Multiple Intelligences: Learners VS Teachers

The study investigated the relationship of the multiple intelligences of the Bachelor of Secondary Education students and their teachers in their major subjects. Four hundred eighty-five (485) BSED students and twenty-two (22) teachers in their respective major subjects participated. The result demonstrates statistically significant in the multiple intelligences of the Bachelors of Secondary Education Major in Technology and Livelihood Education and Music, Arts, Physical Education and Health and their teachers in their respective major subjects. However, result also demonstrates no significance in the multiple intelligences of the Bachelors of Secondary Education Major in Filipino, English, and Mathematics and their teachers in their respective major subjects. The study shows that the dominant intelligences of the BSED students and their teachers in their major subjects are the interpersonal, intrapersonal, and their suited intelligences for their major subjects. The result evidently showed that the BSED students and their major teachers are people and self smart. This only shows that as a teacher, one should know how to socialize appropriately with others and have a deeper understanding with themselves. It also showed that the teachers are really smarter than their students in their major field of specialization. Educators must also consider the multiple intelligences of their students to fully develop their learning capabilities.

The Rationale & Development of Organizational Democracy Scale

The emerging labor movement in 20th century had embraced very different views of possibility of democracy at work (Hyman, 2016). Despite being present in the scholarly and industrial research since decades, understanding on organizational democracy was limited (Lee and Edmondson, 2018). Majority of studies on this construct are qualitative, narrow in scope and have generalizability issues (specifically outside Europe and USA).Since the last two decades, academic and industrial researchers have shown greater interest in it, but the concept is still in need of more clarity, as well as theoretical and empirical support (Han and Garg, 2018; Battilana et al., 2016). In continuation of these efforts, this research develops the construct of organizational democracy which is “a system of organizational governance based on the principles of autonomy and freedom giving employees equal rights to participate, share, involve and contribute in organizational affairs directly or indirectly for attaining overall objectives and goals of organization”. Using extensive literature review, this research thoroughly examines how this centuries old multi-disciplinary, multi-dimensional and multi-facet concept came into the management literature. The review also includes a comprehensive discussion on what organizational democracy is, what impacts it can have on the organizations, empirical facts, and industrial practitioner’s efforts in flourishing this idea. Using several qualitative tools (literature review, focus groups, netnography, expert In-depth interviews and field survey), the research develops a construct on organizational democracy, differentiating feature being its comprehensiveness as compared to the already existing one. The qualitative information obtained through all sources was processed through quantitative content analysis using KH Coder. The findings of KH coder and learnings from American civic centre of education three components (liberalism, constitutionalism and functionalism), ten dimensions (freedom, fairness, integrity, tolerance, shared responsibility, structure, transparency, knowledge sharing, accountability and learning environment) were identified that led to development of conceptual framework for organizational democracy. By adopting established scale development procedures (DeVellis, 2017; Hinkin, 1998; Spector, 1992), the organizational democracy scale was developed, refined and validated. The new organizational democracy scale consists of 45-items, consistent with theory three components and ten dimensions. The new dimensions were verified by exploratory factor analysis x (EFA) using a sample of 287 respondents obtained from different educational institutes. The dimensions were further validated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using a separate sample of 304 respondents obtained from various industries. All the major goodness-of-fit indices indicated the model’s good fit (χ2/df = 1.52; CFI = 0.96; NFI = 0.90; TLI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.041; SRMR = 0.06). Finally, statistically significant figures (AVE and CR) for convergent and discriminant validities were obtained along with correlation values for each dimension not exceeding the criterion of 0.70 (Stevens, 2009) suggesting negligible multicollinearity. The development of organizational democracy scale is a valuable contribution in management, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource literature, especially in the Asian context. The newly developed measures will assist future researchers and industrial practitioners in deeper exploration of this important organizational construct. In addition, organizational managers and supervisors can use this scale for establishing, assessing and improving democratic practices at their workplaces. The testing of organizational democracy scale under different situations, settings and designs (sample size, contextual boundaries, methodology) in future, will further add to its authentication, validation and applicability.