ERIC ED382634: Evaluation of an Instrument for Measuring Multiple Intelligences.

49 Pages·1995·0.64 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
TM 023 063
ED 382 634
Osborne, Francis; And Others
AUTHOR
Evaluation of an Instrument for Measuring Multiple
TITLE
Intelligences.
PUB DATE
[95]
49p.; Revised version of a paper presented at the
NOTE
Annual Meeting of the Kentucky Academy of Sciences
(Ashland, KY, October 1992).
Research/Technical (143)
Reports
PUB TYPE
Tests/Evaluation
Speeches /Conference Papers (150)
Instruments (160)
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Academic Achievement; *College Students; Educational
DESCRIPTORS
Assessment; Grades .(Scholastic); Higher Education;
Intelligence; *Intelligence Tests; *Measurement
Techniques; *Prediction; *Test Use; Vocabulary
Skills
*Multiple Intelligences; Multiple Intelligences
IDENTIFIERS
Challenge; Self Evaluation of Seven Useful Abilities;
Self Report Measures
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the present study was to assess the
instruments as predictor
use of multiple intelligence assessment
measurements of achievement. The sample included 51 male and female
students enrolled in two sections of an introductory psychology
Intelligences
course. They were asked to complete the Multiple
Challenge (MIC) and the Self Evaluation of Seven Useful Abilities
(SEVAL) instruments. Separately, the subjects also completed a timed
vocabulary test. The results indicated that the seven categories on
both the MIC and the SEVAL were not predictive of achievement in the
classroom as determined by mid-term grades, ACT tests, or the
vocabulary test. Findings suggested that Gardner's multiple
intelligence abilities are either not unique or not accurately
assessable by paper and pencil instruments. Appendix A contains the
MIC and Appendix E presents the SEVAL instruments. (Contains 15
references and 9 tables.)
(Author)
*******************************************---******************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
Multiple Intelligence
1
Evaluation of an Instrument for Measuring
Multiple Intelligences
Francis Osborne Brian Newton Daniel Fasko
Morehead State University
THIS
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE
U.S OEAKTMENT OF EDUCATION
BY
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED
Dints 01 Educational Research and Improramont
12:g6\1}
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
n/U /
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been (produced Is
receved from the person Or organization
originat.ng It
madef to improve
0 Minor changes have been
reproduction duality
RESOURCES
TO THE EDUCATIONAL
Points of view or oprniont Stiffed in thisdocui
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).-
rent do not necesailly represent °Social
OF Fu position or policy
Running head: MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE
BEST COPY AULABLE
2
Multiple Intelligence
2
Abstract
multiple
The purpose of the present study was to assess the use of
achievement.
intelligence assessment instruments as predictor measurements of
sections of
The sample included 51 male and female students enrolled in two
asked to complete the Multiple
an introductory psychology course. They were
Intelligences Challenge (MIC) and the Self Evaluation of Seven Useful
Abilities (SEVAL) instruments. Separately, the subjects also completed a
both
timed vocabulary test.. The results indicated that the seven categories on
classroom
the MIC and the SEVAL were not predictive of achievement in the
the vocabulary test.
as determined by mid-term grades, ACT tests, or
Findings suggested that Gardner's multiple intelligence abilities are either not
unique or not accurately assessable by paper and pencil instruments.
Multiple intelligence
3
Evaluation of an Instrument for Measuring Multiple Intelligences
competing
Throughout the history of psychology, there have been many
psychologists
theories of intelligence. Despite these different theories, many
of intelligence as the overall capacity
agree on the basic conceptual definition
have
for learning and problem solving. The major differences in theories
involved whether this overall capacity is unitary or multifaceted.
One popular theory of unitary intelligence was pioneered by E.L.
Thorndike. Thorndike believed that mental capacities have commonalities that
Thorndike
form intellectual clusters (cited in Oakland & Parma lee, 1985).
skills),
specified three clusters of mental ability: social intelligence (people
intelligence (verbal and
concrete intelligence (dealing with things), and abstract
mathematical skills) (cited in Oakland & Parma lee, 1985). However, outside
numerical ability
the commonalities there may be, for example, an all-round
(Murphy, 1951). This numerical ability would have a significant effect on the
cluster of abstract intelligence.
Another unitary approach to intelligence is Charles Spearman's theory
of intelligence. Spearman speculated that everyone has a general intelligence
(cited in
factor, defined as g, as well as a specific task related ability, labeled
Guilford, 1967). Spearman's g is involved in "operations of a deductive
Multiple Intelligence
4
of a person's
nature, linked with skill, speed, intensity, and extensity
intellectual output" (Oakland & Parmelee, 1985, p. 703). For Spearman,
one's performance on an intellectual task is reflective of ,g and associated
abilities specific to that task. However, efforts to provide support for this
theory concluded that more than one common ,g factor was needed to account
for the data (Horn, 1987).
theory
J.P. Guilford challenged the unitary position with his multifactor
Guilford (1967) constructed a structure-of-intellect model that
of intelligence.
involved 120 factors. These factors were derived from five categories:
operation (cognition, memory, divergent production, convergent thinking, and
evaluation); four content categories (figural, symbolic, semantic, and
behavioral); and six product categories (units, classes, relations, systems
transformations, and implications). Guilford hypothesized that intelligence
could be understood by the mental operations performed, the type of contents
results of the operations
on which the operations were performed, and the
(cited in Oakland & Parmelee, 1985).
Another supporter of the multifactor theory of intelligence is Howard
Gardner. Gardner, while recognizing the advantages of a unitary concept of
intelligence, such as the ability to categorize easily an individual's level of
Multiple Intelligence
5
did not do
intelligence based on a test score, believed that a unitary approach
Gardner
justice to the strengths and weaknesses in assessing an individual.
unique cognitive
(1983) proposed seven primary intelligences. An individual's
structure was based on the combination of these intelligences.
Gardner's (1983) seven intelligences cover a broad range of capabilities
summarizes the
which can be used to predict occupational aptitudes. Table I
logical-mathematical intelligence consists
seven intelligences. For example, a
logical or
of the core components of "sensitivity to and capacity to discern
numerical patterns as well as abilities to handle long chains of reasoning"
(Gardner & Hatch, 1989, p. 4). One possessing skill in this area would be
mathematical professions.
career orienkd toward the scientific and
Insert Table 1 about here
Because Gardner believes that intelligence is multifaceted, he believes
for
that standardized tests already in use in the classroom are inadequate
measuring intellectual capacity (Gardner, 1983). Intelligence can not be
reduced to a single number, such as the Intelligence Quotient (IQ), for
Gardner. Past work in learning and intelligence shows that laboratory tasks
Multiple Intelligence
6
everyday life, or
and intelligence tests may not transfer to one'sperformance in
exercise
conversely, one's everyday life may not be expressed in a laboratory
or intelligence test (Sternberg, 1985).
Gardner and Hatch (1989) predict that a strength in a particular
intelligence category can guide a student's aptitude toward a particular field of
study. Gardner's complaint regarding the traditional educational system is its
emphasis on logical-mathematical and linguistic abilities from kindergarten to
graduate school (Gardner & Hatch, 1986). The traditional educational system
bypasses people with dominant abilities in the remaining five categories.
Gardner insists that for the field of education to truly meet the needs of
students currently in formal education, as well as generations of students to
differences for
come, the system must adapt to meet various individual
maximum intellectual gain (Kornhaber, Krechevsky, & Gardner, 1990). That
is, students' needs must be quickly and accurately assessed so that the
educational system can adapt to maximize each students' intellectual gain.
To truly assess a person's cognitive structure one must be able to
differentiate between the strength of one ability over another. Gardner
through
proposes that the range of human intelligences is best assessed
performance based instruments (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). The education
7
Multiple Intelligence
7
such as the ACT and SAT, for
system already implements standardized tests,
capabilities. Gardner claims that
assessment of linguistic and mathematical
accurately assess all
performance based instruments need to be developed to
according to
the intelligences (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). For example,
involve a physical
Gardner (1983), a test of one's kinesthetic ability should
questionnaire to maximize true
task and not a pencil and paper test or
of such measurement tools is of
assessment of the ability. The development
importance so new teaching methods may be implemented.
Challenge in
Walters (1929) developed the Multiple Intelligences
Walters'
order to quickly evaluate Gardner's Multiple Intelligence concept.
which offers
(1992) Multiple Intelligence ChallengeTM is a 79 question test
The subject's task is
between 7 and 18 alternatives ,,o nine different situations.
each situation which best describes
to choose one or more alternatives within
subject's choices
the subject's abilities in that situation. Presumably, the
the
describe the subject's strengths and weaknesses and indirectly evaluate
categories. Whether
subject's aptitude for each of Gardner's seven intelligence
ChallengeTM accurately assesses different
or not The Multiple Intelligences
and later
intelligences or that it can be used as a predictor of performance
success is yet to be validated.
Multiple Intelligence
8
The specific purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the
performance.
multiple intelligence assessment instruments to predict academic
of
The multiple intelligence categories were assessed using an adaptation
form
Walters' Multiple Intelligences Challenge' and a self evaluation
developed by Osborne and Osborne (1992). Academic performance was
measured via ACT scores, a vocabulary test, and midterm grades.
Presumably the linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences should be
Hatch
positively correlated With academic performance since, as Gardner and
(1986) point out, the education system is biased toward language and
mathematical ability.
Method
Subjects
Students (N=51) from two introductory psychology class sections
participated in the study in exchange for course credit. Twenty-two subjects
(Females=20, Males=2) from a summer school class at a satellite campus of
students (Females =18, Males =11) from the
a southeastern university and 29
main campus during the Fall semester of 1992 were used for analysis.
Multiple Intelligence
9
Materials
Three instruments were used to profile each subject's seven
intelligences as hypothesized by Gardner (1983).
(MIC)
1. An adaptation of Thel&lanleIntelligeneesSlagngel
1
developed by Walters (1992) was used. The original version of this test
Subjects were instructed to
contained 79 items distributed over nine situations.
choose 2 or 3 items in each section which were descriptive of them given that
section. The original test was scored by summing items which were presumed
associated with each of the seven intelligences. Because this technique
disregards 50 to 60 of the potential 79 items, the test was revised such that
subjects rated themselves on each of the 79 items using 5 point Likert-type
Scores for each intelligence category were derived by summing all
scales.
questions related to a given MIC category. Table 2 presents the 12 MIC items
used for determining linguistic intelligence. The top ten items in the table are
summed and the last two items are reverse scored (where 1=5, 5=1, etc.) and
added to obtain a linguistic raw score. Because the MIC inventory has an
unequal number of questions deriving each intelligence score, each raw score
was divided by the number of questions to obtain the raw score. Therefore,