Investigating the Role of Multiple Intelligences in Determining Vocabulary Learning Strategies for L2 Learners

Mahsa Sistani,Mahmood Hashemian

doi:10.5539/elt.v9n6p242

Mahsa Sistani, Mahmood Hashemian

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n6p242

Copy DOI

Abstract

<p>This study, first, examined whether there was any relationship between Iranian L2 learners’ vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs), on the one hand, and their multiple intelligences (MI) types, on the other hand. In so doing, it explored the extent to which MI would predict L2 learners’ VLSs. To these ends, 40 L2 learners from Isfahan University of Technology in Isfahan participated in the study, and the following instruments were utilized to collect the data: the Oxford Placement Test (OPT) to gauge participants’ proficiency level, the Multiple Intelligences Questionnaire (Mckenzie, 1999), and a vocabulary learning questionnaire based on the framework adopted from Schmitt’s (1990). The strategies were divided into five categories: determination, memory, social, metacognitive, and cognitive. To analyze the data, Pearson correlation was applied to find out the relationship between the participants’ intelligence categories and their preferred VLSs. Then, multiple regression analysis was run to indicate the significance of the specific VLSs in the participants’ intelligences. Results revealed that there was a strong positive relationship between participants’ intrapersonal intelligence and their tendency toward the cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Moreover, as participants’ scores in their interpersonal intelligence test increased, they inclined toward the social strategies more. A potential positive and significant relationship between visual/spatial intelligence and memory strategies and also linguistic intelligence and determination strategies was also found out. Overall results revealed that the participants made a significant difference regarding their decisions for particular VLSs, as intrapersonal, interpersonal, linguistic, and visual learners predicted more specific and significant VLSs in comparison with other types of intelligences.</p>

Highlights

Learning an L2 is arguably one of the most cognitively challenging undertakings most people will go through in a life time, and many claim that learning the vocabulary of an L2 is likely the most challenging facet of becoming proficient in the L2 (Meara, 1995; Milton, 2009; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2000)
40 L2 learners from Isfahan University of Technology in Isfahan participated in the study, and the following instruments were utilized to collect the data: the Oxford Placement Test (OPT) to gauge participants’ proficiency level, the Multiple Intelligences Questionnaire (Mckenzie, 1999), and a vocabulary learning questionnaire based on the framework adopted from Schmitt’s (1990)
As noted in the Discussion section, the first purpose of this study was to research about the potential relationship between the vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs) that L2 learners prefer in their classroom activities and their different multiple intelligences (MI) types

Summary

Introduction

Learning an L2 is arguably one of the most cognitively challenging undertakings most people will go through in a life time, and many claim that learning the vocabulary of an L2 is likely the most challenging facet of becoming proficient in the L2 (Meara, 1995; Milton, 2009; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2000). One area of L2 vocabulary learning research that has been gaining attention in recent years to help explain the difficulties that some L2 learners encounter when learning vocabulary is the focus on learning strategies—vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs), in particular. Schmitt believes that it may be easier to apply learning strategies to vocabulary learning due to the relatively discrete nature of vocabulary learning as compared to more integrated language skills such as reading, writing, speaking, listening, and grammar. As a significant part of L2 learning strategies, VLSs have received more attention since the late 1970s. On the significance of vocabulary, Şener (2005) reiterated Wilkin’s famous saying that without grammar, very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed

Objectives

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion