Investigating the Multiple Intelligence(MI) Approach to Mathematics Instruction

in Elementary Schools

Mary Hough-GosselinB.A. Anna Maria College

M.A. Bridgewater State College

Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies,

Educational Leadership, Bridgewater State College

Presentation Outline

1. Introduction- Problem Statement

- Background and Significance- Limitations

2. Review of Literature3. Methodology

- Case Studies - Test Score Reviews - Telephone Interviews - Personal Observation of DeValles SPED Student

4. Findings and Conclusions

5. Recommendations

Problem Statement

Compared with the study of reading disabilities and identification of successful brain-related interventions, little research has been done on strategies to deal with mathematics disabilities in elementary-school children.

Will a teaching approach that shows respect for a child’s learning style and cognitive strengths result in significant math improvement?

Example: Average of 2001-2004 MCAS Results for All Massachusetts Students in Grade 4

Percentage of Students at Each Performance Level

English Math

Advanced 9 12

Proficient 45 27

Needs Improvement 36 44

Warning 10 17

Background

Multiple Intelligence (MI) theory pioneered by Howard Gardner at Harvard GSE in 1967. Seminal work: Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, 1983.

MI approach began to be implemented in a few schools during the 1990s.

MI approach seeks to build upon a child’s cognitive strengths.

Multiple Intelligences(Gardner 1999)

1. Verbal-linguistic2. Logical-mathematical3. Visual-spatial4. Musical-rhythmic5. Bodily-kinesthetic6. Interpersonal7. Intrapersonal8. Naturalist

Significance

This research study attempts to:

• Investigate whether a brain-compatible (MI) approach to teaching mathematics can produce significant improvement in student understanding and use of math concepts

• Identify the barriers that may prevent or hinder teachers from using an MI approach to teach mathematics

Limitations of Current Research

• Small number of elementary schools nationwide that have documented an MI approach to instruction

• Small number of elementary schools in Massachusetts available for local study of MI approach to math

• Scarcity of publications describing MI programs in elementary schools

• Paucity of published data linking MI instruction to scores on statewide or other standardized math tests

• Lack of opportunity to instruct and track progress of DeValles SPED students over multi-year periods

Review of Literature

• Journal articles on brain structure and brain-based aspects of cognition and learning

• Theory of MI (Gardner)

• Implementation of MI approach (Armstrong)

• Multiple Intelligences and Student Achievement: Success Stories from Six Schools, 1999

• So Each May Learn: Integrating Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences, 2000

• Multiple Intelligences: Best Ideas from Research and Practice, 2004

• Published scores for MCAS and other standardized achievement tests

Methodology

• Published case studies:- Two elementary schools (Kentucky, Minnesota)- Two middle schools (Washington, Indiana)- Five additional schools without test scores

• Review of relevant math scores on MCAS and other standardized achievement tests

• Telephone interviews: Kentucky, Indiana, Minnesota, California, and Massachusetts (Shrewsbury, Westboro, Randolph, West Boylston)

• Personal observation of DeValles SPED student

Findings and Conclusions

From the limited amount of published research and data available, it appears that an MI approach to mathematics instruction can offer major benefits to students and school systems.

Most of the barriers to implementation of an MI approach are short-term concerns that are outweighed by the long-term benefits.

Benefits of MI Approach

• Reaches many students who are not successful under the current approach

• Fosters in-depth understanding of math concepts, as well as acquisition of math skills

• Can raise scores on statewide and/or standardized math tests after sustained use (3-5 years?)

• Sparks student enthusiasm for learning

• Boosts self-esteem and self-confidence as students achieve success, thus reducing discipline problems

• Promotes long-term retention of math concepts

• Prepares students more thoroughly for work at higher grade levels

Case Study 1:Russell Elementary School, Lexington, Kentucky

Inner-city school—195 students. 65 percent minority, 94 percent on free or reduced lunch. Adopted MI 1991-1992.

Before MI: In 1992, on Kentucky state tests, students scored at 30th percentile. More than 50 percent at novice level.

After MI: Test scores doubled between 1992 and 1996. In 1996, no students at novice level; disparity between white and black students eliminated.

Case Study 2:Exposition (EXPO) for Excellence Elementary

Magnet School, St. Paul, Minnesota

Inner-city school—750 students. 50 percent minority, 50 percent on free or reduced lunch. Founded as MI school in 1990.

MI Assessment:

On standardized Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT), 75 percent of student at the school 3 years or more scored at or above average. 1996 MAT: 36 percent above average. 1997 MAT: 38 percent above average. Scores among highest in St. Paul.

On first Minnesota skill-based tests in reading and math, given in 1998, 3rd-graders and 5th-graders scored above district average in both subjects.

Case Study 3:Skyview Junior High School, Bothell, Washington

Suburban school—900 students. 10 percent minority, 10 percent on free or reduced lunch. Founded in 1992.

MI Assessment:

On Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS), 8th-graders scored 20 percentage points higher than peers in reading, language arts, and math.

On Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), given for first time in 1998, students scored above state average in all areas tested and outperformed peers at the other four junior high schools in district.

Case Study 4:Key Learning Community, Indianapolis, Indiana

Inner-city school—165 students. 50 percent minority, 44 percent on free or reduced lunch. Middle school added to K-5 program in 1993.

MI Assessment:

On Indiana State Test of Educational Proficiencies (ISTEP) given in 1993, little more than half of students scored as average. By 1998, students exceeded district goals.

On California Test of Basic Skills (CTB) given in 1998, students scored at next higher grade level or above in all areas tested.

Interview 1: Les Anderson, Founder and former Principal

Russell Elementary School, Lexington, Kentucky

“Our original grant was for the elementary school. But as children moved through the grades, teachers saw the value of the MI approach, because the students were much better prepared and more enthusiastic about learning across the board. Academics soared because the children were turned on to learning.”

Interview 2: Dr. Christine Kunkel, Principal

Key Learning Community, Indianapolis, Indiana

“Math scores have improved, particularly at the middle school level, where the population remains the same. . . Test scores are higher than the district average.”

Interview 3: Gary Chalmers, Curriculum Coordinator

Paton School, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts

“Our present math program uses an MI approach. The parents are excited about it, and the children are loving math for the first time. The program we were using previously also tapped into the MI approach…Our MCAS scores have been very good.”

Interview 4: Patty Berkey, Principal

Hastings Elementary School, Westboro, MA

“Our ‘Everyday Math’ program incorporates an MI approach. It has very definitely had a positive effect on the MCAS scores, because it involves a lot of hands-on learning. Children are allowed to demonstrate their learning in many different ways. It’s not just a skill and drill approach.”

Interview 5: Linda Gautreau, Principal

Lyons Elementary School, Randolph, Massachusetts

“An MI approach to mathematics has been used here for only two years. It is my belief that this time period is not sufficient to produce a clear increase in math test scores.”

Personal Observation: “Kevin,” a 4th-grade SPED student at DeValles Elementary School in New Bedford

• Auditory learner• Benefited from MI approach to math for an entire year• Only student in DeValles SPED class consistently

for more than one year

Two benchmark tests in mathematics:

November 2004 February 2005

Kevin 53% 64%

Class Average 41% 43%

Barriers to Implementation of MI Approach

• Unfamiliarity to many teachers and administrators (Need specialized PD if not part of original training)

• Resistance of some teachers to a new approach

• Extensive time required to develop multi-modal lessons

• Unlikelihood of immediate payoff in terms of higher scores on statewide or standardized achievement tests

• Difficulty of sustaining within a culture that stresses standardized test scores

• Reluctance on the part of administrators to invest in an MI approach or to place teachers at risk for failure

Recommendations

• Further research into MI approaches to mathematics instruction

• More extensive documentation of benefits of MI approaches in actual classroom settings

• Greater understanding of benefits of MI approaches among both teachers and administrators

• Increased funding for Professional Development in MI approaches to math instruction

Mary Hough-Gosselin

Mhoughg@aol.com

508-759-5558

Investigating the Multiple Intelligence(MI) Approach to Mathematics Instruction

in Elementary Schools