South African Journal of Education, Volume 42, Supplement 1, December 2022 S1

Art. #2135, 12 pages, https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v42ns1a2135

The consistency of the Teele Multiple Intelligence Inventory (TIMI) scale with
children’s preferences in investigating the intelligence areas of preschool children

Miray Özözen Danaci

Department of Preschool Education, Faculty of Education, Izmir Demokrasi University, Izmir, Turkey
[email protected]
Sırma Seda Bapoğlu Dümenci
Department of Preschool Education, Faculty of Educational Sciences, International Final University, Kyrenia, Cyprus

The study reported on here was conducted to examine the consistency of the views of children and teachers in predicting the
multiple intelligence areas of children at the end of the education programme provided in an enriched class based on
multiple intelligence practices in a pre-school education institution. Using the pre-test-education-post-test experimental
method, we applied the relational pattern to investigate the relationship between the 2 variables. The sample group of this
study consisted of 34 children aged 5 to 6 years, 17 in the experimental and 17 in the control group. As data collection tools,
the TIMI Inventory developed by Teele (1992) and an application (colour-bead system) containing assessments of the
children’s preferences were applied. The findings obtained in this study show that in 7 of the 17 children, the
intelligence/skills area revealed by the evaluations of their preferences was similar to the results of the TIMI Inventory.

Keywords: early childhood; early intervention; multiple intelligences

Introduction
Individuals’ differences in their learning and perception style, speed and capacity, problem-solving abilities, and
reasoning and intellectual skills have drawn the attention of scientists in the last century, and research has
focused on the characteristics of intelligence, skills and abilities. Recent studies have ruled out the single and
integrated understanding of intelligence and demonstrated that intelligence has a complicated structure
consisting of a combination or interaction of various talents and skills. This complex structure is also being
studied by many researchers (Carroll, 1997; Cattell & Horn, 1978; Franzen, 2000; Gardner, 2011; Sari, 2019;
Shearer, 2004; Wiliński & Kupracz, 2020).
Based on these views, the theory of multiple intelligences was put forward by Howard Gardner in 1983,
suggesting that each individual has different degrees in various domains of intelligence. The theory soon
attained a wide scope of application in the field of education and was redefined by many theorists (Armstrong,
2000; Taspinar, 2005).
Intelligence is shaped by hereditary abilities, personal experiences, and environmental components. Binet
and Simon (1915) and Wechsler (1991) have developed tests that evaluate intelligence as an inborn
unchangeable phenomenon as it was regarded for centuries. However, some scientists, such as Feuerstein
(1990), Piaget (1965) and Vygotsky (1987), have revealed the variable features of intelligence.
Although the theory of multiple intelligences is discussed among educational scientists from various
aspects, there is consensus that this new understanding can provide valuable insights into the learning-teaching
process as it emphasises the learners’ different abilities and interests and considers their individual
characteristics (Izci, Kara & Dalaman, 2007).

Literature Review
Along with studies on the integration of multiple intelligences theory with learning and teaching processes,
researchers have focused on the effects of intelligence types on learning. In this regard, it was agreed that the
concept of emotional intelligence introduced by Goleman (1995), and the concept of moral intelligence
introduced by Altan (2001), should be added to the theory of multiple intelligences. As a result, the importance
of determining and evaluating individuals’ multiple intelligence domains has drawn attention to the importance
of early intervention on this issue (Bumen, 2005; Silver, Strong & Perini, 2000).
Enriching the environment in teaching activities makes the subject easier to understand and motivates the
learners and also contributes to the process of identifying children with different types of intelligence and talent.
In this context, supporting the educational environment with activities that serve different types of intelligence,
will, on the one hand, enable children to view the subject of the activity from different aspects, and on the other
hand, will enable teachers to identify children with special abilities and determine their area of intelligence/skill
(Basbay, 2000; Campbell & Campbell, 1999). The most prominent point in the theory of multiple intelligences
is that intelligence is not unchangeable, and it is a matter of pluralism. The theory argues that individuals have
the ability to relatively develop all areas of their intelligence (Gardner, 2011).
In cases where meaningful learning does not occur, the acquired information is forgotten in a short time. In
this case, effective learning does not take place. The multiple intelligence approach lays the groundwork for
meaningful learning as it details the child in terms of various areas such as verbal/linguistic,
S2 Özözen Danaci, Bapoğlu Dümenci

logical/mathematical, visual/spatial, more variables. This study was designed as

bodily/kinaesthetic, music/rhythm, social, self- relational since we examined the consistency
directed, and nature (Cetin & Akar-Vural, 2019; between evaluations based on children’s activity
Koyuncuoğlu & Kaya, 2020). preferences and the TIMI results. This study was
also conducted with an experimental design as the
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework TIMI Inventory was applied both before and after
As one of the important functions of education is to the evaluations based on the children’s activity
identify and maximise learners’ talents, applying preferences.
multiple intelligence activities can further set forth A post-test experimental method design with
and enhance these talents. The earlier these talents experimental and control groups was used to apply
are identified, the greater the impact of education an independent variable to a randomly selected
can be on improving them (Yavuz, 2001). group and observe its effects on the dependent
Similarly, De Milander, Schall, De Bruin and variable. A descriptive case study, which is one of
Smuts-Craft (2020) state that impulsivity and the case-study approaches, was used to estimate the
orientation could not be personally prevented intelligence areas of the children as a result of
during childhood. In addition, studies show that the evaluations based on the children’s activity
psychological counselling service is very limited preferences among the multiple intelligence
even for primary school children in determining the practices that they were offered.
special abilities of children (Joubert & Hay, 2020).
In this context, educators play a key role in Study Groups
identifying these talents, making evaluations based The participants in this study were 34 pre-school
on children’s preferences, and, if necessary, children aged 5 to 6 years (mean age: 65 months),
restructuring the evaluation process. all of whom were attending the same school, yet in
Along with studies on the integration of the different classes. The children were divided into
multiple intelligences theory with learning and two groups: the experimental group (n = 17) and
teaching processes, researchers have focused on the the control group (n = 17).
effects of intelligence types on learning, suggesting
that identifying, evaluating, and improving multiple Data Collection Tools
intelligence talents have a profound impact on an As a data collection tool, the TIMI Inventory was
individual’s life (Franzen, 2000; Gok, 2006). Based used. The inventory was applied by teachers after
on this, with this study we aimed not only to short instruction in an enriched educational
examine the consistency of children-teachers in environment based on the multiple intelligences
determining and predicting multiple intelligence theory. Evaluation practices based on the children’s
areas in the preschool period but also to investigate activity preferences were also used to collect data.
the effects of applying multiple intelligence
activities on predicting children’s The TIMI multiple intelligence inventory
intelligence/talent. The TIMI Multiple Intelligence Inventory
We sought to answer the following questions: developed by Teele (1992) was used as a data
1) Is it possible to make evaluations regarding collection tool. The TIMI was developed by Sue
children’s intelligence/ability areas based on their Teele in 1992 to investigate the dominant
activity preferences? intelligence areas of children and youths in both
2) What is the consistency between the results of levels of primary education, high school, and
evaluating children’s intelligence/ability areas based university. The inventory is used to identify seven
on their activity preferences and the TIMI Multiple intelligence domains, including verbal-linguistic
Intelligence Inventory?
3) Is there any difference concerning the TIMI results
(V-L), logical-mathematical (L-M), visual-spatial
between the experimental group where the (V-S), musical-rhythmic (M-R), kinaesthetic-
evaluations were based on children’s preferences bodily (K-B), personal-introspective (P-I) and
and the control group where the evaluations were interpersonal-social (I-S).
only based on teacher estimates? The validity study of the TIMI investigated
Finally, it should be emphasised that multiple whether the pictures used in the inventory actually
intelligence activities is a topic that concerns not represented the specified intelligence area, and the
only educators and researchers but also parents and reliability study of the inventory included a
childcare providers. test-retest application. In her reliability study, Teele
(1992) concluded that all intelligence domains of
Method the TIMI were significant at the .01 level.
Research Model In Turkey, the validity of the inventory was
In this research, a combination of the relational investigated in several studies conducted by
method, which is one of the descriptive research Göğebakan (2003), Oklan-Elibol (2000), Oklan-
types, and the experimental method was used. The Elibol and Tugrul (2001), Ozdemir (2006) and
relational method is used to examine whether there Terzioglu (2005). The pictures of the inventory
is a relationship and/or consistency between two or were expertised and accepted as valid. As a result
 South African Journal of Education, Volume 42, Supplement 1, December 2022 S3

of the reliability study conducted by Ozdemir results of the inventory was significant at the level
(2006), the relationship between the test-retest of 0.01.

Figure 1 TIMI sample item in scales card

Evaluations based on children’s activity preferences TIMI Multiple Intelligence Inventory was applied.
Designed by the researchers to be used in a A sample item is shown in Figure 1.
classroom environment, each of the multiple
intelligence areas was marked with a colourful Procedure
marker. For instance, the L-M intelligence area was Before this study, a classroom was equipped with
marked with a blue marker. If a child were engaged supporting materials necessary for multiple
in the activities of this area, (s)he would place a intelligence practices in early childhood. The
blue bead into the jar allocated to him/her when classroom was designed and organised based on
(s)he was done with the activities, indicating that five expert opinions to meet the multiple
this child had spent time in the L-M area. The intelligence practice needs. The experts were
children were instructed to place a bead into their selected as early childhood educators, assessment
jar as they would finish the activities of any and evaluation specialists and educational sciences
specific area. However, the bead needed to be the specialists.
same colour as the area that they marked. For These materials – prepared based on the
instance, green represented the domain of I-S theory of multiple intelligences – were new for the
intelligence. A child engaged in this domain learners and during the data collection process, the
activity would place a green bead into his/her jar learners were engaged in various activities using
after completing the activity. the materials, for example, visual arts activity,
At the end of this research, two experts (PhD creative drama activity, mechanical games. The
specialists of early childhood education and materials in each area of multiple intelligences
educational science) counted the beads in each were introduced to the children during the first 2
child’s jar: the colour of the beads would determine weeks of this study. Later on, the process of
the areas that the child had preferred to be engaged activity preference, where the children could
in, and the number of the beads would determine choose their own activities, was initiated. The
how long the child had spent in any specific area. structured activity periods – within the scope of
After evaluating the multiple intelligence areas free activity – were applied 2 days a week for 30
based on the children’s activity preferences, the
S4 Özözen Danaci, Bapoğlu Dümenci

minutes each and lasted for 12 weeks. Without any 1) Preparation of an enriched class based on multiple
instructions from their teachers, the children were intelligence practices
allowed to participate in any activity of their own 2) Providing training for children to participate in their
preference. The activities that they opted to preferred activities
3) Performing the practices and applications
participate in would produce study data for us. The 4) Application of the TIMI Multiple Intelligence
children in the control group were asked to Inventory
complete their structive activities in an unstructured As the last stage of the evaluation process, the
environment. classroom teachers were asked to complete a form
The month-long data collection process for each child in the study group to investigate their
included the colourful-bead technique, which intelligence areas according to the priority order of
enabled us to evaluate the activity preferences of the children’s activity preferences. The study
the children in the study group. groups of children are shown in Figure 2–4.
The data collection process consisted of the
following stages:

Figures 2, 3 and 4 Children in the study group engaged in multiple intelligence practices in an enriched
classroom (in this study)

Data Analysis The children in the control group were asked

The results of the TIMI Inventory and the to complete their routine activities without being
evaluation results of the activity preferences of the involved in multiple intelligence practices. Upon
children obtained using the colour-bead technique completing these structive activities, teachers –
were analysed, and for each child, four dominant based on their personal opinions – made
intelligence areas were determined and ranked from predictions of the children’s intelligence. The TIMI
the highest to the lowest. Then, the consistency Inventory was also applied to the control group so
between TIMI results and the teachers’ evaluations that the children’s activity preferences on
of the multiple intelligence areas based on the determining their intelligence/skills could be
activity preferences of the children was examined. compared to the teachers’ estimates.
 South African Journal of Education, Volume 42, Supplement 1, December 2022 S5

Results The Results of the TIMI Multiple Intelligence

The results of the TIMI Multiple Intelligence Inventory and Distribution of Children’s Dominant
Inventory and the evaluations based on the Areas of Multiple Intelligences
children’s activity preferences were analysed by Table 1 presents the data regarding the TIMI
two experts (PhD specialists of early childhood Inventory applied to children and the evaluations
education assessment and evaluation specialists and based on the activity preferences of the children
educational science), and (f) frequency distributions using the colourful-bead system. Among the results
and percentage values were calculated. of the two types of evaluations presented in the
same column, those intelligence areas that were the
same according to both the TIMI and the child’s
activity preferences are indicated in bold print.
 S6 Özözen Danaci, Bapoğlu Dümenci

Table 1 TIMI Multiple Intelligence Inventory and distribution of children’s dominant areas of multiple intelligences
V/S % V/L % K/B % M/R % I/S % L/M % P/I % Total Dominant areas
1st child Child 2 7.1 2 7.1 3 10.7 5 17.8 7 25 5 17.8 4 14.2 100 I/S
TIMI 5 17.8 4 14.2 3 10.7 2 7.1 6 21.4 4 14.2 4 14.2 100 I/S
2nd child Child 7 25 3 10.7 5 17.8 2 7.1 4 14.2 2 7.1 5 17.8 100 V/S
TIMI 5 17.8 4 14.2 4 14.2 6 21.4 3 10.7 2 7.1 4 14.2 100 M/R
3rd child Child 4 14.2 4 14.2 3 10.7 3 10.7 7 25 6 21.4 1 3.5 100 P/I
TIMI 7 25 1 3.5 1 3.5 4 14.2 3 10.7 5 17.8 7 25 100 V/S – P/I
4th child Child 6 21.4 3 10.7 4 14.2 1 3.5 5 17.8 3 10.7 6 21.4 100 V/S – P/I
TIMI 4 14.2 3 10.7 3 10.7 7 25 4 14.2 2 7.1 5 17.8 100 M/R
5th child Child 6 21.4 4 14.2 2 7.1 4 14.2 5 17.8 3 10.7 5 17.8 100 V/S
TIMI 3 10.7 3 10.7 3 10.7 7 25 4 14.2 3 10.7 5 17.8 100 M/R
6th child Child 4 14.2 2 7.1 3 10.7 6 21.4 5 17.8 3 10.7 5 17.8 100 M/R
TIMI 4 14.2 2 7.1 3 10.7 7 25 7 25 1 3.5 4 14.2 100 M/R
7th child Child 5 17.8 5 17.8 4 14.2 2 7.1 1 3.5 3 10.7 7 25 100 P/I
TIMI 5 17.8 4 14.2 4 14.2 6 21.4 3 10.7 2 7.1 4 14.2 100 M/R
8th child Child 5 17.8 4 14.2 3 10.7 3 10.7 3 10.7 8 28.5 2 7.1 100 L/M
TIMI 4 14.2 4 14.2 4 14.2 5 17.8 2 7.1 6 21.4 3 10.7 100 L/M
9th child Child 3 10.7 5 17.8 4 14.2 5 17.8 6 21.4 4 14.2 1 3.5 100 I/S
TIMI 4 14.2 3 10.7 3 10.7 7 25 4 14.2 2 7.1 5 17.8 100 M/R
10th child Child 4 14.2 2 7.1 5 17.8 5 17.8 4 14.2 5 17.8 3 10.7 100 K/B – M/R –
L/M
TIMI 6 21.4 4 14.2 6 21.4 1 3.5 2 7.1 2 7.1 7 25 100 P/I
11th child Child 3 10.7 6 21.4 1 3.5 6 21.4 3 10.7 6 21.4 3 10.7 100 V/L – M/R –
L/M
TIMI 6 21.4 4 14.2 3 10.7 4 14.2 1 3.5 5 17.8 5 17.8 100 V/S
12th child Child 4 14.2 5 17.8 0 0 6 21.4 4 14.2 5 17.8 4 14.2 100 M/R
TIMI 4 14.2 2 7.1 2 7.1 5 17.8 6 21.4 2 7.1 7 25 100 P/I
13th child Child 3 10.7 5 17.8 1 3.5 6 21.4 5 17.8 5 17.8 4 14.2 100 M/R
TIMI 6 21.4 1 3.5 2 7.1 5 17.8 5 17.8 3 10.7 6 21.4 100 V/S – P/I
14th child Child 5 17.8 4 14.2 3 10.7 3 10.7 1 3.5 7 25 5 17.8 100 L/M
TIMI 4 14.2 2 7.1 3 10.7 6 21.4 5 17.8 3 10.7 5 17.8 100 M/R
15th child Child 4 14.2 2 7.1 3 10.7 6 21.4 6 21.4 3 10.7 4 14.2 100 M/R – I/S
TIMI 3 10.7 2 7.1 3 10.7 8 28.5 4 14.2 2 7.1 6 21.4 100 M/R
16th child Child 6 21.4 5 17.8 1 3.5 4 14.2 4 14.2 6 21.4 2 7.1 100 V/S – L/M
TIMI 5 17.8 4 14.2 2 7.1 4 14.2 5 17.8 5 17.8 3 10.7 100 V/S – I/S – L/M
17th Child Child 6 21.4 4 14.2 2 7.1 3 10.7 3 10.7 7 25 3 10.7 100 L/M
TMI 2 7.1 5 17.8 2 7.1 5 17.8 3 10.7 7 25 4 14.2 100 L/M
Note. V/S: Visual/Spatial, V/L: Verbal/Linguistic, K/B: Kinaesthetic/Bodily, M/R: Musical/Rhythmic, I/S: Interpersonal/Social, L/M: Logical/Mathematical, P/I: Personal/Introspective.
 South African Journal of Education, Volume 42, Supplement 1, December 2022 S7

According to the results, the multiple Table 3 shows the results of the intelligence
intelligence area(s) of the first, third, sixth, eighth, area distributions of the 17 children in the control
15th, 16th, and 17th children were the same in both group according to the TIMI scale. According to
evaluation types. For instance, the first child’s Table 3, seven of the children in the control group
intelligence area was predominantly were dominant in L-M intelligence skills, three in
interpersonal/social intelligence according to the I-S, two in P-I, two in M-R, one in V-S, one in
results of the child’s activity preferences. Similarly, K-B, and one in the V-L intelligence domain.
the results of the TIMI Inventory revealed that the
dominant intelligence area of the child was Table 3 Distribution of dominant areas in the
interpersonal/social intelligence. control group according to the TIMI
Multiple Intelligence Inventory
Evaluating Their Activity Preferences and the TIMI Multiple intelligence areas N
Inventory Logical-mathematical 7
As presented in Table 2, when the results of the Interpersonal-social 3
evaluations of the children’s activity preferences Personal-introspective 2
were compared with those of the TIMI inventory, it Musical-rhythmic 2
can be concluded that evaluating the activity Visual-spatial 1
Kinaesthetic-bodily 1
preferences correctly estimated the dominant
Verbal-linguistic 1
intelligence areas of seven of the 17 children.
These included three children in L-M, two children
Table 4 presents the data regarding the
in M-R, one child in I-S, and one child in the assessment results of multiple intelligences for the
introspective domain, from the highest to the children in the experimental and control groups.
lowest, respectively. Analysing the evaluation results of both groups
concerning the TIMI results shows that the
Table 2 Distribution of children whose intelligence
predictive level rate of the children in the
areas were the same as the result of the
experimental group, where the evaluations were
two evaluation methods (evaluating their based on the children’s activity preferences, was
activity preferences and the TIMI higher compared to the control group, in which
inventory) evaluations were based on the teachers’ opinions of
Multiple intelligence domains N
the children’s dominant areas of intelligence.
Logical-mathematical 3
Musical-rhythmic 2
Interpersonal-social 1
Introspective 1
Total 7

Table 4 Interpretation of the TIMI results for both the experimental group, in which the children’s activity
preferences were evaluated, and the control group, in which teachers predicted the children’s dominant
areas of intelligence
Number of children with the Mean of the two similar
Groups N same results as the TIMI measurements SD p
Experimental 17 7 45.87 7.943 .000
Evaluation as a result of
children’s activity preferences
Control 17 3 36.61 6.856
Teachers’ predictions
Note. p < 0.05.

Discussion process. In this context, our study significantly

Research based on the study conducted by Gardner contributes to the literature as it enables
(2009) in which intelligence/talent types are professionals to recognise the developmental
divided into eight domains, show that one type of aspects of children’s intelligence/talent areas at an
intelligence is dominant in each individual and that early age.
this dominant intelligence type has a direct impact The findings show that both self-evaluation
on the individual’s profession and all other and the TIMI Inventory had the same results in
situations in life (Batdi, 2017). Due to this seven of the 17 children in the experimental group.
prominent impact, it is important to determine and In other words, the TIMI Inventory results
strengthen the dominant intelligence area at an regarding the dominant intelligence area(s) of
early age. Moreover, identifying the potential seven children were consistent with the self-
dominant intelligence areas of children is crucial in assessment results. The intelligence areas of these
determining their educational skills and detecting seven children with common results in both
their strengths and weaknesses in the learning
S8 Özözen Danaci, Bapoğlu Dümenci

measurement techniques (Child Preliminary number falls in the category of the L-M intelligence
Assessment and the TIMI) were as follows: L-M (seven children). The order continues as follows:
(three children), M-R (two children), I-S (one I-S (three children), P-I (two children), M-R (two
child), and personal (one child). Many studies have children), V-S (one child), K-B (one child), and
reported that estimating these intelligence/talent V-L (one child). However, most of the previous
areas is relatively easier than other areas such as studies that investigated multiple intelligence
introspective. Gardner (2009), Mitchell and domains report different results.
Kernodle (2004) and Tarman (2002) have reported Franzen (2000) report that 5th, 6th, and
that P-I intelligence is an easily observable type of 7th-grade students perceived themselves as the
intelligence, especially because the L-M and P-I strongest in social and natural intelligence and the
intelligence types are important indicators of weakest in the area of V-L intelligence. As a result
professional success and a high level of of analysing more than 4,000 answer papers by
performance. Furnham and Fukumoto (2008) and Teele (1997), dominant intelligence areas of the
Goodnough (2001) have reported that the most children were determined according to their grade
predictable intelligence areas are the V-L and L-M levels, two of which were V-L intelligence and
areas. It has also been reported that the L-M personal-intrinsic intelligence. In his study with
intelligence type is an easily measurable area in 192 students from the 7th to the 12th grade, Chan
determining the intelligence profile due to its (2001) reported that social intelligence and
quantitative structure that can be measured by introspective intelligence were the two intelligence
numbers (Bellanca, 1997; Bumen, 2005). Similarly, areas with the highest average scores. Therefore,
in our study, children with these intelligence/talent there seems to be no pluralistic priority among
types were able to demonstrate their intelligence/talent areas.
intelligence/talent areas more easily than other Keating (1980) and Renzulli and Reis (1991)
children in the evaluations based on their activity state that if an individual with talent and creativity
preferences. below the average is provided with favourable
Analysing the evaluation results of both the conditions and is encouraged to perform at a high
experimental and control groups regarding the level, such individual can demonstrate superior
TIMI results shows that the predictive level rate of performance. Thus, they have emphasised that it is
the children in the experimental group, where the easier to discover the intelligence/talents of an
evaluations were based on the children’s activity individual under fortified conditions. They also
preferences, was higher compared to the control highlight that it is more accurate to talk about
group, in which evaluations were based on the “people with an outstanding performance” rather
teachers’ opinions of the children’s dominant areas than “gifted people.”
of intelligence. Based on these data, the findings Theorists such as Horn (1985) and Piaget
suggest that the activities that enable assessment of (1965) have indicated that intelligence, in fact, is a
the children’s intelligence/talent areas based on whole set of multi-skills by suggesting that many
their preferences may be effective in predicting skills, such as sensation, perception, compliance,
similar results with the TIMI. balancing, communicating, reacting, and thinking,
It is very important for individuals to be able are components of intelligence.
to identify their intelligence/talents. Leo Tolstoy Our study on determining multiple
was dropped out of school due to academic failure, intelligence areas of individuals at very young ages,
Walt Disney was fired by newspaper publishers for especially aims to serve the development of these
being clumsy, Frank Winfield Woolworth was areas in the early period. This study coincides with
dismissed from the drapery shop for having weak the definition and explanation of intelligence by
perception, Isaac Newton’s teachers called him the researchers like Woodcock (1990) who emphasise
most unsuccessful student in primary school, and the constantly changing feature of intelligence and
Albert Einstein was expelled from school for being try to demonstrate the importance of developing
stupid (Atik, 2007; Byers & Bourgoin, 1998). The and supporting the dominant intelligence area in
most important reason behind all the negative accordance with the theory of multiple
experiences of these geniuses of science and art intelligences.
was that their talents were not correctly detected In their studies with university students, Shalk
and identified by their environment although these (2002), Uysal and Eryilmaz (2006), Yenice and
and similar scientists and artists were highly Aktamis (2010), Ozden (2014) and Zorlu and Zorlu
talented and gifted in specific areas. It is in this (2019) report that while the students studying
context that our study significantly contributes to elementary school teaching were weak in visual,
the scientific literature to enable individuals to musical, and naturalistic areas of multiple
demonstrate and identify their own intelligences, and those studying social science
intelligence/talents at a very young age. teaching were weak in visual, social, and
The study results reveal that among the 17 naturalistic domains, they were all successful in
children in the experimental group, the highest other intelligence areas. The fact that “social”,
 South African Journal of Education, Volume 42, Supplement 1, December 2022 S9

“L-M”, and “M-R and V-L” areas of multiple deeper investigation of the topic.
intelligences were the most dominant areas in the All these studies demonstrate that intelligence
Faculties of Education, Engineering, and Art and areas can be identified at an early age as it plays a
Design, respectively, shows that the dominant area prominent role in an individual’s social,
of intelligence has a major impact on students’ educational, and professional aspects of life. All
professional preferences and life skills. From this these results draw attention to the importance of
point of view, our study, with which we aimed to determining the intelligence area of an individual in
determine the intelligence/talent area of children life, and likewise, the necessity and consistency of
through evaluating their own activity preferences, predicting the intelligence areas of children at an
significantly contributes to the literature, and it can early age and supporting the teachers in this regard.
help structure educational processes, including
innovations and integrating similar techniques into Conclusion and Further Suggestions
the children’s curriculum. Our research was a preliminary study to identify
In their studies, Hoerr (2000), Saban (2005, the dominant areas of intelligence in children. It
2009), and Temiz (2007) state that children are emphasises the necessity and importance of
more prone to certain intelligence areas from a offering various educational practices to children
young age and upon attending school, they prefer and providing them with rich training environments
to engage in practices that address their intelligence to enable them to explore all their intelligence areas
areas. According to Hamurcu (2002), by the age of from early childhood.
11 to 12, children already develop certain attitudes Various methods and techniques are used to
about certain areas and topics that appeal to them; identify and evaluate children. However, the
thus, it is important to identify and support these methods in which children are evaluated based on
areas. their own abilities are scarce in the literature. In
It was observed that the classroom teachers, order for each child to be evaluated according to
who were determined that the methods and his or her own development, it is essential to use a
techniques they preferred were not reflected in the portfolio.
dominant intelligence areas, paid attention to the Classrooms and learning centres should be
learning status of the learners and the content of the constantly updated concerning multiple intelligence
subject. Accordingly, teachers’ diversification of categories to ensure learners’ active engagement in
activities for multiple intelligence areas also various practices that further enhance their
facilitate the determination of children’s development.
intelligence areas (Sari, 2019). Our study also serves to identify gifted
The determination of multiple intelligence children as it sheds light on the individualised
areas helps teachers enhance their teaching evaluation of talents in each of the multiple
techniques using different tools and developing intelligence domains.
strategies beyond traditional teaching methods In future studies, the relationship between
(Karakoc & Sezer, 2007). In his research, Mehta multiple intelligence domains and higher-level
(2002) evaluated children’s learning processes thinking skills can be examined. The impact of
according to their multiple intelligence areas and enriched classes on children’s thinking skills based
concluded that by configuring learning on multiple intelligence areas can be examined in
environments, teachers could identify and experimental settings.
strengthen the areas in which children are weak; Teachers, on the other hand, need to use
hence, helping children progress in those areas. appropriate teaching approaches for learners with
Recent studies focus on the effects and different intelligence types. Teachers specialising
outcomes of determining the intelligence areas of in particular skills training (e.g., ballet/dance,
learners on their academic success (Akamca & strategy games, guitar/music, chess, tennis,
Hamurcu, 2005; Genç & Arslan, 2020; Gok, 2006; swimming and mechanical vehicle invention) need
Koklu, 2020; Liefländer & Bogner, 2018; Ongoren to integrate these skills into the curriculum.
& Sahin, 2008; Oral & Oner, 2005; Tugrul, 2003).
Our study is original research as it suggests Authors’ Contributions
evaluating 5 to 6-year-old children’s activity All authors contributed to the writing of the article,
preferences to identify their dominant area(s) of provided data for the tables, and conducted all
multiple intelligences. Bowen and Roth (2007), statistical analyses. All authors reviewed the final
Okur, Yalcin-Ozdilek and Sezer (2013) state that manuscript.
qualitative research approaches could be used
besides quantitative research in determining Notes
i. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution
multiple intelligence areas of children. They also Licence.
emphasise that a case study would be the most ii. DATES: Received: 11 December 2020; Revised: 27 July
suitable approach in the initial stage to have a 2021; Accepted: 28 October 2021; Published: 31
S10 Özözen Danaci, Bapoğlu Dümenci

December 2022. Cetin Y & Akar-Vural R 2019. Multiple approaches to

understanding: Multiple intelligence theory.
References International Journal of Social Humanities
Akamca G & Hamurcu H 2005. The effects of multiple Sciences Research, 6(43):3143–3152.
intelligence theory based teaching on students’ Chan DW 2001. Assessing giftedness of Chinese
science achievement, attitudes and retention. secondary students in Hong Kong: A multiple
Hacettepe University Journal of Education intelligences perspective. High Ability Studies,
Faculty, 28:178–187. 12(2):215–234.
Altan MZ 2001. Intelligence reframed: Multiple https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130120084348
intelligences for the 21st century. Howard Gardner. De Milander M, Schall R, De Bruin E & Smuts-Craft M
TESOL Quarterly, 35(1):204–205. Available at 2020. Prevalence of ADHD symptoms and their
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mustafa- association with learning-related skills in Grade 1
Altan- children in South Africa. South African Journal of
2/publication/264255235_Intelligence_Reframed_ Education, 40(3):Art. #1732, 7 pages.
Multiple_Intelligences_for_the_21st_Century_Ho https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v40n3a1732
ward_Gardner/links/5d49596e92851cd046a5a3e8/I Feuerstein R 1990. The theory of structural cognitive
ntelligence-Reframed-Multiple-Intelligences-for- modifiability. In BZ Presseisen (ed). Learning and
the-21st-Century-Howard-Gardner.pdf. Accessed thinking styles: Classroom interaction.
31 December 2022. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Armstrong T 2000. Multiple intelligences in the Franzen RJ 2000. Self perceptions of multiple
classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for intelligences among students from a middle school
Supervision and Curriculum Development. in the Midwest. Dissertation Abstracts
Atik YS 2007. Evaluation of teaching methods applied to International, 61(01):82.
gifted students in primary education. Master’s Furnham A & Fukumoto S 2008. Japanese parents’
thesis. Izmir, Turkey: Dokuz Eylul University. estimate of their own and their children’s multiple
Basbay A 2000. Are the course definitions and in-class intelligences: Cultural modesty and moderate
activities of the lessons within the scope of differentiation. Japanese Psychological Research,
classroom teaching program and primary education 50(2):63–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
program and in-class activities reflective of the 5884.2008.00362.x
features of multiple intelligence theory? Master’s Gardner H 1983. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple
thesis. Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe University. intelligence. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Batdi V 2017. The effect of multiple intelligences on Gardner H 2009. Birth and the spreading of a “meme”. In
academic achievement: A meta-analytic and JQ Chen, S Moran & H Gardner (eds). Multiple
thematic study. Educational Sciences: Theory & intelligences around the world. San Francisco, CA:
Practice, 17(6):2057–2092. John & Wiley and Sons.
https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.6.0104 Gardner H 2011. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple
Bellanca J 1997. Active learning handbook for the intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
multiple intelligence classrooms. Arlington Genç H & Arslan E 2020. Okul öncesi dönem
Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing. çocuklarının çoklu zekâ alanları ile çevreye karşı
Binet A & Simon T 1915. A method of measuring the tutumlarının incelenmesi [Investigating pre-school
development of the intelligence of young children. children’s attitudes towards environment through
Chicago, IL: Chicago Medical Book. multiple intelligences]. Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar
Bowen GM & Roth WM 2007. The practice of field Dergisi, 9(2):719–730. Available at
ecology: Insights for science education. Research https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3409002
in Science Education, 37:171–187. 23_Okul_Oncesi_Donem_Cocuklarinin_Coklu_Ze
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9021-x ka_Alanlari_ile_Cevreye_Karsi_Tutumlarinin_Ince
Bumen N 2005. The theory of multiple intelligence at lenmesi. Accessed 31 December 2022.
school (3rd ed). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem A Göğebakan D 2003. How students’ multiple intelligences
Publishing. differ in terms of grade level and gender. M.Sc.
Byers PK & Bourgoin SM (eds.) 1998. Encyclopedia of thesis. Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical
world biography (2nd ed). Detroit, MI: Gale University. Available at
Research. https://open.metu.edu.tr/handle/11511/13755.
Campbell L & Campbell B 1999. Multiple intelligences Accessed 31 December 2022.
and student achievement: Success stories from six Gok D 2006. The effect of the sound and light unit
schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for prepared according to multiple intelligence theory
Supervision and Curriculum Development. on student achievement, recall levels, attitudes
Carroll JB 1997. The three-stratum theory of cognitive towards science, and teacher and student views.
abilities. In DP Flanagan, JL Genshaft & PL Master’s thesis. Kötekli, Turkey: Mugla
Harrison (eds). Contemporary intellectual University.
assessment: Theories, tests, and issues. New York, Goleman D 1995. Emotional intelligence: Why it can
NY: The Guilford Press. matter more than IQ. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Cattell RB & Horn JL 1978. A check on the theory of Goodnough K 2001. Multiple intelligences theory: A
fluid and crystallized intelligence with description framework for personalizing science curricula.
of new subtest designs. Journal of Educational School Science and Mathematics, 101(4):180–193.
Measurement, 15(3):139–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745- 8594.2001.tb18021.x
3984.1978.tb00065.x
 South African Journal of Education, Volume 42, Supplement 1, December 2022 S11

Hamurcu H 2002. Effective attitudes in science Okur E, Yalcin-Ozdilek S & Sezer B 2013. Examining of
education. Journal of Educational Researches, multiple intelligence due to some variables.
8:144–152. Journal of Kastamonu Education, 21(2):737–758.
Hoerr TR 2000. Becoming a multiple intelligences Ongoren H & Sahin A 2008. The effects of multiple
school. Alexandria, VA: Association for intelligence theory based teaching on students’
Supervision and Curriculum Development. science achievements. Journal of Pamukkale
Horn JL 1985. Remodelling old models of intelligence. Education Faculty, 23:24–35.
In BB Wolman (ed). Handbook of intelligence: Oral B & Oner M 2005. Application of multiple learning
Theories, measurements and applications. New theory with full learning support to science
York, NY: Wiley. teaching. Paper presented at the XIV Congress of
Izci E, Kara A & Dalaman F 2007. Investigation of National Education Sciences, Denizli, Turkey, 28–
classroom students in terms of multiple intelligence 30 September.
theory. Pamukkale University Journal of Education Ozdemir B 2006. The role of multiple intelligence theory
Faculty, 21(1):1–14. in the learning process of children aged 4-6 years.
Joubert C & Hay J 2020. Registered psychological Master’s thesis. Çanakkale, Turkey: Canakkale
counsellor training at a South African faculty of Onsekiz Mart University.
education: Are we impacting educational Ozden Y 2014. Teaching and learning. Ankara, Turkey:
communities? South African Journal of Education, Pegem A Publishing.
40(3):Art. #1840, 9 pages. Piaget J 1965. The moral judgment of the child. New
https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v40n3a1840 York, NY: Free Press.
Karakoc I & Sezer A 2007. Primary Education II. The Renzulli JS & Reis SM 1991. The reform movement and
effect of multiple intelligence applications on the quiet crisis in education. Gifted Child
academic achievement in teaching of geography Quarterly, 35(1):26–35.
subjects in grade social studies course. Journal of https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629103500104
Turkey Social Researches, 11(2):9–20. Saban A 2005. Çoklu zeka teorisi ve eğitim [Multiple
Keating DP 1980. Four faces of creativity: The intelligence theory and education]. Ankara,
continuing plight of the intellectually underserved. Turkey: Nobel Publishing.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(2):56–61. Saban A 2009. Content analysis of Turkish studies about
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628002400203 the multiple intelligences theory. Educational
Koklu S 2020. An examination of pre-school education Sciences: Theory & Practice, 9(2):859–876.
program and preschool teacher’s manual according Available at
to multidimensional theory of intelligence. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ847783.pdf.
Master’s thesis. Nicosia, Cyprus: Near East Accessed 31 December 2022.
University. Sari M 2019. Reflection of classroom teachers’
Koyuncuoğlu A & Kaya Z 2020. 6. Sınıf fen bilimleri intelligence fields on preferred teaching methods
ders kitabının çoklu zekâ kuramı açısından and techniques. Master’s thesis. Konya, Turkey:
incelenmesi [An analysis of 6th grade science Necmettin Erbakan University.
textbook in terms of multiple intelligence]. Ağrı Shalk AC 2002. A study of the relationship between
İbrahim Çeçen Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler multiple intelligences and achievement as
Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(1):19–45. measured by Delaware Student Testing Program
https://doi.org/10.31463/aicusbed.676683 (DSTP) scores in reading, mathematics, and
Liefländer AK & Bogner FX 2018. Educational impact writing. PhD dissertation. Wilmington, OH:
on the relationship of environmental knowledge Wilmington College. Available at
and attitudes. Environmental Education Research, https://www.proquest.com/docview/252137368?pq
24(4):611–624. -origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true. Accessed
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1188265 31 December 2022.
Mehta S 2002. Multiple intelligences and how children Shearer B 2004. Multiple intelligences theory after 20
learn: An investigation in one preschool classroom. years. Teachers College Record, 106(1):2–16.
M.Sc thesis. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00312.x
Institute and State University. Available at Silver HF, Strong RW & Perini MJ 2000. So each may
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/1091 learn: Integrating learning styles and multiple
9/32137/Sonia_Thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed intelligences. Alexandria, VA: Association for
=y. Accessed 31 December 2022. Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mitchell M & Kernodle M 2004. Using multiple Tarman S 2002. Applicability of multiple intelligence
intelligences to teach tennis. Journal of Physical theory in high school programs. Paper presented at
Education, Recreation & Dance, 75(8):27–32. the Contemporary approaches to education of
https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2004.10607286 2000s symposium, Istanbul, Turkey, 8–9 June.
Oklan-Elibol F 2000. Evaluation of six age group Taspinar M 2005. Teaching method from theory to
children attending kindergarten according to practise (2nd ed). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
multiple intelligence theory. Master’s thesis. Teele S 1992. Teaching and assessment strategies
Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe University. appropriate for the multiple intelligences.
Oklan-Elibol F & Tugrul B 2001. Determining the types Riverside, CA: University of California.
of intelligence that six-year-old children are strong Teele S 1997. The multiple intelligences school.
and comparing the preference of children with the Redlands CA: Citrograph Printing.
views of families. The Journal of Hacettepe Temiz N 2007. The theory of multiple intelligence in
University Child Development and Education, 1(4- school and classroom. Ankara, Turkey: Nobel
5):35–45. Publishing.
S12 Özözen Danaci, Bapoğlu Dümenci

Terzioglu EC 2005. Examining the social development the multiple intelligence profiles of first-year IT
and intelligence areas of 5-6 year old children students and employed graduates. Informatics in
attending schools that apply and do not implement Education, 19(3):491–517.
the project approach. Master’s thesis. Ankara, https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2020.22
Turkey: Hacettepe University. Woodcock RW 1990. Theoretical foundations of the Wj-
Tugrul B 2003. Recognizing and evaluating the child. In R measures of cognitive ability. Journal of
M Sevinc (ed). New approaches at early childhood Psychoeducational Assessment, 8(3):231–258.
education and development. Ankara, Turkey: https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299000800303
Publishing of Morpa Culture. Yavuz KE 2001. The theory of multiple intelligence and
Uysal E & Eryilmaz A 2006. A study on multiple it’s applications. Ankara, Turkey: Special Ceceli
intelligence dimensions found by self-evaluation of Schools Publishing.
seventh and tenth grade students. Hacettepe Yenice N & Aktamis H 2010. Examination of multiple
University Journal of Education Faculty, 30:230– intelligence areas of elementary teacher candidates
239. according to demographic characteristics. Turkish
Vygotsky LS 1987. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky Science Education, 7(3):86–99.
(Vol. 1). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Zorlu Y & Zorlu F 2019. Examination of science teacher
Wechsler D 1991. Manual for the Wechsler intelligence candidates’ multiple intelligence areas and learning
scale for children – Third edition (WISC-III). San styles and styles: A relational research. YYU
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Journal of Education Faculty, 16(1):49–78.
Wiliński A & Kupracz L 2020. A comparative study of