· Web viewMIT grew revolutionary due to conceiving intelligence as pluralistic rather than single in nature. Hence, it was largely supported by many scholars, like Davis, Christodoulou,

Boosting Students’ Speaking Skills through Multiple

Intelligences Theory: A Case StudyAbdelhak HAMMOUDI ENS / Teacher Training College, Sétif,Algeria

[email protected]

Nour El Houda ABBAS ENS / Teacher Training College, Sétif,Algeria

[email protected]

Sara Soumia BOUDJADI ENS / Teacher Training College, Sétif,Algeria

[email protected]

AbstractGardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory claims that a human being possesses different intelligences. They aid students to excel in their acquisition of knowledge and skills. Accordingly, the study at hand strives to examine whether or not implementing this theory would boost students’ speaking skills in a non-native EFL class. The quasi-experimental design was employed to serve this purpose. Researchers used both quantitative and qualitative methods to collect data from a sample of 54 second-year pupils randomly selected. To that end, researchers relied on reliable data gathering tools namely: Speaking Skills Checklist, English Speaking Tests, McKenzie Multiple Intelligences Inventory, a semi-structured interview, and classroom observation. The results of the study indicated that Multiple Intelligences Theory had an effective impact on boosting students’ speaking performance. Moreover, students maintained positive attitudes towards developing English speaking skills through their own preferred channels of learning.

Keywords: Multiple Intelligences Theory, English speaking skills, secondary school pupils

1. Introduction The term intelligence has always been intertwined with intelligence quotient (IQ). In 1904, psychologists Alfred Binet and Simon Theodore developed the precursor to the modern-day IQ test .At that t ime, intelligence was perceived as an inborn unchanged capacity that can be measured through a psychometric IQ test. The latter was questioned by many scholars and the investigation of intelligence concept has rapidly increased .Hence, other theories of intelligence have emerged, namely the General Intelligence Theory by Spearman (1904), the Mental Abilities by Thurstone (1938), the Structure of Intellect Theory by Guildford (1955), and the Triarchic Theory by Sternberg (1985).

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Multiple Intelligences theory (MIT) propounded by Howard Gardner, a developmental psychologist and professor at Harvard University, was adopted on a wide range. Gardner offered a new definition of intelligence. In his book Frames of Mind, he defined intelligence as “the capacity to solve problems or to create products that are valued in one or more cultural settings.” (1983, p. 11). His theory posited that humans have different relatively autonomous intelligences.

1

MIT grew revolutionary due to conceiving intelligence as pluralistic rather than single in nature. Hence, it was largely supported by many scholars, like Davis, Christodoulou, and Seider (2011) who staunchly believed that this model represented a departure from traditional conceptions of intelligence formulated earlier in the 20th century. They accentuated the theory’s importance in developing students’ skills and potentials in daily life by taking into deep consideration their learning preferences and level of thinking. Moreover, this theory allows language teachers to improve their instructional methods and techniques in the light of individual learning differences.

Statement of the ProblemDuring the preservice training sessions we attended in various high school classes, we noticed

that teacher’s talk dominated the whole class. Most students were passive and were not given a chance to develop their verbal skills. Very few of them who attempted to participate found difficulties expressing their opinions. They appeared to be shy, less confident and they lacked English speaking fluency. Actually the one-size-fits-all philosophy of teaching adopted by the teachers ignored individual differences, students’ preferred channels of leaning; and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences. Their traditional teaching focused on linguistic and logical intelligences, with no regard for other intelligences.

According to Gardner’s theory (1983), human beings possess at least nine types of intelligence. These intelligences enable language learners to excel in their scores and performance, mainly if MI theory is appropriately implemented in the curriculum and lesson plans. Ultimately, it would adequately improve students’ control of the target language and its macro skills, particularly speaking skills. Hardly anyone would deny the substantial role of the speaking skill in our daily life. Its improvement is crucial for EFL learners to be well-rounded communicators who can successfully express their thoughts and feelings. At the Algerian secondary level, however, students suffer weaknesses in their speaking skills. This is attributed mainly to the prevailing traditional methods of teaching along with inadequate curricula. Students rarely have the opportunity to practise their speaking skills or trained how to respond to questions raised by their teachers.3. Research QuestionsThe major concern of the study is to answer the following questions:

What are the reasons for poor speaking skills within the secondary school pupils? How can EFL teachers diagnose their learners’ multiple intelligences? How can multiple intelligences theory enhance students’ speaking skills? What are the students’ attitudes towards the implementation of MI theory in the Speaking

class?Research Hypothesis

This research attempts to address a host of issues relevant to the impact of MIT on pupils’ speaking skills. In light of the research questions listed above, we hypothesize that implementing Multiple Intelligences Theory in Second-Year EFL Classes will boost learners’ speaking skills.5. Research Aims The aims of the current study are fourfold. It attempts to

1. Determine the prevalent intelligences among second-year students at Malika Gaid Secondary School.

2. Design a set of MI- based activities in accordance with students' intelligences and implementing them to develop the students’ speaking skills.

3. Examine and measure the effect of MIT on boosting students’ speaking skills4. Probe students’ attitudes towards English Speaking Instruction based on Multiple

Intelligences Theory.

6. Significance of the Study

2

Accompanying the increasing importance of English worldwide, the Algerian EFL educators nowadays seek to depart from the traditional methods they are employing in their classes toward the use of the most recent ones which respond to the 21st Century skills. The current research, thus, is of considerable significance at more than one level. It may result in many useful implications for other researchers. Its findings will redound to the benefit of the educational field, as researchers would delve into MI theory to uncover critical areas about its significance in the educational process. Teachers may use the MIT model as a learning paradigm in the schools all over the world to reach most students in the learning process. Accordingly, the study will help teachers place equal attention to all students in different intellectual and cognitive areas. Therefore, schools that implement the MI model, derived from the results of this study, will be able to form fluent English language speakers. Multiple Intelligences Theory: A Review of Literature Over recent decades, global education has evolved and changed appreciably to cater to the challenges and demands of the 21st century. One of the most notable changes was the shift of attention to ESL /EFL learning by dint of being the global language. In the same line, a shift of emphasis took place from the traditional teacher-centered approaches to learner-centered ones, where “students practice a significant degree of responsibility for instruction, reading, and activity in a classroom” (Cuban, 1993, p.7). These transitions are due to the influence of other fields such as psychology. Of all its areas, intelligence is probably the most intricate. Psychology provides a new interpretation of intelligence as a multifaceted and dynamic concept, also considered as a key factor in learning and academic outcomes. It retains a certain mysticism that has attracted the attention and the interest of many researchers. Thus, there is a rich literature on intelligence and its relationship with education and language learning particularly. Scholars such as Charles Spearman, Louis L. Thurstone, Robert Sternberg, and Howard Gardner among others have made monumental efforts to measure human intellectual abilities and determine intelligence’s essence. Consequently, various theories have been developed. The theory of multiple intelligences (MIT) is perhaps the most promising one. MIT adopts a learner -centered approach. It upholds a personalized learning strategy

in which students, the core of the educational process, learn in identifiable distinctive ways. Hence, it underpins the educational ideology “no learner is left behind”. The Multiple Intelligences Theory by Howard Gardner Howard Gardner; an American psychologist and professor of education at Harvard University, set about studying intelligence in a multidisciplinary systematic, and scientific way. As stated by Armstrong (2009), Gardner believed that human cognitive competencies are called intelligences rather than talents or aptitudes. He claimed that the previous models share a degree of common ground in defining intelligence in terms of Intelligence Quotient (IQ).The latter measured only a narrow range of verbal/linguistic and logical/mathematical abilities and has ignored other human abilities. This resulted in the emergence of his renowned Multiple Intelligences Theory. It was a contribution to cognitive sciences and education that reignited again the worldwide debate on the nature of human intelligence. According to Gardner (1983), there exist some relatively independent intelligences that can be combined and fashioned by people in a multiplicity of adaptive ways. He thus posited seven autonomous distinct intelligences namely: Verbal/Linguistic, Logical/mathematical, Visual/Spatial, Musical, Bodily/kinesthetic, Interpersonal and Intrapersonal intelligences. His theory may not be the sole challenger to the limited traditional psychometric views of intelligence. Also, it is not the only theory to conceive intelligence as pluralistic. However, it is perhaps the best known of the pluralistic theories.

3.2. Description of the Nine Intelligences Gardner (1999) and Armstrong (2000) provided detailed descriptions of each type of the nine

intelligences recapitulated as follows:

3

1. Verbal /Linguistic Intelligence (V/L): the ability to learn languages and use them fluently and creatively both in writing and speaking to accomplish certain goals. This intelligence requires understanding the phonology (the sounds), the semantics (the meaning), the syntax(the structure) of language, and its pragmatic or practical uses. These uses include using language to convince others of a course of action (rhetoric), using language to remember information (mnemonic), using language to inform or communicate knowledge (explanation), and reflect upon language itself (meta-language).2. Logical-mathematical Intelligence (L/M): the ability to recognize and manipulate abstract patterns and relationships, and investigate issues scientifically. It is also the ability to handle long chains of reasoning, either deductively or inductively. This intelligence requires sensitivity to, and capacity to discern, logical or numerical patterns.3. Visual/Spatial Intelligence (V/S): the capacity to perceive effectively the wide visual-spatial world and its patterns. Then, manipulate these perceptions by modifying and transforming them to re-create aspects of one’s visual experience. This intelligence involves sensitivity to color, form, line, shape, space in addition to the capacity to visualize appropriately and to represent graphically visual ideas in a spatial matrix.4. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (B/K): the ability to use one’s whole body or parts of it to express ideas and feelings, solve problems, fashion products, handle objects and produce and transform things. This intelligence requires specific physical skills such as balance, coordination, dexterity, flexibility, speed, and strength besides haptic, proprioceptive, and tactile capacities.5. Musical/Rhythmic Intelligence (M/R): The capacity to perceive, then transform and express musical forms and melodic and rhythmic patterns. It requires the ability to identify and understand sound patterns. It is characterized by auditory imagery; hence, it entails skill in the appreciation, composition, and performance of musical patterns.6. Intrapersonal intelligence (IA): the ability to access one’s own emotional life through self –knowledge and acting adaptively based on that knowledge. It requires the awareness of inner desires, moods, motivations, potentials, temperaments, and the capacity to apply them in real situations to have an effective working model of one’s own life.7. Interpersonal intelligence (IP): The ability to perceive, discern and respond appropriately to others’ different interpersonal cues (feelings, desires, moods, motivations, and temperaments) in a pragmatic way to work effectively with them. This can include sensitivity to gestures, voice and even facial expressions. 8. Naturalist intelligence (N): the ability to understand, appreciate, classify and categorize, connect and explain things encountered in nature i.e. the flora and fauna. It can be defined as the sensitivity to other natural phenomena which involves situating oneself in the natural environment, the keen observation of nature’s components and the ability to classify them.9. Existential Intelligence (Ex): is the ability to respond to the limits and the processes of human existence, to tackle deep questions related to aesthetic experiences, metaphysical systems, religious symbolism and scientific research. Although it is the only intelligence that has not been scientifically verified yet, Gardner suggested it to be a useful alternative for he did not want to commit to spiritual intelligence.Speaking Skills: An Introduction

Of all the four macro skills in the context of EFL teaching and learning, speaking has always been considered the most sought skill to be mastered. The majority of the world's language learners study English predominantly to develop speaking and link it to being proficient within the target language (Richards and Renandya, 2002). At present, the need for mastering spoken English, the world’s foremost language, has dramatically increased due to its strengthening position and its eminent rank as a lingua franca; a bridge language for communication consistently used between people whose native languages are different. Nonetheless, it is important to stress that speaking is a difficult skill that requires a long time to be developed for it covers broad areas of functions,

4

mechanics, pragmatics, and social interaction. It is more than forming mere grammatically correct sentences (Luoma, 2004). Despite the vital role of speaking in EFL settings, there is a lack of curriculum emphasis on it. This can be attributed to the prevailing traditional methods of teaching speaking and the limited English proficiency of teachers. They still spend the majority of class time teaching reading and writing at the expense of speaking. Even the examination system has been overlooking oral skills for class conditions do not favor oral activities.

Speaking has different concepts; it can be an action, a process, and a skill. In this study, the term speaking is used to refer to a skill related to EFL teaching and learning. This section strives to provide an overall picture by giving clear definitions to the term which has been frequently interchanged with other terms such as communicative abilities, communicative performance and oral performance. Additionally, it sheds light on its major characteristics, types, sub-skills, components, functions, factors that affect its effectiveness and the major problems facing EFL learners in their attempt to master thid productive skill.

The section ultimately accentuates the importance of this vital skill in EFL settings. Overview of Speaking

Speaking has been used narrowly in several contexts; mainly in the context of public speaking. However, speaking that is referred to in this study is much more than that. It is tackled broadly as a macro skill for communication in EFL settings to achieve specific transactional and interactional purposes. Speaking is the oral delivery of any language. Operationally, it can be defined as the ability to express ideas orally, coherently and appropriately in a given context. Fluency along with the linguistic, discourse and pragmatic competences are speaking prerequisites. A wide consensus among researchers like Brown (1994), Nunan (2003) , Harmer (2007) and others is that speaking is a productive skill that consists of producing systematic verbal utterances. This interactive skill involves constructing and conveying meaning through receiving, processing and producing information using both verbal and non-verbal symbols into a variety of contexts. It involves the cooperation of several types of knowledge with the good command and control of certain skills. The combination of all thesen makes speaking a complex skill. Speaking sub-skills According to Brown (2004), there are two sub-skills of speaking skill; those are micro skills and macro skills. Micro skills involve the production of smaller elements of language such as morphemes, phonemes, collocations, and phrasal units. Macro skills, conversely, require the speaker’s focus on the larger chunks: cohesion, discourse, fluency, function, and non-verbal communication. Bygate (1987) emphatically stated that knowledge of those sub-skills is doubtlessly not enough to be a good language speaker. However, what is earnestly important is the skill to use this knowledge to communicate successfully.

Speaking Characteristics Bygate (1987) asserted that speaking displays two features distinguishing it from other

language macro skills. It takes place under time pressure. Hence, it affects the grammatical accuracy, pragmatic appropriacy and congruence with the speaker's intentions in addition to language control, planning, organization. Furthermore, it is an interactive and reciprocal process. The dynamic roles played by the participants in such encounters switch regularly between speaking and listening. To that end, speakers need to identify with the points of view of their partners (listeners) in the exchange and vice versa. 4. Speaking Types Brown (2004) states that there are five basic types of speaking as in the following table: Table 2: Speaking Types

5

Imitative The ability to simply parrot back (imitate) a word, a phrase or a sentence.

Intensive The production of oral language stretches (short ones) to show competence in a narrow band of grammatical, phrasal, lexical, or phonological relationships.

Responsive The interaction in very short conversations, simple requests and comments, standard greetings and small talk.

Interactive A complex interaction, which sometimes includes multiple exchanges and/or multiple participants. It can take two forms of transactional language, which has the purpose of exchanging specific information, or interpersonal exchanges which have the purpose of maintaining social relationships.

Extensive Extensive oral production requires producing speeches and oral presentations as well as story-telling. The interaction from interlocutors is either highly restricted or ruled out together.

5. Speaking ComponentsDifferent views have emerged on the basic components of speech, all of which are consistent

with those pointed out by Syakur (1987, as cited in Mora, 2010). These components are defined according to Richards and Schmidt (2002).Grammar (syntax): The set of rules that give the language its structure .Grammar also allows language users to combine words into larger linguistic units. Vocabulary: A set of lexemes i.e. units of lexical meaning underlying a set of single and compound words.Pronunciation: The traditional or customary way a certain sound is produced and uttered. It stresses more the way sounds are perceived by the listener unlike articulation, which refers to the actual production of speech sounds in the mouth.The correct use of these components to produce a language is known as accuracy. An issue that pervades teaching speaking courses centers on the distinction between accuracy and fluency. The latter is identified as the ability to speak communicatively without undue hesitations. It is embodied in all the features which make the speech effortlessly normal, natural, meaningful, and reasonably lengthy, including native-like use of speed, intonation stress, rhythm, pausing, rate of speaking, interjections and interruptions.Comprehension: An active process involving the identification of the intended meaning of spoken communication through perceiving, processing, and understanding stretches of discourse, relying on information contained in the message as well as background knowledge, and information from the context and the listener’s and speaker’s purposes or intention. EFL learners need to sharpen their focus towards the above-stated components. They are a benchmark for processing the language effectively enough to achieve true language proficiency; therefore, accounting for and predicting ideal target language speakers.

6. Speaking Functions Enormous attempts have been made to identify the functions of speaking skills. Ultimately, Brown & Yule (1983) made a clear-cut distinction between three major functions.Table 3: Speaking Functions

6

Transaction PerformanceInteraction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_semantics

Establish and maintaining social relations using usual activities and formal and informal conversations.

Exchanging information through conveying accurate and clear messages.

Delivering a speech before an audience with a main

focus on the message, the audience, the language form, and accuracy.

7. Factors affecting Speaking EffectivenessMany factors affect the oral proficiency of EFL learners. Burgoon and Bacue (2003) stressed that to be a competent communicator requires mastery of both verbal factors and non-verbal factors. Verbal factors include the accuracy of speech, word choice, the suitability of the speaker’s tone, and the duration of the speech. Non-verbal factors embody the mastery of the topic, body language, gestures and facial expressions, reasonable attitude and directing the attention to the interlocutor. According to Tuan and Mai (2015), speaking can be affected by performance conditions (time pressure, planning, the standard of performance and amount of support of the listener), affective psychological factors (such as motivation, confidence, and anxiety), the listener‘s ability to decipher the oral message of the speaker and ones’ feedback during speaking activities (either constructive or destructive feedback). Topical knowledge, the speakers’ knowledge of relevant topical information in long-term memory, is an additional factor. Mahripah (2014, cited in Leong & Ahmadi, 2017) suggested that some linguistic components of language like phonology, syntax, vocabulary, and semantics have a tremendous impact on speaking skills either positively or negatively. Difficulties Facing EFL Learners in Speaking Activities

Ur (1996) scrutinized social and psycho-linguistic challenges EFL learners face while speaking. These difficulties are summarized in the following figure.

Figure 2. Problems facing EFL Learners within Speaking Activities 9. Significance of Speaking Skills in EFL Classes Rivers (1981) contended that speaking is eminent as it is ubiquitous in daily language usage. It is used twice as much as reading and writing in daily communication. Lawtie (2004) stressed that speaking is enormously fundamental to human communication, mainly in EFL contexts. It promotes pragmatic competences, language proficiency and communicative efficiency so as to enable students to use language correctly as much as possible, especially when conversing with native language speakers (Soltan & Qoura, 2015). Furthermore, Hinkel (2017) asserted that speaking is intertwined with other language skills. Hence, its mastery can help developing reading competence (Mart, 2012), improving writing (Rausch, 2015) as well as enhancing listening skills (Astorga, 2015). Patil (2007) stated that speaking skills are regarded among the best students ‘careers enhancers. They are the decisive factor in determining their professional success or failure. Conclusion This section thoroughly explores and explains speaking skills in the most simplified way. Ultimately, it highlights the importance of speaking skills in EFL classes. In this respect, due attention should be paid to intensive speaking inside the classroom. Besides, deficiencies must be

7

No thing to say as learners sometimes have no motive to express themselves.Inhibition due to fearing making mistakes in public and criticism, or shyness, anxiety, lack of confidence and self-esteem in addition to lack of motivation.

Low or uneven participation in large classes where some learners dominate while others speak little or not at all.Mother tongue use since the majority of students share the same mother tongue, they prefer to use it to feel less exposed .

Difficulties facing EFL students in

speaking activities

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Judee_Burgoon

rectified and overcome by both EFL learners and teachers in order to ensure absolute control of this skill.Multiple Intelligences and Speaking Skills MI theory is a rationalist model that constitutes a contemporary learner-based philosophy. At present, it becomes exceedingly disseminated in education. Its role has been appreciated enormously by educators as a source of new strategies and concepts to run EFL classes successfully. Thereby, understanding the principles of MI theory and its implications is extremely important for them. This is mainly because it opens up a wide range of possibilities that may help students learn more effectively and enhance their skills, especially speaking skills. Speaking is regarded as the most important linguistic activity. Therefore, it plays a vital role in the communicative process. Many scholars theorized the existence of a robust correlation between MIT and speaking skills improvement. Consequently, a great body of studies has been conducted to showcase the impact of implementing Multiple Intelligences Theory on EFL students’ speaking abilities enhancement. Examples of these studies include investigating the effect of using a Multiple Intelligences-based training program on developing major English oral communication skills by Sayed (2008), exploring the effects of using Multiple Intelligences Theory to develop speaking skills of the preparatory schools first graders, integrating Multiple Intelligences, activities in developing English speaking skills for English major students by Van Don (2015), and activating students’ multiple intelligences in speaking activities by Adityas (2016). These papers stressed that providing learners with an effective motivational environment based on the MI model, would energize learners to speak fluently and comfortably. MIT proponents ultimately accentuated the usefulness of applying this purposive theory to optimize EFL learners’ speaking.

ConclusionTo sum up, the first section sheds light on one of the controversial issues among learning

psychologists: intelligence. It explores the common understanding of intelligence by proffering some definitions though to date there is no single conventional definition of the term. Intelligence is still holding a certain mystique that has been engaging scholars in a never-ending debate in addition to compelling the emergence of many theories by many prominent scholars. One of the most celebrated theories of intelligence is the one propounded by Gardner (1983). The section extensively delves into its theoretical basis. It scrutinizes intelligence according to Gardner by analyzing its activators and deactivators, modalities, criteria, domains, and newly added intelligences to Gardner’s preliminary list. It also enumerates the reasons why the theory‘s proponents widely embraced it. Eventually, this section highlights the significant contribution of MIT implementation to boost EFL learners’ skills, particularly speaking skills. Speaking is a paramount medium in the target language, especially with the increasing popularity of English as a universal communication language. The following section, thus, is devoted to extensively explore this substantial skill.Research Method Procedure

The appropriate choice of the study design is essential for the successful execution of the fieldwork .The researchers, hence, used the quasi-experimental research design with a focus on both the quantitative and qualitative methods to collect the needed data. First, in order to identify students’ MI profiles and diagnose their predominant intelligences, the researchers set them to answer Walter McKenzie MI Survey (1999). Secondly, the students were pre-tested using a traditional English Speaking pre-test to know their actual speaking performance level and the accuracy of the traditional pretest itself. Thirdly, after presenting many MIT based speaking skills lessons, the students were post-tested using a speaking test based on MIT to examine the improvement of their speaking ability as well as learning behavior. At last, nine (09) students were interviewed to have an idea about their attitudes towards the use of MI theory in the speaking class.

8

Data Gathering Tools The underlying need for data collection is to capture quality evidence that can answer the previously posed research questions. It is vital to select the appropriate research tools for systematic and rigorous data collection. The data gathering tools that were relied on in this study include:1. an English Speaking Skills Checklist, which was proffered to some TEFL lecturers to determine the

most important English speaking skills that second-year students, intermediate level, need to develop

2. Walter L. McKenzie’s Multiple Intelligences Inventory (1999) which helps teacher to identify students’ predominant intelligences.

3. English Speaking performance pre-test and post-test to compare students speaking skills before and after the implementation of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences.

4. a semi-structured interview to elicit information concerning learners’ attitudes towards the implementation of MI theory in the Speaking Class.

Sample of the Study The sample of the study consisted of fifty-four (54) EFL learners at Malika Gaid High School in the urban area of Setif. The researchers opted for simple random sampling to cull a smaller sample size, use it to research, and make generalizations about the larger group. To reach our aims we split the sample into two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The choice of this population is motivated by the fact that their intermediate level was appropriate to the study’s purpose: investigating the effect of MIT implementation on students’ speaking enhancement.As indicated earlier, the participants were second-year students (2AS 2) at Malika Gaid Secondary School, School Year (2019-2020). The participants for the quantitative research on English speaking skills and Multiple Intelligences profiles consisted of 28 students. For the qualitative research, all participants were observed but for the interview only 09 students were selected and this was due to COVID 19 pandemic which prevented us from meeting a larger number of students. Data Gathering Tools Selecting instruments is a significant step in conducting the research. Research instruments are devices and measurement tools used by researchers to obtain data on a specific topic. The researchers may choose one or more instruments to suit the requirements of the research. They may vary in their complexity, design, and administration. In this study, the researchers employed various data-gathering instruments namely an English Speaking Skills Checklist, Multiple Intelligences Inventory by Walter L. McKenzie (1999), speaking pre-posttests, a semi-structured interview, and general classroom observation.a.English Speaking Skills Checklist First, the English Speaking Skills Checklist was proffered to four TEFL lecturers at Teachers’ Training College and Mohamed Lamine Debaghine University of Setif, one National Coursebook designer, and five EFL teachers at Malika Gaid Secondary School. This was mainly to:

1. Determine the most important English speaking skills that second-year students need to develop.

2. Adjust the linguistic statements of any skill when needed. 3. Omit or add other necessary skills that students might need to develop.

b. English Speaking TestsGay (1992) stated that tests produce numerical scores that can be used to evaluate test-takers.

Accordingly, the test is always needed by researchers who want to measure the participants’ performance. In this study, the researchers applied oral-tests in both pretest and posttest.

9

1- Description of the Tests Each test was divided into 04 sections corresponding with the objectives of the aforementioned speaking skills checklist and the aims established in both the national curriculum and the second-year English coursebook. They are as follows: Section One: Talking about general topics Section Two: Comparing/ contrasting a pair of pictures Section Three: Commenting on and expressing personal feelings about the content of a

picture. Section Four: Making quick decisions on how to choose something

(The total score for each test was 20 points. 05 points were given for each part of the test). Researchers relied on EFL lecturers and teachers’ viewpoints as well as on related literature to test design. They ultimately agreed upon the tests content and appropriateness in assessing second-year students’ speaking skills because the tests were based on topics derived from the second year English Language Coursebook “Getting Through”. The latter implements the National Curriculum of English issued by the Algerian Ministry of Education 2005.Concerning the pre-test, both groups were pre-tested to perform their speaking skills by answering some oral expression questions. As for the post-test, it was answered by the experimental group. Multiple Intelligences Inventory

The researchers diagnose students’ pre-dominant intelligences using the Multiple Intelligences Inventory (appendix 4) by Walter McKenzie (1999) . The students answered the inventory’s questions with the researchers’ help to understand the statements. Then, they calculated the results and submitted their papers. The researchers informed the students about their intelligence profile and explained briefly what they would be participating in during the experiment.

d. The Semi-structured Interview and Classroom ObservationTo explore students’ opinions towards the English speaking Test that was predominantly

based on Multiple Intelligences Theory , a semi-structured interview was conducted with 09 students after they completed the post- test. The researchers selected one interviewee from each intelligence profile. The semi-structured interview is organized around three (03) sections (Appendix 03). Each section included two (02) open-ended questions to probe their views towards whether they would support the hypothesis postulating that Multiple Intelligences Theory could boost their English Speaking Skills. Tests as Data Gathering ToolsThe data collecting method deals with how the researchers obtain the data. In this study, the researchers used two speaking tests to collect data on students’ speaking skills. Thus, two types of tests were conducted using the same procedures.

a. PretestThe pretest (the preliminary testing) was administered before doing the experimental research i.e. before the researchers apply the Multiple Intelligences Theory. The purpose behind the pretest is to get the scores of students’ speaking skills before doing the treatment. In the pretest, the researchers called the students one by one to come and sat in front of the researcher’s desk. Then, the researcher gave the test that the student must answer orally.

b. PosttestThe objective of the post-test was to figure out whether the students gained better English speaking skills after receiving reinforcement based on Multiple Intelligences Theory. Moreover, the post-test allowed the researchers to identify the relationship between MIT and speaking skills. In assessing the students’ speaking skills, the researchers used a scoring rubric adapted from International Language Foundation (ILF).

10

SCORING RUBRIC FOR SPEAKING SKILLS TESTINTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE FOUNDATION ILF

PROGRAM ENGLISH FOR TEENAGER LEVEL 1Table 4. English Speaking Skills Scoring Rubric

CATEGORY 4 3 2 1 SCOREGrammar Grammar

covered in class was used to communicate effectively.

A few minor difficulties arose from not using the grammar studied before.

Grammatical errors led to many minor difficulties /one major breakdown in communication.

Grammatical errors severely hampered communication.

Vocabulary Vocabulary studied in class was used to express ideas eloquently.

A few minor difficulties arose from not using appropriate vocabulary.

Some difficulties arose due to limited vocabulary and/or bad diction.

Communication was severely hampered due to a lack of vocabulary.

Fluency The student acted as a facilitator, helping the conversation flow.

Some minor difficulties in maintaining the conversation were evident.

Some effort was required to maintain the conversation. There may have been a few long pauses.

Much effort was required to maintain the conversation. There have been many long pauses.

Comprehension The student responded to questions with appropriate answers and incorporated them into the discussion.

The student responded to most questions and incorporated many of these into the conversation.

The student failed to answer some questions appropriately/failed to acknowledge some statements and incorporate these into the conversation.

The student did not understand or ignored most questions and statements. The student may have been using notes.

Pronunciation Pronunciation was clear and inflection and expressions were used to enhance communication.

No serious problems arose, but better pronunciation, inflection, or non-verbal communication could have made communication more efficient.

Some communication problems arose due to unclear pronunciation or lack of inflection or expressions. The student may have hearing difficulty.

Pronunciation, inflection, or expression confused communication

The student may have been very difficult to hear.

Data Analysis ProceduresThe researchers employed quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques. On one hand,

they used descriptive statistics including mean scores and median to interpret quantitative data. On the other hand, content analysis was used for analyzing qualitative data. It is a common method to

11

evaluate documented information in the form of texts or media. It is used mostly in interviews to analyze the responses of the interviewees. The collected data of the research were analyzed as follows:

a. The students' MI profiles were identified and calculated (Numbers and Percentage) to diagnose the predominant intelligences of the students.

b. The students’ English speaking skills were assessed using the scoring rubric.c. Mean of scores, Medians, and Range of both tests were analyzed in detail.d. The classroom observation and the semi-structured interview were interpreted by the

researchers using the qualitative data analysis method mentioned above.Conclusion

This section briefly describes all aspects related to research methodology with a major focus on research sample and population, data gathering tools and methods ,and data analysis procedures. This description paved the path to the analysis of the findings and the discussion of the collected data in the next section.Data AnalysisEnglish Speaking Skills ChecklistTable 5: English Speaking Skills Checklist

English Speaking Skills Agreement Percentagea. Oral Interaction in English 10 100%b. Comparing and Contrasting 10 100%c. Commenting/Expressing feelings 10 100%d. Making quick decisions 09 90%

After discussing the main points mentioned in the checklist, most of the advisors agreed upon the speaking skills listed above (a, b, c, and d). They stated that oral communication skills are important for students. Therefore, they are considered as a vital stage when speaking skills and performance are reinforced. The students of Secondary Education (Year Two) should master basic and specific speaking skills related to their daily life and future careers. They should be able to blurt out the ability to interact, interpret, and produce orally. English Speaking Pre-test Table 6: Students’ Pre-test Scores According to Speaking Skills Components

CATEGORY Scores (02-03) Scores (03-05)

Grammar 09 05

Vocabulary 04 02

Fluency 07 08

Comprehension 06 05

Pronunciation 05 03

TOTAL Number of Students 31 23

As (Table 6) shows, the scores of the Speaking pre-test indicate a significant difference in the final results. Most of the students (31) scored from 02 to 03 points i.e. (76%). These scores indicate a remarkable weakness in their speaking skills. However, others (24) students succeeded to master the speaking skills components and scored from 03 to 05 i.e. (24%).

12

76%

24%

Students' Scores in the Speaking Pre-test

02-03 Points03-05 Points

Figure 3. Students’ Pre-test Scores1.3. Descriptive Statistics of English-Speaking Pre-test ScoresTable 7. Descriptive Statistics of the Pre-testMean (Average) Median Range Mode Largest Smallest Sum Count

12.21428571428 12 7 11 16 9 342 28

Students’ Multiple Intelligences Survey Students were set to answer the Multiple Intelligences Survey (1999) by Walter L. McKenzie (appendix 3) in order to identify their predominant intelligences. Different types of intelligence of both male and female participants are summarized in the form of descriptive statistics. The results appear in (Table 8). The researchers then recapitulated the results of the students’ pre-dominant intelligences as demonstrated in (Figure 5) and (Figure 6). This is to answer the second research question.Students’ Pre-dominant Intelligences

Types of Intelligence Male (N) Female (N)

Verbal-linguistic 02 02

Logical-mathematical 02 02

Visual-spatial 03 01

Bodily-Kinesthetic 02 01

Musical-Rhythmic 01 03

Intrapersonal (IA) 01 01

Interpersonal (IP) 02 01

Naturalistic 01 01

13

Existential 01 01

TOTAL (N) 15 13

Table 8: Number of Students According to the Types of Intelligence

Verbal-

Linguistic

Bodily-k

inestheti

c

Visual-

Spatial

Inter

personal

Music

al-Rhythmic

Intra

personal

Natural

istic

Logical-m

athem

atic

Existan

tial

43

43

4

2 2

4

2

Number of Students According to Types of Intelligence

Verbal-Linguistic Logical-mathematical Visual-SpatialBodily-Kinesthetic Musical-Rythmetic Interpersonal IPIntrapersonal AI Naturalistic Existential

Figure 4: Final Results of Students’ Pre-dominant Intelligences As (Table 10) and (Figure 4) show, the students have different types of intelligence.Concerning the students’ pre-dominant intelligences, the results of Walter L. McKenzie Survey (1999) revealed significant domination of Verbal-linguistic, Visual-spatial, Logical-mathematic and Musical-rhythmic intelligences with 04 students for each. Second, the results showed that Bodily-kinesthetic and Interpersonal intelligences came in second place with 03 students for each. Thirdly, Naturalistic, Intrapersonal, and Existential intelligences were ranked in third place with 02 students for each. The following figure epitomizes the total result.

13%

13%

13%

10%13%

7%

10%

7%13%

Results of Multiple Intelligences Survey

Verbal-linguisticLogical-mathematicalVisual-spatialBodily-kinestheticMusical-rythmeticIntrapersonal (AI)Interpersonal (IP)NaturalisticExistential

Figure 5: The Pre-dominant Intelligences of the StudentsEnglish Speaking Post-test To test the hypothesis postulating that students’ English-speaking ability is boosted after conducting an English-speaking test based on Multiple Intelligences Theory, the scores of the post-test were compared with the pre-test in terms of descriptive statistics.

14

Post-test ScoresThe table below, (Table 9), illustrates the scores of the English-Speaking post-test based on Multiple Intelligences Theory.

Table 9. Students’ Post-test Scores According to Speaking Skills ComponentsCATEGORY Scores (02-03) Scores (03-05)

Grammar 00 08

Vocabulary 01 11

Fluency 01 09

Comprehension 00 08

Pronunciation 01 07

TOTAL Number of Students 03 25

11%

89%

Students Scores in the Speaking Post-test

02-03 Points 03-05 Points

Figure 6: Students’ Post-test Scores It is clear from the data represented in (Figure 6) and (Table 9 ) that there is a statistically significant difference between the percentages of the pre-test’s scores and the post-test scores namely in Grammar, Fluency, Pronunciation, Comprehension, and Vocabulary. Concerning the post-test scores, only 03 students scored from 01-03 points. Unlike the pre-test, the post-test based on MIT showed a considerable difference in students’ scores. Therefore, the difference shows that the experimental group has better results than the controlled group. Table 10: Descriptive Statistics of the Post-test

Descriptive Statistics of English-Speaking Post-test ScoresMean (Average) Median Range Mode Largest Smallest Sum Count

15

16.214285714286 16.5 8 15-17-18 20 12 454 28

Comparing Tests’ Results At this level, the researchers made a comparison between the students’ results in the English speaking tests. The following table shows the differences in statistics: Table 11: Descriptive Statistics of Speaking TestsStatistics Mean Median Range

English Speaking Pre-test 12.214285714286 12 7

English Speaking Post-test 16.214285714286 16.5 8

The difference of the mean scores between the 2 groups in the speaking post-test is (4, 00), which shows that the experimental group has a better mean score than the control group. This difference is in favor of the post-test, which indicates that the English speaking Test, in which Multiple Intelligences Theory is integrated, proved to be beneficial to the students. There is a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of both English Speaking Tests. With a median of (M=16.5), smaller than (M=12) for the speaking pre-test, it is concluded that the difference of the mean scores between the experimental group and the control group is appreciable. This difference demonstrates that this result cannot occur randomly, but these changes in the Median have come from the method of integrating Multiple Intelligences Theory in the English Speaking Test.

The Semi-structured Interview

16

3. Section Three:a .Did you learn new vocabulary items after taking the speaking test? Mention three items.

b .Do you have more interest in learning English using the same methodology?

2. Section Two: a. Which activity do you like the best?

Why? b. Which activity is your least favorite ?

Why?

1. Section One: a. Do you think your English speaking

ability has improved? Why? b. Do you think you have more confidence

in speaking English? Why?

Figure 7: Sections of the Semi-structured Interview

MIT Effectiveness

Motivation & Self-confidence

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of Student

Figure 8: Results of the Semi-structured InterviewOnce again, the results are reconfirmed in the students' feedback. From the interview, all students (09) stated that their speaking ability had improved after taking the English Speaking Test based on Multiple Intelligences Theory. Furthermore, the activities of the test motivated them to speak English easily. Eight (08) students answered that they were more confident and motivated to express themselves in English. At the same vein, six (06) students appreciated the speaking test activities based on Multiple Intelligences Theory. They said that they were no longer shy or afraid of making mistakes since the activities strongly matched with their predominant Multiple Intelligences profiles. The speaking test activities focused on their MI profiles namely Verbal-linguistic, Logical-Mathematic, Visual-spatial, Bodily-kinesthetic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Naturalistic, Musical-rhythmic, and Existential intelligences. Classroom Observation and Learning Behavior Improvement To begin with, the students were recorded when they were answering activities and tasks. The researchers observed them on the spot to study their speaking skills and learning behavior during the test. In the early stage of conducting the English speaking pre-test, the researchers noticed that the students lacked engagement. When they were asked to speak and answer the questions, they escaped eye contact and asked their classmates for help. After the English speaking post-test, the changes appeared. The students could recognize words and phrases, for example, nodding their heads when the researchers explained the instructions. They also could process words and phrases by answering the questions without long pauses. Besides, the students spoke with clearer articulation. There was no evidence of stuttering or mispronunciation. Concerning grammar and vocabulary, the students learned enriched their vocabulary. They also had a developmentally appropriate use of grammar i.e. speaking more grammatically correct. Last but not least, students showed more confidence and willingness to perform e.g. they volunteered to act, they sang, and answered questions.Pedagogical Implications In light of the current study’s findings, a set of implications are highlighted:

1. EFL teachers should consider students’ differences by diversifying their teaching methods in a way that involves the different types of intelligence students possess to enhance their English skills and also promote their learning motivation.

2. EFL teachers should be trained in lesson planning in light of MIT.3. During the speaking lessons, students should be provided with a relaxing, effective, and

interactive environment that fosters interaction and helps to develop the students’ speaking skills and abilities.

17

4. The content of the speaking lessons should not be too difficult to give students more time to comprehend and communicate orally.

5. Students’ MI profiles must be taken into consideration before starting the instructional process. Teachers should integrate more types of intelligence into the lessons to serve students ‘diversity. MI-based instruction can motivate and engage weaker learners as well as explore their existing and hidden abilities.

6. Students should be offered enough opportunities to practise speaking on a daily basis in the EFL classes.

7. EFL teachers should place equal attention on the different speaking components namely fluency, grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and comprehension.

8. MIT should be an educational paradigm to boost students’ accomplishment sense and self-confidence.

General ConclusionMultiple intelligences theory (MI) has had a profound impact on thinking and practice in

psychology and education. Reforms, accordingly, have been undertaken over the last two decades to improve the EFL teaching and learning quality in light of this unprecedented model. MIT postulates that human intelligence is a multifaceted capacity enclosing unique trainable modalities. It caters, therefore, for individual learning differences reinforcement so as to foster learners’ autonomy by placing equal attention to all students. The current study, attempted to scrutinize whether or not the application of MIT would boost the speaking skills of Algerian EFL secondary school students. The analysis of the collected quantitative and qualitative data confirmed the aforementioned claim: MIT has real promising effects in enhancing secondary school students’ speaking skills.

References

Adityas, M . T. (2016). Activating students’ multiple intelligences in speaking activities. Ahmad Dahlan Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 70-75. doi:10.26555/adjes.v3i1.3642

Anderson, M. (1999). The development of intelligence. East Sussex, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.

Armstrong , T. (1994). Multiple intelligences: Seven ways to approach curriculum. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 26-28.Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/Default.aspx

Armstrong , T. (1998). Awakening genius in the classroom. Alexandria, VJ: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

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

Armstrong, T. (2002). The multiple intelligence of reading and writing: Making the words came alive. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

18

http://www.ascd.org/Default.aspx

Armstrong, T. (2012). Neurodiversity in the classroom: Strength-based strategies to help students with special needs succeed in school and life. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Astorga, E. D. (2015). The Relationship between listening proficiency and speaking improvement in higher education: Considerations in assessing speaking and listening. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(2), 34-56. doi:10.18870/hlrc.v5i2.236

Barlow, C.M. (2000). Guilford's structure of the intellect. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en

Bas, G., & Beyhan, O. (2010). Effects of multiple intelligences supported project-based learning on students’ achievement levels and attitudes towards English lesson. International Electric Journal of Elementary Education, 2(3), 366-385. Retrieved from https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children: The Binet-Simon scale. Retrieved from https://archive.org/

Boulmaiz, D. (2010). The place of the multiple intelligences theory in the Algerian EFL text- book:An evaluation of 1st year secondary book “at the crossroads”.Human Sciences Magazine,8,1-10. Retrieved from https://search.emarefa.net/ar

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Assessing speaking. In V. L. Branford (Ed.), Language Assessment: Principles and classroom practices. (pp. 140-184). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Brualdi T, A. (1996). Multiple intelligences: Gardner's theory. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 5 ( 10) , 1-3 .doi.org/10.7275/7251-ea02

Burgoon, J. K., & Bacue, A. E (2003). Nonverbal communication skills. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language: An approach based on the analysis of conversational English. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Campbell, L. (2004). Teaching & learning through multiple intelligences. Boston, BOS: Allyn and Bacon.

Candker, L. (2011). Multiple intelligences survey for kids. Retrieved from https://www.lauracandler.com/

Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven…and the eighth: A conversation with Howard Gardner’. Educational Leadership, 55 (1) , 8–13. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/

Chuan, C.L.(2018). The relationship of students’ teachers’ gender and academic achievement with multiple intelligences. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=ar&as_sdt=0,5

Colvin, S. S. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium--IV. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(3), 136–139. doi.org/10.1037/h0065937

19

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0065937

https://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=ar&as_sdt=0,5

https://www.semanticscholar.org/

https://www.lauracandler.com/

https://www.researchgate.net/

https://search.emarefa.net/ar

https://archive.org/

https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE

https://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en

Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classroom (2nd ed.). New York, NY: ERIC.

Davis, K., Christodoulou, J., Seider, S., & Gardner, H. (2011). The theory of multiple intelligences. In R . J. Sternberg & S.B. Kaufman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Dearborn, W. F. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium--XII. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(4), 210–212. doi.org/10.1037/h0065003

Dennis, I., & Tapsfield, P. (1996). Human abilities: Their nature and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Don, C. V. (2016). Integrating multiple intelligences activities in developing English speakingskills for English major students at Phu Yen University, Vietnam. Retrieved from http://www.vnseameo.org/TESOLConference2015/Materials/Fullpaper/Mr.%20Chau%20Van%20Don.pdf

Eysenck, H. J., & Berger, M. (1982). A Model for intelligence. Berlin,Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Eysenck, H. J. (2000). Intelligence: A new look. New Jersey, NJ: Routledge.

Farabi, M., Hassanvand, S., & Gorjian, B. (2017). Using guided oral presentation in teaching English language learners’ speaking skills. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Learning, 3(1), 17-24. doi:10.5923/j.jalll.20170301.03Fink, R. and Kosecoff, J. (1985) How to conduct surveys: A Step by step . London,Uk: Suide Sage Publications.

Fogarty, G., J. (1999) Intelligence: Theories and issues. In J. A. Athanasou (Ed.), Adult educational psychology. (pp. 183-210). Retrieved from https://eprints.usq.edu.au/929/

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (10 anniversary Ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

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

Gardner, H. (2006). The Development and education of the mind: The selected works of Howard Gardner. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gardner,H. (2007).Five minds for the future. Boston, MA. : Harvard Business School Press

Gardner,H. (2016).Intelligence isn’t black and white :There are 8 different kinds. Retrieved from https://bigthink.com/

Gay, L.R. (1992). Education research competencies for analysis and application. London,United Kingdom: Charles E. Milton Keynes.

20

https://bigthink.com/

https://eprints.usq.edu.au/929/

http://www.vnseameo.org/TESOLConference2015/Materials/Fullpaper/Mr.%20Chau%20Van%20Don.pdf

http://www.vnseameo.org/TESOLConference2015/Materials/Fullpaper/Mr.%20Chau%20Van%20Don.pdf

https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0065003

Gay, L.R. (1992). Educational research (4th ed.). New York,NY: Merrill .

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history and bibliography [Editorial]. Intelligence, 24(1), 13–23. doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8

Gottfredson,L..S.(2003).On Sternberg’s reply to Gottfredson.Intelligence,3,415-424.Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/

Haggerty, M . E. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium--XIII. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(4), 212–216. doi.org/10.1037/h0068200

Hammoudi, A. (2010). Multiple intelligences and teaching English as a foreign language : The Case of second-year pupils at Malika Gaid secondary school Setif (doctoral thesis Ferhat Abbes University , Setif ).Retrieved from https://www.univ-setif.dz/Tdoctorat/images/stories/pdf_theses/facultes1/arabe/hamoudiabdelhak.pdf

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). London, United Kingdom : Longman.

Hattie, J., & Fletcher, R. (2011). Intelligence and intelligence testing. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Heming, A. L. (2008). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (Unpublished master's thesis St. Cloud State University, Kentucky) . Retrieved from https://www.wku.edu/

Hoerr, T. R. (1992). How our school applied multiple intelligences theory. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 67-68.Holloway, I. (1997). Basic concepts for qualitative research, Oxford,United Kingdom: Blackwell Science.

Kimble, G. A., & Wertheimer, M. (1998). Portraits of pioneers in psychology (Vol. 3). Washington, WA: American Psychological Association.

Lawtie, F. (2004). Teaching speaking skills-overcoming classroom problems. Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/

Lazear, D. G. (2004). Multiple intelligence approaches to assessment: Solving the assessment (Revised ed.). (n.p.): Crown House Publishing.

Leong, L. M., & Ahmadi, S. M. (2017). An analysis of factors influencing learners’ English speaking skill. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(1), 34–41. doi: 10.18869/acadpub.ijree.2.1.34

Luama, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Maftoon, P., & Sarem, S. N. (2012). The realization of Gardner's multiple intelligences (MI) theory in second language acquisition (SLA). Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(6), 1233-1241. doi:10.4304/jltr.3.6.1233-1241

21

https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/

https://www.wku.edu/

https://www.univ-setif.dz/Tdoctorat/images/stories/pdf_theses/facultes1/arabe/hamoudiabdelhak.pdf

https://www.univ-setif.dz/Tdoctorat/images/stories/pdf_theses/facultes1/arabe/hamoudiabdelhak.pdf

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0068200

https://www.semanticscholar.org/

Mart, C. T. (2012). Developing speaking skills through reading. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(6), 91-96. doi:10.5539/ijel.v2n6p91

McKenzie, W. (1999). Multiple intelligences survey retrieved from http://surfaquarium.com/MI/inventory.htm

McKenzie, W. (2005). Multiple intelligences and instructional technology (2nd ed.). Eygene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education

Mishra, S. B., & Alok, S. (2017). Handbook of research methodology.Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/Mora, M. (2010). Teaching speaking. Retrieved from https://fr.scribd.com/

Mora, C. F., & Arnold, J. (2004). Multiple intelligence theory and foreign language learning: A brain-based perspective. International Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 119-136.Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/

Morgan, H. (1992). An analysis of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence. Educational Resources Information Center

Nazara, S. (2011). Students’ perception on EFL speaking skill development. JET (Journal of English teaching), 1(1), 28-43. doi: 10.33541/jet.v1i1.50

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77

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

Nunan, D .(Ed.). (2003). Practical English language teaching (1st ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Oprescu, M., & Craciun, D., & Banaduc ,I .(2011). Multiple intelligences in conventional and student–centered school. Journal of Educational Studies and Psychology, 1(1), 86-94. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/

Patil, M. R. (2007). Importance Of English communication for engineering students from rural areas and its remedies. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), 2, 35-33. Retrieved from http://www.iosrjournals.org/

Rausch, P. (2010). The Relationship between English speaking and writing proficiency and its implications for instruction (master thesis, St. Cloud State University, Minnesota, United States). Retrieved from https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/engl_etds/34/

Renandya, W. A., & Richards, J. C. (2010). Teaching speaking. In G.C.Richards (Ed.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 201-203). doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667190.027

Richards, D. R. (2016). The Integration of the multiple intelligence theory into the early childhood curriculum. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(15), 1096-1099.

doi: 10.12691/education-4-15-7

22

https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/engl_etds/34/

http://www.iosrjournals.org/


https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77


https://fr.scribd.com/


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

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Harlow, United Kingdom: Longman.

Rivers, W. M. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Rizqiningsih, S., & Hadi, M. S. (2019). Multiple intelligences (MI) on developing speaking skills. English language in focus (ELIF), 1(2), 127-136. doi:10.24853/elif.1.2.127-136

Rodgers, T., & Richards, J. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching .New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.

Saibani, B., & Simin, S. (2014). The relationship between multiple intelligences and speaking skill among intermediate EFL learners in Bandar Abbas Azad University in Iran. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(2), 43-56. doi:10.5861/ijrsll.2014.861

Salem, A. A. (2013). The Impact of multiple intelligences-based instruction on developing

speaking skills of the pre-service teachers of English. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 53-66. doi:10.5539/elt.v6n9p53

Sayed, M. M. (2008). Multiple ways to be smart: Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences and its educational implications in English teaching and oral communication .Retrieved fromhttps://eric.ed.gov/?

Schaller, K.A., & Callison, M. G. (1998) .Applying multiple intelligences theory to the basic public speaking course. Basic Communication Course Annual, 10, 90-104 .Retrieved from: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca/

Shirley, L. J. (1996). Pocket guide to multiple intelligences. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center.

Simin, S., & Tavakoli, M. (2014). Assessing speaking ability in academic context: Focusing on a mixed methods approach. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(1), 72-81. doi:10.5861/ijrsll.2014.758

Soltan, M. A., & Qoura, A. A. (2015). The Impact of MI-based activities in enhancing secondary school EFL students' speaking skill. Journal of Research in Curriculum , Instruction and Educational Technology, 1(3), 11-37. doi:1²0.12816/0019932

Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201-293.Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. London,United Kingdom: Macmillan.

Sternberg,R.J.(1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence.Cambridge,United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2002). The evolution of intelligence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

23

https://www.jstor.org/

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Spearman/

https://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca/

https://eric.ed.gov/?

Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, S. B. (2011). The Cambridge handbook of intelligence. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Teijlingen, E. R., Rennie, A., Hundley, V., & Graham, W. (2001). The importance of conducting and reporting pilot studies: The example of the Scottish Births survey. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34(3), 289-295. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01757.x

Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago,IL Chicago University Press.

Thurstone, L. L. (1999). The nature of intelligence. London,United Kingdom: Routledge.

Tuan, N. H., & Mai, T. N. (2015). Factors affecting students ‘speaking performance at the Thanh Hien high school. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 8-23. Ur, P. (1996).

Ur, P. (1996). Teaching speaking. In M. Williams., & T. Wright (Ed.), A course in language teaching: Theory and practice (pp. 120-133). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Walters, J., & Gardner, H. (1986). The Crystallizing experience: Discovering an intellectual. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?

24

https://eric.ed.gov/?

Appendix 01

English Speaking Skills Checklist

English Speaking Skills YES ( √ ) NO (X)

a. Oral Interaction in English √

b. Comparing and Contrasting √

c. Commenting/Expressing feelings √

d. Making quick decisions √ X

25

65

Appendix 02

English Speaking TestTask One: Talking about General Topics

(The interlocutor selects one or more questions from the list to ask each student)

What’s your favorite school subject? Why?

Tell us about your teacher of English.

What do you enjoy doing in your free time?

Tell us about your family.

Thank you.

Task Two: Compare and contrast pictures related to Holidays.

Look at these pictures for a while. Identify similarities and differences between these

two images. You have 2 minutes.

Task Three: Making a quick decision

1- Would you be a president or a scientist ?

26

65

OR

27

66

2- If I were a president I would…

Ban Racism and stand with Black people

Establish Environmental Organization to Fight Pollution

Task Four: Commenting on Expressing Personal Feelings about the content of a picture

28

67

Appendix 03

English Speaking Test (Based on MI Theory)Task One:

Talking about General Topics

- Summarize the story of Martin Luther King in five lines using your style.

- Categorize the following pictures of Civil Rights Activists following the chronological order:

- Pick a story starter below and complete the story (one by one).

My favorite school subject is English……..

In my free time, I enjoy …….

- Read the following speech of Martin Luther King “I Have a Dream” and act it out in front of your

classmates.

Each student is asked to stand and act out the speech of Martin Luther King

Students with Intrapersonal Intelligence profiles are asked to act it out in the form of a monologue.

“I Have a Dream “By Martin Luther King

29

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of

interposition and nullification, that one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little

white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exhalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain,

and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together

68

- Now here is a song called “I Have a Dream” by ABBA Group. Read the lyrics and sing the song.

I Have A DreamABBA

Task Two:

Comparing Pair of Pictures

-The following pictures belong to two different challenging fields

“Technology” Vs. “Science”

-In three sentences, compare between these fields.

- To raise the level of challenge, people raised debates about these fields.

One of the debate statements is:

In the 21st Century, “Technology & HighTec” should be prioritized over science.

-Discuss the statement -orally- with your partner and give your arguments or viewpoints.

30

I have a dream, a song to singTo help me cope with anything

If you see the wonder of a fairy taleYou can take the future even if you fail

I believe in angelsSomething good in everything I see

I believe in angelsWhen I know the time is right for meI'll cross the stream, I have a dream

I have a dream, a fantasyTo help me through reality

And my destination makes it worth the whilePushing through the darkness still another mile

69

Task Three:

Making a quick decision about something: (Naturalistic+Spatial)

If the Human Rights Organization asked you to design an anti-racism logo, how would you draw it?

(Be creative!)

If an Environmental Organization asked you to join its membership, would you participate in

planting companies? Where would you like to plant your trees?

- Would you go to mountainous areas and join camping groups?

Task Four:

Commenting on / Expressing Feelings

- In the first task, you were asked to sing the song “I Have a Dream” as well as to perform the speech

“I Have a Dream” by Martin Luther King.

- Describe your feelings when acting out the speech scene.

- What is your favorite statement in Luther King’s speech?

- Did you like the song by ABBA?

Thank You!

31

78

Appendix 04

Multiple Intelligences Inventory Copyright 1999-2017 Walter McKenzie,The One and Only Surfaquarium Link :http://surfaquarium.com/MI/inventory.htm

Appendix 05

The Semi-structured Interview

Students 01:

Do you think your English speaking ability has improved? Why?

Yes, I do. I learned new vocabulary items and I can speak freely.

Do you think you have more confidence in speaking English?

Yes, I do. I feel more comfortable and confident when talking to my mates.

Which activity do you like the best? Why?

I liked the activity of singing the song. Singing is my favorite hobby.

Which activity is your least favorite? Why?

My least favorite activity is the one of debating. I do not like arguing.

Did you learn new vocabulary items after taking the speaking test? Mention three items.

Yes, I did. For example vicious, dripping, racists…

Do you have more interest in learning English using the same methodology?

Yes, I liked this new teaching speaking methodology. It was a great experience.

Students 02:


Yes, I do. I learned new items and I can pronounce them correctly.


Yes, I do. I feel more confident when speaking English.


I liked the activity of performing the speech. I like acting and role-playing.


32

http://surfaquarium.com/

78

My least favorite activity is the one of camping. I do not like mountainous areas. Did you learn new vocabulary items after taking the speaking test? Mention three items.

Yes, I did. For example fantasy, dripping, racists…


Yes, I liked it. I am ready to have another speaking test in the future.

Student 03:


Yes, I do. I can speak freely, fluently and correctly.


Yes, I do. I feel more confident and comfortable when interacting orally.


I liked the activity of summarizing the story. I like reading and reviewing.


My least favorite activity is the one of acting out the speech. I am a shy student.


Yes, I did. For example fantasy, tale, racists…


Yes, I liked it. It was the best experience ever.

Student 04:


Yes, I do. I learned how to speak English correctly and freely.

Do you think you have more confidence in speaking English? Why?

Honestly, I feel more motivated to speak English and develop my speaking skills.


I liked the activity of completing the story. I like storytelling.


My least favorite activity is the one of debates. I prefer reading stories.


Yes, I did. For example fantasy, dripping, racists…


33

78

Yes, I liked it. I am ready to experience new things.

Student 05:


Yes, I do. I learned how to pronounce English words correctly.


Yes, I do. I feel more confident when speaking English I am no longer afraid of speaking in front of my classmates.


I liked the activity of categorizing pictures. I like mathematical activities.


My least favorite activity is the one of performing the speech. I prefer logic and mathematical activities.


Yes, I did. For example, dream, dripping, racists…


Yes, I liked it. It was the best learning experience.

Student 06:


Yes, I do. I learned how to use new English words in different contexts.


Yes, I do. I feel more confident and motivated.


I liked the activity of joining environmental organizations. I like outgoing activities.


My least favorite activity is the one of storytelling. I do not like literary things.


Yes, I did. For example climbing, fairy tales, racists…


Yes, I liked it. Now, I know my Intelligence profile and I am ready to go through the same experience in the future.

Student 07:

34

78


Yes, I do. I learned how to comment on pictures orally.


Yes, I do. I feel more confident when speaking English in public.

Which activity do you like the best?

I liked the activity of making quick decisions. I like expressing my ideas.


My least favorite activity is the one of categorizing. I do not like mathematics.


Yes, I did. For example, dreams, dripping, racists…


Yes, I liked it. I will be happy if we continue learning this way.

Student 08:


Yes, I do. I learned how to express my feelings freely.


35

80

Yes, I do. I feel more confident when speaking English. I always struggled with long pauses when speaking. Now, I can speak fluently.


I liked the activity of acting out a monologue. Writing scenarios and monologues is my hobby.


My least favorite activity is the one of camping. I do not like group activities.


Yes, I did. For example mountainous, fairy tales, racists…


Yes, I liked it. I would like to have more activities related to my Intelligence profile.

Student 09:


Yes, I do. I learned the correct pronunciation of English words and grammatical structures.


Yes, I do. I feel more confident and happy to see myself performing oral tasks without obstacles.


I liked the activity of singing ABBA’s song. I like this group and I always enjoy singing.


My least favorite activity is the one of debates. I like singing and writing poems.


Yes, I did. For example racists, speeches, dreams…


Yes, I liked it. I will be more productive and motivated to speak English.

36

Documents

· Web viewMIT grew revolutionary due to conceiving intelligence as pluralistic rather than single in nature. Hence, it was largely supported by many scholars, like Davis, Christodoulou,