English Language Teaching ISSN E-ISSN 1916-4750 代写

  • 100%原创包过,高质代写&免费提供Turnitin报告--24小时客服QQ&微信:120591129
  • English Language Teaching ISSN  E-ISSN 1916-4750 代写
    English Language Teaching; Vol. 9, No. 6
    ISSN 1916-4742   E-ISSN 1916-4750 
    Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 
    199 
    The Relationship between Multiple Intelligences and Listening 
    Self-Efficacy among Iranian EFL Learners 
    Department of English Language and Literature, Hakim Sabzevari University, Iran 
    Correspondence: Mohammad Davoudi, Department of English Language and Literature, Hakim Sabzevari 
    University, Iran. E-mail: davoudi2100@gmail.com 
     
    Received: March 20, 2016      Accepted: May 10, 2016   Online Published: May 15, 2016 
    doi: 10.5539/elt.v9n6p199       URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n6p199 
     
    Abstract 
    The present paper aimed at investigating the relationship between listening self-efficacy and multiple intelligences 
    of Iranian EFL learners. Initially, ninety intermediate male learners were selected randomly from among 20 
    intermediate classes in a Language Academy in Yazd. In order to assure the homogeneity of the participants in 
    terms of overall language proficiency, PET was administered to the learners. Afterwards, based on the standard 
    deviation and mean, 60 participants were chosen from among the original ninety learners. Following that, the 
    learners were asked to complete the listening self-efficacy and multiple intelligences questionnaires. The results of 
    statistical analysis indicated that there was a significant relationship between total multiple intelligence scores and 
    the Listening self-efficacy of the learners. Moreover, all of the intelligence types, except kinesthetic intelligence as 
    well as verbal and visual intelligence were significantly related to Listening self-efficacy. Additionally, it was 
    found that interpersonal intelligence uniquely explained 5.4 percent of the variance in Listening self-efficacy 
    scores and is thus the best predictor of listening self-efficacy scores. 
    Keywords: listening, self-efficacy, listening self-efficacy, intelligence, multiple intelligences 
    1. Introduction 
    Listening in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) seems  to have an important role as a source of input for 
    language learners. Carter and Nunan (2001) defined listening as the term which is used in language teaching to 
    refer to a complex process that allows us to understand spoken language. Listening comprehension requires the 
    linguistic and background information to be processed online (Gonen, 2009) as well as accommodating the 
    uncontrollable speed of delivery. Thus, listening comprehension is concerned with a great amount of mental and 
    cognitive processes (Vandergrift, 1999). This may result in a kind of anxiety related to listening demands 
    especially within the context of second language (Vogely, 1999; Gonen, 2009). Another important cause of FL 
    listening anxiety is what Joiner (1986) calls negative listening self-concept which also causes the anxiety related to 
    listening. As Jointer (1986) puts it, this negative self-concept at times results from low self-confidence and having 
    no self-efficacy.   
    Research shows a negative correlation between listening-related anxiety  and the performance on listening 
    comprehension (e.g. Elkhafaifi, 2005; Golchi, 2012; Ghapanchi & Golparvar, 2012; Serraj & Noordin, 2013). In 
    contrast, it has been shown that there is a positive relationship between confidence in listening and listening 
    comprehension (Chen, 2008; Magogwe & Oliver, 2007; Rahimi & Abedini, 2009). One of the factors which might 
    bear relevance to the concept of self-efficacy in general and listening self-efficacy in particular is multiple 
    intelligences. Multiple Intelligence Theory (MI) has broadened the vision of educators in general and language 
    educators in particular specifically for its implications for classroom instruction (Baum, Viens, & Slatin, 2005; 
    Fogarty & Stoehr, 2008; Viens & Kallenbach, 2004. Multiple Intelligence Theory (MI) is not at all a novel theory. 
    It has been worked on since the 1980s. Howard Gardner introduced MI for the first time in the eighties (Gardner, 
    1983), yet it received more attention in English Language Teaching field since the last decade.   
    Considering the fact that intelligence is an integral element of learning, some scholars (e.g., Geimer, Getz, Pochert, 
    & Pullam, 2000; Kuzniewski, Sanders, Smith, & Urich, 1998) have suggested the integration of MI instruction in 
    teaching different school subjects such as mathematics, biology, and language arts. They believe that effective 
    teaching based on MI theory makes students aware of their weaknesses and strengths (Yi-an, 2010), engages them 
    in their learning process, and makes them responsible for the way they demonstrate their learning (Chen, 2005). www.ccsenet.org/elt  English Language Teaching  Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016 
    200 
     
    With the help of this theory, language teachers can create flexible, reflective, logical, and creative activities by 
    considering students’ individual differences (Christison, 1998) and thus more students may find success in schools 
    (Gilman, 2001). Given the significance of the notion of self-efficacy and its close times with multiple 
    intelligences, the present study aims at investigating the relationship between listening self-efficacy and multiple 
    intelligences of Iranian EFL learners.   
    2. Literature Review 
    2.1 Self-Efficacy and Listening 
    Bandura (1997) gives the definition of self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the 
    courses of action required to produce given attainments”  (p. 3). This definition of self-efficacy presumes that 
    various individuals vary in terms of the levels of self-efficacy under specific circumstances. This theory maintains 
    that individuals with various degrees of self-efficacy (low level and high level) are also different in terms of their 
    perceptions of the activity they need to do as well as the volume of the work and their perceptions concerning these 
    two are the two important components and sources of self-efficacy. He argues that various people have different 
    levels of self-efficacy, with those individuals having low level of this construct being doubtful with regards to their 
    abilities and capabilities. These individuals experience problems and difficulties dealing with the stress and 
    anxiety emanating from low level of self-efficacy, leading to their giving up of the task at hand. In contrast, 
    individuals enjoying high levels of self-efficacy firmly confide in their capacity to succeed, keeping on working on 
    the tasks and activities. Bandura has also defined self-efficacy (1997, p. 21) as “people’s judgments of their 
    capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performance”. Thus, 
    self-efficacy is one's belief in individual capacities and abilities of conducting a certain task rather than the real 
    abilities the individual has.   
    Successful performance is not merely guaranteed by individual's high level of self-efficacy and his enthusiasm for 
    doing something. As a matter of fact, these individuals may end up failing. Yet, individuals enjoying high level of 
    self-efficacy are not driven to hide themselves behind outside factors like the physical conditions in a context or the 
    fact that they suffer from disadvantages as individuals with low self-efficacy do. On the contrary, they believe they 
    need to work harder for achieving success as well as to try to obtain control over “potential stressors or threats” 
    (Bandura, 1997, p. 39). These characteristics of individuals with high level of self-efficacy makes them distinct 
    from individuals who have low level of self-efficacy. This allows them to have very good performance.   
    The words “helpless” and “mastery-oriented” (p. 5) are used by Dweck (2000, p. 5) to account for how different 
    learners react to failure. Individuals in the low self-confidence group avoid keeping on a task should it be 
    challenging for them. These individuals have a negative perception of themselves, thinking they are unable to cope 
    with the difficulties they are experiencing. They believe that their failure is a reflection of “their whole intelligence 
    and perhaps their self-worth” (p. 10). In contrast, individuals in the mastery-oriented group focus on completing 
    the activity without becoming doubtful about their abilities and capabilities. They seek to find the solution to the 
    problems and difficulties by learning strategies and techniques that are different from those they have already used. 
    Moreover, they enjoy using this process.   
    The distinctive qualities of the individuals in the helpless group characterize them as low self-efficacy group of 
    people. In contrast, mastery-oriented people are characterized as individuals who have high level of self-efficacy. 
    According to Dweck (2000, p. 8), the reduced number of correct answers and the increased number of incorrect 
    answers given by the individuals “may be because the failures were so meaningful to them”. Individuals in the 
    helpless group believe they themselves and not their performance are a failure. Learners in the other group, namely 
    mastery-oriented, however, could give the exact correct number of answers (both correct and incorrect ones). Their 
    ability to remember the number of correct answers can be probably attributed to the fact that they did not torment 
    themselves about the failure. These individuals conceded where they had failed and sought to have better 
    performance the next time.   
    When it comes to teaching and learning foreign language, there needs to be a focus on those foreign language 
    learners who have low level of self-efficacy for listening comprehension. A study conducted by Yang (1999) on 
    Taiwanese college students showed that despite the fact that most of these learners mentioned the need to acquire 
    English listening skills, more than half of them maintained that learning such skills was more difficult compared to 
    learning other domains of English learning including reading and writing.   
    A study conducted by Pajares (2006) showed that learners having higher self-efficacy outperform those learners 
    with lower self-efficacy although there is not any relation between self-efficacy and listening self-efficacy. This is 
    because self-efficacy is a reflection of how capable people believe they are instead of how capable they actually are 
    (Pajares, 2006).   www.ccsenet.org/elt  English Language Teaching  Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016 
    201 
     
    A study conducted by Zimmerman and Cleary (2006) showed that self-efficacy has a significant impact on 
    personal academic performance. This is because only having knowledge and  capacities do not necessarily 
    guarantee the effective use of self-efficacy under difficult circumstances. They argued that many factors can act as 
    barriers in the way of learning, preventing learners from behaving effectively. Learners who have high 
    self-efficacy cope effectively with the challenges and they are predicted to perform successfully. Many studies that 
    have investigated the correlation between self-efficacy and academic performance have confirmed the arguments 
    given by Zimmerman and Cleary (2006).   
    Caprara et al。  (2008) in a study concluded that having high level of self-efficacy for self-regulated learning in 
    middle school led to higher grades. A study conducted by Moos and Azevedo (2009) showed a positive effect 
    computer self-efficacy has on learning performance as well as learning processes. The impact of self-efficacy on 
    problem-solving efficiency has been examined by other studies (Hoffman & Spatariu, 2008, Malouff et al, 2007), 
    self-regulations (Bandura & Jourden, 1991; Schunk, 1983; Caprara et al, 2008), and  anxiety (Wilfong, 2006; 
    Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008).   
    A review of previous studies (e.g. Gist, 1987; Bandura, 1977; Salomon, 1984) shows that academic performance 
    can be predicted by self-efficacy. Perceptions and beliefs regarding self-efficacy are a good predictor of academic 
    achievement since these beliefs regarding one's capabilities in performing task will influence the behaviors in 
    future. Learners in academic contexts vary in terms of their self-efficacy and behave differently with regards to 
    both endurance and persistence. Research shows that learners who have low self-efficacy participate in fewer 
    efforts and quit more easily in the face of challenges. This leads to weak performance, decreasing their 
    self-efficacy. Learners who have high self-efficacy in their abilities of doing certain tasks make greater attempts 
    and endure longer even in the face of difficulties or challenges (Gist, 1987; Bandura, 1977; Salomon, 1984).   
    The findings of various studies (Schunk, 1996; Zimmerman et al, 1992; Schunk & Hanson, 1985; Pajares, 1996) 
    indicate that self-efficacy which impacts learners’ behaviors can predict academic performance in a better way 
    than actual abilities since learners with the same level of capacities but different amounts of self-efficacy have 
    different behaviors with respect to both efforts and persistence, influencing their academic performance. However, 
    Pajares & Valiante (1997) maintain that this does not imply that they can be  successful. Individuals can 
    successfully reach positive results even beyond their abilities since desirable performance entails both self-efficacy 
    and required skills and knowledge. The attitudes and activities of individuals toward the knowledge and skills are 
    determined by the way in which people perceive their own capabilities. Personal efficacy beliefs also impact the 
    quality of knowledge and skills acquisition.   
    Self-efficacy can predict the subsequent performance. In the same way, individuals’ beliefs regarding capabilities 
    and abilities for conducting certain tasks impact learners’ behaviors. However, a review of literature shows that 
    self-efficacy for learning has been distinguished from self-efficacy for performance with respect to task familiarity 
    (Schunk, 1996; Schunk, 1989; Zimmerman et al, 1992). They argued that when learners know the tasks, they form 
    self-efficacy related to the tasks performance by analyzing and interpreting the prior successes and acquired skills. 
    At this level, performance can be predicted well by performance self-efficacy. However, when learners have no 
    familiarity with tasks, they are likely to judge the capabilities on the basis of relevant skills since they have no idea 
    about what skills will be necessary for the tasks. Schunk (1989) argued that at this level, learners’ self-efficacy 
    comes from their perceived capacities for self-regulatory  learning. They judge about  the extent to which their 
    learning similar skills in the past was effective, the tasks would require what kinds of techniques and skills, how 
    easily new skills would be mastered, and what the quality of monitoring the learning performance would be. 
    Self-efficacy for performance is one of the variables that can predict performance since it displays the individual 
    differences contributing to the quality of performance. However, studies show the significance contributions 
    self-efficacy for learning make to subsequent performance, skills as well as self-efficacy assessments (Schunk, 
    1996; Zimmerman et al, 1992; Schunk & Hanson, 1985; Pajares, 1996).   
    Wu (1998) in his study found out that lower-proficiency listeners were more inclined to employ top-down 
    processing to compensate for their lack of linguistic  knowledge. Renandya and Farrell (2011) in their study 
    concerning strategy-instruction believe that the technique of strategy-based instruction should not replace basic 
    language teaching. In his investigation Zeng (2007, p. 89) believes that “listening practices in word recognition, 
    phonological rules, rhythmic groupings, tone placements, intonation rises and falls, and in discriminating 
    differences in word order and grammatical form should be put in priority for low-intermediate listeners in listening 
    classrooms” . 
    Chang and Read (2006) studied the effect of key word method on listening comprehension and discovered that 
    after being exposed to the key words found in the listening materials, lower-proficiency students’ attention was www.ccsenet.org/elt  English Language Teaching  Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016 
    202 
    English Language Teaching ISSN  E-ISSN 1916-4750 代写
    often drawn to local cues involving those pre-taught words and consequently failed to catch the overall picture of 
    the spoken text. A study conducted by Chang (2006) revealed that the linguistic threshold for L2 listeners is 
    required in order to help learners to attain to have improvement in listening comprehension. 
    Graham, Santos, and Vanderplank (2011) found that teachers believe that listening instruction is very difficult. 
    They believe that most teachers in teaching listening utilize the “comprehension approach” proposed by Field 
    (2008). Andon and Eckerth (2009) examined teachers’ beliefs on task-based language teaching (TBLT). They 
    further investigated the ways “published accounts [of TBLT] are reflected in teachers’ pedagogic principles” (p. 
    286) in ELT context. Andon and Eckerth came to the conclusion that their participants were aware of main 
    principles from the TBLT literature but this knowledge was limited to a small number of articles and some of its 
    main themes were reflected in their teaching and discussions of their practice. In a study conducted by Basturkmen 
    (2012) he found out that the level of correspondence between beliefs and practices for experienced teachers is 
    higher than that of novice teachers. 
    2.2 Multiple Intelligences 
    Today, what one can do is more widely thought than what one does with the advances in the field of education 
    and psychology. Multiple intelligence theory has been proposed to take into account sider new training methods 
    for his purpose. After reviewing traditional intelligence approach, Neuropsychology and development expert 
    Gardner proposed for the first time seven different universal capacities in his book ‘’ Frames Of Mind’’ which 
    was published in 1983 (Lash, 2004). In 1983, Gardner set forth that any individual has a variety of intelligence 
    degree (mathematical-logical, verbal-linguistic, musical-rhythmic, bodily kinesthetic, intrapersonal, social, 
    visual-spatial and nature) and this revealed multiple intelligence theory which describes the learning styles, 
    interests, capabilities and tendencies of individuals. 
    Multiple Intelligences Theory (MIT) is a new vision questioned by educators and language educators specifically 
    for its application in the language classroom. Multiple Intelligence Theory (MIT) is not at all a novel theory; It 
    has been worked on since 1980s. Howard Gardner introduced MIT for the first time in eighties (Gardner, 1983), 
    yet it received more attention in English Language Teaching field since the last decade. This interest correlates 
    with language educators’ interest in maximizing the language learning. Intelligence is a psychological notion 
    connected with learning on which educators base a lot of  their professional decisions. Since the late nineteenth 
    century and early twentieth century, various theories about intelligence have been put forward, and many 
    attempts to define and to measure human intellectual capabilities have been made. 
    The notion of intelligence has a great effect on ones’ educational opportunities, job selection and social status 
    (Christison, 1998). The existence of different theories  of intelligence indicates that intelligence is a vibrant 
    concept in psychology (Akbari and Hosseini, 2008). Many philosophers and psychologists have accepted the 
    notion that intelligence has a lot to do with being flexible in following one’s goals. This means that there are as 
    many types of human intelligence as there are types of human goal. The Multiple Intelligences Theory (MIT), 
    proposed in the early 1980s by Gardner, provided evidence that there are several independent ability areas, 
    unlike traditional general intelligence concentrating on a narrow range of two logical-mathematical and linguistic 
    intelligences. He redefined the concept of intelligence as a "bio-psychological potential to process information 
    that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that  are of value in a culture" 
    (Gardner, 1999, pp. 33-34). 
    Recent interest in the field of foreign/second language  education has focused on research topics related to 
    individual differences and personal factors. Individual differences, which is a widely current expression in the 
    foreign language teaching field, refers to the different levels of success or failure that foreign language learners 
    can be expected to meet (Diller 1981; Skehan 1989; Sparks 1995). In fact, the focus on individual differences 
    has been a highly important theme both in general education and language learning based on the premise that 
    “pedagogy is most successful when these learner differences are acknowledged in teaching” (Richard-Amato, 
    2003, p. 114). Numerous contributory language and non-language factors to explain those differences have been 
    examined during the recent years (Brown 1994; Ellis 1985; Gass & Selinker 1994; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 
    1991; Spolsky 1989. It is believed that one of the most noteworthy and conspicuous constructs that differentiates 
    human beings is intelligence (Lubinski, 2000). 
    2.2 Research Questions 
    Q1: Is there any significant relationship between multiple intelligences as a whole and listening self-efficacy? 
    Q2:  Is there any significant relationship between each one of the multiple intelligences and listening 
    self-efficacy? www.ccsenet.org/elt  English Language Teaching  Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016 
    203 
    Q3: Which one of the multiple intelligences best predicts listening self-efficacy? 
    3. Method   
    3.1 Participants 
    The original participants of the present study were 90 intermediate language learners studying English in a 
    Language Academy in Yazd, Iran. They ranged in age from 18 to 26. The initial ninety participants were selected 
    randomly from among 20 classes of the intermediate level available at the time of this study at this language 
    academy. To this end, 7 such classes were chosen. The  participants were mostly university students. All the 
    participants were male learners. Preliminary English Test (PET) was administered to the initial 90 intermediate 
    subjects. The results of this test were used to select 60 homogeneous participants. To this end, drawing on the mean 
    and standard deviation, sixty learners were chosen. 
    3.1.1 Selecting the Homogenized Participants   
    As mentioned earlier, to homogenize the intermediate participants of the study with respect to overall language 
    proficiency, PET was given to the 90 initial subjects selected randomly from a larger pool. Table 1 and Figure 1 
    display descriptive statistics and the histogram of the participants’ PET scores, respectively.   
     
    Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Original 90 Intermediate Participants’ PET Scores 
      N  Minimum  Maximum  Mean  Std. Deviation 
    PET Scores  90  28.00  50.00  38.82  5.429 
    Valid N (list wise)  90         
    According to the results of the analysis reported in  Table 3, there is a significant correlation between Total 
    multiple intelligences and Listening self-efficacy, ρ = .33, n = 100, p < .01. Therefore, it is concluded that there 
    is a significant relationship between total multiple intelligence scores and the listening self-efficacy of the 
    learners.  
    4.3 Answering the Second Research Question   
    The second research question of the study addressed the relationship between EFL learners’ listening 
    self-efficacy and different types of intelligences. In order to answer this question, the data were analyzed using 
    the Pearson coefficient of correlation which is a parametric formula. Tables 4 and 5 show the results of this 
    analysis. 
    According to the results of the analysis reported in Tables 4 and 5, there was a significant and positive 
    correlation between Listening self-efficacy and natural intelligence,  ρ = .09, n = 100, p < .05., between 
    Listening self-efficacy and musical intelligence, ρ = .12, n = 100, p < .01., between Listening self-efficacy and 
    intrapersonal intelligence,  ρ = .28, n = 100, p < .01,  between Listening self-efficacy and interpersonal 
    intelligence, ρ = .34, n = 100, p < .01, between Listening self-efficacy and logical intelligence ρ = .03, n = 100, 
    p < .05., and between listening self-efficacy and kinesthetic intelligence as well as verbal and visual intelligence. 
    Based on the abovementioned findings, all of the intelligence types, except kinesthetic intelligence as well as 
    verbal and visual intelligence were significantly related to listening self-efficacy.  In other words, out of 8 
    intelligence types, five of them were significantly associated with listening self-efficacy.   
    4.4 Answering the Third Research Question   
    As reported earlier, the correlations between self-efficacy scores and 5 out of 8 multiple intelligence types turned 
    out to be significant. These 5 intelligence types were: natural, musical, intrapersonal, interpersonal and logical 
    intelligences. As a result, the researcher opted for the multiple regression analysis to probe the third research 
    question. In order to answer this question, a standard multiple regression analysis was run. Table 6 shows the 
    variables of the regression model. Natural, musical, intrapersonal, interpersonal and logical intelligences were 
    the predictor variables and listening self-efficacy score was the predicted variable. 
    Table 6. Variables of the regression model   
    Variables Entered/Removed 
    Model  Variables Entered  Variables Removed  Method
    1  Natural, musical, intrapersonal, interpersonal and logical intelligences  .  Enter 
    a. All requested variables entered. 
    b. Dependent Variable: Listening self-efficacy. 
     
    Table 7 presents the regression model summary including R and R2. 
     
    Table 7. Model Summary– R and R Square
    Table 8. Regression output: ANOVA 
    Model  Sum of Squares  Df  Mean Square  F  Sig. 
    1  Regression  23051.102  7  4610.220  19.552  .000a
     
    Residual  138880.283  92  235.790     
    Total  161931.385  99       
    a. Predictors: (Constant), Natural, musical, intrapersonal, interpersonal and logical intelligences b. Dependent 
    Variable: Listening self-efficacy. 
     
    Table 8 demonstrates the Standardized Beta Coefficients which signify the degree to which each predictor 
    variable contributes to the prediction of the predicted  variable. The inspection of the Sig. values shows that 
    among the 5 predictor variables, only interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences can make statistically 
    significant unique contributions to the equation as their Sig. values were less than .05.   
     
    Table 9. Regression output: Coefficients 
    Model 
    Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
    T  Significance 
    Part Correlation
    B  SE  β 
    1  (Constant)  53.267  6.670    7.986 .000   
    Natural  .174  .120  .057  1.457 .146  .056 
    Musical  .132  .111  .047  1.186 .236  .045 
    Intrapersonal  .287  .127  .107  2.249 .025  .086 
    Interpersonal  .715  .117  .285  6.107 .000  .233 
    Logical  -.035  .079  -.018  -.436 .663  -.017 
     
    The comparison of β values in Table 9 shows that interpersonal intelligence type has the largest β coefficient (β = 
    0.285, t = 6.107, p = 0.000). This means that interpersonal intelligence makes the strongest statistically 
    significant unique contribution to explaining listening  self-efficacy scores. Therefore, it can be concluded that 
    interpersonal intelligence could more strongly predict the  listening self-efficacy scores of the participants. 
    Moreover, intrapersonal intelligence was ranked as the second predictor of listening self-efficacy. Finally, the 
    inspection of Part correlation (semi partial correlation coefficient) shows that interpersonal intelligence uniquely 
    explains 5.4 percent of the variance in Listening self-efficacy scores. (.233×.233=.054).   
    5. Discussion and Conclusion 
    To begin with, the first research question attempted to systematically explore the way EFL learners’ multiple 
    intelligences and listening self-efficacy scores are associated. It was found that there is a significant relationship 
    between total multiple intelligence scores and the listening self-efficacy of  the learners. As for the findings for 
    the second research question, it was found that all of the intelligence types, except kinesthetic intelligence, verbal 
    and visual intelligence, were significantly related to listening self-efficacy. In other words, 5 out of 8 intelligence 
    types were significantly associated with listening self-efficacy. It was also shown that the model can significantly 
    predict EFL learners’ Listening self-efficacy scores. 
    Ample research studies have explored the state of multiple intelligences in the learning process and consequently 
    its role in English language learning has been emphasized (Tirri & Komulainen, 2002; Shore, 2004; Kallenbach, 
    1999; Ahmadian & Hosseini, 2012; Marefat, 2007; Sadeghi & Farzizadeh, 2012; Hajhashemi & Eng, 2012; 
    Panahi, 2011; Zarei & Mohseni, 2012; Lazear, 1991; Tahriri & Divsar, 2011). Based on the studies conducted on 
    these two variables, the conclusion is that multiple intelligences play a major role in language learning.   
    As it was mentioned above, it was revealed that there was a significant and positive correlation between total 
    multiple Intelligences and listening self-efficacy scores, This significant relationship seems to confirm the 
    findings of the MIT studies which have fostered a new approach in education and have been the basis of the www.ccsenet.org/elt  English Language Teaching  Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016 
    208 
     
    most important theory in the area  of personal development (Tirri & Komulainen, 2002). Nowadays, teachers 
    apply the MI-based educational program since it addresses the range of different ways people learn (Shore, 2004; 
    Kallenbach, 1999). The relationship between multiple intelligences and the learning of second language skills is 
    a burgeoning area of research. However, it cannot be ignored that the magnitude of the relationship between the 
    two variables raises doubts about the meaningfulness of the relationship (Tirri & Komulainen, 2002; Shore, 2004; 
    Kallenbach, 1999). Perhaps other studies would reduce this uncertainty through replicating this study in similar 
    and different contexts. 
    The results related to the first research question are found to be consistent with Shore’s (2001) study in which 
    she examined the use of multiple intelligences in George Washington University second language classrooms. 
    The findings indicated that utilizing multiple intelligence-based lessons in the foreign language classrooms led to 
    higher self-efficacy and therefore greater achievement in second language learning. Another study whose results 
    are in line with the current study is the one conducted by IKiz and Çakar (2010) in which the relationship 
    between multiple intelligences and the academic achievement levels was investigated. Academic achievement 
    scores turned out to be related to students' multiple intelligences.   
    The second research question was intended to systematically investigate the relationship between EFL learners’ 
    achievement scores and different intelligence types. As stated earlier (see instruments), the questionnaire of 
    multiple intelligences comprises eight components, namely; interpersonal, intrapersonal, logical, verbal, 
    kinesthetic, visual, musical and natural intelligences. Hoping to provide a more vivid understanding of the 
    relationship between listening self-efficacy scores and multiple intelligence types, this research question 
    examined the relationship between Listening self-efficacy scores, on the one hand, and different components of 
    multiple intelligences, on the other hand.   
    Based on the results of the parametric Pearson coefficient of correlation, it was concluded that all of the 
    intelligence types, except kinesthetic, verbal and visual intelligence, were significantly related to self-efficacy 
    scores. In other words, out of 8 intelligence types, 5 of them were significantly associated with Listening 
    self-efficacy scores. The results gained here seem to be inconsistent with Razmjoo’s (2008) study in which he 
    examined the strength of the relationship between language proficiency in English and different types of 
    intelligences. The results indicated no significant relationship between language proficiency and the combination 
    of intelligences in general and the types of intelligences  in particular. Therefore, more studies seem to be 
    required to further explore the nature of this relationship. Another finding of this study was that interpersonal 
    intelligence makes the strongest unique contribution to explaining Listening self-efficacy scores. Hence, it can 
    be concluded that interpersonal intelligence could predict more strongly the listening self-efficacy scores of the 
    participants. Moreover, intrapersonal intelligence was ranked as the second predictor of achievement scores.   
    There is a unanimous consensus among language educators that learners play a crucial role in the process of 
    learning (Mitchell & Myles, 2004; Richards & Rodgers, 2001). In order to play this role appropriately, they 
    should be cognizant of the fact that knowing one’s intelligences and employing them appropriately can 
    substantially promote language learning (Modiano, 2001). Therefore, learners should attempt to get to know the 
    intelligences they possess (Giancarlo & Facione, 2001). In addition, they should attempt to promote their ability 
    to use multiple intelligences appropriately through other factors which can positively affect their multiple 
    intelligences.  
    References 
    Ahmadian, M., & Hosseini, S. (2012). A study of the relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ Multiple 
    Intelligence and their performance on writing. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 111-126. 
    Akbari R, Hosseini K, (2008). Multiple intelligences and  language learning strategies: Investigating possible 
    relations. System, 36(2), 141-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.09.008 
    Andon, N., & Eckerth, J. (2009). Chacun à son gout? Task-based L2 pedagogy from the teacher's point of view. 
    International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 286-310. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00240.x 
    Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward  a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 
    191-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 
    Bandura, A. (1997). Editorial.  American Journal of Health Promotion,  12(1), 8-10. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.8 
    Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social comparison on 
    complex decision making.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,  60, 941-951. www.ccsenet.org/elt  English Language Teaching  Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016 
    209 
     
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.941 
    Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and 
    practices. System, 40(2), 282-295.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.05.001 
    Baum, S., Viens, J., & Slatin, B. (2005). Multiple intelligences in the elementary classroom: A Teacher's Toolkit. 
    Teachers College Press. 
    Brown, A. (1994). The effect of rater variables in the development of an occupation specific language 
    performance test. Language Testing, 6, 152-163. 
    Caprara, G., Fida, R., Vecchione, M., Del Bove, G., Vecchio, G., Barbaranelli, C., et al. (2008). Longitudinal 
    analysis of the role of perceived self-efficacy for self-regulated learning in academic continuance and 
    achievement.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 525-534. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.525 
    Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001).  The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. 
    Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667206 
    Chang, V. W. (2006). English language education in Taiwan: A comprehensive survey.  Journal of Education 
    Resources and Research, 69, 129-144.   
    Chang, A. C. S, & Read, J (2006). The effects of listening support on the listening performance of EFL learners. 
    TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 375-397. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40264527 
    Chen, S. F. (2005). Cooperative learning, multiple intelligence and proficiency: Application in college English 
    language teaching and learning. A Ph.D dissertation, Australian Catholic University. 
    Chen, C. -H. (2008). Why  do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integration?  The 
    Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.1.65-75 
    Christison, M. A. (1998). Applying multiple intelligence  theory in pre-service and in service TEFL education 
    programs. English Teaching Forum, 36(2), 2-13. 
    Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation for the behavioral 
    sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbawn. 
    Diller, K. (1981).  Neurolinguistic clues to the essentials of a good language teaching methodology: 
    Comprehension, problem solving, and meaningful practice. Newbury House. 
    Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. London: Psychology 
    Press.  
    Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom.  The Modern 
    Language Journal, 89(2), 206-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00275.x 
    Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc. 
    Field, J. (2008). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
    Fogarty, R. J., & Stoehr, J. (2008). Integrating curricula with multiple intelligences: Teams, themes, and threads. 
    Corwin Press. 
    Hajhashemi, K., & Bee Eng, W. (2012). MI as a predictor of students’ performance in reading competency. 
    English Language Teaching, 5(3), 240-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n3p240 
    Hoffman, B., & Spatariub, A. (2008). The influence of self-efficacy and metacognitive prompting on math 
    problem-solving efficiency.  Contemporary Educational Psychology,  33(4), 875-893. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.002 
    Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign language methods 
    course. Foreign Language Annals, 18(4), 333-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1985.tb01811.x 
    Ikiz, F. E., & Çakar, F .S. (2010). The relationship between multiple intelligence and academic achievements of 
    second grade students. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimle Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(3), 83-92. 
    Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligence. New York: Basic Books. 
    Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligence: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.   
    Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligence for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books. 
    Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence www.ccsenet.org/elt  English Language Teaching  Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016 
    210 
     
    Erlbaum 
    Geimer, M., Getz, J., Pochert, T., & Pullam, K. (2000). Improving student achievement in language arts through 
    implementation of multiple intelligence strategies, Unpublished dissertation, Saint Xavier University. 
    Ghapanchi, Z., & Golparvar, S. (2012). Foreign language listening anxiety in Iranian EFL context. International 
    Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1, 16-22.   
    Giancarlo, C. A., & Facione, P. A. (2001). A look across  four years at the disposition toward critical thinking 
    among undergraduate students.  The Journal of General Education,  50(1), 29-55. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jge.2001.0004 
    Gilman, L. (2001).  The theory of multiple intelligences. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from 
    http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/mitheory.shtml 
    Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy:  Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. 
    Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 472-485. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258514 
    Golchi, M. (2012). Listening anxiety and its relationship with listening strategy use and listening comprehension 
    among Iranian IELTS learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(4), 115-128.   
    Gonen, M. (2009). The relationship between FL listening anxiety and foreign language listening strategies: The 
    case of Turkish EFL learners. Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS/IASME International Conference on 
    Educational Technologies (EDUTE’ 09). 
    Graham, S., Santos, D., & Vanderplank, R. (2011). Exploring the relationship between listening development and 
    strategy use. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 435-456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168811412026 
    Jinks, J., & Morgan, V. (1999). Children’s perceived academic self-efficacy: An inventor scale. The Clearing 
    House, 72(4), 224-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00098659909599398 
    Joiner, E. (1986). Listening in the foreign language. In B. H. Wing (Ed.), Listening, reading, and writing: Analysis 
    and application (pp. 43-70). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.   
    Kallenbach, S. (1999). Emerging themes in adult multiple intelligence research. Focus on Basics, 3(A), 16-20. 
    Kuzniewski, F., Sanders, M., Smith, G. S., & Urich, C. (1998). Using multiple intelligence to increase reading 
    comprehension in English and Mathematics. Chicago.  Retrieved March 15, 2010, from 
    http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED420839.pdf 
    Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York: 
    Longman.  
    Lash, M. D. (2004). Multiple intelligence and the search for creative teaching. Paths of Learning, 22, 13-15. 
    Lazear, D. G. (1991). Seven ways of knowing: The artistry of teaching with multiple intelligences; A handbook of 
    techniques for expanding intelligence. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight 
    Lubinski, D. (2000). Assessing individual differences in human behavior: Sinking shafts at a few critical points. 
    Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 405-444.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.405 
    Magogwe, J. M., & Oliver, R. (2007). The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency, age and 
    self-efficacy beliefs: A study of  language learners in Botswana.  System,  35(3), 338-352. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.01.003 
    Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., & Schutte, N. S. (2007). The efficacy of problem solving therapy in reducing 
    mental and physical health problems: A meta-analysis.  Clinical Psychology Review,  27(1), 46-57. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2005.12.005 
    Marefat, F. (2007). Multiple intelligence: Voices from an EFL writing class. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji, 
    32, 145-162. 
    Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London: Arnold. 
    Modiano, M. (2001). Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL. ELT Journal, 55(4), 339-346.   
    Moos, D. C., and Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of 
    computer self-efficacy.  Review of Educational Research,  79(2), 576-600. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326083 
    Nezami, E., Schwarzer, R. & Jerusalem, M. (1996). Persian adaptation (Farsi) of the general self-efficacy scale. 
    Retrieved 29th July, 2007 from userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/persean.htm   www.ccsenet.org/elt  English Language Teaching  Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016 
    211 
     
    Pajares, F. (1996). Current directions in self-efficacy research. Frank Pajares. Emory University In M. Maehr, & 
    P. R. Pintrich (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 1-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 
    Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for teachers and parents. In F. 
    Pajares, & T. Urden (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 339-367). Greenwich, CT: Information 
    Age Publishing. 
    Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’ writing.  The Journal of 
    Educational Research, 90, 353-360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1997.10544593 
    Panahi, A. (2011). Relationship between multiple intelligence and learning grammar. Iranian EFL Journal, 7(5), 
    139-163. 
    Rahimi, A., & Abedini, A. (2009). The interface between EFL learners’ self-efficacy concerning listening 
    comprehension and listening proficiency. Novitas-ROYAL, 3(1), 14-28.   
    Razmjoo, S. A. (2008). On  The Relationship between Multiple Intelligence and Language Proficiency.  The 
    Reading Matrix, 8(2), 155-174. 
    Renandya, W. A., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2011). Teacher, the tape is too fast!’ Extensive listening in ELT. ELT Journal, 
    65(1), 52-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq015 
    Richard-Amato, P. A., (2003). Making it happen: From interactive to participatory language teaching: Theory and 
    practice. White Plains, NY: Pearson   
    Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305 
    Sadeghi, K., & Farzizadeh, B. (2012). The relationship between multiple intelligence and writing ability of 
    Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 5(11), 136-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n11p136 
    Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort in 
    learning as a function of perceptions and attributions, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 647-658. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.647 
    Schunk, D. H. (1983). Developing children’s self-efficacy and skills: The roles of social comparative  information 
    and goal setting.  Contemporary Educational Psychology,  8, 76-86. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90036-X 
    Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behavior.  Educational Psychology Review,  1, 173-208. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01320134 
    Schunk, D. H. (1996). Self-efficacy for learning and performance. Presented at American Educational Research 
    Association, New York, NY. 
    Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models:  Influence on children's self-efficacy and achievement. 
    Educational Psychology, 77, 313-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.3.313 
    Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: 
    Mediation analyses. Applied Psychology, 57, 152-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00359.x 
    Serraj, S., & Noordin, N. (2013). Relationship among Iranian EFL students’ foreign language anxiety, foreign 
    language listening anxiety and their listening comprehension.  English Language Teaching, 6(5), 1-12. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n5p1 
    Shore, J. R. (2001).  An investigation of multiple intelligence and self-efficacy in the university English as a 
    secondary language classroom. Unpublished Ed. D Dissertation, George Washington University. 
    Shore, J. R., (2004). Teacher education and multiple intelligence: A case  study of multiple intelligence and 
    teacher efficacy in two teacher preparation courses.  Teachers College Record, 106(1), 112-139. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00323.x 
    Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold. 
    Sparks, R. (1995). Examining the linguistic coding differences hypothesis to explain individual differences in 
    foreign language learning. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 187-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02648218 
    Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
    Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education 
    Tahriri, A., & Divsar, H. (2011). EFL learners’ self-perceived strategy use across various intelligence types: A www.ccsenet.org/elt  English Language Teaching  Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016 
    212 
     
    case study. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 115-138. 
    Tirri, K., & Komulainen, E. (2002). Modeling a self-rated intelligence-profile for virtual university. In H. Niemi 
    & P. Ruohotie (Eds.),  Theoretical understandings for learning in virtual university (pp. 139-168). 
    Hämeenlinna, FI: RCVE. 
    Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: Acquiring successful strategies. 
    ELT Journal, 53(3), 168-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.3.168 
    Viens, J., & Kallenbach, S. (2004). Multiple intelligences and adult literacy: A sourcebook for practitioners. 
    Teachers College Press. 
    Vogely, A. (1999). Addressing listening comprehension anxiety. In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language 
    and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp. 
    106-123).  
    Wilfong, J. D. (2006). Computer anxiety and anger: the impact of computer use, computer experience, and 
    self-efficacy beliefs.  Computers in Human Behavior, 22(6), 1001-1011. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.020 
    Wu, Y. (1998). What do tests of listening comprehension test? A retrospection study of EFL test-takers performing 
    a multiple-choice task. Language Testing, 15(1), 21-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026553229801500102 
    Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515-535. 
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00048-2 
    Yi-an, H. (2010). Multiple intelligence and foreign language learning: A case study in Taiwan. The International 
    Journal of the Humanities, 8(4), 77-106. 
    Zarei, A, A., & Mohseni, F. (2012). On the relationship between multiple intelligence and grammatical and 
    writing accuracy of Iranian learners of English. US-China Foreign Language, 10(7), 1306-1317. 
    Zeng, Y. (2007). Metacognitive instruction in listening: A study of Chinese non-English major undergraduates. 
    Unpublished Master thesis, Singapore: Nanyang Technological University). 
    Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2006). Adolescents’ development of personal agency: The role of self-efficacy 
    beliefs and self-regulatory skill. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-Efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 
    45-69). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. 
    Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role 
    of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676. 
    English Language Teaching ISSN  E-ISSN 1916-4750 代写