The results of the descriptive statistics of the students’ multiple intelligences are shown in Table 3-14. Obviously, interpersonal intelligence was the strongest intelligence (M= 34.76) whereas naturalist intelligence was the weakest intelligence (M=25.52) among the eight intelligences for all the subjects. In between were musical intelligence (M=34.54), spatial intelligence (M=33.36), intrapersonal intelligence (M=32.93) , bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (M=32.13), linguistic intelligence (M=31.01), and logical-mathematical intelligence (M=28.47).
Table 3-14 Descriptive Statistics of the Subjects’ Multiple Intelligences
Multiple Intelligences Number Mean SD Rank Order
Interpersonal 107 34.76 5.98 1
Musical 107 34.54 7.24 2
Spatial 107 33.36 6.02 3
Intrapersonal 107 32.93 5.93 4
Bodily-Kinesthetic 107 32.13 8.18 5
Linguistic 107 31.01 5.64 6
Logical-Mathematical 107 28.47 6.44 7
Naturalist 107 25.52 7.16 8
Notes: The maximum mean for each style is 48, and the minimum mean is 8.
14 There was only an exception to it: the low achievers preferred tactile instead of kinesthetic learning he most (See Table 3-12).
As Table 3-15 indicates, there was a slight difference in multiple intelligences between the high and low achievers in listening comprehension. In fact, the biggest difference between the two groups fell on logical-mathematical intelligence (23.9<
30.8). On the other hand, for the high achievers, musical (M=35), interpersonal (M=33.9), and intrapersonal intelligence (M=32.3) were obvious while naturalist (M=21.3) and logical-mathematical (M=23.9) were not significant. Compared with their low-achieving peers, the high achievers showed more bodily-kinesthetic, musical, and intrapersonal intelligences.
Table 3-15 Multiple Intelligences of the High and Low Achievers in Listening Comprehension
Multiple Intelligences Group N M Rank Order
Linguistic High Achiever Low Achiever
Spatial High Achiever
Low Achiever Bodily-Kinesthetic High Achiever
Low Achiever Musical High Achiever
Low Achiever Interpersonal High Achiever
Low Achiever Intrapersonal High Achiever
Low Achiever Naturalist High Achiever
Low Achiever
As Table 3-16 shows, there was a slight difference between the two groups again, and the biggest difference lay in logical-mathematical intelligence again (24.5< 30.7).
Similarly, for the high achievers, their interpersonal (M=35.1), musical (M=34.9), and intrapersonal intelligences (M=32) were strong while naturalist (M=22.7) and logical-mathematical intelligences (M=24.5) were weak. In general, the high achievers showed a stronger tendency for musical, and interpersonal intelligences.
Table 3-16 Multiple Intelligences of the High and Low Achievers in Reading Comprehension
Multiple Intelligences Group N M Rank Order
Linguistic High Achiever Low Achiever
Spatial High Achiever
Low Achiever Bodily-Kinesthetic High Achiever
Low Achiever
Musical High Achiever
Low Achiever Interpersonal High Achiever
Low Achiever Intrapersonal High Achiever
Low Achiever Naturalist High Achiever
Low Achiever
As for the receptive skills, as Table 3-17 shows, the biggest difference between the two groups fell on logical-mathematical intelligence again (25.3< 31.5). Similar
to the results in listening and reading comprehension, musical (M=36.6), interpersonal (M=35.6), and intrapersonal intelligences (M=33.3) were strong for the high achievers while naturalist (M=23.2) and logical-mathematical (M=25.3) were weak. Besides, the high achievers showed a stronger tendency for bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences.
Table 3-17 Multiple Intelligences of the High and Low Achievers in Receptive Skills
Multiple Intelligences Group N M Rank Order
Linguistic High Achiever Low Achiever
Spatial High Achiever
Low Achiever Bodily-Kinesthetic High Achiever
Low Achiever
Musical High Achiever
Low Achiever Interpersonal High Achiever
Low Achiever Intrapersonal High Achiever
Low Achiever Naturalist High Achiever
Low Achiever
Table 3-18 shows that there was little difference between the two groups in oral production, with an exception of logical-mathematical intelligence (27.5< 31.4).
Different from the previous results in listening and reading comprehension, spatial intelligence (M=33.9) was one of the strong intelligences for the high achievers besides interpersonal (M=35.1) and musical (M=34.1) intelligences. On average, the high achievers showed stronger tendency in linguistic, spatial, musical, interpersonal,
and intrapersonal intelligences.
Table 3-18 Multiple Intelligences of the High and Low Achievers in Oral Production
Multiple Intelligences Group N M Rank Order
Linguistic High Achiever Low Achiever
Spatial High Achiever
Low Achiever Bodily-Kinesthetic High Achiever
Low Achiever
Musical High Achiever
Low Achiever Interpersonal High Achiever
Low Achiever Intrapersonal High Achiever
Low Achiever Naturalist High Achiever
Low Achiever
Table 3-19 shows that there was a slight difference between the two groups in written production, and the biggest difference fell on logical-mathematical intelligence again (26< 30.5). Similar to the results found in oral production, musical (M=36.3), interpersonal (M=35.9), and spatial intelligences (M=34) were strong for high achievers. Besides, high achievers showed a stronger tendency for bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences.
Table 3-19 shows the multiple intelligences between the high and low achievers in written production:
Table 3-19 Multiple Intelligences Between the High and Low Achievers in Written Production
Multiple Intelligences Group N M Rank Order
Linguistic High Achiever Low Achiever
Spatial High Achiever
Low Achiever Bodily-Kinesthetic High Achiever
Low Achiever
Musical High Achiever
Low Achiever Interpersonal High Achiever
Low Achiever Intrapersonal High Achiever
Low Achiever Naturalist High Achiever
Low Achiever
With regard to the productive skills, as Table 3-20 shows, little difference was found between the two groups except for naturalist intelligence (22.5< 28.7). For the high achievers, their musical (M=36.8), interpersonal (M=35.8), and intrapersonal intelligences (M=33.6) were whereas naturalist (M=22.5) and logical-mathematical (M=27.9) were weak. Also, the high achievers showed more bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences.
Table 3-20 Multiple Intelligences of the High and Low Achievers in Productive Skills
Multiple Intelligences Group N M Rank Order
Linguistic High Achiever Low Achiever
Spatial High Achiever
Low Achiever Bodily-Kinesthetic High Achiever
Low Achiever
Musical High Achiever
Low Achiever Interpersonal High Achiever
Low Achiever Intrapersonal High Achiever
Low Achiever Naturalist High Achiever
Low Achiever
With regard to the holistic skills, there was no big difference between the two groups, as shown in Table 3-21. The biggest difference fell on logical-mathematical intelligence (25.4< 31.8). Again, for the high achievers, their musical (M=36.8), interpersonal (M=35.8), and intrapersonal intelligences (M=33.6) were strong whereas naturalist (M=23.1) and logical-mathematical intelligences (M=25.4) were weak. Besides, the high achievers showed more bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences.
Table 3-21 Multiple Intelligences of the High and Low Achievers in Holistic Skills
Multiple Intelligences Group N M Rank Order
Linguistic High Achiever Low Achiever
Spatial High Achiever
Low Achiever Bodily-Kinesthetic High Achiever
Low Achiever
Musical High Achiever
Low Achiever Interpersonal High Achiever
Low Achiever Intrapersonal High Achiever
Low Achiever Naturalist High Achiever
Low Achiever
To sum up, according to the results concerning multiple intelligences of the high and low achievers, it was found that musical intelligence was the strongest intelligence for high achievers in all the skills (except for reading skills) while logical-mathematical and naturalist intelligences were the weak intelligences for them. On the other hand, for the low achievers, spatial and interpersonal intelligences were the strong intelligences while logical-mathematical, naturalist and linguistic15 intelligences were the weak intelligences for them. Moreover, the high achievers showed more musical and interpersonal intelligences16 whereas the low achievers showed stronger logical-mathematical, naturalist and spatial intelligences17. Besides, based on the high
15 Linguistic intelligence was the weak intelligence for the low achievers in reading and speaking (Tables 16 & 18).
16 The high achievers showed more interpersonal intelligence in all the skills except for the listening skill (33.9= 33.9, Table 3-15).
17 The low achievers showed more spatial intelligence in all the skills except for the speaking skill (33.2<33.9, Table 3-18).
achievers’ top/ bottom 3 strong intelligences in every skill, it was found that musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences were positively related to the subjects’
English proficiency while logical-mathematical and naturalist intelligences were negatively related to their English proficiency. To confirm the results above, further statistic analyses will be presented in the next chapter.