TEACHING THROUGH THE MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES APPROACH TO ENHANCE STUDY SKILLS, HABITS AND

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS

Abstract: “ You can teach a student a lesson for a day; but if you can teach him to learn by creating curiosity, he will continue the learning process as long as he lives”- Clay P. Bedford. This quote captures the need for a teachers role to be redefined as a faciltator for learning. Traditional pedagogy emphasizes the role of the teacher as the bearer of wisdom, facilitation puts the task on the students to become involved in their own learning. A good facilitator is one who stimulates thinking and curiosity in students and encourages students to explore, discover and learn. Teaching through the theory of multiple intelligences proposes a major transformation in the learning experience of students and provides students with opportunities for authentic learning, based on students' needs, curiosity, interests and motivate students to be active- involved learners. Therefore the present study was undertaken to assess the influence of teaching through the multiple intelligences approach on the study skills, habits and academic performances of sixth grade students. A total of 119 students (both boys and girls) in the age range of 11-13 years were identified for the study, constituting an experimental group (N=56) and a control group (N= 63). The experimental group was exposed to an intervention programme, where a part of the curriculum was introduced using the multiple intelligences approach for an academic year. The results of the pretest - posttest data analysis indicated a significant improvement in the study skills , habits and the academic performance of students in the experimental group.

Key words: Multiple Intelligences Approach, Teacher as faciltator, Study skills, Habits, Academic performance

INTRODUCTION: “If a child can’t learn the way we teach, maybe we should teach the way they learn”. - Ignacio Estrada. Most schools in India, are relatively conventional and fixed. They focus enormously on linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence. The curriculum is content centric and stresses on memorisation of fact and formulas and less emphasis is laid on creativity and curiosity. Immense emphasis is laid on exam scores leading to intense competition and stress in students. Students are compelled to be tied down to endless repetitive reviewing and cramming for exams.

1

Campbell(1996) believes that teaching and learning through the multiple intelligences helps solve many common school problems and optimizes the learning experience for students and teachers alike. Armstrong (2009) states that “one of the most remarkable features of the theory of multiple intelligences is how it provides eight different potential pathways to learning”. If a teacher is having difficulty reaching a student in the more traditional linguistic or logical ways of instruction, the theory of multiple intelligences suggests several other ways in which the material might be presented to facilitate effective learning. Whatever is being taught can be connected with words (linguistic intelligence), numbers or logic (logical-mathematical intelligence), pictures (spatial intelligence), music (musical intelligence), self-reflection (intrapersonal intelligence), a physical experience (bodily-kinesthetic intelligence), a social experience (interpersonal intelligence), and/or an experience in the natural world. (naturalist intelligence). If initiated in schools, it could motivate students to learn by incorporating artistic, athletic, team work and musical activities. Student’s approach to understanding concepts from different angles can be addressed. For example: A topic on rain can have scientific, poetic, artistic, musical, and geographic points of entry to understanding the concept. It could encourage students to demonstrate, share and build their dominant intelligences. This can in turn lead to increased self-esteem in students. Therefore the present study was taken up to explore the possibility of introducing the multiple intelligences approach in classroom teaching and had the following objectives: develop a tool based on the Multiple Intelligences framework, to elicit

information on the dominant areas of intelligences in students. develop a checklist to assess the study skills and study habits of students. design the academic curriculum of VI standard students based on the

perspectives of the experiential learning theory, the situated learning theory, the constructivist theory, using the Multiple Intelligences theory as its pivotal framework.

introduce the designed curriculum to VI standard students for one academic year.

assess the impact of the designed multiple intelligences approach on study skills and habits of students.

To assess the impact of the designed multiple intelligences approach on the academic performances of students.

The study was carried out in the following VIII phases:

Phase I. Development of appropriate tools for the study:

Three tools were developed for the study. Tool -1: Multiple Intelligences Statement-Based Checklist (MISC): The

2

checklist consisted of 80 statements covering the 8 areas of intelligences.Tool-2: The Activity Oriented Tool (AOT): For accurate classification and cross- verification of the Multiple Intelligences Statement-based Checklist, a pictorial/ activity oriented version with reference to the Multiple Intelligences Statement-based Checklist was developed. Tool-3: Study Skills and Study Habits Checklist: This checklist was designed to be administered for pretest - posttest analysis. The study skills and habits checklist contained 34 statements, to elicit information on the following two dimensions related to academics namely study skills and habits toward studies.

Phase II. Identification and selection of schools

A total of 20 schools were surveyed in and around Bangalore city to identify two schools which would be willing to introduce the multiple intelligences approach in their sixth grade curriculum. Similarities in the type of schooling offered (syllabi followed) and the socio demographic characteristics were the broad criteria for selecting the schools. Two schools were identified for the study, The Titan School, Hosur and J.S.S Public School, Bangalore. The two schools were isolated from each other to avoid spill over effects. The lottery method was adopted to classify the schools into experimental and control schools.

Phase III. Sample selection

The selection of the sample was done on a voluntary basis, as the researcher felt that a voluntary participation would yield more accurate results than a captive participation. Standard VI students from the Titan school were selected for drawing the experimental group. Potential research participants, were given sufficient information about the study and consent was obtained from a total of 56 six graders, from Titan school, who had agreed to participate in the research study. The control group comprised of 63 sixth graders, from J.S.S Public school.

Phase IV. Pre- Test data collection

The Multiple Intelligences Statement Based Checklist was administered to the respondents from both experimental and control group, to elicit information on their dominant areas of intelligences.

Respondents from both the experimental and control group were administered the study skills and study habits checklist, to assess the study skills and habits of students.

Phase V. Development of modules

3

Module design for VI standard curriculum using multiple intelligences approach

The researcher considered a blend of learning theories for developing the modules:Experiential learning theory, Constructivist theory, Situated- learning theory, Reggio Emilia Approach and Multiple Intelligences theory – as the core framework to create learning strategies through their dominant/ preferred intelligences, thereby, giving leverage to the diverse intelligence of the students.

A total of 14 modules were designed based on the felt needs of the respondents. The sessions included icebreakers, tool administration, introduction to multiple intelligences, using multiple intelligences apprach to subjects namely- english(grammar, poetry and communicative), mathematics, science, social studies, environmental science and moral science.

Phase VI . Intervention programme

The experimental group was exposed to the multiple intelligences approach for one academic year 2009- 2010. The 14 modules were designed for the entire intervention programme which spanned across 72 sessions. Each session was designed to be offered for approximately 2 hours. Sessions were designed to be offered thrice a week. The sessions followed a sequential frame of beginning with an introduction followed by a warmup activity, categorising students, planning and preparation time, activity time, presentation time and recapitulation time.

Phase VII. Post test data collection

To elicit information on any significant differences in the study skills and habits between the experimental and control group, the study skills and habits checklist was re-administered to respondents of both groups.

Marks of the experimental group respondents were obtained for the quarterly, half yearly and final exams for the academic years 2009-2010.

Phase VIII. Statistical analysisDescriptive statistical analysis has been carried out in the present study. Results on continuous measurements are presented on Mean SD (Min-Max) and results on categorical measurements are presented in Number (%). Significance is assessed at 5 % level of significance. Student t test (two tailed, independent) has been used to find the significance of study parameters on

4

continuous scale between two groups Inter group analysis) on metric parameters, and Student t test (two tailed, dependent) has been used to find the significance of study parameters on continuous scale with in each group. Chi-square/ Fisher Exact test has been used to find the significance of study parameters on categorical scale between two or more groups.

The study hypothesised that

Integrating the Multiple Intelligences perspective for designing learner-centric curriculum will not be effective.

There will be no significant difference in the study skills and habits of students after exposure to curriculum taught using Multiple Intelligences approach.

There will be no significant improvement in the academic progress after exposure to curriculum taught using Multiple Intelligences approach.

Results and discussions

Table 1. Frequency and percentage of Number of areas of Intelligence that are Strong and Very strong

Number of area of Intelligence

Experimental school(n=56)

Control school(n=63)

No % No %One 0 0.0 1 1.6Two 0 0.0 2 3.2Three 1 1.8 2 3.2Four 0 0.0 3 4.7Five 2 3.6 4 6.3Six 5 8.9 12 19.1Seven 13 23.2 19 30.2Eight 35 62.5 20 31.7

In table 1, the frequency and percentage of number of areas of intelligences that are strong and very strong among the experimental and control group were analysed. Majority of the respondents from experimental group (62.5%) and the control group (31.7%) had a strong to very strong range for all the eight areas of intelligences.

Table 2. Categorisation of areas of intelligence of students in both

5

groups.MISC Categorisation of areas of intelligence

Weak Fairly strong Strong Very

strongEXPERIMENTAL (n=56)TOTAL 0 1(1.8%) 39(69.6%) 16(28.6%)VERBAL- LINGUISTIC 0 (0%) 6 (10.7%) 38 (67.9%) 12

(21.4%)

MATH- LOGICAL 0 (0%) 3 (5.4%) 35 (62.5%) 18 (32.1%)

VISUAL SPATIAL 0 (0%) 5 (8.9%) 32 (57.1%) 19 (33.9%)

BODILY KINAESTHETIC 0 (0%) 4 (7.1%) 34 (60.7%) 18

(32.1%)

MUSICAL 0 (0%) 9 (16.1%) 34 (60.7%) 13 (23.2%)

INTERPERSONAL 0 (0%) 4 (7.1%) 38 (67.9%) 14 (25%)

INTRAPERSONAL 0 (0%) 2 (3.6%) 38 (67.9%) 16 (28.6%)

NATURALISTIC 1 (1.8%) 0 (0%) 26 (46.4%) 29

(51.8%)CONTROL (n=63)TOTAL 0 4(6.3%) 52(82.5%) 7(11.1%)VERBAL- LINGUISTIC

2 (3.2%) 12 (19.0%) 41 (65.1%) 8 (12.7%)

MATH- LOGICAL 0 (0%) 7 (11.1%) 43 (68.3%) 13 (20.6%)

VISUAL SPATIAL 4 (6.3%) 12 (19%) 39 (61.9%) 8 (12.7%)

BODILY KINAESTHETIC 0 (0%) 7 (11.1%) 36 (57.1%) 20

(31.7%)

MUSICAL 6 (9.5%) 20 (31.7%) 29 (46%) 8 (12.7%)

INTERPERSONAL 1 (1.6%) 11 (17.5%) 33 (52.4%) 18

(28.6%)

INTRAPERSONAL 1 (1.6%) 7 (11.1%) 36 (57.1%) 19

(30.2%)

NATURALISTIC 0 (0%) 6 (9.5%) 39 (61.9%) 18 (28.6%)

In table 2, the respondents were classified based on the range, set by the researcher for the eight intelligence areas. Majority of the respondents from

6

both groups were found to have strong to very strong levels of all eight intelligences. Majority of the experimental group respondents exhibited very strong naturalistic intelligence (51.8) and strong verbal, interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences(67.9%). Majority of the control group respondents exhibited very strong bodily kinaesthetic intelligence (31.7%) and strong math-logical intelligence (68.3%).

Table 3. Effectiveness of the intervention programme on the study skills and habits towards learning

Dimensions Assessment Experimental school

Control school Significance

OVERALL Pre 84.79±10.53 85.22±13.07 t=0.199; p=0.843

Post 96.75±14.63 89.46±12.18 t=2.869;p=0.005**

A.STUDY SKILL Pre 31.80±5.29 29.05±6.06 t=2.629;

p=0.010**

Post 34.75±6.14 30.37±5.02 t=4.134;p<0.001**

1.Learning Pre 9.86±2.22 9.16±2.62 t=1.558; p=0.122

Post 10.49±2.20 9.02±1.85 t=3.842;p<0.001**

2.Time management Pre 5.09±1.63 4.95±1.59 t=0.463;

p=0.644

Post 5.60±1.42 5.32±1.43 t=1.055; p=0.294

3.Exam Pre 7.45±1.57 7.16±2.02 t=0.860; p=0.392

Post 8.15±1.99 7.82±1.51 t=0.964; p=0.337

4.Memorizing Pre 9.41±3.32 7.78±2.74 t=2.939;p=0.004**

Post 10.51±2.72 8.21±2.79 t=4.413;p<0.001**

C.HABIT Pre 11.55±2.26 10.68±2.5 t=1.986;p=0.049*

Post 12.45±2.77 11.54±2.29 t=1.899; p=0.060*

1.Learning Pre 5.91±1.53 5.89±1.55 t=0.077; p=0.939

Post 6.65±1.64 6.14±1.29 t=1.852;p=0.067+

7

2.Time management Pre 5.64±1.61 4.79±1.70 t=2.791;

p=0.006**

Post 5.80±1.68 5.40±1.68 t=1.249; p=0.214

+ significant at 10% Level, * Significant at 5 % ** Significant at 1%

In table 3, the effectiveness of the multiple intelligence approach on study skills and study habits were analysed. There were significant differences noted between the experimental and control group in the overall study skills dimension. Significant differences were noted particularly in the areas of learning skills and memorising skills. There were significant differences noted in the overall habit dimension and in both habits towards learning and towards time management.

Table 4. Measuring the Effectiveness of intervention programme on Academic scores of the experimental group

Academic performance 2009-10 SUBJECTS Quarterly Half early Final

● Tamil 63.13±20.57 63.88±17.92 65.00±17.58● English 49.18±9.75 55.00±11.91 57.38±11.56● Maths 63.48±16.51 68.52±15.83 70.00±14.36● EVS(socialstudies

and science) 62.87±15.54 66.85±15.54 69.73±13.89

● Hindi 57.86±22.62 62.73±16.89 63.68±15.81

● Total 296.51±75.26

316.97±69.06

325.79±64.94

In table 4, the effectiveness of the intervention programme in academic scores of the experimental group. There has been an improvement in the academic scores of the experimental group spanning the entire academic year.

Validation of hypothesis

It was hypothesised that integrating the Multiple Intelligences perspective for designing learner-centric curriculum will not be effective. However, from the scrutiny of the journals that the students maintained on what interests them, the multiple intelligences strategies they learnt to use during each session and the feedbacks obtained from students, teachers and parents, at the close of the intervention programme indicated the approach was successful. Based on this, the school had adopted the multiple intelligences approach for an entire year for all classes.Sohn’s (2004) study supports the present study. The researcher examined how effective the researcher-created methods and instruments are in fostering the

8

exploration and development of their personal profile of intelligences within the multiple intelligence (MI) framework, and applying their newly gained insights to help solve novel mathematical problems. Findings suggest that student’s self-identified MI profiles assisted them in selecting appropriate strategies to solve mathematical problems. When students were able to choose their own mathematical strategies, a very high percentage of them used strategies that matched their MI profile.

● It was hypothesised that there will be no significant difference in the study skills and habits of students after exposure to curriculum taught using Multiple Intelligences approach. However, analysis of the data indicated that there is a significant difference noted in certain areas of the study skills and study habits dimension of students. Hence it can be concluded that the intervention programme has improved the study skills and study habits dimensions of the participants to a certain extent in the experimental group.

● It was hypothesised that there will be no significant improvement in the academic performance of the experimental group, after exposure to curriculum taught using Multiple Intelligences approach. However there was an improvement noted in the academic scores of experiment group. Davis’s (2004) study supports the present study. The researcher utilized the multiple intelligences (MI) theory and brain-based learning to develop the IMPACT strategy to increase the academic achievement of 4th-grade students in science. Analysis of the results indicated that there was a significant improvement in students' achievement, behaviour, and self-esteem.

ConclusionToday's schools are essentially passive experiences and the curriculum is designed to address a majority of the student population while students with specific learning needs are neglected. There are very less opportunities provided for the students to explore their learning strengths and pursue their own interests in school. This is exacerbated by the general acceptance of rote learning of textbook content across schools in India. Students memorize by heart the concepts they are taught, rather than understanding them. The study concluded that the intervention programme had influenced study skills and habits of the participants in the experimental group and had provided an opportunity for them to understand concepts using their diverse intelligences and become active and involved learners. The intervention also brought about an improvement in their overall academic performances of the participants in the experimental group.References:

Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom 3 rd ed . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

9

Development Campbell, B. (1996). Multiple Intelligences In The Classroom, Article

extracted from The Learning Revolution ( IC #27) , Winter 1991,Page 12.

Clay P. Bedford.- quote- http://artofselfeducation.com/quotes/ Davis , L . (2004). Using the Theory of Multiple Intelligences to

Increase Fourth - Grade Students ' Academic Achievement in Science , Online submission (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED491477)

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic.

Ignacio Estrada- Ignacio Estrada quotes http://thinkexist.com/quotes/ignacio_estrada/

Sohn, S.C. (2004). A method for introducing the Howard Gardner Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) to middle school students. Dissertation Abstracts International -A 64/08, Pg : 2768. Abstract retrieved September 09, 2004 from Dissertation Abstracts International database.

10