Introduction This chapter presents the background of the study, the rationale, objectives, and scale of the research. Then, the significance of the research is mentioned and discussed. 1.1. Background of the study The primary goal of learning a foreign language, according to Brown (2001), is the competence to carry out communicative activities in which learners are able to use the target language and express it properly in real-life situations for various functions and different extents. In language study, oral communicative skills (mainly speaking and listening competencies) are normally regarded as the ones of most considerable difficulties to be trained and developed. Such difficulties in developing speaking skills, according to Harmer (2007), are mainly due to the lack of authentic documents and environment for practicing speaking the language as well as the learners’ acquisition methods. Applying various and flexible methods based on a learner-centered approach and promoting diverse and multiple skills and intelligences can help develop learners’ oral communicative skills. Creating a friendly and encouraging EFL speaking environment can help language learners to communicate effectively with one another. Within this such a motivating academic environment, language learners feel comfortable to express and exchange their ideas orally, and thus, make their progress in speaking skills. “Application of MI-based approach helps students to promote their positive strengths as well as design relevant learning methods in an effective academic environment” (El-Naggar, 2000, p. 25). The traditional methods of language teaching and learning, argued by Nunan (1991), Savignon (2000), Larsen-Freeman (2000), and Brown (2001), first of all, are generally based on sentence patterns and models of teaching procedures for practicing how to use the language applied and built from such fixed grammatical points. Therefore, such a classroom use of the language might likely be entirely isolated from its authentic socio-cultural contexts and functions. Also, the four language skills are often trained and developed through separated classroom activities generally implemented in a teacher-controlled atmosphere, and the students have limited chances for participation. Most important of all, the speaking skills, in such traditional teaching and learning methods, are trained and practiced based on the teacher’s models of drills and much attention is paid to error correction, not to highlight and promote the students’ communicative competences. It can be seen that not much importance is attached to the individual distinction among the different learners regarding their preferences or styles of acquiring and producing the target language that they have learned. Thereof, it is indicated by Johnson (2013) that in traditional classrooms, the students with highly developed analytical and reasoning skills are the ones who are more likely to be considered successful learners according to the instructors’ assessment. Dorgham (2011) proposed that most learners own various types and levels of intelligences and utilize them following their own ways. Therefore, teachers should always be aware that learners have differential learning styles, levels of intelligences in participating and performing classroom activities. Nunan and Baily (2009), Oxford (2001), and Ezarik (2001) also shared their common viewpoint that teachers could find their proper ways of teaching through focusing on the students’ learning styles and thinking strategies: Teachers are in a bad need to find the right strategies to fit the diverse learning styles of each individual within the classroom context. In order to achieve the required skills, the eight MIs need incorporating into everyday classroom learning (Ezarik, 2001, p. 143). The change from teacher-centered to learner-centered approach to learning means a reduction in teacher domination, with a corresponding increase in student control and initiative (Jones, 2007; Geven & Attard, 2012; Johnson, 2013; Crumly, 2014; and Hoidn, 2016). Learner-centeredness has proved to be a practical approach in EFL teaching and learning. Johnson (2013, p. 19) views “learner-centered approach is self-directed learning.” The principle of learner-centeredness stipulates
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES CHÂU VĂN ĐÔN INTEGRATING MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES-BASED ACTIVITIES INTO TEACHING SPEAKING SKILLS TO EFL LEARNERS DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING HUE, 2019 ABSTRACT With the philosophy “Every learner is unique and intelligent”, the Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MIT) has proved to be a humanitarian and favorable premise to foster and promote learners’ language skills Armstrong (2017) remarked while traditional language teaching and learning programs mainly focus on developing learners’ linguistic and reasoning skills, MIT proposes there are many other ways in which learners’ language skills can be developed better As the major aim of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is to enable students to promote their speaking skills to achieve progress in communicative competence, EFL instructors should create favorable conditions for students to develop their speaking skills This study was an attempt to investigate the possible effects of integrating MI-based activities into developing the EFL students’ speaking skills, and then to find out the students’ evaluation of such an integration of MI-based activities Therefore, to attain those two main objectives, the mixed research method was adopted: the quantitative approach utilizing a quasi-experimental study in which MI-based activities were integrated into an experiment The participants were 60 EFL second-year students from the research site, randomly selected on their voluntary basis and were divided into an experimental group and a control group The possible effects of such an integration of MI-based activities into the speakingtraining program were measured via the means of a pre- and post-test and the questionnaire administered to the experimental group as the two main research instruments The qualitative approach, aiming at collecting some supplementary evidence regarding the participants’ responses Qualitative data were collected from 30 experimental participants via the evaluation form and the interviews with six randomly chosen participants from the experimental group The findings from the English speaking pre-test and post-test revealed significant statistical differences between the participants’ test scores of their EFL oral performances before and after taking part in the instructional intervention The ii results of data analysis of the test scores shows that there was a significant difference (M = 43) in favor of the post-test Such an improvement of the mean score in the post-test indicates that the program had some effects on improving the students’ speaking skills as well as enhancing their learning motivation From the findings of the study, it is also depicted that the participants had positive evaluation of the integration of MI-based activities Their support and satisfaction of the MI-based activities were indicated at high levels in terms of their better perceptions of their specific MI profiles, their acknowledgement of the benefits of the MI-based activities in facilitating their speaking skills, building up their confidence, promoting their learning motivation, and increasing their engagement in the discussion and interaction activities Based on the above-mentioned findings, some implications are proposed from this research regarding the effectiveness of integrating MI-based activities on developing EFL students’ speaking skills, and the feasibility of promoting EFL students’ oral performances by integrating MI-based activities into EFL speaking training programs iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CEFR European Framework of Reference for Languages CLT Communicative Language Teaching EFL English as a Foreign Language ESL English as a Second Language IC Intelligence Center IQ Intelligence Quotient IT Information Technology LC Learner-centered LLS Language Learning Strategy MI Multiple Intelligences MIDAS Multiple Intelligences Developmental Assessment Scales MIT Multiple Intelligences Theory MOET Ministry of Education and Training PBL Project-based Learning EF Evaluation Form SLA Second Language Acquisition SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences TEFL Teaching English as a Foreign Language TPR Total Physical Response ZPD Zone of Proximal Development v LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 3.1 Instruments used in the research 41 Table 3.2 Summary of the procedures of the main study 60 Table 3.3 Stages of analyzing interview data 64 Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of mean performance in pre and post-test 71 Table 4.2 Residuals Statisticsa ………………………………………….… 71 Table 4.3 Case Processing Summary …………………………………… 72 Table 4.4 Test of Homogeneity of Variances …………………………… 72 Table 4.5 Difference between means of pre-test and post-test …………… 72 Table 4.6 Mean score of pre-test in comparison with the accepted mean 73 Table 4.7 Mean score of the post-test in comparison with the good mean 73 Table 4.8 Participants’ English-speaking performances within groups before and after the experimental program 74 Table 4.9 Correlation between the results of the pre-test and the post-test 76 Table 4.10 Means scores of experimental participants’ pre and postquestionnaire 85 Table 4.11 Grouped data for the clusters in the pre-questionnaire 86 Table 4.12 The mean scores of the pre-questionnaire 87 Table 4.13 Comparing mean score of Pre-questionnaire and Scale (NS) 88 Table 4.14 Grouped data for clusters in post-questionnaire 89 Table 4.15 Mean scores of post-questionnaire 89 Table 4.16 Comparing mean score of Post-questionnaire and Scale (“A”) 90 Table 4.17 Participants’ preferred MI-based activities 97 Table 4.18 Summary of the study findings 132 vi Figure 3.3 The research procedures 39 Figure 4.1 Participants’ intelligences profiles 69 Figure 4.2 Participants’ speaking performances reported in pre & post tests (both groups) reported in speaking pre-test and post-test vii 75 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vi TABLE OF CONTENTS viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the study 1.2 Statement of the problem 1.3 Research objectives 1.4 Research questions 1.5 Research scope 1.6 Significance of the study 1.7 Organization of the thesis CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Multiple Intelligences Theory 2.2 Individual differences in an English speaking class 13 2.3 Social Interaction, Learning Styles and Individual Differences 14 2.3.1 Relationship between Multiple Intelligences, Learning Styles, LearnerCenteredness, and Communicative Approach 17 2.3.1.1 Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles 17 2.3.1.2 Learner-centeredness approach 18 2.3.1.3 Communicative approach 19 2.4 Speaking skills 20 2.4.1 Definition of speaking 20 2.4.2 Components of speaking skills 21 viii 2.4.3 Definition of MI-based speaking activities 21 2.4.3.1 Project-based activities ……………………………………………… 24 2.4.3.2 Poster-making activities ……………………………………………… 24 2.4.3.3 Common features between project-based and poster-making activities 25 2.5 Implementing MI-based activities in EFL classrooms 26 2.6 Previous studies relating to the application of MIT 27 2.6.1 Previous studies on integrating MI-based activities in teaching speaking 27 2.6.2 Some viewpoints on integrating MI-based activities into speaking instruction 32 2.7 Chapter summary 35 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 36 3.1 Revisiting the Research Questions 36 3.2 Research design 36 3.3 Research procedures 38 3.4 Research participants 40 3.5 Research instruments 41 3.5.1 MI inventory 42 3.5.2 English-speaking pre-test and post-test 43 3.5.3 Questionnaires 44 3.5.4 Evaluation form 45 3.5.5 Interview 46 3.6 Research context 48 3.7 Roles of the researcher 49 3.8 Ethical issues 49 3.9 Research implementation 50 3.9.1 The pilot study 50 3.9.2 The official study 52 3.9.2.1 Overview 52 3.9.2.2 The Conventional speaking-training program 52 3.9.2.3 The experiment 58 ix 3.9.3 Administering the MI inventory 61 3.9.4 Administering questionnaires 61 3.9.5 Administering speaking pre-test and post-test 62 3.9.6 Administering interviews and evaluation form 62 3.10 Data analysis 63 3.11 Research reliability and validity 65 3.12 Chapter summary 66 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 67 4.1 Effects of integrating MI-based activities 67 4.1.1 Participants’ MI profiles 68 4.1.2 Participants’ speaking performances before and after experiment 69 4.1.2.1 Participants’ speaking performances between two groups 70 4.1.2.2 Comparison of the participants’ speaking performances within the control group prior to and after the experiment 74 4.1.2.3 Comparison of the participants’ speaking performances within the experimental group prior to and after the study 74 4.1.2.4 Exploratory investigation: Correlation between the results of the pretest and the post-test 76 4.2 Discussion of the effects of integrating MI-based activities 77 4.3 Participants’ evaluation of the integration of MI-based activities 83 4.3.1 Participants’ responses in the questionnaires 84 4.3.1.1 Findings from pre-questionnaire 86 4.3.1.2 Findings from post-questionnaire 89 4.3.2 Participants’ responses in the evaluation form 99 4.3.3 Participants’ responses in the interviews 104 4.3.4 Impacts of the extra-curricular speaking-training activities 117 4.4 Discussion of findings on participants’ evaluation of integrating MIbased activities 121 4.4.1 Participants’ perceptions of integrating MI-based activities …………… 121 x 4.4.2 Benefits of integrating MI-based activities …………………………… 124 4.4.3 Participants’ support of integrating MI-based activities ……………… 125 4.4.4 Participants’ preferred MI-based activities suitable with MI profiles … 127 4.4.5 Frequency of using teaching materials ………………………………… 130 4.4.6 Some remaining problems with integrating MI-based activities ……… 131 4.5 Chapter summary 133 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 134 5.1 Summary of the key findings 134 5.2 Pedagogical implications 137 5.3 Limitations of the study 140 5.4 Recommendations for further study 140 REFERENCES 142 AUTHOR’S WORKS 150 LIST OF APPENDICES 151 xi working place become better and cleaner?” (Two pairs English oral of students sitting next to each other are requested to skills work in the same group of 4) (Presentation) Time for group-work discussion: 10 minutes - T gets feedback from Ss Each group sends ONE student to the front of the class, and presents the results of their group work discussion → Feedback: (calling to representatives from all of the groups to give their answers in front of the class) → The audience may ask each speaker some questions relating to the contents of what the speaker has just talked about (Conventional speaking-training method emphasizes on developing students’ linguistic and reasoning skills) POST SPEAKING 30 minutes ACTIVITY 4: Group presentation on “Which place would you prefer to live in: a big city or the country?” - T gives instructions - Ss are requested in group of (2 groups of sitting next to each other are asked to work in a group of 8.) - Time limit for group discussion: 20 minutes Students perform their oral presentation → Feedback: (calling a representatives from each group to perform their oral presentations in front of the class) → The audience may ask each speaker some questions relating to the contents of what the speaker has just talked about - To build up cooperation, promote their creativity and presentation skills (Conventional speaking-training method emphasizes on developing students’ linguistic and reasoning skills) HOMEWORK 10 minutes ASSIGNMENT HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT T asks Ss to a Project on “How to make your campus become a green, clean and beautiful place to study and live.” Contents: - Giving oral descriptions of students’ life at your campus; - Educating and promoting the awareness of Ss on environmental protection; setting up good examples / mirrors of keeping clean and green environment in the community - Time for Project completion: 07 days - Deadline to submit the products: within 07 days T asks Ss to prepare for next week’s speaking-training lesson: “Which is the better place for shopping: street 212 - To build up and develop Ss’ creativity, cooperation, self-study ability, problemsolving skills and presentation skills shopping or a mall?” THE END APPENDIX 22 CAMBRIDGE ENGLISH: FIRST ASSESSMENT SCALES Assessing Speaking Performance – Level B2 Examiners and speaking assessment in the Cambridge English: First exam Speaking tests are conducted by trained examiners The quality assurance of Speaking Examiners (SEs) is managed by Team Leaders (TLs) who are in turn responsible to a Professional Support Leader (PSL), who is the professional representative of Cambridge English Language Assessment for the Speaking tests in a given country or region All of the examiners (PSLs, TLs and SEs) must prove each year, through a certification process, that they are competent to assess In addition, they are regularly monitored during live testing sessions Although candidates take the test in pairs or groups of three, throughout the test they are assessed on their individual performance and not in relation to each other They are awarded marks by two examiners: an assessor and an interlocutor 213 The interlocutor awards a mark for the performance as a whole, using the Global Achievement scale The assessor awards marks for four individual criteria: • • • • Grammar and Vocabulary Discourse Management Pronunciation Interactive Communication How can I use the Assessment Scales? Examiners use the Cambridge Assessment Scales (B2 Level) to decide which marks to give candidates taking the Cambridge Speaking test (B2 Level) Using the scales yourself during classroom speaking practice tasks will help you to: • analyze your students’ strengths and weaknesses when they Cambridge English: First Speaking tasks • Form an impression of how ready your students are to take the Speaking test The Assessment Scales The Cambridge English: First Assessment Scales are divided into six bands from to 5, with being the lowest and the highest Descriptors for each criterion are provided for bands 1, and and indicate what a candidate is expected to demonstrate at each band Cambridge English: First is at Level B2 of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), and the descriptors for band and above generally indicate performance of at least B2 level 214 As you look through the scales, it may help to highlight words which make one band different from another For example, under Grammar and Vocabulary, half of the first descriptor at Band is the same as at Band – Shows a good degree of control of simple grammatical forms Band 3, however, has an additional element: … and attempts some complex grammatical forms At Band 5, the new elements are: a range of simple grammatical forms, and control of … some complex grammatical forms Don’t worry if a lot of the terms used in the scales are new to you – in the Handbook for Teachers you will find a Glossary of Terms for Speaking Although all four analytical criteria are assessed across the whole test, Part (the long turn) is the main opportunity for examiners to assess Discourse Management, and Part tends to be when they focus most on Interactive Communication How can I use the Assessment Scales with students? You could: Refer to the scales as you observe students carrying out a Cambridge English: First speaking task Note down examples of performance in terms of the listed criteria Give students feedback on their strengths and weaknesses 215 Think about whether your students are ready for the exam and how they could improve However, it can be difficult for a teacher to manage a speaking practice task (i.e be the interlocutor), make notes of what the students say and refer to the Assessment Scales, all at the same time The following activities are designed to help you get started On the Cambridge English TV YouTube channel there is a video recording of two candidates called Camilla and Johanna taking the Cambridge English: First Speaking test Please note that this example is for the pre-January 2015 version of Cambridge English: First exam You can click on this link to watch the test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIp8FVs8-f0 The four activities use this recording to practise using the Assessment Scales Activity Make a copy of the blank Grammar and Vocabulary table on page You will see that statements from the Assessment Scales have been turned into questions Watch the Cambridge English: First Speaking video part (about 3½ minutes) Note down examples of what Camilla does well and not so well for each of the questions in the Comments box on the assessment sheet Compare the notes you have made with a completed example on page Activity 2: Make a copy of the blank Discourse Management table on page Watch the Cambridge English: First Speaking video part (from about mins 25 to mins) Note down examples of what Johanna does well and not so well for each of the questions in the Comments box on the assessment sheet Compare the notes you have made with a completed example on page Activity 3: Make a copy of the blank Pronunciation table on page Watch the Cambridge English: First Speaking video (from about 10 mins 30 to the end) Note down examples of what Camilla does well and not so well for each of the questions in the Comments box on the assessment sheet Compare the notes you have made with a completed example on page 10 Activity 4: 216 Make a copy of the blank Interactive Communication table on page Watch the Cambridge English: First Speaking video (from about mins to 10 mins 30) Note down examples of what Johanna does well and not so well for each of the questions in the Comments box on the assessment sheet Compare the notes you have made with a completed example on page 11 Remember: • In a real Cambridge English: First Speaking test the marks awarded reflect a candidate’s performance across the whole exam and not just in one part of it As you become more familiar with the assessment criteria and gain more experience in analysing your students, you will find it easier to focus on all of the criteria during classroom practice tasks • Being able to refer to the Assessment Scales will help you to analyse your students’ strengths and weaknesses and to estimate whether they are ready for the Speaking test However, it won’t necessarily give you an accurate prediction of the marks that your students will achieve in a real test, as the candidate may be affected by other factors such as nervousness Cambridge English: First (LEVEL B2) SPEAKING GRAMMAR & VOCABULARY Name of student: Does the speaker use simple grammatical forms with control? 217 Good Not so good Does the speaker use complex grammatical forms? Good Not so good Does the speaker use a range of appropriate vocabulary? (Everyday situations / familiar topics / wide range of familiar topic s?) Good Not so good Comments Cambridge English: First (LEVEL B2) SPEAKING DISCOURSE MANAGEMENT Name of student: Are the answers of an appropriate length for the task? Is there much hesitation? 218 Good Not so good Are the contributions relevant? Is there much repetition? Is it well organised? Good Not so good Does the speaker use a range of cohesive devices? And discourse markers? Good Not so good Comments: 219 Cambridge English: First (LEVEL B2) SPEAKING PRONUNCIATION Name of student Are the answers clear? Can the speaker be generally understood? Good Not so good Is the speaker’s intonation appropriate? Good Not so good Does the speaker use sentence stress correctly? Is word stress correct? Good Not so good Are individual sounds clear? Are they correctly produced? Good Not so good Comments 220 Cambridge English: First (LEVEL B2) SPEAKING INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATION Name of student: Does the speaker start discussions? Does the speaker introduce new ideas? Good Not so good Does the speaker react appropriately to what the interlocutor or other candidate says? Good Not so good Does the speaker keep the interaction going? Does the speaker say more than the minimum? Does the speaker involve the other candidate? Good Not so good Does the speaker try to move the interaction in an appropriate direction? (‘develop the interaction and negotiate towards an outcome’) Does the speaker need support? Good Not so good 221 APPENDIX 23 The realities of the English speaking skills performed by the participants before the study in terms of Frequency (F) and Percentage (P) Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Items 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 38 39 40 41 SA + A F P 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 25 83.3 25 83.3 30 100.0 28 93.3 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 28 93.3 NS F 5 2 P 16.7 16.7 6.7 6.7 D + SD F P - In this Appendix, “F” stands for “Frequency”, “P” for “Percentage”; “SA” for “Strongly agree”; “A” for “agree”; “NS” for “Not sure”; “D” for “Disagree”; “SD” for “Strongly disagree” 222 APPENDIX 24 The students’ evaluation of integrating MI-based activities aiming at improving their speaking skills in terms of Frequency (F) and Percentage (P) Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Items 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 SA + A F P 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 28 93.3 29 96.6 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 29 96.7 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 29 96.7 23.3 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 223 NS F 1 22 - P 6.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 73.3 - D + SD F P 3.3 - 37 Cluster 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 18 25 24 30 28 30 30 30 30 60.0 83.3 80.0 100.0 93.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 12 - 40.0 16.7 20.0 6.7 - - - In this Appendix, “F” stands for “Frequency”, “P” for “Percentage”; “SA” for “Strongly agree”; “A” for “agree”; “NS” for “Not sure”; “D” for “Disagree”; “SD” for “Strongly disagree” 224 APPENDIX 25 Statistics on Participants’ answers to the evaluation form in terms of Percentage Items Options In the English Very difficult speaking pre-test, the Difficult 04 parts were: OK Easy Very easy Prior to the You lacked of self-confidence; experimental study, Your English speaking skills were quite limited; your difficulties were You had limited English vocabulary; then because: Your teachers did not use a lot of pictures or visual aids in the English speaking training lessons; You were not familiar with using information technology in supporting your oral presentations; The fixed structures and designs of your classroom furniture were inconvenient in conducting speaking activities; The methods of assessment used previously in tests and exams did not encourage your speaking skills; Your classroom activities were not greatly diversified to be suitable with your learning styles; Percentage 53.3% 30% 13.4% 3.3% 0% 100% 93.3% 86.7% 90% In the English Very difficult speaking post-test, the Difficult 04 parts were: OK Easy Very easy After participating You lacked self-confidence; in the experimental Your English speaking skills were quite limited; study, your You had limited English vocabulary; difficulties now are Your teachers did not use a lot of pictures or visual because: aids in the English speaking training lessons; You were not familiar with using information technology in supporting your oral presentations; The fixed structures and designs of your classroom furniture were inconvenient in conducting speaking activities; The methods of assessment used in tests and exams 10% 30% 53.3% 6.7% 0% 46.7% 30% 53.3% 0% 225 83.3% 93.3% 76.7% 96.7% 10% 13.3% 20% Do you like these kinds of MI activities integrated into your speaking lessons? How you rate the MI activities which I designed and conducted in the experimental study? Do you agree that the integration with MI activities has resulted in your higher learning motivation and classroom participation? Do you think that your speaking skills will continue to be developed in the future if you are always encouraged to integrate MI in activities? How much has your intelligences profiles changed after participating in this study? did not encourage your speaking skills; Your classroom activities were not greatly diversified to be suitable with your learning styles; 6.7% Yes, I No, I don’t Neutral 86.7 0% 13.3% Very good Good Normal Bad Very bad Yes, I No, I don’t Neutral 53.3% 40% 6.7% 0% Yes, I No, I don’t Neutral 100% 0% 0% From 1% to 25% From 26% to 50% From 51% to 75% From 76% to 100% 0% 76.7% 20% 3.3% 0% 86.7% 0% 13.3% 226 ... from 30 experimental participants via the evaluation form and the interviews with six randomly chosen participants from the experimental group The findings from the English speaking pre-test... This reality is reflected in the results of their language tests and examinations, from the high-school graduation exams in general English to the communicative skills tests in particular at tertiary... such a literature 2.1 Multiple Intelligences Theory Multiple Intelligences Theory (MIT) is a psychological and educational theory developed and refined gradually by Gardner (1983), in which this