On the Representation of Multiple Intelligence Types in the ILI Intermediate Coursebooks: A Coursebook Evaluation

Document Type: Research Paper


Shiraz University


This study aims at evaluating the coursebooks taught at the intermediate level of adult and young adult departments of the Iran Language Institute in terms of multiple intelligence types introduced by Gardner (1983) to see to what extent such coursebooks represent the Multiple Intelligence Theory. To fulfill the objectives, a checklist developed by Botelho (2003) and localized by the researchers on the basis of this theory was used. The coursebooks were analyzed according to this checklist and the frequencies and percentages of occurrence of each type of intelligence were calculated. The results of the study showed that verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical and visual/spatial types of intelligence were the most dominant intelligence types in the analyzed coursebooks. Naturalistic and bodily/kinesthetic types of intelligence were the least common types represented in the coursebooks. A comparison was also made between the coursebooks taught to adults and young adults at the Iran Language Institute and the results presented a significant difference between the percentage of occurrence of logical/mathematical, bodily/kinesthetic, visual/spatial, intrapersonal and musical types of intelligence between the two sets of coursebooks. On the other hand, the difference between the percentage of occurrence of verbal/linguistic, interpersonal and naturalistic types of intelligence was not significant. 


Akbari, R., & Hosseini, K. (2008). Multiple intelligences and language learning strategies: Investigating possible relations. System, 36, 141–155.

Alghazo, K. Obeidat, H. H., Al- Trawneh, M., & Alshraideh, M . (2009). Types of multiple intelligences in social studies, Arabic and English language textbooks for the first three grades. European Journal of Social Sciences, 12(1), 7-20 .

Ansary, A., & Babaii, E. (2002). Universal characteristics of efl/esl textbooks: A step towards systematic textbook evaluation. The Internet TESL Journal, 8(2), 3-17.

Aytug, S. (2007). An EFL textbook evaluation study in anatolian high schools: New bridge to success for 9th grade new beginners. Ankara: Bilkent University.

Baragona, M. (2009). Multiple intelligences and alternative teachingstrategies: The effects on student academic achievement, conceptual understanding, and attitude. The University of Mississippi.

Botelho, M. (2003). Multiple intellignce theory in language teaching: An aanalysis of current textbooks, materials and teachers’ perceptions. Ohio University.

Chan, D. W. (2003). Multiple intelligences and perceived self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 23 (5), 521-533.

Chen, J. (2004). Theory of multiple intelligences: Is it a scientific theory? Teachers College Record, 106 (1),17-23.

Dominguez, L. M. (2003). Gender textbook evaluation. United Kingdom: University of  Birmingham.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligence. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school:  educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18, 84-89.

Gardner, H., & Moran, S. (2006). The Science of multiple intelligences theory: A response to Lynn Waterhouse. Educational Psychologists, 41(4), 227-232.

Gilman, L. (2001). Human intelligences: The theory of multiple intelligences. Retrieved February 9, 2010 from www. indiana. edu. com

Gorsuch, G. J. (2001). Testing textbook theories and tests: the case of suprasegmentals in a pronunciation textbook. System, 29 , 119-136.

Hosier, J. W. (2009). Roles of frequency, attitudes, and multiplemintelligence modality surrounding electricity content-based reader’s theater. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama.

Hunter, J. (2006). Makin the Connection: Utilising  Multiple Intelligences to Measure Teaching and Learning Success in Mathematics. University of Sydney.

ILI Research and Planning Department. (2004a). Student’s book: Pre- intermediate 1. Iran: The Iran Language Institute.

ILI Research and Planning Department. (2004b). Student’s book: Pre- intermediate 2. Iran: The Iran Language Institute.

ILI Research and Planning Department. (2004c). Student’s book: Pre- intermediate 3. Iran: The Iran Language Institute.

ILI Research and Planning Department. (2004d). Student’s book: Intermediate 1. Iran: The Iran Language Institute.

ILI Research and Planning Department. (2004e). Student’s book: Intermediate 2. Iran:  The Iran Language Institute.

ILI Research and Planning Department. (2004f). Student’s book: Intermediate 3. Iran:  The Iran Language Institute.

ILI Research and Planning Department. (2004g). Student’s book: High- intermediate 1. Iran:  The Iran Language Institute.

ILI Research and Planning Department. (2004h). Student’s book: High-intermediate 2. Iran: The Iran Language Institute.

ILI Research and Planning Department. (2004i). Student’s book: High-intermediate 3. Iran:  The Iran Language Institute.

Kim, I. S. (2009). The relevance of multiple intelligences to call instruction. The Reading Matrix, 9 (1), 1-21 .

King, N. M. (2009) A study of the relationship between cbt developers’ multiple intelligences dispositions and the design of computer-base training. Duquesne University. 

Kırkgöz, Y. (2010). Catering for multiple intelligences in locally-published ELT textbook in Turkey. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 127–130.

Latham, A. S. (1997). Quantifying  MI’s Gains. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 84-86.

Massalski, D. C. (2009). Cognitive development and crativity in a navajo university student: An explorative case study using multiple intelligence perspective. The University of Arizona.

Mukundan, J. (2007). Evaluation of english language textbooks: Some  important issues for consideration. Journal of NELTA, 12 (1&2), 80- 84 .

Mustapha, G. (2008). A reflection of the revised syllabus translated in textbooks. Journal of International Management Studies, 162-169.

Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised bloom’s taxonomy with multiple intelligences: A planning tool for curriculum differentioniation. Teachers College Record, 106 (1), 193–211.

O’Connell, K. (2009). Investigation of gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence interrelate with student engagement and motivation on urban middle school youth. Walden University.

Paxton, M. (2007). Tensions between textbook pedagogy and the literacy practices of the disciplinary community: A study of writing in first year economics. Journal of English for Academic  Purposes, 6, 109–125.

Razmjoo, S. A. (2007). High schools or private institutes textbooks? Which fulfill  communicative language teaching principles in the iranian context? The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 9 (4),125-139.

Razmjoo, S. A. (2008). On the relationship between multiple intelligences and language proficiency. The Reading Matrix, 8 (2) , 155-174.

Razmjoo, S. A., Sahragard, R. & Sadri, M. (2009). On the relationship between multiple intelligences, vocabulary learning knowledge and vocabulary learning strategies among the Iranian EFL learners. Iranian EFL Journal, 3, 82-110.

Riazi, A. M. (2003). What textbook evaluation schemes tell us? A study of the textbook evaluation schemes of three decades. In W. A. Renanda (Ed.), methodology and materials design in language teaching (pp. 52-68). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Center.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rivers, S., & Toyama, S. (2002a). English time 3: Student’s book. UK: Oxford University Press.

Rivers, S., & Toyama, S. (2002a).English time 4: Student’s book. UK: Oxford University Press.

Sahragard, R., Rahimi, A., & Zaremoayedi, I. (2009). An In-depth Evaluation of Interchange Series (3rd ed.). Porta Linguarum, 12, 37-54.

Salas, C. S. (2009). Measuring Self-efficiency of Teachers Using Multiple Intelligences Teacher Training. Capella University.       

Sathyansan, P. (2006). Multiple Intelligence in Language Learning.The  Kerala Journal of  Education, Research and Extention, 4, 5-10.

Schirduan, V., & Case, K. (2004). Mindful Curriculum Leadership for Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Leading in Elementary Schools by Using Multiple Intelligences Theory (SUMIT). Teachers College Record, 106(1),87-95.

Sözena, H., Sözen, M., & Tekat, A. (2009). Comparison of the Profiles of the Potential Teachers in Different Disciplines Based on Multiple Intelligences Theory. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 943–948.

Serin, N. B., Serin, O., Yavuz, M. A., & Muhammedzade, B. (2009). The Relationship between the Primary Teachers’ Teaching Strategies and Their Strengths in Multiple Intelligences. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 708–712.

Sheldon, L. E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(4), 237-246.

Snider, D. P. (2001). Multiple intelligence theory and foreign language teaching. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Utah.

Smith, M. K. (2002). Howard Gardner and the multiple intelligences. The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved February 20, 2010, fromwww.infed.org.

Stewart-lies, G. M. (2009). Examining the interrelationships among students’ personologica characteristics, attitudes toward the unified modeling language, self-efficacy, multiple intelligences with respect to student achievement in a software design methods course. Florida Institute of Technology.

Sunderland, J., Cowley, M., Abdul Rahim, F., Leontzakou, C., & Shattuck, J. (2001). From Bias “In the Text” to “Teacher Talk Aroundthe Text” An Exploration of Teacher Discourse and Gendered Foreign Language Textbook Texts. Linguistics and Education, 11(3), 251-286.

Svenningsen, S. R. (2009). Multiple intelligence curriculum in the physical education setting. Southwest Minnesota State University.

 Sznajder, H. S. (2010). A corpus-based evaluation of metaphors in a business English textbook. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 30–42.

 Tahriri, A., & Yamini, M. (2010). On teaching to diversity: Investigating the effectiveness of mi-inspired intrucion in an efl context. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 2 (1), 165-183.

Tok, H. (2010). TEFL textbook evaluation: From teachers’ perspectives. Educational Research and Review, 5(9), 508-517.

Tomlinson, B. (1998). Material development in language teaching.  Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Xie, J., & Lin, R. (2009). Research on multiple intelligences teaching and assessment. Asia Journal of Management and Humanity Sciences, 4 (2-3), 106-124.

Yakhontova, T. (2001). Textbooks, contexts, and learners. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 397-415.