Teaching of Weather Forecasts and Seasons by Multiple Intelligences in EFL/ESL Classrooms
Gökhan Bas, Turkey
Gokhan BAS is an English Language Teacher in Nigde city, Turkey. He has a BA degree in English Language Teaching from Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey. He has had articles published in national and international journals. He is currently having his MSc degree at Selcuk University Educational Sciences (Educational Administration and Supervision) Department in Konya. He has taught English in various schools in Konya and Nigde cities in Turkey. He is studying Multiple Intelligences, Cooperative Learning, CALL, Brain-Based Learning, Project-Based Learning, Teaching-Learning processes, TQM, Educational Administration, and the Turkish Educational System. He is still teaching English in Karatli Sehit Sahin Yilmaz Elementary School, Nigde, Turkey. E-mail: gokhan51bas@gmail.com
Menu
Introduction
Vocabulary teaching and learning in EFL/ESL classrooms
Multiple Intelligences Theory and Education
Other Intelligences
Application of MI Theory to “Teaching of Weather Forecasts and Seasons”
Conclusion
References
Teaching a foreign language is a difficult process because everything is new and strange for learners of it. The need to learn and teach a foreign language has arisen from the unavoidable fact that is the growth of international trade, scientific research and tourism which require people to speak to each other to make demands and meet them. For this reason a tremendous amount of efforts has been made on the teaching of foreign languages on earth. Therefore, the methodological issue in teaching various language skills and areas has been a matter of discussion for ages (Saricoban, 2001).
Bruner (1983) investigated why children find school learning so difficult. He discovered that this was because children experienced it as very separate from their real lives. His theory of learning is essentially “constructivist”, a model of learning in which the child is seen as an “active agent” in his or her own learning, retaining, selecting and transforming information to construct knowledge which is shaped by his or her unique way of seeing and interpreting the world (Bas and Kuzucu, 2009; Brooks and Brooks, 1999; Sunbul, 2007; Yurdakul, 2004). Bruner (1983) also thought that the child’s learning is a process, not merely a product, which can be accelerated or enhanced by social and group processes.
The work of Vygotsky (1978) is also very important since he emphasised the role of “social atmosphere/interaction”. He sees children as constructing their understating from the social interaction of their learning contexts with all its possibilities and limitations. In this regard, as Anning (1991) suggests that children are unique in what they bring to the learning experience but tend to draw on the same kinds of learning strategy. This means that we must think of learners as having individual differences so that teachers need to pay attention to the organisation of their classrooms. They must also consider their students’ “learning styles” (Dunn, 1990, 2000; Cekic, 2003) and different “intelligence types / profiles” (Gardner, 1993, 1999; Goleman, 1995, 2009; McCallum, 2008). As teachers must consider their students’ intelligence profiles and learning styles and they must also consider them as having individuals, they must use the modern language learning methods and approaches in their classroom in order to create an atmosphere which pays attention to learners with different learning preferences. In the learning environment, it is essential that the learning atmosphere must be “student-centred” so that students in this atmosphere must do the activities by themselves or in other words they must adopt the responsibility of their own learning (Abbott and Ryan, 1999; Bas, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Brooks and Brooks, 1999; Senemoglu, 2004; Yurdakul, 2004). There are new methods developed which pay attention to “student-centred” learning environments in EFL/ESL classrooms. One of the favourite and mostly adopted foreign language teaching / learning methods is “the theory of multiple intelligences” (Bas, 2008a; Berman, 1998; Christison, 1996; Puchta and Rinvolucri, 2007).
Meaningful learning, storage and the retrieval of the vocabulary items in English as a foreign language is the common problem encountered in teaching and learning process (Can, 2007). Vocabulary, ‘without which a language is meaningless’, is an important aspect in all language teaching because “language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols, which permit all people in a given culture or other people who have learnt the system of that culture to communicate or to interact (Finocchioro, 1964: 8 as cited in Saricoban, 2001: 23). Nowadays it is widely accepted that vocabulary teaching should be part of the syllabus and lesson, and taught in a well-planned and regular basis. Some authors argue that vocabulary should be at the centre of language teaching, because “language consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar” (Lewis, 1993) so that vocabulary teaching especially in primary and elementary levels is fundamental since students are so much eager to learn and use new language and more active as they are learning new things in / about a foreign language. As students grow older, they are reluctant to learn new things since if they start to learn new vocabulary in a language in earlier ages, they will not have much trouble in the future when they are adolescents and adults.
While everyone might possess eight intelligences, they are not equally developed in any one individual. Some teachers feel that they need to create activities that draw on all eight, not only to facilitate language acquisition amongst diverse students, but also to help them realise their full potential with all eight. One way of doing so is to think about the activities that are frequently used in the classroom and to categorise them according to intelligence type (Larsen-Freeman, 2000: 170).
If we accept that different intelligences predominate in different people, it suggests that the same learning task may not be appropriate for all our students. While people with a strong logical / mathematical intelligence might respond well to a complex grammar explanation, a different student might need to comfort of diagrams and physical demonstration because their strengths is in the visual / spatial area. Other students who have a strong interpersonal intelligence may require a more interactive climate if their learning is to be effective (Harmer, 2001: 47).
Intelligence has traditionally been defined in terms of intelligence quotient (IQ), which measures a narrow range of verbal/linguistic and logical/mathematical abilities (Christison, 1996). Gardner (1993) argues that humans possess a number of distinct intelligences that manifest themselves in different skills and abilities. All human beings apply these intelligences to solve problems, invent processes, and create things. Intelligence, according to MI theory, is being able to apply one or more of the intelligences in ways that are valued by a community or culture.
The current Multiple Intelligences Theory outlines eight intelligences, although Gardner (1993, 1999) continues to explore additional possibilities:
- Verbal / Linguistic Intelligence: The ability to use language effectively both orally and in writing.
- Logical/Mathematical Intelligence: The ability to use numbers effectively and reason well.
- Visual/Spatial Intelligence: The ability to recognise form, space, colour, line, and shape and to graphically represent visual and spatial ideas.
- Bodily/Kinaesthetic Intelligence: The ability to use the body to express ideas and feelings and to solve problems.
- Musical Intelligence: The ability to recognise rhythm, pitch, and melody.
- Interpersonal Intelligence: The ability to understand another person's feelings, motivations, and intentions and to respond effectively.
- Intrapersonal Intelligence: The ability to know about and understand oneself and recognise one's similarities to and differences from others.
- Naturalist Intelligence: The ability to recognise and classify plants, minerals, and animals.
The theory of Multiple Intelligences offers eight ways of teaching and learning styles. In this regard, armed with the knowledge and application of the multiple intelligences, teachers can ensure they provide enough variety in the activities they use so that as much of their pupils’ learning potential can be tapped as possible (Bas, 2008a, 2008c; Berman, 1998).
The younger the learners the more physical activity they tend to need and the more they need to make use of all their senses (Brewster, Ellis and Girard, 2003). According to Berman (1998), if children can draw or visualise an image, hum it or move through it first, they may be able to more easily talk or write about it. On the basis of the theory of multiple intelligences in this regard, children can also draw a picture while listening to a description, act out a nursery rhyme, follow instructions or make a shape or simple model while they listen to a description of it. This draws on learning by the ear and eye and is good for those with bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence.
Gardner (1993) states in his book Frames of Mind as “I assume that there will be continued give-and-take on the controversial aspects of MI theory; I hope for continued theoretical progress as well” (p. xxvii). So that he considers “future multiple intelligences”; he is conscious and hopefull for the existence of “future intelligences”.
Not only Howard Gardner suggested “intelligence styles” for the theory of multiple intelligences, but also Daniel Goleman (1995) has suggested an additional intelligence style to the list of original multiple intelligences. He has added a ninth intelligence style which he calls “Emotional Intelligence”. Goleman sees this type of intelligence out of the “intrapersonal intelligence” in the original list of the theory of multiple intelligences. This type of intelligence can be described as below:
- Emotional Intelligence: The ability to understand their emotions and the emotions of others and act appropriately based on this understanding.
Daniel Goleman (2009) and Ian McCallum (2008) have suggested a intelligence style which they call “ecological intelligence” so that they see “ecological intelligence” out of the naturalist intelligence of Gardner. They define this type of intelligence as:
- Ecological Intelligence: Ecological Intelligence recasts the uproar over global warming and the assault of man-made toxins into our bodies in terms of the collective self-deception which both created this crisis and holds a key to its solution. Ecological Intelligence argues that “green labels” and recycling programs may do more harm than good by feeding a vital lie, lulling us into the illusion that we are doing enough already while ignoring the adverse impact of the far vaster proportion of what we buy and do.
Gardner (1999, 2000b) nominated a different intelligence, namely “spiritual intelligence”. Although he nominates a different intelligence, he is unsure whether to accept the existence of it. According to Gardner (1999, 2000b), there are problems, for example, around the “content” of spiritual intelligence, its privileged but unsubstantiated claims with regard to truth value, and the need for it to be partially identified through its effect on other people. However, there are studies (Vaughan, 2002; Wolman, 2001; Zohar and Marshall, 2000) on spiritual intelligence that they accept it as an intelligence type. In this regard, the spiritual intelligence can be described as below:
- Spiritual Intelligence: This intelligence introduces the concept as an expansion of psychology as a science, and posits the need for a new psychological model of the human self and of human personality (Zohar and Marshall, 2000). Spiritual intelligence calls for multiple ways of knowing and for the integration of the inner life of mind and spirit with the outer life of work in the world. It can be cultivated through questing, inquiry, and practice. Spiritual experiences may also contribute to its development, depending on the context and means of integration. Spiritual maturity is expressed through wisdom and compassionate action in the world. Spiritual intelligence is necessary for discernment in making spiritual choices that contributes to psychological well-being and overall healthy human development (Vaughan, 2002).
One of the popular vocabulary of English (or most of the languages) is the learning of “weather forecast and seasons of the year”. Since learning of these vocabularies can be used daily by everyone so they can be defined as “everyday vocabulary”. For this reason, it is generally accepted that these vocabularies should be learnt by language learners.
The term “working station” has been developed by Armstrong (2000). These stations can be given some names which reflect their favourite personalities (writer, artist, naturalist, musician, vs. such as Shakespeare, Newton, Beethoven, Van Gogh, etc. working stations). Students work in ten working stations in the vocabulary learning process of “weather forecasts and seasons of the year”.
In learning “weather forecast and seasons of the year” vocabulary, they can be learnt by at least by ten ways and in the teaching process of these vocabularies these intelligence types of the theory of multiple intelligences can be used easily and effectively. In teaching of these vocabularies, the following activities are suggested to be used in order to create an effective classroom atmosphere and to motivate the students to join the lesson voluntarily and have fun in the learning process.
1. Verbal / Linguistic Intelligence (Shakespeare Working Station)
Since verbal / linguistic intelligence is “the ability to use words and language”, students can be taught weather forecasts and seasons of the year linguistically. In learning these vocabularies, students can listen to the sounds of weather forecasts and seasons and read about these vocabularies. They can also compare these vocabularies with their native language and state the differences and similarities. Students can play vocabulary games ob these vocabularies with their friends in groups and individually.
Students can write or / and read things which include weather forecasts and seasons of the year. Additionally, they can be made to create a “word chart of seasons” and then play it with their friends in the class with role-play or vs.
2. Logical / Mathematical Intelligence (Newton Working Station)
Logical / Mathematical intelligence is “the ability to use reason, logic and numbers, vs.”. In this intelligence type, students can create a chart of weather forecasts of their city for a week or month. They can be made to write clothes / fruits, vs. for each season and weather forecast and also calculate the total number of snowy, rainy, cloudy, etc. days in a month or a season, write a report on it and then present is to the class. They can also produce word puzzles and think over the natural events and categorise them according to the seasons. In addition, they can play computer games including weather forecast and seasons of the year and then do ordering activities on paper forms or on the Internet.
3. Visual / Spatial Intelligence (Van Gogh Working Station)
Visual / Spatial intelligence is “the ability to perceive the visual, draw, build, design and create things, daydream, look at pictures, watch movies read maps, vs.”. In this intelligence style students can build puzzles, charts and graphs on weather forecast and seasons of the year. They can draw pictures of the target vocabulary and state their favourite season(s) with colours.
Students can also be made to create a “chart of seasons” and “weather forecast profile” of their own city for a week or month and then demonstrate them with pictures or illustrations to the students in the class. They can also write stories with pictures about the seasons or / and weather forecasts.
4. Musical / Rhythmic Intelligence (Beethoven Working Station)
Since Musical / Rhythmic intelligence is “the ability to produce and appraise music, sing, hum, tunes, play an instrument, respond to music, etc.”, students in this intelligence style can listen to, memorise and then sing songs which include “seasons and weather forecasts”. Students can create sounds of weather forecasts (sounds of rain, storm, vs. / sunny, cloudy, vs. weather) and then turn this activity into a game and play it by guessing the weather forecasts and seasons of the year according to the sound(s) created. They can also write poems and compose it and then sing it with a musical instrument. Students can listen to the sounds of weather forecasts and seasons then dramatise them according to given sound(s).
5. Bodily / Kinaesthetic Intelligence (Charles Chaplin Working Station)
Bodily / Kinaesthetic intelligence is stated as “the ability to control body movements, handle objects skilfully, touch and talk, use body language (mime and gestures), vs.”. In this intelligence style students can mime the weather forecasts and seasons, demonstrate and present them in the classroom. May be they can want their friends to remember the target vocabulary according to the given movement(s). For example they can handle an umbrella and then walk through the class as if it is raining and want from their friends to estimate the target vocabulary.
Additionally, students in the classroom can create sounds of weather forecasts and seasons as a game and they can want a friend of them (a player in a game selected randomly) to dramatise the given weather forecast(s) or season(s) by their movements. Plus, students can also create stories and then act them in the class which includes the target vocabulary. In this learning style students can create weather forecasts and / or seasons crafts or make posters of them and then demonstrate them in the class or school.
6. Intrapersonal Intelligence (Mevlana Working Station)
Since Intrapersonal intelligence is “the ability to self-reflect, be aware of one’s inner state of being, work alone, pursue own interests, vs.”, students in this intelligence style can create projects individually and write self reports / compositions on the target vocabulary.
Students can also create an “emotions chart” and then write or draw the picture of his / her own emotions according to the weather forecasts and / or seasons. In other words, students are made to write / draw or dramatise feelings or emotions in winter, summer, vs. seasons or rainy, snowy, cloudy, vs. weather forecast reports of their won city for a week or month and also calculate the total number of rainy, snowy, sunny, vs. days of that week or month. They can listen to, compose songs and read stories which include the target vocabulary.
7. Interpersonal / Social Intelligence (Gandhi Working Station)
Interpersonal / Social intelligence is defined as “the ability to relate and understand others, talk to people, join and make things in groups, vs.”.
In this intelligence style, students can create posters or projects within groups or pairs so that they are made to work collaboratively by this way. Students can make interviews, for example which deal with “likes / dislikes” of people about the weather forecasts and seasons and then they can demonstrate the results of their interviews in the class with a report. Students can also create dramas by using the target vocabulary and they can make comparisons amongst the weather forecasts and seasons.
8. Natural Intelligence (Darwin Working Station)
Since Natural intelligence is defined as “the ability to recognise and classify patterns in nature”, students in this intelligence style can define the natural changes in different seasons and weather forecasts. They can create a poster deals with the colours / flowers / fruits / clothes, vs. of each season that shows the changes on people and in the nature. They can also state some of the animals in which season they live the best (or their favourite) with a poster. Students can make graphs and charts of weather forecasts of their city and show weather changes on them. Additionally, they can also draw pictures of the environment which includes weather forecast and season changes on them.
In conclusion, students can be organised to be taught the “weather forecasts and seasons of the year” in at least ten ways of multiple intelligences working stations (Armstrong, 2000). Every student must visit each working station and join in the groups and do the activities dealing with the content target of each station.
In selecting students for the working stations of multiple intelligences, teachers may adopt two options in this process. Firstly, teachers can appoint each student in different working stations according to their “intelligence type preferences”. For example, the teacher can ask some questions to student which deal with different intelligence styles and then select the students and place them in the working stations. Students in these working stations (or groups) work collaboratively and then at the end of the group process the students in each working station create one or more projects which reflects the identity and content of their working station. Teachers can use Multiple Intelligences supported Project-based learning in their lessons in order to enhance the learning environment in the classroom. This not only enriches the learning atmosphere, but it also makes positive effects on their academic achievement levels and attitudes towards the lesson indeed. In a research carried out by Bas (in review) has found out that this method not only has positive effects on their academic achievement, but also it has positive effects on their attitudes towards the lesson.
Secondly, teachers can let the students not to work in groups but he / she makes the students join in the works of at least five or six working stations. At the end of this process, teachers can want their students to create a project individually or in groups or he / she can make an examination which reflects the jobs of each working station. But it is recommended the teachers to organise their students within a group (working station) so that they must ensure the collaboratively process in the classroom. Yet collaborative processes make students have high achievement levels and attitudes towards the lesson. It is stated in some researches (Acikgoz, 1992; Bas, in press; Gomleksiz, 1993; Johnson, Johnson and Smith, 1998; Sharan and Sharan, 1990; Slavin, 1995, 1996) that creating a collaborative language learning atmosphere in the class have positive effects on students. As can be seen easily in each working station in this article, nearly all of the working stations, except intrapersonal intelligence working station, support the “collaborative atmosphere” in the learning environment.
In the classroom, teachers need to keep in mind that all students have at least eight intelligences, but differ in the strengths. Gardner (1993, 1999) discovered that these intelligences are not fixed but malleable capacities which can be enhanced by educational opportunities. So, teachers should exercise teaching methods and activities to develop students’ intelligences (Armstrong, 2000). Each student’s learning style and intelligences should be respected because the teachers’ attitude toward students’ ability will influence the ways teacher’s present material to their students and the methods to evaluate students’ capacity. If we can provide opportunities for authentic learning based on students’ interest, talents, and needs, students will be able to present their strengths, while acquiring more motivations to be an “expert” and leading to increased confidence. Thus, it is extremely important to develop a curriculum that can nurture the undeveloped intelligences and strengthen the developed ones. In fact, this new curriculum based on MI theory can be used for students with weak linguistic and logical intelligences. With the implementation of MI, it is clear that a more “student-centered” curriculum is necessary (Gardner, 2000a). Gardner's (1993, 1999, 2000a) purpose in Multiple Intelligences Theory is to create “real life” learning situations for learners. For this reason, teachers need to help students link their prior knowledge with the to-be-learned information so that students can apply what they have learned in the classroom to the real outside world. Once the knowledge is gained, students will have ability to solve their own problems in new situations and become successful learners (Brooks and Brooks, 1999; Yurdakul, 2004).
Abbott, J. and Ryan, T. (1999). Constructing Knowledge, Reconstructing Schooling. Educational Leadership. 57(3), 66-69.
Acikgoz, K. U. (1992). Cooperative, Competitive and Traditional Activities in Foreign Language achievement and retention” TESOL 25th Annual Convention and Exposition. New York, March 24-28.
Anning, A. (1991). The First Year at School. Ballmoor: Open University Press.
Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. (Second Edition). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bas, G. (2008a). Integrating Multiple Intelligences in EFL/ESL Classrooms. The Internet TESL Journal. 14(5), May. http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Bas-IntegratingMultipleIntelligences.html
Bas, G. (2008b). Implementation of Multiple Intelligences Supported Project-Based Learning in EFL/ESL Classrooms. ERIC Document. (ED503870)
Bas, G. (2008c). Sinif Yonetiminde Coklu Zeka. Egitisim Dergisi. Sayi: 22, Mart.
Bas, G. and Kuzucu, O. (2009). Effects of CALL Method and DynED Language Programme on Students’ Achievement Levels and Attitudes Towards the Lesson in English Classes. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 6(7), 31-44.
Bas, G. (in review). Effects of Multiple Intelligences Supported Project-Based Learning on Students’ Achievement Levels and Attitudes Towards English Lesson. Novitas-Royal Journal.
Bas, G. (in press). Ingilizce Dersinde Isbirlikli Ogrenme Yonteminin Ogrencilerin Erisisi, Derse Karsi Tutumlarina ve Ogrenilenlerin Kaliciligina Etkisi. Milli Egitim Dergisi.
Berman, M. (1998). A Multiple Intelligences Road to an ELT Classroom. Bencyfelin: Crown House.
Brewster, J., Ellis, G. and Girard, D. (2003). The Primary English Teacher's Guide. (New Edition). London: Penguin Books
Brooks, J. G. and Brooks, M. G. (1999). In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. (Revised Edition). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Can, E. (2007). Art and Craft Activities in Vocabulary Teaching: A Case Study with the 5th Grade Students at a State Primary School. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Cukurova Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, Adana.
Cekic, H. (2003). Matching Learners and Teaching Styles and Its Effect on Learning Foreign Language Grammar and Reading. Anadolu Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi. 13(2), 59-67.
Christison, M. A. (1996). Teaching and Learning Language through Multiple Intelligences. TESOL Journal. Autumn, pp. 10-14.
Dunn, R. (2000). Learning Styles: Theory, Research, and Practice. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal. 13(1), 3–22.
Dunn, R. (1990). Rita Dunn Answers Questions on Learning Styles. Educational Leadership. 48, 10-12.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. (Second Edition). London: Fontana Press.
Gardner, H. (1999). Are There Additional Intelligences? The Case for Naturalist, Spiritual, and Existential Intelligences. In J. Kane (Ed.). Education, Information and Transformation.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gardner, H. (2000a). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. (Second Edition). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Gardner, H. (2000b). A Case Against Spiritual Intelligence. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. 10(1), 27-34.
Gomleksiz, M. (1993). Kubasik Ogrenme Yontemi ile Geleneksel Yontemin Demokratik Tutumlar ve Erisiye Etkisi. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Cukurova Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, Adana.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It can Matter More Than IQ? New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (2009). Ecological Intelligence: How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy can Change Everything. Williamsburg, MA: Doubleday Business.
Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. (Third Edition). Harlow: Longman.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. and Smith, K. (1998). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Larsen-freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles of Language Teaching. (Second Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and a Way Forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
McCallum, I. (2008). Ecological Intelligence: Rediscovering Ourselves in Nature. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing.
Puchta, H. and Rinvolucri, M. (2007). Multiple Intelligences in EFL: Exercises for Secondary and Adults Students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saricoban, A. (2001). The Teaching of Language Skills. Ankara: Hacettepe-Tas.
Sharan, Y. and Sharan, S. (1990). Group Investigation Expands Cooperative Learning. Educational Leadership. 47(4), 17-21.
Senemoglu, N. (2004). Gelisim, Ogrenme ve Ogretim: Kuramdan Uygulamaya. (9. Baski). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative Learning. (Second Edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Slavin, R. (1996). Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know, What We Need to Know? Contemporary Educational Psychology. 21, 43-69.
Sunbul, A. M. (2007). Ogretim Ilke ve Yontemleri. Konya: Cizgi Kitabevi.
Teele, S. (2005). Teele Inventory for Multiple Intelligences. Redlands, CA: Teele & Associates.
Vaughan, F. (2002). What is Spiritual Intelligence? Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 42(2), 16-33.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Yurdakul, B. (2004). Yapılandırmaci Ogrenme Yaklasiminin Ogrenenlerin Problem Cozme Becerilerine, Bilisotesi Farkindalik ve Derse Yonelik Tutum Duzeylerine Etkisi ile Ogrenme Surecine Katkilari. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Hacettepe Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, Ankara.
Wolman, R. (2001). Thinking with Your Soul: Spiritual Intelligence and What It Matters. New York: Harmony Books.
Zohar, D. and Marshall, I. (2000). Spiritual Intelligence: The Ultimate Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Please check the Teaching English Through Multiple Intelligences course at Pilgrims website.
|
