本研究的目的是在設計一份適合語言學習者使用的多元智慧量表。利用資料分析中的Cronbach’s alpha信度、項目分析以及因素分析來分析進而解釋語言學習者的多元智慧量表是否具有信度、鑑別度以及效度。
本研究的樣本為台中靜宜大學的學生, 包括英文系、中文系、兒童福利學系、法律系、化妝品科學系、企業管理系、會計系、財務金融系、應用數學系、應用化學系、資訊工程系、以及台文系等等共一十二個科系的大學生，總共一千一百二十二個學生，並且把學生分成三組，進行多元智慧量表的施測。本研究的主要步驟和結果如下：
1. 第一組受測者包含三十位來自不同科系的大學生，根據兩份格式不同的多元智慧量表（題目打散並以格子區分項目、或是依照不同的智能來分類題目），選出他們喜歡的格式問卷。
2. 第二組受測者包含五百二十位來自不同科系的大學生，利用他們回答多元智慧量表的結果進而分析問卷的信度與效度。結果顯示語言學習者的多元智慧量表具有信度、鑑別度以及效度。
3. 第三組受測者則包含了五百七十二位來自不同科系的大學生。第三組的受測者必須同時完成兩份多元智慧的問卷：翁淑媛（民94）的多元智慧量表與語言學習者的多元智慧量表。透過二因子變異數分析來比較兩份問卷的差異性。結果顯示兩份差異性甚大，代表語言學習者的多元智慧量表能夠檢驗出語言學習者在學習時使用的智慧傾向。
此研究提供了一個全新的方法讓教師能夠測試學生在學習語言時多元智慧的使用傾向，提供了許多教學的方式。學生也能透過完成多元智慧量表，了解自己智慧的使用傾向，選擇適合自己學習的方式。

This study is based on Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligence (MI) to develop the innovative questionnaire of Multiple-intelligence Inventory for English Language Learners (MIIELL). Instruments such as Wong’s MI inventory (2005) were developed to identify each respondent’s dominant intelligence. However, few studies has focused on the development of MI measurement for language learners. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a reliable and valid MIIELL to identify language learner’s intelligence in his/her learning process.
One thousand and one twenty-two Taiwanese college students from different departments at Providence University in Taichung, divided into three groups, participated in this research. The first group consisted of 30 subjects to form a focus group in order to complete two forms of MIIELL: scattering items in a grid, and categorizing items into different scales by different intelligences. From the opinions of the focus group, the user-friendly MIIELL was developed. The second group, comprised of 520 college students, completed a 54-item MIIELL to evaluate its reliability and validity through Cronbach’s alpha reliability, item analysis and exploratory analysis. The results indicated that the MIIELL is a reliable instrument with discrimination. There were 8 unrelated items which were deleted to form the final version of MIIELL with 46 items after exploratory factor analysis. The final group consisted of 572 college students to complete the final MIIELL and Wong’s MI inventory to see whether they yielded different results. Two-way ANOVA was conducted and the results showed some significant differences between the two questionnaires, indicating that the MIIELL is a useful tool to assess language learner’s intelligence. The reliable and valid MIIELL provides a measurement to both teachers and students. Teachers can understand student’s intelligences during his/her learning process as well as develop various language-teaching activities concerning the seven intelligences. Students can understand themselves more to find the proper methods to learn language.

ABSTRACT (CHINESE) 4
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 7
LIST OF TABLES 8
LIST OF FIGURES 9
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 10
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 10
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 11
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 12
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 13
DEFINITION OF THE TERM 14
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY 15
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 16
INTRODUCTION 16
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES THEORY 16
GARDNER’S BELIEF OF INTELLIGENCES 21
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES THEORY & LEARNING STYLES 23
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES THEORY & LANGUAGE LEARNING 26
OTHER RELATED MI RESEARCH 28
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER TWO 32
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 34
INTRODUCTION 34
HYPOTHESES 34
RESEARCH DESIGN 35
SUBJECTS AND SETTING 36
Subjects 36
Setting 40
INSTRUMENTATION AND PROCEDURE 40
Phase 1: The prototype of the MIIELL 40
Phase 2: A review of previous studies 41
Phase 3: Categorization of performances 41
Phase 4: The principles of developing theMIIELL 41
Phase 5: The production of the MIIELL 45
Phase 6: Two reviewers of the MIIELL 46
Phase 7: A focus group 46
Phase 8: The evaluation of the MIIELL’s reliability and validity 47
Phase 9: Reorganization of revision of the MIIELL 48
Phase 10: The use of the final MIIELL 48
SCORING 50
STATISTICAL INSTRUMENT 50
Descriptive statistics 50
Reliability analysis 50
Item analysis 51
Validity analysis 51
Two-way analysis of variance ( two-way ANOVA) 51
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER THREE 52
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 53
INTRODUCTION 53
RESULTS 53
The format of the MIIELL 53
Reliability 55
Validity 62
Construct validity 63
The comparison between Wong’s MI inventory and the MIIELL 71
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER FOUR 81
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION 82
INTRODUCTION 82
INTERPRETATION OF DATA 82
The format of the MIIELL 82
Reliability 83
Validity 84
The comparison between Wong’s MI inventory and the MIIELL 88
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER FIVE 89
CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION 91
INTRODUCTION 91
SUMMARY 91
IMPLICATIONS 91
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 93
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES 94
REFERENCES 96
APPENDIX A 102
APPENDIX B 106
APPENDIX C 110
APPENDIX D 114
APPENDIX E 123
APPENDIX F 129
APPENDIX G 135

Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA: The
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Blaikie, N. (2003). Analyzing Quantitative Data. UK: Sage Publications.
Boekaerts, M. (1995). The interface between intelligence and personality as determinants of classroom learning. In Donald H. S. and Moshe Z. (Eds),
International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp.161-183). New York: Plenum Press.
Bourque, L. B., Fiedler, E. P. (1995). How to Conduct Self-administered and Mail Surveys. UK: Sage Publications.
Brief introduction to Providence University. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2007, from
Providence University, University History Web site: http://web.pu.edu.tw/
~english / main1.htm
Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding Research in Second Language Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. D. (2001). Using Surveys in Language Programs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bryman, A.; & Cramer, D. (1997). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS for Windows: A guide for social scientists. UK: Routledge.
Busato, V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (1999). The relation between learning style, the big five personality traits, and achievement motivation in higher education. Personality and individual differences, 26(1), 129-140.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for number of factor, Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1, p.245-276 .
Cherryholmes, C. H. (1988). Construct validity and the discourses of research. American Journal of Education, 98(3), 421-457.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319.
Hsieh, Chia-Chen. (1999). The Relationships between multiple intelligences, thinking styles, and critictal-thinking ailities of the fifth-and sixth grade students. Dissertation from National Sun Yat-sen University. 謝佳蓁 （民 88）。國小高年級學生多元智能、思考風格、與批判思考能力之關係。國立中山大學碩士論文。
Christison, M. A. (1996). Teaching and learning languages through multiple
intelligences. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 10-14.
Christision, M. A. (1997). An Introduction to Multiple Intelligences Theory and Second Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall/Regents.
Christision, M. A. (1998). An introduction to multiple intelligence theory and second language learning. In Reid, J. M. (Eds), Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom (pp. 1-14). New Jersey: Perntice Hall Regents.
Christision, M. A. (1998). Apply multiple intelligence theory: In preservice and inservice TEFL education programs. English Teaching Forum, 36(2), 2-13.
Yu, Chun-Min. (2004). The multiple intelligences of college students with different majors. Dissertation from Dayeh University. 游俊閔 （民94）。大學生多元智慧之研究。大葉大學碩士論文。
Denig, S. J. (2004). Multiple intelligences and learning styles: Two complementary
dimensions. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 96-111.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and Applications (2nd ed.). UK:
Sage Publications.
Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, and Processing. NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
Dunn, R., Denig, S. J., & Lovelace, M. K. (2001). Multiple intelligences and learning
styles: Two sides of the same coin or different strokes for different folks?
Teacher Librarian, 28(3), 9-15.
Eddy, J. B. K. (1999). Multiple intelligences, styles, and proficiency: Issues and application in adult second language learning and teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International,60(05), 1485A. (UMI No. 9930705)
Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual
differences in second language learning. System, 31(3), 313-330.
Fink, A, & Kosecoff, J. (1998). How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-step Guide (2nded.). UK: Sage Publications.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1985). On discerning new ideas in psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 3, 101-104.
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-9.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2004). Audiences of the theory of multiple intelligences. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 212-220.
Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis, Psychometrica, 19, p.149-161.
Haley, M. H. (2004). Learner-centered instruction and the theory of multiple intelligences with second language learners. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 163-180.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A Step-by-step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute INC.
Hoerr, T. R. (1992). How our school applied multiple intelligences theory. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 67-68.
Kline, P. (1994). An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. UK: Routledge.
Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity. UK: Sage Publications.
Ciou, Li-Ya. (2000). The investigation of the application of multiple intelligences theory in the English subject in the elementary school. Dissertation from National Taipei University of Education. 邱麗雅 （民 89）。多元智慧理論在國小英語科教學運作歷程之探究。國立台北師範學院碩士論文。
Mackey, A.; & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI Mannal: A guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, 3rd edition. CA: Palo Alto.
Newman, I., & Newman, C. (1994). Conceptual Statistics for Beginners (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Nicholson-Nelson, K. (1998). Developing Students’ Multiple Intelligences. New York: Scholastic.
Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. UK: Pinter Publishers.
Shearer, C. B. (2004). Using a multiple intelligences assessment to promote teacher development and student achievement. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 147-162
Shore, J. R. (2001). An investigation of multiple intelligences and self-efficacy in the university English as a second language classroom. Dissertation Abstracts International,62(10), 3323A. (UMI No. 3029591)
Reid, J. M. (1984). Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire. Department of English, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82070.
Reid, J. M. (1987). The perceptual learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87-111.
Reid, J. M. (1998). Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Richard, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rivera, D. B. (1996). An investigation into the validity and reliability of the Multiple Intelligences Inventory for Teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(12), 5114A. (UMI No. 9717087)
Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. NY: Plenum.
Silver, H., Strong, R., & Perini, M. (1997). Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 22-27.
Silver, H., Strong, R., & Perini, M. (2000). So Each May Learn: Integrating Learning Styles & Multiple Intelligences. USA: Alexandria.
Chen, Si-Pei. (2003). The Relationship between English proficiency and learning styles/ multiple intelligences: A case study of Fu-Hsing High School students. Dissertation from National Taiwan Normal University. 陳思珮 （民93）。英語能力與學習風格及多元智能之關係：復興高中學生之個案研究。國立台灣師範大學碩士論文。
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. (3rd. Ed). New
York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Teele, S. (1994). The relationship of multiple intelligences to the instructional process. Dissertation Abstracts International,55(08), 2270A. (UMI No. 9501918)
Thelen, H. (1954). Dynamics of Groups at Work. IL: University of Chicago.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and Development. NY: Brunner.
Song, Tseng-Hsuan. (2003). The investigation of the effects of English teacher’s instructional methods on indigenous students’ English learning from the perspective of multiple intelligences. Dissertation from National Hualien University of Education.　宋增軒（民 92）。原住民國小英語教師教學方法與學生學習之影響研究：多元智慧觀點。國立花蓮師範學院多元文化教育研究所。
Wilson, L. O. (1998). The Eighth Intelligence: Naturalistic intelligence. Retrieved March 12, 2002, from http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/environmental /wilson2.htm
Wintergerst, A. C., DeCapua, A., & Itzen, R. C. (2001). The construct validity of one learning styles instrument. System, 29(3), 385-403.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins: Field Dependence and Field Independence. NY: International University.
University of New Castle upon Tyne. (2002, March). Statistics Support: How to erform and interpret factor analysis using SPSS. Retrieved March 12, 2002, from http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ucs/statistics/common/specialisttopics/ factor _analysis/factoranalysis.html