For Final Hehe

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND LEARNING STYLES
OF THE EDUCATION STUDENTS
A Thesis Proposal
Presented to
The Faculty of the College of Education
Liceo de Cagayan University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Course Requirements of

Bachelor of Science in Education
Research Team Leader: MR. AZEL M. VALLE
Members:
Leizl C. Magallanes
Trifon E. Mosal
Jinda T. Bangkal
Rhea B. Beruan
Melissa P. Paloma
September, 2008
APPROVAL SHEET
2
This thesis entitled “MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND LEARNING

STYLES OF THE EDUCATION STUDENTS” prepared and submitted by Leizl
C. Magallanes, Trifon E. Mosal, Jinda T. Bangkal, Rhea B. Beruan, and
Melissa P. Paloma, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN EDUCATION, has been examined and
recommended for acceptance and approval for Oral examination.
AZEL M. VALLE, M.A.

Adviser
___________________________________________________________
PANEL OF EXAMINERS
Approved by the Committee on Oral Examination with a grade of ________.
MARTINA A. BROBO, Ed.D.

Chair
MANUEL B. CHAVO, M.A. RENITA R. BALARIAS, Ed.D.

Member Member
___________________________________________________________
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN EDUCATION.
Proposal Defense: September 30, 2008
___MARTINA A. BROBO, Ed.D_

Editor: _____________________ Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Date: ______________
3
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
“Success is not an overnight sacrifice, it needs time and patience to

achieve it and there is no sweet success than to succeed under intense
pressure.”
We wish to thank the following for their valuable contributions toward the
completion of this study:
First of all, God, who is the author and finisher of our faith. For without Him,
we would not have people to assist us in pursuing this thesis. We thank Him for His
faithfulness, for His unconditional love, for reminding us always that without Him, we
would not be able to accomplish this educational endeavor.
Dr. Luceno Badoles, our instructor, for his support and for all his contributions
towards the success of this research.
Prof. Azel Valle, our adviser, for the suggestions in the improvement of this
paper and for all the efforts contributed in helping us finish the paper.
Prof. Manuel Chavo, for editing this paper and for being so approachable.
Dr. Martina Brobo, dean College of Education, for her support that serves as
an inspiration.
And thank you, to our parents and guardians, for their love and for all the
financial supports given to us for the completion of this paper.
DEDICATION
4
This study
is humbly dedicated
To
Our dear parents, families, and friends:
Our Almighty GOD;
To the researchers for their efforts, pains, hurts, tears,
Pride, conflicts, laughter and respect for each other;
To the special people who served as our inspirations;
To the students of Liceo de Cagayan University, College of Education
Determined to develop the multiple intelligences and different learning style;
To all the people who became a part of our study.
ABSTRACT
5
The study was conducted to determine the dominant multiple intelligences
and preferred learning styles among Education students of Liceo de Cagayan
University.
This study focused on the following major points: (1) the dominant multiple
intelligences of the Education students in terms of: verbal- linguistics, mathematical-
logical, visual- spatial, bodily- kinesthetic, musical- rhythmic, interpersonal,
intrapersonal and naturalist;(2) the preferred learning styles of the Education
students in terms of: auditory, kinesthetic or tactile and visual; and (3) test the
significant relationship of the dominant multiple intelligences and the preferred
learning styles of the education students.
In answering these major points, the researcher used the descriptive
correlation design. A modified questionnaire of multiple intelligences and learning
styles was used as main tool in data gathering. The study was conducted at Liceo
de Cagayan University. a permit was secured from the college dean. The researcher
personally administered the instrument to the respondents with appropriate
directions on how to answer the questions. The statistical techniques used were the
the frequency, percentage, weighted mean, correlation T-test and F-test or ANOVA.
The analysis yielded the following results: in terms of. . . .
Based from other Research
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TITLE PAGE ------------------------------------------------------------------- i

6
APPROVAL SHEET --------------------------------------------------------- ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ------------------------------------------------------ iii
DEDICATION ------------------------------------------------------------------ iv
ABSTRACT -------------------------------------------------------------------- v
LIST OF TABLES ------------------------------------------------------------ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ----------------------------------------------------------- vii
CHAPTER
1 THE PROBLEM AND RESEARCH DESIGN
Introduction ------------------------------------------------- 1
Conceptual Framework ---------------------------------- 2
Schematic Diagram --------------------------------------- 3
Statement of the Problem ------------------------------- 4
Hypothesis --------------------------------------------------- 5
Significance of the Study -------------------------------- 6
Scope and Limitations of the Study ------------------ 7
Definition of Terms ----------------------------------------- 8
Research Design -------------------------------------------- 9
Research Setting -------------------------------------------- 10
Respondents and Sampling Procedure -------------- 11
Research Instruments ------------------------------------- 12
Data Gathering Procedure ------------------------------- 13
Scoring Procedure ----------------------------------------- 14
Statistical Technique -------------------------------------- 15
2 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND

7
INTERPRETATION OF DATA --------------------------- 16
3 SUMMARY, FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS ------------------------------ 17
BIBLIOGRAPHY --------------------------------------------------------------- 18
APPENDICES
Questionnaire --------------------------------------------------------- 19
Letter request --------------------------------------------------------- 20
CURRICULUM VITAE -------------------------------------------------------- 21
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS

OF VERBAL-LINGUISTIC ------------------------------------------ 35
OF MATHEMATICAL-LOGICAL ---------------------------------- 37
OF VISUAL-SPATIAL ------------------------------------------------ 39
OF BODILY-KINESTHETIC ---------------------------------------- 41
OF MUSICAL-RHYTHMIC ------------------------------------------ 43
8

OF INTERPERSONAL ----------------------------------------------- 45
OF INTRAPERSONAL ----------------------------------------------- 47
OF NATURALIST ----------------------------------------------------- 49
9 SUMMARY OF THE TABLES IN
DOMINANT MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES --------------------- 51
10 LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF AUDITORY ------------- 53
11 LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF KINESTHETIC --------- 55

12 LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF VERBAL----------------- 57
13 LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF VISUAL ------------------ 59
14 SUMMARY OF TABLES IN LEARNING STYLES ------------ 61
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE STUDY ---------------------- 7

9
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND RESEARCH DESIGN
INTRODUCTION
The question of how an individual learns is a matter of debate. Individuals
think and learn in distinct ways. In any group of learners, there will always be
different learning characteristics, particularly in the learner’s manner of processing
information. Some would absorb the lesson better when they work with their hands
than when they just listen. Some would prefer to write, while others want to draw or
even dance and sing. Others say, learning happens only through direct contact.
They learned only what they had experienced themselves. To some people, learning
involves action such as manipulating things, experimenting, observing, and doing

10
something with the thing to be learned. These preferences involve learning styles
and multiple intelligences.
Plato defined learning as being able to think and debate logically and
critically, to Aristotle, learning meant being able to apply what individuals know to
real – life activities. To John Dewey, learning was the ability to reflect on experience,
to make sense of what came their way and to grow personally and socially as a
result. To Arthur Bestor and E. D. Hirsch, an essential component of learning is
mastering information. To philosopher Maxine Greene, learning opens the minds to
new realities. To Pablo Freire, learning improves one’s understanding of politics and
his ability to improve his social conditions (Breitborde, et al, 2006).
To sum up, learning is the act of acquiring knowledge or skill. Learning
implies much more than training. It requires thought and reflection. It is permanent
in that it changes the person doing the learning in some fundamental way, large or
small. Learning implies growth; it may lead individuals to new understandings, new
ways of behaving, even a change of values.
The term "learning styles" is commonly used throughout various educational
fields and therefore, has many connotations. In general, it refers to the uniqueness
of how each learner receives and processes new information through their senses.
The National Association of Secondary School Principals defines learning style as,
"the composite of characteristic cognitive, affective, and physiological factors that
serve as relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with, and
responds to the learning environment." Other phrases are used interchangeably
with learning styles. Some include perceptual styles, learning modalities, and
learning preferences.
11
In other words, it is the way people prefer to learn and process information. It
is commonly believed that most people favor some particular method of interacting
with, taking in, and processing stimuli or information. Hilliard describes “learning
style” as the sum of the patterns of how individuals develop habitual ways of
responding to experience. There are three most common learning styles. These are
visual, aural/auditory and kinesthetic/tactile (http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/).
In visual learning styles, visual learners will be able to recall what they see
and will prefer written instructions. These students are sight readers who enjoy
reading silently. Visual learners process information most effectively when the
information is seen. Depictions can include charts, graphs, flow charts, and all the
symbolic arrows, circles, hierarchies and other devices that instructors use to
represent what could have been presented in worlds.
Students with the auditory learning style will be able to recall what they hear
and will prefer oral instructions. They learn by listening and speaking. These
students enjoy talking and interviewing. They are phonetic readers who enjoy oral
reading, choral reading, and listening to recorded books. Aural learners process
information most effectively when spoken or heard. These learners respond well to
lectures and discussions and are excellent listeners. They also like to talk and enjoy
music and dramas. When trying to recall information, aural learners can often "hear"
the way someone told them the information.
In kinesthetic learning styles, Kinesthetic/Tactile learners process
information actively through physical means. Kinesthetic learning refers to whole
body movement while tactile learning refers only to the sense of touch. These
learners gesture when speaking, are poor listeners, and lose interest in long
12
speeches. Most students that do not perform well in school are kinesthetic/tactile
learners. The crux of this learning style is that the learner is connected to real
situations through experience, example, practice, or simulation. Kinesthetic learners
also learn by touching or manipulating objects
(http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php).
Howard Gardner’s groundbreaking work (1983) deepened learning style by
exploring the meaning and nature of intelligence. Gardner contended that
intelligence was not a characteristic that could be measured on a single intelligence
test but there were in fact multiple intelligences, or many ways of being “smart”. All
possess the intelligences but in varying degrees of strength and skill. These are the
tails leading to students’ learning that teachers should address in their classrooms
all the time. They are: verbal-linguistic, mathematical logical, visual-spatial, bodily
kinesthetic, musical-rhythmic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist.
Verbal –linguistic intelligence is a word-think. People strong in this
intelligence like words. They like talking, reading, writing and thinking with words.
They like to express themselves through spoken and written language.
Mathematical logical is the arithmetic part of the 3Rs equation: number-think.
People strong in this intelligence like logical, systematic and sequenced ideas. They
enjoy patterns, abstract symbols, math problem solving, and puzzles. They are
scientists, mathematicians, strategic planners, accountants and financial analysts.
Visual-spatial involves picture- and space- think. People strong in this
intelligence like pictures, colors, shapes, and the space around them. They like to
use their imaginations, to daydream and to visualize the future or a story they are
reading. They are good at finding their way around new places. They can design
13
space and ways to use it. They are artists, decorators, photographers, architects,
filmmakers, and mapmakers (Bonita, 1999).
Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is the ability to control body movements and
handle objects skillfully. These learners express themselves through movement.
They have a good sense of balance and eye-hand co-ordination. (e.g. ball play,
balancing beams). Through interacting with the space around them, they are able to
remember and process information. They are our athletes and coaches,
choreographers and dancers, inventors and sculptors.
Musical-rhythmic intelligence is the ability to produce and appreciate music.
These musically inclined learners think in sounds, rhythms and patterns. They
immediately respond to music either appreciating or criticizing what they hear. Many
of these learners are extremely sensitive to environmental sounds (e.g. crickets,
bells, dripping taps). They are musicians, singers, dancers, sound-effect engineers,
and composers.
Interpersonal intelligence incorporates group think. It is the ability to relate
and understand others. These learners try to see things from other people's point of
view in order to understand how they think and feel. They often have an uncanny
ability to sense feelings, intentions and motivations. They are great organizers,
although they sometimes resort to manipulation. Generally they try to maintain
peace in-group settings and encourage co-operation. They use both verbal (e.g.
speaking) and non-verbal language (e.g. eye contact, body language) to open
communication channels with others. They are team leaders, managers,
psychologists, mediators and diplomats.

14
Intrapersonal intelligence reflects self think. It is the ability to self-reflect and
be aware of one's inner state of being. These learners try to understand their inner
feelings, dreams, relationships with others, and strengths and weaknesses. They
are philosophers, diary writers, and essayists.
Naturalist involves outdoors think. Most closely associated with the ability to
identify, categorize, and memorize the many varieties of plant and animal life.
People, who have this, enjoy studying and interacting with animals and plants. They
are our botanist, entomologists, marine biologist, and naturalist (Bonita, 1999).
It may seem somewhat simplistic to ask people how they learn best but it can
be thinking and reflection exercise that helps both the learner and the teacher un-
derstand the individual better. An emerging body of the knowledge makes it clear
that learners will learn best when they are put through activities that allow them to
be comfortable in their own “learning skin”. Bell (1986) suggests that students who
learn in their preferred styles achieve better results, show more interest in the ma-
terial, enjoy how they learned, and want to learn more in the same way.
Experts believe that the integration of learning styles and multiple intelli-
gence theory may minimize their respective limitations and enhance their strengths.
Learning styles' emphasis on the individual learning process and Gardner's content-
oriented model of multiple intelligences are surprisingly complementary. Without
multiple intelligence theory, style is rather abstract, and it generally undervalues
context. Without learning styles, multiple intelligence theory proves unable to de-
scribe different processes of thought and feeling. Each theory responds to the
weaknesses of the other; together, they form an integrated picture of intelligence
and difference (http://www. ascd.org/authors/ed_ lead/el199709_silver.html).

15
Based on the contentions above, the researchers decided to conduct this
study in order to determine the dominant multiple intelligence and to identify the
preferred learning styles of the selected Education students. This study focuses on
the multiple intelligence and learning styles of the education students and this
sought to test if there is significant relationship between the dominant multiple
intelligence of the students and their preferred learning styles. The researchers are
confident that through the study, they can provide information to the students that
could help them to succeed in all the endeavors in the learning process as well as
to the teachers for them to be able to choose the teaching approaches and
pedagogy that would cater the needs of the students.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This study will be anchored on Dunn and Dunn’s learning styles theory,
Gregorc’s mindstyles theory and Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences.
Dunn (1984) found that learning styles are not affected by just one aspect of
the learning environment. Based on observations and surveys of the ways people
prefer to learn, Rita and Kenneth Dunn theorize that learners vary in the conditions
that they need in order to learn most easily. These conditions include their way of
perceiving information, their physical environment, their emotional orientation, their
sociological structure and their biological needs. Dunn and Dunn’s research shows
that individuals vary in the primary ways they pay attention to information. They
believe that these preferred modes of perception or ways of receiving information
through the senses, are inborn. Individuals may receive information more easily in
16
visual formats, auditorially (through hearing) or kinesthetically (using physical
movement).
Another underpinning of this study is Gregorc’s mindstyles theory. Anthony
Gregorc (1985) posited that differences in the way individuals perceive information
address only part of cognitive functioning. He agreed that people perceive either the
“trees” or the “forest”, which he labelled concrete versus abstract perception, but he
said that learners differ as well in the way they organize or conceptualize the
information they perceive. Some of them organize information in linear, sequential
ways, while others organize information in more random patterns.
Another is the theory of intelligences (MI), which was first described by
Howard Gardner in Frames on Mind (1983). One of the major implications of
Gardner’s theory is that intelligence can be taught- that people can learn to behave
in more intelligent ways if multiple forms of intelligence are nurtured and valued.
This is a significant departure from traditional concepts of IQ which are based on
the premise that intelligence is fixed at birth and immutable thereafter. This
fundamental premise, or cornerstone, to how intelligence has traditionally been
viewed had a major impact on how the learning process has been structured (Gayle
and Parry, 2006).
Gardner's theory argues that intelligence, as it is traditionally defined, does
not adequately encompass the wide variety of abilities humans display. In his
conception, a child who masters the multiplication table easily is not necessarily
more intelligent overall than a child who struggles to do so. The second child may
be stronger in another kind of intelligence, and therefore may best learn the given
material through a different approach, may excel in a field outside of mathematics,

17
or may even be looking through the multiplication learning process at a
fundamentally deeper level that hides a potentially higher mathematical intelligence
than in the one who memorizes the concept easily. The theory suggests that, rather
than relying on a uniform curriculum, schools should offer "individual-centered
education", with curriculum tailored to the needs of each child.
Gardner identifies kinds of intelligences based upon eight criteria. His eight
criteria for describing something as an independent kind of intelligence (rather than
merely one of the skills or abilities included in a kind of intelligence, or a synonym
for, or combination of other kinds of intelligence) include: Verbal/Linguistic
intelligence refers to an individual's ability to understand and manipulate words and
languages; Bodily/Kinesthetic intelligence refers to people who process information
through the sensations they feel in their bodies. These people like to move around,
touch the people they are talking to and act things out; Naturalistic intelligence is
seen in someone who recognizes and classifies plants, animals, and minerals
including a mastery of taxonomies; Musical intelligence refers to the ability to
understand, create, and interpret musical pitches, timbre, rhythm, and tones and the
capability to compose music; Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to interpret and
respond to the moods, emotions, motivations, and actions of others. Interpersonal
intelligence also requires good communication and interaction skills, and the ability
show empathy towards the feelings of other individuals; and Intrapersonal
Intelligence, simply put, is the ability to know oneself. It is an internalized version of
Interpersonal Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_
multiple_intelligences).
18
In this study, two variables are involved. These are the independent and
dependent variables. The former included the multiple intelligences in terms of:
verbal-linguistic, mathematical logical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical-
rhythmic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist. The latter included the
learning styles in terms of: visual, aural/auditory, and kinesthetic/tactile. Figure 1
shows the schematic diagram of the study.

19
Schematic Diagram
Independent Variables Dependent Variables
Multiple Intelligences Learning Styles
• Verbal-linguistic • Auditory
• Mathematical-logical
• Kinesthetic or Tactile
• Visual-spatial
• Bodily-kinesthetic
• Visual
• Musical-rhytmic
• Interpersonal
• Intrapersonal
• Naturalist
Figure 1. The schematic diagram of the study showing the relationship between the
independent variables and dependent variables of the study.
20
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This study seeks to identify the multiple intelligences and the learning styles
of the education students in Liceo de Cagayan University.
Specifically, these are the following objectives:
1. To determine the multiple intelligences of the Education students in terms
of: verbal-linguistic, mathematical-logical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical-
rhythmic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist.
2. To determine the learning styles of the Education students in terms of:
auditory, kinesthetic or tactile, and visual.
3. To test the significant relationship of the multiple intelligences and the
learning styles of the Education students.
HYPOTHESIS
The null-hypothesis was stated at 0.05 level of significance.
Ho: There is no significant relationship between the multiple intelligences
and learning styles among the Education students of Liceo de Cagayan University.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study will render valuable benefits to all individuals in the educative
process specifically; the following will be benefited by this study:
Students. Upon knowing their multiple intelligences and learning styles, they
can gain ideas on how to improve their attitudes towards learning. They will also
benefit because once the teachers will modify their teaching styles based on their
21
needs as will be revealed by the results of this study, they can learn more and they
will enjoy in the learning process.
Teachers. The results of this study will help the teachers diagnose their
students so as to know their strengths and weaknesses . This will then guide them
in choosing learning activities that would help develop the students’ strengths and
improve their weaknesses.
School Administration. The result of the study will provide baseline data to
school administrators for them to improve the academic and co-curricular activities
they will promote that will enhance the students’ interest based on their multiple
intelligences and learning styles. The results of this study will serve as the profile of
the Education students in terms of multiple intelligences and learning styles as
recommended by PACU-COA and this will help the school administrators to
evaluate the students they have and for them to come up with a plan on how to
produce quality graduates.
Parents. The results of this study will help the parents know the strengths
and weaknesses of their sons and daughters. In such case, they can help and
support their sons and daughters develop their strengths and guide them to improve
their weaknesses.
Future researchers. The results of this study will serve as a spring board for
other related studies to be conducted in the future.
SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
The study is limited to ascertain the multiple intelligences and the learning
styles of all the Education students in Liceo de Cagayan University during the
22
academic year 2008-2009. This study will be conducted in the College of Education
in Liceo de Cagayan University for the reasons that there is no profile of the
Education students in terms of Multiple Intelligences and Learning styles as
recommended by PACU-COA. The independent variables in this study were limited
to the multiple intelligences such as verbal-linguistic, mathematical-logical, visual-
spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical-rhythmic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and
naturalist. The dependent variables were limited to the learning styles such as
auditory, kinesthetic or tactile, and visual.
RESEARCH DESIGN
The study will utilize the descriptive correlation design. Correlation is a
statistical technique that can show whether and how strongly pairs of variables are
related. Ariola (2005), descriptive correlation design is used to determine whether
or not there is a relationship that exists between two or more quantifiable variables,
and if there is, to what extent or degree the relationship is. In other words, when a
relationship is determined, the researcher must identify whether such relationship is
positive (+) or negative (-) and the degree or extent (strength) of relationship.
The descriptive correlation design is appropriate for the study which aimed
to determine the relationship of multiple intelligences and learning styles as
correlates to academic performance.
RESEARCH SETTING
This study will be conducted at Liceo de Cagayan University at RN Pelaez
Blvd., Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro City. A post liberation institution, the Liceo de
23
Cagayan University was founded in 1955 by the late Atty. Rodulfo Neri Pelaez of
Cagayan de Oro City and his wife the late Sr. Elsa Pelaez of Cebu with the primary
vision of affording the youth in Northern Mindanao an opportunity to pursue
relevant, quality education and facilitating their total human formation anchored in
moral values and Christian precepts. Specifically, the study will be conducted in
the College of Education for the reason that there is no profile of the Education
students in terms of Multiple Intelligences and Learning styles as recommended by
PACUCOA. The College of Education in the University was opened during the
academic year 1993-1994 with more than a hundred students for the two programs
– Bachelor of Secondary education (BSEd) and Bachelor of Elementary Education
(BEEd). The first area of concentration offered in both programs was English. The
population then grew gradually leading to the opening of various fields of
specialization like Filipino, Social Studies and Mathematics.
During the academic year 1995-1996, two areas of specialization were
added, namely: Guidance and Counselling and the Physical Education Health and
Music (PEHM), for the College to meet the demands of the community. Consistent
with its mission to reach out, the College offered another area of specialization, the
Pre-elementary Education, during the academic year 1999-2000.
In February 2008, the College was granted Level I Accredited Status by the
Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities – Commission on Accreditation
(PACU-COA). Today, the College envisions in strengthening her equality of
instruction to produce graduates who can compete in the global market. Moreover, it
also aims at fostering strong professionalism among its faculty and students.
24
RESPONDENTS AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The respondents will be the 206 Education students from the total population
(N =206) in the College, hence, universal sampling will be used in the study which
means that all the Education students will be included.
INSTRUMENTATION
The research instruments to be used in the study will be the questionnaire
patterned after the “Self-Inventory Multiple Intelligence Test” created by Gayle H.
Gregory (2005), and the “Learning Styles Self- Inventory” by Jeffrey Barsch, (2007).
Part I contains the Questionnaire on Multiple Intelligences Test. Part II comprises
the students’ learning style inventory model as patterned from Barsch (2007), such
as auditory learning style, kinesthetic learning style, and visual learning style.
DATA GATHERING PROCEDURES
A letter requesting permission to conduct the study will be addressed to the
Dean of the College of Education. Upon approval, the researchers will distribute the
questionnaires to the respondents. The respondents will be assured of the
confidentiality of their responses and explained the purpose of the study as well as
the importance of the research output. The questionnaires will be retrieved after the
respondents completed its answers. The same will be submitted to the university
statistician of the Research and Planning Office of Liceo de Cagayan University for
data processing.
STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES
25
The data that can be collected from the respondents will be processed
accordingly with the help of the university statistician and the researchers’ adviser.
Problem 1 will utilize ranking and frequency distribution, Problem 2 will used the
weighted mean, and Problem 3 will utilize Pearson Product Moment Correlation (r).
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND STUDIES

26
To broaden the researcher’s knowledge about the study the following
literature reviews are included. These reviews serve as the foundation of insights
that give weight to this investigation.
Learning-style theory begins with Carl Jung (1927), who noted major differ-
ences in the way people perceived (sensation versus intuition), the way they made
decisions (logical thinking versus imaginative feelings), and how active or reflective
they were while interacting (extroversion versus introversion). Learning-style theor-
ists generally believe that learning is the result of a personal, individualized act of
thought and feeling.
Most learning-style theorists have settled on four basic styles namely: The
Mastery style learner absorbs information concretely; processes information
sequentially, in a step-by-step manner; and judges the value of learning in terms of
its clarity and practicality; The Understanding style learner focuses more on ideas
and abstractions; learns through a process of questioning, reasoning, and testing;
and evaluates learning by standards of logic and the use of evidence; The Self-
Expressive style learner looks for images implied in learning; uses feelings and
emotions to construct new ideas and products; and judges the learning process
according to its originality, aesthetics, and capacity to surprise or delight; and The
Interpersonal style learner, like the Mastery learner, focuses on concrete, palpable
information; prefers to learn socially; and judges learning in terms of its potential
use in helping others.
Learning styles are not fixed throughout life, but develop as a person learns
and grows. Most learning-style advocates would agree that all individuals develop
and practice a mixture of styles as they live and learn. Most people's styles flex and
27
adapt to various contexts, though to differing degrees. In fact, most people seek a
sense of wholeness by practicing all four styles to some degree. Educators should
help students discover their unique profiles, as well as a balance of styles
(http://www.ascd.org/authors/ed_lead/el199709_silver.html).
Students use different approaches when faced with learning tasks and
problems the way in which the students approach the learning tasks, and the
behavior in learning situations determine their learning style, Rosenberg (1968)
defines learning style as referring to an individual’s characteristic pattern of
behavior when confronted with a problem. It is pointed out that the learning style of
an individual has relation to factors such as prior learning experiences, physical
facilities and learning environment.
On the basis of the work of researchers on learning, Rosenberg has arrived
at four general learning patterns which are rigid-inhibited style, indiscipline style,
acceptance-anxious style and creative style. Learners with a rigid inhibited style of
learning require constant supervision as they get confused easily. The indiscipline
learner exhibits characteristics such as refusal to obey commands, showing
disrespect to teachers, deceiving, stealing, bullying, etc. Such learners invariable
leave their learning task unfinished due to lack of tolerance. Learners of creative
style are self-confident, and able to evaluate their own performance with objectivity.
They are prepared to learn from the mistakes and show divergent thinking ability
(Chapman and King, 2005).
According to Dunn, Dunn and Perrin (1994), learners are “self-oriented,”
“peer oriented” and “adult oriented” or the combination of these sociological
structures. Peer oriented learner may like to work with others, enjoying the feeling of
28
contributing to a group project, or they may like to get on with the task by
themselves. On the adulthood, adult oriented learner need to check in with their
teacher from time to time. They ask, “Am I doing this right?” or “What do you think of
what I’ve done so far?” The questions may come as much from a need for adult
company and concerns about their performances. Without the social input, they
may lose concentration. Conversely, the learner who likes to work alone needs time
and space to focus.
It is logical to conclude that students in school classroom have the same
variations in the conditions they need and the modes in which they learn best. It is,
of course, impossible for teachers to adapt classrooms and instruction to meet each
student’s particular set of preferences; if the teacher decided to have music playing
as students engage in their school work, she would be helping some students focus
while destructing others. What good teachers do, however, is provide as much
flexibility as possible in their modes of instruction and in classroom configurations
(Swiniarski, 2006).
Researchers have identified different learning styles and these have been of
great interest to classroom practitioners. Dryden and Vos (1994) have linked
Gardner’s work to the way students learn. They believe that each of the learners
has a preferred learning and a preferred working style, and further identified five
learning preferences.
Some of the learners, they suggest, are mainly visual learners: their learning
is helped when they see pictures or diagram. Others learn more by listening or are
kinaesthetic learners: they learned best by using their sense of touch or by moving
their bodies. Some of them are print oriented: they learn most easily by reading
29
books. Others learn best when interacting with others. They suggest that learners
can and do use a combination of these strategies to learn, but one approach maybe
dominant.
No doubt a contributory factor to some pupils’ disaffection at school is that
they do not have sufficient opportunity to learn in a way that helps them to access
the curriculum. Schools with which some experts have worked have found that it is
useful to be aware of the range of learning style in their classroom and, more
importantly, for their learners to be aware of these too. Students who identified
themselves as weak in one or more of the areas need to consider how they develop
strategies to be able to learn through these approaches. However, given the
argument about both intelligence and learning being learnable, experts think this
are best treated as a range of possibilities for enriching learning rather than further
fixed views of students. In a culture that is prone to label and categorize they need
to be aware of this danger with learning styles ( Mayers and Reed, 2004).
On the other hand, research suggests that intelligence can be expanded
through learning in real situations. It can be enhanced through instruction, self-
instruction and experiences that cultivate metacognition. Students can develop their
latent potentials if teachers will provide activities that will unfold and enhance these
capacities and tendencies and teach them to develop their potentials through effort-
based learning.
Dweck (1999) suggests that the development of mastery or learning
orientation depends on the way how people understand the nature of their
intelligence. She has identified two very different ways that people understand and
internalize intelligence. The first is an entity view; the idea that intelligence is
30
something fixed and unchangeable within. For others, intelligence is something that
can be developed through learning. This is an “incremental” view of intelligence and
what Claxton means by learning being learnable. Dweck calls this the theory of
“malleable intelligence.”
According to the psychologist, Howard Gardner (1999), all learners have the
capacity to develop and extend a number of different aspects of their intelligence.
They would caution limiting learners in any way to these and suggest that the
following list of Gardner’s intelligences are expansive rather than reductive. They
are not for either labelling students or limiting learning. Believing that all of the
learners have the capacity to develop these areas, though some may need more
help than others has an impact on the view of ability and consequently on teaching
strategies (Reed et. Al 2004).
Gardner’s work has helped educators to see that the content of learning is
not just about the types of cognition traditionally associated with school. Goleman
(1996) supports this view. He demonstrates the nature and important of emotional
intelligence and the need to become emotionally literate. This means realizing that
the man and the emotions are working in a fruitful partnership when learning is
taking place. What Claxton (1999) refers to as drawing on ‘‘the rich mud of
someone’s experience.’’
Samples, (2000) found out approaches using learning modalities, learning
styles and multiple intelligences can create more viable teaching methods that are
realistically linked to the “increasingly complex world”. Diverse instructional
approaches have been seen to nurture flexibility, reinforce the idea that there are
31
many different ways to learn, show a deeper appreciation for the individual and
increase chances of students actually being successful in the learning environment.
Nolen, (2003) discussed how this knowledge of multiple intelligences might
be applicable in the classroom. She noted that “Many teachers struggle with finding
ways to reach individual learning styles and needs”, and that Gardner’s concepts
might provide some solutions. It is clear that these same ideas about multiple
intelligences can be practically applied. Linguistic intelligence can be approached
with teaching the student through verbal instruction as well as the sharing of
anecdotes and cultural information with the class. Those who are strong in this skill
will best understand movement through the verbal explanation. This encourages
those who are strong in this intelligence and helps to develop it in others.
Musical intelligence can be approached through an actual formal musical
analysis and representation, and in the beginning class, as a way of capturing and
understanding feelings which the music brings forth, and how to express the
physical. Music also ties to other kinds of intelligences, for example logical
intelligence, since it is math oriented. Logical intelligence is a skill of people who
are academically inclined in the traditional sense because of the logical sequence
of teaching format, and are usually considered to be good students in any traditional
classroom. These are people who will respond well to a strictly formatted class and
to choreography. Spatial intelligence can be approached through the use of picture
and drawing elements as a teaching tool. A student with this intelligence usually
learns well if films, diagrams and other picture elements are involved in the process.
Classes in which videos of dancers are utilized are often very valuable to students
who learn in this way.

32
Body/kinesthetic intelligence can be fostered through the use of hand-on
methods in the classroom. Being allowed to touch the instructor or have the
instructor touch them in order to feel the physical movement is helpful to people with
this learning style. Interpersonal intelligence is best utilized in the classroom
through having students work in teams and interact, for example through practicing
and allowing interaction between the students; having a partner in class or learning
a choreography that is practiced in the classroom as a group. Group activity
stimulates this type of learning which is basic to many people. Intrapersonal
intelligence can be approached in the learning environment by frequent
acknowledgement from the teacher and through the use of positive reinforcement or
praise. People with this learning ability are often very good at a long term
commitment to studying the dance. Natural intelligence can be best utilized through
actually going into the work environment as opposed to the classroom setting. This
allows the student to actually get the experience of performing or watching other
perform. Student nights in a restaurant or other type of realistic environment are a
good way to support this intelligence. Also, it is good for the student to go to events
and venues where there is professional dancing in order to see it in action.
Most people will have at their disposal more than one of the intelligences
discussed so that they may be linguistic-kinesthetic- natural learners, for example.
Nolen states that it is possible for teachers to structure learning and teaching so
that most intelligence is approached in presenting the material to be learned. She
says, “Teachers who teach towards the multiple intelligences realize the benefits,
such as active learners and successful students” (http://www.raqsazar.com/mi.html).

33
Based on the above reviews, the researchers learned that learners have
different learning styles and all learn at different paces. Some can put in a minimal
effort and receive a high grade meanwhile others have to work very hard to achieve
an average grade. The good news is that teachers can modify the learning activities
and learners can modify the methods they use to learn. If one maximizes his
opportunities for his personal learning needs to be met, he can enhance and ensure
that he is more comfortable in his learning environment. One method of doing so is
applying the theories of Multiple Intelligence to each learning styles. One cannot do
it of course without determining his dominant multiple intelligences and knowing his
preferred learning styles. The researchers upon reviewing the above literature have
learned that though the theory of multiple intelligences and the learning styles
theory are both different theories but they are related to each other. Multiple
intelligences and learning styles are the same factors that may affect the students’
learning performance. To help the students improve their performance, the
researchers believe that it is a necessity to know their dominant learning styles and
identify their preferred learning styles.

34
CHAPTER 3
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of data.
PROBLEM 1. Determine the dominant multiple intelligences in terms of

verbal-linguistic, mathematical-logical; visual-spatial; bodily-kinesthetic;
musical-rhythmic; interpersonal; intrapersonal; and naturalist.
TABLE 1
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF VERBAL-LINGUISTIC
INDICATORS WEIGHTED MEAN STD DEVN VERBAL

DESCRIPTION
1. I love to read. 3.99 0.78 Dominant
2. I like to tell and 4.14 0.84 Dominant
listen to jokes.
3. I just know 3.88 0.83 Dominant
when things
sound right.
4. I like words 3.93 0.88 Dominant
that are fun to
see.
5. I like to write 3.11 1.02 Moderately
stories and dominant
poems.
Overall 3.81 0.59 Dominant
Table 1 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of verbal-linguistic. As
shown, the overall mean (3.81) verbally described as dominant, it means that verbal
linguistic intelligence is one of the dominant intelligences among the education
students.
The highest mean (4.14) falls in item 2 (“I like to tell and listen to jokes”)
verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.11) falls in
item 5 (“I like to write stories and poems”) verbally described as moderately
dominant.
35
The data in the highest mean reveals that most of the education students
who like to tell and listen to jokes are verbal-linguistic intelligent. As cited by Brown
and Mayer, 2008 in their journal “Children and Libraries” that verbal-linguistic
people like to work with language and can use it appropriately in writing or
speaking. Most likely, they enjoyed to tell and listen to funny stories.
The data in the lowest mean reveals that some of the education students
who like to write stories and poems are verbal-linguistic intelligent. Brown and
Mayers, 2008 pointed out in their journal that verbal-linguistic people also like to
write but not as much as they like to talk.
"Linguistic Intelligence", however, appears to have greater implications for
auditory and speech modalities because Gardner includes "meanings of words and
different functions of language" under this "intelligence."
TABLE 2
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF MATHEMATICAL-LOGICAL

36
INDICATORS WEIGHTED STD DEVN VERBAL

MEAN DESCRIPTION
1. I love mysteries, puzzles, 4.06 1.03 Dominant
and games.
2. I like reading science 3.55 1.07 Dominant
fiction and about
technological discoveries.
3. I think it is fun to work 4.01 1.28 Dominant
with numbers and
problems.
4. I like things organized in 3.36 1.27 Moderately
patterns and groups. dominant
5. I like computers and 3.41 1.10 Dominant
working with them.
Table 2 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of mathematical-logical. As
shown, the overall mean (3.68) verbally described as dominant.
The highest mean (4.06) falls in item 1 (“I love mysteries, puzzles, and
games”) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.36)
falls in item 4 (“I like things organized in patterns and groups”) verbally described as
moderately dominant.
The data in the highest mean reveals that most of the mathematical- logical
intelligent education students love mysteries, puzzles, and games. Studies have
emerged from investigators in intellectually related fields that identify intellectual
functioning (cognition), as central to theories of personality. The growth of individual
personality is viewed as a process that is shaped by the individual's assessment of
their social context, with the application of problem solving and reasoning at its core
(Kelly, 1955; Mischel, 1973; Bandura, 1986).
The data in the lowest mean reveals that some of the mathematical- logical
intelligent students like computers and working with them.

37
Teele (1994) noted that Logical-mathematical intelligence was strongest
from first through fourth and began to decline. The study conducted by Teele (1994)
demonstrated that students enter school at primary level strong in both linguistic
and logical-mathematical intelligences and leave high school level with those two
areas sharply in decline, even though those are the two intelligences that are
predominate in schools. If schools are to provide opportunities for all students to
learn and develop the ability to read, write and compute, then instruction must be
presented in ways that address the students' dominant intelligences. This enables
students to process information through their strengths and then translates into the
less dominant intelligences. The translation process is a way to empower students,
enabling them to learn through their dominant intelligences while also strengthening
their weaker intelligences.

38
TABLE 3
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF VISUAL-SPATIAL

DESCRIPTION
1. I like to go new 3.75 1.00 Dominant
places and I do
so easily.
2. I notice other 3.35 1.00 Dominant
people’s clothes
and personalities.
3. I can find my 3.25 1.21 Dominant
way around cities
and personalities.
4. I always 3.80 0.97 Dominant
doodling or
drawing while
thinking and
listening.
5. I enjoy TV, 4.16 0.89 Dominant
videos, and
movies.
Table 3 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of visual-spatial. As shown,
the overall mean (3.66) verbally described as dominant. The highest mean (4.16)
falls in item 5 (“I enjoy TV, videos, and movies”) verbally described as dominant. On
the other hand, the lowest mean (3.25) falls in item 3 (“I can find my way around
cities and personalities“) verbally described as dominant.
The data in the highest mean reveals that most of the education students who are
visual- spatial intelligent enjoy TV videos, and movies. The data in the lowest mean
on the other hand reveals that most likely visual-spatial intelligent can find their
ways around cities and personalities.
Concerning the cognitive style Breadth of Categorization-- sometimes
referred to as Conceptual Differentiation, Kogan describes it as: When a person is

39
made aware of the central-tendency or is given a focal exemplar of a particular
category, wide individual variation has been observed in the setting of boundary
limitations for that category. Some individuals are relatively narrow in the sense of
rejecting instances that, in their subjective opinion, stray too far from the central or
focal value; others are able to accommodate a broader range of instances of
subjectively setting category boundaries a considerable distance from the central-
tendency or vocal exemplar (Kogan, 1976, p.60).
TABLE 4
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF BODILY-KINESTHETIC

DESCRIPTION
40
1. I am well 4.15 0.85 Dominant

coordinated and
move about
easily.
2. I like to tinker 3.37 1.20 Moderately
with things and dominant
fix them.
3. I often move 3.33 1.16 Dominant
my hands and
body while I talk.
4. I like games 3.20 1.09 Moderately
like charades and dominant
“hamming” it up.
5. I have hobbies 4.20 0.90 Dominant
that let me build
and make things.
Table 4 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of bodily-kinesthetic. As
shown, the overall mean (3.65) verbally described as dominant.
The highest mean (4.20) falls in item 5 (“I have hobbies that let me build and
make things”) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean
(3.20) falls in item 4 (“I like games like charades and “hamming” it up”) verbally
described as moderately dominant.
The data in the highest mean reveals that most of the bodily- kinesthetic
intelligent education students have hobbies that let them build and make things.
The data in the lowest mean reveals that some of the education students who move
their hands while they talk, are bodily-kinesthetic intelligent.
A study conducted in Syracuse, New York public schools reported that
black children from moderate to low income urban environments performed learning
tasks with a more sensor active cognitive style than their white peers (Morgan,
1990). Similar patterns were found among children of Hispanic descent (Ramirez &
Price-Williams 1974; Ramirez & Castaneda, 1974).

41
In urban school settings that promote quietness and docility, it is often
difficult for black children from moderate and low income families to comply with the
demands made upon them by the system (Witherspoon, 1987). Their behavior can
be termed disruptive when the planned environment lacks the elements which could
accommodate their sensor motor style (Einstein, 1979; Elias, 1979).

42
TABLE 5
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF MUSICAL-RHYTHMIC

DESCRIPTION
1. I sing along 3.65 0.95 Dominant
with music when I
learn some.
2. I like to play an 3.44 0.84 Dominant
instrument.
3. I turn on music 3.56 1.13 Dominant
when it is quiet.
4. I like to sing, 3.28 1.04 Moderately
hum, whistle, or dominant
tap on the desk.
5. I get songs 3.87 0.92 Dominant
“stuck” in my
head.
Table 5 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of musical-rhythmic. As
shown, the overall mean (3.56) verbally described as dominant. The highest mean
(3.65) falls in item 1 (“I sing along with music when I learn some”) verbally described
as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.28) falls in item 4 (“I like to
sing, hum, whistle, or tap on the desk”) verbally described as moderately dominant.
who sing along with music when they learn some are most likely musical-rhythmic
intelligent. On the other hand, the data in the lowest mean reveals that some of
those who like to sing, hum, whistle, or tap on the desk belong to musical-rhythmic
intelligent education learners.
Gardner's "End States" identifies musical intelligence as the capacity to
perform professionally as a violinist and/or composer. Monsaas and Engelhard
(1990) concluded from a study in four talent fields that highly competitive home
43
environments contribute significantly to the success of individuals at the top of their
fields. This seemed especially true for highly accomplished pianists and research
mathematicians. An individual with rather modest intellectual capacity for learning
to play the violin, for example, might be stimulated to maximize such ability, and
become a competent performer because of a positive role-model, tenacity, an
opportunity, temperament, curiosity, or a home environment of the type cited by
Monsaas and Engelhard, just to name a few variables.

44
TABLE 6
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF INTERPERSONAL

DESCRIPTION
1. I know when 3.93 0.94 Dominant
someone is
upset, angry or
depressed.
2. I sometimes 4.30 0.87 Highly dominant
imagine how it
would be to be
someone else.
3. I like to belong 3.58 1.03 Dominant
to a club or a
group.
4. I like to be with 3.74 0.79 Dominant
my friends and
just hang out.
5. When I meet 3.17 0.85 Moderately
new people, I am dominant
interested to
learn about them.
Table 6 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of interpersonal. As shown,
the overall mean (3.74) verbally described as dominant.
The highest mean (4.30) falls in item 2 (“I sometimes imagine how it would be
to be someone else”) verbally described as highly dominant. On the other hand, the
lowest mean (3.17) falls in item 5 (“When I meet new people, I am interested to
learn about them”) verbally described as moderately dominant.
who sometimes imagine how it would be to be someone else are interpersonal
intelligent. On the other hand, the data in the lowest mean reveals that most likely
45
those education students who meet new people and are interested to learn about
them are good in interpersonal aspects.
Booth, et.al, 2002 in their papers emphasized that interpersonal people like
to be around other people. They can read people and discover what their needs
are. They may be involved in group organizations, and they tend to be good
communicators.
TABLE 7
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF INTRAPERSONAL

46

DESCRIPTION
1. I keep a diary 3.09 1.26 Moderately
or journal and dominant
write down my
thoughts.
2. I need quiet 4.07 1.15 Dominant
time by myself.
3. I like to do 4.06 1.09 Dominant
things by myself.
4. I know what I 4.30 0.84 Highly dominant
like and what I’m
capable of.
5. I like a 4.06 0.90 Dominant
challenge and set
goals for myself.
Table 7 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of intrapersonal. As shown,
the overall mean (3.92) verbally described as dominant.
The highest mean (4.30) falls in item 4 (“I know what I like and what I’m
capable of”) verbally described as highly dominant. On the other hand, the lowest
mean (3.09) falls in item 1 (“I keep a diary or journal and write down my thoughts”)
verbally described as moderately dominant.
The data in the highest mean reveals those who know what they like and
what they are capable of. The data in the lowest mean reveals that some education
students who keep a diary or journal and write down their thoughts are good in
intrapersonal aspects.
Gurian, et. Al;2005, in their papers noted that intrapersonal people
understand their own strengths and weaknesses. They know themselves well and
often spend time in self-reflection.
Another positive comparison with Gardner's inter/intrapersonal intelligence
can be found in the work of Bieri (1961) who identified the bimodal cognitive style
47
labeled Cognitive Complexity vs. Cognitive Simplicity. These constructs are defined
as the cognitive process utilized by individuals in defining their personal and social
world. This compares with Gardner's "capacities to discern and respond
appropriately to the moods, temperaments, and desires of other people." Work by
others expanded the Cognitive Complexity psychological style to include the nature
of individual choices and their associated values (Signell, 1966; Kogan, 1971).
TABLE 8
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS OF NATURALIST

DESCRIPTION
1. I like 4.16 0.91 Dominant
collections and
saving things.
2. I love being 3.96 0.97 Dominant
48
outdoors and
enjoying the
world.
3. I like to listen 3.75 1.05 Dominant
to the birds
singing and the
crickets chirping.
4. I like to put 3.64 1.09 Dominant
things in
categories and
classify them.
5. I know a lot 4.08 0.94 Dominant
about animals
and plants.
Table 8 shows the multiple intelligences in terms of naturalist. As shown, the
overall mean (3.92) verbally described as dominant. The highest mean (4.16) falls
in item 1 (“I like collections and saving things”) verbally described as dominant. On
the other hand, the lowest mean (3.64) falls in item 4(“I like to put things in
categories and classify them”) verbally described as dominant.
who like collections and saving things are naturalist. On the other hand, the lowest
mean reveals that those who like put things in categories and classify them are also
naturalist. Booth and Hockey, 2002, noted in their papers that naturalist people are
highly observant about their environment and can classify and organize what they
see. They may be able to differentiate between different types of flowers, birds, or
even architectural styles in buildings.
In problem 1, the data in the above tables show that the eight multiple
intelligences are dominant among the education students which means that the
education students are multiple intelligent. Based on the results, most of the
education students excel in intrapersonal and naturalist which have the highest with
49
the overall mean of 3.92. This implies that most of the education students have a
good access to one's own feelings and have the ability to discriminate among them
and draw upon them to guide behavior; knowledge of one's own strengths,
weaknesses, desires, and intelligences. Most of the education students are persons
with detailed accurate self-knowledge. The results implies that as naturalists, most
of the education students learn best when the subject involves collecting and
analyzing, or is closely related to something prominent in nature; they also don't
enjoy learning unfamiliar or seemingly useless subjects with little or no connections
to nature.
The results are supported by what Gardner emphasized that it is important to
note that, without exception, each intelligence received a higher importance than
effectiveness rating for each content area. This may not be as dire a situation as it
appears at first blush-In his recent formulations, Gardner (1999, p. 334) makes an
important distinction between "means of acquiring information" and "material to be
mastered." He suggests that a specific intelligence can be a tool or way of learning
even when the educational intent is not to develop the intelligence. The results are
somewhat similar also to the studies with the Teele Inventory for Multiple
Intelligence (Teele, 1996; Rhina, 2001) which have revealed some interesting data
that could affect the way instruction is provided at different grade levels. Students at
the primary level demonstrated a much stronger preference for linguistic and
logical-mathematical intelligences than students at the middle and high school
levels. Primary students' most dominant intelligences were spatial, bodily-
kinesthetic, linguistic and logical-mathematical while upper elementary students
were spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and musical. Middle and high school
50
students were strongest in interpersonal, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial and musical
intelligences.
Teele (1994) noted that linguistic intelligence was the strongest from
kindergarten through to fourth grade and then dramatically declined. Logical-
mathematical intelligence was strongest from first through fourth and began to
decline. Spatial and bodily intelligence remained the two most dominant
intelligences throughout elementary school, while spatial intelligence was very
strong in all grades. She also reported that first grade students were lower in
musical and intrapersonal intelligences until they went to high school. The study
conducted by Teele (1994) demonstrated that students enter school at primary level
strong in both linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences and leave high
school level with those two areas sharply in decline, even though those are the two
intelligences that are predominate in schools. If schools are to provide opportunities
for all students to learn and develop the ability to read, write and compute, then
instruction must be presented in ways that address the students' dominant
intelligences. This enables students to process information through their strengths
and then translates into the less dominant intelligences.
The translation process is a way to empower students, enabling them to
learn through their dominant intelligences while also strengthening their weaker
intelligences. Teele also argued that when teachers are able to present information
through all seven intelligences, all students can engage in the learning process and
gain strength in all of the intelligences.

51
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF THE TABLES
DOMINANT MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES
INDICATORS WEIGHTED STANDARD VERBAL

MEAN DEVIATION DESCRIPTION
VERBAL-LINGUISTIC 3.81 0.59 Dominant
MATHEMATICAL- 3.68 0.80 Dominant
LOGICAL
VISUAL-SPATIAL 3.66 0.56 Dominant
BODILY-KINESTHETIC 3.65 0.65 Dominant
MUSICAL-RHYTHMIC 3.56 0.64 Dominant
INTERPERSONAL 3.74 0.58 Dominant
INTRAPERSONAL 3.92 0.73 Dominant
NATURALIST 3.92 0.62 Dominant
52
PROBLEM 2.Determine the learning styles in terms of auditory, kinesthetic or
tactile, verbal and visual.
TABLE 10
LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF AUDITORY

DESCRIPTION
1. I remember 3.75 0.87 Dominant
more about a
subject through
listening than
reading.
2. I can tell if 3.90 0.83 Dominant
sounds match
when presented
with pairs of
sounds.
3. I do better at 4.14 0.81 Dominant
academic
subjects by
listening to
lectures and
tapes instead of
reading books.
4. I would rather 3.70 0.91 Dominant
listen to a good
lecture or speech
than read about
the same
material.
5. I prefer 3.86 0.94 Dominant
listening to the
news on the radio
than reading
53
about it in the
newspaper.
6. I follow oral 3.30 0.95 Moderately
directions better dominant
than written ones.
Table 10 shows the learning styles in terms of auditory. As shown, the overall
mean (3.77) verbally described as dominant.
The highest mean (4.14) falls in item 3 (“I do better at academic subjects by
listening to lectures and tapes instead of reading books”) verbally described as
dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.30) falls in item 6 (“I follow oral
directions better than written ones”) verbally moderately dominant.
who do better at academic subjects by listening to lectures and tapes instead of
reading books are auditory learners. On the other hand the data in the lowest mean
reveals that some of those who follow oral directions better than written ones are
auditory learners too.
As noted by Pyryt, and Sandals, et al, 1998 in their Journal of Research that
Auditory learners are those who learn best through hearing things. Auditory learners
even like to read to self out loud, are not afraid to speak in class, like oral reports,
are good at explaining and follow spoken directions well.

54
TABLE 11
LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF KINESTHETIC

DESCRIPTION
1. I bear down 3.34 1.02 Moderately
extremely hard dominant
with pen or pencil
in writing.
2. I enjoy working 3.50 0.93 Dominant
with tools.
3. I like to play 3.56 0.97 Dominant
with coins and
keys in my
pockets.
4. I like to chew 3.44 0.92 Dominant
gum or eat
snacks while
studying.
5. I learn to spell 3.30 0.84 Moderately
a new word by dominant
tracing a word
with a finger.
6. I feel very 2.65 1.19 Moderately
comfortable dominant
touching others
(handshaking).
Overall 3.27 0.54 Moderately
dominant
Table 11 shows the learning styles in terms of kinesthetic. As shown, the
overall mean (3.27) verbally described as moderately dominant.
The highest mean (3.50) falls in item 2 (“I enjoy working with tools”) verbally
described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (2.65) falls in item 6 (I
feel very comfortable touching others (handshaking) verbally described as
55
who enjoy working with tools are kinesthetic learners. The data in the lowest mean
reveals that some of those who feel very comfortable touching others (handshaking)
are also kinesthetic learners.
Beck, 2001 in his paper cited that about 10% of the general population is
kinesthetic learners. They prefer to learn by getting their body into action and
moving around. They are “hands-on” types who prefer doing to talking. Dunn, Rita
in her journal pointed out that the younger the children, the more likely they learn
tactually (by touching and manipulating resources) or kinesthetically (by
experiencing; Dunn and Dunn 1992, 1993; Dunn and Perrin 1994).
56
TABLE 12
LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF VERBAL

DESCRIPTION
1. I enjoy reading 3.30 0.94 Moderately
graphs, grids, dominant
chart and
diagrams.
2. I prefer to have 3.63 0.95 Dominant
an oral
explanation of
diagrams and
graphs.
3. I can 2.93 1.40 Moderately
understand and dominant
follow directions
by reading maps.
4. I learn to spell 3.68 1.16 Dominant
better by
repeating the
letters of the
word out loud
than by writing
the word in paper.
5. I can better 3.06 0.91 Moderately
understand and dominant
use article by
reading about in
the newspaper
than by listening
to the radio.
6. I like to obtain 3.38 1.13 Moderately
information on dominant
interesting
subject by
reading relevant
materials.
dominant
Table 12 shows the learning styles in terms of verbal. As shown, the overall
mean (3.32) verbally described as moderately dominant.

57
The highest mean (3.68) falls in item 4 (“I learn to spell better by repeating
the letters of the word out loud than by writing the word in paper”) verbally
can understand and follow directions by reading maps.) verbally described as
who learn to spell better by repeating the letters of the word out loud than the word
in paper are verbal learners. On the other hand, the data in the lowest mean reveals
that including those who can understand and follow directions by reading maps can
be considered as verbal learners.
As pointed out by Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1990), verbal learners are
involved both in the written and spoken word. They find it easy to express
themselves both in writing and verbally. They love reading and writing. They like
playing on the meaning or sound of words, such as in tongue twisters, rhymes,
limericks and the like. They know the meaning of many words, and regularly make
an effort to find the meaning of new words and use these words, as well as phrases
they have picked up recently, when talking to others.

58
TABLE 13
LEARNING STYLES IN TERMS OF VISUAL

DESCRIPTION
1. I try to 3.19 0.92 Moderately
remember dominant
something by
picturing it in my
head.
2. I like to write 3.29 0.93 Moderately
things down or dominant
take notes for
visual review.
3. I remember 3.40 1.10 Moderately
best by writing dominant
things down
several times.
4. I follow written 3.80 0.73 Dominant
directions better
than oral
directions.
5. I am good at 3.31 1.03 Moderately
working and dominant
solving jigsaw
puzzles and
mazes.
6. I prefer 3.30 0.93 Moderately
reviewing written dominant
materials instead
of discussing the
subject matter.
dominant
Table 13 shows the learning styles in terms of visual. As shown, the overall
mean (3.38) verbally described as moderately dominant.
The highest mean (3.80) falls in item 4 (“I follow written directions better than
oral directions.”) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest
59
mean (3.19) falls in item 1 (“I try to remember something by picturing it in my head”)
verbally describe as moderately dominant.
who are visual learners follow written directions better than oral directions. The data
in the lowest mean reveals that those who try to remember something by picturing it
in their head can be considered also as visual learners in some extent.
As emphasized by Linda Kreger Silverman. Ph.D. in her journal, visual-
spatial learners are individuals who think in pictures rather than in words. They
have a different brain organization than auditory-sequential learners. They learn
better visually than auditorally. They learn all-at-once, and when the light bulb goes
on, the learning is permanent. They do not learn from repetition and drill. They are
whole-part learners who need to see the big picture first before they learn the
details. They are non-sequential, which means that they do not learn in the step-by-
step manner in which most teachers teach. They arrive at correct solutions without
taking steps, so “show your work” may be impossible for them. They may have
difficulty with easy tasks, but show amazing ability with difficult, complex tasks.
They are systems thinkers who can orchestrate large amounts of information from
different domains, but they often miss the details. They tend to be organizationally
impaired and unconscious about time. They are often gifted creatively,
technologically, mathematically or emotionally.
The above data in problem 2 reveals that most of the education students
prefer auditory learning style since based on the overall results the dominant
learning style is auditory and the three learning styles are determined to be
60
moderately dominant among the education students. This implies that as auditory
learners, most of the education students like to read to self out loud, speak in, are
not afraid to speak in class, like oral reports, follow spoken directions well and they
can’t keep quiet for long periods.
In terms of bodily-kinesthetic. As shown, the overall mean (3.65) verbally
described as dominant.
The highest mean (4.20) falls in item 5 (“I have hobbies that let me build and
make things”) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean
(3.20) falls in item 4 (“I like games like charades and “hamming” it up”) verbally
The data in the highest mean reveals that most of the bodily- kinesthetic
intelligent education students have hobbies that let them build and make things.
The data in the lowest mean reveals that some of the education students who move
their hands while they talk, are bodily-kinesthetic intelligent.
A study conducted in Syracuse, New York public schools reported that
black children from moderate to low income urban environments performed learning
tasks with a more sensor active cognitive style than their white peers (Morgan,
1990). Similar patterns were found among children of Hispanic descent (Ramirez &
Price-Williams 1974; Ramirez & Castaneda, 1974).
In urban school settings that promote quietness and docility, it is often
difficult for black children from moderate and low income families to comply with the
demands made upon them by the system (Witherspoon, 1987). Their behavior can
be termed disruptive when the planned environment lacks the elements which could
accommodate their sensor motor style (Einstein, 1979; Elias, 1979).

61
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF TABLES
LEARNING STYLES
INDICATORS WEIGHTED STANDARD VERBAL

62
MEAN DEVIATION DESCRIPTION

AUDITORY 3.77 0.55 Dominant
KINESTHETIC 3.27 0.54 Moderately
dominant
VERBAL 3.32 0.57 Moderately
dominant
VISUAL 3.38 0.50 Moderately
dominant
CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the study.

63
SUMMARY
This study was conducted to determine the dominant multiple intelligences
and preferred learning styles of the Education students of Liceo de Cagayan
University.
The descriptive method of research was used in which a standardized
questionnaire was the primary tool used in acquiring the data.
The study was conducted at Liceo de Cagayan University campus with one
hundred eighty (180) Education students as respondents and subject of the study.
The questionnaires were personally distributed to the student respondents by
the researchers. Some instructions were explained before the respondents were
allowed to answer.
After retrieving the questionnaires, the data were statistically tested,
analyzed and interpreted using the frequency counts, weighted mean, standard
deviation, their relationship and analysis of the variance.
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
The findings of the study are summarized as follows:
In terms of verbal – linguistic intelligence, the overall mean is (3.81)
verbally described as dominant, which means that verbal linguistic intelligence is
one of the dominant intelligences among the education students. The highest mean
(4.14) falls in item 2 (“I like to tell and listen to jokes”) verbally described as
dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.11) falls in item 5 (“I like to write
stories and poems”) verbally described as moderately dominant.

64
In terms of mathematical-logical, the overall mean (3.68) verbally described
as dominant. The highest mean (4.06) falls in item 1 (“I love mysteries, puzzles, and
games”) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.36)
falls in item 4 (“I like things organized in patterns and groups”) verbally described as
In terms of visual-spatial, the overall mean (3.66) verbally described as
dominant. The highest mean (4.16) falls in item 5 (“I enjoy TV, videos, and movies”)
verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.25) falls in
item 3 (“I can find my way around cities and personalities“) verbally described as
dominant.
In terms of bodily-kinesthetic, the overall mean (3.65) verbally described as
dominant. The highest mean (4.20) falls in item 5 (“I have hobbies that let me build
and make things”) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest
mean (3.20) falls in item 4 (“I like games like charades and “hamming” it up”)
In terms of musical-rhythmic, the overall mean (3.56) verbally described as
dominant. The highest mean (3.65) falls in item 1 (“I sing along with music when I
learn some”) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean
(3.28) falls in item 4 (“I like to sing, hum, whistle, or tap on the desk”) verbally
In terms of interpersonal, the overall mean (3.74) verbally described as
dominant. The highest mean (4.30) falls in item 2 (“I sometimes imagine how it
would be to be someone else”) verbally described as highly dominant. On the other

65
hand, the lowest mean (3.17) falls in item 5 (“When I meet new people, I am
interested to learn about them”) verbally described as moderately dominant.
In terms of intrapersonal, the overall mean (3.92) verbally described as
dominant. The highest mean (4.30) falls in item 4 (“I know what I like and what I’m
capable of”) verbally described as highly dominant. On the other hand, the lowest
mean (3.09) falls in item 1 (“I keep a diary or journal and write down my thoughts”)
In terms of naturalist, the overall mean (3.92) verbally described as
dominant. The highest mean (4.16) falls in item 1 (“I like collections and saving
things”) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.64)
falls in item 4(“I like to put things in categories and classify them”) verbally
described as dominant.
In terms of auditory, the overall mean (3.77) verbally described as dominant.
The highest mean (4.14) falls in item 3 (“I do better at academic subjects by
listening to lectures and tapes instead of reading books”) verbally described as
dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (3.30) falls in item 6 (“I follow oral
directions better than written ones”) verbally moderately dominant.
In terms of kinesthetic, the overall mean (3.27) verbally described as
moderately dominant. The highest mean (3.50) falls in item 2 (“I enjoy working with
tools”) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest mean (2.65)
falls in item 6 (I feel very comfortable touching others (handshaking) verbally
In terms of verbal, the overall mean (3.32) verbally described as moderately
dominant. The highest mean (3.68) falls in item 4 (“I learn to spell better by
66
repeating the letters of the word out loud than by writing the word in paper”) verbally
can understand and follow directions by reading maps.) verbally described as
In terms of visual, the overall mean (3.38) verbally described as moderately
dominant. The highest mean (3.80) falls in item 4 (“I follow written directions better
than oral directions.”) verbally described as dominant. On the other hand, the lowest
mean (3.19) falls in item 1 (“I try to remember something by picturing it in my head”)
verbally describe as moderately dominant.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings, the following are the conclusions:
Generally, the eight multiple intelligences are dominant among the
education students which means that most of the education students are multiple
intelligent. Though all are dominant but most of the education students excel in
intrapersonal and naturalist intelligence which means that most of them have good
access to one's own feelings and have the ability to discriminate among them and
draw upon them to guide behavior; knowledge of one's own strengths, weaknesses,
67
desires, and intelligences. In short, most of the education students are persons with
detailed accurate self-knowledge. Most of the education students learn best when
the subject involves collecting and analyzing, or is closely related to something
prominent in nature; they also don't enjoy learning unfamiliar or seemingly useless
subjects with little or no connections to nature.
The study was intended to investigate the relationship between the dominant
multiple intelligences and the preferred learning styles of the education students of
Liceo de Cagayan University.
Those variables which have moderate relationships revealed that most likely
those education students who are naturalist, are visual learners in a sense that
naturalist are good in classifying and even observing the nature of course through
visuals. Then most likely those who excel in bodily-kinesthetic intelligence prefer
kinesthetic as a learning style. On the other hand, interpersonal intelligent
education students are auditory learner since one who has a sufficient knowledge
about himself most likely is the one who listen most of the time and learn using his
hearing sense.
Those variables which have low relationships concluded that though it is low
but still most of the multiple intelligences of the students have a significant
relationship toward their learning styles. The variables just revealed that not all
learning styles can be best suited to develop some of the learners’ multiple
intelligences. For instance, auditory learning style is less used by visual-spatial,
mathematical-logical, verbal-linguistic and musical-rhythmic intelligent learners.
Kinesthetic learning style is less preferred by the verbal-linguistic intelligent, by the
mathematical-logical, visual-spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal intelligent and by

68
the naturalist learners. On the other hand, mathematical-logical, bodily-kinesthetic,
and naturalist intelligent learners rarely preferred verbal learning style. Then, the
findings revealed that visual learning style is commonly used but then this is not
best suited to develop most of the multiple intelligences of the learners except the
naturalist.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the results of this study, the researchers suggest the
following:
1. The Education students should engage in co-curricular and extra-cur-
ricular activities to enhance their way of learning by thinking of ways on
how to deal with things, how to accomplish things, finding ways to work
with other students, understanding ideas and concepts and exploring
things related to real life situation.
2. The teachers must approach a concept, subject matter or discipline in a
variety of ways, not necessarily eight ways, but in a number of ways that
prove pedagogically appropriate for the topic at hand and that would en-
69
hance the dominant multiple intelligences and preferred learning style of
the learners as well as develop their less dominant intelligence and less
preferred learning style.
3. The Education student must develop all their multiple intelligences and try
to practice the different learning style for as future teacher, these are all
important in catering the needs of the learners who also have different
multiple intelligences and learning style. These could be done by explor-
ing things around, reading books, be an active participant in any activities
and express themselves the best way they can.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOK
Breitborde, Marry-Lou; Louse Boyle Swiniarski. (2006 Teaching on Principle

and Promise. USA. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Chapman, Carolyn; King, Rita. (2005). Differentiated Assessment Strategies: One

Tool Doesn’t Fit All. USA. Corwin Press.
Gayle, Gregory H. (2005). Differentiating Instruction with Styles: Aligning
Teachers and Learner Intelligences. USA. Corwin Press.
Kumar, Ranjit. (1996) Research Methodology: A step by step guide for

Beginners. Australia . Addison Wesley Longman.
Lucas, Maria Rita; Brenda Corpuz. (2007). Facilitating Learning: A Metacognitive

Process. Quezon City. Lorimar Publishing, Inc.
Mac Gil Christ, Barbara; Jane Reed; Kate Mayers. (2004), 2nd edition. The
Intelligent School. London. SAGE Publication.
B. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS
Aguinaldo; et al. “Learning Styles of Radiologic Technology Students in

70
Liceo de Cagayan University” March, 2006
Ponce; et al. “Creative Teaching Activities Among Elementary School

Teachers”. March,2007
C. JOURNAL
“The Journal of Educational Research” Volume 101 number 2,

November/December 2007
D. DICTIONARY
Mirriam, Webster. Mirriam – Webster Dictionary. Mirriam (2001). USA.

Webster’s Inc.
Morehead, Philip “The New American Roget’s College Thesaurus”. USA.

(1985 ). Penguin Group
Signet “The New American Desk Encyclopedia” 3rd edition. (1993). USA.
Penguin Group.
WEBLIOGRAPHY
Giles, E., Pitre, S., Womack, S. (2003). Multiple intelligences and learning styles
emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved:
September 10, 2008 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/.
Silver, H.F., and R.W. Strong. (1997). Teaching for multiple intelligences.
Retrieved: September 5,2008 from http://www. Ascd.org/authors/ed l
ead/el199709 silver.html
A'isha, Azar. (2003). Multiple intelligences: An informative paper for teachers of

dance.Retrieved September 18, 2008 fromhttp://www.raqsazar.com/mi.html.
Theory of multiple intelligence. Retrieved: September 8, 2008 from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.
71
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE
Name:____________________________________ Date:_________________
Part 1. Multiple Intelligences Inventory (Patterned from Gayle H. Gregory,

2005)
Directions: Please encircle the numbers that best describes you.
1. I love to read.
2. I sing along with music when you learn some.
3. I love mysteries, puzzles, and games.
4. I like to go to new places and you do so easily.
5. I am well coordinated and move about easily.
6. I like collections and saving things.
7. I keep a diary or journal and write down your thoughts.
8. I know when someone is upset, angry, or depressed.
9. I like to tell and listen to jokes.
10. I like to play an instrument.

72
11. I like reading science fiction and about technological discoveries.
12. I notice o her people’s clothes and personal things.
13. I like to tinker with things and fix them.
14. I love being outdoors and enjoying the world.
15. I need quiet time by myself.
16. I sometimes imagine how it would be someone else.
17. I just know when things sound right.
18. I turn on music when it’s quiet.
19. I think it is fun to work with numbers and problems.
20. I can find your way around cities and buildings.
21. I often move your hands and your body while you talk.
22. I like to listen to the birds singing and the crickets chirping.
23. I like to do things by myself.
24. I like to belong to a club or a group.
25. I like words that are fun to say.
26. I like to sing, hum, whistle, or tap on the desk.
27. I like things organize in patterns and groups.
28. I am always doodling or drawing while thinking and listening.
29. I like games like characters and “hamming” it up.
30. I like to put things in categories and classified them.
31. I know what I like and what I’m capable of.
32. I like to be with friends and just hang out.
33. I like to write stories and poems.
34. I get songs “Stuck” in your head.

73
35. I like computers and working with them.
36. I enjoy TV, videos, and movies.
37. I have hobbies that let you build and make things.
38. I know a lot about animals and plants.
39. I like a challenge and set goals for myself.
40. When I met new people, I am interested to learn about them.

74
Part II. Learning Style Inventory (Patterned from Barsch Learning Style by
Jeffry Barsch, Ed. D. , 2007)
Verbal Interpretation
5 – Almost Always
4 – Usually
3 – Sometimes
2 – Seldom
1 – Almost Never
Directions: Check the appropriate column that best describes you.
Indicators 5 4 3 2 1
1. I remember more about a subject through
listening than reading.
2. I follow written directions better than oral
directions.
3. I like to write things down or take notes for
visual review.
4. I bear down extremely hard with pen or
pencil in writing.
5. I enjoy working with tools.
6. I enjoy reading graphs, grids, chart and
diagrams.
7. I prefer to have an oral explanation of
diagrams and graphs.
8. I can tell if sounds match when presented
with pairs of sounds
9. I remember best by writing things down
several times
10. I can understand and follow directions by
reading maps.
11. I do better at academic subjects by
listening to lectures and tapes instead of
reading books.
12. I like to play with coins and keys in my
pockets.
13. I learn to spell better by repeating the
letters of the word out loud than by writing the
word in paper.
14. I can better understand and used article
by reading about in the newspaper than by
listening to the radio.
75
15. I like to chew gum or eat snacks while

studying.
16. I try to remember something by picturing it
in my head.
17. I learn to spell a new word by tracing a
word with a finger.
18. I would rather listen to a good lecture or
speech than read about the same material.
19. I am good at working and solving jigsaw
puzzles and mazes.
20. I prefer reviewing written materials
instead of discussing the subject matter.
21. I prefer listening to the new on the radio
than reading about it in the newspapers.
22. I like to obtain information on interesting
subject by reading relevant materials.
23. I feel very comfortable touching others
(handshaking).
24 I follow oral directions better than written
ones.
CURRICULUM VITAE
TRIFON EDROTE MOSAL

Zone 2, Pualas Baungon Bukidnon
trifz65_mosal@yahoo.com
76
Personal Data
Birthday : July 3, 1989

Birth Place : Zone 2, Pualas Baungon Bukidnon
Civil Status : Single
Sex : Male
Religion : Roman Catholic
Citizenship : Filipino
Father’s Name : Alfredo Langga Mosal
Mother’s Name : Rodriga Fabria Edrote
Educational Background
Primary : Pualas Elementary School

Zone 2, Pualas Baungon Bukidnon
Secondary : Indahag National High School
Indahag, Cagayan de Oro City
Tertiary : Liceo de Cagayan University
R.N. Pelaez Blvd., Kauswagan
Cagayan de Oro City
Course : Bacehlor of Elementary Education
Major in General Education
LEIZL CAGALAWAN MAGALLANES

Zone 3, Bolisong, El Salvador, Misamis Oriental
lacezelle@yahoo.com
77
Personal Data
Birthday : May 8, 1988

Birth Place : Zone 3, Bolisong, E Salvador, Mis. Or.
Sex : Female
Religion : Christian
Father’s Name : Jose Ompoc Magallanes
Mother’s Name : Emily Colong Cagalawan
Primary : Bolisong Elementary School

Zone 1, Bolisong, El Salvador, Mis. Or.
Secondary : Cogon National High School
Cogon, El Salvador Mis. Or.
Cagayan de Oro City
MELISSA POLINAR PALOMA

CALUBO, KINOGUITAN, MISAMIS ORIENTAL
melis_424@yahoo.com
78
Personal Data
Birthday : April 24, 1985

Birth Place : Campo, Kinoguitan Mis. Or.
Sex : Female
Father’s Name : Ranulfo Sumaya Paloma
Mother’s Name : Monica Sacari Polinar
Primary : Calubo Elementary School

Calubo, Kinoguitan, Mis. Or.
Secondary : Holy Child High School
Kinoguitan, Mis. Or.
Cagayan de Oro City
RHEA BERSABAL BERUAN

EAST GUINACOT, GUINDULMAN, BOHOL
prettylady_rb@yahoo.com
Personal Data
79
Birthday : March 23,1988

Birth Place : East Guinacot, Guindulman, Bohol
Sex : Female
Father’s Name : Crispulo Berou Beruan
Mother’s Name : Paciencia Cellacay Bersabal
Primary : Guinacot Elementary School

Guinacot, Guindulman, Bohol
Secondary : Guinacot National High School
Guinacot, Guindulman, Bohol
Cagayan de Oro City
JINDA TAMSI BANGKAL

Patpat, Imbatug, Baungon Bukidnon
@yahoo.com
Personal Data
Birthday : August 24, 1988

80
Birth Place : Zone 2, Pualas Baungon Bukidnon

Sex : Female
Father’s Name :
Mother’s Name :
Primary : City Central School

Velez St., Cagayan de Oro City
Secondary : Misamis Oriental General Comprehensive
High School
Cagayan de Oro City
Cagayan de Oro City

For Final Hehe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

For Final Hehe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND LEARNING STYLES

OF THE EDUCATION STUDENTS

In Partial Fulfillment of the Course Requirements of

Research Team Leader: MR. AZEL M. VALLE

This thesis entitled “MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND LEARNING

AZEL M. VALLE, M.A.

Approved by the Committee on Oral Examination with a grade of ________.

MARTINA A. BROBO, Ed.D.

MANUEL B. CHAVO, M.A. RENITA R. BALARIAS, Ed.D.

Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Proposal Defense: September 30, 2008

___MARTINA A. BROBO, Ed.D_

“Success is not an overnight sacrifice, it needs time and patience to

completion of this study:

would not be able to accomplish this educational endeavor.

towards the success of this research.

financial supports given to us for the completion of this paper.

Our dear parents, families, and friends:

Our Almighty GOD;

To the researchers for their efforts, pains, hurts, tears,

Pride, conflicts, laughter and respect for each other;

To the special people who served as our inspirations;

To the students of Liceo de Cagayan University, College of Education

Determined to develop the multiple intelligences and different learning style;

To all the people who became a part of our study.

The study was conducted to determine the dominant multiple intelligences

and preferred learning styles among Education students of Liceo de Cagayan

intelligences of the Education students in terms of: verbal- linguistics, mathematical-

logical, visual- spatial, bodily- kinesthetic, musical- rhythmic, interpersonal,

intrapersonal and naturalist;(2) the preferred learning styles of the Education

significant relationship of the dominant multiple intelligences and the preferred

learning styles of the education students.

In answering these major points, the researcher used the descriptive

correlation design. A modified questionnaire of multiple intelligences and learning

personally administered the instrument to the respondents with appropriate

The analysis yielded the following results: in terms of. . . .

Based from other Research

TITLE PAGE ------------------------------------------------------------------- i

APPROVAL SHEET --------------------------------------------------------- ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ------------------------------------------------------ iii

LIST OF TABLES ------------------------------------------------------------ vi

LIST OF FIGURES ----------------------------------------------------------- vii

1 THE PROBLEM AND RESEARCH DESIGN

Conceptual Framework ---------------------------------- 2

Schematic Diagram --------------------------------------- 3

Statement of the Problem ------------------------------- 4

Significance of the Study -------------------------------- 6

Scope and Limitations of the Study ------------------ 7

Definition of Terms ----------------------------------------- 8

Research Design -------------------------------------------- 9

Research Setting -------------------------------------------- 10

Respondents and Sampling Procedure -------------- 11

Research Instruments ------------------------------------- 12

Data Gathering Procedure ------------------------------- 13

Scoring Procedure ----------------------------------------- 14

Statistical Technique -------------------------------------- 15

2 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND

INTERPRETATION OF DATA --------------------------- 16

AND RECOMMENDATIONS ------------------------------ 17

Letter request --------------------------------------------------------- 20

CURRICULUM VITAE -------------------------------------------------------- 21

1 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS

6 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES IN TERMS

DOMINANT MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES --------------------- 51