Social Science and Human Research Bulletin

Assessment in Legal English classrooms is essential for evaluating learners’ language proficiency and professional communication skills, yet traditional assessment methods often emphasize written tests and overlook learners’ diverse abilities. Based on Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI), this study examines assessment practices in Legal English classrooms to identify more inclusive and effective approaches. Employing a qualitative and descriptive research design, the study analyzes assessment methods such as tests, essays, presentations, debates, portfolios, and performance-based tasks in relation to different intelligences. The findings suggest that MI-based assessment enhances student engagement, accommodates individual differences, and provides a more comprehensive evaluation of legal language competence. The study concludes that integrating Multiple Intelligences Theory into assessment practices contributes to more authentic, learner-centered, and professionally relevant assessment in Legal English education.

Multiple Intelligences Theory, Intelligence, Legal English, Teaching

1. Akbari, R., & Hosseini, K. (2008). Multiple intelligences and language learning strategies: Investigating possible relations. System, 36(2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.09.008
2. Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (3rd ed.). ASCD.
3. Arnold, J., & Fonseca, C. (2004). Multiple intelligence theory and foreign language learning: A brain-based perspective. International Journal of English Studies, 4, 119–136.
4. Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (2003). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
5. Christison, M. A., & Bassano, S. (2005). Multiple intelligences and language learning: A guidebook of theory, activities, inventories, and resources. Alta Book Center Publishers.
6. Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429
7. Deligiannidi, K., & Howard-Jones, P. (2015). The neuroscience literacy of teachers in Greece. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3909–3915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1133
8. Dolati, Z., & Tahriri, A. (2017). EFL teachers’ multiple intelligences and their classroom practice. SAGE Open, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017722582
9. Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19(1), 42–68.
10. Ferrero, M., Garaizar, P., & Vadillo, M. A. (2016). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence among Spanish teachers and cross-cultural variation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 496. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00496
11. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
12. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books.
13. Gardner, H. (2011a). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (3rd ed.). Basic Books.
14. Gardner, H. (2011b). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
15. Ghamrawi, N. (2014). Multiple intelligences and ESL teaching and learning: An investigation in KG II classrooms in Beirut. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X13513021
16. Jones, E. (2017). One size fits all? Multiple intelligences and legal education. The Law Teacher, 51(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2015.1082238
17. Lana, C. (2002). Implementing multiple intelligences and learning styles in distributed learning MS projects. The Education Coalition (TEC).
18. McKenzie, W. (2005). Multiple intelligences and instructional technology (2nd ed.). International Society for Technology in Education.
19. Papadatou-Pastou, M., Haliou, E., & Vlachos, F. (2017). Brain knowledge and the prevalence of neuromyths among prospective teachers in Greece. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 804. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00804
20. Pawlak, M. (2019). How teachers deal with individual differences in the language classroom. Neofilolog, 52(1), 179–195.
21. Ramos, R. (2007). Incorporating the multiple intelligences theory in language teaching: Portfolios, projects and team teaching. Lenguaje, 35(2), 221–240.
22. Rato, J. R., Abreu, A. M., & Castro-Caldas, A. (2013). Neuromyths in education: What is fact and what is fiction for Portuguese teachers? Educational Research, 55, 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.844947
23. Razmajoo, S. A. (2008). On the relationship between multiple intelligences and language proficiency. The Reading Matrix, 8(2).
24. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
25. Sabiq, A. H. A. (2023). Investigating individual differences and motivation in EFL learning. LEARN Journal, 16(1), 726–752.
26. Strauss, V. (2013, October 16). Howard Gardner: “Multiple intelligences” are not “learning styles.” The Washington Post.
27. Wallace, M. J. (2010). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach. Cambridge University Press.
28. Wallace, R. (2010). The perceptions of community college students to foreign language acquisition grounded in multiple intelligence theory (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
29. Willingham, D. T. (2004). Reframing the mind: Howard Gardner became a hero among educators by redefining talents as intelligences. Education Next.
30. Xie, J., & Lin, R. (2009). Research on multiple intelligences teaching and assessment. Asian Journal of Management and Humanity Sciences, 4(23), 106–124.