~ The MI News ~
|
|
Table of Contents1. Introduction by Clifford Morris
2. A Construct Validation of the MIDAS Scale in Malaysia by
Suan Yoong
3. Reflections on 9.11.01 on 3.11.02 by Branton Shearer
4. MI Websites Collected by Clifford Morris
1. Introduction by Clifford MorrisIf you are a first time
visitor, thanks for clicking here and welcome to this first (of four) editions
of the MI newsletter for the 2002 year. To see previous issues of the MI-News, click here.
The MI-News is published and provided free by Branton
Shearer's Multiple Intelligences (MI) Research
and Consulting. The main objective in publishing
this newsletter is to provide you with some theoretical and practical
information about the Howard Gardner
model of multiple intelligences and, perhaps more
importantly, how this model of the human mind is currently being implemented
elsewhere. The newsletter attempts to explore MI applications via
discussion, contact and sharing. Thus, if you have interesting MI ideas,
tried-and-tested MI-based lesson plans, or practical MI suggestions that you
feel our readership would enjoy reading and using, please e-mail the newsletter's editor,
Clifford Morris, with your comments.
2. A Construct Validation of the MIDAS
Scale in Malaysia by Suan YoongIn this section, we comment on another and recent study
involving the MIDAS. The following paper was presented at the International Conference on Measurement and Evaluation in
Education (ICMEE 2000), November 11-13, 2001, Penang,
Malaysia. And, as stated in the Discussions and Implications section
below, this research investigation was a preliminary pilot study; the research
findings are ongoing. Additional results may be published in a
forthcoming edition of this newsletter.Abstract: The Multiple Intelligences
Development Assessment Scales (MIDAS), designed by Branton Shearer
(1994), provides an objective measure of the multiple intelligences as reported
by the person or by a knowledgeable informant based on the theory of multiple
intelligences as described by Gardner (1983). The MIDAS questionnaire
attempts to provide a reasonable estimate of the person’s intellectual
disposition in each of the eight MI constructs: linguistic,
logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, naturalist,
interpersonal and intrapersonal. MIDAS examines how the person uses
his/her abilities in an array of meaningful, real world activities through
self-report or assessment by a knowledgeable informant. Throughout,
respondents are asked to assess the frequency or duration of time one participates
in a particular activity, or asked for a realistic evaluation of their
performance or displayed enthusiasm on that activity. Each item uses a
tailored-made 5-point Likert-type scale that permit a range of responses.
MIDAS was developed and validated using factor analysis; it was shown to
possess high reliability measures. This study proposed to validate MIDAS
in the multi-cultural Malaysian context. MIDAS was translated into Bahasa
Malaysia and content-validated via back-translation procedure. However,
some of the content had to be altered without loosing its original intent to
fit the local context. MIDAS was administered to 324 Form 4 students from
10 schools in the northern region of Malaysia. The students were of
varied abilities: 40% were in the science stream, 70% were girls, and 55% were
ethnic Malays. Preliminary findings reveal promising validation for seven
of the eight MI constructs. A linear factor analysis extracted 27 factors
(with eigenvalue > 1.00), which accounted for 91% of the variance. The
first (dominant) general factor that accounted for 33% of the variance had high
factor loadings on linguistic and interpersonal items. The second factor,
accounting for 7% of the variance had high factor loadings on logical-mathematical
and spatial items. Factor 4 had high loadings in musical items, and
Factor 8 has high loadings in naturalist items. Kinesthetic
items were not loaded predominantly in any of the factors. The 7
sub-scales subsequently derived from the respective high factor loading items
were found to have high reliabilities (Cronbach Alpha), between 0.75 to 0.90.
Keywords: Multiple Intelligences, Construct Validation--------Howard
Gardner’s (1983) Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) sparked a revolution in
classroom worldwide, challenging the long held notion that human beings have a
single, fixed general intelligence. Since then, countless educators have
embraced the idea of multiple intelligences in curriculum planning, assessment
and research (Armstrong, 1994a; 1994b; Campbell, 1994; Campbell, Campbell &
Dickinson, 1996; Silver, Strong & Perini, 1997). Gardner (1983)
defined intelligence as “an ability to solve problems, or to create
products, that are valued within one or more cultural settings” (p.
x). This definition not only emphasizes the creative, practical and
hypothetical-abstract aspects of a person’s intellectual abilities but
acknowledges the importance of contextual influences that contribute to the
recognition, activation and development of a person’s skills. Gardner
defines his eight intelligences as:Linguistic, the capacity to use language, your
native language, and perhaps other language, to express what’s on your mind and
to understandLogical-mathematical,
the capacity to understand the underlying principles of some kind of a causal
system, the way a scientist or logician does; or can manipulate numbers,
quantities, operations, the way a mathematician doesSpatial, the ability to
represent the spatial world internally in the mind, e.g., the way a sailor or
an airplane pilot navigates the large spatial world, or the way a
sculptor represents the circumscribed world; spatial intelligence can be used
in the arts (painting, sculpture, architecture) or in the science (anatomy,
topology)Kinesthetic,
the capacity to use the body parts (hands, fingers, arms, etc.) to solve a
problem, make something, or put on some kind of a production (e.g. athletics,
dance or acting)Musical, the ability to perceive and create pitch and rhythm
patternsInterpersonal,
the ability to understand other peopleIntrapersonal, the ability to understand
yourself and develop a sense of your own identityNaturalist, knowledge of
the human ability to discriminate among living things (plants, animals) as well
as sensitivity to other features of the natural world (cloud, rock
configuration, etc.)Although
assessment tools have been developed to self-estimate one's MI, critics have
lamented that such attempts tend to measure skills under controlled and
decontextualized conditions. For this reason, Shearer (1994) designed the
Multiple Intelligences Development Assessment Scales (MIDAS) to provide
an objective measure of the multiple intelligences as reported by the person or
by a knowledgeable informant based on the theory of multiple intelligences as
described by Gardner (1983, 1993). MIDAS casts a broader net and examines
how one uses her / his abilities in an array of meaningful, real-world
activities. This study proposed to validate MIDAS in the multicultural
Malaysian context and to develop a localized scale for use with Malaysian
population.MethodInstrumentThe MIDAS examines how one uses his/her abilities in an
array of meaningful, real world activities through self-report or assessment by
a knowledgeable informant. The MIDAS items ask the respondent to
assess the frequency or duration of time the person participates in a
particular activity, or ask for a realistic evaluation of the person’s
performance or his/her displayed enthusiasm on that activity. There are
119 items in the MIDAS. Each item uses a tailored-made 5-point
Likert-type scale that permit a range of responses. Although six (6) responses
were given, the category F ("I don’t know or does not apply") is
treated as missing data in the analysis.Sample items include:Musical1. As a child, did you have a strong liking for
music or music classes?
A=A little B=Sometimes C=Usually D=Often
E=All the time F=I don’t know2. Did you ever learn to play an instrument?
A=No B=A little C=Fair D=Good
E=Excellent F=I don’t knowKinesthetic15. In school, did you
generally enjoy sports or gym class more than other school classes?
A=Not at all B=A little C=about the same
D=Enjoyed sports more E= Enjoyed sports much more F=I don’t
know16.
As a teenager, how often did you play sports or other physical activities?
A=Every once in a while B=Sometimes C=Often
D=Almost always E=All the time F=I don’t know or does
not applyLogical-Mathematical28. As a child, did you easily
learn mathematics such as addition, multiplication and fractions?
A=Not at all B=It was fairly hard C=Pretty
easy D=Very easy E= Learned much quicker than
others F=I don’t know36. How are you at figuring numbers in your head?
A=Not at all B=Fair C=Good D=Very
good E=Superior F=I don’t knowSpatial49. Are you good at finding
yourself around new buildings or city streets
A=Not at all B=Fairly good C=Good D=Very
Good E= Excellent F=I don’t know or does not
apply52.
How easily can you put things together like toys, puzzles, or electronic
equipment?
A=Not at all B=It was hard C=It was fairly
easy D=It was easy E=It was very easy F=I
don’t know Linguistic62. Do you use colorful words
or phrases when talking
A=No B= Rarely C=Sometimes
D=Often E=All the time F=I don’t know64. Are you a convincing
speaker?
A=Not at all B=Every once in a while C=Sometimes
D=Often E= Almost All the time F=I don’t know Interpersonal81. Are you good at making
peace at home, at work or among friends?
A=Fair B=Pretty Good C=Good D=Very
Good E=Excellent F=I don’t know86. Do you usually know how to
make people feel comfortable and at ease?
A=Every once in a while B=Sometimes
C=Usually D=Almost always E=Always F=I
don’t know Intrapersonal98. Do you have a clear sense
of who you are and what you want out of life?
A=Very little B=A little C=Usually
D=Most of the time E=Almost all the time F=I don’t know99. Are you aware of your
feelings and able to control your moodsA=Every once in a while
B=Sometimes C=Most of the time D=Almost all the
time E=Always F=I don’t knowNaturalist107. Have you ever raised pets
or other animals?
A=Never or rarely B=Every once in a while C=
Sometimes D=Often E=All the time F=I don’t know112. Are you good at
recognizing breeds of pets or kinds of animal?
A=Not at all B= A little C=Somewhat
D=Quite Good E=Very Good F=I don’t knowThe MIDAS was developed and validated using factor
analysis and other techniques and was shown to possess high reliability, with
Cronbach alphas measures mostly above 0.80 (Shearer, 1994).Translation and Back-TranslationThe MIDAS was translated into Bahasa Malaysia and
content-validated via back-translation procedure to establish close semantic
resemblance. However, the most critical problem faced in the translation
process was to identify suitable Bahasa Malaysia equivalents that reflected the
degree of differences in the range of responses as reflected in the Likert
scale values. Nonetheless, this problem was, hopefully, overcome by
brainstorming session involving a group of Malay undergraduates who
participated in the pilot study. Seven items were dropped because the
contexts were irrelevant to Malaysia. Moreover, the contents of some of
the items had to be altered, such as using local examples, to fit the local
context without loosing its original intent.The resultant Bahasa Malaysia version of MIDAS (to be
referred to as MIDAS-BM) contained 112 items. However, back translation
did not ensure construct validity as many concepts either had no equivalent in
another language or were difficult to translate without creating
ambiguity. To address cultural and sub-cultural validity issues, a pilot
study was conducted.ProcedureThe MIDAS-BM was administered to 324 Form Four (4)
students from 10 schools in the northern region of Malaysia. Ten graduate
students who participated in this study administered the instrument to the Form
4 students in one class sitting of 40 minutes, following standard
procedure. The Form 4 students were of varied abilities, gender and
ethnicity: 40% were in the science stream, 70% were girls, and 55% were ethnic
Malays. The number of Indian students was, however, small.ResultsThe data was factor-analyzed using SPSS for Window
Version 10.1. Preliminary results revealed promising validation for seven
of the eight MI constructs. A linear factor analysis procedure extracted
27 factors (with eigenvalue > 1.00), which accounted for 91% of the variance
(see Table 1).The dominant factor 1
is a general factor that alone accounted for 33% of the variance. It had
high factor loadings on linguistic, interpersonal, and, to some
extent, intrapersonal items (see Table 2). Factor 2,
accounting for approximately 7% of the variance, had high factor loadings on
the logical-mathematical and on the spatial items. Factor 3
(which accounted for 6% of the variance) and to a lesser extent, factor 5
(which accounted for 4% of the variance) were predominantly loaded with linguistic
items. Two other prominent factors that were discernable included
factor 4 with high loadings on the intrapersonal and on the naturalist
items, and factor 8 with high loadings on the musical items (each factor
accounted for approximately 3-4% of the variance). The remaining factors
did not display any predominantly clear-cut factor loadings (vis-à-vis the original
MI dimensions), and thus were not displayed. It should be noted here that
the kinesthetic items were not loaded predominantly in any of the
factors.Table 1:
Results of Factor Analysis (Total Variance Explained)
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis and Varimax Rotation.
| |
| Factor |
Eigenvalues
|
%
of Variance |
Cumulative
% |
|
1
|
|
|
|
| 33.385 |
29.81 |
29.81 |
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
| 7.033 |
6.28 |
36.09 |
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
| 5.796 |
5.18 |
41.26 |
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
| 4.965 |
4.43 |
45.70
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
| 4.057 |
3.62 |
49.32
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
| 3.837 |
3.43 |
52.74
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
| 3.549 |
3.17 |
55.91
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
| 3.147 |
2.81 |
58.72
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
| 2.969 |
2.65 |
61.37
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
| 2.883 |
2.57 |
63.95
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
| 2.763 |
2.47 |
66.42
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
| 2.571 |
2.30 |
68.71
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
| 2.540 |
2.27 |
70.98
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
| 2.159 |
1.93 |
72.91
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
| 2.035 |
1.81 |
74.72
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
| 1.894 |
1.69 |
76.41
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
| 1.833 |
1.64 |
78.05
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
| 1.764 |
1.58 |
79.63
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
| 1.691 |
1.51 |
81.14
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
| 1.574 |
1.41 |
82.54
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
| 1.502 |
1.34 |
83.89
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
| 1.430 |
1.28 |
85.16
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
| 1.395 |
1.25 |
86.40
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
| 1.291 |
1.15 |
87.56
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
| 1.199 |
1.07 |
88.63
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
| 1.080 |
.965 |
89.592
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
| 1.026 |
.917 |
90.509
|
|
Table 2: Factors Loading for
first Eight Prominent Factors
| Item |
Fac 1 |
Item |
Fac 2 |
Item |
Fac 3 |
Item |
Fac 4 |
Item |
Fac 5 |
Item |
Fac 6 |
Item |
Fac 7 |
Item |
Fac 8 |
| s009 |
.375 |
s008 |
.392 |
s031 |
.572 |
s040 |
.403 |
s007 |
.360 |
s013 |
.328 |
s014 |
.370 |
s001 |
.853 |
| s012 |
.359 |
s018 |
.352 |
s034 |
.393 |
s069 |
.432 |
s012 |
.309 |
s024 |
.886 |
s028 |
.345 |
s002 |
.609 |
| s016 |
.320 |
s023 |
.627 |
s041 |
.318 |
s070 |
.339 |
s013 |
.370 |
s029 |
.339 |
s032 |
.397 |
s008 |
.313 |
| s019 |
.353 |
s026 |
.568 |
s052 |
.384 |
s080 |
.439 |
s019 |
.301 |
s032 |
.384 |
s036 |
.857 |
s010 |
.436 |
| s020 |
.407 |
s028 |
.459 |
s060 |
.300 |
s098 |
.436 |