3rd Redesigning Pedagogy Conference - 3 June 2009

Igniting Passion in Mathematics West View Primary’s TLLM Ignite! Project

Mdm Suriani Othman & Mr Lewis Thong

3rd Redesigning Pedagogy International Conference 3June 2009, Singapore

Research Objectives

1. Instill love for Mathematics

2. Improve academic performance in Mathematics

MOE Mathematics Framework

MOE Maths Framework on “Attitudes”• “Students’ attitudes towards

mathematics are shaped by their learning experiences. Making the learning of mathematics fun, meaningful and relevant goes a long way to inculcating positive attitudes towards the subject.”

MOE Mathematics Framework

Literature Review“The traditional approach for learning inMathematics creates passive learners. In order for pupils to take an active role in Mathematics, it is important to engagethe learner.”

Reynolds, 1999 Bednar, Coughlin, Evans & Sievers, 2002 Soh & Tan,

2008

Literature Review

“Pupil engagement is a multi-facetedconstruct that includes affective,behavioural and cognitive dimensions. ”

Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris (2004),

Howard Gardner’s MI Theory

• Howard Gardner claims that all human beings have multiple intelligences.

• These multiple intelligences can be nurtured and strengthened, or ignored and weakened.

• He believes each individual has eight intelligences.

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences

According to Gardner,

• All human beings possess all eight intelligences in varying amounts.

• Each person has a different intellectual composition.

• We can improve education by addressing the multiple intelligences of our students.

Research Idea

• Pupils have different dominant intelligences.

• They can be better engaged if we use multiple bridges to reach out to them in the teaching of Mathematics.

Research Hypothesis

The use of Multiple Intelligences in the teaching of Mathematics will result in pupils’ increase in motivation and engagement, and will have a positive impact on their attitude and achievement in the subject.

Research Questions 1. Is there an increase in the level of engagement among pupils who are taught Mathematics using the MI strategies?

2. Do pupils who are taught Mathematics using MI achieve higher review test scores than pupils who are not taught using MI?

3. Does a longer exposure to MI have a positive impact on pupils’ engagement, motivation, attitude and achievement in their learning of Maths?

Project Design

Ability

Group

Low Ability Group Middle Ability Group

Class ProjectClass

Comparison Class

Project Class

Comparison Class

No. of

pupils30 32 38 40

No. of

girls16 18 17 18

No. of

boys14 14 21 22

Distribution of pupils by class

Project Design

Ability

Group

Low Ability

Group

Middle Ability

Group

Class ProjectClass

(N=30)

Comparison Class (N=32)

Project Class

(N=38)

Comparison Class

(N=40)

Mean

(SD)

33.3

(12.1)

30.8

(12.9)

63.5

(9.7)

64.6

(10.7)

Dif 2.5 1.1

Effect

Size

0.19 0.10

Mean score of 2007 Maths exam.

They are equivalent and comparable

Design Quasi-

ExperimentalProjectGroup

ComparisonGroup

Semester 1Fractions(3 weeks)15 lessons

2 classes- 1 MA- 1 LA

2 classes- 1 MA- 1 LA

Determine if hypothesis is true

Determine if length of time makes a difference

Semester 2Decimals(6 weeks)30 lessons

All classes- 2 MA- 2 LA

MI-based lessons

Traditional lessons

MI-based lessons

MeasuresQuantitative & Qualitative :

• MIDAS instrument – MI Profile

MI profile: Project Class (LA)

Spatial, Kinesthetic, Musical, Naturalist

40 45 50 55 60 65

Musical

Kinesthetic

Math-Logical

Spatial

Linguistic

Interpersonal

Intrapersonal

Naturalist

Scal

es

Mean

TotalFemaleMale

MI profile: Project Class (MA)

Naturalist, Linguistic, Math-Logical, Musical

40 45 50 55 60 65

Musical

Kinesthetic

Math-Logical

Spatial

Linguistic

Interpersonal

Intrapersonal

Naturalist

Scal

es

Mean

TotalFemaleMale

MI profile: Comparison Class (LA)

40 45 50 55 60

Musical

Kinesthetic

Math-Logical

Spatial

Linguistic

Interpersonal

Intrapersonal

Naturalist

Scal

es

Mean

TotalFemaleMale

Musical, Spatial, Naturalist, Kinesthetic

MI profile: Comparison Class (MA)

Kinesthetic, Naturalist, Linguistic, Math-Logical

40 45 50 55 60 65

Musical

Kinesthetic

Math-Logical

Spatial

Linguistic

Interpersonal

Intrapersonal

Naturalist

Scal

es

Mean

TotalFemaleMale

MeasuresQuantitative & Qualitative :

• MIDAS instrument – MI Profile

• PETALSTM Engagement Indicator (pedagogy, experience of learning, tone of environment, assessment, learning content, and engagement – affective engagement, behavioural engagement, cognitive engagement)

Not at all

All the time

o o o o o o o o o o oP1 My teacher uses activities to help me learn.P2 My teacher lets us search for information about thingsP3 My teacher uses group work to help us learn P4 My teacher uses different kinds of materials to help me understand better

P5 My teacher uses computer tools to help me learn.P6 My teacher guides me to draw upon my prior knowledgeE1 I explore or investigate ideas with materials.E2 I look for information to learn more about an idea.E3 I ask the “why” questions to understand an idea.E4 I talk about what I have learnt during lessons E5 I talk about how I do a piece of workE6 I think about how I can improve my workT1 My classmates and I have discussions in class.T2 My teacher smiles at us during lessons.T3 My teacher praises me when I give good ideas or work.T4 I answer questions ask by my teacher.T5 I can display my good work or my group’s good workT6 I can ask my friends for help

Part IIIFor each statement, click on the bubble that best describes the TLLM Ignite! school-based curriculum innovation in your school, using the following scale:

Pedagogy

Experience ofLearning

Tone ofEnvironment

A1 My teacher tells me how I can improve my work A2 I learn from good examples that my teacher shows me.A3 My teacher helps me when I do not how to do my work A4 I know where I have gone wrong A5 I check if I have done my work correctly A6 I check my friend’s work L1 The tasks and activities motivate me to explore on my own. L2 The tasks I do are based on real life situations. L3 I learnt how to work well in a group.L4 I learnt to present ideas to my classmates.L5 The ideas that I learnt are found in real life situations L6 I am able to apply the knowledge/skills across subjects .F1 I am excited about learning.F2 I am interested in what is being taught.F3 I like doing the activities that my teacher gives us.F4 I like the subject(s).F5 I look forward to my lessons.F6 I want to learn more about this subject(s).F7 I like learning because what I have learnt in class is useful.F8 I will keep on trying even the task is difficult. F9 I like the challenging work given to us.F10 I like learning because I can chose the task that I do best.

Assessment for Learning

LearningContent

AffectiveEngagement

B1 I complete my work on time.B2 I follow instructions in lessons.B3 I greet my teachers whenever I meet them.B4 I listen carefully during lessons.B5 I contribute ideas actively during lessons.B6 I set goals for my subjects.B7 I take part in the different lesson activities.B8 I try my very best in every piece of work given to me.B9 I listen to my group members when they are sharing B10 I carry out my assigned role properlyC1 I am able to do my work independently.C2 I am able to organise my ideas.C3 I am able to solve the different types of problems. C4 I can accept different view points.C5 I think about what I have learnt at the end of each day.C6 I think about how I can improve in my work.C7 I think more deeply about my subject(s).C8 I use different ways to do my work.C9 I try to improve my work after my teacher gave feedback.C10 I am able to tell if the information from internet/books is right

BehaviouralEngagement

CognitiveEngagement

MeasuresQuantitative & Qualitative :

• MIDAS instrument – MI Profile

• PETALSTM Engagement Indicator

• Pupils’ achievement in Maths Post review tests - comparing the

comparison and project classes will reveal if the use of MI had helped.

• Pupils’ interview and teachers’ observation and reflection journals and focus group discussions

Effect Size

magnitude of the effect of the intervention.

Standardized difference between two means

(Mean Project – Mean Comparison )ES =

SD Comparison

Effect Size

Cohen’s Criteria for evaluating effect sizes

Effect Size Descriptive Statement

Below 0.2 Trivial Effect0.2 to 0.49 Small Effect0.5 to 0.79 Moderate Effect0.8 or greater Large Effect

Results

MeasureMean (SD) Effect

SizePretest Post-test

PETALSTM ScalePedagogy 69.6 (16.6) 76.1 (15.8) 0.39Experience of Learning

64.0 (19.3) 68.8 (18.5) 0.25

Tone of Environment 70.7 (13.7) 70.8 (19.5) 0.01Assessment for Learning

67.1 (15.6) 73.8 (17.7) 0.43

Learning Content 66.3 (19.2) 75.6 (17.7) 0.48Engagement Scale

Affective Engagement 76.4 (17.7) 81.1 (15.0) 0.31Behavioural Engagement

75.4 (15.1) 78.1 (18.2) 0.18

Cognitive Engagement 72.4 (16.9) 77.0 (15.8) 0.27

Mean comparison on pretest and post-test survey of the project group (N=68)

MI intervention has a small impact on all aspects of pupils’ engaged learning, especially on Assessment for Learning

and Learning Content.

Results

MeasureMean (SD) Effect

SizeProject(N=68)

Comparison(N=72)

PETALSTM ScalePedagogy 76.1 (15.8) 69.5 (17.8) 0.37Experience 68.8 (18.5) 58.6 (20.6) 0.50Tone 70.8 (19.5) 67.9 (16.9) 0.17Assessment 73.8 (17.7) 65.0 (16.5) 0.53Learning 75.6 (17.7) 64.8 (18.3) 0.59

Engagement ScaleAffective 81.8 (15.0) 71.0 (17.9) 0.60Behavioural 78.1 (18.2) 66.6 (17.3) 0.66Cognitive 77.0 (15.8) 62.2 (20.6) 0.72

PETALSTM Scale scores and mean comparisons

The longer exposure to MI has a small to moderate impact on all aspects of pupils’ engaged learning

Results

Ability Group

Low-Ability Group Middle-Ability Group

Class Project(N=30)

Comparison(N=32)

Project (N=38)

Comparison (N=40)

Mean (SD)

34.6 (19.8)

22.6 (16.9)

71.5 (14.8)

62.1 (17.1)

Difference 12.0 9.4

Effect Size 0.71 0.55

Mean comparison on “Fractions” review test

MI intervention has a moderate impact on pupils’ academic achievement.

Greater impact on low-ability group.

Results

Ability Group

Low-Ability Group Middle-Ability Group

Class Project(N=30)

Comparison(N=32)

Project (N=38)

Comparison (N=40)

Mean (SD)

61.1 (17.4)

46.1 (16.1)

84.7 (7.5)

76.4 (13.6)

Difference

15.0 8.3

Effect Size 0.93 0.61

Mean comparison on “Decimals” review test

Longer exposure to MI has a significant impact on pupils’ academic achievement.

Larger impact on low-ability group

Results

No. Item Project group

Comparison group

Effect size

F1 I am excited about learning. 85.8 (17.4) 72.5 (22.1) 0.60F2 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) 0.37F4 I like doing the activities. 83.2 (21.7) 75.9 (23.2) 0.31F5 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) 0.51F7 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

Comparisons on motivational & attitudinal level means

Longer exposure to MI has a positive impact on pupils’ motivation and attitudes

Research Questions 1. Is there an increase in the level of engagement among pupils who are taught Mathematics using the MI strategies?

2. Do pupils who are taught Mathematics using MI achieve higher review test scores than pupils who are not taught using MI?

3. Does a longer exposure to MI have a positive impact on pupils’ engagement, motivation, attitude and achievement in their learning of Maths?

Results 1. There is an increase in the level of engagement among pupils who are taught Maths using the MI strategies.

2. Pupils who are taught Mathematics using MI achieved higher review test scores than pupils who are not taught using MI.

3. A longer exposure to MI has a positive impact on pupils’ engagement, motivation, attitude and achievement in their learning of Maths.

Results

The results of our action research study are consistent with the larger scale research conducted by the creator of MI and its principles, Dr Howard Gardner, which demonstrates the effectiveness of MI with the noted improvements in standard achievement scores, performance of students having learning difficulties and student discipline.

Results

The results of our action research study are consistent with the larger scale research conducted by the creator of MI and its principles, Dr Howard Gardner, which demonstrates the effectiveness of MI with the noted improvements in standard achievement scores, performance of students having learning difficulties and student discipline.

Using MI in the classroom

• Classes are not homogenous.• We must use a variety of

intelligences in our lessons.• Knowing the dominant MI of the

class makes planning interesting lessons easier!

• Is it important to know the teacher’s MI?

Using MI in the classroom

Title : Knowing your MI (For Pupils)Period : 30-Jan-2009 (Fri) to 20-Feb-2009 (Fri)Group : 4DStatus : 37 out of 38 completed surveys

Domi nant MI - Bodi l y - Ki nestati c (77. 84%)

Sub-domi nant MI - I nterpersonal (75. 13%)

Domi nant MI - Li ngui st i c (75%), I nterpersonal (75%)

Sub-domi nant MI - Spati al - Vi sual (73. 34%)

Title : Knowing your MI (For Pupils)Period : 30-Jan-2009 (Fri) to 20-Feb-2009 (Fri)Group : 4AStatus : 24 out of 27 completed surveys

Title : Knowing your MI (For Pupils)Period : 30-Jan-2009 (Fri) to 20-Feb-2009 (Fri)Group : 4CStatus : 35 out of 35 completed surveys

Domi nant MI - Bodi l y - Ki nestati c (84. 57%)

Sub-domi nant MI - Spati al - Vi sual (76%)

Domi nant MI - Logi cal Mathemati cal (77. 73%)

Sub-domi nant MI - Bodi l y - Ki nestati c (77. 27%)

Title : Knowing your MI (For Pupils)Period : 30-Jan-2009 (Fri) to 20-Feb-2009 (Fri)Group : 4HStatus : 44 out of 44 completed surveys

A sample of class MI

Using MI in the classroomTeacher’s MI

MI (1) MI (2) MI (3)

1 Cheung Hui Lan

2 Mdm Ang Chai Hwa

3 Mdm Chua Pheck Keng

4 Mdm Ngiam Wee Heng

5 Mdm Suriani Othman

6 Mr Chong Kiat Kiat

7 Mr Tan See Chow

8 Ms Chan Yee Tuang

9 Ms See Sui Chiat

10 Nadya Nasser

11 Samuel Thanam Rechal Silviya

12 Suthagar

13 Thong Sai Kiat Lewis

Users

Knowing your MI (For Teachers)Teachers30-Jan-2009 (Fri) to 13-Feb-2009 (Fri)13 out of 13 completed surveys

Teachers

Bodi l y - Ki nestati c

MI Colour ChartLi ngui sti c

Logi cal Mathmati calSpati al - Vi sual

Musi calI nterpersonalI ntrapersonalNatural i st i c

Using MI in the classroom

• The logical-mathematical intelligence is not a strength in many pupils.

• Teaching Mathematics to the other intelligences will strengthen their logical-mathematical intelligence.

• Pupil motivation and achievement will increase when teachers know what makes pupils tick.

Using MI in the classroom

• For naturalistic intelligence, pupils can use their five senses in their learning, they can learn through real-life scenarios and teachers can include nature in teaching.

Using MI in the classroom

• Music is a venue through which mathematics can be effectively taught. Different types of music, such as popular jingles, raps, or marches, facilitate recall through mnemonics.

Using MI in the classroom

• Puzzles, models, symbols provide a unique alternative to mathematical instruction for visual learners.

• Get linguistic pupils to explain concepts or workings to others.

Using MI in the classroom

• Games are a fun way to teach Mathematics. Get pupils to run and jump and move their bodies to excite the strongly kinesthetic pupils.

Using MI in the classroom

• Interpersonal intelligence can be addressed through working in groups. Pupils need work that will give them opportunities to interact with others.

Using MI in the classroom

• Get pupils to reflect on what they have learnt. This “inward looking” process will motivate pupils who’s MI is predominantly intrapersonal.

Using MI in the classroom

• Video presentation

Expanding in Scope

• From 4 classes to 22 classes across 3 levels.

• The scope has expanded through the involvement of 210 pupils and 7 teachers in Primary 1, 280 pupils and 8 teachers in Primary 4 as well as 280 pupils and 7 teachers in Primary 5.

Expanding in Scope

• The TLLM Ignite! project for the Primary 1 pupils is implemented as there is a strategic fit between the Ignite! project and the Strategies for Effective Engagement and Development (SEED) programme.

Expanding in Scope

• With additional input provided by the current Primary 4 level teachers, there is now an increase in the number of MI activities and a Mathematics trail incorporating the use of ICT (Info-Communication Technology).

Expanding in Scope

• The present Primary 5 level Mathematics teachers had specially crafted MI infused lessons on “Fractions” and “Decimals” to cater to the dominant intelligences of their pupils to continue to ignite the passion in Mathematics among these ‘project’ pupils.

Multiple Intelligences: Verbal-Linguistic Visual-Spatial Logical-Mathematical Bodily-Kinesthetic Interpersonal Intrapersonal Naturalist Musical

Specific Instructional Objectives:1.To apply concepts of fractions to higher-order thinking questions.Pre-requisites:Pupils should have the following knowledge pertaining to fractions:•Four operations of fractions•Equivalent Fractions•Fractions of a set

Using MI in the classroom

Subject: Mathematics Topic: Unit 3 – Fractions

(Consolidation)

Level: Primary 5

Duration: 2 periods Prepared By: Miss Chan Yee Tuang

A sample lesson

Using MI in the classroom

15 min Lesson Development – The Quest!An index number will be called upon randomly to start the quest. 1.I Love My Banana [Concept: Fraction of remainder]Each group will be given a plastic bag consisting of an activity sheet, a plastic knife, a banana and a glove.Pupils are to work out their solution on the paper and use the banana to aid them in their thinking. Literally cutting the banana as planned (as much as possible).(Play music background during group activity)

PPT Slides 8 to 10

Naturalist Interpersonal IntrapersonalVisual SpatialVerbal Linguistic Bodily Kinesthetic Logical MathematicalMusical

15 min 1.Piece By Piece [Calculator: Four Operations of Fractions]Pupils are to calculate the sums given to help them to form the jigsaw.(Play music background during group activity)

PPT Slide 12Envelope with puzzle and activity sheet

Interpersonal IntrapersonalVisual SpatialVerbal Linguistic Bodily Kinesthetic Logical MathematicalMusical

EQUIVALENT FRACTIONS

FOUR OPERATIONS OF FRACTIONS

FRACTIONS OF A SET

This is Fairy

Fractions.

She has been

captured by the Black Dragon of the East!

1. Start only when you hear “You may begin”.

2. Stop all discussion when the lights are turned off.

3. Keep your volume down during discussion. You should be able to hear the background music.

4. We’ll make use of Numbered-Heads in this activity.

5. Groups that do not follow the rules will get their group points deducted.

Piece by piece

I Love My Banana

Are you sleeping?

Zzz…Mathlish

I Love My Banana

Polly has a banana. She has a special way to eat it.

She eats it in 4 bites. Each follows a pattern.

First, she eats of the banana.

2nd, she eats of what's left.

3rd, she eats of what's left.

4th, she eats of what's left.

After the 4th bite, how much is left?

21

31

41

51

Let the challenge begin

now!

Duration: 10 minutes

I Love My Banana

Solution

1st Eats left

2nd Eats of what’s left x = left

3rd Eats of what’s left x = left

4th Eats of what’s left x = left

*Focus on what’s left after eating.

21

21

21

31

32

31

41

43

31

41

51

54

41

51

I Love My Banana

Solution

5u 5u 5u 5u 5u5u 5u 5u 5u

left

left

left

left

= of the banana left6012

51

Using MI in the classroom

Using MI in the classroom

Using MI in the classroom

Using MI in the classroomMaths Trail

Using MI in the classroomMaths Trail

Using MI in the classroomMaths Trail

Challenges

• We must expand our repertoire of techniques, tools, and strategies beyond the typical linguistic and logical ones.

• Sounds exciting but is it a lot of work?

• “Pupils were very excited and looked forward to Math lessons. They were more likely to volunteer answers as they were interested. Based on pupil’s feedback, they found these lessons very refreshing. They actually cheered whenever it was time for Mathematics lessons. They also said that the lessons are now very fun.”

Teachers’ reflections…

• “ Pupils were definitely more engaged - more activities, more interaction, more hands-on. As lessons were interesting, pupils’ attitude towards Maths became better. This positive attitude helped them to remain engaged even when doing non-exciting tasks such as LONG DIVISION!”

Teachers’ reflections…

• “ Pupils are more interested in Maths now. Teachers are also more open to new strategies, and the school will benefit from the more engaged pupils and more passionate teachers. From this experience, we realized that engaging lessons catered to the MI of the pupils really made a difference! Lessons are no longer centred on the highlighting of weaknesses but instead, the pupils are encouraged to use their strengths to learn!”

Teachers’ reflections…

• “ We all want our pupils to learn well. From this experience, we see that interesting lessons really make a difference! Pupils are more interested in Maths, and they enjoy school more. In this aspect, we have achieved what we set out to do. We have succeeded in improving pupils’ attitudes and increased their interest in Maths!”

Teachers’ reflections…

• “ 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.”

Teachers’ reflections…