Multiple Intelligences of QSU Fresshmen and Their

Relationship to Grammar Competency Levels

ABSTRACT
With the demands of the socially- diverse learners of the 21st century, the avenue toward
grammar learning among students whose multiple intelligences varied from one another had
become the subject of most researches. This research was conducted to determine the multiple
intelligences of the BSE students which they have innately possessed and their relationship to
their grammar level competency. The quantitative data were obtained using the Shearer’s
Multiple Intelligence Developmental Assessment Scale or the MIDAS-24( Branton Shearer,
1987) and the validated Grammar Competency test; while the qualitative data were obtained
from interviews and through documentary analysis.
Using the SPSS, the gathered data were tabulated and interpreted as to the percentage,
standard deviation,Chi- Square test and ANOVA. Results show that there were no significant
differences on the respondent’s grammar competency when they were grouped according to
age and ethnicity. However, when they were grouped according to their gender and field of
specialization and according to their own intelligences, there were significant differences.
Understanding the concepts of multiple intelligences and language learning in a more intricate
ways may enthuse the educators to initiate practices and to provide their learners promising
approaches toward effective grammar teaching and learning .

KEYWORDS : Descriptive research, Diversity of Learners, Grammar Competency, Multiple

intelligences, Twenty- first century learners

Rationale
The current trends of the educative process give emphasis on individualized education
and learners’ autonomy. One principle in teaching asserts that effective teaching provides
opportunities among individuals considering their uniqueness and differences. ( Leus, Caubic
2015) Given the current atmosphere of the learners’ centered classrooms, 21st learners are
supposed to be accountable toward independent learning and should be made aware of their
strengths and weaknesses. Traditionally, the term “ intelligence” has been restrained by using IQ
test . However, those tests only measure single type of intelligence. Multiple

1
Intelligence ,therefore is an interesting concept which is very important to the contemporary
atmosphere of learning because its gist is that every individual has his own intelligences which
has been nurtured or naturally endowed to a person. Most contemporary researches give
evidences that the assessment and understanding of multiple intelligences have aid the
learners and teachers in the atmosphere of teaching- learning (Cheong, Loong, Cheng, &
Rajangam, 2007;).
Affixed with Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (MI), this paper holds
that the various ranges of different types of intelligence which are naturally posseseed by all
young individuals. The theory of multiple intelligences, developed by psychologist Howard
Gardner in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, speculates that individuals possess eight or more
relatively autonomous intelligences. Individuals standoff on these intelligences, individually and
corporately, to create products and solve problems that are relevant to the societies in which they
live (Gardner, 2006).
Armstrong (1987) described about the Multiple Intelligences and suggested ways of
helping children to learn more intelligently. He focused the parents and suggested the various
techniques and methods to teach children efficiently based on Multiple Intelligence concepts.
Entwined with the 21st century learning which is the effective communicative skills,scholars and
researchers advocate that students’ preferences on accepting grammar learning as element for
communicative purposes is of great importance toward global competitiveness, Hence with the
reality of understanding the leaners’ uniqueness, this research aims to determine the learners’
multiple intelligences and associate them with their level of grammar competency.

Statement of the Problem

This research focused on the different multiple intelligences that students possess.
The researchers aimed to find solution to the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:
1.1 Sex
1.2 Age
1.3 Ethnicity
1.4 Field of Specialization
2. What are their levels of intelligences along:
2.1 Intrapersonal Intelligence
2.2 Logical/Mathematical Intelligence
2.3 Linguistic Intelligence

2
 2.4 Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence
2.5 Spatial Intelligence
2.6 Musical Intelligence
3. Is there a significant relationship between the respondents’ intelligence and the level of
their Grammar competency ?
Theoretical Framework
Gardner ( 1983) primarily identified seven intelligences which learners possess to
varying scales,and these intelligences can be used as motivational factors toward effective
learning. Study Styles based on one’s intelligence becomes a learning factor toward the
enhancement of their potentials for holist their development. Thus, Gardner’s philosophy
focused on human potentials which depends on the persons’ individuality plus his unique blend
of capabilities and skills.This implies that intelligences are potentials to be activated, depending
on the nature and nurtured given to the learners including opportunities and personal decisions.

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Profile of the - Categorizing the

Respondents Learners into the -Enhanced
seven Varied Instruction in
- Sex,Age, Grammar Subjects
Multiple Intelligences
Ethnicity
-Assessment on the
Field of level of grammar
Specialization competency among
-MIDAS-24 BSE Students
Questionnaire

Intervening Variables
-Multiple Intelligences category
-Grammar Competency Level

Figure 1. The paradigm showing the Relationship between and among the Variables of the
Study
Objectives of the Study
This study aimed to categorize the prevailing multiple intelligences that the BSE
students possessed. It also determined the prevailing multiple intelligences and the grammar
competency level of the BSE sophomores. Specifically, this study focused on the following
objectives : (1) to determine the profile of the respondents in terms of sex, age ,ethnicity, and

3
field of specialization ;(2) to classify the students in terms of their intelligences using the
MIDAS-24; 3) to assess the grammar competency level of the BSE respondents; and (4) to
determine if there are significant relationships between the respondents’ intelligences and
their levels of Grammar competency. The findings of this paper became the basis for the
enhancement of grammar learning toward the learners’ opportunity of improving their grammar
for communicative purposes.
Null Hypothesis of the Study
The researchers worked along these null hypotheses: ( 1) there is no significant
relationship between the possessed intelligence of respondents and their competency in
grammar ; (2 )There are no significant differences on the Respondents’ level of grammar
competency when grouped according to their own intelligence and according to their profile.
Methodology
The respondents of this research were the BSE sophomores of Quirino State University
randomly selected using Slovin’s formula. Out of the 118 BSE sophomores, 81 students were
taken as respondents. Using Shearer’s Multiple Intelligence Developmental Assessment Scale
or the MIDAS-24 developed by Branton Shearer 1987) ,data were gathered to assess their
intelligences.
The MIDAS- 24 test reveals that the learners own specific multiple intelligences based on
the following : (a) test and retest results of MIDAS-24 scale, and the results were confirmed
using the interviews for validation and clarification of the test.
To obtain the grammar competency, the researcher constructed a test validated by four
English professors of the university. The researcher made a through preparation for the table of
specifications to guarantee even distribution of items as to the grammar competency and
language skills that need to be tested. They were given the grammar competency test which is
subdivided into 4 categories: (1) Identifying Errors (2 ) SV Agreement (3) Antecedents of
Pronouns and Nouns and ; (4 ) Syntax and sentence structure. At first the researcher prepared
130 item test but after pilot testing done with the 45 QSU Freshmen students and validation, it
was reduced to 80 items.
The numerical data gathered were tabulated and interpreted considering the percentage,
mean, standard deviation, and one-way analysis of variance, using the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS) software. The .05 alpha was employed as the criterion to determine the
significance of the result.
Results and Discussion
After a through gathering of data, results were obtained using the SPSS. The following table

4
present the findings.
Table 1. Frequency Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Sex, Age, Ethnicity and Field of
Specialization
f %
A.SEX
n=81 100.00
FEMALE 63 77.77
MALE 18 22.22
Total 81 100%
B.AGE
15 8 9.8 %
16 46 56.7 %
17 22 27.16 %
18 and above 5 6.17 %
TOTAL 81 100%
C. ETHNICITY
Ilocano 45 55.55
Ifugao/Igorot 16 19.75
Tagalog 7 8.64
Others 13 16.0
TOTAL 81 100 %
D. FIELD OF SPECIALIZATION

Language 40 49.38
Science/ Math 23 28.40
Technology Livelihood Educ. 18 22.22
TOTAL 81 100%

Table 1 presents the profile of the 81 BSE sophomore students. The respondents were
dominated by 63 Females or 77.77 per cent and 18 of them or 22.22 per cent were males.
Majority of them belong to age 16 with 56.7 per cent and only 9.8 per cent belong to age
15;and 22 of them or 27.16 % were 17 years of age. With regards to their ethnicity, 55. 55per
cent of them were dominated by Ilocanos; 19.75 were Ifugaos/Igorots and 16 per cent belongs to
other ethnic affiliation such as Pangasinense, Bukkalots and Kapampangan.Only 7 or 8.64 per
cent were Tagalogs.
With regards to their field of specialization, forty of them or 49.38 per cent were
language majors; 28.40 per cent were Math/ Science Majors; and only 22.22 per cent or 18 of
them were TLE majors.

5
 Considering the multiple intelligences they possessed, the 81 Freshman students were
categorized in accordance with the results obtained from the Shearer’s Multiple Intelligence
Developmental Assessment Scale (MIDAS-24).The table below presents the summary of the
multiple intelligences including their prevailing attributes.
Table 2. Summary of Data on Students' Multiple Intelligences
Category Number Per cent Rank
of
Students
MI Category General Description
Category 1 Learners tend to think of images and pictures 16 19.75 1
Visual-Spatial Intelligence and are likely very aware of object, shapes,
(“art smart” or “picture colors,and patterns in the environment around you.
smart”) They probably like to draw, paint, and make
interesting designs and patterns, work with clay,
colored markers, construction paper, and fabric.
Category 2 Learners excel in linguistic abilities which 15 18.82 2
Verbal-Linguistic include reading, speaking, and writing and tend to
Intelligence (“word smart” think words. They probably like various kinds of
or “book smart”) literature, playing word games, making up poetry
and stories, engaging in involved discussions with
other people, debating, formal speaking and
creative writing.
Category 3 Tend to have a keen sense of body awareness 11 13.58 5
Bodily-Kinesthetic like physical movements and can probably
Intelligence ("body smart" or communicate well through body language and
"movement smart") other physical gestures.
Category 4 Begins with concrete patterns in the real world 12 14.82 3.5
Mathematical-Logical and the learner try to understand relationships of
Intelligence (“math smart” the patterns he has seen through abstraction,
or “logic smart”) patterns, number patterns, visual patterns, and so
on.
Category 5 Self -reflective and tend to be in tune with 8 9.88 6
Intrapersonal Intelligence inner feelings, values, beliefs, and thinking
(“self smart” or processes; probably bearers of creative wisdom
“introspection smart”) and insight and highly intuitive.
Category 6 Work with and relate with other people, often 12 14.82 3.5
Interpersonal (“people as part of a team. They possess a whole range of

6
smart” or “group smart”) social skills that are needed for effective person-
to-person communication and relating.
Category 7 They are skilled at mimicking sounds, 7 8.64 7
language accents, and others’ speech patterns, and
Musical-Rhythmic can probably readily recognize different musical
Intelligence (“music smart” instruments in a composition,various sounds,
or “sound smart”) tones, and rhythms.
81 100 %
The table shows the categories with the number of students and the multiple intelligences
that they possessed with the following: Category 1 or Visual spatial intelligence composed of
16 students (or 19.75% of the participants) ;Category 2 or the verbal linguistic intelligence
consist of 15 or 18.52 %; Category 3 or Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence consist of 11 students or
13.58 %; category 4 or mathematical-logical intelligence consists of 12 or 14.82 %; category 5 or
the intrapersonal intelligence or self smart consist of 8 students or 9.87 %; category 6 or the
interpersonal intelligence consist of 12 or 14.82 %; and category 7 musical rhythmic intelligence
consists of 7 or 8.64 %
The manner the respondents was classified and assessed in accordance with their
multiple intelligences were based on the Shearer’s Multiple Intelligence Developmental
Assessment Scale (MIDAS-24) and were triangulated through interviews and through data
obtained from researcher's field notes.
Table 3. Level of Grammar Competency Among the Respondents
Score Description
64.21 – 80.00 Superior Grammar competency level
48.41 – 64.20 High vocabulary competency level
32.61 – 48.40 Average grammar competency level
16.81 – 32.60 Low grammar competency level
0.01 – 16.80 Very low grammar competency level

The table above presents the scoring system of the grammar competency with its respective
adjectival description. The grammar competency level was assessed through the 80- item
grammar competency test by which the researcher made a thorough preparation for the table of
specifications to guarantee even distribution of items as to the grammar competency and
language skills that need to be tested. They were given the grammar competency test which is
subdivided into 4 categories: (1) Identifying Errors (2 ) Subject- Verb Agreement (3)
Antecedents of Pronouns and Nouns and ; (4 ) Syntax and sentence structure. At first the

7
 researcher prepared 115 item test but after pilot testing done with the QSU BSE students and
after the validation done by the English instructors and Professors , the test item was reduced to
only 80 items.
Table 4. Grammar Competency Level of the Sophomore BSE Students When Classified
According to Multiple Intelligences
Category f Per Gram Description Ra
cent mar nk
Compe
tency
Scores
1. Visual-Spatial 16 19.75 37.20 Average Grammar 5
Intelligence Competency level
2. Verbal-Linguistic 15 18.82 64.25 High vocabulary 1
Intelligence competency level
3 Bodily-Kinesthetic 11 13.58 34.16 Average Grammar 7
Intelligence Competency level
4. Mathematical- 12 14.81 39.25 Average Grammar 4
Competency level
Logical Intelligence
5. Intrapersonal 8 9.88 41.15 Average Grammar 2
Competency level
Intelligence
6.Intrapersonal 12 14.82 38.25 Average Grammar 6
Competency level
7. Musical-Rhythmic 7 8.64 39.42 Average Grammar 3
Competency level
Intelligence

Table 5. Significant Relationship between the Respondents’ Multiple Intelligences

Language to their Grammar Competency level
Parameters Grammar Description Chi- Square df P– Decision
Competency Value value
Scores
1. Visual-Spatial 37.20 Average 1.458 4 0.834 Accept HO
Intelligence Grammar
Competency
level

2. Verbal- 64.25 High 23.882 16 0.05 Reject HO

Linguistic grammar
competency
Intelligence
level

3 Bodily- 34.16 Average 4.163 8 0.842 Accept HO

Kinesthetic Grammar
Competency
Intelligence
level

4. Mathematical- 39.25 Average 19.769 16 0.401 Accept HO

Grammar

8
Logical Competency
Intelligence level

5. Intrapersonal 41.15 Average 19.864 16 0.226 Accept HO

Intelligence Grammar
Competency
level

6.Intrapersonal 38.25 Average 11.375 12 0.497 Accept HO

Grammar
Competency
level

7. Musical-Rhythmic 39.42 Average 1.158 6 0.151 Accept HO

Intelligence Grammar
Competency
level

p-value of .05 and below are significant and above .05 are not significant

Table 5 shows the significant relationship between the respondents’ Multiple Intelligences
to the respondents’ grammar competency level. Those who belong to the Verbal-Linguistic
Intelligence garnered the High grammar competency level . Indeed, with the P- value of 0.05,
it implies that there is significant relationship between their verbal linguistic intelligence to their
grammar competency. Hence, the null hypothesis was rejected. All the rest of the six intelligences
denote the P- value of above .05 leading to the acceptance of the null hypothesis. This imply
that there is no significant relationship between their possessed intelligence to their grammar
competency level.
Table 6. Significant Differences on the Respondents’ Level of Grammar Competency
When Grouped according to their Profile Using the Chi-square Test/ T- test

Parameters Chi-Square value P- value Decision

I. Profile

A.Sex 23.882 .05 Reject HO*

B. Age 4.163 0.834 Accept HO

C. Ethnicity 11.769 0.092 Accept HO

D. Field of Specialization 14.864 0.021 Reject HO *

II . According to the Respondents’ multiple 11.375 0 .043 Reject HO *

intelligences

p-value of .05 and below are significant and above .05 are not significant

9
 Based on the data ,it is evident in the table that there are no significant differences on
the respondent’s grammar competency when they are grouped according to age and ethnicity.
However, when they were grouped according to gender and, field of specialization and on their
own intelligences, there were significant differences. However, the P- value of .05 along verbal
and linguistic intelligences shows that there is significant relationship between the respondents’
verbal intelligence to their grammar competency. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. This
implies that the future teachers whose major field is either Filipino or English have higher
competency along grammar.

CONCLUSIONS
Given the findings, these conclusions were drawn:
1. The respondents were mostly Females; majority of them belong to age 16 ; and
were dominated by Ilocanos and majority were taking up English and Filipino
Majors.
2. The QSU BSE students possess distinct multiple intelligences and their competency
in grammar is interlinked with their interest to learn the second language.
3. The various characteristics of learners in the classroom are manifestations of the
learners’ distinct innate interest as unique learners.
4. The respondents who belong to the Verbal-Linguistic Intelligence garnered high
grammar competency level; followed by those learners who hold intrapersonal
Intelligence ; while those who possess the other five intelligences have average
grammar competency level.
5. There are no significant differences on the respondent’s grammar competency
when they are grouped according to age and ethnicity. However, when they were
grouped according to gender , field of specialization and on their own intelligences,
there were significant differences.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the light of all the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are
suggested:
1. The BSE sophomores, being regarded as the future educators need to be given
consideration by the instructors in the teaching-learning process of grammar instruction with the
complex consideration of their own intelligence.
2. The BSE students may be encouraged to take a look into their own intelligences and
select field of specialization which are in line with their intelligence and interests.

10
 3. Being future educators, one must consider their interest in learning grammar to keep in
face with 21st century skill,i.e their effective communication skills.
4. BSE instructors must be caring enough to encourage the students to enhance their
intelligences for them to be communicatively equipped skills
5.The BSE Educators may consider the inclusion of the MI theory and the development
of grammar enhancement program for those who have been labelled to have the average
grammar competency.
6. For curricular implementers and policy- makers of the department along their
respective areas of concerns, they may be urge to lead in devising classroom atmospheres to
include diverse types of learners. Moreover, they need to make revisions for the development of
teaching- learning materials to keep in pace with the learners individuality.
7. For future references, other researches on multiple intelligences and students’
grammar competency level may be conducted in other learning institutions.
8. For promising approaches for effective teaching and learning of grammar, MI-inspired
learning teaching practices may be developed by English instructors to understand the leaners’
complex way of learning.

LITERATURE CITED
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Barrington, E. (2004). Teaching to student diversity in higher education: How multiple
intelligence theory can help. Teaching in Higher Education, 9, 421-434.
Berel,Dorig. Classroom Strategies for an Interactive Learning, IRA, 2001.
Carrington, V. (2001). Emergent home literacies: A challenge for educators. The
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 24(2), 88–100.
Celik, S. (2011). An overview of case studies about the influence of multiple intelligences on
teaching language. Languages for Specific Purposes in Theory and Practice, 147.
Retrieved on August 3, 2015 from https://goo.gl/3J9TWi
Cheong, A. L. H., Loong, A. W., Cheng. (2014)The relationship between multiple intelligences
and academic results of Taylor’s Business Foundation students, in Enhancing Higher
Education, Theory and Scholarship, Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA Annual
Conference [CD-ROM], Adelaide, 8-11 July. Published 2007 by the Higher Education
Research and Development Society of Australasia, Inc. Retrieved on October 1, 2015
Dionisio,A (2010) Teaching Guide in English 1:United Eferza Academic

11
 Publication: Batangas.
Doronilla,M. and Cortes,J (2000) The Philippine Education System. Katha
Publishing:Quezon City.
Feldman, D. H. (1980). Beyond universals in cognitive development. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub.
Corp.Dunn, S.D., & Dunn, K.J., Teaching students through their individual learning
styles: a practical approach. (Reston, V.A.: Reston Publishing Company, 1978).
Gardner, H., Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences, (New York, N.Y.: Basic
Books, 1983).
Gardner, H. (2006). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Gonzales-Pieda,J.A, Nunez,J.C.,Gonzeles-Pumeriega,S. Alvarez,L. and Garcia, M
( 2002) “ A structural equation model of parental involvement,motivation
and aptitudinal characteristics,a and academic achievement”. The Journal
of Experimental Education, 70 ( 3) 257-258

Goswami, J. ( 2010) “Factors affecting the implementation of communicative

Language teaching in Taiwanese college English classes ”,Minghsin
University of Science and Technology,Taiwan
Gregorio,H.and Gregorio,C. (1979) Philosophy of Education in Philippine
Setting . Garotech Publishing: Quezon City.
Gunst, G. A. (2004). A study of multiple intelligences among teachers in catholic elementary
schools in the Archdiocese of Detroit (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University).
Retrieved on August 2, 2015 from http://goo.gl/BpbzTh
Lim, C. P., et. al., "Classroom Management Issues in Information and Communication
Technology (ICT)-Mediated Learning Environments: Back to the Basics," Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia.

R. & M. Ehrman. 1992. “Second language research on individual

differences” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13:188-205.

Sarinea Anivan. I.S.P ( 19990) A System of Tasks for Language Learning ,in
Language Teaching Methodology for the Nineties, ed. RELC
Antology Series,24,pp 51- 63 Oxford
Series, O. P. (2004). How multiple intelligences theory can guide teachers’ practices: Ensuring
success for students with disabilities? Retrieved September 28, 2015
Tieso, C., "Curriculum: Broad brushstrokes or paint-by-the-numbers?," Teacher Educator
36 (2001): 199-213.
Zellman,G.L. and Waterman,J.M. ( 2002) “ Understanding Multiple Intelligences among Pupils .
The Journal of Educational Research,179-189

12
13