International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, October 2019 pp. 128-145

INTELLIGENCE DIFFERENCES AND MEDIATION FACTORS: A
SEQUENTIAL EXPLANATORY STUDY OF IMPROVEMENT OF EFL
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION
SKILLS
Suleyman Celik
Faculty of Education, Tishk International University, Iraq
E-Mail: suleyman.celik@ishik.edu.iq

Abstract
In this quasi-experimental study, quantitative findings were examined in terms of how grouping
students based on their dominant type of Multiple intelligence and providing different Multiple
Intelligence activities that correspond to their intelligence type effect the development of their reading
skills. A control group and an experimental group were designed to compare the effectiveness of the
Multiple Intelligence teaching activities and tasks on the development of reading skills. A questionnaire
was administrated to the 95 undergraduate EFL junior students to identify their dominant type of
intelligence at a private university in Iraq. Based on their dominant type of intelligence, different
learning centers were established with different activities for each one. After a 16-week experiment
period the effects of Multiple Intelligence teaching activities were measured by using pretest, progress
tests, achievement exams and a posttest. The results of this study indicated that the experimental group
has significantly developed their reading comprehension skills in terms of understanding and
visualizing the meaning in the mind. In addition, there were considerable association between Multiple
Intelligence teaching activities and students’ motivation to the classes that reinforces classroom
management as well.
Keywords: Improvement, motivation, multiple Intelligence, reading comprehension, sequential
explanatory, Undergraduate EFL students

INTRODUCTION
L2 Reading has always been recognized
as one of the most substantial and difficult
skills for achieving the Foreign Language
Learning (Ediger, 2006). Improving reading
skill plays an important role to enable the
students to use English Language effectively
in academic fields and in daily life situations
(Anderson, 2008). Many researchers figured
out that good L2 readers are more successful
and remarkable in terms of achieving their
future educational and professional careers
(Weaver 1998; Anderson 2003; Koda 2005)
. According to Carrell & Eisterhold, (2006)
reading should be taught precisely so that
students show a positive feeling which
results a positive effect on their foreign
language learning and academic skills. Yet,
the related research studies have investigated
the factors influencing the successful reading
and they found that reading strategies &

128

activities,
motivational
factors,
and
background information play important roles
on the development of reading skill (Baker &
Boonkit, 2004; E. Block, 2006; E. L. Block,
2006; S. Brown, 2002). A good L2 reader is
considered as better language learning
strategy users in terms of using the learning
techniques more flexible and awareness
(Karolides, 1992; Pinnell, 1989). Therefore,
Dörnyei, (2005) claimed that learning
strategies should help individuals to help
their own language learning and academic
improvement. In addition to the importance
of the language learning strategies for the
improvement, learner diversity should be
accounted for developing the reading skills
as well (Dörnyei 2014).
It has been well documented that
exploring the various types of intelligence
and learning styles of the learners’ and
teaching them accordingly is required as one

Suleyman Celik, Intelligence Differences and Mediation Factors: A Sequential Explanatory…

of the most important contributors of
successful teaching both L1 and L2 learners
in order to learn to read, and comprehend
texts. (Field, 2006a; Grabe, 2006; Koda &
Zehler, 2008; Tankersley, 2009) Many
researchers (Grabe 2006; Koda 2005; Ediger
2006; Field 2006a; Baker & Boonkit, 2004)
have also suggested that using types of
comprehension practices and reading
strategies, and
classification of these
strategies are quintessence in order to gain
successful comprehension, along with
greater self-confidence. The cognitive
relation between reading and multiple
intelligence concept led the researchers to
focus on the fact that comprehending the
reading texts requires different tasks in order
for students to become competent readers in
English Language learning. Christison,
(1996) mentions that multiple intelligence
learning and teaching activities and tasks
provide more effective opportunities for
different learners in respect to their dominant
intelligence. Thus, many of the multiple
intelligence researchers suggest that teachers
should use multiple intelligence tasks and
activities to master the L2, especially reading
skills (Thomas Armstrong, 2003; Chen,
2005; Christison, 1995; Cluck & Hess, n.d.;
Cristison, 2005; Day, 2002). In their
qualitative research conducted among the
undergraduate
university
students,
Hajhashemi et al. (2013) indicated that there
were close relationships between reading
skills and the concept of Multiple
Intelligences in Iranian environment.
During the mid 20th century, with the
development of the industry and humanism,
the conservative teacher-centered education
paradigm shifted to individual based
education. Educators started to consider the
learners as a whole concept with their
affective domains such as feelings, emotions,
anxiety and others that may affect the
learning process. This development opened
doors to new ELT approaches during the 70’s
(Larsen-Freeman, 2000). In parallel to these
developments in ELT, new techniques and
methods have started to emerge in reading
skill as well. Those strategy trainings vary

129

from limiting the design, through to being
able to measure the effects of reading on L2
learners. Although, the results and outcomes
of the reading differs according to many
components of reading, it can be safely
claimed that certain kinds of practices and
teaching/learning strategies, as far as
learning and motivational backgrounds of the
learners, are intuitively plausible and help the
learners to master the reading skills more
effectively (Baker & Boonkit, 2004; E. L.
Block, 2006; Brantmeier, 2002; S. Brown,
2002). Besides, Gardner (Gardner, 2006b,
2006a) claimed that different educational
methods ought to be generated for different
types of intelligences so that they could
engage the education process. Thus, all these
different learning strategies, motivational
background, learner diversity and strategic
reading require the application of multiple
intelligence learning strategies and activities
to increase comprehending reading in
English language (Bell, Adam, Bell 2003;
Weber 2003; Reidel, Tomaszewski, and
Weaver 2003; Arnold and Fonseca 2004;
Bakić-Mirić 2010).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Gardner (1983) challenged the narrowly
defined intelligence, which was measured
through linguistic and logical-mathematical
methods only. In his study Gardner, (Gardner
1983, 1999; 2006b, 1991, 2007) claimed that
we all have different compounds of
intelligence, which work together as a whole
and therefore result in individuals having
different intelligence capabilities, which
could not be measured in a one subsided way,
called as ‘Multiple intelligence (MI). He
stated that intelligence is ‘the ability to solve
problems or fashion products that are valued
in in one or more cultural settings,’ (Gardner,
1993. p.87). These intelligences may define
human species (Armstrong 2009). Gardner’s
(1983) Multiple Intelligence theory is also
considered as potentially a kind of teaching
approaches as well. He (1991) also
mentioned that our schools focused on
linguistics and logical mathematical
intelligences
and
overlooked
other

International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, October 2019 pp. 128-145
intelligences, which required attention
similarly. Moreover, Gardner (1999) had
identified other intelligence compacities and
broadened the restrictive measure which was
being used in schools. He added that the MI
could be assessed through Verbal- linguistic,
logical-mathematical,
spatial,
musical,
bodily-kinesthetic,
interpersonal,
intrapersonal, and naturalist intelligence
(Gardner 1993). Since the spiritual
intelligence does not meet the criteria of an
intelligence and needs more empirical
evidence, Gardner consider it as morality
rather than an intelligence.
In this respect, the theoretical
background of this study was grounded on
the idea of Armstrong’s (2009) view of using
a broad range of multiple intelligence
teaching strategies effectively in the
classroom setting to enable all individual
differences to develop their language ability,
specifically reading skills and Gardner’s
(1983) Multiple Intelligence theory, which
offers a pluralistic view of intelligence rather
than a unitary concept of intelligence.
Association Between Reading Strategies &
Activities and MI Research in EFL
Numerous studies have been carried out
to determine the probable variations how
learners can comprehend a text successfully.
They also checked out different types of
reading activities which helped them to be
more active (Anderson 2003; Baker and
Boonkit 2004; Haley 2009; Carrel and Grabe
2002). The researchers also concluded that
successful readers often use metacognitive
and cognitive strategies that approach the
text as a problem ((Fleetham, 2006).
Also,Moreillon (2007) and Smigiel et al.
(2004) stated that with the emerge of the
multiple intelligence theory, discerning a
relationship between intelligence and L2
learning became easier. The findings of these
research show that there is a close relation
between intelligence differences and
teaching activities and strategies.
Since the teacher-centered education
shifted its place to individualized learning in
the education settings and ‘one size does not

130

fit all’, many researchers and educators have
tried to find out the role of multiple
intelligence theory, which suggests different
types of activities for each type of
intelligences, in language learning with the
four skills, reading, writing, listening and
speaking. Although many studies have been
carried out in support of the multiple
intelligence theory for L2 English learners,
Sewell (2003) claimed that there hasn’t been
enough information regarding the successes
of L2 learners and their use of learning
strategies and activities. In addition, there has
never been a study conducted in Iraq on the
association between multiple intelligence
teaching strategies and EFL reading. The
most relevant investigation was carried out in
Turkey (Iyitoglu & Aydin, 2015; Saricaoğlu
& Arikan, 2009) and in Iran as the Middle
East countries (Hajhashemi et al., 2013)
Some Multiple Intelligence and EFL
related researches focused on to find out the
relationships between MI and learning styles,
or comprehensive performance of EFL and
its sub skills. For example, a considerable
number of researches have been administered
in Iran to figure out the language learning
performance and learning strategies
(Abdulkader, Gundogdu, and Eissa 2009;
Rahimi, Mirzaei, and Heidari 2012; Razmjoo
2008). The researchers found out that
linguistics, interpersonal and logical
mathematical intelligences had positive
relationship with the learning strategies. On
contrary to those researches, who targeted to
find out the relationships between MI and
reading strategies, the researcher in this study
focused on to improve the reading skills of
whole students who are different from each
other in terms of dominant intelligence.
Richards and Rodgers (2001) claimed that
language has a broader spectrum that covers
all views of communication, rather than a
‘linguistic’ outlook. The theory of Multiple
Intelligence
instructional
perspective
suggests that language learning can be
enriched by conducting a plenty of different
tasks which meet the needs of diverse
individuals.

Suleyman Celik, Intelligence Differences and Mediation Factors: A Sequential Explanatory…

Also, Armstrong (2009) asserted that
applying the Multiple Intelligence teaching
activities in language learning provides
students a broader chance of achievement in
their preferred way. Moreover, using
different types of teaching activities help
students to sharpen their other intelligences.
Nolen (2003) supported the idea of
integrating the concept of multiple
intelligence and using certain types of
teaching strategies such as direct and indirect
(Oxford, 1990) top-down and bottom up
(Brantmeier, 2002) pre-reading, while
reading and post-reading strategies (E.
Block, 2006; E. L. Block, 2006) related to
each dominant intelligence to improve the
reading comprehension skills of diverse
learners. Consequently, Armstrong (2009)
claimed that multiple intelligence teaching
activities and approaches for L2 learners
opened doors whether in reading or writing
for improvement.
From this point of view, this quasiexperimental investigation is different from
the existing studies. Many of the previous
research investigations focused on the
relationships
between
the dominant
intelligence types and reading achievements
(Abdallah, 2008; Akbari & Hosseini, 2008;
Cristison, 2005; Hajhashemi, Akef, &
Anderson, 2012; Hajhashemi et al., 2013;
Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2002; Tahiri & Yamini,
2010; Visser, Ashton, & Vernon, 2006).
Some of the studies tried to find out the
association between reading competency and
reading strategies (Baker and Boonkit 2004;
Bell, Adam, Bell 2003; Berardo 2006; E.
Block 2006; E. L. Block 2006; Brantmeier
2002; H. D. Brown, n.d.; Chen 2005; Cluck
and Hess, n.d.; Manday Germer, Jeniffer
Getz, Terry Pochert 2000; Moran,
Kornhaber, and Gardner 2006n). Some other
studies investigated the learning strategies
and multiple intelligence. (Hajhashemi et al.,
2012, 2013). Yet, there is still a lack in the
literature in terms of using different types of
teaching tasks and activities to grab the
attention of the relevant intelligences.
Therefore, this study focuses on the
association between using certain types of

131

teaching activities that are consistent with
their intelligence type among the
undergraduate junior students who are highly
demotivated for learning a foreign language.
The aim of this unique quasi-experiment
study, which lasted 16 weeks, to reveal
whether teaching reading to different
intelligence types with compatible activities
have a positive effect om developing their
reading comprehension. Following research
question are compatible with the main
purpose of this study.
1. Do different reading activities and
strategies significantly affect the
undergraduate
EFL
learner’s
performance in reading comprehension
skills?
2. What types of reading activities can act
as the best practices of reading
comprehension
for
relevant
intelligences?
3. Which MI profiles showed a rapid
progress and were successful in reading
skill at the end of the experiment among
the undergraduate EFL learners?

METHODOLOGY
Study Design
In this study a quantitative quasiexperiment investigation was designed to
study how Multiple Intelligence based
reading activities engage the undergraduate
students to the reading classes and how those
activities develop the understanding of
reading comprehension in an EFL
undergraduate setting. 95 EFL junior
undergraduate students participated in this
experiment and they were randomly assigned
to the treatment or control group. 48
participants were assigned to the treatment
group; the researcher provided a 16-week
reading program that included specially
designed Multiple Intelligence teaching
activities in a specially designed environment
in experimental group. 47 students were in
the control group and traditional teaching
methods were provided to the individuals in
the control group during the study. The

International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, October 2019 pp. 128-145
researcher assessed the participants’ reading
comprehension level by applying an Oxford
online proficiency test at the beginning of the
study and after the 16-week program the
same online test was conducted as post-test
to see the development of the participants in
reading classes. Also, during the 16-week
program fourteen-progress tests and three
achievement tests were administrated to see
the participants’ progress in reading
comprehension. At the end of the study, the
researcher statistically compared the scores
for the two groups, and found that the
treatment group’s scores for reading
comprehension improved more than those
from the control group.
Participants
In this mixed method study, 95
undergraduate EFL junior students, who
were ranged in age from 19 to 23, involved
in this study at a private university in Iraq.
The researcher needed to use existing A2
CEFR level classes as the experimental
group and control group in order to figure out
the reliability of the study and to compare the
results in two the same level classes. The
control group was consisted of 48 students of
which 25 were female and 23 were male. The
control group was consisted of 47 students.
Of those 47 participants, 24 were female and
23 were male learners. Since the group
members cannot be artificially created for the
experiment, the researcher did not randomly
assign the individuals in the groups.
However, the groups were randomly
assigned as treatment and control group.
Procedure
After establishing the treatment and
control groups a Multiple Intelligence survey
and checklist theorized by Armstrong (2009)
was translated from English to Kurdish,
Turkish and Arabic language by a bilingual
lecturer of translations. Since it was a
translation, a back translation was done and
piloted to the 50 university students in
different levels to test the consistency of the
language and level of internal consistency
reliability. Based on the feedback from the

132

pilot study, the questionnaire tailored again
in terms of the language consistency and
administrated another 50 university students
who were not included in the study.
Later on, eight different learning centers,
which each of represents different
intelligence domain, were established in the
classroom. In each learning center different
types of activities and strategies, which were
consistent with the dominant intelligence
types, were applied to find out the
effectiveness of those activities in developing
the reading comprehension. Since all the
learners are different from each other,
providing many different types of activities
could possibly gained those different
learners’ attention. At the beginning of the
study each group members stayed and
studied in their dominant intelligence group
with center-related activities. Later on, they
moved the other groups in a clockwise
manner and within 8 weeks each group
visited all the centers with different learning
activities. Thus, each student obtained
experiences in all different learning centers to
sharpen their all intelligences and to improve
their reading skills. For the control group, the
students were taught in a traditional way
without providing not as many different
activities as provided for the experimental
group. They weren’t divided into the groups
neither.
Instrumentation
The MI inventory checklist theorized by
Armstrong (2209) used in this study to
determine
the
students’
dominant
intelligence for grouping them accordingly.
Before starting the experiment an Oxford
Online proficiency test was administrated to
the students both in experimental and control
groups as a pre-test to find out their level of
reading comprehension. Also, it was aimed
to figure out the types of reading texts, which
a student will find readable. During the
experiment, a progress test was held every
week to understand whether a student has
learnt what was aimed before the new
chapters started. By holding progress tests
every week, it was aimed to improve learners

Suleyman Celik, Intelligence Differences and Mediation Factors: A Sequential Explanatory…

reading speed and to develop guessing the
unknown words from the context. On the
other hand, progress tests were relatively
informal and short in length and time. On
such kinds of tests, the students were getting
high scores and those high scores were more
motivating and encouraging them in the
progress of reading comprehension. In
addition to the progress tests a more formal
achievement tests were done monthly to the
all participants. Those achievement tests
were used both formatively and summative
fashion. After each achievement tests, based
on the results, the researcher adapted his
teaching pace accordingly and also changed
some reading texts as well. The formative use
of those achievement tests provided
opportunities to tailor the courses with
different types of Multiple Intelligence
teaching activities. On the other hand, these
tests were mainly used in a summative way,
that is, to deliver to contribute to judgments
on students, on the basis of achievement test
results, whether the learners have learnt or
haven’t learnt.
In both control and experimental groups,
“PASSWORD 1” a reading comprehension

course book published by Longman Press
was used as a course material and “FACTS
&FIGURES” written by Patricia Ackert was
used as a self-study document.
Data analysis
Gardner (1983) declared that all individuals
have all types of intelligences with different
ration. According to the MI survey results, in
Iraqi Kurdistan setting, Intrapersonal
intelligence was the most prominent one
among the female students. Male students
were also intrapersonally dominant but not as
much as the females. The distribution of
multiple intelligence of the experimental
group participants is as follows:
As it is seen in Table 3, Intrapersonal
intelligence
(29.2%)
and
Logical
Mathematical intelligence (18.8%) were the
most two dominant intelligences. Naturalistic
and Interpersonal intelligence were the least
dominant. Every individual has Intrapersonal
Intelligence at a certain point and it is not
surprising because the Middle East societies
are culturally not very sociable and they are
introverted learners

Table 1. Frequencies of Dominant intelligence of the experimental group
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cum Percent
Valid Verbal
8
16.7
16.7
16.7
Logical
9
18.8
18.8
35.4
Visual
6
12.5
12.5
47.9
Musical
3
6.3
6.3
54.2
Kinesthetic
5
10.4
10.4
64.6
Interpersonal 2
4.2
4.2
68.8
Intrapersonal 14
29.2
29.2
97.9
Naturalistic
1
2.1
2.1
100.0
Total
48
100.0
100.0

During the experiment in order to get a valid
and reliable result in terms of how the
students
developed
their
reading
comprehension, more than one examination
such as one pre-test, fourteen progress tests,
three achievement exanimations and a posttest were administrated to the treatment and
control groups. In addition, those
examinations enabled the researcher how MI

133

teaching activities effected the students’
progress in reading courses. Based on the aim
of this research, and for each of the research
questions respectively the results of the
examinations in these two groups were
analyzed in SPSS 23.0. The results of the
statistics are presented in the tables
accordingly. The first table, a parametric
independent Sample T-Test, was presented to

International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, October 2019 pp. 128-145
determine whether there is a statistical
evidence that the means of all exam types
both in control and treatment group are
significantly different each other.

Gender

prete
st

progr
ess

achie
veme
nt

postt
est

1. Do different reading activities and
strategies significantly affect the
undergraduate
EFL
learner’s
performance in reading comprehension
skills

Table 2. Independent Samples Test between experimental and control group
Leve
t-test for Equality of Means
ne's
Test
for
Equa
lity
of
Varia
nces
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig
Mean
Std.
95%
.
Diffe
Error
Confidence
(2rence
Diffe
Interval of
tail
rence
the
ed)
Difference
Low
Up
er
per
Equal
.035
.852
93
.92
-.010
.104
.19
variances
.098
2
.216
6
assumed
Equal
92.
.92
-.010
.104
.19
variances not
.098
954
2
.216
6
assumed
Equal
3.63
.060
93
.48
3.872
4.9
variances
4
.697
8
2.697
99
10.3
932
assumed
70
886
9
8
Equal
90.
.48
3.865
4.9
variances not
.698
833
7
2.697
77
10.3
813
assumed
70
767
7
6
Equal
.859
.356
4.28
93
.00
14.74
3.437
7.91
21.
variances
9
0
113
21
552
566
assumed
75
Equal
4.29
92.
.00
14.74
3.433
7.92
21.
variances not
4
290
0
113
23
273
559
assumed
54
Equal
4.55
.035
2.92
93
.00
9.538
3.257
3.06
16.
variances
5
8
4
12
46
945
006
assumed
79
Equal
2.93
88.
.00
9.538
3.249
3.08
15.
variances not
6
713
4
12
14
187
994
assumed
37
Equal
.212
.646
5.68
93
.00
18.46
3.246
12.0
24.
variances
8
0
764
74
202
915
assumed
5
03

134

Suleyman Celik, Intelligence Differences and Mediation Factors: A Sequential Explanatory…
Equal
variances not
assumed

5.69
1

As shown in the table 2, the distribution
of gender is not very different in those groups
(t= .852 and p =. 922 which is bigger than p
value=. 005). Thus, it can be concluded that
in terms of gender, the participants were
distributed equally. Moreover, it is worth
noting that at the beginning of the study, the
reading comprehension level of the two
groups was nearly the same according to the
proficiency test. The mean scores of the
pretest in these two groups did not show a
significant difference (t= -.697 and p=. 488
that is bigger than the p<0.005). This result
gives an important information about those
two groups because when these two groups
started the experiment at the beginning of the
academic year based on their pretest scores
they were nearly at the same level and the
differences at the end of the experiment
would give us an idea about how Multiple
Intelligence teaching activities affected their
understanding reading. In the progress of the
experiment, fourteen progress tests held to
measure the students’ development in
reading comprehension. The mean of those
progress
test
scores
showed
that
experimental group significantly increased
their grades than did control group (t= 4.289
and p=. 000 which rejects the null
hypothesis) Additionally, the means of the
achievement tests of the groups were
compared to explore the differences in terms
of scores between these participants. As a
result, it seems that there was a meaningful
difference between those groups but not as
significant as it happened in the progress tests
(t= 2.928 and p=. 004). According to this
result, the control group also increased their
scores abut not as much as the experiment

92.
931

.00
0

18.46
764

3.245
07

12.0
235
1

24.
911
77

group. Regarding the posttest, which is the
final examination and a clear data tool for the
researcher to come to a conclusion whether
the MI teaching activities worked as
hypothesized, the experimental group did a
significant difference than the control group.
There was a huge improvement in
experimental group scores compared to the
control one (t=5.688 and p=. 000). Based on
this statistical data, in regards to the first
research question of this study, it can be
inferred that there was a significant
difference between treatment group and
control group in terms of development in
reading comprehension based on the
Multiple Intelligence teaching strategies and
activities. Applying different reading
activities and strategies corresponding to the
relevant
dominant
intelligence
can
significantly affect the undergraduate EFL
learner’s performance positively in EFL
reading classes.
2. What types of reading activities can act
as the best practices of reading
comprehension
for
relevant
intelligences?
In order to retest the validity and
reliability of the results gained from the
independent sample t test, and to find an
answer for the second research question, a
different statistical technique as called
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. By
using Anova, it was also aimed to check the
influence of multiple intelligence teaching
activities by means of the control group and
experimental group.

Table 3. One-way ANOVA test
Sum
of
Squares
Pretest
Between
172.823
Groups
Within
33127.661
Groups

135

df
1

Mean
Square
172.823

94

356.211

F

Sig.

.48
5

.488

International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, October 2019 pp. 128-145

Progress

Achieve
ment

Posttest

Total

33300.484

95

Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total

5160.328

1

26092.156

94

31252.484
2160.435

95
1

23434.555

94

25594.989
8099.130

95
1

23280.596

94

31379.726

95

As it is seen in the one-way ANOVA
statistical table, in the mean of pretest of
reading examination there was not a
significant difference between the groups (F=
.485 and p=.488 which is bigger than p= .05)
this is important to know that there is not a
significant difference between these two
groups. Starting at the same Reading
comprehension level would provide a
reliable result at the end of the experiment in
terms of testing the hypothesis. In contrast to
the pretest, the students in the experimental
group increased their grades more than the
control group. In the mean of the progress
test the F=18.393 and p=.000 which shows
that there is a huge difference. In addition, the
experimental
group
students
also
demonstrated a success in the achievement
tests however, it was not as much as in the
progress test. While the p=.000 in the
progress test, in the achievement test p=.004
and F= 8.574
The ANOVA test results suggest that
there is a significant difference between the

5160.32
8
280.561

18.
393

.000

2160.43
5
251.984

8.5
74

.004

8099.13
0
250.329

32.
354

.000

control group and experimental group in
terms of the scores that the students received
in different examinations. As a result,
different reading activities, mentioned in the
methodology part, acted as the best predictor
of reading comprehension for congruent
intelligences among the successful EFL
readers.
Pearson
product
moment
correlations were analyzed to find out the
relations between Multiple Intelligence
teaching activities in the experimental group
and the exam scores. Table 6 shows a
significant correlation between Multiple
intelligence activities used in the
experimental group and the learner’s success
in reading skill in EFL setting. When the
p<0.0, then the correlation between the
variables are significantly positive and the
correlation between pretest, progress test,
achievement examination and posttest is
p<0.00 which means the activities in the
experimental class developed the learners
reading skill.

x

136

x
x
x

Natural

Intraper
sonal

Interper
sonal

x
x

Musical

x
x
x

Bodily/
Kinesth
etic

Logical
Mathe
matical

Storytelling
Brainstorming
Tape recording

Spatial

Intelligence/
Activities

Verbal
Linguis
tics

Table 4. different activities congruent with different intelligences

Suleyman Celik, Intelligence Differences and Mediation Factors: A Sequential Explanatory…

Journal writing
Publishing
Classification and
categorization
Socratic
questioning
Heuristics
Jigsaw
Visualizing
Color cues
Graphic symbols
Idea sketching
Role play
Miming
Moving
while
reading
Rhythms, songs,
raps and chants
Musical
background
Sharing
the
content
Projects
One-time
reflection
Personal
connections
Choice time

x
x
x

x
x
x

x

x

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x

x
x
x
x

x

x
x

x
x
x
x

x

x
x
x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x
x

x

x

x

x

x

x

3. Which MI profiles showed a rapid
progress and were successful in reading
skill at the end of the experiment among
the undergraduate EFL learners?

group and experimental group in terms of
their different types of exam scores. When
the table is examined carefully, it would be
recognized that all the intelligent type in the
experimental group increased their exam
scores from the very beginning of the
experiment.

To answer the last question of this study, a
comparison was made between the control

Table 5. comparisons of variables in control and experimental group
Intelligence type
N
Verbal
Verbalc
Logical
Logicalc
Visual
Visualc
Musical
Musicalc
Kinesthetic
Kinestheticc

8
8
9
11
6
7
3
1
5
5

Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean

Gen
der
1.50
1.50
2.00
1.55
1.50
1.57
1.33
1.00
1.00
1.40

x

pretest
65.2500
64.3750
56.1111
68.8182
64.5000
60.5714
39.3333
74.0000
66.0000
66.8000

137

progres
s
80.1250
55.6250
72.0000
65.0909
85.1667
62.1429
56.3333
92.0000
78.8000
62.8000

achieve
ment
76.1250
58.3750
66.1111
69.3636
83.8333
54.1429
51.6667
87.0000
73.6000
65.4000

posttest
80.1250
59.1250
73.7778
60.6364
87.3333
55.2857
65.0000
90.0000
77.8000
59.2000

International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, October 2019 pp. 128-145
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
c
Intrapersonal
Naturalistic
Naturalisticc
Total

2
14
14
1
1

Mean
Mean

1.50
1.50

69.0000
68.5000

87.0000
69.0714

89.0000
65.7143

90.0000
65.2143

Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
N
Std.
Devia
tion

1.29
2.00
1.00
1.48
95
.502

71.9286
55.0000
62.0000
65.1263
95
18.82181

85.3571
68.0000
59.0000
71.8737
95
18.2338
5

76.2857
62.0000
73.0000
68.9895
95
16.5011
2

84.1429
70.0000
67.0000
70.8842
95
18.2709
3

The results above indicate that there was
a quite significant positive relationship
between the successful Kurdish L2 readers’
use of Multiple intelligence reading activities
in undergraduate EFL reading classes.
Among
those
different
dominant
intelligence, Visual intelligence (m=87.33),
Musial Intelligence (m-65) and Interpersonal
intelligence (m=90) demonstrated a very
significant progress in improving the reading
skills. It was thought that verbal-linguistic
intelligence (m=80.125), would be one of the
most performed intelligence yet, it hasn’t
showed a very rapid progress. LogicalMathematical
(m=73.77),
Kinesthetic
(m=77.8),
intrapersonal(m=84.14)
and
Naturalistic
(m=70)
intelligences
demonstrated a meaningful improvement in
reading achievement.
DISCUSSION
Based on the statistical analysis, the
experimental group developed their reading
skills much more than the controlling group.
One of the reasons of that development is
that, the experimental group was provided
many different types of activities congruent
not only with their dominant intelligences,
but also with the other intelligences as well
in an organized way. All those activities
engaged and motivated the students to the
reading classes. The learners felt more
relaxed and more enjoyable during the class
hours and it helped them to internalize and
visualize the reading in their minds. Studying
at the different learning centers promoted the
students to complete their tasks and
assignments as they wished, which means
that there was no pressure but flexibility in
138

the centers.
All these activities and flexibility in the
experimental group fostered the learners a
self-confidence, more motivation and an
interest towards reading comprehension.
This motivation and enthusiasm initiated an
achievement and development of reading
comprehension in the treatment group.
Consequently, with the help of the multiple
intelligence teaching activities, participants
in the experimental group developed their
reading skills in terms of comprehending and
visualizing the text in their minds, more than
the students in the control group.
Regarding to the first research question
of this study; the effect of using different
activities relevant to the dominant
intelligence are more certain (Chamot, 2004;
Thomas Armstrong, 2003). Consistent with
many research studies, improving not only
reading skills and getting high scores in
reading comprehension, also in EFL learning
is correlated to meeting the students’ needs
by providing attractive activities. (Chamot,
2004; Block, 2006; Sheorey & Mokhtari,
2002). Such kinds of learners and readers are
meta cognitively strong and aware of selfcontrol which they use as a monitoring and
enhancing comprehension tool (Sheorey &
Mokhtari, 2002). Besides, Intrapersonal,
interpersonally and visually dominant
intelligence were found out to be better L2
readers than the other intelligence types.
As opposed to Razmjoo, (2008) who
proposed that none of the intelligences are
effective in language learning as a whole, the
results of this study show similarity with the
conclusions of Akbari & Hosseini, (2008)
and Hajhashemi et al.,( 2013) who figured

Suleyman Celik, Intelligence Differences and Mediation Factors: A Sequential Explanatory…

out that the verbal linguistic intelligence is
the key processor of reading skills. The
results in this study is coinciding with some
other studies which follow similar
classification of language tasks relevant to
certain intelligence types (Arnold & Fonseca,
2004; Fenner, Mansour, & Sydor, 2010;
Lazarus, 2000; Moreillon, 2007; Rahimi et
al., 2012).
In addition, the current study figured out
that there is a strong association between
language learning activities, which are
congruent with the certain types of
intelligences and developing reading skills.
For example, it was observed that the
students who were asked to write the lyrics of
a song improved their linguistics and musical
intelligence together. In the role play
activities, the learners demonstrated their
linguistics, intrapersonal and interpersonal
skills all together. Also, they showed their
bodily-kinesthetic and interpersonal abilities
while playing miming and imitating. All
those multiple intelligence teaching activities
led the teacher to plan different ways of
engaging and improving the reading skills in
the experimental group. These activities also
provide opportunities for the learners to
improve their reading skills as they preferred
and those activities also helped the
participants to sharpen their other
intelligences.
Musically inclined students focused the
reading texts more than the others. It is
because, while they were listening to music
during the reading classes, the rhythm of the
music relaxed and focused the learners to the
inner side. It was also observed that music
helped the musical intelligence to withdraw
the barriers in front of the reading texts.
The visual spatial intelligence learners
were more successful in terms of visualizing
the reading texts in their minds. This
visualizing improved their cognitive process
of reading comprehension in their minds. It
was easy for them to transform the reading
texts in to the mental imagery than that
images to mental activity. Thus, the ability to
produce graphics in their minds helped them
to understand the reading comprehension

effectively.
The logical-mathematical Intelligence
learners were keen on asking many questions
before, during and after the reading texts to
find out the ways of understanding a reading
text. They were also looking for the details
and logical order of the texts, tasks and
activities.
The Kinesthetically dominant students
were enthusiastic for using role-plays, drama,
games, project work, and shadow puppets.
These activities attracted the kinesthetic
students directly in the reading classes.
The Interpersonal learners were good at
to understand others and they were very
sensitive to other people’s feelings, humors,
motives, and behaviors (Cristison, 2005).
Besides, the findings of this research were
coinciding with Lazear's (1999) proposal
that interpersonal intelligence can work
collaboratively
with
other
people.
Cooperating with different learners is one of
the most critical key points in language
learning. As Arnold & Fonseca, (2004)
pointed out interacting with different people
created a more positive interdependence
among the students and this helped them to
comprehend the reading tasks deeply.
Learners who had Interpersonal
Intelligence developed different verbal
negotiation strategies to persuade others or to
understand the other’s attitudes. Such kinds
of activities supported females specifically to
be more social and released their shyness.
These interpersonal activities were very
useful in Iraqi Kurdistan setting where the
traditional education has still been continuing
and it also fostered the development of social
skills which is necessary to build up an
interaction with different individuals.
(Campbell, 1997). The Iraqi Kurdistan is still
in the authoritarian traditional custom and
majority of the learners were Interpersonally
dominant students. These types of students
demonstrated the same behaviors as Fenner
et al., (2010) stated in their research. These
learners were more aware of their
metacognitive knowledge, about themselves
and the bridge between the metacognitive
knowledge and the procedures or strategies

139

International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, October 2019 pp. 128-145
to be used for certain tasks. This awareness
of capacities and limitations helped those
students to understand their learning styles
helped them to process reading texts.
(Christison,1998)
The Verbal- Linguistic Intelligence
students used the mastery of phonology,
syntax, semantics and pragmatics in the
reading texts very well.
Naturalist
Intelligence learners created a semantic map
to develop their lexical knowledge. This
semantic map helped those learners to
describe the scene in the reading texts with
the natural images in their minds.
As a result, in L2 reading classes it is
obvious that there are many motivational
teaching activities related to different types
of intelligences. These different types of
multiple intelligence activities engage the
diverse learners to the sustainable learning
(Schumann, 1999). It is impossible to address
all the multiple intelligence profiles in every
lesson, but providing a neutral approach
would open different windows on the same
concept for different learners. These learning
activities and strategies promote stimulus
appraisals and motivations that cope with
different potentials.
The multiple intelligence teaching
activities and strategies allowed the students
to communicate with each other effectively
and to improve their less strong intelligences
(Moran et al., 2006).
CONCLUSION
AND
RECOMMENDATION
This study was conducted to find out the
correlations between multiple intelligence
teaching activities and students’ reading
performance and accomplishment of L2
reading skill. Besides, types of reading
activities and teaching strategies which acted
as the best predictor of reading
comprehension for congruent intelligences
among the successful undergraduate EFL
readers were investigated. Another aim of
this study was to figure out the relationship
between reading activities and learner’s
dominant intelligence in the undergraduate
EFL setting. The researcher also focused on

140

the MI profiles which showed a rapid
progress in reading skill at the end of the
experiment among the undergraduate EFL
learners.
The results of this quasi experimental
study showed that there has been a strong
association between not only the dominant
intelligence but also with the other
intelligences and teaching activities
congruent with different intelligences. For
example, while storytelling was very
effective for the verbal-linguistic intelligence
at the peak point, it also helped the
intrapersonal students to create a visual map
inside. Apart from the linguistic intelligence,
brainstorming was very effective for the
visual students because they improved their
dominant intelligence by visualizing the
reading and brain storming in their minds.
Klapwijk (2016) has stated that effective
teachers who wants to develop a sustainable
change in their instructional methods and
principals, they have to find out new
implementations to trigger the student’s
attention to engage them all to the lessons.
Therefore, the L2 reading teachers should
develop their reading materials and activities
consistent with the relevant intelligences to
include every learner and to trigger
enjoyment of the activities in L2 reading
classes. This inclusive education will
positively effect their reading skills and
performance. Furthermore, the curriculum
designers and policy makers should improve
a reading comprehension tasks that conveys
an analysis of triumphant reading activities
that are empirically validated into the reading
curriculum of L2
This study also demonstrated that not
only one certain type of intelligence has an
impact on reading, but as long as the right
activities are provided to the relevant
intelligence, all the profiles has shown a very
rapid progress in improving reading skill.
Since it is tough for teachers to design a
syllabus for all types of intelligences, they
can prepare a balanced unit plan which
covers all the different intelligences in once.
Teachers should also sue authentic materials

Suleyman Celik, Intelligence Differences and Mediation Factors: A Sequential Explanatory…

to assess the students so as to reach as many
numbers of students as he can.
REFERENCES
Abdallah, M. (2008). Multiple ways to be
smart: Gardener&#39;s Theory of
Multiple
Intelligences
and
its
educational implications in English
teaching and oral communication.
Online Submission, 19–59. Retrieved
from
http://pbswanson.edublogs.org/files/20
11/09/multiple-ways-to-be-smartvvdjv0.pdf
Abdulkader, F. A., Gundogdu, K., & Eissa,
M. A. (2009). The effectiveness of a
multiple intelligences-based program on
improving certain reading skills in 5thyear primary learning disabled students.
Electronic Journal of Research in
Educational Psychology, 7(2), 673–
690.
Retrieved
from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx
?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=201017404-004&site=ehostlive%5Cnhttp://abohafsa20062006@ya
hoo.com
Akbari, R., & Hosseini, K. (2008). Multiple
intelligences and language learning
strategies:
Investigating
possible
relations. System, 36(2), 141–155.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.0
9.008
Anderson, L. . (2008). Metacognition and
good language learners. In C. Griffith
(Ed.); Lessons from good language
learners.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University Press.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Scrolling, Clicking,
and Reading English: Online Reading
Strategies in a Second/Foreign
Language. The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 1–
33.
Anna Uhl Chamot. (2004). Issues in
Language Learning Strategy Research
and Teaching. Electronic Journal of
Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14–
26.
Retrieved
from
http://eflt.nus.edu.sg/v1n12004/chamot.pdf
Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences

141

in the classroom (3rd ed.).
Armstrong, Thomas. (2003). The multiple
intelligences of reading and writing:
Making the words come alive.
Alexandria; VA: ASCD.
Armstrong, Thomas. (2009). Multiple
Intelligence in the Classroom (3rd ed.).
Alexandria; VA: ASCD.
Arnold, J., & Fonseca, M. C. (2004).
Multiple Intelligence Theory and
Foreign Language Learning: A Brainbased
Perspective.
International
Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 119–
136. https://doi.org/10.6018/48141
Baker, W., & Boonkit, K. (2004). Learning
strategies in reading and writing: EAP
contexts. RELC Journal, 35(3), 299–
328.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688205052
143
Bakić-Mirić,
N.
(2010).
Multiple
Intelligences Theory – a Milestone
Innovation in English Language
Teaching At the University of Niš
Medical
School.
Acta
Medica
Medianae,
49(2),
15–20.
https://doi.org/614.253.4.001.6:811.111
Bell, Adam, Bell, M. (2003). Developing
Authentic Assessment Methods from a
Multiple Intelligences Perspective.
Berardo, S. A. (2006). THE USE OF
AUTHENTIC MATERIALS IN THE
TEACHING OF READING. The
Reading Matrix (Vol. 6). Retrieved
from
http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/
berardo/article.pdf
Block, E. (2006). The Comprehension
Strategies of Second Language Readers.
TESOL
Quarterly,
20(3),
463.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3586295
Block, E. L. (2006). See How They Read:
Comprehension Monitoring of L1 and
L2 Readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2),
319. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587008
Brantmeier,
C.
(2002).
SECOND
LANGUAGE READING STRATEGY
RESEARCH AT THE SECONDARY
AND
UNIVERSITY
LEVELS:
VARIATIONS, DISPARITIES, AND

International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, October 2019 pp. 128-145
GENERALIZABILITY. The Reading
Matrix, 2(3), 1–16.
Broughton, G., Brumfit, C., Flavell, R., Hill,
P., & Pincas, A. (1978). Teaching
English as a Foreign Language.
‫مممم ممممم مممممممم‬
‫( مممممم‬Vol. ‫)العدد الحا‬. New York:
Routledge.
Brown, H. D. (n.d.). (Teaching Techniques in
English as a Second Language) Diane
Larsen-Freeman-Techniques
and
Principles in Language Teaching Oxford University Press, USA
(2000).pdf.
Brown, S. (2002). Is Rereading more
Effective than Prereading? RELC
Journal,
33(1),
91–100.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688202033
00105
Campbell, L. (1997). Variations on a
theme—How teachers interpret MI
theory. Educational Leadership, 55(1),
14–19.
Carrel, P. L., & Grabe, W. (2002). Reading.
In N. Schmitt (Ed.); An introduction to
applied linguistics. Great Britain:
Arnold.
Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (2006).
Schema Theory and ESL Reading
Pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4),
553. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586613
Carrell, P. L., & Grabe, W. (2002). Reading.
In N. Schmitt (Ed.); An introduction to
applied Linguistics. New York:
Routledge.
Chen, S. S. (2005). Cooperative Learning ,
Multiple Intelligences and Proficiency :,
1–267.
Christison, M. A. (1996). Teaching and
learning languages through multiple
intelligences. TESOL, 6(1), 10–14.
Christison, Mary Ann. (1995). Multiple
Intelligences & Second Language
Learners. Journal of the Imagination in
Language Learning.
Christison, Mary Ann. (1998). An
introduction to multiple intelligence
theory and second language learning.
In J. Reid (Ed.); Understanding
learning styles in the second language

142

classroom. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Cluck, M., & Hess, D. (n.d.). Improving
Student Motivation through the Use of
the Multiple Intelligences. Retrieved
from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/62
161784?accountid=14548
Cristison, Ma. A. (2005). Multiple
Intelligences and Language Learning:
A Guidebook of Theory, Activities,
Inventories, and Resources. San
Francisco; CA: Alta Book Center
Publishers.
Day, R. (2002). Top ten principles for
teaching extensive reading. Reading in
a Foreign Language, 40(January), 42–
45.
Retrieved
from
http://search.proquest.com/openview/c
63834e8664023bf21461a5eeca80606/1
?pq-origsite=gscholar
Dornyei, Z. (2014). The psychology of the
language
learner:
Individual
differences in second language
acquisition. Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the
Language
Learner:
Individual
Differences in Second Language
Acquisition Monographs. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism
(Vol.
10).
https://doi.org/10.2167/bebb140.0
Ediger, A. M. (2006). Developing strategic
L2 readers by reading for authentic
purposes. In P. Jordens (Ed.); Current
trends in the development and teaching
of the four language skills. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Fenner, D., Mansour, S. K., & Sydor, N.
(2010). The effects of differentiation
and
motivation
on
students’
performance, (May), 1–150.
Field, M. L. (2006). Finding a path to fluent
academic and workplace reading. In P.
Jordens (Ed.); Current trends in the
development and teaching of the four
language skills. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Fleetham, M. (2006). Multiple Intelligences
in practices enhancing self-esteem and
learning in the classroom, 145.

Suleyman Celik, Intelligence Differences and Mediation Factors: A Sequential Explanatory…

Gardner, H. (1983). Theory of Multiple
Intelligences.
Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind:
How Children Think and How Schools
Should Teach. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed:
Mutiple Intelligence for the 21st
Century, 1–296.
Gardner, H. (2006a). Multiple Intelligences:
New Horizons in Theory and Practice.
New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2006b). The development and
education of mind. New York:
Routledge.
Gardner, H. (2007). Five Minds for the
Future. Boston: Harvard University
Press.
Grabe, W. (2006). Areas of research that
influence L2 reading instruction. In P.
Jordens (Ed.), Current trends in the
development and teaching of the four
language skills. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Hajhashemi, K., Akef, K., & Anderson, N.
(2012). The relationship between
multiple intelligences and reading
proficiency of Iranian EFL students.
World Applied Sciences Journal,
19(10),
1475–1483.
https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2012
.19.10.3134
Hajhashemi, K., Shakarami, A., Anderson,
N., Yazdi-Amirkhiz, S. Y., & Zou, W.
(2013). Relations between language
learning
strategies,
language
proficiency and multiple intelligences.
Academic Research International, 4(6),
418–429.
Haley, M. H. (2009). Understanding LearnerCentered
Instruction
from
the
PersDective of Multiple Intelligences.
Foreign
Language
Annals.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.19449720.2001.tb02068.x
Iyitoglu, O., & Aydin, H. (2015). The
relationship
between
multiple
intelligence profiles and reading
strategy use of successful English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) readers. South
African Journal of Education, 35(2), 1–

11.
https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v35n2a98
0
Karolides, N. . (1992). Reader response in
the
classroom:
Evoking
and
interpreting meaning in literature. New
York: Longman Publishing Group.
Klapwijk, N. M. (2016). Reading strategy
instruction and teacher change:
implications for teacher training. South
African Journal of Education, 32(2),
191–204.
https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v32n2a61
8
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second
language reading: A cross-linguistic
approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Koda, K., & Zehler, A. M. (2008).
Introduction: Conceptualizing reading
universals; crosslinguistic variations;
and
second
language
literacy
development. In K. Koda & A. M. Zehler
(Eds.); Learning to read across
languages:
Cross-linguistics
relationships in firstand secondlanguage
litera.
New
York:
Francis&Taylor.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and
Principles in Language Teaching 2nd
edition-Oxford
Handbooks
for
Language Teachers. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from
https://scihub.tw/https://books.google.com/books
?hl=en&lr=&id=pO2dBgAAQBAJ&oi
=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=larsen+freeman+te
chniques+and+principles&ots=LJ6wG
kWncO&sig=95eqAORfmq0MZ7y4sVAJCthmBY
Lazarus, A. A. (2000). Research Findings on
Overall Effectiveness MULTIPLE
INTELLIGENCES The traditional
model of intellect and its assessment
have been criticized . A number of
researchers have put forth “ pluralistic ”
theories of human intelligence that
question the explanat, 5(1993).
Lazear, D. (1999). Multiple Intelligences
approaches to assessment. Tucson:

143

International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, October 2019 pp. 128-145
Zephyr Press.
Manday Germer, Jeniffer Getz, Terry
Pochert, K. P. (2000). Improving
Student achievement in Language Arts
Through Implementation of Multiple
Intelligences Startegies.
Moran, S., Kornhaber, M., & Gardner, H.
(2006).
Orchestrating
Multiple
Intelligences. Educational Leadership,
26(1), 22–27.
Moreillon,
J.
(2007).
Collaborative
Strategies for Teaching Reading
Comprehension: Maximizing Your
Impact.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISWC.2008.491
1590
Nolen, J. L. (2003). Multiple intelligences in
the classroom. Education, 124, 115–
120.
Oxford, R. . (1990). Language learning
strategies: What every teacher should
know. New York: Newbury House /
Harper & Row.
Pinnell,
G.
S.
(1989).
Reading
Recovery:Helping At-Risk Children
Learn to Read. The Elementary School
Journal, 90(2).
Rahimi, M., Mirzaei, A., & Heidari, N.
(2012). How do successful EFL readers
bridge between multiple intelligences
and reading strategies? World Applied
Sciences Journal, 17(9), 1134–1142.
Razmjoo, S. A. (2008). On the relationship
between multiple intelligences and
language proficiency. The Reading
Matrix, 8(2), 155–174.
Reidel, J., Tomaszewski, T., & Weaver, D.
(2003). Improving Student Academic
Reading Achievement through the Use
of Multiple Intelligence Teaching
Strategies.
Retrieved
from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx
?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED479204
&site=ehost-live
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001).
Approaches and methods in language
teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Saricaoğlu, A., & Arikan, A. (2009). a Study
of Multiple Intelligences, Foreign

144

Language Success and Some Selected
Variables. Uygulama Journal of Theory
and Practice in Education, 5(52), 110–
122.
Retrieved
from
http://eku.comu.edu.tr/index/5/2/asaric
aoglu_aarikan.pdf
Schumann, J. (1999). A perspective on affect.
In J. Arnold (Ed.) Affect in language
learning.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University Press.
Sewell, D. (2003). The good language
learner.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203347089
_chapter_2
Sheorey, K., & Mokhtari, R. (2002).
Measuring EFL Students’ Awareness of
Reading Strategies.pdf. Journal of
Developmental Education.
Smigiel, N., Geisel, T., Parent, J. K., &
Mckersie, K. (2004). T EACHING
AND L EARNING Different Minds
Learn Differently Multiple Intelligence
in the Classroom, (September).
Sung, H., & Gardner, H. (2004). Enhancing
Teaching Strategies based on Multiple
Intelligences, (1998), 1–10.
Tahiri, A., & Yamini, M. (2010). On
Teaching to Diversity: Investigating the
Effectiveness of MI-Inspired Instruction
in an EFL Context. The Journal of
Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 2(1).
Tankersley, K. (2009). The threads of
reading: Strategies for literacy
development. Alexandria; VA: ASCD.
Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P.
A. (2006). Beyond g: Putting multiple
intelligences theory to the test.
Intelligence,
34(5),
487–502.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.
004
Weaver, C. (1998). Reading process and
practice: From socio-psycholinguistics
to whole language. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann Educational Books.
Weber, R.-M. (2003). Teaching Reading:
Effective
Schools,
Accomplished
Teachers. Journal of Literacy Research
(Vol.
35).
Retrieved
from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/23
1931134?accountid=15181%0Ahttp://o

Suleyman Celik, Intelligence Differences and Mediation Factors: A Sequential Explanatory…

penurl.york.ac.uk/openurl/44YORK/44
YORK_services_page?url_ver=Z39.88
2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mt
x:journal&genre=unknown&sid=ProQ:

ProQ%3Allba&atitle=Teaching+Readi
ng%3A+Effect

145