. Journal o f Researzh and Development in Education, 22(4), 35-44.
Marsh, H.W. (1982). SEEQ: A reliable, valid, and usehl indrurnerh for collecting audents' evaluations of university teaching. Br i t i ih Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(1): '77- 95.
Marsh, H.W. (1987). Studente' evaluatione of university teaching: Research findinge, rnethodoiogical iisuei, and directions for future research. lntemational Journal of Ed ucational Research, 77,253-388.
McCracken, G. (1988). 7he long irttewiew: Qualitative research methodi (vol. 13). Newbury Park, California: sage.
McDermott, M. (1997a). Multiple irtMigence5: The eight learning 5tyld5. [On-Line]. Available: h~p://~.fami~di5n4/.com/Ca~orie5/Lear. ../don~197rnultin~l/don~707mu\tin~l12.html
McDermott, M. ( 1997b). Multiple intelligences: Introduction. pn-Line]. Available: h t tp : / /ww~. fami~d i5n~ .~om/Ca~or ie5 /Lea r...e~/fami~~7997710/dony~dony707m~ltintel/
McKeachie, W.J., Lin, Y.G., Daugherty, M . Moffetl, M., Niegler, C., Nork, J., Walz, M., and Baldwin, R. (1980). Uiing i tudent ratings and coniultation to improve instruction. British Journal of Educa tional P5ychology, 50,168-174.
Nelson, K. (1995). Nurturing kidé ieven ways of being smart. Instructar, 105(1), 26-30.
Norton, RW. (1983). Comrnunicator *le: Theov, applications. and meaiures. Beverly H i l k CA: Sage Publications.
Ocepek, W. (1993). Seleoted elementi of eFFective teaching: A study of perceptions o f high 5chool teachee in lllinoii, Indiana, and Ohio (Doctoral dissertation). Akron, OH: University of Akron.
Ocepek LJ. (1906). A nation preparcd: Teachers for the SIsC ~entury. New York: Paper presented a t the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.
0 rnstein, A.C. (1 995). Beyo nd effective teac h ing . Pea body Journal o f Education. 70(2), 2-23.
Patrick, JI and Bmart, RM. (1998). An empirical evaluation ofteacher effectiveneis: the emergence of three critical factors. Assessrnent & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 165-178.
Percy, RL. (1990). The effect;~ ofteacher effectiveness training on the attitudes and behaviours of classroom teacher~. Mucational Research Quarte& 74(1), 15-20.
Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodnes'i of qualitative reaearch. Educational f?e5ear&er, 27,23-29.
Peterson, P.L. (1979). Direct instruction: Effective for what and for whom? Educational Leadership, 73,508-526.
Porter, A.C., & Brophy, J. (1980). 5ynthesis o f reiearch on good teaching: lnsights from the work of the InstiZute for Research on Teaching. Mucational Leadership, 45(8), 74-05.
Powell, KG., & Arthur, R (1982). The use of i tudent evaluations for the improvement o f graduate student teaching. Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Louisville.
Powell, KG., & Arthur, R. (1985). Perception5 of affective communication and teaching efYect;iveness a t different times in the semester. Communication Quartedy, 33,254-261.
Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator ofteaching quality in higher education: the course experience questionnaire. 5tudies in Higher Llucation, 16,129-150.
Rivera, D.B. (1996). An investigation into the validity and reliability o f the multiple intelligences inventmy for teachem. New Orleans: University of New Orleans.
Rose, J.5, & Medway, FJ. (1901). Meaiurement of teacherd beliek in their control over student outcome. Journal of €ducational Research, 74(3), 185-190.
bsenshine, B. (1983). Teaching functions in instructional programi. The Elementary Jchool Journal, 63,335-350.
bienshine, B., & F urit, N. (1973). The use of direct observation to study teaching. In R.M.W. Travers (M.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 122-103). Chicago: Rand- McNally.
Ryan, J.M., & Harrison, P.D. (1995). The relationihip between individual instructional cha racteristics and the overall asseessrnent of teaching efTectiveneii across different instructional contexts. Research in Higher Education, 36(5), 577-594.
Ryans, D. (1960). Characteri5tic5 o f teachem. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Educatt;ion.
Saadeh, 1. (1970). Teacher effectiveness or claiiroom efficiency: A new direction in the eva luation of teaching. Journal of Teacher Mucation, 21(l), 73-89.
Sattler, J. (1992). A55eiiment of children. San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc.
5 hea rer, C.B. (1997). 5tepping stone5: A teacher's workboo k for multiple intelligencei. Columbus, OH: Greydon Press.
Shepherd, G., and Trank, D. (1909). lndividual differences in consiitcncy of evaluation. Journal of Research & Deveiopment in Education, 22(3), 4552.
. Shulman. J.H. (1992). Caie methods in teacheredwation. New York: Teacher College Prese, Columbia University.
Silver, H., 5trong, R., and Perini, M. (1997). lntegrating learning i ty les and multiple intelligences. Educational Leademhip, 55(1), 22-27.
Silvernail, D.L. (1986). Teaching styies as related to studerrt achievement. Waehington, DL: National Education Association.
Sizer, T. (1987). High school reform and the reform of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 3&3(1), 28-34.
Sizr, T.R. (1984). Horace3 comprorniw: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Smith, O., Peterion, D., & Micceri, T. (1987). Evaluation and prdessional improvement aspects of the Florida performance measurernent Wstern. Edu~ational Leadeahip, 44,16-19.
%ar, R, & Soar, R (1976). An attempt to identiS meaiures of teacher dfectiveneiî from four audies. Journal of Teacher Education, 27,261 -267.
501aq J. (1992). Invesigating teacher and audent thinking about the proces5 ofteaching and learning using autobiography and repertory grid. Review of Educational Re~earch, 62, 205-225.
Spearman, C. (1927). 73e abilfties of man. New York Macmillan.
Spearman, C. (1904). 'General Intelligence' objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15,201-293.
Stallings. J. (1976). How instructional proce55ei relate to child outcornes in a national study of follow throug h. Journal o f Teacher Wucation, 27,43-47.
Sternberg, RJ. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theoryoihuman intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stroh, L.K. (1906). Student evaluation o f teacherc: The impact on teacher eFFec-tiveness and prde5sionality. Montrea l: Concord ia University.
Syrnonds, P. (1955). Characteristici of the effective teacher baeed on pupil evaluations. Journal o f hperimentaf Education, 23.298310.
Teele, S. (1992). "Teele lnventory for Multiple Intelligences. Rkrside, CA: Sue Teele & Associates.
Terman, L.M. (1916). The measurernent o f intelligence. New York: tioughton Mifflin.
The OnCario Curriculum: Grades 77 and 12 (EngIish). (2000). Miniary of Education.
TO rff, B., (1997). Multiple intelligence5 and a55esment: A collection of articles. 1 R1/5kylig h t Training and Publiehing, Inc.: Arlington Heights, IL.
Walteri, J., & Gardner, H. (1984). The development and education of intelligencee. In R Fogarty & J. Bel la nca (eds.) (1995), Multiple inteIligences: A collection, K-72 ( pp. 51 -76). Pa latine, IL: 5lcylight Publishing.
Westbury, M. (1988). The science and the a r t of teacher effectivene55: An examination oi two resea rch traditions. Canadian Journal o f Education,l3(1), 138-103.
White, N., Blythe, T., & Gardner, H. (1992). In R Fogarty & J. Bellanca (Eds.) (1995), MultÏple intelligences: A collection K-12 (pp. 179-194). Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishing.
Wigginton, E. (1905). 5ometimes a shining moment: The foxfre expetience. New York Anchor PresdDou bleday.
Willower, D J., Hoy, W. K., & Eidell, T.L. (1 967). me ichoo I and pupil control ideology (Study No, 24). University Park, PA: Penn 5 a t e University.
Wilson, B.L., & Corcoran, T.B. (1900). 5ucce5sful secondary 5chooli. London: The Fa lmer Press.
Wood, J. (1992). Adapting ln5truction for Mainitrearned and At-Ri& Stude-, (2"4 ed.), Columbus, OH: Merili.
Worthen, B. (1993). Critical issuee that will determine the future of alternative a~essrnent . Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 444454.
Zumwalt, K.K. (cd.). (1906). lmproving tea~hing. Alexandria, VA: As50ciation for 5upervision and Curriculum Developrnent.