Investigating the Multiple Intelligence MI Approach to Mathematics Instruction in Elementary Schools

1
Investigating the Multiple Intelligence(MI)
Approach to Mathematics Instruction in
Elementary Schools

• Mary Hough-Gosselin
• B.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

2
Presentation Outline

• Introduction
• - Problem Statement
• - Background and Significance
• - Limitations
• 2. Review of Literature
• Methodology
• - Case Studies
• - Test Score Reviews
• - Telephone Interviews
• - Personal Observation of DeValles SPED
  Student
• Findings and Conclusions
• Recommendations

3
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
  childs learning style and cognitive strengths
  result in significant math improvement?

4
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

5
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 childs
  cognitive strengths.

6
Multiple Intelligences(Gardner 1999)

• Verbal-linguistic
• Logical-mathematical
• Visual-spatial
• Musical-rhythmic
• Bodily-kinesthetic
• Interpersonal
• Intrapersonal
• Naturalist

7
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

8
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

9
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

10
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

11
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.

12
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

13
Case Study 1Russell Elementary School,
Lexington, Kentucky

• Inner-city school195 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.

14
Case Study 2Exposition (EXPO) for Excellence
Elementary Magnet School, St. Paul, Minnesota

• Inner-city school750 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.

15
Case Study 3Skyview Junior High School,
Bothell, Washington

• Suburban school900 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.

16
Case Study 4Key Learning Community,
Indianapolis, Indiana

• Inner-city school165 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.

17
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.

18
Interview 2 Dr. Christine Kunkel,
PrincipalKey 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.

19
Interview 3 Gary Chalmers, Curriculum
CoordinatorPaton 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 approachOur MCAS scores have been
  very good.

20
Interview 4 Patty Berkey, PrincipalHastings
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. Its not just a skill and
  drill approach.

21
Interview 5 Linda Gautreau, PrincipalLyons
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.

22
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

23
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

24
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

25

Investigating the Multiple Intelligence(MI)
Approach to Mathematics Instruction in
Elementary Schools

• Mary Hough-Gosselin
• Mhoughg_at_aol.com
• 508-759-5558