Luís Fernando
Irgang dos Santos
Universidade de
Halmstad, Suécia
E-mail: luis.irgang@hotmail.com
Nikolas Könzgen
Huck
Universidade
Regional de Blumenau (FURB), Brazil
E-mail: nikolaskhuck@gmail.com
Ronaldo Leão de
Miranda
Universidade
Federal de Rondônia (UNIR), Brazil
E-mail: ronaldo.miranda@unir.br
Franco da
Silveira
Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil
E-mail: franco.da.silveira@hotmail.com
Submission: 1/12/2021
Accept: 2/2/2021
ABSTRACT
Experts claim for more studies on
Theory of Multiple Intelligences in higher education classrooms. There is a lack
of information on the characteristics of multiple intelligence in universities
in developing countries, such as Brazil, as they can assist in the education of
students in a wide variety of fields. This study aims to analyze and compare
the types of multiple intelligences among bachelor students of Business
Administration programs in private universities. We conducted a quantitative
study based on survey with students from two private universities in the
southern Brazil. The results indicated that the academic
profile of both programs has similarity in the average frequency of most of the
identified intelligences. The intelligences identified that showed
statistically significant differences between academics are:
logical-mathematical, interpersonal, musical and naturalistic. In general, the
most developed multiple intelligences are: logical-mathematical, interpersonal,
intrapersonal and bodily-kinesthetic. In addition, the least developed are:
spatial, linguistic, musical and naturalistic.
Keywords: Multiple Intelligences. University. Education. Business Administration
1.
INTRODUCTION
The
first psychological test for assessing intelligences (Galton, 1870) expressed a
theoretical interest in the conception of intelligence through the observation
of practical issues (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). Later, Binet and Simon (1916)
developed the "Binet-Simon Test of Intelligence". The instrument
consisted of performing quick tasks, usually involving logical-mathematical
skills (Gould & Siqueira, 1991). However, the authors of this instrument,
which today is also known as the Intelligence Quotient (IQ), stated that the
measure of intelligence could not involve only one factor, as it is a complex
phenomenon (Maia & Fonseca, 2002).
The
relation between the IQ test and academic performance is one of the oldest
findings and confirmed by Psychology (Reuchlin, 1991). Other tests for
measuring intelligence were developed later. These tests used more elements in
their analysis and usually consisted of analyzing children's performance when
challenged to perform specific tasks and influenced by different environmental
situations. This analysis represented an attitude towards the presented context,
and not necessarily a natural predisposition (Maia & Fonseca, 2002).
Howard
Gardner, a psychologist at Harvard University, coordinated a research group
whose findings would result in what is now known as Theory of Multiple
Intelligences (MI). Unlike tests like Alfred Binet's, this model addresses
intelligence from multiple perspectives. This model is based in the observation
of building blocks of intelligence used by sailors, surgeons, artists,
children, etc. (Armstrong, 2009). To organize the types of intelligences,
Gardner initially classified them into seven groups: linguistic,
logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and
intrapersonal; and later it also included naturalistic intelligence (Travassos, 2001).
This
new format of understanding about the human intellect implies a wide range of
particular spectra of intelligence, which would lead people to understand their
outstanding intelligences and to develop compatible occupations. According to
Theory of MI, every human being has at least one well-developed intelligence,
some people have up to two. There are rare individuals who have all the
intelligences raised, as it is also difficult for an individual to have none of
the developed intellectual spheres (Travassos, 2001).
Against
this backdrop, this study aims to analyze and compare the types of multiple
intelligences among bachelor students of Business Administration programs in
private universities. We conducted a quantitative study based on survey with
students from two private universities in the southern Brazil.
The
remainder of the article is structured in the following manner. First, section
2 presents an overview of the literature about intelligence. Section 3 explains
the method adopted to develop the research. Section 4 presents and discusses
the results of the study. Later, the final considerations are presented in
section 5.
2.
OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Human
intelligence is possibly one of the most researched topics in Psychology. Given
the vast publication of articles in this area, it can be said that there is
hardly a consensus on what intelligence is. Theories have varied according to
their traditional study background and can be classified into factorial or
psychometric, cognitive and developmental (Primi,
2002).
Intelligence,
according to the scientific foundations of Psychology, originates as a
cognitive and individual competence. In a society that excels in the
individual's perceptiveness of intellectuality, being more or less intelligent
means an important competence for social development. Much of social ascension
is governed by people's intellectual capacity. The difference between
individuals legitimates the idea that some people have the right to succeed,
and others do not (Miranda, 1998).
In a broader sense, intelligence comprises the
intellectual capacity of individuals to understand, choose the best path, have
the conception of ideas, judgment and reasoning for solving problems (Antunes,
1998). According to Gardner (1994), the concept of intelligence is broader and
includes the ability to solve problems or elaborate works that become important
in the context inserted. This ability to solve problems is linked to achieving
goals and finding viable paths to these goals (Travassos,
2001). The concept proposed by Gardner makes the understanding of intelligences
plural, based on the premise that human intelligence is a complex system that
can manifest itself in different ways in individuals (Ropelato
et al., 2010).
Based
on Gardner’s Theory of MI, Armstrong (2009) classified the types of
intelligences in 8 categories:
a) Linguistic intelligence: consists of
the ability of using words assertively, either orally or in writing. This
intelligence is usually associated with poets, writers, lawyers and speakers;
b) Logical-mathematical intelligence:
it was the basis of the Binet-Simon test and so many other tests of
intelligence. It is the ability of using numbers and logical reasoning
effectively. The process models used in this intelligence consist of
categorization, classification, inference, generalization, calculation and
hypothesis testing;
c) Spatial intelligence: it is the
capacity for full and precise attention to the visual and spatial universe. It
is comonlly attributed to architects, graphic artists
and designers, and aggregates the potential to recognize and manipulate color
patterns, lines, shapes, space configuration and the relationships between
elements;
d) Musical intelligence: it is the
sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, melodies and timbres. It is an
intelligence that enables a general understanding of music, its structures and
patterns.
e) Interpersonal intelligence: it is
the ability of creating and sustaining relationships. It is knowing how to
distinguish intentions, motivations and feelings in other people in a natural
way. This intelligence involves the sensitivity to understand facial
expressions, voice and gestures, signals and the ability to respond effectively
to these factors. It is usually attributed to politicians, sales professionals,
teachers, artists and religious leaders.
f) Intrapersonal intelligence:
perceived through self-knowledge, aggregates the ability to react in response
to this knowledge and to use the self-knowledge to regulate different aspects
of life. People with this intelligence have the capacity for self-discipline,
self-understanding and self-esteem.
g) Naturalistic intelligence:
characterized by competence in recognizing the diverse species of flora and fauna,
the environment and the individual. It is more evident in individuals who live
in the midst of nature.
h) Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence:
implies using one's own body to solve problems. Usually attributed to high
performance athletes, artisans, dancers and actors, it is the ability to
control, express and coordinate body movements.
From
the Theory of MI, Gardner (1994) states that most people can develop each type
of intelligence at a level compatible with their needs, according to the
received stimuli and instructions. For example, a study suggested that
linguistic intelligence is presented at different levels in students of
Accounting, History and Literature courses at a university in southern Brazil
(Walter et al., 2008). In the same way, another study remarked that students
develop predominant types of intelligences in accordance with the field of
study. For example, while students of technology-related courses tend to
develop logical-mathematical intelligence students of Health Science courses develop
naturalistic intelligence (Ropelato et al., 2011).
Previous
studies linked the development of multiple intelligences with specific
pedagogical methodologies and teaching and learning processes. For example, a
study carried out in China demonstrated that the design of teaching models with
game platforms can stimulate the development of certain multiple intelligences
in school-age children (Hong & Chen, 2018). Another study showed that
teaching strategies such as self-reflection and concept exploration can be
effective in improving specific types of multiple intelligences (Winarti; Yuanita & Nur,
2019). Overall, the Theory of MI contributes to the teaching-learning process
in the sense of providing to the teachers an understanding on the appropriate
strategies to stimulate and develop specific intelligences and improve the
academic performance of students.
3.
METHOD
To
analyze and compare the types of multiple intelligences among bachelor students
in Business Administration programs, we developed a descriptive study based on
a survey. Descriptive research aims to describe the
characteristics of a population or phenomenon, or to establish a relationship
between variables (Gil, 2008). Surveys promote a quantitative or numerical
characterization of the attitudes, trends and opinions of a population and seek to know and interpret reality without interfering
with it (Creswell, 2010).
For
the development of the study, we selected bachelor students from Business
Administration programs at two private universities in the southern region of
Brazil. The Private University “A” (UPA), is located in Santa Catarina (SC).
The Private University “B” (UPB) is located in Rio Grande do Sul (RS). The population of this study consisted of academics who
study at different periods of the Business Administration programs at these
universities, considering that multiple intelligences can be stimulated
throughout academic life (Walter et al., 2008; Ropelato et al., 2011).
In the period of development of this study, the Business
Administration program at UPA had a total of 366 students, while Business
Administration program at UPB had a total of 178 students. The sample
calculation suggests that, for statistical validation, the sample must be composed
of at least 188 students from the UPA and 122 students from the UPB,
considering sample error rates of 5% and 95% confidence level. The collection
followed the simple random sampling standard, which is configured in a
probabilistic sample. This pattern indicates that each observed element has the
same probability of being chosen for observation as all the others (Ropelato et al., 2011).
Data
collection was carried out at both universities between August and September
2019, and the questionnaires were applied by the first and second authors. A
total of 216 respondents from the UPA (approximately 60% of the population) and
114 from the UPB (approximately 64% of the population) were reached. As a
collection instrument, an adaptation of the questionnaire proposed by Armstrong
(2009), called the Multiple Intelligence Inventory (IMM), was used. This
instrument consists of 81 questions that address the intelligences proposed by
the Theory of MI, arranged in eight dimensions: 11 statements for linguistic intelligence
and 10 for each of the other seven intelligences (spatial,
logical-mathematical, musical, naturalistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and
bodily-synesthetic), totaling 81 questions (Walter et al., 2006; Ropelato et al., 2011)
The questions of the instrument are
linked to outstanding characteristics of multiple intelligences, such as: “I do
at least one sport or physical activity regularly” for bodily-synesthetic
intelligence; or “I am sensitive to colors”; referring to spatial intelligence.
Following the methodology adapted by Ropelato et
al. (2011), in the printed questionnaire, respondents were asked to mark
“1”, when the statement applied to their profile, or “0” if they did not
identify themselves with the characteristic or skill described in the
affirmative. Therefore, the study variables are characterized as dichotomous.
As the linguistic intelligence has one more statement than the other
intelligences in the questionnaire, to calculate the average percentages of
each intelligence we added the quantities of alternatives that each respondent
pointed out and divided that number by the total possibilities, that is, the
number of respondents was multiplied by the number of questions (see Ropelato et al., 2011).
To characterize the respondents'
profile, questions were also included in the instrument that allowed the
collection of information about gender, age and semester period of the course
in which the respondent was studying at the time of the questionnaire
application. In the recording and tabulation of the collected data, an
electronic spreadsheet of the Microsoft Excel software was used. For analysis
of variance of the data, the Analysis of Variance - Anova
test was used (Hair et al., 2005). The homogeneity of the variances was
also verified through the Levene test, which is one
of the most important tests for this purpose and robust in terms of deviations
from normality (Marôco, 2018).
To check the significance between
the mean of the intelligences of the two courses, the t-test of equality of the
means for two paired samples was used, which is performed when two different
groups are analyzed, but there is a common characteristic by which the two
groups can compared (Marôco, 2018). These tests were
performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software
in version 21.0. Finally, to justify the multiple intelligences of academics
from different semester periods of the bachelor programs in Business
Administration at both universities, the approach of Wenningkamp
et al. (2017), which proposes the identification of disciplines that
stimulate the development of specific intelligences.
4.
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
This
section presents the study results. We initially presented the characterization
of the sample (see Table 1). As shown in Table 1, it is possible to verify that
the majority of participants from UPA are male (52.78%). Conversely, the
majority of respondents in the UPB are female, representing a total of 59.65%
of respondents. In general, considering the total number of respondents, 51.51%
are female and 48.49% are male, representing an almost homogeneous
distribution.
Table 1: Characterization of the respondents' profile by university and
gender
|
Gender |
UPA |
UPB |
Total |
|||
|
Female |
102 |
47.42% |
68 |
59.65% |
170 |
51.51% |
|
Male |
114 |
52.78% |
46 |
40.35% |
160 |
48.49% |
|
Total |
216 |
100.00% |
114 |
100.00% |
330 |
100.00% |
Source: Research
data (2021).
Table 2 shows the
classification of the participants by course in relation to the age group.
Table 2: Classification of respondents by course and by age group
|
Age Range |
UPA |
UPB |
Total |
|||
|
17 to
20 years |
117 |
54.17% |
40 |
35.09% |
157 |
47.58% |
|
21 to
25 years |
85 |
39.35% |
49 |
42.98% |
134 |
40.61% |
|
26 to
30 years |
12 |
5.56% |
18 |
15.79% |
30 |
9.09% |
|
31 to
35 years |
1 |
0.46% |
4 |
3.51% |
5 |
1.51% |
|
36 to
40 years |
0 |
0.00% |
3 |
2.63% |
3 |
0.91% |
|
Above
41 years |
1 |
0.46% |
0 |
0.00% |
1 |
0.30% |
|
Total |
216 |
100.00% |
114 |
100.00% |
330 |
100.00% |
Source: Research
data (2021).
According to Table 2, in UPA the vast majority of
students are between 17 and 20 years old (54.17% of respondents) and another
significant portion is in the 21 to 25 age group (39.35%), while only 5.56% are
between 26 and 30 years old and less than 1% say they are over 31 years old. In
UPB 35.09% of the students are 20 years old or younger and 42.98% are between
21 and 25 years old. In turn, 15.79% of respondents are in the age group of 26
to 30 years old, while just over 6% are 31 years old or more. In general, it
can be concluded that more than 97% of respondents in both programs are aged 30
years or less.
Finishing the characterization of the respondents'
profile and with the objective of comparatively analyzing the multiple intelligences
identified in the students of different semester periods, there was a need to
classify the respondents according to the semester period. Thus, this division
is shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Classification of students by course and by semester period
|
Semester Period |
UPA |
UPB |
Total |
|||
|
1st to
3rd semester |
63 |
29.17% |
31 |
27.19% |
94 |
28.48% |
|
4th to
6th semester |
98 |
45.37% |
35 |
30.70% |
133 |
40.30% |
|
7th to
9th semester |
55 |
25.46% |
48 |
42.11% |
103 |
31.22% |
|
Total |
216 |
100.00% |
114 |
100.00% |
330 |
100.00% |
Source: Research
data (2021).
Considering that the UPA Business Administration
program lasts 4 years (8 semesters) and the UPB Business Administration program
lasts 4 and a half years (9 semesters), the respondents were divided into 3
periods: the beginners (1st to 3rd semester), intermediaries (4th to 6th
semester) and graduates (7th to 9th semester). Therefore, when the
questionnaires were applied, 29.17% of the UPA respondents were in the first
semesters of the program, while in the UPB this portion represented 27.19% of
the total. Students who qualified in the intermediate semesters represented
45.37% at UPA and 30.70% at UPB. Finally, the graduates consisted of 25.46% of
UPA students and 42.11% of UPB students.
To comparatively analyze the multiple intelligences
identified in the students of the two universities from the Multiple
Intelligences Inventory (Armstrong, 2009), the average frequencies of each
intelligence type in percentage were calculated. Table
4 allows us to identify that, in the UPA students, the most present
intelligences are intrapersonal (61.53%), followed by bodily-kinesthetic
(60.05%), logical-mathematical (59.77%) and interpersonal (59.03%). For the UPB
students, the most common intelligence is logical-mathematical (56.78%), followed
by intrapersonal (56.46%), bodily-kinesthetic (54.55%) and musical (53.75%).
Likewise, the intelligences with less frequency in
the respondents of both universities are the naturalistic intelligence (42.69%
in students from UPA and 41.23% in students from UPB), linguistics (45.41% in
academics from UPA and 46.01% in students from UPB) and space (51.71% in
students from UPA and 48.56% in students from UPB).
Table 4: Average percentage of frequency of multiple intelligences per
course
|
Multiple
Intelligences |
UPA |
UPB |
Difference (%) |
|
Linguistic |
45.41% |
46.01% |
0.60% |
|
Logical-mathematical |
59.77% |
56.78% |
2.99% |
|
Spatial |
51.71% |
48.56% |
3.15% |
|
Interpersonal |
59.03% |
52.23% |
6.79% |
|
Bodily-kinesthetic |
60.05% |
54.55% |
5.50% |
|
Musical |
55.79% |
53.75% |
2.04% |
|
Intrapersonal |
61.53% |
56.46% |
5.07% |
|
Naturalistic |
42.69% |
41.23% |
1.46% |
Source: Research data (2021).
In addition to the frequency of intelligences in the
respondents, Table 4 shows that there is great similarity between the multiple
intelligences identified in the students of both universities, showing
homogeneity in the characteristics of the students' profile. The intelligences
that most present discrepancies between academics are interpersonal (difference
of 6.79%), body-synesthetic (difference of 5.50%) and intrapersonal (difference
of 5.07%). The intelligences with differences in the lower percentage
frequencies were linguistic (0.60%) and naturalist (1.46%).
Furthermore, the analysis of variance test (ANOVA)
allows to verify the existence of significant differences between the samples
of the two courses in question, as shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Analysis of variance test between Business courses
|
Multiple Intelligences |
Sum of Squares |
Degrees of freedom |
Average squared |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
Linguistic |
Between
Groups |
3253,633 |
1 |
3253,633 |
0.086 |
0.770 |
|
In
groups |
12415655,458 |
328 |
37852,608 |
|||
|
Total |
12418909,091 |
329 |
||||
|
Logical-mathematical |
Between
Groups |
53899,034 |
1 |
53899,034 |
1.101 |
0.295 |
|
In
groups |
16060070,663 |
328 |
48963,630 |
|||
|
Total |
16113969,697 |
329 |
||||
|
Spatial |
Between
Groups |
21770,379 |
1 |
21770,379 |
0.582 |
0.446 |
|
In
groups |
12263199,318 |
328 |
37387,803 |
|||
|
Total |
12284969,697 |
329 |
||||
|
Interpersonal |
Between
Groups |
18431,021 |
1 |
18431,021 |
0.489 |
0.485 |
|
In
groups |
12365811,404 |
328 |
37700,645 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
12384242,424 |
329 |
|
|
|
|
|
Bodily-kinesthetic |
Between
Groups |
15,993 |
1 |
15,993 |
0.000 |
0.983 |
|
In
groups |
11009953,704 |
328 |
33566,932 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
11009969,697 |
329 |
|
|
|
|
|
Musical |
Between
Groups |
83030,347 |
1 |
83030,347 |
1,651 |
0, 200 |
|
In
groups |
16497848,441 |
328 |
50298,318 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
16580878,788 |
329 |
|
|
|
|
|
Intrapersonal |
Between
Groups |
2488,437 |
1 |
2488,437 |
0.088 |
0.767 |
|
In
groups |
9269057,018 |
328 |
28259,320 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
9271545,455 |
329 |
|
|
|
|
|
Naturalistic |
Between
Groups |
53023,037 |
1 |
53023,037 |
1.103 |
0.294 |
|
In
groups |
15767855,750 |
328 |
48072,731 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
15820878,788 |
329 |
|
|
|
|
Source: Research
data (2021).
Through the Anova Test, it was
found that there was no statistically significant variance between the courses,
since all presented significance greater than 0.05. Thus, we proceeded with the
Levene Test (Table 6), with the objective of
attesting the homogeneity of the variances (Ropelato et
al., 2011).
Levene's test presented
in table 6 shows that the variances in multiple intelligences between the
Administration courses are equivalent, since all results were greater than 0.05
(Ropelato et al., 2011).
Table 6: Levene's test for business courses
|
Multiple Intelligences |
Levene statistics |
Degrees of Freedom 1 |
Degrees of Freedom 2 |
Sig. |
|
Linguistic |
0.507 |
1 |
328 |
0.477 |
|
Logical-mathematical |
1,185 |
1 |
328 |
0.277 |
|
Spatial |
0.781 |
1 |
328 |
0.378 |
|
Interpersonal |
1,595 |
1 |
328 |
0.208 |
|
Bodily-kinesthetic |
0.473 |
1 |
328 |
0.492 |
|
Musical |
0.851 |
1 |
328 |
0.357 |
|
Intrapersonal |
0.143 |
1 |
328 |
0.706 |
|
Naturalistic |
1,033 |
1 |
328 |
0.856 |
Source: Research data (2021).
Considering
the results of the Anova Test and the Levene Test, which attested to homogeneity and
non-significant variance between the samples, the t-test for equality of means
for two paired samples was performed (Table 7), since the respondents belong to
two different samples, but with characteristics in common (in this case, all
respondents are bachelor students of Business Administration programs).
Table 7: t-test for equality of means between courses
|
Multiple Intelligences between Courses |
Average |
Standard deviation |
Mean standard error |
t |
Degree of Freedom |
Sig. |
|
Linguistic |
0.06095180 |
0.61844653 |
0.03404436 |
1,790 |
329 |
0.074 |
|
Logical-mathematical |
0.10356535 |
0.144170389 |
0.00780054 |
13,277 |
329 |
0.000 |
|
Spatial |
0.04099944 |
0.49862735 |
02744853 |
1,494 |
329 |
0.136 |
|
Interpersonal |
-0.05907833 |
0.32250248 |
0.01775318 |
-3.328 |
329 |
0.001 |
|
Bodily-kinesthetic |
0.06692729 |
0.64986089 |
0.03577366 |
1,871 |
329 |
0.062 |
|
Musical |
0.10502267 |
0.22358728 |
0.01230807 |
8.533 |
329 |
0.000 |
|
Intrapersonal |
0.01020258 |
0.46201768 |
0.02543324 |
0.401 |
329 |
0.689 |
|
Naturalistic |
0.10439246 |
0.11768541 |
0.00647837 |
16,114 |
329 |
0.000 |
Source: Research
data (2021).
In
this type of test, two hypotheses are adopted to be tested, the null hypothesis
and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis (H0) predicts that the
average differences between the measured variables is 0; while the alternative
hypothesis (H1) predicts that the average differences between the variables are
different from 0. As shown in Table 7, it can be concluded that the average
differences of multiple intelligences between the students of the two universities
are different from 0, that is, H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted. However, only
the average differences between logical-mathematical, interpersonal, musical
and naturalistic intelligences are statistically significant (Sig <0.05).
To provide a better understanding of the multiple
intelligences identified among bachelor students of the two universities, we
followed the approach of the approach of Wenningkamp et
al. (2017) and analyzed the multiple intelligences of students from
different semester periods of the bachelor programs. Thus, Table 5 presents the
multiple intelligences of the respondents per course and per semester period.
Based on the indices presented in Table 8, it is
possible to identify the types of intelligences most presented in the students
from different semester periods of each program. Considering that the programs
of both institutions are based on the proposals of the National Education
Council for the construction of their curricular matrix, it is assumed that
they enable the training of professionals with specific skills and abilities
inherent to the exercise of Business Administration, in a similar way.
Table 8: Multiple intelligences of academics for semester periods
|
Multiple
Intelligences |
1st to 3rd semester |
4th to 6th semester |
7th to 9th semester |
|||
|
UPA |
UPB |
UPA |
UPB |
UPA |
UPB |
|
|
Linguistic |
45.74% |
55.56% |
44.34% |
45.71% |
46.94% |
43.94% |
|
Logical-mathematical |
59.05% |
61.29% |
58.88% |
64.29% |
62.18% |
61.88% |
|
Spatial |
47.30% |
50.65% |
53.88% |
55.14% |
52.91% |
53.96% |
|
Interpersonal |
58.57% |
54.84% |
61.22% |
58.57% |
55.64% |
58.33% |
|
Bodily-kinesthetic |
59.52% |
53.42% |
62.24% |
61.14% |
56.73% |
60.83% |
|
Musical |
55.56% |
52.61% |
55.00% |
51.86% |
54.45% |
56.25% |
|
Intrapersonal |
61.11% |
60.65% |
61.63% |
62.57% |
61.82% |
62.71% |
|
Naturalistic |
39.84% |
43.87% |
45.10% |
46.86% |
41.64% |
45.21% |
Source: Research
data (2021).
Following the approach proposed by Wenningkamp et al. (2017), we elaborated Frame 1 to show
the main multiple intelligences of students in according to the semester
periods and related the development of such intelligences with the courses
offered in each period, based on the curricular plan.
Frame 1: Relationship between the main multiple intelligences and
program course
|
1st to 3rd semester |
||
|
Program |
Featured Intelligences |
Courses |
|
UPA |
- Intrapersonal (61.11%) |
University, Science and Research; and Scientific Language. |
|
- Bodily-synesthetic (59.52%) |
Written and Oral Communication; Sports Practice and Pounds. |
|
|
- Logical-mathematical (59.52%) |
Basic Math; Accounting Applied to Business; Mathematics Applied to
Business (I and II); Tax Accounting; International Economics and Statistics. |
|
|
- Interpersonal (58.57%) |
Written and Oral Communication, Organizational Psychology,
Communication and Society, Ethical Dilemmas and Citizenship, Administration
and Entrepreneurship; and Pounds. |
|
|
UPB |
- Logical-mathematical (61.29%) |
Fundamentals of Macroeconomics; Fundamentals of Mathematics; General
Accountability; Elements of Economy and Finance; Fundamentals of
Microeconomics; Sales Administration; Structure of Financial Statements; and
Tax Law. |
|
- Intrapersonal (60.65%) |
Organizational Planning and Strategies; and Philosophy and Ethics. |
|
|
- Linguistic (55.56%) |
Reading and Textual Production; Theory of Administration (I and II);
Tax law; Philosophy and Ethics; and Research in Applied Social Sciences. |
|
|
- Interpersonal (54.84%) |
Entrepreneurial Administration; Fundamentals of Marketing; Marketing
Strategies; Sales Administration. |
|
|
4th to
6th semester |
||
|
Program |
Featured Intelligences |
Courses |
|
UPA |
- Bodily-kinesthetic (62.24%) |
Human Resources Internship; and Internship in Logistics. |
|
- Intrapersonal (61.63%) |
Analysis of Business Processes; Human Resources Internship; and
Internship in Logistics. |
|
|
- Interpersonal (61.22%) |
Human Resources Administration (I and II); Human Resources Internship;
Marketing I. |
|
|
- Logical-mathematical (58.88%) |
Analysis of Business Processes; Study of Costs Applied to Business;
Microeconomics; Financial math; Resources Management; Financial Management;
Macroeconomics; Operational Research; Logistics; Financial Administration;
Logistics Internship; Advanced Management and Accounting; and Capital Market. |
|
|
UPB |
- Logical-mathematical (64.29%) |
Accounting and Costs Management; Statistics; Financial Analysis;
Fundamentals of Production and Operations; Logistics; and Organizational
Practices. |
|
- Intrapersonal (62.57%) |
Formation and Development of the Brazilian Society; Business Creation
and Formalization; Logistics; and Organizational Practices. |
|
|
- Bodily-kinesthetic
(61.14%) |
Organizational Behavior; and Organizational Practices. |
|
|
- Interpersonal (58.57%) |
Fundamentals of Human Resources; Organizational Behavior; Human
Resources Strategies; and Organizational Practices. |
|
|
7th to
9th semester |
||
|
Program |
Featured Intelligences |
Courses |
|
UPA |
- Logical-mathematical (62.18%) |
Analysis of Investments; Production and Operations Administration (I
and II); Formation of Sales Prices; Sales Administration; Production and
Operations Internship. |
|
- Intrapersonal (61.82%) |
Strategic Planning; Formation of New Enterprises; Production and
Operations Internship; and Business Economics (Business Game). |
|
|
- Bodily-kinesthetic (56.73%) |
Marketing internship; Sales Administration; and Business Economics
(Business Game). |
|
|
- Interpersonal (55.64%) |
Marketing II; Marketing internship; Sales Administration; Formation of
New Enterprises; Production and Operations Internship; and Business Economics
(Business Game). |
|
|
UPB |
- Intrapersonal (62.71%) |
Organizational Architecture; Decision Support Systems; Elaboration and
Analysis of Projects and Business; Course Completion Project; and Course
Completion Work. |
|
- Logical-mathematical (61.88%) |
Production and Operations Strategies; Technology and Innovation
Management; Operational Research; Finance Strategies; and Business Budget. |
|
|
- Bodily-kinesthetic
(60.83%) |
Course Completion Project; and Course Completion Work. |
|
|
- Interpersonal (58.33%) |
Organizational Architecture; Course Completion Project; and Course
Completion Work. |
|
Source: Research data (2021).
From Frame 1, it can be seen that in both UPA and
UPB, logical-mathematical intelligence stands out in all semester periods. This
result can be justified because the bachelor programs offer a large number of
courses that involve the application of knowledge related to this type of
intelligence, which refers to the ability to analyze problems with logic, to
perform mathematical operations and to investigate issues scientifically
(Gardner, 1995; Armstrong, 2009).
Another
result that also draws attention, refers to intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences.
The first involves the capacity for self-discipline, self-understanding and
self-esteem directed to an efficient individual work model; while the second
stands out for its talent in understanding and relating to others (Gardner,
1995; Armstrong, 2009). It is noted that, although few disciplines are offered
that stimulate the development of these intelligences in the courses, they are
present among academics. This is because they are personal intelligences, which
are developed from the experiences of individuals and their own perception of
themselves and the context in which they are inserted throughout life.
Another
intelligence identified with great frequency among students from all semester
periods is bodily-kinesthetic, related to the ability to use the body to solve
problems or manufacture products (Gardner, 1995; Armstrong, 2009). As with
intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences, it appears that the curricular
matrix of both programs offers few courses that explicitly encourage the development
of this intelligence. However, it can be stated that students develop
bodily-synesthetic intelligence throughout the academic journey, as both
programs aim to train professionals with leadership skills, dynamic expression
and communication.
Among the less developed intelligences over the
semester periods analyzed, is linguistic intelligence, which stood out only
among academics in the first semester periods in the UPB. This intelligence,
which is related to the sensitivity of the assertive use of words in spoken and
written form (Gardner, 1995; Armstrong, 2009), is of paramount importance for
the formation of a good business professional. For the development of this type
of intelligence, Armstrong (2009) suggests to teachers the intensive use of lectures,
discussions and debates, word games, oral reading and writing essays.
Spatial intelligence, which appears among those with
less frequency among students, is related to the ability to recognize and
manipulate the visual and spatial universe (Gardner, 1995; Armstrong, 2009).
For the development of such intelligence, Armstrong (2009) suggests that
teachers have to adopt methodologies that involve working with graphics, maps,
videos, Lego sets, art materials, optical illusions, cameras, image library and
maps mental, in order to stimulate the visual / spatial cognitive functioning.
With low frequency
recorded in relation to the others, musical intelligence also appears. Such
intelligence is related to the sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, melodies
and timbres (Gardner, 1995; Armstrong, 2009). To stimulate the development of
such intelligence, Armstrong (2009) suggests the use of music, videos and
musical instruments in the classroom.
Finally, another
intelligence with low frequency among students is naturalistic intelligence,
related to competence in recognizing the diverse species of flora and fauna,
the environment and the individual (Gardner, 1995; Armstrong, 2009). To
stimulate this intelligence, Armstrong (2009) suggests the connection of the
contents covered in the disciplines with phenomena of nature and with
sustainability, emphasizing the importance of caring for the environment for
the preservation of species.
5.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
It is notable that the Theory of MI leveraged studies
on intelligences to reach the level of multifaceted, complex analysis and
considering several types of cognitive developments in its conception. It is in
this context that the study was motivated and sought to deliver a contribution,
testing the theory in an academic context in the management area, with the
proposal of comparatively analyzing the types of multiple intelligences
identified in bachelor students of Business Administration programs of two
private universities in southern Brazil.
It is concluded, with the presented results, that the
profile of the academics of both universities are similar with regard to
multiple intelligences. The intelligences identified that showed statistically
significant differences between academics were logical-mathematical, interpersonal,
musical and naturalistic. In general, the most developed multiple intelligences
were logical-mathematical, interpersonal, intrapersonal and bodily-synesthetic;
while the least developed were spatial, linguistic, musical and naturalistic.
From the verification of the multiple intelligences
identified in the students more and less frequently, it is possible to know the
profile of future Business Administration professionals. Thus, it was possible
to make comparisons of the skills and competences of these professionals with
the skills and competencies required by the job market and by society in
general, given the importance that this profession represents for the
development and prosperity of organizations. Therefore, from such analysis,
teachers, course coordinators and students themselves can help to improve the
teaching-learning process, acting strategically in academic performance based
on multiple intelligences.
For future research, we suggest to re-apply the
inventory of multiple intelligences to the same respondents in other semester
periods of the programs, in order to monitor the development of multiple
intelligences during their academic journey. We also suggest to use the
concepts and instruments presented to conduct the study with students from
other programs, universities and contexts, expanding the understanding of
multiple intelligences and comparing their development in different areas of
knowledge.
REFERENCES
Antunes, C. (1998). Multiple
intelligences and their stimuli. Papirus
Publisher.
Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences
in the classroom. Ascd.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The
development of intelligence in children: The Binet-Simon Scale. Williams & Wilkins Company.
Colauto, R. D., & Beuren,
I. M. (2004). Data Collection, Analysis and Interpretation. In. Beuren, IM (Org). How to prepare monographic works in
accounting: theory and practice. 2. ed. - São Paulo: Atlas.
Creswell, J. W. (2010). Research
project: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. 3. ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed: Bookman.
Galton, F. (1870). Hereditary
genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences. D. Appleton.
Gardner, H. (1994). Structures of
the mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. Medical Arts.
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Educational
implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational researcher,
18(8), 4-10.
Gardner, H., & Veronese, M. A. V
(1995). Multiple intelligences: theory in practice.
Gil, A. C (2008). How to design research projects. 4. ed. São Paulo: Atlas.
Gould, S. J., & Siqueira, V. L (1991). The false measure of man. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Haier, R. J., Nuechterlein, K.
H., Hazlett, E., Wu, J. C., & Paek,
J. (1988). Cortical glucose metabolic
rate correlates of abstract reasoning and attention studied with positron
tomography. Intelligence, 12, 199-217.
Hair J. R., Babin,
B., Money, A. H., & Samouel, P. (2005). Fundamentals
of management research methods. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Hong, X., & Chen, F. (2018). Development of
Children's Multiple Intelligence Based on Computer Educational Game Platform.
In IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering. New York-USA.
Maia, A. C. B., & Fonseca, M. L. (2002). Intelligence quotient and reading acquisition: a correlational study. Psicologia, Reflexão e Crítica, 15(2), 261.
Marôco, J. (2018). Análise Estatística com o SPSS Statistics.: 7ª edição. ReportNumber, Lda.
Oliveira-Castro, J. M., & Oliveira-Castro, K. M. (2001). The Adverbial Function of" Intelligence": Definitions and Uses in Psychology. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 17(3), 257-264.
Primi, R. (2002).
Inteligência fluida: Definição fatorial, cognitiva e neuropsicológica. Paidéia (Ribeirão
Preto), 12(23), 57-75.
Reed, T. E., & Jensen, A. R. (1992). Conduction velocity in a brain nerve pathway of normal adults correlates with intelligence level. Intelligence, 16(3-4), 259-272.
Reuchlin, M. (1991). Les différences individuelles à l'école: aperçu et réflexions sur quelques recherches psychologiques. Presses Universitaires de France-PUF.
Ropelato, M et al. (2011). Multiple intelligences: a comparison between different teaching centers in a university. REGE Revista de Gestão, 18(2), 211-224.
Travassos, L. C.
P. (2001). Multiple intelligences. Journal
of Biology and Earth Sciences.
Walter, S. A., & Schneider, M.
A. (2006). Expanding and developing learning through multiple intelligences. International
Colloquium on Local Power, 10, 1-15.
Walter, S. A., Schneider, M. A.,
Frega, J. R., & Domingues, M. J. C. S. (2008). Similarities and divergences
in the development of multiple intelligences in an accounting science course: a
comparison between courses, classes and genres. In: USP Controller and
Accounting Congress, 9., 2008, São Paulo. Anais. São Paulo: USP.
Wang, F. (2017). Study on the Application of Multi
Intelligence Theory in College Music Teaching and Teaching Design Innovation. Technical
Bulletin, 55(18).
Wenningkamp, K. R., de Pereira Franca, L., Battisti, P. S. S.,
& Walter, S. A. (2017). Multiple Intelligences: A Study in the Executive Secretariat
Course at Unioeste, Toledo/PR Campus/Inteligencias
Multiplas: Um Estudo No Curso De Secretariado
Executivo Da Unioeste, Campus De Toledo-Pr. Revista Expectativa, 16(16), 56-81.
Winarti, A., Yuanita, L., & Nur, M. (2019). The
Effectiveness of Multiple Intelligences Based Teaching Strategy in Enhancing
the Multiple Intelligences and Science Process Skills of Junior High School
Students. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(2),
122-13.