Mi theory 4

THE THEORY OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES

AND CRITICAL THINKING

by

Paula J. Zobisch

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

June 2005

UMI Number: 3174529

31745292005

UMI MicroformCopyright

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

Abstract

This study examines whether or not teaching critical thinking

by using the theory of multiple intelligences increases

critical thinking comprehension. Student perception of an

instructor’s use of multiple intelligence techniques was

assessed in critical thinking courses.

iii

Dedication

This dissertation and all its hard work, hopes, and

dreams are dedicated to my sons, Brian and Matthew, and my

granddaughter, Riley. I’ve tried so hard to teach all of you

education opens doors that won’t open any other way; I hope

the example I have set will encourage you to dream big and

work hard.

iv

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge and thank my committee chair,

Elaine Guerrazzi, for having the courage to join my

dissertation committee midstream. I have appreciated your

candor and expertise, Elaine, and especially am grateful for

your encouragement. Thanks also to my committee members, Jerry

Roger, Keith Pratt, and Mary Dereshiwsky, for your

encouragement and expertise. Finally, I would like to express

a special thank you to my stats consultant, Don Platine, whose

guidance was immeasurable throughout this entire process.

v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 3

Statement of the Problem 4

Purpose of the Study 5

Research Questions 5

Nature of the Study 7

Significance of the Study 8

Definition of Terms 9

Assumptions and Limitations 13

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 14

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 16

Introduction 16

Rationale 16

Theoretical Framework 18

Academic Psychology 33

Measuring Multiple Intelligence 36

Applying MI in Higher Education Institutions 37

vi

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 39

Introduction 39

Methodology 39

Theoretical Framework 40

Research Design 41

Sampling Design 44

Measures 45

Data Collection 47

Data Analysis 48

Statistical Procedures 50

Limitation of Methodology 51

Expected Findings and Ethical Issues 52

Pilot Testing 53

Time lines 54

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 55

Introduction 55

Description of Data 56

Data Analysis Process 57

Statistical Procedures 60

Findings and Results 62

Qualitative Analysis 67

vii

Summary 70

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS,RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 71

Introduction 71

Summary of the Study 71

Findings and Conclusions 74

Recommendations 77

Future Research 78

Implications 80

REFERENCES 82

APPENDIX A. STUDENT MI PREFERENCES 88

APPENDIX B. FINAL EXAM 92

APPENDIX C. STUDENT PERCEPTIONS 95

APPENDIX D. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION 99

APPENDIX E. CODING CATEGORIES FOR QUESTIONNAIRE 101

viii

List of Tables

Table 1a. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Critical Thinking 28

Table 1b. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Critical Thinking 29

Table 2a. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Multiple Intelligences 30

Table 2b. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Multiple Intelligences 31

Table 3. Research Question 1 63



CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Many adults are ill prepared to live, work, and function

effectively in our fast-paced and highly technical society

(Vaske, 2001). In fact, based on the 1992 test results of

adult literacy, nearly half of American adults do not perform

at the level of literacy considered by the National Education

Goals Panel to be necessary for competing successfully in a

global economy and for exercising the rights and

responsibilities of citizenship (Gronlund, 1993). The

challenge is how to develop the skills needed to be productive

and informed members of a world market led by constant change.

In response to this challenge, educators, employers, and

society at large began calling for the development of critical

thinking skills (Brookfield, 1987; Davis & Botkin, 1995;

Glaser & Resnick, 1991; Halpern, 1993; Kerka, 1992; Paul,

1990; Sternberg, 1985a). They argued that to thrive and

compete in the Information Age, individuals must ask

questions, challenge assumptions, invent new ways of solving

problems, connect new knowledge to information they already

have, and apply their knowledge and reasoning skills in new

MI and Critical Thinking 2

situations. In short, individuals must develop critical

thinking skills.

Adult educators, however, may not be using the best

methods of teaching adults to think critically. In the

traditional classroom, a teacher lectures while standing at

the front of the classroom and writes on the board, questions

students about assigned readings or handouts, and waits as

students finish written work (Stanford, 2003). Instead, the

academic literature supports the notion of different learning

styles or preferences (Knowles, 1980; McCarthy, 2000; Merriam

& Caffarella, 1999; Sternberg, 1997). A more effective method

of teaching and increasing student comprehension of critical

thinking is to implement Gardner’s (1993a) theory of multiple

intelligences (MI) into teaching strategies. The MI theory is

described as a philosophy of education or an attitude toward

teaching (Armstrong, 1994) in the spirit of John Dewey’s

(1916, 1938) ideas on progressive education, rather than a set

program of fixed techniques and strategies. It offers

educators a broad opportunity to creatively adapt its

fundamental principles to any number of educational settings.

Implications for school reform and classroom application

include expanded teaching strategies, curricular adaptations,

and expanded student assessment. In fact, unsuccessful,


unmotivated students have experienced academic growth when

exposed to the multifaceted techniques of MI (Janes,

Koutsopanagos, Mason, & Villaranda, 2000).

Berkemeir (2002) found the use of multiple intelligence

techniques in teaching math led to increased comprehension as

measured by final test scores. A review of the literature,

however, has not identified additional research studies on

multiple intelligences and learning outcomes.

Background of the Study

Although Gardner’s Frames of Mind was published in 1983,

further studies in the academic literature remain limited. It

is difficult to know what insight further studies would

provide in this area of education. One can only imagine the

possibilities of information and data that can be collected

regarding MI and the adult population. Brookfield (1990)

claims critical thinking is necessary for survival in personal

relationships, for survival in the workplace, and for

maintaining a democratic world. Merriam and Brockett believed

learning to think critically can lead to “empowerment,

transformation, and emancipation—in short, social action”

(1997, p. 255). Unfortunately, traditional methods of teaching

critical thinking leave many students bewildered with little


or no comprehension of the critical thinking process. There

are several reasons why the student population at an adult

education institution is important to the investigation of

teaching critical thinking through the use of MI techniques.

If critical thinking mastery can be improved through the use

of MI techniques, a democratic society could be stronger;

global competition could also be strengthened.

Statement of the Problem

Since the researcher teaches critical thinking courses at

a nontraditional adult education institution and is searching

for approaches to improve student comprehension, this raises

the question whether or not the use of MI techniques could

increase critical thinking comprehension. This question could

be approached from several directions; however, the focus of

this study will be on the student perception of the

instructor’s use of MI techniques.

If critical thinking is the ultimate goal of adult

education, as the literature suggests, how can educators teach

the skill in order to raise student comprehension? The

traditional method of higher education must be reexamined in

order to determine if additional teaching methods could be


introduced in order to increase learner comprehension of

critical thinking.

Purpose of the Study

Since so little research exists on this topic, this study

is an exploratory study to determine whether or not additional

research (which could lead to activities such as faculty

training and/or student exposure to MI techniques) would be

valuable.

Research Questions

1. The major research question for this study is, Does

perception of an instructor’s use of MI techniques

enhance critical thinking mastery as measured by

scores on a standard test?

2. Does an instructor’s use of MI techniques that match

students’ preferences help students achieve higher

critical thinking test scores?

3. Do students reporting more use of MI techniques by

an instructor achieve higher critical thinking test

scores?

Since the literature declares “perception is reality”

(Griffin, 2004, ¶ 1; Holland, 2004, ¶ 4), when working with


instructional techniques, it is more important to understand

what the learners perceive occurred than what MI technique

might actually have been used.

For example, if an instructor used a musical intelligence

MI technique that was not recognized by the class as an MI

technique, it would be ineffective and equivalent to not

having been used. Similarly, if the musical MI technique was

used but perceived as a different MI technique, the student

still recognized the use of an MI technique. Therefore, this

study will focus on the perception of the use of a variety of

MI techniques rather than the correct identification of the

actual MI technique used.

While much has been written about critical thinking as a

framework for adult education, little is known about the adult

educator’s perceived practice as to the most effective

teaching methods for the student comprehension of critical

thinking. Without this information, the field of adult

education might continue to espouse the relevance of critical

thinking skills, but adult learners might not develop the

critical thinking skills essential to the quality of their

lives. Examining what effect the theory of Multiple

Intelligence could have on the comprehension level of critical

thinking could improve the likelihood of greater understanding


and the grasp of the critical thinking skills so needed in

adult living.

Nature of the Study

The research study will utilize a mixed method of study,

including both qualitative and quantitative methods. According

to Jick (1979), using more than a single method of study can

cancel any potential bias of any one single method and serve

to triangulate data sources. This study will use

questionnaires to assess student perceptions, a matching-item

exam to assess content mastery, and a focus group to verify

student perceptions of instructor use of MI techniques. It is

hoped the focus group data collection will reinforce the

accuracy of the end-of-course questionnaire. Actual methods of

data collection will include an initial Multiple Intelligence

questionnaire to determine each student’s preferences

(Appendix A), a final exam (Appendix B), an end-of-course

questionnaire to assess student perception of instructor use

of MI techniques (Appendix C), and open-ended interviews

(Appendix D). Volunteer faculty members allow the researcher

to administer the respective questionnaires to their

respective classes; focus group discussions will be conducted

by the researcher during the last class of the critical


thinking course. The convenience sample will consist of

students taking critical thinking classes at an urban

nontraditional adult education institution. The sample will

contain approximately 60 students.

Significance of the Study

The study examines if increased comprehension of critical

thinking skills is achieved through the student perceived

instructor use of several MI presentation techniques. By

increasing comprehension of the critical thinking process,

more informed evaluation and scrutiny of information, better

decisions, and increased conflict resolution skills can be

achieved (Mettetal, Jordan, & Harper, 1997). This study may be

of interest to instructors and administrators at adult

education institutions who are concerned with increasing

success rates, improving retention, and improving curriculum

standards. Students may also experience improved instructional

techniques that will focus on different learning styles;

course materials may be presented in a manner more engaging

and encourage student learning. The results of this study may

also influence the type of faculty professional development

programs offered.


Definition of Terms

Terms used throughout this study are defined below.

Adult. An individual performing social roles typically

assigned by our culture to those it considered adults such as

the roles of worker, spouse, or parent. A person is adult “to

the extent the individual perceives herself or himself to be

essentially responsible for her or his own life” (Knowles,

1980, p. 24).

Adult education. “The process whereby persons whose major

social roles are characteristic of adult status undertake

systematic and sustained learning activities for the purpose

of bringing about changes in knowledge, attitudes, values, or

skills” (Darkenwald & Merriam, 1982, p. 9).

Adult educators. Individuals who are currently teaching

or previously have taught undergraduate and graduate level

courses in adult education institutions granting undergraduate

and graduate degrees.

Adult learners. Individuals who have multiple roles and

responsibilities and have accumulated many life experiences,

who, in passing through a number of developmental phases,

reinterpret and rearrange their past experience, and who

experience anxiety and ambivalence toward learning

(Brookfield, 1986).


Comprehension. “The inductive thinking and reasoning

patterns that start with observing factors in a given

situation and then making generalizations based on things that

have been observed time and time again” (Lazear, 1999, p. 41).

Comprehension is comparing something against a standard; this

pattern of thinking is very prevalent in our society. There

are preestablished standards, or generalizations, everywhere,

such as performance standards in the workplace, achievement

standards in the classroom, safety standards for the

construction industry, and standards of health, cleanliness,

and quality in the food industry. Standards are created by

human beings and can be changed as needed; however, skill in

applying preestablished standards and generalizations to

specific information, data, and situations is a key skill for

effective modern living.

Perkins (Campbell, Campbell, & Dickinson, 1999) describes

comprehension as understanding and the nature of human

insight. Perkins contrasts the concept of comprehension, or

understanding, with knowledge. When a person knows something,

the statement usually means he or she has mentally stored

information and can readily retrieve it. By contrast, when a

student comprehends, or understands, something, it is assumed

the skills surpass the stored information. Perkins maintains


that comprehension refers to what individuals can do with

information rather than what they have memorized. Insight

involves action more than possession; when students

comprehend, or understand, something, they can explain

concepts in their own words, use information appropriately in

new contexts, and make fresh analogies and generalizations.

Memorization and recitation are not indicative of

comprehension as measured by Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et

al., 2001; Bloom, 1956).

Confounding variables. The confounding variables for

purposes of this study potentially include ethnicity, gender,

age, prior multiple intelligence knowledge, and student

multiple intelligence preferences.

Critical thinking. There are many variations on the

definition of critical thinking, resulting in “considerable

confusion and vagueness about the concept” (Garrison, 1991, p.

287). After conducting a meta-analysis of 20 studies of

critical thinking, Bangert-Drowns and Bankert (1990) reported

that critical thinking has been equated with a multiplicity of

constructs, including intelligence, domain-specific expertise,

problem solving, logic and sound reasoning, and other higher

order mental activities.


Dependent variable. The dependent variable for purposes

of this study is the standard critical thinking test score

(Appendix B).

Independent variable. The independent variable for

purposes of this study is the end-of-course questionnaire

assessing student perception of an instructor’s use of MI

techniques (Appendix C).

Intelligence. Gardner defined intelligence as

A set of skills of problem-solving—enabling the individual to resolve genuine problems or difficulties that he or she encounters and, when appropriate, to creative an effective product and must also entail the potential for finding or creating problems thereby laying the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge. (1993a, p. 60)

Multiple intelligence. Howard Gardner’s (1993a) theory of

multiple intelligences was introduced in his book, Frames of

Mind. Gardner believes all humans are born with the following

eight intelligences in varying degrees: linguistic, musical,

logical/mathematical, spatial, bodily/kinesthetic,

interpersonal, intrapersonal, and nature. Gardner believes

each intelligence has its unique characteristics, and

educators who adapt their teaching methods to include all

intelligences have an increased opportunity to engage learners

in the learning process and to increase comprehension of the

subject studied.


Assumptions and Limitations

Assumptions

An assumption of this study is that students can

recognize the use of various MI techniques. In addition, it is

assumed the critical thinking test that will be given during

the last class of the critical thinking course will accurately

measure the concepts to be presented using MI techniques.

Limitations

A significant limitation is the student’s desire to

master the critical thinking course material. Another

limitation involves the data level. While the Likert scale

used in the questionnaire is assumed to be at least interval-

level data (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996), the data level may only

be ordinal, questioning the accuracy and appropriateness of

Pearson’s correlation. Since the focus group discussions will

be held after the formal end of the course, the students may

be more interested in leaving than in participating in the

discussion.

A limiting factor to the MI inventory relates to self-

reporting. Surveys or questionnaires do not represent complete

objectivity (Berkemeir, 2002). According to the Berkemeir


study, there are five factors that may generate misleading

information:

1. Surveys only tap respondents who are accessible and

cooperative.

2. Respondents have to feel that their participation is

a normal and natural process to avoid any form of

slanted or biased answers.

3. The researcher has to be careful of arousing

response sets.

4. Participants should be encouraged to not over rate

or under rate their responses.

5. Participants were unable to accurately identify

their self-perceived multiple intelligence.

Delimitation

The result of the study may not be generalizable beyond

the study due to the nonrandom nature of the sample selection.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature describing

the derivation, description, and educational implications of

Howard Gardner’s (1993a) MI theory. Various types of MI


instrumentation, such as the instrumentation selected for this

study, will be discussed and described.

Chapter 3 will address the qualitative and quantitative

methodology of the research study. This chapter also includes

information about the type of student population studied and

the instrumentation used for the data collection; proposed

data reporting and analysis procedures are also included.

Chapter 4 will present the analysis from the data, that

is, the findings and results. Chapter 5 will include the

summary of the research, conclusions drawn from the research,

recommendations for practical application of the study

results, recommendations for future related research, and

implications for future research.

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

According to Vaske (2001), many adults are not prepared

to function in the 21st century with its high technology.

Brookfield (1990) claims critical thinking is a necessary

skill in forming relationships and a democratic society, and

Merriam and Brockett (1997) declare thinking critically can

even lead to social action. Even though critical thinking

skills are seemingly the goals of education to benefit members

of a society and ensure its democratic governmental structure,

Hechinger (1987) claims the traditional methods attempting to

teach critical thinking have little or minimal relevance to

adult lives. Sternberg (1985a) also claims there exists a gap

between what is required for critical thinking as adults and

what educators are actually teaching as critical thinking.

Rationale

Given the increasing complexity of our society and the

different learning styles of students, the development of

critical thinking skills is a laudable goal and our best hope

of managing complex, day-to-day problems. Adult educators have

confirmed that critical thinking is within the purview of


adult education and, in fact, is a major goal of adult

education. Yet, little is known whether or not educators are

structuring their teaching methods to meet the different

learning styles and preferences of students. Are the best

teaching methods being utilized, or is there room for

improvement?

This study addresses a vital sector of today’s education

theory: Different learning styles and preferences of student

and MI theory and their relationship to student learning and

potential achievement in academic, professional, and personal

levels. Ultimately, if a determination can be made that MI

methods improve student comprehension, then perhaps MI should

be applied in all courses.

The New York Times reports, “The . . . schools have

discovered the importance of critical thinking, and many are

trying to teach how to do it” (Hechinger, 1987, p. 27). Yet

there seems to be no evidence that critical thinking skills

taught in schools have much relevance to the learning styles

and preferences of students. Many educators struggle with

finding ways to reach individual learning styles and needs;

one teaching method that can accommodate a variety of learning

styles is Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. Each of

the intelligences encompasses certain characteristics, and


these characteristics lend themselves to particular

professions. According to Gardner, educators need to alter

their instructional strategies to meet the needs of each

intelligence (Nolen, 2003). The literature suggests humans are

born with a certain amount of intelligence. Specific

intelligences are dominant while others are recessive; the

potential to develop all intelligences is possible (Brockman,

n.d.). Gardner (1993a) insists educators must have an

understanding of the importance of presenting course materials

using all the eight intelligences in order to reach learners

who each have a mixture of the intelligences. When educators

center activities focused toward learning within the needs and

learning styles of their students, students may become more

engaged in the classroom. Gardner believes educators who teach

toward the multiple intelligences realize the benefits of

active, engaged learners who have a higher chance of actually

learning course material by being capable of applying the

principles to other circumstances, thus reinforcing learning.

Theoretical Framework

Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Howard Gardner (1993a) disagrees there is only one single

method of teaching and is best known for his theory of


multiple intelligences. The work of Gardner has changed the

way people think and work in education, in the arts, in

cognitive psychology, and in medicine (Osciak, 2001). Through

his study of child prodigies, gifted individuals, brain

damaged patients, normal children, normal adults, experts in

different areas of work, and individuals from a variety of

cultures, Gardner (1993b) developed a theory that describes

and supports his belief of the existence of a number of

intelligences available to individuals. Educators can

significantly impact learning if they take the time to

understand and address the different types of MI

intelligences. Gardner stated, “Only if we expand and

reformulate our view of what counts as human intellect will we

be able to devise more appropriate ways of assessing it and

more effective ways of educating it” (1993b, p. 4).

Gardner defines intelligence as “the capacity to solve

problems or to fashion products that are valued in one or more

cultural settings” (Gardner & Hatch, 1989, p. 4). Many

educators struggle with finding ways to reach individual

learning styles and needs. One teaching method that can

accommodate a variety of learning styles is Gardner’s theory

of multiple intelligences. Each of the intelligences

encompasses certain characteristics, and these characteristics


lend themselves to particular professions. According to

Gardner, educators need to alter their instructional

strategies to meet the needs of each intelligence (Nolen,

2003).

Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences states all

humans are born possessing a certain amount of intelligence.

Specific intelligences are dominant while others are

recessive; the potential to develop all intelligences is

possible (Brockman, n.d.). One must have an understanding of

their intelligences’ strengths and weaknesses. Gardner

describes eight intelligences: linguistic, logical/

mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily kinesthetic,

interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. His

description for each intelligence is listed below:

Verbal/Linguistic. Verbal intelligence involves the

mastery of language; people with this intelligence enjoy

reading and tend to think in words. Their intelligence of

language leads them to fields such as teaching, journalism,

writing, law, and translation. Language helps them to be

better at memorizing information; verbal students are often

excellent at storytelling (Gardner, 1993a).


People with linguistic intelligence pay special attention

to grammar and vocabulary; they memorize best by using words.

Another advantage is they tend to be great at explaining;

people with this intelligence have a capacity for analyzing

language and creating a better understanding of what someone

actually means when using words. People with this intelligence

learn best by reading, writing, and giving oral reports about

something in their own lives.

Linguistic intelligence is one of the most highly

regarded intelligences and is a key component of the

traditional educational system.

Logical/Mathematical Intelligence. People with

logical/mathematical intelligence have the ability to detect

patterns, reason deductively, and think logically. Children

first experience this intelligence by setting items in order

or matching them with objects such as marbles. Later, children

are able to do math in their heads without the use of

manipulatives. As this intelligence grows, the love of

abstraction separates those with mathematical intelligence

from the rest. Students are able to follow long lines of

reasoning; these are usually the children who do well in a

traditional classroom because they are able to conform to the


role of the model student. This intelligence is also one of

the most highly regarded intelligences and a key component of

the traditional educational system.

Spatial Intelligence. Individuals with spatial

intelligence are able to visualize how something will look

before it is completed. Lazear (1999) suggests working with

artistic media, designing skills to communicate an idea or

opinion, or designing a house or color scheme.

Spatial intelligence grows out of the visual world,

although blind people can also form spatial intelligence. As

this intelligence gives a sense of direction and accuracy, it

is most common with hunters and travelers. Other professions

with this intelligence include a navigator, guide, architect,

or lighting designer. People with spatial intelligence often

enjoy playing chess. Other areas of enjoyment could include

painting or sculpting. Spatial intelligence relates with the

concrete world that is directly opposite to people who relate

to the world through logical/mathematical intelligence.

Musical Intelligence. This is one of the earliest

intelligences to emerge in children (Gardner, 1993a); those

with musical intelligence have a strong understanding of


pitch, rhythm, and timbre. Traditional education tends to

minimize the importance of music and music education, but

music can act as a way of identifying and expressing feelings.

Additionally, musical intelligence also relates to other

intelligences, such as the logical/mathematical intelligence,

because it contains musical patterns of rhythm and beat found

in the logical/mathematical intelligence.

Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence. Bodily/Kinesthetic

intelligence is the ability to understand the world through

the body; people with this intelligence have very fine motor

skills of their fingers and hands and have control of their

gross motor skills. Because of these abilities, people with

this intelligence are often surgeons, dancers, mimes,

sculptors, carpenters, plumbers, and athletes. Performers have

the ability to capture the intended emotion and express them

through body language. Kinesthesia is the ability to act

gracefully. Another beneficiary of bodily intelligence is the

athlete; exceptional athletes are graceful, powerful, fast,

and accurate. Individuals with kinesthetic intelligence are

animated in their actions and learn best by doing.

Teaching with bodily/kinesthetic intelligence can be

optimized through the use of manipulatives and physical


activity. Students with this intelligence could calm their

brain by holding something in their hands so thinking and

learning can occur. Corporations have seen this in their

meetings and bring executive toys into their meetings, as this

has been found to significantly increase creativity and

productivity.

Interpersonal Intelligence. People with this intelligence

have the ability to perceive and discriminate between people’s

feelings and motives. Although interpersonal intelligence has

many of the same characteristics as intrapersonal

intelligence, interpersonal intelligence is the ability to

perceive differences in people outside self.

People with interpersonal intelligence readily understand

and are able to communicate with people who are different from

themselves. People with this intelligence are frequently found

in professions such as teaching, religion, sales, therapy, or

skilled parenting. People like Adolph Hitler have been known

to have high degrees of interpersonal intelligence, proving it

can also be used for things other than good. This intelligence

has the ability of looking outside of oneself and

understanding other people, including the ability to analyze

emotions and predict reactions to various situations.


Intrapersonal Intelligence. People with intrapersonal

intelligence are commonly creative and have a high level of

self-respect, as this intelligence is developed from internal

resources. Students with intrapersonal characteristics possess

a need to be praised frequently. Intrapersonal intelligence

can be developed using imagination exercises and having

students work together, as observation and experience are the

tools to develop these skills. Individuals with intrapersonal

intelligence have the ability to form an accurate

representation of one’s self. This intelligence allows for

self-reflection and has an understanding of how other people

feel about themselves.

Naturalist Intelligence. Individuals with this

intelligence are expert at classifying and using features of

the environment. Like intrapersonal intelligence, this

intelligence also benefits from observation and experience.

Individuals with this intelligence truly appreciate nature and

have a great concern for the health of our planet.

People with naturalist intelligence commonly show an

expertise in the recognition and classification of plants and

animals. Washington Carver and Charles Darwin are considered

to have had naturalist intelligence. Naturalists benefit from


learning outdoors; educators can plan activities such as

observing nature, labeling and mounting specimens from nature,

noticing changes in the environment, or taking nature hikes or

field trips in nature.

Attention to these intelligences and their impact in the

classroom is significantly changing education. The theory of

multiple intelligences is an effort to understand how culture

and various disciplines shape human potential. By being

informed about multiple intelligences theory and its

applications to instructional environments, educational

professionals can make better decisions concerning the design

and style of delivery for effective learning. Evidence of this

theory is shown in primary and corporate educational systems,

educational software, instructional design strategies, media

programming, and management and professional development

programs (Pennar, 1996). According to Pennar, “From hiring and

promoting to the daily search for solutions, a multifaceted

approach that captures and takes advantage of all ways of

thinking and learning can only enhance creativity and

innovation” (p. 107).


Bloom’s Taxonomy

One of Benjamin Bloom’s (1956) most significant

contributions to the field of education was his three

classifications for types of learning: cognitive, psychomotor,

and affective. The cognitive domain is further divided into

six levels of increasingly more difficult higher order

critical thinking skills: knowledge, comprehension,

application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Bloom’s

taxonomy can be combined with multiple intelligences to ensure

students are learning critical thinking skills. Bloom’s

taxonomy combines all six levels of Bloom’s cognitive critical

thinking skills with multiple intelligences. The multiple

intelligence instructional methods make it possible for every

intelligence to grasp the course content and develop higher

order critical thinking skills (Tables 1 and 2; Armstrong,

2000).

Armstrong (2000) believes the critical thinking movement

provides an alternative to the traditional content expert view

of the educator. Instead, Armstrong suggests using the

Socratic method whereby the educator questions the student’s

views.


Table 1a. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Critical Thinking

LevelEducational objectives Verbs Questions

Knowledge Defined as the remembering of previously learned material; may involve recall of specific facts or theories; lowest level.

arrange, define, duplicate, label, list, memorize, name, order, recognize, relate, recall, repeat, reproduce, state

Who? What? When? Where? How? Describe.

Comprehension Defined as the ability to grasp the meaning of material; shown by translating material from one form to another (words to numbers), explaining, summarizing, estimating; lowest level of understanding

classify, describe, discuss, explain, express, identify, indicate, locate, recognize, report, restate, review, select, translate

Can you explain, retell, rephrase? What is the main idea? How would you summarize?

Application The ability to use learned material in new situations; may include rules, methods, concepts, principles, laws, theories; solve mathematical problems, correct usage of a method or procedure

apply, choose, demonstrate, dramatize, employ, illustrate, interpret, operate, practice, schedule, sketch, solve, use, write

How would you solve _____ using what you have learned? What examples can you find to show? What approach would you use? What other way would you plan? What would result if…?


Table 1b. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Critical Thinking

LevelEducational objectives Verbs Questions

Analysis The ability to break down information into parts by identifying motives, analysis of relationship; recognize unstated assumptions, logical fallacies, distinguish between facts and inferences; evaluate relevancy of data

analyze, appraise, calculate, categorize, compare, contrast, criticize, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, examine, experiment, question, test

What is the theme? How would you classify? What conclusions can you draw? Can you identify the different parts? What evidence can you find? How does _____ compare/contrast with ___? Classify _____ according to _____.

Synthesis The ability to put parts together to form a new whole; combination of ideas to form a new whole; may include communication, plan of operations, or a set of abstract relations; learning stresses creative behaviors with emphasis on the formation of new patterns or structure

arrange, assemble, build, choose, compile, collect, compose construct, create, design, develop, formulate, manage, organize, plan, prepare, propose, set up, write

What changes would you make to solve? How would you improve? What would happen if? Can you invent? Can you propose an alternative? What way would you design? What could be combined to improve? How would you test? Can you predict the outcome for _____? What facts can you compile? Can you think of an original way for the ____?

Evaluation The ability to judge the value of material; present and defend opinions by making judgments about the information, validity of ideas or quality of work based on a set of criteria

award, choose, conclude, criticize, decide, defend, determine, dispute, evaluate, judge, measure, compare, recommend, interpret, appraise, support, prove, disprove, assess

Can you assess the value of? How would you evaluate? What would you select? How would you prioritize? What judgment would you make? Based on what you know, how would you explain? How would you prove or disprove? What data was used to make the conclusion?


Table 2a. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Multiple Intelligences

LevelVerbal/

LinguisticLogical/

MathematicalVisual/Spatial

Musical/Rhythmic

Evaluation recommend, verify

assess, measure, test, rank, value

critique, appraise

critique, judge, rate

Synthesize propose, synthesize, compose

build, combine, translate, formulate

create, design, invent, organize

create, produce, compose

Analysis criticize, relate, question

analyze, infer, deduce

compare, contrast, diagram

differentiate, distinguish, classify

Application communicate, discuss, derive

solve, prove, compute, convert

illustrate, apply, chart

perform, produce

Comprehension explain, infer, describe

simplify, account for, express

code, group, locate

recognize, show

Knowledge name, define, state

label, find, list

select, write

state, recite

Evaluation select, measure, rate

measure, select, test

define, argue, support

evaluate, validate

Synthesize invent, make up, construct, assemble

organize, reconstruct

present, summarize

imagine, integrate

Analysis separate, diagram, sort, take apart

sort, discover, examine, categorize

debate, draw, conclusions

determine, simplify

Application demonstrate, construct, dramatize

record, investigate, keep records

translate, interview, discuss

interpret, model, plan

Comprehension express, locate

group, classify, recognize

paraphrase, report

interview, review


Table 2b. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Multiple Intelligences

LevelVerbal/

LinguisticLogical/

MathematicalVisual/Spatial

Musical/Rhythmic

Knowledge label, select name, find, identify

recognize, quote

memorize, know, recall

Rather than providing answers, the educator enters into a

conversation with the student in an attempt to guide the

student into discovering his/her owning rightness of his/her

perspective. The purpose of the exercise is not to embarrass a

student but instead help them sharpen their critical thinking

skills so they will no longer take a position or form an

opinion out of strong emotion.

Cognitive psychology has become the dominant focus in

education; multiple intelligence theory provides a context for

all students’ cognitive skills, as each of the eight

intelligences is cognitive capacities (Armstrong, 2000).

Gardner’s (1993a) theory of multiple intelligence can be

combined with Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational outcomes.

Bloom’s taxonomy is a widely accepted educational evaluation

tool that can be used to encourage higher order thinking

skills. Bloom’s taxonomy demonstrates how multiple

intelligence can be integrated into virtually every subject


and in a manner that encourages higher order, critical

thinking skills.

Critical evaluation is the highest level in Bloom’s

cognitive skills taxonomy, because it contains all the other

levels, including value judgments (Castle, 2003). Castle

claimed higher order thinking skills demonstrated by critical

evaluation are important, because

Non-critical thinking skills may result in rigid or narrow thinking (thinking based on past practices without considering current information), prejudicial thinking (gathering evidence to support a particular position without questioning the position itself), or emotive thinking (responding to the emotion of the message rather than the content. (p. 372)

Critical evaluation skills are needed as an important element

in successfully living in a technologically advanced society.

Learning to access and judge the value of knowledge is key to

this process; examining the logical consistency of written

material and the validity by which conclusions are supported

by the data will aid students when making professional or

personal decisions.

Traditional success in schools typically involves using

Gardner’s verbal/linguistic and logical/mathematical

intelligences (Gray & Waggoner, 2002). Using Bloom’s taxonomy

combined with the multiple intelligences, however, engages all

learning styles by teaching students to think in ways that are


meaningful to them. Tomlinson stated, “In a differentiated

classroom, the teacher fashions instruction around the

essential concepts, principles, and skills of the subject”

(1999, p. 9). There are various ways to present course

concepts; not all students learn in the same manner (Gardner,

1999). Gardner suggests students will learn more quickly and

be able to demonstrate their knowledge of material through

ways that ensure learning is a personal, enjoyable journey.

Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence links brain research

suggesting diversified instruction carries a potential of

reaching an increasing number of learners.

Academic Psychology

Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences has not been

readily accepted within academic psychology. There are

criticisms of the conceptualization of multiple intelligences;

White argued there “are questions around the individual

criteria; for example, do all intelligences involve symbol

systems; how the criteria are to be applied; and why these

particular criteria are important” (1998, p. 9). White states

he has not been able to find any answer in Gardner’s writings;

Gardner himself admits there is an element of subjective

judgment involved.


Researchers and scholars who traditionally view

intelligence as what is measured by intelligence tests may

continue to have difficulty with Gardner’s theory, because

they can still point to a substantial contribution of research

that demonstrates correlation between different abilities.

Those traditional researchers and scholars can still argue for

the existence of a general intelligence factor (Smith, 2002).

Gardner (1993b), however, disputes much of the evidence and

states it is not yet possible to know how far intelligences

actually correlate. In fact, recent developments in thinking

regarding intelligence such as Robert Sternberg’s (1985b,

1997) advancement of the triarchic model have shared Gardner’s

dislike of such standard intelligence theory.

A common criticism of Gardner’s work is the lack of

empirical evidence to support his conceptualizations.

Gardner’s theories appear to derive more strongly from his own

intuitions and reasoning than from a comprehensive and full

grounding in empirical research (Smith, 2002). There is, to

date, little in the research literature testing Gardner’s

theory.

Although scholars may criticize Gardner’s work, cognitive

psychologists and educational researchers give Gardner high

praise for helping the public understand intelligence is


multifaceted. Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence has

helped educators understand and value the various talents a

learner has (Collins, 1998). Although empirical evidence is

needed in order for Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences

to gain the respect and acceptance among educational

psychologists, Gardner insists an educational approach, paying

attention to the different intelligences, is going to be a lot

more effective than one that denies the existence of

intelligences beyond the linguist/verbal and

logical/mathematical intelligences. Gardner points out that

the overall trend in neurology and cognitive psychology

support his view that intelligence comprises many abilities

(Collins).

While there may be significant issues around Gardner’s

theory of multiple intelligences, it has met with strong

positive response from many educators. It has helped numerous

educators question their work and look beyond the narrow

confines of the accepted (and reinforced by the empirical data

so valued by the individuals with logical/mathematical

intelligence) education evaluation methods.

A review of the literature indicates Gardner’s work

appears to be focused not just on describing our world, but

positioning ourselves to help create conditions to change our


world and make it better (Brockman, n.d.). He questions

whether we will assume a passive view with respect to

intelligence by receiving a test score and allowing the score

to determine our life’s options, or whether we will see

intelligences as flexible opportunities which we can shape and

enhance for ourselves as well as those under our care, such as

our students or our children (Gardner, 1999).

Understanding all the intelligences and their unique

learning needs are a better way for educators to understand

and accommodate different learning styles. Educators must

learn to present course material in a style that engages most

of the intelligences. Educators who teach toward the multiple

intelligences realize the benefits, such as active, engaged

learners. Each of the intelligences is a potential ability in

every learner, and it is the educator’s job to nurture and

help learners develop their own intelligences (Nolen, 2003).

Measuring Multiple Intelligence

Berkemeir’s (2002) instrument was based on combining the

2000 version of Weber’s MITA and the 2000 version of

Armstrong’s MI surveys. Berkemeir’s instrument reworded some

of the questions for reading comprehension. Berkemeir

identified there were difficulties measuring MI and found that


her instrument did not completely remove all the difficulties,

particularly issues involving self-perceived MI.

Applying MI in Higher Education Institutions

“Most scholars . . . are now convinced that enthusiasm

over intelligence tests has been excessive and that there are

numerous limitations in the instruments themselves and in the

uses to which they can (and should) be put” (Gardner, 1993b,

p. 16). Gardner (1993b) believed that despite exposure to

theoretical knowledge, college students often revert to the

uninformed opinion of the unschooled mind of a 5-year-old.

Gardner’s confidence in his MI theory derives from cognitive

research evidence where many of the early cognitive

representation theories are powerful and difficult to change.

Consequently, once a student learns a new idea for the very

first time, it is difficult to change that perception or

knowledge if the information learned was incorrect.

The MI approach would design curriculum and instruction

around the students’ needs while offering a variety of methods

of “learning and understanding” (Hoerr, 1996, p. 18). Gardner

(1993b) asserted the MI approach develops a student’s full

potential for mastering core information. Jordan supported

Gardner’s enthusiasm on the power of MI as a teaching tool,


because “by emphasizing students’ abilities rather than

disabilities, Gardner validated such accomplishments as

significant products of right brain function, which are seldom

evaluated in standardized tests” (1996, p. 30).

Bolanos (1996) believed any potential wind of change in

teaching methodology at higher educational institutions

required modification of traditional mental models of

intelligence and teaching, something with which higher

education instructors are not comfortable. However, with

demand for student retention, experimentation with enhancement

courses through the Internet, and experimentation with

nontraditional methodologies such as distance learning, there

is an increasing need for reaching students from all

modalities of learning. In short, today’s education system is

confronted with a more diverse set of learners who possess a

broad spectrum of interests and abilities. MI is key in

filling that niche by providing critical insight to improving

assessment and instructional methodology (Lantham, 1997;

Visser, 1996).

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The ability of instructors to enhance students’ mastery

of course material is a primary objective of education. This

study examined whether the use of MI techniques helped achieve

this objective.

Methodology

Two key variables in this study involve student

perceptions. One variable is their perception of their

preferred MI techniques. The second variable is their

perception of an instructor’s use of MI techniques. These

variables were assessed by questionnaires. The questionnaires

enabled the researcher to determine the self-reported MI

preferences of the students and the students’ perception of

their instructor’s approaches for teaching critical thinking.

A third variable in this study was the student mastery of

the critical thinking course material. This was assessed by a

standard test employing matching developed by the

nontraditional adult education institution. Matching tests are

useful when small samples are to be used (Gall et al., 1996).


Theoretical Framework

Information on the effectiveness and use of MI techniques

in a critical thinking classroom was gathered using

quantitative questionnaires and a qualitative focus group

approach. Questionnaires are commonly used with quantitative

research (Gall et al., 1996); a survey design provides a

quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or

opinions of a population by studying a sample of that

population (Creswell, 2003). According to Creswell,

“qualitative researchers . . . seek to build rapport and

credibility with the individuals in the study” (p. 181). Focus

group discussions are viewed as qualitative measures because

they allow “patterns in feelings, motivation, attitudes,

accomplishments, and experiences of individuals” (Gall et al.,

p. 288). The researcher conducted focus group discussions

consisting of one group per class. The focus group discussions

in this study were unstructured and used open-form questions

designed to encourage the identification of MI techniques used

by the instructor in presenting the critical thinking course

content.

The use of questionnaires and a focus group allowed a

triangulation of the data. This mixed method approach ensures

greater understanding of what the students perceived. The


mixed methods approach is supported by the research of

Creswell (2003), Gall et al., (1996), Greene, Caracelli, and

Graham (1989), and Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003). Creswell

stated a mixed methods approach is one in which the researcher

tends to “base knowledge claims on pragmatic grounds” (p. 18)

and is the theory behind this study.

The literature review in chapter 2 suggests MI techniques

help achieve various educational objectives as identified by

Bloom’s Taxonomy. The specific question unanswered by the

literature review is, Does perception of an instructor’s use

of MI techniques enhance critical thinking mastery as measured

by scores on a standard test (Appendix B)?

Research Design

This study involved an exploratory study of the impact of

MI techniques in classroom presentation. Churchill (2001)

states exploratory research is used when the problem is not

yet clearly defined; it is a broad-based type of research

whose major objective is to collect ideas and provide insights

into the problem at hand.

This study is a mixed methodology using both quantitative

and qualitative measures. Words used to describe this approach

include integrating, synthesis, quantitative and qualitative


methods, multimethod, and multimethodology; however, recent

writings use the term mixed methods (Tashakkori & Teddlie,

2003). It is believed the idea of mixing research methods may

have originated in 1959 when Campbell and Fiske used multiple

methods to study the validity of psychological traits

(Creswell, 2003). Approaches associated with field methods

such as observations and interviews (qualitative data) are now

combined with traditional surveys (quantitative data; Sieber,

1973).

Recognizing the fact that all methods have limitations,

researchers felt potential biases in any single method could

be cancelled through the use of multiple research methods. As

a result, “triangulating data sources, a means for seeking

convergence across qualitative and quantitative methods, was

born” (Jick, 1979, p. 12). The mixed method is selected when a

researcher uses two different methods in an attempt to

confirm, cross-validate, or corroborate findings within a

single study (Greene et al., 1989; Morgan, 1998; Steckler,

McLeroy, Goodman, Bird, & McCormick, 1992). This study used

questionnaires and focus groups as the means to offset the

weaknesses within one method with the strengths of the other

method. The data collection approach was sequential and

integrated the results of the two methods. The interpretation


can either note the convergence of the findings as a way to

strengthen the knowledge claims of the study, or explain any

lack of convergence that may result.

Gall et al. (1996) support the complementary use of both

quantitative and qualitative measures in research. By

utilizing both methodologies, numerical and semantic data can

be analyzed at the same time and applied to this study.

According to Gall et al., qualitative research is used to

discover meanings and interpretations; quantitative research,

on the other hand, involves collecting data on observable

behaviors and drawing implied contrasts. Although qualitative

research is perceived as performing a discovery role and

quantitative research is perceived as performing a

confirmatory role, both types of research methodology can

perform separate yet complementary functions by providing

different types of data to analyze in this study.

Collecting research data by using questionnaires and

focus group discussions combined the complementary use of both

qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. The

process of inventory creation involves detailed planning that

began with identifying goals and objectives (Gall et al.,

1996). The development of the inventory types (questionnaires

and focus group discussions) connected the individual


questions that were developed to address the specific goals

and objectives as identified. An inventory can combine the use

of both types of qualitative and quantitative forms in seeking

the research data.

Sampling Design

Theoretically, the population for this study would be all

adult learners, any adult interested in learning. However,

this population is not feasible to sample in this study.

Therefore, the population of interest is narrowed to working

adult learners enrolled in a nontraditional adult educational

institution. The sample group was a convenience sample and

consisted of students enrolled in critical thinking courses

during the 2004 fall term at a nontraditional adult education

institution in the central United States. A convenience sample

is based on the availability of research individuals (Worthen,

Sanders, & Fitzpatrick, 1997). The researcher approached the

instructors and the students of the critical thinking course

for their voluntary participation. These students were

randomly assigned to these classes based upon their enrollment

dates at the institution. The classes ranged from 15 to 25

students. Research data were collected from seven classes.


Measures

According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), reliability and

validity of a research study can be established by the use of

triangulation exercises, such as the ones used in this study.

The results from the questionnaire regarding the students’

perceptions of the instructor’s teaching methods (Appendix C)

were compared with the results from the focus group

discussions (Appendix D), allowing triangulation of method and

data to validate the accuracy of the questionnaire. The focus

group discussion questions were developed using eight summary

descriptors from Berkemeir’s (2002) instrument as well as

additional descriptors from other multiple intelligence

scholars (Armstrong, 1993; Campbell et al., 1999; Lazear,

1999). Berkemeir states no existing multiple intelligence

measurement has been fully validated as the correct approach

to measure multiple intelligences. In addition, Linda Elder

(personal communication, June 7, 2004) is unaware of any

existing academic studies comparing these two. The design of

this study incorporated one assessment of students’ self-

perception of their multiple intelligence preferences, two

assessments of student perceptions of instructors’ use of MI

techniques, and an assessment of student critical thinking

mastery.


The study collected data on four constructs:

1. Self-perceived MI preferences were assessed through

the responses to the questions of the instrument

(Appendix A). This variable is the rank-ordered

scores for the eight MI intelligences. This

instrument was developed by Berkemeir (2002). Self-

perceived MI preferences referred to responses

generated by descriptions of broad learning

activities.

2. Measurement of student comprehension of the critical

thinking concepts taught in the course through the

use of a standard exam developed through the

nontraditional adult education institution (Appendix

B).

3. Student Perceptions of Instructor Use of MI

Techniques (Appendix C) measured whether or not

students recognized MI techniques being used. Each

MI technique was measured through a set of five

descriptors. These descriptors were developed by

listing terms used to define the MI techniques by

other researchers (Armstrong, 1993; Berkemeir, 2002;

Campbell et al., 1999; Lazear, 1999).


4. The variable measured from the focus group (Appendix

D) discussion was the number of examples provided

for each MI technique. Examples provided by students

were counted in the MI category mentioned,

regardless of whether the category was correct or

not. If the same example was used under multiple

categories, for instance, it was counted in each

mentioned category. The reason for this is the

recognition of any MI technique is more important to

this study than the correct assignment of such MI

technique. The descriptions used in the focus group

discussions (Appendix D) were developed by Berkemeir

(2002) and align with the MI descriptors in Appendix

A.

Approval from the Human Subjects Review Committee at the

nontraditional adult educational institution in the central

United States and Capella University was obtained.

Data Collection

After obtaining permission from course instructors, the

researcher distributed the questionnaire (Appendix A) at the

start of the course. The second questionnaire (Appendix C) was

administered after the final exam (Appendix B) on the final


night of the course. The focus group discussion followed

immediately; the exam scores (Appendix B) were provided to the

researcher within one week from the instructor.

The collection of data occurred after Institutional

Review Board (IRB) approval was granted from both

institutions. The students were informed their participation

was voluntary; no rewards or inducements for such

participation were granted.

Data Analysis

Data Coding

The student MI preference questionnaire (Appendix A)

consisted of 40 questions regarding MI descriptors. These 40

questions were grouped into the eight MI categories with five

questions per category (Appendix E). Each question was

measured by a Likert scale ranging from “A. Not at all like

me” to “E. Definitely Like Me.” The alphabetic response

options were coded from 1 to 5, with A equals 1 to E equals 5.

The preference score for each MI was the sum of the

numerically coded responses for the questions related to that

intelligence.

The focus group discussions (Appendix D) were scored by

counting the number of unique examples provided by the


students in response to each of the eight questions. The focus

group discussions were recorded, and the data collection

occurred from the analysis of the recording. In conducting the

focus group discussions, the facilitator read each question

sequentially. After each question was read, the facilitator

paused for student comments. After the first pause in the

student responses, the facilitator asked, “Any other

examples?” If other examples were presented at this point, a

final probe of “Anything else?” was used. Each question was

discussed for no more than 5 minutes before moving to the next

questions.

The measurement of student perception of instructor use

of MI techniques (Appendix C) involved a second set of 40

questions. These questions were scored using a 1 to 5 scale

ranging from “1. Not at All” to “5. A Lot.” These questions

were grouped into their related MI technique using the key in

Appendix E. The scores for each MI technique were the sum of

the responses related to each MI technique.

The instructor graded the final exam (Appendix B) and

provided the researcher with the results. The student

preference questions were identified by a student-generated

code. This code was provided to the instructor, but not the

researcher, during the first week of the course. The


instructor had the student/code list available during the last

session of the course in case any students forgot their code.

This list was used by the instructor to link the final exam

grade to the code and, by extension, to the questionnaire

responses. Exam scores were provided to the researcher by the

individual’s code.

Data Cleaning

The only problem was student use of inconsistent codes.

If only one instance occurred per class, these two were

matched. However, when more than one instance occurred and the

codes appeared approximately similar, they were matched. Any

students who did not complete at least the two questionnaires

and the final exam had their data excluded from this study.

Statistical Procedures

The first question to be answered is, Do students

reporting higher instructor use of MI techniques achieve

higher critical thinking test scores? This was measured by a

Pearson’s correlation between the sum of the responses for all

the questions in Appendix C and student final exam scores.

The second question is, Does an instructor’s use of MI

techniques that match student preferences achieve higher


critical thinking test scores? Three measures were involved

for this question. The individual MI technique scores from

both questionnaires were summed and correlated using Pearson’s

correlation. This showed the degree to which the instructor’s

use of MI techniques matched the individual student

preferences. This correlation was correlated with the final

exam score, again using Pearson’s correlation. This showed the

relationship, if any, between using appropriate techniques for

student preferences and comprehension.

The third question to be answered was, Do students

reporting more use of MI techniques by an instructor achieve

higher critical thinking test scores? One correlation was

between the average number of MI techniques reported (Appendix

C). The other correlation was between the focus group

discussion (Appendix D) sum of reported instances and the

average final exam (Appendix B).

Limitation of Methodology

The relationship between instructor use of MI techniques

and student achievement was based on perception, as mentioned

in chapter 2. If students do not perceive the use of MI

techniques, then there would be no expected relationship. The

key limitation, then, was the accuracy of the perception; the


correct MI technique is unimportant but the perception of an

MI technique being used at all is critical to this study. This

limitation was addressed by the use of multiple descriptors in

the questionnaires.

Since this study was based on a convenience sample, the

findings from this study cannot be generalized to the larger

population of adult learners in a nontraditional educational

institution. Samples were drawn from two cities in an effort

to minimize this limitation.

Expected Findings and Ethical Issues

The expected findings were the more the instructor used

the full variety of multiple intelligence methods, the greater

the student mastery.

A limiting factor to the MI inventory relates to self-

reporting. Surveys or questionnaires do not represent complete

objectivity (Berkemeir, 2002). According to the Berkemeir

study, there are five factors that may generate misleading

information:

1. Surveys only tap respondents who are accessible and

cooperative.


2. Respondents have to feel their participation is a

normal and natural process to avoid any form of

slanted or biased answers.

3. The researcher has to be careful of arousing

response sets.

4. Participants should be encouraged to not over rate

or under rate their responses.

5. Participants were unable to accurately identify

their self-perceived multiple intelligences.

It is possible an instructor would be unwilling to alter

current teaching techniques given the expected findings of

this study; this would raise ethical issues in the performance

of such instructors, as learning is the primary educational

objective.

Pilot Testing

A pilot test was conducted in May 2004, using the

research instruments described in this study. In order to

verify the expected analysis procedures, the researcher

distributed the questionnaires during the first and last

course sessions and conducted a focus group discussion during

the last session after the final exam. The final exam score

results were matched to the individual questionnaire results.


Preliminary statistical results indicated the analysis

procedures worked as designed.

Time Lines

The data were collected November 2004 through January

2005. Data analyses were completed February 2005. The findings

and recommendations of the study were completed May 2005.

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

This chapter will present the findings and results of the

data collected in the attempt to answer the three research

questions:

1. The major research question for this study is, Does

perception of an instructor’s use of MI techniques

enhance critical thinking mastery as measured by


2. Does an instructor’s use of MI techniques that match

students’ preferences help students achieve higher

critical thinking test scores?

3. Do students reporting more use of MI techniques by

an instructor achieve higher critical thinking test

scores?

The first two questions include the statistical

procedures used for analyzing the data. The third question

includes a discussion of the quantitative and qualitative

results.


Description of Data

Student MI Preferences

The student MI preferences questionnaire (Appendix A)

assessed the students’ self-perceptions of their preferred MI

techniques through the responses of a set of five descriptors

for each of the eight intelligences. The data from this

question is used to answer research question 2, matching

student preferences.

Final Exam

The measurement of student comprehension of the critical

thinking concepts taught in the course was measured by a

standard exam (Appendix B) from the nontraditional adult

education institution. This data is the basic success

criterion and is used in all three research questions.

Student Perceptions

Whether or not a student recognized an MI technique used

by an instructor through the responses of a set of five

descriptors for each of the eight intelligences was measured

(Appendix C). This data is used in the analysis of all three

research questions.


Focus Group

Counts of MI techniques used in each classroom were

assessed in the focus group (Appendix D) by members of the

discussion giving an example for each of the eight

intelligences. A ranking of the number of MI techniques

mentioned was provided. The data from the focus group

discussion is used in the analysis of the third question.

Data Analysis Process

Relationship Between Student Perception and Preference

Student MI preferences (Appendix A) and student

perceptions (Appendix C) were correlated to determine whether

there is any relationship between a student's self-perceived

MI preferences and a student's perception of MI techniques

used by an instructor.

Data Coding

The student MI preference questionnaire (Appendix A)

consisted of 40 questions regarding MI descriptors. These 40

questions were grouped into the eight MI categories with five

questions per category (Appendix E). The 40 questions and

their assignment into each of the eight MI categories were

developed and used by Berkemeir (2002). Each question was


measured by a Likert scale ranging from “A. Not at all like

me” to “E. Definitely Like Me.” The alphabetic response

options were coded from 1 to 5 with A equals 1 to E equals 5.

The preference score for each MI was the sum of the

numerically coded responses for the questions related to that

intelligence.

The focus group discussions (Appendix D) were scored by

counting the number of unique examples provided by the

students in response to each of the eight questions. The focus

group discussions were recorded, and the data collection

occurred from the analysis of the recording. In conducting the

focus group discussions, the facilitator read each question

sequentially. After each question was read, the facilitator

paused for student comments. After the first pause in the

student responses, the facilitator asked, “Any other

examples?” If other examples were presented at this point, a

final probe of “Anything else?” was used. Each question was

discussed for no more than 5 minutes before moving to the next

questions.

The measurement of student perception of instructor use

of MI techniques (Appendix C) involved a second set of 40

questions. These questions were scored using a 1 to 5 scale

ranging from “1. Not at All” to “5. A Lot.” These questions


were grouped into their related MI technique using the key in

Appendix E. The scores for each MI technique were the sum of

the responses related to each MI technique.

The instructor graded the final exam (Appendix B) and

provided the researcher with the results. The final exam data

were numerical scores ranging from 0 to 100, indicating the

percent of correct responses to the exam questions. The

student preference questions were identified by a student-

generated code. This code was provided to the instructor, but

not the researcher, during the first week of the course. The

instructor had the student/code list available during the last

session of the course if any students forgot their code. The

list was used by the instructor to link the final exam grade

to the code and, by extension, to the questionnaire responses.

Exam scores were provided to the researcher by the

individual’s code.

Data Cleaning

Students appeared to have used different codes for pre-

and post-class questionnaires in several instances. When

students used an inconsistent code, an attempt was made to

match the codes if there was only one instance in a class.

When there was more than one instance, the data were excluded


from pre- and post-analyses. Students who did not complete the

questionnaires using a code that could be matched between pre,

post, and final exam were included in the focus group

discussion. The instructor told the class this researcher’s

study was the reason they were having a final exam. Although

the final exam was a requirement of the course and the

instructor was joking, the resulting data had inappropriate

responses such as pictures and doodling rather than the scale

of numbers. As a result of this biased data, data from three

additional courses were collected in an attempt to increase

the sample size.

Statistical Procedures

The key issue being measured and evaluated in this study

involves relationships, how changes in one variable

(instructor use of MI techniques) impacts other variables

(final exam scores and perceptions of MI techniques).

Relationships are measured by correlations. Two types of

correlations were used in this study. The first type used in

this study was Spearman's rho correlation. According to Cooper

& Schindler (2003), Spearman's is used for ordinal, or rank-

ordered data. Results from student preferences (Appendix A)

and student perceptions (Appendix C) were rank ordered for


correlation purposes. The analysis between these two

appendixes was concerned with matches on relative frequency,

that is, did the ordered frequency of MI techniques used by

the instructor match the desired order of MI techniques

preferred by students.

Pearson's product movement correlation was used on

interval level data. This included the Spearman's correlation

results and final exam scores. The significance of these two

correlations was tested using the correlation t test (Cooper &

Schindler, 2003). The significance level was chosen as alpha

equals .05.

The first question to be answered was, Do students

reporting higher instructor use of MI techniques achieve

higher critical thinking test scores? This was measured by a

Pearson’s correlation between the sum of the responses for all

the questions in Appendix C and student final exam scores.

The second question was, Does an instructor’s use of MI

techniques that match student preferences achieve higher

critical thinking test scores? Three measures were involved

for this question. The individual MI technique scores from

both questionnaires were summed and correlated using Pearson’s

correlation. This showed the degree to which the instructor’s

use of MI techniques matched the individual student


preferences. This correlation was correlated with the final

exam score, again using Pearson’s correlation. This showed the

relationship, if any, between using appropriate techniques for

student preferences and comprehension.

The third question to be answered was, Do students

reporting more use of MI techniques by an instructor achieve

higher critical thinking test scores? One correlation was

between the average number of MI techniques reported (Appendix

C). The other correlation was between the focus group

discussion (Appendix D) sum of reported instances and the

average final exam (Appendix B).

Findings and Results

The findings for each research question are listed below

by question:

Quantitative Findings

Research Question 1. The major research question for this

study is, Does perception of an instructor’s use of MI

techniques enhance critical thinking mastery as measured by


For this question, student perception (Appendix C)

provided student counts of how often an instructor used an MI


technique. If increased use of MI techniques did, in fact,

impact final exam scores, then instructors reported as having

higher uses of MI techniques would achieve better results. For

this question, the reported use of MI techniques used by an

instructor was averaged by class. This average was correlated

to the average final exam score per class.

Results from 78 participants were used to provide a

Pearson's correlation between the average MI technique rating

given to the instructors (Appendix C) and the final exam

scores (Appendix B) received by the students. The correlation

was .07, with a nonsignificant t value of 0.630 and associated

p value of 0.265.

Table 3. Research Question 1

Student perception

rating Final exam

Average 3.1 83.6

Standard deviation 0.6 12.2

Count 78

Correlation 0.072

t value 0.630

p value 0.265


Research Question 2. Does an instructor’s use of MI

techniques that match students’ preferences help students

achieve higher critical thinking test scores?

Two correlations were required for this question. The

first correlation (Spearman's rho) measured the relationship

between student MI preferences (Appendix A) and student

perception of MI techniques used by an instructor (Appendix

C). The second correlation (Pearson's) measured the

relationship between Spearman's rho and the final exam.

Results from 68 participants (one class had a faulty

questionnaire and had to be eliminated from this analysis)

showed a high average correlation between the student

preferences (Appendix A) and student perceptions (Appendix C)

ratings. This Spearman's rho correlation averaged .80. This

indicates a high degree of consistency between students'

preferred MI techniques and instructors' use of the preferred

MI techniques. Correlation between this correlation and the

final exam was a -.16, resulting in a t value of -1.35 with an

associated p value of 0.09. This was a nonsignificant

correlation.



Student preference Student perception

AverageStandard deviation Average

Standard deviation

Visual/Linguistic 3.26 0.65 3.58 1.01

Logical/Mathematical 3.73 0.58 3.28 0.81

Visual/Spatial 3.15 0.70 3.21 0.94

Musical 3.29 0.59 1.77 1.06

Bodily/Kinesthetic 3.42 0.65 2.90 1.06

Interpersonal 3.33 0.66 3.92 0.82

Intrapersonal 3.36 0.74 3.36 0.92

Naturalist 2.90 0.72 2.13 1.05

Spearman's rank order correlation

Average 0.80

Standard deviation 0.24

Pearson's correlation

Value -0.163631

t -1.347504

p value 0.0912128

Count 68

Research Question 3. Do students reporting more use of MI

techniques by an instructor achieve higher critical thinking

test scores?


Two approaches were utilized for this question. The first

approach was the average rating of instructor use of MI

techniques (Appendix C) correlated to each student's final

exam score (Appendix D). The second approach was a correlation

between the average number of MI techniques recalled by the

students in each class during the focus group discussion and

the average final exam score for each class.


Class

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Student perception frequency average 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.1

Focus sum 33 48 11 67 14 20 28

Final average 90.9 86.1 75.0 91.0 81.3 78.5 92.1

Correlation tp

value

Correlation between student perception (Appendix C) average and final exam (Appendix D) 0.450 1.008 0.185

Correlation between focus group count and final exam 0.684 2.094* 0.045

Note. *Significant .05 level


Qualitative Analysis

When focus group members were asked to identify examples

of the eight MI techniques, responses were varied. Positive

responses included listing examples of when the instructor

used different methods to emphasize a particular point.

Positive comments included, "He/She did a lot of different

ways of teaching us," "I really enjoyed all the different

methods," and "It's great to have more than one way of

learning something."

The negative responses included, "I don't like to play

games," "School should be more serious and focused on the

textbook rather than contests or personal reflection," and

"The instructor wanted to entertain us rather than help us

learn," "All the instructor did was read from the PowerPoint

slides," "I didn't even need to come to class; all I needed to

do was read the book," and "Why don't instructors learn more

than their favorite way of teaching?"

The students gave the following comments on each MI:

1. Verbal/Linguistic. Examples given for this method

included telling a story and illustrating how the

instructor was trying to teach her granddaughter

about using critical thinking skills with the

neighborhood bully; making the decision to buy a


house, get married, and so forth; used words to draw

a mental picture; and wrote key points on the board.

2. Logical/Mathematical. Examples given for this method

included making an outline on the board of what

would be covered in each class, used an equation to

show the components of an argument, and used a

formula to test the validity of an argument.

3. Visual/Spatial. Examples given for this method

included using colors when writing on the board to

emphasize different parts of the argument, provided

handouts, and used PowerPoint slides.

4. Musical. Examples given for this method included the

rhythm and pace used by an instructor, and the

instructor referred to lyrics in a popular song.

5. Bodily/Kinesthetic. Examples given for this method

included moving around the room when working in

pairs or teams, standing in front of the class for

oral presentations, instructor brought manipulatives

to class to use during the fallacy role modeling,

and moving to the computer lab during class.

6. Intrapersonal. Examples given for this method

included class members working in pairs to reflect

on each individual's assumptions, and listened in


conversations outside class to analyze the soundness

of an argument.

7. Interpersonal. Examples given for this method

included class members worked in pairs or teams to

analyze a case study, collaborated in a class

conversation discussing real-world examples of

fallacies in advertising and politics, and role-

playing and demonstrating the use of fallacies.

8. Naturalist. Examples given for this method included

the instructor referring to spring as the season of

renewal and growth and then compared spring to

opening a person's mind with critical thinking.

Focus group members were able to identify examples of MI

techniques used by their instructor. It became obvious from

the number of examples given that students were able to

perceive differences in teaching styles. Comments such as,

"Why do I have to take a final exam to prove my knowledge?"

and "What difference does it make how many ways an instructor

presents material?" were made. This indicated students did not

understand the value of MI and may not have been truly

receptive to taking the time and effort in identifying them.

When focus group members were asked to identify examples

of the eight MI techniques, enthusiastic responses included,


"I loved the storytelling, because I could relate to the point

our instructor was trying to get across with the stories,"

"Terrific idea to have us work in pairs and do reflection in

class," "The role-playing in class really helped me cement the

lesson in my mind and was a lot of fun," and "Using the brain

teasers as a contest in class was interesting and helped me

see not everything appears the same to everyone."

Summary

The statistical data analyses found only a single

significant correlation. This was between an instructor's use

of MI techniques and the class average final exam score.

Correlations between and among individual preferences,

instructor's uses of MI techniques, and final exam scores were

not found to be significant.

The focus group discussions revealed student ability to

recall specific examples of instructor use of MI techniques.

Students could identify, remember, and relate MI techniques to

their experiences in class.

Chapter 5 will discuss the summary of the study, findings

and conclusions, recommendations, and implications.

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS,RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

Introduction

This chapter will present the summary of the study,

findings and conclusions, recommendations, and implications of

the study.

Summary of the Study

According to the results of a 1992 survey of adult

literacy, nearly half of American adults do not perform at the

level of literacy considered by the National Education Goals

panel to be needed for competing in a global economy and for

exercising the rights and responsibilities of citizenship

(Gronlund, 1993). In response to developing the necessary

skills needed to be a productive and informed member of a

world market driven by constant change, educators are calling

for the development of critical thinking skills (Brookfield,

1987; Davis & Botkin, 1995; Glaser & Resnick, 1991; Halpern,

1993; Kerka, 1992; Paul, 1990; Sternberg, 1985a). Educators

argue in order to thrive in the 21st century and the

Information Age, individuals must ask questions, challenge

assumptions, invent new ways of solving problems, connect new


knowledge to information already known, and apply their

knowledge and reasoning skills in new situations. In other

words, individuals must develop critical thinking skills.

Adult educators, however, may not be using the best

methods of teaching adults to think critically. In the

traditional classroom, an instructor stands at the front of a

classroom and lectures while students passively absorb

information. The academic literature supports the notion of

different learning styles or preferences (Knowles, 1980;

McCarthy, 2000; Merriam & Caffarella, 1999; Sternberg, 1997).

A more effective method of teaching and perhaps increasing

student comprehension could be to actively engage the students

in the learning process by using Gardner's (1993a) theory of

multiple intelligences.

Gardener's (1993a) theory of MI states humans have eight

distinct intelligences: verbal/linguistic, logical/

mathematical, visual/spatial, musical, bodily/kinesthetic,

interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. Attention to

these intelligences in the classroom can significantly change

education by engaging learners in the educational process.

Presenting course material in a variety of instructional

techniques has a great opportunity for reaching an increasing

number of students, because the literature supports the notion


unsuccessful, unmotivated students have experienced academic

growth when exposed to the multifaceted techniques of MI

(Janes et al., 2000).

This study was an exploratory study of the impact of MI

instructional techniques used for teaching critical thinking

skills. An exploratory research approach is a broad-based type

of research used when a problem is not clearly defined; its

purpose is to collect ideas and provide insights into the

problem (Churchill, 2001).

A mixed methodology was used in this study in order to

provide triangulation of data. Two surveys and a focus group

discussion was used in an effort to ensure a greater

understanding of what the students perceived. The first survey

assessed student perception of their personal learning

preferences; the second survey assessed student perception of

MI techniques used by their instructor. A focus group

discussion asking students to identify specific examples of

the MI techniques used by their instructor was conducted

during the last meeting of the course. A final exam was given

during the last meeting of the course.

This study used a convenience sample; a convenience

sample is based on the availability of research individuals

(Worthen et al., 1997). The sample group consisted of students


enrolled in seven critical thinking courses at a local

nontraditional adult educational institution. There were 93

volunteer student participants, although data from 15 students

had to be excluded because of an apparent bias when answering

the surveys.

Findings and Conclusions

Research Question 1

The major research question for this study is, Does

perception of an instructor’s use of MI techniques enhance

critical thinking mastery as measured by scores on a standard

test?

This question examined whether the final exam scores

improved when students perceived increased instructor use of

MI instructional techniques. The results show this did not

occur. Individual students reporting increased instructor use

of MI techniques did not consistently achieve high exam

scores. This finding does not support the general use of using

MI techniques as an instructional method of increasing an

individual's final exam score. The implication is instructor

use of MI instructional techniques will not impact individuals

in predictable ways.


Research Question 2

Does an instructor’s use of MI techniques that match

students’ preferences help students achieve higher critical

thinking test scores?

This question examined whether the final exam scores

improved when the instructor's use of MI instructional

techniques matched students' individual MI preferences. The

results showed this did not occur. Individual students

reporting a higher match between their preference and

instructor use of MI techniques did not consistently achieve

higher exam scores. This finding does not support the general

use of matching instructor MI techniques with individual

student preference. The implication is attempting to match

instructor MI instructional techniques to individual student

preference is not effective.

Research Question 3

Do students reporting more use of MI techniques by an

instructor achieve higher critical thinking test scores?

This question examined whether the class average final

exam scores improved with increased student recognition of

instructor use of MI instructional techniques. This finding

supports that instructors using more MI techniques achieve


higher class average final exam scores. The implication for

instructors in nontraditional adult educational institutions

is the more MI instructional techniques used, the greater the

critical thinking comprehension as measured by the class

average final exam scores.

Comparison to Theory

According to Gardner (1993a), using the theory of

multiple intelligences as a guide to instructional techniques

should result in increased learning comprehension. Berkemeir

(2002) found Gardner's theory to be true in teaching

mathematics.

Gardner's (1993a) theory provided the basis for this

study. This study did, in fact, affirm components of his

theory. Instructor use of MI techniques as perceived by

individual students did not relate to increased final exam

scores; this finding does not support Gardner's theory.

However, instructor use of more MI techniques in the class did

increase learning comprehension as measured by the class

average final exam scores; this finding does support Gardner's

theory.


Recommendations

Practical Use

It was exciting to see exam scores increase as a result

of instructors presenting course materials through a variety

of MI instructional techniques. Even though Gardner's theory

of MI has only been in existence since 1983, it has progressed

rapidly in the classroom. There are several books available to

the educator that can be used to implement the MI techniques

(Armstrong, 2000; Brookfield, 1990; Campbell et al., 1999;

Gardner, 1993b; Gardner, 1999; Gardner & Hatch, 1989; Hoerr,

1996; Janes et al., 2000; Jordan, 1996; Lazear, 1999; Nolen,

2003; Stanford, 2003; Tomlinson, 1999; Weber, 2003).

Gardner's theory of MI should be used as the educational

curriculum framework to aid instructors in actively engaging

their students in the learning process. Too often, educators

teach to their own strengths, typically verbal/linguistic and

logical/mathematical (Gardner, 1993b), which is plausible in

its own right but does not address the learning styles and

interests of all learners.

Professional development workshops for educators need to

be a priority for nontraditional adult education institutions

(Hoerr, 1994). It is important to stress the enrollment rate

could slow if students are active and engaged as a result of


training educators in Gardner's theory of MI. The traditional

classroom of lectures can evolve into a learning community and

contain rich, vibrant new activities that engage the learning

styles and interests of all learners.

Wolfe and Sorgen (1990) state what educators do in a

classroom should be based on what we know about how people

learn. Gardner regarded his theory of multiple intelligences

as an endorsement to Wolfe and Sorgen's idea of knowing how

people learn, as he bases his theory on three key ideas:

We are not all the same, we do not all have the same kinds of minds (that is, we are not all distinct points on a single bell curve); and education works most effectively if these differences are taken into account rather than denied or ignored. (1999. p. 91)

The debate over Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences may

now shift from a discussion of whether the eight intelligences

exist to how educators can better facilitate these

intelligences in a classroom setting (Armstrong, 1994).

Future Research

Replication of this Study

Replication of this study could involve other

nontraditional adult educational institutions teaching

critical thinking. Additionally, examining other academic

subjects beyond critical thinking could be a logical next


step. Finally, replicate this study within traditional adult

educational institutions.

Limitations

The ability of the raters to recognize an MI

instructional technique proved a limitation in this study.

Examination of the rating on instructor use of MI

instructional techniques showed a wide variation within each

class. These variations included some students using the same

rating for all 40 questions to different rank orders of

instructor use of MI techniques. This limitation impacted the

findings of research questions 1 and 2 by reducing the

strength of the observed correlations. Training in recognizing

MI techniques for the raters might improve individual rater

consistency.

Measurement

While a standard final exam (Appendix B) was used, scores

indicated grading inconsistencies with the use of partial

credit by some instructors. The development of a standard

scoring approach would eliminate the problem.


Sample

A more representative randomly selected sample involving

more than a single nontraditional adult educational

institution would strengthen the ability to generalize results

beyond a specific institution.

Additional Variables

Variables omitted from this study which might have had an

impact and should be examined include ethnicity, age, gender,

and socioeconomic background.

Implications

This study proves an approach for instructors to improve

average class comprehension levels of critical thinking.

Gardner (1999) states changes in our world are so rapid and so

decisive that it will not be possible for schools to remain as

they have always been or to introduce a few, superficial

adjustments. A more complex, multicultural global society

creates new expectations for educational outcomes.

Learning critical thinking skills is desperately needed

for adults to function in the 21st century. Adults who are

capable of evaluating information and making decisions can

strengthen a democratic republic (Gardner, 1993a). Similarly,


employees skilled in conflict resolution contribute to a

strong economic society.

REFERENCES

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Armstrong, T. (1993). 7 kinds of smart. New York: Plume.

Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom(2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Bankert, E. (1990, April). Meta-analysis of effects of explicit instruction for critical thinking. Boston: American Educational Research Association.

Berkemeir, J. Y. H. (2002). Exploring multiple intelligences theory at the community college level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay.

Bolanos, P. M. (1996). Multiple intelligences as a mental model: The key renaissance middle school. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 80(583), 24-28.

Brockman, J. (n.d.). Truth, beauty, and goodness: Education for all human beings. A talk with Howard Gardner. Retrieved November 30, 2003, from EBSCOhost Web site: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gardner/gardner.html

Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. D. (1990). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (1999). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Castle, A. (2003). Demonstrating critical evaluation skills using Bloom's taxonomy. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 10(8), 369-373.

Churchill, G. A. (2001). Basic marketing research (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt.

Collins, J. (1998). Seven kinds of smart. Time Canada, 152(16), 62-64.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Darkenwald, G. G., & Merriam, S. B. (1982). Adult education: Foundations of practice. New York: Harper and Row.

Davis, S., & Botkin, J. (1995). The monster under the bed. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Macmillan.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Education research (6th ed.). New York: Longman Publishers USA.

Gardner, H. (1993a). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.


Gardner, H. (1993b). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (Ed.). (1999). Intelligence reframed. Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-9.

Garrison, D. R. (1991). Critical thinking and adult education: A conceptual model for developing critical thinking in adult learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 10(4), 287-303.

Glaser, R., & Resnick, L. (1991). National research center on student learning (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED338704)

Gray, K. C., & Waggoner, J. E. (2002). Multiple intelligences meet Bloom's taxonomy. Kappa Delta Phi Record, 38(4), 184-187.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

Griffin, K. (2004). Perception is reality. Retrieved September 23, 2004, from EBSCOhost Web site: http://www.familybusinessstrategies.com/articles02/3262p.html

Gronlund, L. E. (1993). Understanding the national goals (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED358581)

Halpern, D. F. (1993). Assessing the effectiveness of critical-thinking instruction. Journal of General Education, 42(4), 239-254.

Hechinger, F. M. (1987, February 24). Thinking critically. New York Times, p. 27.


Hoerr, T. R. (1996). Implementing the theory of multiple intelligences. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 80(583), 9-10.

Holland, P. (2004). Mental map of Alabama: Perception is reality? Retrieved September 23, 2004, from EBSCOhost Web site: http://www2.una.edu/geography/statedepted/lessons/mentalmaps.html

Janes, L. M., Koutsopanagos, C. L., Mason, D. S., & Villaranda, I. (2000). Improving student motivation through the use of engaged learning, cooperative learning and multiple intelligences. Chicago: Master's Action Research Project, Saint Xavier University and Skylight field-based master's programs.

Jick, T. D. (1979, December). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.

Jordan, S. E. (1996). Multiple intelligences: Seven keys to opening closed minds. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 80(583), 29-35.

Kerka, S. (1992). Higher order thinking skills in vocational education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED350487)

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education.Chicago: Follett.

Lantham, A. S. (1997). Quantifying multiple intelligences gains. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 84-85.

Lazear, D. (1999). Eight ways of knowing (3rd ed.). Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional Development.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McCarthy, B. (2000). About learning. Wauconda, IL: About Learning.


Merriam, S. B., & Brockett, R. G. (1997). The profession and practice of adult education: An introduction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mettetal, G., Jordan, D., & Harper, S. (1997, November/ December). Attitudes toward a multiple intelligence curriculum. Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 115-122.

Morgan, D. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362-376.

Nolen, J. (2003, Fall). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Education, 124(1), 115-119.

Osciak, S. Y. (2001). Multiple intelligences and the design of Web-based instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(4), 355-358.

Paul, R. (1990). Critical thinking. Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique.

Pennar, K. (1996). How many smarts do you have? Business Week, 3493, 104-108.

Sieber, S. D. (1973). The integration of field work and survey methods. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1335-1359.

Smith, M. K. (2002). Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences. Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved October 27, 2003, from EBSCOhost Web site: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm

Stanford, P. (2003, November). Multiple intelligence for every classroom. Intervention in School & Clinic, 39(2), 80-85.

Steckler, A., McLeroy, K. R., Goodman, R. M., Bird, S. T., & McCormick, L. (1992). Toward integrating qualitative and


quantitative methods: An introduction. Health Education Quarterly, 19(1), 1-8.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985a). Teaching critical thinking, part 1: Are we making critical mistakes? Phi Delta Kappa, 67, 194-198.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1985b). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Reston, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Vaske, J. M. (2001). Critical thinking in adult education: An elusive quest for a definition of the field. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drake University, Des Moines, IA.

Visser, D. (1996). That's using your brain! Training and Development, 50(9), 38-40.

Weber, E. (2003). Five phases to PBL: MITA (Multiple Intelligence Teaching Approach) model for redesigned higher education classes. Retrieved February 16, 2004, from EBSCOhost Web site: http://www.blarg.net/~building/strategies/mi/weber3.htm

Wolfe, P., & Sorgen, M. (1990). Mind, memory, and learning. Napa, CA: Author.

Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program evaluation (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers USA.

White, J. (Ed.). (1998). Do Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences add up? London: Institute of Education, University of London.

APPENDIX ASTUDENT MI PREFERENCES

All participation in this survey is voluntary and

anonymous. Thank you for your participation.

______________________________________________________________

Please circle the proper responses for each statement:

DIRECTIONS: Step 1 Read each statement

Step 2 Use the scale below to answer the

following questions:

A. Not at all B. A little C. Somewhat D. A lot like E. Definitely

like me like me like me me like me

______________________________________________________________

1. A B C D E I enjoy reading all kinds of reading materials.

2. A B C D E I can easily compute numbers in my head.

3. A B C D E I like working on jigsaw puzzles, mazes, and

other visual puzzles.

4. A B C D E When I am bored, I find myself humming or

tapping a tune.

5. A B C D E It is hard for me to sit still for long; I

would rather be up and active.

6. A B C D E Interacting with others helps me to learn.


7. A B C D E I regularly spend time alone reflecting or

thinking about life questions.

8. A B C D E I love to take walks in the woods to learn

about the plants and animals.

9. A B C D E Hiking and camping are enjoyable activities.

10. A B C D E I find that working alone is just as productive

as working in a group.

11. A B C D E I like getting involved in social activities

connected with my work or community.

12. A B C D E I believe that a fit body is important to

having a fit mind.

13. A B C D E Moving or dancing to the beat is easy for me.

14. A B C D E I am very good at reading maps and blueprints.

15. A B C D E Math and/or science were among my favorite

subject(s).

16. A B C D E When working in a group, I enjoy sharing and

summarizing my thoughts.

17. A B C D E Taking notes is important for me to study,

remember, and understand.

18. A B C D E Multiple choice tests are easy for me.

19. A B C D E I like to draw, sketch, or doodle.

20. A B C D E While working, studying, or learning something

new, I often sing or make tapping sounds.


21. A B C D E I participate in at least one sport or physical

activity on a regular basis.

22. A B C D E People come to me for advice and help.

23. A B C D E I enjoy special hobbies or interests that I

keep pretty much to myself.

24. A B C D E I enjoy taking photographs to observe the

changes of the seasons and nature.

25. A B C D E I spend a great deal of time outdoors.

26. A B C D E I learn best when I enjoy, or have an

interest in the subject.

27. A B C D E I feel comfortable in the midst of a crowd.

28 A B C D E I learn best by hands-on activities.

29. A B C D E The type of music I am listening to depends on

my mood.

30. A B C D E Geometry is easier for me than algebra.

31. A B C D E Solving problems comes easily for me.

32. A B C D E Debates and public speaking are activities I

would like to participate in.

33. A B C D E I enjoy word games like Scrabble, Password, and

Boggle.

34. A B C D E Outlining chapters helps me to understand the

material I am reading.


35. A B C D E I enjoy reading material that has many

pictures, or is heavily illustrated.

36. A B C D E I find it difficult to concentrate while

listening to the radio or television.

37. A B C D E My best ideas come to me when I am busy in some

form of physical activity.

38. A B C D E I prefer group sports like volleyball or

softball to solo sports like swimming or

jogging.

39. A B C D E I consider myself independent minded.

40. A B C D E I enjoy categorizing things by common traits,

or characteristics.

APPENDIX BFINAL EXAM

The following arguments contain various kinds of fallacies. Evaluate each

and identify the fallacy using the matching list on the last page.

1. We can recognize that athletes that participate in sports must be

given special consideration within our grading system, or we can let

the University sink into athletic oblivion.

2. I don't know what colleges are teaching these days! I have just

received a letter of application from a young man who graduated from

the state university last June. It was a wretched letter--badly

written, with elementary errors in spelling, punctuation, and

grammar. The state university does not deserve the tax support that

it is getting.

3. All right-thinking people will support the Board of Education's

decision to destroy novels in the school libraries that are

offensive to the moral standards of the community. If there were an

epidemic of typhoid, the health authorities would be expected to do

everything in their power to wipe it out. Pornography is worse than

typhoid, since it corrupts the minds and morals of the young, not

just their bodies. The school board is to be applauded for their

prompt action in wiping out this moral disease.

4. Despite endless efforts, no one has been able to prove that God

exists; we may just as well stop trying and accept the truth: there

is no God.


5. Alicia started gaining more weight than ever when she started taking

Slimdown; the stuff must be fattening!

6. No sensible person would support the Equal Rights Amendment. If it

were to pass, we would have women in combat and unisex bathrooms.

Eventually, we would not even be able to tell the women from the

men!

7. How can Clinton be leading this country! He's a draft-dodging, pot-

smoking, womanizer!!

8. Michael Jordan wore that brand, so those must be the best basketball

shoes.

9. The difference in the outcome was Jefferson's missed field goal. If

he had put it through, we'd be going to the Super Bowl.

10. Don't ignore the woman who gave you birth, raised you, loved you

then, and loves you still. Remember your mom on Mother's Day.

11. So what if I didn't claim all of the money I earned on my taxes?

Lots of people underreport their income.

12. That's got to be a great line of clothes. Have you seen the prices

and the people endorsing it?

MATCHING LIST FOR FINAL

Each argument commits only one fallacy, and each fallacy is only used

once.

1. False analogy

2. Appeal to authority

3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

4. Attacking the person


5. Two wrongs

6. Non sequitur

7. Equivocation

8. False dilemma

9. Black and white (slippery slope)

10. Hasty generalization

11. Contrary-to-fact hypothesis

12. Ad ignorantium

13. Appeal to emotion


APPENDIX CSTUDENT PERCEPTIONS



______________________________________________________________

Read each statement. Use the following 1-5 scale to answer how

often the instructor used each Multiple Intelligence

technique:

1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Somewhat 4. Often 5. A lot

______________________________________________________________

Teaching Methods Used by Instructor

Saying, hearing, and seeing words 1.Process logic, problems, and equations 2.Visualizing, dreaming, and working with colors or pictures

3.

Rhythm, melody, and music 4.Touching, moving, and hands-on learning 5.Sharing, comparing, relating, cooperating, and interviewing

6.

Working alone, self-paced instructions, and having personal space

7.

Hands-on ability, categorizing things by common traits, being outdoors

8.




technique:


______________________________________________________________


Tells stories; listens and recalls information

9.

Shows patterns in data; uses graphs, charts; uses numbers

10.

Delivers information in pictures; mental imagery; mind mapping

11.

Uses sounds or songs to illustrate a point 12.Uses role-playing; move around the classroom 13.Collaborative learning; team activities; debates

14.

Uses self-reflection; self-directed activities; journal writing

15.

Refers to changing of seasons, nature 16.Explaining, understanding the order and meaning of words

17.



technique:


______________________________________________________________



Scientific reasoning; deductive and inductive reasoning

18.

Imagination; graphic representation; mental images

19.

Sensitivity to sounds; creating melody or rhythm

20.

Physical activity; moving around the classroom

21.

Sensitivity to others’ moods and feelings; verbal and nonverbal communication; passing over into the perspective of another

22.

Awareness and expression of different feelings; concentration

23.

Sensitivity to nature’s flora; growing natural things

24.

Uses a large vocabulary 25.Uses long chains of reasoning 26.



technique:


______________________________________________________________



“Sees” things others miss such as in a blueprint

27.

Uses music in teaching 28.Emphasizes emotions physically 29.Uses social insight; watches people 30.Uses self-reflection; self-directed activities; journal writing

31.

Refers to changing of seasons, nature 32.Uses puns, tongue twisters, alliteration 33.Uses patterns; puzzles or brain teasers 34.Uses mental exercises to ”see” 35.Uses ability to hear tones or rhythm 36.Physically active 37.Understands how to bring out the best in someone

38.

Uses self-image in assignments or activities 39.Uses nature in discussion 40.

APPENDIX DFOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION



___________________________________________________________

Questions for Focus Group Discussion:

1. Provide examples to illustrate how the instructor used

words, verbally or visually, to convey critical thinking

concepts, that is, saying or writing.


logic in conveying the critical thinking concepts, that

is, processes, problems, equations, routines, patterns.


imagery in conveying the critical thinking concepts, that

is, mental or actual pictures, use of color.


rhythm or melody in conveying the critical thinking

concepts, that is, music, cadence.


physical activities or the use of body language in

conveying the critical thinking concepts.



collaborative activities in conveying the critical

thinking concepts, that is, discussions, brainstorming,

shared experiences, drawing conclusions, analogies,

generating alternating views.

7. Provide examples to illustrate how the instructor

provided opportunities for reflection and introspection

in conveying the critical thinking activities.

8. Provide examples to illustrate how the instructor

identified and categorized uniqueness and differences or

referred to the natural elements, such as the changing of

the seasons, in conveying the critical thinking

activities.

APPENDIX ECODING CATEGORIES FOR QUESTIONNAIRES

Questions 1-40 Key Intelligence1, 9, 17, 25, 33 Verbal-Linguistic Intelligence:

Tell stories, write essays, converse easily with peers.

2, 10, 18, 26, 34 Logical Mathematical Intelligence:Solve problems, balance checkbooks, make and keep schedules.

3, 11, 19, 27, 35 Visual Spatial Intelligence:Paint, draw, design web pages, decorate rooms, make cards, create scrapbooks

4, 12, 20, 28, 36 Musical Intelligence:Attend concerts, play an instrument, hum melodies, sing along with others, enjoy rhythm and rhyme.

5, 13, 21, 29, 37 Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence:Engage in sports, enjoy moving body to music, enjoy walking tours, use body language.

6, 14, 22, 30, 38 Interpersonal Intelligence:Join discussion group, enjoy chat rooms, ability to perceive and relate to what others think or see.

7, 15, 23, 31, 39 Intrapersonal Intelligence:Keep a personal journal, enjoy being alone, study to answer personal questions about life.

8, 16, 24, 32, 40 Naturalistic Intelligence:Collect wildflower specimens, enjoy hunting expeditions, follow an animal’s footprints, photograph landscapes, visit the zoo.

Mi theory 4

Documents

introduction introduction

methodology39 introduction

blooms taxonomy

future research

research questions

critical thinking28table

critical thinking29table

critical thinking courses