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
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: email@example.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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Q3: Which one of the multiple intelligences best predicts listening self-efficacy?
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
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
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
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
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
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
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
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.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84,
Bandura, A. (1997). Editorial. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1), 8-10.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Gilman, L. (2001). The theory of multiple intelligences. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from
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
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York:
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.
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.
Marefat, F. (2007). Multiple intelligence: Voices from an EFL writing class. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji,
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.
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
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
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),
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.
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.
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.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behavior. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 173-208.
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/10.1037/0022-06184.108.40.2063
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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