Relationship of Multiple Inteligences Profiles with Area of Concentration in High School and University Entrance Exam Scores

Year 2006, Volume: 46 Issue: 46, 157 - 174, 01.07.2006

Doç. Dr. Ali Azar

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine relationship of multiple itelligence profiles with university entrance exam scores and area of concentration in high schools. Study group were 200 high school graduates. Multiple Intelligences Inventory (MII) was used to collect data about multiple intelligences profile of students. Differences in MII scores by area of concentration (namely, turkish-linguistic, mathematics and other areas) were tested by using ANOVA. Differences in MII scores by gender were tested by using t-test and correlations between MII scores and university entrance exam scores were computed . Findings indicated only linguistic intelligence and logical-matehmatical intelligences scores showed significant diffrences by area of concentration. There were no significant differences by gender. Turkish-linguistic scores in university entrance exam showed significant positive correlation with linguistic, interpersonal and naturalist intelligences and a negative significant correlation with logical mathematical, spatial and bodily-kinesthetic intelligences. Mathematical score in university entrance exam showed a significant negative correlation only with linguistic intelligence. Summary Enrollment in undergraduate programs is one of the major educational problems of Turkey. High number of students desiring to enroll in a graduate program and inadequate number of available program made the centralized university entrance exam necessary to select students for undergraduate programs in Turkey (Kelecioğlu, 2002). Since students are not guided to specific fields that match their skills and preferences, number of students who enrolled in undergraduate programs that match their skills and preferences is relatively low. It is also known that many students drop from their undergraduate programs in their first year because of the mismatch between their abilities and preferences, and goals and expectations of undergraduate programs that they are enrolled. Intelligence has already been defined by educational psychologists in different ways. According to these definitions, sometimes intelligence is a score obtained from a test and sometimes adaptation to an environment, and sometimes intelligence is taught as a problem solving capacity. Intelligence has been characterized as an important factor to define individual differences which is related to the mental development is measured by various intelligence assessment tools. The theory, which rejects the belief that those students who can not learn is not successful, points out the importance of designing educational activities according to students' types of intelligence. Most educational activities in school are planned according to students' analytic and arithmetic intelligence. It is often assumed that if students' analytic and arithmetic intelligence are highly developed, students are successful as a result of educational activity. If students have not fully developed their analytic and arithmetic intelligence, they become not successful. Problem This study examines the relationship of multiple itelligence profiles with university entrance exam scores and area of concentration in high schools. Specifically, following questions were investigated under the primary purpose of this study: 1.Are there diffrences in multiple intelligence scores by area of concentration and by gender? 2.Are there significant relationships between multiple itelligence scores and university entrance exam scores? Method The study population consisted of high school graduates and seniors who enrolled in a university entrance exam preparation courses between 2003 and 2004 in Kayseri and Kdz Ereğli. The total of 200, 30 graduate and 170 high school seniors, participants were selected from the study population using random selection. The Multiple Intelligences Inventory adapted from Özden (2003) was used as an instrument in this study. The inventory is a likert-scale type and it has ten sections and eighty items. Each items in the inventory has five categories and these categories are 0-strangly disagree, 1- disagree, 3- undecided, 4- agree, 5- strongly agree. All participating students completed the inventory and returned them to researchers. Analysis Differences in MII scores by area of concentration (namely, turkish-linguistic, mathematics and other areas) were tested by using ANOVA. Differences in MII scores by gender were tested by using t-test and correlations between MII scores and university entrance exam scores were computed. Results and Discussion The statistical analysis indicated that the level of scores measuring the linguistic and analytic intelligence of students who graduated from high school with Turkish-Math concentration was higher than other students graduated from high school with different concentrations. The results of this study are consisted with the studies conducted by Hamurcu in 2002, and Oral in 2001. Also results showed that visual and linguistic intelligence of males are higher than females which supported results other studies (Bennet, 1996; Furnham, Clark &Bailey, 1999; Furnham &Fong, 2000; Hamurcu, 2002; Loori, 2005; Loori, 2005). Results of this study should not be used to make generalization for other students group because of the limited sample size. Further studies should investigate the question with more subjects representing all students in Turkey.

Keywords

multiple intelligences , university entrance exam , placement in universities

Lisede Seçilen Alan ve ÖSS Alan Puanları ile Çoklu Zekâ Profilleri Arasındaki İlişki

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, öğrencilerin Çoklu Zekâ Envanteri'nden aldıkları puanlarının lisede seçtikleri alan türü ve ÖSS'de aldıkları puan türleri arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Çalışma, Kayseri il merkezi ile Zonguldak Kdz. Ereğli ilçe merkezindeki özel dersanelerde 2004 ÖSS'ye hazırlanan lise son sınıf ve önceki yıllarda liseden mezun olmuş öğrenciler üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Öğrencilerin zekâ alanlarını belirlemek için “Çoklu Zekâ Envanteri” kullanılmıştır. Çoklu zeka envanteri puanlarının alanlara göre farklılığının test edilmesi için ANOVA, cinsiyete göre farklılığının test edilmesi için ise t-testi kullanılmıştır. Çoklu zeka envanteri puanları ile ÖSS puan türleri arasındaki ilişki korelasyon katsayıları ile incelenmiştir. Araştırma bulguları çoklu zeka envanteri puanlarının yalnızca sözel zeka ve mantıksal zeka alanlarında lisede seçilen alana göre farklılık gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Çoklu zeka envanteri puanları tüm zeka alanlarında cinsiyete göre bir farklılık göstermemiştir. Üniversiteye girişte sözel puan türü çoklu zeka envanteri puanlarından sözel zeka, sosyal zeka ve doğa zekası puanları ile pozitif bir ilişki; mantıksal zeka, görsel zeka ve bedensel zeka puanları ile ise negatif bir ilişki göstermiştir. Üniversiteye girişte sayısal puan ise sadece sözel zeka ile negatif anlamlı bir ilişki göstermiştir.

Keywords

çoklu zekâ kuramı , ÖSS , çoklu zekâ envanteri

References

• Azar, A., Presley, A. I. & Balkaya, Ö.(2006). Çoklu Zekâ Kuramı Temelli Öğretimin Öğrencilerin Başarı, Tutum, Hatırlama ve Bilişsel Süreç Becerilerine Etkileri, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, 67-75.
• Bryman, A & Cramer, D.(2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for windows: A guide for social scientist. New York:Routledge.
• Bennet, M.(1996). Men’s and women’s self-estimates of intelligence. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 411-412.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş.(2002). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Demircioğlu, H. & Güneysu, S.(2000). Eğitimde yeni hedefler ve Çoklu Zekâ Yaklaşımı, Çocuk Gelişimini ve Eğitimi Dergisi, 1(2), 47-50.
• Dökmen, Ü.(1992). Öğrenci Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi, Kuruluşu, Gelişmesi, Çalışmaları, ÖSYM Yayınları, Ankara.
• Furnham, A., & Fong, G.(2000). Self-estimated and psychologiacally measured intelligence: A cross-cultural and sex differences study of British and Singaporean students. North American Journal of Psychology, 2, 191-200.
• Furnham, A., Clark, K., & Bailey, K(1999). Sex differences in estimates of multiple intelligences. European Journal of Personality, 13, 247-259.
• Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: A Division of Harper Collins Publishers.
• Goodnough, K. (2001). Multiple intelligences theory: A framework for personalizing science curricula. School Science and Mathematics, 101(4), 180–193.
• Haggarty, B. A. (1995). Nurturing multiple intelligences. A guide to multiple intelligences theory and teaching. New York Addison Wesley.
• Hamurcu, H., Günay, Y. & Özyılmaz, G. (2002) Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Fen Bilgisi ve Sınıf Öğretmenliği Bölümü Öğrencilerinin Çoklu Zeka Kuramına Dayalı Profilleri. (http://www.fedu.metu.tr/ufbmek-5/özetler/d113.pdf)
• Kagan, S, & Kagan, M. (1998). Multiple intelligences The complete MI book. San Clemente: CA Kagan Cooperative Learning.
• Kaptan F. & Korkmaz, H. (2001). Çoklu zekâ kuramı tabanlı fen öğretiminin öğrenci başarısı ve tutumuna etkisi, Hacettepe Universitesi IV. Fen Bilimleri Egitimi Kongresi Bildiri Kitabi, 169-174.
• Kelecioğlu, H. (2002). Ortaöğretim Başarı Puanlarının Üniversiteye Girişte İki Aşamalı Sınavda Uygulanan ÖYS ÖSS ve Tek Aşamalı Sınavda Uygulanan ÖSS İle İlişkileri, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23, 135–144.
• Klein, P. D. (1997). Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight. A critique of Gardner’s theory. Canadian Journal of Education, 22 (4), 377– 394.
• Korkmaz, H. (2001). Çoklu zekâ kuramı tabanlı etkin öğrenme yaklaşımının öğrenci başarısına ve tutumuna etkisi, Eğitim ve Bilim, 8, 165-174
• Köroğlu, H., C. Günhan, B., Yeşildere, S.(2002). İlköğretim 6.sınıfta ölçüler konusunun öğretiminde Çoklu zekâ kuramına göre matematik öğretimi, V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, 1057- 1064.
• Loori, Ali A. (2005). Multiple intelligences: A comperative study between the preferences of males and females. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(1), 77- 88.
• Morgan, H. (1996). An analysis of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. Roeper Review, 18(4), 263–269.
• Oral, B. (2001). Branşlarına Göre Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Zeka Alanlarının İncelenmesi. (http://www.fedu.metu.tr/ufbmek-5/özetler/d118.pdf.)
• Özden, Y. (2003). Öğrenme ve Öğretme. Ankara: pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Sternberg, R. J.(1994). How much gall is too much gall? A review of frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences. Contemporary Education Review, 2 (3), 215–224.
• Kezar, A. (2001). Theory of Multiple Intelligences: Implications for Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education, 26(2), 141-154.
• Karasar, N. (1995). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi.(5.basım).Ankara:Senem Matbaacılık.