KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TAIBAH UNIVERSITY Faculty of Education Department of Curricula &Instruction

The Relationship between MultipleIntelligences, Language Learning

Strategies and EFL Secondary SchoolStudents' Achievement

By

Dr. Aly Abdul Samea KouraProfessor of Teaching English as a Foreign Language

Taibah University

Naif Salem Ahmad AL-RefayTeacher of English language

1432 H. / 2011 C.The Relationship between Multiple Intelligences,Language Learning Strategies and EFL Secondary

School Students' AchievementBy

Aly Abdul Samea Koura Naif Salem Al-Refay Professor of TEFL Teacher of EFL

Abstract This study aimed at investigating the relationship

between multiple intelligences, language learning strategies and English language achievement of third- year secondary school EFL students in Yanbu . The study attempted to answer the following questions: (1) what are the multiple intelligences prevalent among EFL secondary school students? (2) What are the multiple intelligences that characterize high achieving EFL secondary school students?. (3) What are the language learning strategies prevalent among EFL secondary school students? (4) What are the language learning strategies that characterize high achieving EFL secondary school students?. (5) Is there a relationship between multiple intelligences and language learning strategies that characterize high achieving EFL secondary school students?.

A modified version of Oxford's Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and multiple intelligences questionnaire (MIQ) were standardized for use in the Saudi context to gather the data from 120 student samples. This study explored the types of multiple intelligences and strategy use of these participants

based on their achievement at high and low levels (as measured by English scores and the teachers' opinion) at Yanbu secondary schools.

The results of this study revealed that Saudi secondary school students preferred the use of multiple intelligences in the following order: logical- mathematical, intrapersonal, visual-Spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, verbal-linguistic, naturalistic and finally musical intelligence. Furthermore, the results indicated that the most used multiple intelligences types by high achievers were logical-mathematical intelligence; intrapersonal intelligence and interpersonal intelligence. Findings of this study found that the most frequently used strategy types by the total sample were metacognitive, followed bysocial and compensation strategies whereas the least usedwere the affective strategies. Also, results of the studyindicated that the top three LLSs used by high achievers were the same reported to be used by the total sample of the study which were social, metacognitive and compensation strategies

It was concluded that the teaching learning context can better meet the needs of all students by discovering how they learn best and setting up lessons to meet their individual needs in order to engage them in learning.

Introduction and BackgroundEnglish is an important language in the

modern world. A recent research study proposed that approximately 375 million people speak English as their first or native language (Mitchell & Myles, 2004). More than fifty countries have chosen English as their official language and use it in various fields of government or business (CIA, 2008). Because of this, learning English is essential for contemporary people to gain global perspectives,

whether as their first, second, or foreign language.

Nowadays, learning English has become a necessity all over the world. English has become an important tool of communication not only with people all over the world but also as a mean of getting access of knowledge whether in books, articles or internet web sites.

In spite of this great emphasized importance to learn the English language, most of our students are struggling to master it. One way to help our students to learn and acquire the English language is to be aware about their use of language learning strategies (LLSs) and their multiple intelligences (MIs). Therefore, our students should be taught according to their learning strategies (LSs) and their multiple intelligences (MIs) in order to succeed in mastering the English language.

In the last thirty years or so, the interest of researchers has moved from the teaching methods to learner characteristics and the learning processes by which learners acquire knowledge (e.g. learning strategies (LSs) , learning styles, and multiple intelligences (MIs)). Research in this area concluded that language learners who used a variety of learning strategies were more successful in learning than others.

Some language learners are more successful than others in second or foreign language learning, and some learners have individual learning behaviors that others do not. Over the

past three decades, a great number of studies have investigated effective (LLSs) employed by ESL and EFL learners. During the 1980's and 1990's, researchers tried to give "language learning strategy" a clear definition. Brown (2000) claimed that strategies are particular methods of approaching a problem or task "for achieving a particular end, planned designs for controlling and manipulating certain information"(p. 113) In general, learning strategy is defined as “the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help learners comprehend,learn, or retain new information” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 1).

The multiple intelligences theory (Gardner, 1983, 1999, 2004) has significant implications for education in general, and for language acquisition, in particular (Armstrong, 2007; Azar, 2006; Buchen, 2006; Christion, 2004). The theory can be effective for improving English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign Language (EFL) student's achievement improve (Barrington 2004; Chan 2006; Hall, 2004). Gardnerproposed a theory that defined human intelligenceas multiple abilities, which include linguistic, musical, logical mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, visual-spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, existentialist. Every student has different strengths and weaknesses in these areas. It is the contention of the researchers that if students were taught through all of the multiple intelligences, their learning would be enhanced.

Multiple intelligences theory is a natural way to structure learning. All the aspects of theperson are taught to, meaning can be extracted,

and applications can be made to life. The children in our classrooms are multifaceted and have many abilities. We as teachers need to give the students the skills and the opportunity to use their abilities and enhance them throughout their life. One purpose of this study was to investigate the types of (MIs) used by EFL secondary school students and the (MIs) which were most frequently used by successful learners.

There have been a number of studies in recentyears examining the use of (LL.Ss) among successful language learners which led the current researchers to conduct the present study to find out whether the use of (LL.Ss) is relatedto student's achievement in the Saudi context (e.g. Alwahibee,1998; Bremner, 1998; Norton, 2000and Kim, 2001).

Hang (2007) conducted a study concluding thatreading comprehension is greatly affected by the use of learning strategies especially cognitive and metacognitive strategies. In addition, many researchers have found that the achievement levelhad a strong effect on the overall strategy use (e.g.Chin, 2001; Wang, 2002 and Hamed, 2004).

Al.Refay and Koura (2010) conducted a study to investigate LL.Ss of third- year secondary school EFL students in Yanbu and their relationship to achievement. Results of the studyrevealed that Saudi secondary school students prefer the use of LL.Ss in the following order: cognitive, metacognitive, memory, social, affective and finally compensation strategies. The study concluded that high and low achievers

use LL.Ss when learning EFL, but they differ in how many and what type of LL.Ss they used.

On the other hand, Lan's and Oxford's study (2003) revealed that Taiwanese learners of English used compensation and affective strategies most frequently, while Abu Shamus's study (2003) argued that Arabic learners of the English language used metacognitive and affectivestrategies most frequently.

Kim (2001) found a significant relationship between total strategy use of Korean university EFL learners and second language proficiency. Theresults also revealed that cognitive, compensation, and metacognitive strategies significantly correlated with second language proficiency. Furthermore, Fan (2003), found that with regard to vocabulary learning, the more proficient students used more LL.Ss. Griffiths (2003) found similar results, that LL.Ss were reportedly used more frequently by advanced students than elementary. In a more recent study,Hamed (2004) concluded similar results in Palestine schools.

In the area of the relationship between multiple intelligences and EFL achievement, Abu Ghararah and Koura (2010) conducted a study to discover differences in MIs used by third year intermediate school students in Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah and their relationship to achievement in English language. Results indicated that the students used Interpersonal, Musical, Intrapersonal, Logical–Mathematical, verbal–linguistic intelligences most frequently. The multiple regression analysis, developed a weak

correlation in Logical–Mathematical, Verbal-Linguistic, Intrapersonal and Interpersonal intelligences and their achievement in the English language. In addition, results showed that the multiple intelligences that most contributed to student's achievement were Logical–Mathematical, Verbal-Linguistic, Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Spatial intelligences ranked respectively.

Koura (2005) explored intelligences that the pre- university students in Egypt report as theirmost highly developed and the relationship (if any) between MIs in EFL classrooms and students' achievement. Findings indicated that Interpersonal intelligence was the highest intelligence used by students while Natural intelligence was the lowest used by them. Students' Logical/Mathematical intelligence correlated positively and significantly with their EFL achievement whereas their Bodily/Kinesthetic intelligence negatively and significantly correlated with their EFL achievement.

Shalk (2002) conducted a study on high schoolstudents to validate the use of MI profiles as a means of predicting success on standardized tests. The results substantiated existence of distinct profiles of intelligence in relationshipto state test scores. For reading scale score, linguistic and interpersonal intelligences emerged as the key profile intelligences. For mathematical scale score, logical/mathematical, linguistic and interpersonal are the profile variables. However, the percentage of the explained variance is low, suggesting that the

relationship between MI and standardized tests achievement is present but weak.

In conclusion, studies on the relationship between MIs and achievement in the field of EFL/ESL classrooms have not reached a conclusive agreement. A number of studies confirmed a positive relationship while other did not come tosimilar conclusions. One purpose of this study isto discover the relationship between the different types of intelligences and EFL achievement.

Statement of the Problem

Students in Saudi secondary schools generallydisplay lower than expected achievement in English language. Evidence for existence of this problem has been observed in a pilot study test scores, teacher observation of less time on task,and limited work completion. The researcher conducted a pilot study on 60 third-year studentsat King Abdullah secondary school in Yanbu the students were given an English language test based on their syllabus of the first term, 1431, 1432 H. The students mean score in different testcomponents as well as their total mean score are presented in table (1). Students test scores showed that their current level in English was below average. It is clear from the table that there is a weakness among secondary school students in their achievement in EFL. A number ofreasons could be responsible for this low language level. This might be related to many variables; amongst them is a lack of their use ofsuitable LL.Ss and their unawareness of their MI learning a activities that might strengthen them.

In addition, an informal interview with 8 secondary school teachers revealed that they werenot aware of their students' use of LL.Ss or their student's MIs.

Table (1) Students’ Score Percentage on EFL TestComponent Percentage

Reading 56%

Writing 33,6%

Vocabulary 44,5%

grammar 55%

Total 47,35%

Questions of the Study

Based upon the previous discussion, the present study was set up in order to answer the following questions:

1. What are the MIs prevalent among EFL secondary school students?

2. What are the MIs that characterize high achieving EFL secondary school students?

3. What are the LLSs prevalent among EFL secondary school students?

4. What are the LLSs that characterize high achieving EFL secondary school students?

5. Is there a relationship between MIs and language LLSs that characterize high achieving EFL secondary school students?

Purposes of the Study

This study attempted to:

1. Identify the types of MIs and LLSs used by secondary school students studying EFL;

2. Explore the types of MIs and LLSs used by highachieving secondary school students studying EFL.

3. Determine the differences between the types ofMIs and LLSs used by the total sample and high achieving secondary school students studying EFL, and

4. Discover the relationship between specific types of MIs and LLSs that characterize high achieving EFL secondary school students.

Significance of the Study

The significance of this study was derived from its attempt to:

1. Contribute to identifying the types of MIs andLLSs used by Saudi secondary school students studying EFL;

2. Determine types of MIs and LLSs used by high achieving secondary school Saudi students learning the English language; and

3. Benefit researchers, teacher trainers in colleges of education, EFL teachers, supervisors and students.

4. it directs the attention of the language curriculum designers to the importance of the LLSsand MIs -based activities which are somehow neglected in the English language text books.

Delimitation of the Study

The study was delimited to one hundred and twenty Saudi third- year EFL male students in twopublic secondary schools in Yanbu.

Definition of Terms

Language Learning Strategies

Oxford (1990:8) defined LLSs as “specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations”.

In this study, LLSs were defined as steps, actions, techniques, and tactics used by Saudi secondary school students in order to help them enhance their learning of the English language.

Memory Strategies

"such as grouping or using imagery, have a highly specific function: helping students store and retrieve new information" (Oxford, 1990, p. 37). Memory strategies are to help learners to remember particular information during learning of the language.

Cognitive Strategies

"encompass the LLSs of identification, grouping, retention, and storage of language material, as well as the language use strategies of retrieval, rehearsal, and comprehension or production of words, phrases, and other elements of the second language" (Cohen, 1998, p.7).

Compensation Strategies

"like guessing or using synonyms, allow learners to use the language despite their often large gaps in knowledge" (Oxford, 1990, p. 37). Compensation strategies help learner to keep the flow of a conversation or reading a passage.

Metacognitive Strategies

"deal with pre-assessment and pre-planning, on-line planning and evaluation, and post-evaluation of language learning activities and oflanguage use events" (Cohen, 1998, p.7).

Affective Strategies

Affective strategies "help learners reduce anxiety, encourage themselves, and notice their emotional needs during the learning" (Oxford, 1990, p. 135).

Social Strategies

Social strategies "help learners to learn thelanguage by communicating with the target language speakers and get to know more about their culture" (Oxford, 1990, p. 135).

Multiple Intelligences

MIs are both innate and acquired mental abilities that human beings use and develop through education. They are a combination of physical, biological, and social domains (Gardner, 1983, 1999, 2004).

Verbal-Linguistic Intelligence (VL)

Gardner (1983) described VL as the capabilityof using the language effectively. This includes recognizing the phonology of sounds, the semanticand syntactic constructions of distinct linguistic communications, and use different lexical forms (Gardner, 1999).

Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (LM)

LM is used to mean the capacity for inductiveand deductive thinking, and the ability to solve mathematical operations and use abstract thinking(Gardner, 1983).

Visual-Spatial Intelligence (VS)

VS is the ability for understanding and usingspatial dimensions, visualizing objects, interpreting two dimensional representations, andappreciating and creating art Gardner (1983).

Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (BK)

Gardner (1983, 1999) described BK as people'sability for controlling physical motion, and using various physical skills to provide a parallel approach to the cognitive features of problem solving.

Musical-rhythmic Intelligence (MR)

MR is the capacity to understand different sounds, pitch, rhythm, tones and timbres, and compose and appreciate music. (Gardner,1983, 1999).

Interpersonal Intelligence (IP)

IP is the capacity to develop social skills and interact with people in a successful way. (Gardner, 1983).

Intrapersonal Intelligence (IA)

Gardner (1999) defined IA as the ability to understand oneself and develop self-reflection, and awareness.

Naturalistic Intelligence (N)

N is as people's ability for interacting withnature, recognizing and classifying plants, minerals, animals, and rocks. Classification and categorization skills depend on observing nature,which entails naturalistic intelligence. (Gardner,1983).

Review of LiteratureThe following is a brief review of

literature of studies related to application of the (MI) theory in the field of teaching English

as a foreign or a second language in light of the variables of the study. In addition, a review of literature which focuses on (LLSs) andthe relationships between strategy use and achievement in the second and foreign language context will be presented.

Application of the MI theory in the field of teaching English as a foreign or a second language has shown significant results and implications (e.g. Carlton and Thomas,2000; Shore,2003; El-Embaby,2008; Kim, 2009 and Sinder,2010).

Carlton and Thomas (2000) conducted a study to explore the effects of using MI activities inthe classroom on students' achievement in English as a second language. Activities used ranged from transparency maps, small group reading, and vocabulary worksheets to online research, games and simulation projects. Findings revealed that the experimental group was 20 points higher than the control group's average.

Snider,(2001) studied the relationship between multiple intelligences, and academic achievement, of 128 high school students. Among the most related findings of his study was that male students were stronger on bodily-kinesthetic, logical-mathematical, and spatial intelligences. Achievement was found to increasewhen students were taught through their preferred and MI.

Shalk (2002) conducted a study to validate the use of MI profiles as a means of predicting

success on standardized tests. The results substantiated existence of distinct profiles of intelligence in relationship to state test scores. For reading scale score, linguistic and interpersonal intelligences emerged as the key profile intelligences. For mathematical scale score, logical/mathematical, linguistic and interpersonal are the profile variables. However, the percentage of the explained variance is low, suggesting that the relationship between MI and standardized tests achievement is present but weak.

Shore (2003) conducted a study and concludedthat the application of MI theory leads to noticeable gains in state assessment and achievement gains on standardized tests on the k-12. She concluded that MI incorporation in elementary and secondary school classrooms led children to break their district, county, and national peers in basic skills.

Loori (2005) conducted a study in which the differences in intelligences preferences of ESL male and female students are investigated. Ninety international students at three American universities took part in this study. The results showed that “there were significant differences between males’ and females’ preferences of intelligences. Males preferred learning activities involving logical and mathematical intelligences, whereas females preferred learning activities involving intrapersonal intelligence.” (p. 77).

Pendidikan,(2007) examined the multiple intelligences pattern among 160 high achievers

and 150 normal student from secondary schools around Sarawak. The Multiple Intelligences Inventory was modified and validated according to the research needs. The results showed that the normal students posses the following intelligences: interpersonal, bodily-kinesthetic, musical-rhythmic, visual-spatial verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, intrapersonal and naturalist. Whilst for high achievers posses the following intelligences: interpersonal, logical-mathematical, intrapersonal, visual-spatial, verbal-linguistic, naturalist, musical-rhythm, and bodily-kinesthetic.

Razmjoo (2008) conducted a study to explore the relationship between MI and language proficiency in Iran. Results of the study indicated that there is not a significant relationship between language proficiency and the combination of intelligences in general and the types of intelligences in particular. Moreover, none of the intelligences types was found as the predictor for language proficiency.

El-Embaby (2008) conducted a study todetermine the effectiveness of MI activities indeveloping students' writing competencies.Results of the study indicated that there werestatistically significant differences betweenthe performance of the experimental group andthe control groups in the writing test favoringthe experimental groups. MI activities appearedto be effective in developing EFL students'writing competencies.

Kim (2009) conducted a study aimed to investigate the differences between Gardener's multiple intelligences among freshman students enrolled at UNRWA higher education institutes inJordan. To achieve the aim of the study the multiple intelligences scale was applied after having checked its psychometric traits on a random sample consisting of (515) students. Results of the study showed that among the most popular types of intelligence amongst the sampleare: verbal intelligence, personal intelligence,bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, emotional intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, spatial intelligence, mathematical-logical intelligence, natural intelligence, and finally musical intelligence. In addition, the study revealed that there was a correlated relationship between all the types of multiple intelligences and academic achievement except for the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, spatialintelligence and natural intelligence.

Saricaiglu and Arikan (2009) constructed a study to investigate the relationship between particular intelligence types and students' success in grammar, listening and writing in English as a foreign language. The results of the study revealed that negative but significantrelationships were found between success in students' test scores in grammar and BK, VS, andIA intelligences whereas the relationship between MR and writing was found to be significant and positive.

Glenn (2010) conducted a quantitative quasi-experimental study to discover whether or not there was a significant relationship between

student achievement determined through GPAs and MIs. By utilizing a second single sample t-test, a significant relationship was discovered betweenthe variables of GPAs and MIs.

More recently, Abu Ghararah and Koura (2010)conducted a study to discover differences in MIs used by third year intermediate school students in Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah and their relationshipto achievement in English language. Results indicated that the students used a number of intelligences which were IP, MR, IA, LM, and VL intelligences. The multiple regression analysis developed a weak correlation in LM, VL, IP and IAintelligences and their achievement in the English Language. In addition, results showed that the MIs that most contributed that to students` achievement were LM, VL, IP, IA, and VSintelligences ranked respectively.

It is clear from the above mentioned studiesthat the relationship between MI and academic achievement in the field of EFL/ESL classrooms has not reached a conclusive agreement. A numberof studies established a positive relationship while other did not come to similar conclusions.This study is conducted to prove this relationship and to investigate such a relationship between the different types of intelligences and student scores on the English language test. In addition, it is evident from the results of the above studies that the implementation of MIs theory in the EFL/ESL classrooms improves language skills whether written or spoken. The review of literature and related studies above gave a momentum for conducting the current study to be set up and

investigate which MI characterize the Saudi secondary school students.

In the area of LLSs and the relationship between strategy use and achievement, Lee (2000)conducted a study to investigate LLSs use of 522middle and high school students in Korea by using the SILL (Oxford 1990). The researcher concluded that there was a significant relationship between English achievement and LLSs except for affective strategies for all subjects. In addition, the findings of this study revealed that the students used compensation strategies more frequently, while they avoided the use of affective strategies. Also, the results concluded that social strategies were most significantly connected with English achievement among middle school students, while compensation strategies were most significantly correlated with English achievement among high school students. Wharton (2000) reached similar results.

Choi and Joh (2001) constructed a study to investigate language learning strategy use of Korean secondary school learners learning English as a foreign language, and the relationship between language learning strategy use and English achievement. Results revealed a significant difference was found in overall strategy use by the English achievement level. High achievers showed a greater use of language learning strategies than low achievers. In addition, the high achievers used LL.Ss in the following order: compensation, social, metacognitive, cognitive, and memory strategies.While the low achievers used compensation

strategies most frequently than social, cognitive, memory and metacognitive strategies. Kim (2001) reported similar findings at university EFL students.

Sachiho (2008) examined the strategy use of 19 learners of Japanese, and explored the strategy use of the participants based on their achievement at a high and low level at an American university. The results showed that although learners appeared to use some common cognitive strategies, the quality of strategy use between high and low achievers differed. Theresearcher revealed that the high achievers useda wider variety of strategies, especially with regard to cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies.

In a more resent study, Yang (2010) conducted a study to investigate which English learning strategies are frequently used by 288 EFL Korean university students, and to discover the differences in the use of English learning strategies by self-assessed language proficiencyby using Oxford’s (1990) SILL. The findings indicated that Korean university students used amedium range of strategies. Compensation strategies were used most frequently whereas memory strategies were used least frequently among Korean university learners. Language proficiency levels had significant effects on the overall strategy use, the six categories of strategy, and individual strategy use items.

Several studies conducted in Arab countries also found that high achievers preferred to use more strategies and a greater variety of

strategies than learners of intermediate or low achievers (Shamis, 2003; Al-Otaibi 2004; Hamed 2004; Khalil, 2005; Al.Refay and Koura 2010).

Al-Otaibi (2004) conducted a study of 237 Saudi EFL students in an intensive English language program using an Arabic version of the SILL (Oxford, 1990). Results of this study revealed that students used language learning strategies at a moderate level and significant differences were established between language learning strategy use and proficiency level. Hamed (2004) and Khalil (2005) reached the same results in Palestine students. Al.Refay and Koura (2010) conducted a study to investigate LL.Ss of third- year secondary school EFL students in Yanbu and their relationship to achievement. Results of the study revealed that Saudi secondary school students prefer the use ofLL.Ss in the following order: cognitive, metacognitive, memory, social, affective and finally compensation strategies. The study concluded that high and low achievers use LL.Ss when learning EFL, but they differ in how many and what type of LL.Ss they used.

The previous studies reiterated that the relationship of LLSs use in ESL/ EFL and achievement is almost a matter of fact. Major findings of other studies were that high achievers tended to use strategies more frequently than low achievers.

In the area of the relationship between the use of LLSs and MIs, little research was done. Amongst them, Akabri (2008) conducted a study toinvestigate the existence of any possible

relationship between the use of language learningstrategies and multiple intelligences' scores of foreign language learners of English. Ninety subjects participated in the study. To measure the participants' multiple intelligence scores, MIDAS, a commercially designed instrument, was used. Learners' strategy use was checked through SILL. The correlation analysis of the results indicated significant relations between the use of language learning strategies and IQ scores of the learners. Musical intelligence, however, did not correlate with any aspect of strategy use, and kinesthetic intelligence correlated only withmemory learning strategies.

In conclusion, due to the importance of MIs theory and LLSs in acquiring and enhancing the foreign language, this study was an attempt to discover the relationship between specific typesof MIs and LLSs that characterize high achievingEFL secondary school students.

Instrumentation In order to answer the questions of this

study, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning SILL (Oxford 1990), Version 7.0 (ESL/EFL) in addition to a Multiple IntelligencesQuestionnaire (MIQ) were used. The two instruments were translated into Arabic language and were proven valid and reliable.

Pilot Study

The pilot study was conducted at two public secondary schools during the first semester of the academic year 1432 H / 2011 C. The purposes

of conducting the pilot study were to determine the validity and reliability of the translated SILL and MIQ, to ensure the accuracy and clarity of all of the items and to estimate the time allocation for completing the questionnaires.

The participants were forty male students randomly selected from the two schools. The SILL and MIQ were administered by the researcher. Students were given clear and direct instructionsin Arabic and were encouraged to answer all itemsin the questionnaires honestly and objectively. Most students completed the questionnaires within30-35 minutes. After that, the data of the pilot study was collected and analyzed using the SPSS. Then, the researcher decided to use the same questionnaires after some changes were made as a result of the pilot study.

Validity of the Questionnaires

The English version of the SILL achieved veryhigh validity and reliability. It has been used in at least 40-50 major studies all over the world (Oxford & Burry- Stock, 1995). The content validity of the ESL/EFL SILL was reported by Oxford (1989) to be 0.96.

The Arabic version of the SILL was judged forvalidity by 10 professors in the department of curricula and instruction in different Saudi universities and by three English language supervisors in Yanbu. They judged the SILL for the representativeness of the items and their relatedness to their six sub- scales as well as for the accuracy of the translated version. The Arabic version of the SILL was also proven to be

reliable and valid by other researchers (e.g. Koura, 1998; Al-Otaibi,2004; Hamed 2004). The percentage of agreement between juries was very high (30 items got 100% agreement, 8 items got 94%, 7 items got 89%, and 5 items got 87% agreement). Due to the comments and feedback given by the jury, some of the items were retranslated.

Internal Consistency of the Arabic Version of theSILL

Internal Consistency of the Arabic version ofthe SILL was established by the correlation coefficients between the total scores of every type of strategies and the total scores of the whole types of strategies and between every type and the other type of strategies. Table (3) showsthe Correlation Coefficients matrix between learning strategies and the total score of language learning strategies.

Table (2): Correlation Coefficients between LLSs LL.Ss Mem.Ss Cog.S

s Com.Ss Met.Ss

Aff.Ss

Soc.Ss Total

Mem.Ss ----- 0.75** 0.65** 0.

7**0.61**

0.65** 0.85**

Cog.Ss ----- 0.77** 0.78**

0.69**

0.72** 0.93**

Com.Ss ----- 0.65**

0.64** 0.7** 0.84**

Met.Sc ----- 0.69**

0.79** 0.9**

Aff.Ss ----- 0.65** 0.80**

Soc.Ss ----- 0.86**Total -----

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).Results of table (2) indicate that the

correlation coefficients for the Arabic version of the SILL were significant at the 0.01 level. The results of table (2) also show that the ranges of internal consistency of strategies domains were between (0.61 and 0.93), and all of these values are suitable for conducting such a study.

The Arabic version of the MIQ was judged for validity by seven experts in the department of Methods and Curricula at Taibah University in order to check the accuracy of the statements andtheir content validity. Modifications, changes and restatements of some items were done according to the jury opinion.

Internal Consistency of the Multiple Intelligences (MIQ)

Internal Consistency of the MI was established by the correlation coefficients between the total scores of every type of intelligence and the total scores of the whole types of intelligences and between every type andthe other type of intelligence. Table (3) shows the Correlation Coefficients matrix between MIs.

Table (3): Correlation Coefficients between MIs .

MIs

Verbal

Logical

Visual

Bodily

Musical

Interperson

al

Intraperson

al

Naturalisti

c

Verbal --- 0.25* 0.18* 0.22* 0.11 0.10 0.2* 0.34**

-- *Logical ----- 0.41** 0.32** 0.04 0.22* 0.39** 0.27**Visual ----- 0.27** 0.20* 0.18* 0.26** 0.20*Bodily ----- 0.38** 0.28** 0.25** .26**Musical ----- .11 .2* .25**Interpersonal ----- .05 .16

Intrapersonal ----- .28**

Naturalistic -----

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-

tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Results of table (3) indicate that the correlation coefficients for the Arabic version of the MIQ were significant at the 0.01 level. The results of table (3) also show that the ranges of internal consistency of intelligences domains were between (0.04and 0.41), and all of these values are suitable for conducting such a study.

Reliability of the Questionnaires

To determine the reliability of the statements of the questionnaires, the overall statements were tested under the main method usedto detect reliability.

Reliability of the Arabic Version of the SILL Using Cronbach's alpha showed that the Arabic

Version of the SILL reliability is in the range

of 0.87. Cranach's alpha values are shown in table (5) below:

Table (4) Alpha Cronbach's Coefficients Values

for LLSs LL.Ss Mem.Ss Cog.Ss Com.Sc Met.Sc Aff.Ss Soc.Ss Totalα 0.73 0.77 0.76 0.74 0.70 0.78 0.87

Results of table (4) indicate that the Arabicversion of the SILL was reliable in the range of 0.87.

Reliability of the Arabic Version of the (MIQ)

To determine the reliability of the statements of the Arabic Version of the MIQ, the overall statements were tested under the main method used to detect reliability. Cronbach's alpha method was utilized to find the consistencyof the statements. The results in table (5) showed that the statements were of high reliability, which was in the range of (0.65 and 0.75).

Table ( 5 ) Alpha Cronbach's Coefficients Values for (MIQ)

MIs

Verbal

Logical

Visual

Bodily

Musical

Interpersona

l Intrapersona

l Naturalistic

α 0.69 0.71 0.68 0.72 0.65 0.66 0.75 0.69

Analysis of the pilot study results indicatedthat the Arabic versions of the SILL and MIQ werevalid and reliable. So, the Arabic versions of the SILL and MIQ were appropriate and suitable for participants of the study.

Administration of the Study Instruments

The administration of the research instruments was carried out during the first semester of the academic year 1431 H / 2010 C. One hundred and twenty students were randomly selected from King Abdul-Aziz and AL-Waleed Bin Abdulmalik Secondary Schools for boys in Yanbu. An Arabic version of the SILL was distributed by the researchers and the classroom teacher to the study sample. Students were divided into high andlow achievers based on their English language scores and the teachers' own observation of theirstudents’ performance. Students received copies of the SILL and were given clear and direct instructions in Arabic on how to complete the SILL. A week later, an Arabic version of the MIQ was administered by the researchers and the classroom teacher to the same students. Similarlystudents were asked to complete the MIQ.

The total number of completed copies was onehundred eighteen (64 low achievers and 54 high achievers). Analysis of the returned SILL and MIQcopies was done and results were tabulated. A detailed discussion of the results is presented below.

Results and DiscussionThe purpose of this study was to investigate

the relationship between MIs, LLSs and English language achievement of EFL secondary school students. Strategy use and MIs data were collected for a sample of 120 secondary school students in Yanbu using the Oxford (1990) SILL and MIQ. Descriptive statistics were computed for

all of the SILL and MIQ data using SPSS. This section presents a discussion and summary of the results related to questions of the study in light of data analysis and interpretations of theresults.

Research Question (1)

1. What are the multiple intelligences prevalent among EFL secondary school students?

In order to determine the MIs prevalent amongEFL secondary school students the means and standard deviation are used. Results were shown in table (6) below.

Table (6) Means and Standard Deviations forStudents' Scores on the (MIQ)

Intelligence Mean StandardDeviation

Verbal-Linguistic 14.30 (6) 2.60

Logical-Mathematical 15.36 (1) 2.51

Visual-Spatial 14.95 (3) 2.64

Bodily-Kinesthetic 14.93 (4) 2.62

Musical 12.14 (8) 3.44

Interpersonal 14.67 (5) 2.60

Intrapersonal 15.18 (2) 2.33

Naturalistic 13.83 (7) 3.08

Findings in table (6) showed that secondaryschool students preferred the use of MIs in the following order: logical-mathematical, intrapersonal, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, verbal-linguistic, naturalistic and finally musical intelligence. This means that logical-mathematical intelligenceis the most popular type of intelligences used bythose students (Mean=15.36) followed by intrapersonal intelligence (Mean =15.18). Visual-spatial intelligence (Mean=14.95) came third which were used by those students. The least popular types of intelligences were verbal-linguistic, naturalistic and finally musical intelligence. (with means of 14.30, 13.83, and 12.14 respectively). In the middle were intelligences mildly used by the sample and they included bodily-kinesthetic (Mean= 14.67) and interpersonal intelligences (Mean= 14.93).

Students intelligence preferences indicate that they like to learn step by step, enjoy solving problems, find working with numbers pleasant, like computer and board games. They also prefer to work on their own better than workin group, like to think things through in their minds and set own goals. In addition, the sample students enjoy making models, like making pictures, maps, diagrams, and depend on visual aids in dealing with a learning task.

On the other hand, students in this study tend not to favor language learning activities that include singing and music. In addition, theydo not favor learning topics that focus on environmental and natural issues. Moreover, this sample student do not like to favor verbal linguistic learning activities that focus on reading, writing, making speeches and doing debates, working on word puzzles like crosswords and word searches.

A host of studies investigated MIs favored bystudents at different levels of education (Abu Ghararah and Koura, 2010; Azar, 2006; Chan, 2006;Koura, 2005; Shalk, 2002 and Chou, 2003). The current study partially supported some of them and drastically contradicted the results of others. This is understandable since MIs could vary according to culture, educational systems, and the nature of the study sample, but the present results highlight the types of learning preferences of students that should be consideredby Saudi EFL teachers, supervisors, book writers and teacher educators.

Research Question (2)

What are the multiple intelligences that characterize high achieving EFL secondary school students?

In order to determine the MIs characterize high achieving EFL secondary school students; themeans and standard deviation were calculated. Results are shown in table (7).

Table (7) Means and Standard Deviations for High achieving Students’ Scores on the (MIQ)

Intelligence Mean Standard Deviation

Verbal-Linguistic 14.02 (6) 2.97

Logical-Mathematical 15.84 (1) 2.32

Visual-Spatial 14.93 (4) 2.35

Bodily-Kinesthetic 14.82 (5) 2.54

Musical 11.56 (8) 2.69

Interpersonal 14.95 (3) 2.73

Intrapersonal 15.21 (2) 2.27

Naturalistic 13.65 (7) 2.89

Results of table (7) indicate that the most used MIs types by Saudi high achieving students were logical-mathematical intelligence (Mean= 15.84); intrapersonal intelligence (Mean= 15.21) and interpersonal intelligence (Mean= 14.95). Other intelligences like, verbal-linguistic intelligence (Mean= 14.02); naturalistic intelligence (Mean= 13.65) and musical intelligence (Mean= 11.56) were reported to be the least used intelligences by this sample. In the middle were intelligences mildly used by the sample and they included visual-spatial intelligence (Mean= 14.93) and bodily-kinestheticintelligence (Mean= 14.82).

A closer look at results reported in table (7) reveals a consistency between MIs favored by high achieving students and the study sample as awhole table (6). The only difference is that highachieving students' intelligences are well-developed than the general sample. A look at means in table (6) and table (7) shows that the

greater mean scores were in favor of the high achieving group. High achieving students are characterized by being able to think conceptuallyand abstractly, and have the capacity to discern logical or numerical patterns. They use numbers, math, and logic to find and understand various patterns: thought patterns, number patterns, visual patterns and color patterns. They like to conduct experiments and solve puzzles.

High achieving students in this sample are a mix of inter and intrapersonal intelligent. Some of them like to work alone, they are self- reflective and self-aware, they tend to be in tune with inner feelings, beliefs, and thinking processes. On the other hand, a considerable number of them love to work in groups, they are good team members and skilled in conflict resolution since they exhibit great deal of empathy for others.

Results of this study suggest that EFL teachers need to strengthen their students MIs byproviding the learning sources and instructional activities and strategies that provide for such MIs. High achieving students for example need charts, diagrams, statistical data, individual aswell as group activities and cooperative projects. In addition, they need instructional strategies that focus on problem-solving, investigation, experimentation, questioning, journal writing, cooperative learning as well as independent learning projects.

Results reported in table (7) above are partially in congruence with those reported by (Hodge, 2009; Chan, 2006; Koura, 2005; and Chin

2004) whereas they contradict those revealed by Rogmajoo, 2008.

As indicated in our discussion of results in table (6) that the least preferred MIs by the sample were musical, naturalistic and verbal / linguistic.

Research Question (3)

What are the language learning strategies prevalent among EFL secondary school students?

In order to determine the language learning strategies prevalent among EFL secondary school students, the researcher categorized the total sample (N = 118) into 1 of 4 groups for each of the six categories based upon their average frequency of use of strategies in each category.

Table (8) Frequency of Strategies Used by the Total Sample

StrategyType

Group 11-1.99

Group 22-2.99

Group3

3-3.99

Group 44-5

Rank

Cognitive 12(10.17%)

37(31.36%)

55(64.61%)

14 (11.86%) 5

Metacognitive

12(10.17%)

21(17.8%)

43(36.44%)

42(35.59%) 1

Memory 16 (13.6%)

33(27.97%)

51(43.22%)

18 (15.25%) 4

Social 17(14.41%)

22 (18.64%)

38(32.20%)

41 (34.75%) 2

Affective 26 (22.03%)

42 (35.59%)

40 (33.9%)

10 (8.47%) 6

Compensation

25 (21.19%)

30 (25.42%)

39(33.05%)

24 (20.39%) 3

N= (118)

Participants who were in group 1 used the strategies least frequently, while those in group4 used the strategies most frequently.

Results of table (8) indicate that the most frequently used strategy type by students was metacognitive (used by 42 participants), followedby social (41 participants) and compensation strategies (24 participants). Affective, cognitive, and memory strategies (10, 14, 18 participants respectively) were in the least frequently used strategies by the students. So, the most frequently used strategy was the metacognitive (35.59%) whereas the least used were the affective strategies (8.47%).

Finding, thus, revealed that the sample in this study learned English best by employing metacognitive strategies that required them to plan for their learning, to pay attention when listening to someone speaking English, to monitortheir learning progress and to find as many ways as they could to use their English. In addition, they were clever in using social strategies to ask for help from those who speak English and were open to criticism by asking teachers and other English speakers to correct them when they made mistakes. They also resorted to practicing their English with their classmates.

Students were also able to compensate for their lack of knowledge in English or lack of vocabulary. They used gestures, guessing, and made up new words to try to make themselves understood.

They also appeared not to use such strategiesas practicing the new language, sending and receiving messages, analyzing and reasoning, and note taking. All these are vital LLSs that help learners understand and produce the language through various means.

Results are in agreement with those revealed by Al.Refay, 2010; Peacock & Ho, 2003 and Bruen, 2002. However, they were not in line with Al.Otaibi, 2004 that focused on Saudi students learning in USA and reported that memory and cognitive strategies were used most frequently. Again, the level of education and the educationalcontext could be responsible for this inconsistency.

Research Question (4)

What are the language learning strategies that characterize high achieving EFL secondary school students?

Table (9) below illustrates the strategies that characterize high achievers.

Table (9) Frequency of Strategies Used by High Achieving Students

StrategyType

Group 11-1.99

Group 22-2.99

Group3

3-3.99

Group 44-5

Rank

Cognitive 1(1.85%)

15(27.78%)

27(50%)

11(20.37%) 4

Metacognitive

1(1.85%)

6(11.11%)

24(44.44%)

23(42.59%) 2

Memory 2(3.7%)

11(20.37%)

30(66.67%)

11(20.37%) 4

Social 2(3.7%)

9(16.67%)

19(35.19%)

24(44.44%) 1

Affective 8(18.81%)

17(31.48%)

23(42.59%)

6(11.11%) 6

Compensation

4(7.41%)

11(20.37%)

22(40.74%)

17(31.48%) 3

N= (54)

Results in table (9) indicate that the top three LLSs used by high achievers were the same reported to be used by the total sample of the study. High achievers tended to use a greater number of LLSs than those reported by the total sample. This is quite obvious when we compare themean score for social, metacognitive and compensation strategies in tables 8 & 9 and the same holds true for the least used strategies by the two samples.

High achievers used social strategies to ask questions, cooperating with peers, and develop cultural understanding. They also used the metacognitive strategies to plan and monitor the learning preferences, to evaluate their own progress, to search for practice opportunities and assess how successful a particular strategy is. Again, they compensate their lack of languageknowledge by guessing, using clues, and using their body language. They even made up new words when they did not know the right ones.

Studies like Al.Refay, 2010; Sachillo, 2008; Greffiths, 2003 and Koura, 1998 support the findings of the current study. They all found outthat high achievers preferred social, metacognitive and compensation strategies and that they showed decisive superiority over the total sample in the frequency of using all types of LLSs.

Research Question (5)

Is there a relationship between multiple intelligences and language learning strategies that characterize high achieving EFL secondary school students?

Results reported in table (10) shows the relationship between multiple intelligences and language learning strategies that characterize high achieving EFL secondary school students.

Table (10) Correlation between MIs and LLSs of High Achieving Students

Memory Cognitive

Compensation Metacognitive

Affective

Social

Verbal 0.54** 0.45** 0.43** 0.39** 0.38** 0.37**

Logical 0.55** 0.49** 0.38** 0.44** 0.47** 0.22Visual 0.56** 0.38** 0.36** 0.42** 0.34** 0.38**

Bodily 0.37** 0.32** 0.22 0.32** 0.213 0.19Musical 0.45** 0.33** 0.006 0.213 0.37** 0.33**

Interpersonal 0.29* 0.194 0.26 0.26 0.42** 0.54**

Intrapersonal 0. 22 0.111 0.15 0.13 0.24 0.12

Naturalistic 0.39** 0.22 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.29*

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2tailed).**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2tailed).

Results of table (10) revealed significant correlations between many types of MIs and LLSs. Focusing on the correlation between MIs and LLSs that characterize high achieving students indicate that logical-mathematical intelligence significantly correlates with all types of LLSs at the 0.05 level with the exception of social strategies (0.22). Whereas logical-mathematical intelligence correlates with cognitive strategies(0.49) and compensation strategies (0.43), and this is very high correlation. This means that students whose logical-mathematical intelligence is the most favored tend to use strategies of learning like "practicing" (e.g. repeating); "receiving and sending messages" (e.g. quickly getting a new idea); "analyzing and reasoning " (e.g. analyzing contrastively) and " creating structure for language input and output" (e.g. taking notes). They also utilize other LLSs like “guessing intellectually" (e.g. using clues) and "overcoming limitations in speaking and writing" (e.g. getting help).

The second highest intelligence that characterized high achieving students was interpersonal intelligence. It highly correlated with social strategies at 0.05 level (0.54) whichis a logical finding since interpersonal intelligence is enriched and developed through learning activities that include cooperative learning, peer teaching and brain storming which necessitate the use of social strategies that require asking questions, cooperating and empathizing with others (e.g. developing culturalunderstanding). These findings are supported by

Bellanca, 2009; Chau, 2006; Denig, 2004; Curie, 2003; and Smith, 2002.

The third highest intelligence among high achieving students was intrapersonal. This intelligence does not correlate with any of the top LLSs reported by those students. Akbari (2008) reported similar findings.

A general look at table (10) reveals that almost all MIs correlated with memory strategies since all learners have to memorize facts and other givens in the learning situation in order to stay intact with other learning processes.

Findings illustrated in table (10) reiterate the demand on EFL teachers, supervisors, text book writers to enrich the teaching-learning context with stimulating and challenging languagelearning activities that cater for students MIs and to instruct those students in how to use LLSsassociated with their preferred MIs.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions:

A number of conclusions can be drawn from theresults of this study:

1. The effective use of LLSs appeared to lead to more effective language learning.

2. Learning strategy instruction can be expected to increase the ability of learners in learning the complex skills of English as a foreign language.

3. Increasing teachers' and learners' repertoire of strategies can enhance students learning bycreating a broader context within which achievement can be maximized.

4. Students preferred MIs can be developed and enhanced through providing them with learning activities, exercises, and topics that cater for these intelligences.

5. The teaching learning context can better meet the needs of all students by discovering how they learn best and setting up lessons to meetthe individual needs thus engaging their students in learning.

6. LLSs used by high achieving students should betaught to low achieving in order to help them enhance their EFL learning.

Recommendations:

Based on the findings of the current study, the following recommendations were made:

1. Ministry of Education should train EFL teachers with respect to the use of LLSs and MIs in order to help their students to learn the English language more efficiently.

2. Faculties of Education should consider training their students on the use of language learning strategies.

3. EFL teachers should be aware of their studentsstrategy use and MIs in order to assist less successful language learners to do better through providing challenging activities.

4. Both EFL teachers and students should be aware of the MI theory and its applications.

5. The MI theory and it applications should be taught as an integral part of the methodology courses in the teacher education programs.

6. Activities, exercises, and tests included in EFL courses should be built on the lines of the MI theory.

7. Workshops should provide hands-on-experience training for in-service teachers on how to catertheir teaching and evaluation to the applications of the MI theory in their classrooms.

REFRENCES

Akabri, R.(2008). Multiple Intelligences and Language Learning Strategies: InvestigatingPossible Relations. System: An InternationalJournal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 36 (2). P141-155.

Abu Ghararah, W. and Koura, A. (2010). Multiple Intelligences Theory: Differentiating Factor?. Paper presented to 30th CDELT, National Symposium on English Language Teaching. Ain Shams University. Cairo.

Al.Refay, N. and Koura, A. (2010). Language Learning Strategies Used by Saudi SecondarySchool Students and their Relationship to Achievement in EFL. Paper presented to 30thCDELT, National Symposium on English Language Teaching. Ain Shams University. Cairo.

Armstrong, T. (2007). The curriculum superhighway. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 16-20. Retrieved May 31, 2010, from the EBSCOhost database.

Azar, A. (2006). Relationship of multiple intelligences profiles with area of constitution in high school and university entrance exam scores. Educational Administration: Theory & Practice, 46, 157-174. Retrieved January 20, 2010, from the EBSCOhost database.

Barrington, B. (2004). Teaching to student diversity in higher education: how multipleintelligences theory can help. Teaching in

Higher Education, 9(4), 422. Retrieved January 11, 2010, from the EBSCOhost database.

Bellanca, J. (2009). Active Learning Strategies and Projects for Students' Multiple Intelligences. Colvin.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching, fourth edition.WhitePlains: Longman.

Buchen, I. H. (2006). Futures thinking, learning, and leading: Applying multiple intelligences to success and innovation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Carlton, S. and Thomas, K. (2000). Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory. Testing by Using Language Minority Students. Falls Church High School. Fairfax County (VA) Public schools.

Chan, D. (2006). Perceived multiple intelligences among male and female Chinesegifted students in Hong Kong: The structureof the student multiple intelligences profile. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4),325. Retrieved February 10, 2010, from the EBSCOhost database.

Chau, M. (2006). Connecting Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences Theories through Language Learning Strategies . Libres. Curtin. Edu.au/Lihres16n1/Chau.htm.

Chin, I. (2001). Language learning strategies used by high and low English proficiency

students in a technology college. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. National Changhua University of Education. Taiwan.

Choi, S. & Joh, J. (2001). Korean high school students’ strategy use in English language learning. Studies in Language, (17), P.P. 209-224.

Christion, M. (2004). Applying multiple intelligences theory: In perspective and in-service TEFL education programs. Forum, 36(2) 2. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from the ProQuest database.

Curie, K. (2003). Multiple Intelligences Theory and ESL Classroom. The international TESL Journal. 9 (4).

CIA. (2008). The world fact book: Field listing-language. Retrieved October 25, 2010, fromhttps://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world fact book /fields/2098.html

Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.

El-Embaby, (2008). EFL Students Writing Competencies and Determine the Effectiveness of Multiple Intelligences. www.foe.zu.edu.eg/Heigher%20studies.htm.

Fan, M. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of secondlanguage vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners. Modern Language Journal, 87(2),P.P. 222–241.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of the mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:Basic Books.

Gardner, H.(1999). Are there Additional Intelligences?. The Case for Naturalist, Spiritual, and Existential Intelligences. In J. Kane (Ed.), "Education, Information and Transformation" (pp. 111-131).

Gardner, H.(2004). Multiple Intelligences: the Implications for Education’ in National College of Ireland Learning and Teaching Journal. 1(1):4.

Glenn, C. (2010). The use of multiple intelligence concepts with middle school students and future academic achievement. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Southern Mississippi.

Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31 (3), P.P.367-383.

Hall, H. (2004). Learner-centered instruction and the theory of multiple intelligences with second language learners. Teachers College Record,106(1), 63-180. Retrieved January 17, 2010, from the ProQuest database.

Hamed, Y. (2004). An investigation of English language learning strategies used by eleventh grade students in learning Englishas a foreign language in governmental and private schools in Nablus City in

Palestine. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. An-Najah National University. Palestine.

Hang, Z. (2007). The effect of learning strategies on reading comprehension. Sino- US English Teaching, ISSN1539-8072,USA. Vol.(4), ( Serial NO.40).

Janes,L., Koutsopanogos. , & Villarando, I. (2000). Improving Student Motivation Through the use of Engaged Learning and Multiple Intelligences. (ED 443559).

Khalil, Z. (2005). Assessment of language learning strategies used by Palestinian EFL learners. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 108-119.

Kim, H. (2001). Language learning strategies, learning styles and beliefs about language learning of Korean university students. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), P.P. 31-46.

Kim, (2009). The Relevance of Multiple Intelligences to CALL instruction.http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/kim/article.pdf.

Koura, A. (1998). Brain hemisphericity, languagelearning strategies, and achievement of Saudi secondary school EFL students. Proceedings 18th CDELT, National Symposym. Ain Shams University. Cairo.

Koura, A.(2005). Multiple Intelligences Achievement and Self Efficacy In Pre-

University Classrooms. Ain Shams University, Cairo.

Lee, H. (2000). A relationship between English language learning strategies and achievement. The Journal of English Language Teaching, (12),P.P. 247-270.

Loori, A. (2005). Multiple intelligences: A comparative study between the preferences of males and females. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(1), 77-88.

Mitchell, R., and Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. New York: Oxford University Press.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educationalchange. London: Longman Personal Education.

O’Malley, J. & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. (1989). Strategy inventory for language learning (SILL). Version 7.0 (ESL/EFL).

Oxford, R.(1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.

Oxford, R. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: The International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(1), P.P. 271-278.

Oxford, R. & Burry-Stock, J. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa ,AL, USA.

Pendidiken. (2007) A Profile of Multiple Intelligence for High Achievers.At:http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1172110v540284/.

Razmjoo, S. (2008). A Study on the Relationship Between Multiple Intelligences and language Proficiency. Shiraz University, Iran.

Sachiho, M. (2008). Task-related Japanese language learning strategies used by high and low achievers at an American university. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Indiana University. USA.

Saricaoglu, & Arikan, (2009). A Study Of Multiple Intelligences, at: http://eku.comu.edu.tr/index/5/2/asaricaoglu_aarikan.pdf

Shalk, A. (2002). A Study of the Relationship between Multiple Intelligences and Achievement as Measured by Delaware StudentTesting Program (DSTP) Scores in Reading, Mathematics, and Writing. DAI-A, 69(119), P. 3680.

Shore, J. (2003). Teacher Education in Multiple Intelligences (TEMI) : paper presented at the Annual Meeting of AERA. Chicago. At :www.est.or/legall/copyright.

Shore, J. R. (2003). An investigation of multiple intelligences and self-efficacy inthe university English as a second languageclassroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University. (UMI3029591).

Smith, M.(2002). Howard Gardner and Multiple Intelligences: The Encyclopedia of InformalEducation. http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm.

Snider, D.(2001). Multiple Intelligences Theory and Foreign Language Teaching. Special Educational Needs, London: Routledge.http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2001-05289-021&CFID=4892775.

Wang, W. (2002). Effects of gender and proficiency on listening comprehension strategy use by Taiwanese EFL senior high school students. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. National Changhua Normal University of Education. Taiwan.

Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), P.P.203-244.

Yang, M. (2010). Language learning strategies ofEnglish as a foreign language university students in Korea. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Indiana State University. Terre Haute, Indiana.