CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect PfOCSCl ¡0
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 106 (2013) 250 - 258 —
4th International Conference on New Horizons in Education
A study on the multiple intelligences ofkindergarteners from different socioeconomic backgrounds
Semra Erkana*, M. Burcu Ozturkb
aHacettepe University, Education Faculty, Early Childhood Education, Ankara, 06800, Turkey _bZubeyde Hanim Preschool, §anliurfa,63700, Turkey_
Abstract
This study was designed to identify the effects of gender, mother's and father's educational level on the intelligences of kindergarteners from different socioeconomic backgrounds. The population of the study included six-year-old kindergarteners from independent kindergartens and the preschool classes of elementary schools attended by children from different socioeconomic backgrounds in Viran§ehir, $anliurfa. jhe study sample comprised a total of 208 six-year-old children attending a kindergarten and three elementary schools which were presumed to represent the lower, middle and upper socioeconomic status and selected randomly from among the schools in the population. Data were collected by using a Demographic Information Form and the Teele Inventory of Multiple Intelligences (TIMI). These data were by using OneWay and Two-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The results showed that socioeconomic background create a difference in children's multiple intelligences.
©2013TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.
Selectionandpeer-reviewunderresponsibilityofThe AssociationofScience,EducationandTechnology-TASET,SakaryaUniversitesi, Turkey.
Keywords: Preschool education, kindergarten, socioeconomic background, multiple intelligences;
1. Introduction
Ways to be more successful in education have always been discussed by scientists. Studies on how the brain works have shed light on meaningful and permanent learning. Early studies focused on the
^Corresponding Author. Semra Erkan Tel.:+90-312-297-8633; fax: +90-312-299-2018. E-mail address: erkansemra@yahoo.com
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of The Association of Science, Education and Technology-TASET, Sakarya Universitesi, Turkey. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.029
extent to which brain functions can be used and on measuring intelligence (Koroglu and Yejildere, 2004).
Intelligence was long thought to include one single factor. However, nowadays it is widely accepted that it includes multiple cognitive skills and abilities. Thus the belief that multiple abilities cannot be explained by one single construct (£akan, 2002). In addition, as a result of the developments in education and psychology, the view that classical tests are not enough to evaluate children and that their potential also started to gain ground.
The Multiple Intelligences Theory, which emerged under these circumstances, holds an important place in education in terms of pinpointing what individuals are able to do (Abaci and Baran, 2007; Koroglu and Yejildere, 2004). This theory opposes an IQ-based approach to human intelligence, emphasizes that intelligence is multi-dimensional, asserts that individuals have different learning styles, puts the individual in the center, and pinpoints the importance of individual differences (Koksal, 2006; Ergul et.al., 2007). This theory centralizes individual learning styles, interests, abilities and inclinations (Vural, 2004).
The Multiple Intelligences Theory first appeared in 1983 in Howard Gardner's book titled "Frame of Mind" outlining seven different intelligences (Amerson, 2006; ^uhadar, 2006). According to Gardner, different kinds of intelligences are effective tools people use to live, learn, solve problems, and be humans. Although intelligence is shown to have different dimensions, these dimensions have similar structures and traits (Mendi et. al., 2004).
According to Gardner, human beings genetically have all of these intelligences. Research findings show that differences in children's intelligences appear not only due to hereditary and biological factors but also due to their nourishment, and environmental and cultural factors (Radin, 2008).
Environmental factors cover the environment within which the child lives. From the moment a child is born, he starts gaining experience within his society and is exposed to the opportunities presented by the sociocultural environment and his family (Ustun, 2004). In order to enhance children's existing potential, environments to meet their interests and needs. Their environments should be enriched with various fields of experience.
Family, like in other developmental areas, has a crucial and determining role in a child's mental development. Therefore, the role of a kindergartener's home environment cannot be overlooked. Lack of materials at home due to the family's low socioeconomic status (not being able to buy musical instruments, for instance), the quality of the place lived in (the possibility of having high naturalistic intelligence for children living in villages), the family's effect on an individual's choices (forcing a child who wants to become a painter to instead become a doctor) and the structure within the family (nuclear or extended family) may all have an effect on an individual's fields of intelligence (Saban, 2004).
Especially in the first five months of a baby's life, the capacity to learn increases quickly owing to the fast development of the brain and the nervous system, thus making environmental stimuli crucial for cognitive development (Kagitgiba§i, Bekman and Sunar, 1993, p.29). Rather than heredity, the experiences that the individual gains later in life play a crucial role for the brain to execute these functions. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to present children with an environment full of rich stimuli during pre- and elementary school. The more objects (stimuli) encountered, the more
connections are formed between brain cells. These form the basis of learning in adulthood (Gurkan, 2003). Therefore, teachers should take into account individual differences in learning and organize the learning environment accordingly (Ulgen, 1995).
The Multiple Intelligences Theory made individualized instruction and life knowledge and skills important. In order to fulfil the duties demanded by the society, the individual has to use more than one kind of intelligence at any given time. That is why it is important to improve different types of intelligence. Gardner also emphasizes the need to consider the use of multiple intelligences as an achievement criterion (Seving, 2003).
It is believed that a high-quality education advances children's potential for learning and that there is a relationship between potential for learning and intelligence. Similar to adults, children also have a certain level of intelligence that can be increased via education. It is asserted that when learning environments are organized according to this fact, it greatly contributes to child development.
1.1. Significance of the Study
Pre-school is the most important period in children's lives. In this period, children go through important developmental stages and their intelligence develops the fastest. The Multiple Intelligences Theory is an important approach in revealing the child's existing potential and in determining the dominant and non-dominant fields of intelligence. Determining children's intelligences at an early age is important for families and teachers in terms of providing healthy and correct guidance and counseling. The socioeconomic status of the family may also have significance in achieving guidance and counselling. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the intelligences of kindergarteners from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
This study was conducted in order to investigate the multiple intelligences of kindergarteners from different socioeconomic backgrounds in relation to gender, mother's and father's educational level, and the common effect of the variables.
2. Method
2.1. Study Group
The study group comprised 6-year-old children attending kindergartens affiliated with the Ministry of Education during the 2011-2012 school year in Viranjehir, §anliurfa. The study group was chosen as a result of interviews carried out with the Directorate of District National Education, school principals and teachers. The interviews showed the socioeconomic status of schools. Nine preschool classes from three primary schools and one kindergarten were selected by sampling. The socioeconomic status of families was decided by looking at their salary brackets. Those with a monthly income of up to 1,000TL (~500€) were placed in the lower SEL, those between 1,000(~500€) - 2,000 TL (~1000€) in the middle SEL, and those above 2,000 TL (~1000€) in the high SEL. As a result, 50 children from lower SEL, 57 from middle SEL, and 101 from higher SEL, 208 children in total, were chosen for the sample. Of those children in the study group, 99 (47.60%) were girls and 109 (52.40%) were boys.
Among the mothers of children in the study group, 65.37% were primary school graduates, 14.94% were secondary school graduates, 11.05% were high school graduates, and 11.05% were higher education graduates. Among the fathers, 45.70% were primary school graduates, 9.12% were secondary school graduates, 26.91% were high school graduates, and 18.26% were higher education graduates.
2.2. Data Collection tools
In this study, data were collected through the Teele Inventory of Multiple Intelligences Test -TIMI). The Teele Inventory of Multiple Intelligences was specifically designed to examine the dominant intelligences of students in all grades. The TIMI is a forced-choice pictorial inventory with 56 numbered pictures of panda bears representing characteristics of each of the seven intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal and interpersonal. It provides students with 28 opportunities to make selections between two alternatives. The different intelligences are matched with one another and students have the chance to select each ofthe seven intelligences eight different times in the inventory. Students are asked to select one of the two choices that they feel is the most like them - there are no right or wrong answers in this inventory.
Each picture selected by the students represents a score for the intelligence associated with that picture and the answer sheets are coded accordingly. The intelligence or intelligences that are more frequently selected yield the dominant intelligence of students. The answer sheet enables the student and teacher to determine most dominant intelligences as indicated by the highest scores. The test was used to investigate whether there is a difference between children's intelligence types, socioeconomic status, gender, and mother and father's educational level.
Reliability and validity studies of the TIMI were carried out between the years 1992-1993 by Teele. It was investigated whether the pictures used for validity represented the chosen intelligence, and the TIMI emerged as a valid inventory. In the reliability study carried out by Teele, it was found that TIMI's fields of intelligence were significantly different at the level .01. The validity studies carried out in Turkey by Oklan Elibol (2000), Gögebakan (2003), Terzioglu (2005) and Özdemir (2006) also revealed that the inventory was valid. In the reliability study by Özdemir (2006) the relationship between test-retest was found to be significant at the level 0.01 and the test was concluded to be reliable.
In addition to the TIMI, a 10-item "Demographic Information Form" developed by the researchers was also used in order to collect data about the children and their families.
2.3. Data Collection Method and Procedures
The data were collected by the researchers in Viransjehir, §anliurfa during the first term of the 2011-2012 school year. Before the test was administered, the researchers met and had a conversation with the children. The test was administered by the researchers in a corner of the classroom and the answers were coded on the answer sheets. The process lasted approximately 20-25 minutes for each child. The Demographic Information Form was filled out the same day by interviewing the parents at the end of the school day.
2.4. Statistical Analyses
One way and two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in the study to determine whether the scores kindergarteners obtained from the Multiple Intelligence Inventory varied according to the variables chosen.
3. Findings
Table 1 represents the summary of intelligences for the children in the study that show significant differences in terms of socioeconomic status, gender, and mother and father's educational level. Table 1 also shows the common effects of the relationship between socioeconomic status and the variables on children's multiple intelligences.
Table 1: ANOVA results of TIMI scores in terms of children's socioeconomic status, gender, mother and father's educational level, which show significant difference according to multiple intelligences (Summary Table)
SES SES
SES Mother's X Father's X
Intelligence SES Gender X Education Mother's Educational Father's
Types Gender Level Educational Level Level Educational level
Linguistic F= 1.42 F= 0.04 F= 1.34 F= 0.26 F= 0.65 F= 1.20 F= 0.42
p= 0.24 P= 0.84 p= 0.26 p=0.84 p= 0.57 p=0.31 p= 0.73
Logical- F=3.01 F= 2.12 F= 1.14 F= 0.68 F= 2.24 F= 0.86 F= 0.61
mathematical p= 0.05 P= 0.15 p= 0.32 p=0.56 p= 0.08 p= 0.46 p= 0.60
Musical- F=5.14 F= 0.61 F= 1.55 F= 1.03 F= 0.01 F= 0.34 F= 0.21
rhythmic p= 0.00* In favour of middle SES P= 0.44 p= 0.22 p= 0.37 p= 0.99 p= 0.79 p= 0.88
Bodily- F=2.41 F= 1.32 F=2.51 F= 0.70 F= 1.12 F= 0.55 F= 0.57
kinaesthetic p= 0.09 P= 0.25 p= 0.08 p= 0.55 p= 0.33 p= 0.64 p= 0.63
Intrapersonal- F= 3.99 F= 0.49 F= 0.45 F= 0.52 F= 1.10 F=0.14 F= 0.13
social p= 0.02* In favour of Low SES P= 0.48 p= 0.64 p= 0.66 p= 0.35 p= 0.93 p= 0.93
Interpersonal F=4.71 F= 0.07 F= 2.73 F= 1.51 F= 1.69 F= 1.08 F= 1.44
p= 0.23 P= 0.79 p= 0.07 p=0.21 p= 0.16 p= 0.35 p= 0.23
Spatial F= 0.92 F= 2.00 F= 0.00 F= 0.09 F= 0.55 F= 0.60 F= 0.79
p= 0.39 P= 0.16 p= 1.00 p= 0.96 p= 0.64 p=0.61 p= 0.49
p<0.05*
As can be seen in Table 1, it was found that children's TIMI scores show significant difference in terms of socioeconomic status in musical-rhythmic intelligence and intrapersonal-social intelligence (F=5.14, p=0.00, p<0.05; F=3.99, p=0.02, p<0.05). In other words, children's multiple intelligences differ significantly according to socioeconomic status in two intelligences. In other intelligences, a significant difference was not observed in terms of socioeconomic status. The results of the Scheffe test, which was used in order to find the groups among which the difference existed, revealed that the average musical-rhythmic intelligence scores of children in middle socioeconomic status (x=4.24)
was higher than children in low socioeconomic status (x=3.26). In addition, children from low socioeconomic status were found to have higher mean scores in intrapersonal-social intelligence (x=4.88) than the children in middle socioeconomic status (x=4.02). This finding shows that socioeconomic status has an important effect on musical-rhythmic and interpersonal intelligences.
In general the majority of children had an average level of musical intelligence. It is largely up to the environment to teach the art of music and to raise musical artists (Kurklu, 2003). In this case, it can be assumed that children from middle socioeconomic status enter environments in which they can improve their musical intelligence more than those from low socioeconomic status. Teker (2009), in a study in §anliurfa, the reflection of local colour in the paintings of 9-12 year-old children. He found that "Anatolian Folk Dance" provides an opportunity for rich expression in children's paintings and that such topics are reflected in colour, scheme, space and expression in different ways. The results related to musical-rhythmic intelligence corroborate the findings obtained in previous studies on multiple intelligences (Gurgay and Eryilmaz, 2002; Karjal, 2004; §ahli, 2010 and Koca, 2010), and the results regarding intrapersonal-social intelligence exhibit similarities with Aral's (1993) study.
According to the analysis of variance, the study revealed that the common effect of gender alone and the interaction of gender and socioeconomic status did not have a significant effect on children's multiple intelligences.
This finding is parallel to the results obtained by §anli (2010), a study whose demographic features were similar to this study.
An analysis of the results displayed in Table 1 reveals that mother's educational level on its own, and the interaction of mother's educational level and socioeconomic status did not have a significant effect on children's multiple intelligences.
This finding is parallel to the results obtained by §anli (2010), a study whose demographic features were similar to ours.
According to the analysis of variance, the study revealed that the common effect of father's educational level alone and the interaction offather's educational level and sosyoeconomic status did not have a significant effect on children's multiple intelligences.
In a study by Uysal (2006), it was found that father's educational level did not have a significant effect on the multiple intelligences of six-year-old children who were attending different pre-schools.
4. Conclusion
This study analysed the multiple intelligences of kindergarteners from different socioeconomic backgrounds in relation to the variables of gender and mother's and father's educational level, and concluded that socioeconomic status has a significant effect on musical-rhythmic and interpersonal-social intelligences. It was found that in musical-rhythmic intelligence, children from middle socioeconomic status obtained higher mean scores than those from lower socioeconomic status. On the other hand, the intrapersonal-social intelligence mean scores of children from lower socioeconomic status were higher than those of children from middle socioeconomic status.
The study revealed that the common effect of gender alone and the interaction of gender and socioeconomic status were not significant.
Likewise, the effect of the interaction of mother's educational level and socioeconomic status on multiple intelligences was not significant. Similarly, the interaction of father's educational level and socioeconomic status was not significant.
5. Suggestions
Pre-school is the most important stage in a child's life. In this period, it is essential to discover children's interests and abilities, support their developmental areas, and thus encourage them to know themselves for future success in life. Multi-dimensional educational programs should be administered in pre-schools in order to reveal children's individual differences and areas of interest. Additional efforts may be made to equip teachers with the necessary experience and knowledge in order to be able to pinpoint children's primary and secondary multiple intelligences and areas of interest.
Public videos may be prepared by universities and the Ministry of Education to inform parents about multiple intelligences. In addition to these, educational activities such as panels, forums and conferences may be organized.
Other factors affecting multiple intelligences may be investigated by using different and larger samples in future studies. The multiple intelligences of children in kindergartens with a multiple intelligences curriculum may be compared against others.
References
Amerson, R. (2006). Energizing the Nursing Lecture: Application of the Theory of Multiple Intelligence Learning. Full Nursing Education Perspectives, 27(4), 194-196.
Aral, N. (1993). focuklarda ve Ergenlerde ilgilerin Gelijimi. 9. Ya-Pa Okul Öncesi Egitimi ve Yayginlajtirilmasi Semineri.(s. 340-345). Ya-Pa Yayin Pazarlama Sanayi Ltd.Jti., Ankara.
Abaci, R. ve Baran, A. (2007). Üniversite Ögrencilerinin foklu Zeka Düzeyleri ile Bazi Degijkenler Arasindaki ilijki. Uluslararasi insan Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(1), 1-13.
fuhadar, C. H. (2006). MüzikselZeka. Ulusal Müzik Egitimi Sempozyumu Bildirisi, 26-28 Nisan 2006, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi, (486-497), Denizli: http://www. Muzikegitimcileri.net/. Erijim tarihi: 16 Nisan 2012.
Ergül, 0. K., Alp, H. famliyer, H. ve famliyer, H. (2007). foklu Zeka Kurami ve Kinestetik Zekanin Önemi. Uluslararasi insan Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(2), 1-11.
Gögebakan, D (2003). A Thesis Submitted To The Graduate School of Social Sciences of Middle East Technic University. Yükseklisans tezi, Ortadogu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Gür^ay, D. ve Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Lise 1. sinif ögrencilerinin joklu zeka alanlarinin tespiti ve fizik egitimi üzerine etkileri. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Egitimi Kongresi, Ankara
Gürkan, T (2003). focugun fok Yönlü Gelijimi ve Egitimine Toplu Bakij. Müzeyyen Sevinj. Geli^im ve Egitimde Yeni Yaklafimlar (s.142-144). istanbul: Morpa Yayinlari.
Karjal, E. (2004). Okul öncesi dönemdeki focuklarda müzik yetenegi ve matematik yetenegi ilifkisi ve müzik egitiminin matematik performansi üzerine etkileri. Doktora tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, istanbul
Kagitgbaji, f., Bekman, S. ve Sunar, D. (1993). BafariAilede Baflar: QokAmagh Egitim Modeli. istanbul: Ya-Pa Yayinlari.
Koca, E. (2010). 6 Yaf Grubunda Geri Planda Dinletilen Müzigin (oklu Zeka Alanlarina Etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, istanbul.
Köksal, M. S. (2006). Kavram Ögretimi ve foklu Zeka Teorisi. Kastamonu Egitim Dergisi, 14(2), 473-480.
Köroglu, H. ve Yejildere, S. (2004). ilkögretim Yedinci Sinif Matematik Dersi Tamsayilar Ünitesinde foklu Zeka Teorisi Tabanli Ögretimin Ögrenci Bajarisina Etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 25-41.
Kürklü, E. (2003). Türkiye' de 3-6 Yaf Grubu focuklarin Ses Sinirlari, $arki Söyleme Becerileri ve Müzikal Düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Mendi, F. , Toktaj, i. Ve Karabiyik, Ö. (2004). Teknik Resim Dersinde Agnimlar Konusunun foklu Zeka Kuramina Göre Bilgisayar Destekli Ögretimi. Teknoloji,7(4), 565-578.
Oklan Elibol, F (2000). Anasimfina Devam Eden Alti Yaf Grubu focukalrin (oklu Zeka Teorisine Göre Degerlendirilmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Özdemir, B. (2006,). 4-6 Yaf Grubu focuklarin Ögrenme Sürecinde (oklu Zeka Teorisininin Yeri. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, fanakkale.
Radin, J.L (2008). Creating Enriched Learning Environments: Lessonsfrom Brain Research. http://www.elementalethics.com/files/Radin_2.pdf. Erijim tarihi: 11 Mayis 2012. Saban, A. (2004).$okluZeka Teorisi veEgitimi. Ankara: Nobel Yayin Dagitim.
Sevin?, M. (2003). Gelijim ve Egitimde Yeni Yaklajimlar. Müzeyyen Sevinj. Geli^im ve Egitimde Yeni Yaklafimlar (s.50-66). istanbul: Morpa Yayinlari.
Jahli, A.S. (2010). Türkiye veAlmanya'da Koklear implantasyon Uygulanan Türk focuklarin (oklu Zeka Teorisine Göre Ögrenme Tercihlerinin Karfilaftirilmasi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara .
Teker, E. (2009). Yöresel Özelliklerin $anliurfa Merkez Okullarinda Okuyan (9-12 Yaf) £ocuk Resimlerine Yansimasi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara .
Terzioglu, E. f (2005). Proje Yaklafimi Uygulayan ve Uygulamayan Okullara Devam Eden 5-6 Yaf Grubundaki focuklann Sosyal Geli$im ve Zeka Alanlannin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Uysal, E (2006). Farkli Okul Öncesi Egitim Kurumlanna Devam Eden Alti Yaf Grubundaki focuklann foklu Zeka Kuramma Göre incelenmesi. Yüksek LisansTezi.Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Üstün, E. (2004). focuklarda Okuma Yazma Gelijimi Normal Okuma Yazma Sürecinden fok Daha Önce Bajlar. Hacettepe Üniversitesi £ocuk Gelifimi ve Egitimi Dergisi, i(10-ll), 97-102.
Vural, B. (2004). ÖgrenciMerkezIiEgitim ve QokluZeka. istanbul: Bilge Matbaacilik.
