1. No category

International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research. Vol., 4 (2), 111-120, 2015
Available online at http://www.isicenter.org
ISSN 2147-3749 ©2015
An Analysis of First Grade Junior High Schools’ English Textbooks in the light
of Multiple Intelligence Theory: The comparison Between Newly Published
“Prospect1” and The Old One “Right Path to English2”
Elham Kia-Ahmadi1, Ali Arabmofrad2*
1
Islamic Azad University, Golestan Science and Research Branch
Department of English Language and Literature, Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran
2
*
Corresponding Author Email: [email protected]
Abstract
As the direct influence of teaching materials on the process of learning and
teaching, textbook’s importance has been emphasized as an educational
necessity (Hutchinson & waters, 1987). The present study aims to compare the
new edition of English text book Prospect 1 with the previous Right Path to
English 2 based on students’ perceptions. The participants of the study consist
of two groups of students; 165 first grade junior high school students and 135
second grade junior high school students in three different cities of Iran who
filled in Botelho’s (2003) MI checklist. The results revealed that the activities in
the two textbooks mainly cater two intelligences: verbal/ linguistic which was
the most predominant intelligence in both textbooks followed by visual spatial.
However, naturalistic, musical and logical intelligence were found as less
common intelligences.
Keywords: Textbook evaluation, Multiple intelligences.
Introduction
Textbooks may function as potential agents of change and educational innovation to meet curriculum goals and
objectives and learner’s needs since they are a vehicle for teacher and learner training; and they provide a picture of
what the change will look like (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994). According to Riazi (2003), “textbooks play a very crucial
role in the realm of language teaching and learning and are considered the next important factor in the second/foreign
language classroom after the teacher”. Moreover, the collection of a precise core textbook indicates an executive
educational decision in which there is important occupational, financial and even political empowerment (Sheldon,
1988). While a textbook is designed and published for educational purposes, evaluation is done impressionistically and
consists of attempts to forecast whether or not the materials will work, in the sense that the learners will be able to use
them without too much difficulty and will enjoy the experience of doing so. Based on the results of evaluation, teachers
can be supplied with the most appropriate framework to fulfill students’ needs and interests. Arikan reflects that “course
books are written for general audiences and thus cannot, in themselves, meet the needs of a particular second language
class” (Savignon 1997). Consequently, the remarkable thing is utilizing a framework based on which one can survey
students’ capabilities.
Traditionally, the capabilities of the students were measured through the IQ test. Continuously, Gardner (1983)
has opposed this viewpoint in his theory of Multiple Intelligences. Multiple Intelligences theory was proposed in 1980s,
when Gardner suggested that everyone has different kinds of abilities, aptitudes, and intelligences which are combined
differently. The different intelligences can be improved through education specially when there is training at specific
areas in early ages (Botelho, 2003). Nevertheless, he claimed that the brain has different areas of intelligences; it
includes verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical, spatial/visual, bodily/kinesthetic, musical, intrapersonal, interpersonal,
naturalist, and existential, but individuals differ in strength, weakness, and combination of them. Educational system
should consider such individual differences and include students’ intelligence profile in the textbook activities in order
to evaluate how they fit their learners’ needs.
As McDonough and Shaw (1993) note, “though in different circumstances, the options to choose teaching
materials may vary from totally free to extremely circumscribed; the ability to evaluate them effectively is a very
111
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(2), 111-120, 2015
important professional activity for all ELT teachers”. When teaching materials are to be used by a group of teachers, it
seems sensible that they are selected by all those who will be involved in their use (Sheldon, 1988). Taking these points
into consideration, this study is an attempt to investigate the level of multiple intelligences in the newly-published ELT
textbook in Iranian first grade junior high school educational system “Prospect1” and compare it with the old version
“Right Path to English2” in the light of Multiple Intelligences theory (MI). The results of present study will benefit
material developers, teachers, and students.
Literature Review
Importance of textbook
Textbooks are one important source amongst an increasingly extended and different range of teaching materials.
They are specified collections of textual and visual materials, designed for teaching and learning a specified subject
following specified methodological and didactical principles (Bourdillon, 1992). Thus, it could be concluded that
textbooks are very important in all types of educational institutions all over the world. It is believed that material
development plays an important role in the field of language teaching. However, textbooks may be related to many
factors such as teachers, students, or other environmental factors. For instance, teachers may be willing to use different
approaches, or students prefer to use one part of the book over another. In terms of the importance of textbooks in
educational settings, Hutchinson and Torres (1994) claim that: The textbook is an almost universal element of [English
language] teaching. Millions of copies are sold every year, and numerous aid projects have been set up to produce them
in [various] countries…No teaching-learning situation, it seems, is complete until it has its relevant textbook (p. 315).
Purposes of materials evaluation
Evaluation gives information regarding the effectiveness of the course content. There may be certain curricular
areas which may prove to be difficult for the students as they may not be cognitively ready to understand the material.
This fact can be identified through textbook evaluation and students’ feedback. Such information is useful in predicting
the appropriateness of the pre-determined purposes, of the course as well (Al-sowat, 2012) Hence, evaluation can
provide a basis for textbooks revision. Scheerens et al (2003) states that the main motives for creating or improving
provisions for evaluation are three main concerns: to officially modulate requested ranks of quality of educational
results and stipulations; to keep educational service suppliers obligated and to uphold continuous encouragement in
education.
When a textbook is introduced, it has to be inspected cautiously in order to ensure that the material is appropriate
for the learners. So, a number of distinct aspects should be taken into consideration, for instance, the age and expertise
degree of the students, the different language elements which the students need to learn, the course syllabus and so on
(Fredriksson & Olsson, 2006). Low (1987) states that “teachers generally need to screen materials, in order to predict
their suitability for particular classes”. The main objective of most evaluations is to supply the educators and textbook
designers "practical feedback" to a multiplicity of performers. Therefore, materials evaluation plays significant role in
language teaching and it can and should be a procedure that allows teachers to improve their self- awareness of their
own teaching/learning process.
Concept of intelligence
Many psychologists have attempted to specify and quantify human intellectual capabilities. Among them was
Francis Galton who believed in genetic transmissibility of the intelligences (Gardner, 1999). He believed he could make
intelligence countable, so he improved formal IQ tests in the late nineteenth century. Other tests were created in order to
measure human capabilities. Tests such as Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and even achievement tests are similar to
IQ tests (Gardner, 1999). When IQ test started being used in the United States, it became a scientific success. The other
similar test devised, was the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) which also summed up linguistic and mathematical scores
in order to assess an individual’s intelligence and to foretell someone s academic success.
Besides predicting success or failure in school, IQ tests are also used for other purposes like decisions making
about jobs and educational occasions. They also affect teaching and assessment in traditional schools (Botelho, 2003).
Although IQ test have been administered for about a century, many psychologists have questioned their validity. So,
they tried to increase a number of alternative theories, all of them suggest that intelligence is the result of many
independent capabilities which uniquely contribute to human performance. These theories suggest that intelligence is
not fixed, unitary, and predetermined, but it is modifiable, multi-faceted, and capable of development” (Campbell,
2000). Gardner (1983) believes that intelligence cannot be measured by traditional IQ tests, which are normally applied
when we went to evaluate somebody s aptitudes. However, the aptitudes which IQ tests normally evaluate are related
and linked to academic skills. In his book entitled “ Multiple Intelligences-The Theory in Practice” he also reiterates
that “intelligence is a general ability that is found in varying degrees in all individuals which can be measured reliably
with standardized pencil-and-paper tests that, in turn, predict future success in school”.
He clearly criticizes the way IQ tests measure one’s abilities, arguing that our society is brainwashed to restrict the
notion of intelligence to the capacity used in solving logical and linguistic problems. Thus, it seems plausible to claim
112
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(2), 111-120, 2015
that Gardner means that intelligence is a broad concept which manifests more than performance in learning. Gardner
(1983) defines intelligence as a “bio psychological potential of intellectual faculties. That is the ability to solve
problem, or to fashion products, that are valued in one or more cultural or community setting. He stated eight layouts of
intelligences in human brain: linguistics, logical- mathematics, visual-spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, musical, and
bodily-kinesthetic and naturalist (Armstrong, 2007), and in 1995, having fond new data, he added up the naturalistic
one. Human different and individual abilities can be considered as evidence that multiple intelligences exist. Multiple
intelligences can be put into practice either individually or as combination of two or more intelligences. According to
Botelho (2003), “intelligence has a strong impact on people, so those who are labeled as intelligent are expected to be
able to succeed not only in academic life but also in different real-life tasks or situations. On the other hand, Gardner’s
theory of Multiple Intelligences diverges from this traditional view, since this view suggests that the concept of
intelligence should be able to recognize people who are successful in areas in addition to only logical-mathematical and
linguistic area.
Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence
Multiple Intelligences theory (MI) was proposed in 1980s, when Howard Gardner suggested that everyone has
different kinds of abilities, aptitudes, and intelligences that are combined differently. Before Gardner, intelligence was
thought to be measured statically. This view of intelligence refers to the traditional static view of intelligence, the
Intelligence Quotient (IQ). Gardner proclaimed that traditional IQ tests measure only logic and language, nevertheless
scholars realized that the brain has other areas of intelligences, including verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical,
spatial/visual, bodily/kinesthetic, musical, intrapersonal, interpersonal, naturalist, and existential, but individuals differ
in strength, weakness and combination of them. As mentioned above, Gardner (1983) revolutionized the view of
intelligence by publishing, Frames of mind, proposing a new theory called “Multiple Intelligences”. Gardner believes
that intelligence cannot be measured by traditional tests such as IQ tests and his view of intelligence differs from the
traditional view. On this basis, he defined intelligence as "the capacity to solve problems or to fashion products that are
valued in one or more cultural setting" (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). Gardner (1999) stated that: Each person’s potentials
can be activated and this activation depends on several aspects such as “the values of a particular culture, the
opportunities available in that culture, and the personal decisions made by individuals and/or their families,
schoolteachers, and others.
The descriptions of intelligences are given below
Verbal/Linguistic (VL) explains the extent to which an individual uses language in an effective manner in speech
and writing for distinguishing different patterns of a language. This intelligence is included in utilizing the language to
recall in the mind the old information which have been stored in the memory, tell stories, and write letters, verse or
poetry which traditionally examined in different standardized tests such as TOEFL, SAT, GRE as well as the IQ test.
The verbal linguistic intelligence is evident in poets, writers, lawyers, teachers, politicians, and storytellers.
Logical/Mathematical (LM) represents the skill to use numbers effectively and reason well. This intelligence is
involved in understanding theoretical patterns, making prognostications, arrangement in a sequence, determination of
the order, problem solving and scientific investigation which is called scientific thinking. People with strong
logical/mathematical intelligence are mathematicians, engineers, accountants, logicians, computer programmers and
scientists. As we have mentioned before, this intelligence like verbal linguistic, is mainly used in standardized tests.
Spatial/Visual (SV) involves “the capacity to form, space, color, line, map, and shape” (Christison, 1996). It helps
visualizing things either mentally or graphically. Anything relating to space such as using a map to locate a place in a
city or drawing a floor plan is examples of SV intelligence. Some people who are strong in spatial/visual intelligence
are architects, navigators, painters, sculptors, and graphic artists. Bodily/Kinesthetic (BK) is the ability to solve
problems using the body and being able to declare thoughts, ideas, and emotions through movements and gestures.
Activities such as climbing, writing, building things, driving a car, and playing sports are examples of using this
intelligence. Some professionals who are strong in BK are athletes, dancers, acrobats, and actors. Musical (M) involves
the capacity to explicit emotions and feelings through music. It includes the ability to murmuring sounds, whistle or
sing a song. Playing musical instruments and composing songs are some examples of using musical intelligence.
Singers and musicians are professionals whose musical intelligence is strong. Interpersonal (IR) is the ability to interact
with people and understand them effectively. It entails the ability to have empathy with others and care for other people.
This intelligence is really important to jobs that need leaders who are able to motivate others in a successful manner.
Professions such as religious leaders, teachers, salespeople, politicians, counselors, and all kinds of team leaders are
strong in their interpersonal intelligence. Intrapersonal (IA) involves the capacity to understand oneself which is really
important in one’s life. This intelligence involves self-reflection, self-awareness, self-consciousness, and reflective, that
is, which result us to be a self-observer. Gardner (1999) considers the interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences as
“the personal intelligences” and he states these intelligences are the most controversial ones. Naturalist (N) entails the
ability to understand the natural world by recognizing, classifying and categorizing species found in nature such as
plants, animals, and minerals. A naturalist person can distinguish species that are harmful or beneficial to humans.
People such as biologists, environmentalists, ornithologists, and geologists are strong in the naturalist intelligence. After
113
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(2), 111-120, 2015
the publications of Gardner’s Frames of mind, private and public schools started to change their curriculums based on
human mental abilities (Weiner, 2001). Teachers considered the intelligence profile of the course books they choose in
order to evaluate how they fit their learners. They selected their textbooks based on learners’ purposes and needs
(Bottelho, 2003). There are also a number of criticisms against MI theory. However, many researchers harmonized in
Gardner’s view of intelligence and used MI in their teaching. Campbell (2000), for example; analyzed how knowledge
of MI theory influenced teachers’ beliefs about intelligence changes, which are shifting from fixed to modifiable
notions of IQ and from tacit to explicit beliefs about intelligence.
Advantages and reasons of using textbooks
Palmberg (2001) stated that, many teachers prefer to select one course book as the basis for a language course and
systematically take their students through the book from the beginning to end. Textbooks reduce preparation time
because they provide activities that are ready to use, so teachers must select texts cautiously and efficiently in order to
consider learners’ differences, styles, and needs. Since there is a large volume of published text books available in the
markets, teachers need to be well-informed to select the suitable ones on the basis of their curriculum aims and
students’ needs. Some researchers attempt to explain why textbooks have been major tools in language teaching and try
to determine the factors that contribute to the use of textbooks in most language classrooms throughout the world.
Sheldon (1988) identified some reasons that contribute to the constant use of texts: 1) it is hard for teachers to develop
their own materials, 2) due to the nature of their profession; teachers do not have much time to create new materials,
and 3) there are external pressures that restrict teachers. In addition textbooks reduce preparation time because they
provide activities that are ready to use. Garinger (2001) adds some more factors: textbooks can be used to facilitate the
organization of lessons,) to make stability for students, and to assure comparable instruction. He continues that using
solely textbooks is not an ideal method for language teaching since it does not consider students’ needs. However, she
states the importance of textbooks as a framework for teachers and students.
Textbook evaluation and MI theory
Teachers must be well-informed of this reality that in all of the classrooms there are pupils who are different from
each other in many distinctive ways (Christison, 1998; Gardner, 1983; Larsen-freeman, 2000). Each student comes
from a distinctive social, economic, and family background; each one has different area of interest, different ways of
expressing themselves, diverse strength, and weaknesses. And now the teacher should be aware of the fact that students
have their own individual intelligence profile, in addition to the fact that this intelligence profile is not fixed; therefore,
teachers should allow for compensating for weaknesses and capitalizing on strength (Marefat, 2007). Course book
selection is therefore not an easy task for the teacher and requires the full consideration of learners’ needs, styles, and
intelligences. It also requires gathering a good deal of information on students’ level of intelligences, identifying how
strong or weak they are in each intelligence, and making serious attempts to minimize their weaknesses in any specific
intelligence to bring about motivation in learners. The analysis of course books requires close comprehensive
examination of texts, and this ,in turn, makes serious demands on the part of the teacher to utilize the most recent trends
and shifts in the relevant area and take account of features of appropriate texts.
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in textbooks evaluation under the lights of MI theory.
Palmberg (2002) demonstrated the analysis of course books by student teachers in order to clarify intelligence profile.
De Oliviera (2009) analyzed two course books utilized in Porto Alger city, Brazil and came to the conclusion that
verbal/linguistic, intrapersonal, interpersonal and visual/spatial intelligences appeared mostly in the textbooks. Kirkgöz
(2010) investigated locally-published ELT textbooks in Turkey and came to the conclusion that naturalistic intelligence
was the least type. Razmjoo and Jozaghi (2009) worked on Top-notch series based on the elements of multiple
intelligences theory. The results confirm that, Top-notch is reach in addressing verbal intelligence followed by the
visual, logical, musical, interpersonal, bodily, and intrapersonal one while to some extent poor in representing natural
and existential intelligences. Recently, Taase (2012) analyzed ELT textbooks used in guidance school of Iranian
educational system on the basis of Multiple Intelligence Theory. He found that verbal/linguistic and visual/spatial were
the most predominant intelligences in those books. He also did not find any trace of bodily/kinesthetic, musical, and
naturalistic intelligences.
Research question
Based on the objectives of this study, the following research question was proposed; based on the students’
perception, to what extent does the activities in "Prospect1"and "Right Path to English2" includes multiple intelligences
included in Botelho's (2003) multiple intelligences evaluation checklist?
Methodology
The present study aimed at evaluation two textbook in the Iranian educational system, and compare them in order
to determine whether there was any improvement in the new edition of English book “Prospect 1 “ in compare to the
old version “Right path to English2 “ with respect to multiple intelligences in the provided activities.
114
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(2), 111-120, 2015
Participants
A total of 300 male and female students participated in the present study from three different cities in Iran. Among
them were165 1st-grade junior high school and 135 2nd-grade guidance school students. First- grade junior high school
students were taught the new published book and 2nd- grade guidance school students were taught the old system book.
The participants included both male and female students. The ratio of male to female participants, however, was not
controlled.
Instrumentation
In this study, Botelho (2003) checklist which involves eight sections regarding eight types of intelligences was
employed. This checklist was translated by the researcher in Persian since there was no suitable research tool in the
native language which could meet the objectives of the present study. The result of this checklist determined the level
of satisfaction of students regarding the intelligences provided in the activities in each book. The items of the checklist
are exemplified, in a way that the items contain examples of each intelligence which are comprehensible for students. It
consists of eight sets of items, each set related to a specific intelligence and the total numbers of items are 50. For each
question, the respondents provided rating on a three point Likert-type scales. The answers to the items ranged from
agree, somewhere between, and disagree (Botelho, 2003).
Procedure
As mentioned above, the selected checklist was initially developed in English by Botelho (2003), which was
translated into Persian and revised several times after consultations with five experts of applied linguistics in order to
examine the accuracy, suitability, and appropriateness of the translations. The revised version of the checklist was
piloted in a representative sample on two main groups of participants. The pilot testing revealed that the students did
not experience any difficulties in understanding and completing the items of checklist. Afterwards, because the two sets
of checklist were going to be analyzed separately, thus, a descriptive analysis was run to analyze the data elicited from
the sets using SPSS 16.
Results
The reliability of the instrument
For the reliability of the checklist, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (Culper, 2011; Dornyei & Taguchi, 2010) was
used. The reliability of the checklist was estimated to be 0.89 for the 1st-grade and 0.88 for the 2nd-grade.
First grade results
Table 4.1 gives a general overview of the 1st-grade results. As indicated, the profile of the book Prospect 1, from
students’ perspective was dominantly verbal/ linguistic intelligence with the mean score of 13.8 followed by visual with
the mean of 9.1. The next three other closed sorts of intelligences including intrapersonal (6.24), interpersonal (6.22)
and bodily kinesthetic (6.01). Then, logical mathematical intelligence with the mean of (4.1) and musical intelligence
with the mean of (3.4) were preferred by students. Finally, naturalistic intelligence was the least preferred type with the
mean of (1.3). The following paragraphs elaborate on different intelligences of the textbook from students’ viewpoint
(see also figure 1).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics on multiple intelligences, 1st- Grade.
Intelligence
Verbal
Logical
Visual
Bodily
Musical
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Naturalistic
N
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
Mean
13.8788
4.1879
9.1939
6.182
3.4667
6.2242
6.2485
1.3636
SD
4.01033
2.36485
4.05586
3.81344
2.92703
2.89733
2.79242
1.34840
Verbal/ linguistic
The first dominant intelligence is verbal/ linguistic intelligence from students’ perspective. More than half of the
students believed that the range of the occurrence of verbal/linguistic intelligence in “Prospect One” is “Mid” (52.72%)
followed by “High” (39.39%). The least preferred alternative is “Low” with the percent of 7.87%. It can be said that
most of the students agree upon the widespread use of verbal/linguistic intelligence in this textbook.
115
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(2), 111-120, 2015
Visual/ spatial intelligence
Visual/spatial intelligence is the second predominant intelligence. The most frequently alternative of visual/ spatial
intelligence in Prospect One is “Mid” from students’ viewpoint. About half of the students (49.9%) rated visual/ spatial
intelligence “Mid” consecutively, 28.48 % of the students scored “Low”. At last, like logical intelligence, “High” is less
preferred alternative from students’ perspectives with the percent of 22.42%. Like Verbal intelligence, students
accepted the high occurrence of Visual/ spatial intelligence in Prospect One. As shown in table 1.
Intrapersonal intelligence
As for intrapersonal intelligences, the frequency occurrence of students’ answer in Prospect 1 is shown in table 1.
More than half of students scored interpersonal intelligence “Low” (50.9%) and “Mid” (47.87%) respectively. Finally,
just two students rated “High” (1.21 %). As observed, 84 of students scored “Low”, followed by 79 students who rated
“Mid”. At last, only two students scored “High”. Like musical intelligences students mostly accept the occurrence of
intrapersonal intelligence in Prospect 1 is not satisfactory.
Interpersonal intelligence
The fifth intelligence in the category is interpersonal intelligence. Most of the students scored interpersonal
intelligence “High” (44.84%) and “Mid” (43.63%) respectively. Finally, nineteen students rated “Low” (11.51 %). It
should be noted that, ten students rated interpersonal intelligence completely (10). It is observed that 74 of students
scored “High”, followed by 72 students who rated “Mid, 72 students scored “Mid”. Like intrapersonal and bodily/
kinesthetic intelligences students accepted the occurrence of interpersonal intelligence in Prospect 1.
Bodily/ kinesthetic intelligence
The next category was related to bodily/ kinesthetic intelligence. The most frequent alternative in the checklist is
“Low” (41.81%) followed by “Mid” (36.36%). Finally, a small portion of students (21.81%) answered “High”. The
significant difference between bodily/kinesthetic intelligence and other types is that “Low” alternative is mostly
preferred. It can be said that students did not accept the highly distributed frequency occurrence of bodily/kinesthetic
intelligence in Prospect 1.
Logical/ mathematical intelligence
The sixth predominant intelligence based on students’ answers to application of multiple intelligences in Prospect
1 is logical/ mathematical intelligence. Like verbal/linguistic intelligence, most of the students scored “Mid” (42.42%),
followed by “Low” (36.96%). Finally, a meager portion of students (20.60%) answered “High”. Unlike verbal/linguistic
intelligence no students scored logical/ mathematical intelligence fully denoting that they did not score all questions of
this part “High”. Among 165 students, 70 students scored “Mid” followed by 61 students who scored “Low”, 34
students scored “High”. It can be said that students believe that occurrence of logical/ mathematical intelligence was not
sufficient in Prospect 1.
Musical intelligence
As for musical intelligence, students scored “Mid” more than other choices in musical intelligence. More than
half of the students (50.9%) rated musical intelligence “Low” followed by 30.90 % of the students who scored “Mid”.
At last, 18.18% of the students scored “High”. Among the students, 84 of them scored “Low” which is the most
predominant alternative. Like logical intelligence, students recognized the less frequency occurrence of musical
intelligence in Prospect 1.
Naturalistic intelligence
The less frequent intelligence include two items is naturalistic intelligence. The application of naturalistic
intelligence from students’ perspective is similar to from musical and intrapersonal intelligences; so that, 57.57% of the
students rated “Low” followed by “Mid” (33.33%). In this type of intelligence a meager portion of students selected
“High” alternative (9.09%). At the end, it is observed that musical and naturalistic intelligences are the least preferred
type of intelligences from students’ viewpoint in Prospect 1.
116
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(2), 111-120, 2015
Figure 1.The mean of multiple intelligences of prospect 1.
Second grade results
Table 2 shows the distribution of multiple intelligences in the Right Path to English 2. As revealed by table 2, this
book caters predominantly for verbal/linguistic intelligence with the mean of 12.8. The second most prevalent type of
intelligence catered for is Visual/ Spatial intelligence, including 9.07 mean of the scores. The bodily/ kinesthetic,
interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences were nearly applied equally, with the means of 5.74, 5.67 and 5.37 of the
exercises in order. Logical (M=4.45) was the sixth widely used intelligence in Right Path to English 2 followed by
musical intelligence with the mean of 3.02. Finally, Naturalistic intelligence was the least frequently used type of
intelligence in this textbook with the mean of 0.97 which is shown in figure 3. The following paragraphs expatiate the
application of different types of intelligences in Right Path to English 2.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics on Multiple Intelligences, 2nd-Grade
Intelligence
Verbal
Logical
Visual
Bodily
Musical
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Naturalistic
Valid N
N
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
Mean
12.8074
4.4593
9.0741
5.7407
3.0296
5.6741
5.3704
0.9778
SD
4.87684
2.66756
3.65413
3.35458
2.75611
2.38099
2.66750
1.10943
Verbal/ linguistics intelligence
Consideration of verbal/linguistic intelligence is shown in table 2. As obvious, “Mid” is the highest frequently
selected alternative (54.81%) followed by “Low”, (25.18%) and “High” (20%). Based on the results obtained from this
item, most of the students believe that verbal/linguistic intelligence is presented in “Right Path to English 2”.
Visual intelligence
The second predominant intelligence in Right Path to English 2 from students’ perception is visual/ spatial
intelligence. The frequency of students’ responses on the representation of visual intelligence of exercises in Right Path
to English 2 is shown in table 2. More than half of the students (51.11%) selected “Mid” followed by “High”, 49
(36.29%). The least frequently selected alternative was “Low”, only 17 case (12.59%). unlike the previous item, “Low”
was not selected by the majority of students. According to this table, we can come to the conclusion that most of Iranian
students believe that texts and exercises obey the visual intelligence in Right Path to English 2.
Bodily/kinesthetic intelligence
The third frequent selected intelligence in Right Path to English 2 is bodily/ kinesthetic intelligence. The most
frequently selected alternative is “High”, 54 (40. %) selected followed by 39 students who selected “Low” (31.11%).
Totally, 39 students selected “Mid” (28.88%). According to the frequency of students’ responses, it can be said that
117
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(2), 111-120, 2015
Right Path to English provides the students’ with bodily kinesthetic and unlike previous intelligences, “High” was the
first frequent alternative selected by the students.
Interpersonal intelligence
As for interpersonal intelligence, more than half of the students selected “Mid” (54.7%), 38 students (28.14%)
“High”. Totally, 82.84% of the students accepted that the topics and exercises of Right Path to English 2 are appropriate
considering Interpersonal Intelligence. The less preferred alternative is “Low” which was selected by 19 students
(14.7%). The results show that most of the students are agree that the interpersonal intelligence is considered in Right
Path to English 2.
Intrapersonal intelligence
The next predominant intelligence in the Right Path to English 2 is intrapersonal intelligence. Based on students’
perspective are shown in table 2, “Mid” is the most abundantly selected alternative (47.40%) followed by “Low”
(28.88%). The less preferred alternative is “High” selected by 32 students out of 135 (23.70%). According to the
frequency of Iranian students’ responses, it can be said that nearly half of them believe that intrapersonal intelligence is
approximately considered in Right Path to English 2.
Logical/ spatial intelligence
As for logical/ mathematical intelligence, table 2 considers the order of the textbook’s content. As shown, more than
half of students selected “Mid”, 73 (54.07%) followed by “Low”, 46 (34.07%). Finally, 17 students selected “High”
alternative. It should be noted that just one student selected the “High” alternative completely. Based on the results, it
can be said that most of the students believe that “Right Path to English” follows a logical progression in the
presentation of the contents (90 0ut of 135).
Musical intelligence
The next item examines the consideration of musical intelligence in Right Path to English 2. As shown in table 2,
most of the students selected “Low” 83 (61.48%) which shows their dissatisfaction with the presentation of musical
intelligence considerations in the old English book. “Mid” is the second frequently selected choice in this item
42(31.11%). Totally, 10 students (7.40%) of the students selected “Low”. Based on the results, it can be said that they
are disagree that musical intelligence is presented in Right Path to English 2. The cumulative of no checklist was
between11-17. Based on the results, it can be said that they are disagree that musical intelligence is presented in Right
Path to English 2.
Naturalistic intelligence
The last and the less predominant intelligence in Right Path to English 2 is naturalistic intelligence. Table 2 shows
how the naturalistic intelligence is presented accurately. As obvious, “Low” is the most dominantly preferred
alternative selected by more than half of the students (65.92%), 89 out of 135 students were selected low alternative.
Also, 32 students selected “Mid” and only 14 of them preferred “High” alternatives. Since most of the students’
selected “Low” alternative, it can be concluded that most of them are dissatisfy with the naturalistic intelligence
presented in the textbook.
14 12.8074
12
9.0741
10
8
5.7407
5.6741 5.3704
4.4593
6
3.0296
4
0.9778
2
0
Figure 2. The mean of multiple intelligences in the right path to English 2.
118
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(2), 111-120, 2015
The results show that, the activities in the two textbooks mainly cater to 2 intelligences: verbal/ linguistics and
spatial/visual. The main difference between these two groups started from the three next intelligences. The order of next
three intelligences in 1st-grade is intrapersonal, interpersonal, and bodily kinesthetic intelligence. In 2nd-grade the next
three mostly preferred intelligences are bodily, interpersonal, and intrapersonal Intelligences. However, logical,
musical, and naturalistic intelligences appeared in the same way in both grades, for 1st-grade the mean was 4.1, 3.4, and
1.3; but for 2nd-grade it was 4.45, 3.2, and 0.97, respectively. The figure 3 inserted for more illustration.
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1st-grade
2nd. Grade
Figure 3. Comparison mean of multiple intelligences of 1st. and 2nd-Grade textbook.
As revealed by figure-3, some intelligence such as verbal, visual, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and bodily were
applied satisfactorily from students’ perspective. However, there is a need for more diversity in the other intelligences.
One of the most significant results of this study is the lack of naturalistic and musical intelligence in both textbook
profiles. According to Botelho (2003), in order to include the less common intelligences in one’s teaching, the activities
in a textbook can be exploited in another manner. Another possibility is to supplement textbooks with extra materials or
activities. Such changes not only include the less common intelligences but also help balance the type of intelligences in
teaching to fit learners’ profile. Teachers can include the textbooks’ weak intelligences in order to help students.
It should be noted that each intelligence can be presented through multiple ways (Gardner, 1983). For example,
verbal/linguistic can be presented through hearing and seeing words, speaking, reading, writing, discussing and
debating and etc., visual spatial through working with pictures and colors, visualizing, using the mind’s eye, drawing
and bodily/kinesthetic intelligence can be presented through athletics, dancing, crafts, using tools, acting, moving
around, touching and talking and using body language.
Discussion and Conclusion
The main objective of this study was to investigate the students’ perceptions of intelligences in “Prospect 1” and
then compare it with the old version “Right path to English”. The results showed that the textbooks catered
predominantly for verbal/linguistic intelligence. This is in agreement with the previous studies on textbook evaluation
based on MI theory that done by Botelho (2003), Kirkgöz (2010), Razmjoo and Jozaghi (2009), Taase (2012). Verbal/
linguistic intelligence was the most predominant intelligence in all of the previous studies. The reason may be explained
by the fact that all other intelligences are stated through language but this type is mixed with other intelligences in
exercises and activities. The second most prevalent type of intelligence was visual/ spatial. The result is in sharp
contrast to previous studies. For example, Kirkgöz’s (2010) study.
visual/spatial intelligence was the sixth frequently used type; it was the fifth mostly occurred intelligence in “TopNotch Series” (Razmjoo & Jozaghi 2009); and the fourth dominantly catered for intelligence in “Right path to English
Series” (Taase, 2012). It can be conducted that, in most of the textbooks, maps, reading charts, drawing, mazes, puzzles,
imagining things, and visualization have been used appropriately for better comprehension. Bodily kinesthetic and
interpersonal intelligence was the third and fourth dominantly used intelligence in “Right path to English2”, but the
fifth and forth in “Prospect 1”. These intelligences were the mostly used type in previous studies; e.g., the second and
third type in Kirkgöz (2010). In line with present study, interpersonal was the third frequently used intelligence in
Botelho (2003), Razmjoo and Jozaghi (2009), and Taase (2012). Finally, musical, naturalistic, and intrapersonal
intelligence were the least frequently used types in "Prospect 1” which is in sharp contrast to previous studies. Musical
intelligence, in most of the previous studies was the fifth type and bodily/kinesthetic intelligence was the fourth
frequently used type in Botelho (2003), Kirkgöz (2010), Razmjoo (2012), and Taase (2012).
119
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 4(2), 111-120, 2015
References
Al-sowat H, 2012. An evaluation of English language textbook "Say it in English" for first year intermediate grade in
Saudi Arabia. Journal of Studies in Curriculum and Supervision. 3(2): 330-413.
Armstrong T, 2007. Multiple intelligences in the classroom. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development Publications.
Botelho MR, 2003. Multiple intelligences theory in English language teaching: An analysis of current textbooks,
materials and teachers’ perceptions. MA Thesis, Ohio University.
Bourdillon H, 1992. History and social studies. Amesterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger Publications.
Campbell LM, 2000. The Unspoken dialogue: Beliefs about intelligence, students, and instruction held by a sample of
teachers familiar with the theory of multiple intelligences. PhD Thesis, University of Ohio.
Christison M, 1996. Teaching and learning languages through multi intelligences. TESOL Journal. 6(1): 10-14.
Christison M, 1998. Applying multiple intelligences theory in pre-service and in-service TEFL education programs.
English Teaching Forum. 4(2): 3-13.
Culper J, 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to case offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Publications.
De Oliviera CL, 2009. Course books and multiple intelligence theory: An analysis. Porto Alerge. 2(4): 1-58.
Dornyei Z, Taguchi T, 2010. Questionnaire in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing,
2rd edn. NY: Routledge Pubicatiions.
Fredriksson C, Olsson R, 2006. English Textbook Evaluation: An investigation into criteria for selecting English
textbooks. ELT Journal. 59(2): 37-62.
Gardner H, 1983. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. NY: Basic Books Publications.
Gardner H, 1999. Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligence for the 21st century. NY: Basic Books Publications.
Gardner H, Hatch T, 1989. Multiple intelligence go to school: Educational implication of the theory of multiple
intelligence. Educational Researcher. 18(8): 4-9.
Garinger D, 2001. Textbook evaluation. Availabe at http://www.teflweb-j.org/v1n1/garinger.html.
Hutchinson T, Torres E, 1994. The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal. 48(4): 315-328
Hutchinson T, Waters A, 1987. English for specific purpose: A learning centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Publications.
Kirkgöz Y, 2010. Catering for multiple intelligences in locally-published ELT textbooks in Turkey. Procardia Social
and Behavioral Sciences. 3(1): 127-130.
Larsen-Freeman D, 2000. Techniques and principles in language teaching, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University
Publications.
Low G, 1987. The need for a multi-perspective approach to the evaluation of foreign language teaching Materials.
Evaluation and Research in Education. 1(1): 19-29.
Marefat H, 2007. Multiple intelligences: Voices from an EFL writing class. Pazhouhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji. 32(2):
145-162.
McDonough J, Shaw C, 1993. Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide. London: Blackwell Publications.
Palmberg R, 2001. Catering for multiple intelligences in EFL course books. HLT Magazine. 4(1): 46-49.
Palmberg R, 2002. Catering for Multiple Intelligence in EFL coursebook. Available at
http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jan02/sart6.htm
Razmjoo SA, Jozaghi Z, 2009. The representation of multiple intelligences types in the Top-notch series: A textbook
evaluation. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics. 14(2): 59-84.
Riazi AM, 2003. What textbook evaluation schemes tell us? A study of the textbook evaluation schemes of three
decades. In: Renanda WA. (Edn.), Methodology and Materials Design in Language Teaching. Singapore:
Seameo Regional Center Publications.
Savignon SJ, 1997. Communicative competence: Theory and cassroom cractice. 2rd edn. NY: The McGraw-Hill
Publications.
Scheerens J, Glas C, Thomas S, 2003. Educational evaluation, assessment and monitoring. Netherlands: Lisse, Swets
and Zeitlinger Publications.
Sheldon L, 1988. Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal. 42(2): 237-246.
Taase Y, 2012. Multiple intelligences theory and Iranian textbooks: An analysis. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of
Applied Linguistics. 16(1): 73-82.
Weiner IB, 2001. Considerations in collecting Rorschach reference data. Journal of Personality Assessment. 77(1): 122127.
120