The Weaknesses of “Using Instruments/Inventories” for Determining Multiple Intelligences Profiles

The current study was conducted with the purpose of discovering the incompetence of instrument/inventory usage that 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade teachers utilize to determine their students’ multiple intelligences profiles. By this way, the study specifically aims to portray “what” and “what should be” for determining multiple intelligences profiles from methodological dimensions of “using instruments/inventories.” The study was an action research through employing criterion sampling method. There were various groups of participants involved in this study. Interviews, observations, and written document analysis were the main data collection methods. Data collection instruments and procedures included interview logs, observation forms, observation notes, evaluation of existing instruments including the Teele Inventory for Multiple Intelligences (TIMI), Multiple Intelligences (MI) Domains Inventory for Educators, MI Domains Observation Form for Students, Multiple Intelligences Inventory for Adults, and Multiple Intelligences Checklist for Students . Descriptive and qualitative content analyses were conducted. The data analysis indicated that most of the tools currently used were demonstrated a great deal of methodological weaknesses and were not appropriate for unveiling the intelligences properly. Also, their existing applications shed light that these tools were not appropriate enough and ignored many cultural aspects in determining intelligences. On the basis of Gardner’s speech and related literature, it can be expressed that intelligences could not be identified and assessed via single method, especially paper-pencil instrument formats. Nevertheless, MIT is based on a multiplicity approach and requires combining great effort to reveal intelligences in a correct manner.