Achievement Tests
At the end of the first three-week intervention period, pupils took
a 25-item short answer review test on “Fractions”. At the end of every
sub-topic on “Decimals” within the second six-weeks’ intervention period,
pupils sat for a 25-item short answer review test.
Qualitative Data
Pupils’ interviews and teachers’ observations and reflection
journals were also used as instruments for the qualitative data collection.
Procedure
The study was quasi-experimental in design and equivalent
group post-test only design was adopted. One teacher taught the
comparison classes and another teacher taught the project classes from the low
and average-ability groups.
All the pupils and teachers involved in the project
underwent MI diagnostic testing. The teachers were briefed on the findings and
how it can help them to improve the way they learn and the way they help the
pupils to learn. The project group teacher was given her class’s MI profile which
showed the detailed intelligence variability within the class. This would help
her to design and customize her Mathematics lessons to cater to the dominant
multiple intelligences of the pupils in her two project classes.
Table 3 shows the
results from the MIDAS Questionnaire which summarizes the MI profile of all the pupils. It
indicated that pupils have all the eight multiple intelligences in almost
equivalent dominance. The naturalistic intelligence was the strongest
intelligence overall. All of the pupils’ intelligences were above the 50th
percentile.
Scale
|
Natural
|
Musical
|
Spatial
|
Ling
|
Logical
|
Kin
|
Inter
|
Intra
|
Mean
|
55.9
|
54.1
|
53.8
|
53.8
|
53.1
|
52.9
|
52.0
|
50.8
|
SD
|
16.4
|
14.0
|
14.7
|
14.2
|
13.4
|
14.7
|
15.0
|
14.4
|
Table 3: Main Scale Means (N= 140)
Ability Group
|
Low-Ability Group
|
Average-Ability Group
|
||
Multiple Intelligence
|
Project
(N=30)
|
Comparison (N=32)
|
Project
(N=38)
|
Comparison
(N=40)
|
Musical
|
56.4 (12.1)
|
56.9 (14.7)
|
54.4 (12.4)
|
55.7 (16.1)
|
Kinesthetic
|
56.8 (11.4)
|
50.1 (14.2)
|
52.2 (15.9)
|
57.5 (14.5)
|
Logical
|
56.2 (12.4)
|
44.6 (13.3)
|
54.5 (14.0)
|
56.2 (12.8)
|
Spatial
|
58.8 (12.3)
|
52.6 (15.3)
|
54.2 (16.2)
|
56.0 (15.1)
|
Linguistic
|
53.3 (13.7)
|
51.0 (17.0)
|
54.8 (15.1)
|
57.2 (13.3)
|
Interpersonal
|
54.5 (13.1)
|
49.4 (16.4)
|
52.4 (17.0)
|
54.0 (14.3)
|
Intrapersonal
|
52.4 (12.1)
|
45.0 (12.5)
|
51.2 (16.1)
|
54.4 (14.7)
|
Naturalist
|
56.4 (16.7)
|
52.1 (16.4)
|
58.3 (17.9)
|
57.3 (15.6)
|
Table 4: Mean Score and
Standard Deviation of Class MI Profile
Table 4 shows the MI profile of each of the project and comparison classes. The
comparison group teacher was not given the results of his class’s MI profile.
He was to carry out his Mathematics lessons using the traditional method of
teaching.
The instruction for the two groups during the three-week
treatment, varied in the following ways. The comparison group was taught the
traditional method of “drill and practice”. The project group was taught the MI
lessons daily where pupils were engaged in activities that encompassed all the
eight intelligences. Pupils were taught using colourful and attractive visuals
on power-point slides and were engaged in some of the following activities:
·
logic problems, reciting
rhymes, raps and jingles
·
singing songs on mathematical
concepts, constructing models, posters and number lines,
·
playing board games, “Bingo”
and “Uno”
·
handling real life authentic
manipulatives
·
working in pairs and groups
·
brainstorming and presenting their project
work
·
Reflections on the day’s lesson
in their journals.
The MI infused lessons on “Fractions” were crafted by
the project group teachers. The comparison group teacher was not involved in
the crafting the MI lessons so as to reduce threats to internal validity of the
research project. At the end of the three-week treatment sessions, both groups
were administered a review test on “Fractions”. The results from this post
assessment would determine if the project group achieves a higher mean score
than the comparison group. Fifteen pupils were selected at random from the
project group to be interviewed to get their feedback on their MI infused
lessons.
In the second semester, both the project and comparison
groups were taught “Decimals” through MI infused lessons. The comparison group
teacher was given his class’s MI profile which showed the detailed intelligence
variability within the class prior to the six-week MI intervention. This would
help him to design and customize his Mathematics lessons on “Decimals” to cater
to the dominant multiple intelligences of the pupils. The pilot group teacher
and the comparison group teacher crafted sixteen MI infused lessons on
“Decimals”. Both groups were administered a series of four review tests. The
results from these review assessments would reveal if the project group achieve
a higher mean score than the comparison group due to the longer exposure to MI.
Five pupils were selected at random from each class to get their feedback on
their MI infused lessons. A focus group discussion among the project teachers
was also conducted to get their feedback on the whole project.
PETALSTM was also administered before and
after the intervention period. Post-test results of the project group would
reveal if there is an increase in the level of engagement among pupils who are
taught Mathematics using the MI strategies and if the longer exposure to MI has
a positive impact on pupils’ engagement, motivation and attitude in the
learning of Mathematics.
Results
Measure
|
Mean (SD)
|
Effect Size
|
|
Pretest
|
Post-test
|
||
PETALSTM Scale
|
|||
Pedagogy
|
69.6 (16.6)
|
76.1 (15.8)
|
0.39
|
Experience of Learning
|
64.0 (19.3)
|
68.8 (18.5)
|
0.25
|
Tone of Environment
|
70.7 (13.7)
|
70.8 (19.5)
|
0.01
|
Assessment for Learning
|
67.1 (15.6)
|
73.8 (17.7)
|
0.43
|
Learning Content
|
66.3 (19.2)
|
75.6 (17.7)
|
0.48
|
Engagement Scale
|
|||
Affective Engagement
|
76.4 (17.7)
|
81.1 (15.0)
|
0.31
|
Behavioural Engagement
|
75.4 (15.1)
|
78.1 (18.2)
|
0.18
|
Cognitive Engagement
|
72.4 (16.9)
|
77.0 (15.8)
|
0.27
|
Table 5: Mean comparison on
pretest and post-test survey of the project group (N=68)
Table 5 shows results
of engagement level among the two project groups. The
results revealed a small to moderate effect size for Pedagogy, Experience of
Learning, Assessment for Learning and Learning Content. The intervention had a
higher impact especially on Assessment for Learning, and Learning Content.
The following graph shows the results from the review
test on “Fractions”. There is a difference of 12.0 in favour of the project
group. Thus, it may be concluded, with some degree of reservation, the MI
intervention has a significant impact on the higher achievement among the project
group pupils. Results indicated that the MI intervention seemed to have a
greater impact on the low-ability pupils.
The following graph shows the results from the review
tests on “Decimals”. There is a difference of 15.0 in favour of the project
group. Thus, it may be concluded that a longer exposure to the MI intervention
has a positive impact on the higher achievement among the pupils who were
taught through MI strategies for nine weeks as compared to the comparison group
pupils who were taught through MI strategies for only six weeks. Results also
indicated that the MI intervention has a greater impact on the low-ability
pupils.
Table 7 shows the
motivational and attitudinal levels of the comparison and project groups. For
all the ten items, the project group scored higher than the comparison group.
This suggests that a longer exposure to the MI
intervention has a positive impact on the motivational and attitudinal levels
of the project group pupils who were taught through MI strategies for nine
weeks as compared to the comparison group pupils who were taught through MI
strategies for only six weeks. Results also suggest that the pupils were more influenced by exciting,
interesting and challenging lessons.
Table 7: Comparisons on motivational and attitudinal level means
No.
|
Item
|
Project
group
|
Comparison group
|
Effect size
|
F1
|
I am excited about learning.
|
85.8 (17.4)
|
72.5 (22.1)
|
0.60
|
F2
|
I am interested in what is being
taught.
|
84.1 (20.5)
|
69.6 (23.2)
|
0.61
|
F3
|
I like the subject.
|
83.1 (20.0)
|
74.1 (24.4)
|
0.37
|
F4
|
I like doing the activities.
|
83.2 (21.7)
|
75.9 (23.2)
|
0.31
|
F5
|
I want to learn more about this
subject.
|
81.7 (18.0)
|
73.5 (24.7)
|
0.33
|
F6
|
I look forward to the lesson.
|
84.9 (22.2)
|
74.2 (21.1)
|
0.51
|
F7
|
I like learning because what I
learn in class is useful.
|
79.0 (24.3)
|
70.0 (27.2)
|
0.33
|
F8
|
I will keep on trying even if
the task is difficult.
|
79.8 (20.0)
|
69.7 (24.2)
|
0.42
|
F9
|
I like the challenging work
given to us.
|
79.6 (22.5)
|
66.0 (27.5)
|
0.49
|
F10
|
I like learning because I can
choose the task that I do best.
|
77.0 (22.6)
|
64.3 (25.8)
|
0.49
|
In addition to the
quantitative data, feedback from the project group affirmed the improvement in
attitude and the high motivation experienced by pupils from the MI infused
lessons. Below is a blog entry by a pupil:
- “We sang a lot of
songs about decimals and fractions. It is very fun and interesting
learning decimals and fractions. Our teacher teaches us different types of
methods and using [attractive] power point [slides] to teach our class. I
love Maths! It is really fun to learn! All the questions [are] like
solving mystery cases! We also played Maths games to learn. Our teacher
teaches us Maths in very fun ways. I love to play more Maths games and
learn more about Maths! The Problem Sums are really challenging! Maths is
Fun!”
Feedback
from the project teachers further affirmed the improvement in attitude and the
high motivation observed in pupils through the MI infused lessons. Below is a
teacher’s reflection:
- “I have seen for
myself how planning a lesson that involves multiple intelligences actually
makes the lessons more exciting for the pupils. Pupils can relate better,
recall the learning points better, and on the whole, they are more
motivated, even to do homework. By getting pupils involved through
activities, songs, stories, and using powerpoint slides packed with cute
pictures and animations, pupils actually looked forward to learning. This
is true “Teach Less, Learn More” in action.”
Discussion and Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the data presented, it is seen
that the MI intervention in the area of Mathematics has made positive
contributions for the pupils’ engagement, motivation, attitude and achievement
towards the learning of Mathematics. Pupils’ and teachers’ reflections support
the statistical findings.
The findings obtained from this study, resembles other
studies which evaluate MI instructional approach for the pupil success and
attitudes. In a study by Cluck and Hess (2003), results showed improved
assignment completion, class participation and engagement of learners using MI.
Bednar, Coughlin, Evans and Sievers (2002) showed an increase in pupil
motivation and positive attitude through the use of MI. In Douglas, Burton and
Reese-Durham (2008), results showed considerable increase in academic
performance on pupils taught through MI compared to those taught using the
traditional method. Three of the four improvements were observed:
improved academic performance, greater impact on the low-ability pupils and
behaviour improvements namely on pupils’ attitude and motivation in learning of
Mathematics. Discipline problems tend to disappear, as reflected by the project
teachers, when pupils are excited about learning in a fun filled lesson.
The success of the project led to a refinement of the prototype and
an emergent model for “Teaching Mathematics through Multiple Intelligences” in
West View. By 2010, all teachers were involved in infusing MI strategies in
their Mathematics lessons. The significant improvement in the school’s Math
PSLE results, an increase in percentage pass from 66.4% in 2009 to 81.1% in
2010, indicates that MI has positive impact in pupils’ academic performance.
Pupils who were taught Mathematics through MI over three years (2008-2010)
produced better PSLE scores than pupils who have not been taught through MI.
In closing, the most beneficial aspect of our research
is that it takes into consideration human differences within the classroom and
teaches the subject matter in a variety of ways appealing to all learners.
References
1.
Bednar, J.,
Coughlin, J., Evans, E., Sievers, T. May 2002. Improving student
motivation and achievement in Mathematics through teaching
to the multiple intelligences.
2. Chapman, C.
(1993). If the shoe fit…How to develop
multiple intelligences in the
3. Cluck, M.,
Hess, D., Improving Student Motivation
Through the use of the Multiple
Intelligences. May 2003
4. Douglas, O., Burton,
K.S., Reese-Durham, N., The Effects of
the Multiple Intelligence
Teaching Strategy on the Academic Achievement of Eighth Grade Math
Students. Journal of Instructional Psychology; June
2008. Vol.35 Issue 2, p182-187, 6p
5. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., &
Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement:
Potential
of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of
Educational Research, 74: 59 – 109.
6. Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind: How
children think and how schools should
teach.. New York: Basic Books.
7. Gardner, H. (1993). The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
8. Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
9. Hoerr, T. (2002). Applying MI in Schools. Retrieved from
10. Ministry of Education (2007), Mathematics Syllabus, Ministry of Education, Singapore.
11. Pociask, A., Settles, J., Increasing Student Achievement through
Brain-Based Strategies,
May 2007.
12. Robinson, A., Silver,
H.F., & Strong, R., (1995, September). What
do students want and
what really
motivates them? Educational leadership. [Online]
Available
13. Soh, K.C., Tan, C., Workshop on Action Research:Transforming Teachers to Action
Researchers.Educational Leadership 21. Hong Kong. 2nd
edition 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment