The Relationship between Multiple Intelligences with Preferred Science Teaching and Science Process Skills

Mohd Ali Samsudin, Noor Hasyimah Haniza, Corrienna Abdul-Talib, Hayani Marlia Mhd Ibrahim

Abstract


This study was undertaken to identify the relationship between multiple intelligences with preferred science teaching and science process skills. The design of the study is a survey using three questionnaires reported in the literature: Multiple Intelligences Questionnaire, Preferred Science Teaching Questionnaire and Science Process Skills Questionnaire. The study selected 300 primary school students from five (5) primary schools in Penang, Malaysia. The findings showed a relationship between kinesthetic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial and naturalistic intelligences with the preferred science teaching. In addition there was a correlation between kinesthetic and visual-spatial intelligences with science process skills, implying that multiple intelligences are related to science learning.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Aktamis, H. & Ergin, O. (2008). The effect of scientific process skills education on students’ scientific creativity, science attitudes and academic achievements. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9 (1).

Armstrong, T. (2000). 7 Kinds of Smart. Identifying and Developing Your Multiple Intelligences. New York : A Plume Book.

Armstrong, T. (2003). The multiple intelligences of reading and writing: Making the words come alive. ASCD.

Bilgin, I. (2006). The effects of hands-on activities incorporating a cooperative learning approach on eight grade students'science process skills and attitudes toward science. Journal of Baltic Science Education, (9).

Carroll, K. (2000). Science for every learner: Brain-compatible pathways to scientific literacy. Tucson, Arizona: Zephyr.

Che Nizam Che Ahmad, Kamisah Osman & Lilia Halim. (2010). Hubungan ramalan persekitaran

pembelajaran makmal sains dengan tahap kepuasan pelajar. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia, 35(2), 19-30

Chen, J., Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (2009). Multiple intelligences around the world. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K.J. (1979). Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they . . . can they . . . be matched? Educational Leadership, 36, 238-244.

Enger, S. K., & Yager R.E. (1998). The Iowa Assesment Handbook. Iowa City, US: Science Education Centre.

Fatin Aliyah Phang & Nor Athirah Tahir. (2011). Science Process Skills among UTM’s Science Education Students. Journal of Science and Mathematics Educational, 3, 123-133. ISSN:2231-7368.

Gardner, H., 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

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

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

Gardner, H. & Hatch, T. (1989). Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational researcher, 18(8), 4-10.

Garrett, R. M. (1986). Problem-solving in science education. Studies in Science Education. 13 (1), 70-95.

Goodnaugh, K. (2001). Multiple Intelligences Theory: A framework for personalizing science curricula. School Science & Mathematics, 101, 180-194.

Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind them. Educational Leadership, 36, 234-237.

Hodson, D„ & Reid, D. (1988). Changing priorities in science education: Part I. School Science Review, 70(250), 101 -108

Hopper, B., & Hurry, P. (2000). Learning the MI way: The effects on students’ learning of using the theory of multiple intelligences. Pastoral Care, 18(4), 26-32.

Hu W. & Adey P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.

Kamisah Osman, Zanaton Haji Iksan & Lilia Halim. (2007). Sikap terhadap sains dan sikap saintifik di kalangan pelajar sains. Jurnal Pendidikan, 32, pp: 39-69.

Karslo,F., Yaman, F., & Ayas, A. (2010). Prospective chemistry teachers’ competency of evaluation of chemical experiments in terms of science process skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 778–781.

Kelly, G. J., Brown, C., & Crawford, T. (2000). Experiments, contingencies, and curriculum: Providing opportunities for learning through improvisation in science teaching. Science Education, 84(5), 624-657.

Kreuze, J. G. & Payne, D. D. (1989). The learning style preferences of Hispanic and Anglo college research on good teaching: A comparison. Reading Improvement, 26 (2), 166-169.

McKenzie, W. (1999). Multiple Intelligence Survey. Retrieved from:

http://www.surfaquarium.com/MI/inventory.htm.

McKenzie, W. (2009). Walking the Walk: Multiple Intelligences in Educator Professional Development. Massachusetts Computer Using Educators, pp: 11-29.

Millar, R. (1989). Bending the evidence: The relationship between theory and experiment in science education. In R. Millar (Ed.), Doing science: Images of science in science education (pp. 38–61). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Noor Akmar Taridi. (2007). Pendekatan inkuiri dalam pengajaran biologi secara eksperimen. (Tesis Dr. Falsafah, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi).

Pyatt, K. & Sim, R. (2007). Learner performance and attitudes in tradional versus simulated laboratory experiences.

Saban, A. I., & Bal, A. P. (2012). An analysis of teaching strategies employed in the elementary school mathematics teaching in terms of multiple intelligence theory. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education. Retrieved from http://eku.comu.edu.tr/index/8/2/

Sarrazine, A.R. (2005). Addressing astronomy misconceptions and achieving national science standards utilizing aspects of multiple intelligences theory in the classroom and the planetarium. (Tesis PhD. Indiana University, Indiana).

Shahrokhi, M., Ketabi, S., & Dehnoo, M. A. (2013). The relationship between multiple intelligences and performance on grammar tests: Focusing on linguistic intelligence. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(9), 189-194.