Advertisement

Asia Pacific Education Review

, 10:465 | Cite as

The effects of the cooperative learning method supported by multiple intelligence theory on Turkish elementary students’ mathematics achievement

  • Dilek IşıkEmail author
  • Kamuran Tarım
Article

Abstract

In the present experimental study, the effects of the cooperative learning method supported by multiple intelligence theory (CLMI) on elementary school fourth grade students’ academic achievement and retention towards the mathematics course were investigated. The participants of the study were 150 students who were divided into two experimental (used CLMI) and two control groups (used traditional method). “Mathematics Achievement Test,” “Teele Inventory for Multiple Intelligences” and “Personal Information Form” were used as the measurement instruments of the study. The findings of this research have indicated that CLMI has a more significant effect on academic achievement than the traditional method. Yet, regarding the retention scores, CLMI has not significant effect on retention.

Keywords

Multiple intelligence theory Cooperative learning Mathematics teaching Academic achievement 

References

  1. Adams, T. L. (2000). Helping children learn mathematics through multiple intelligences and standards for school mathematics. Childhood Education, 77(2), 86–92.Google Scholar
  2. Altun, M. (2000). Eğitim fakülteleri ve ilköğretim öğretmenleri için: matematik öğretimi [Mathematics teaching: For the education faculties and elementary education teachers] (8th ed.). Bursa: Erkam Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Andrini, B. (1998). Cooperative learning and mathematics. San Clemente: Kagan Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (2nd ed.). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  5. Baykul, Y. (2004). İlköğretimde matematik öğretimi 1.-5. sınıflar için [Mathematics teaching at elementary education for 1–5 classes] (7th ed.). Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Bayraktar, O. (2002). The teachers and students’ opinions about the use of the cooperative learning approach in the secondary education mathematics course. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Gazi, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  7. Bozkurt, Y. (1999). The effects of different evaluation techniques used in the 4th grade Mathematics course through the cooperative learning. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, A., & Green, T. D. (2006). The essentials of instructional design. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Brush, T. A. (1995). The effectiveness of cooperative learning groups for low- and high- achieving students using an integrated learning system. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University, Indiana, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Bulut, S., & Koc, Y. (2006). İlköğretim Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı. Çoluk Çocuk Dergisi, 61, 26–36.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, B. (1990). The research result of a multiple intelligences classroom. New Horizons for Learning on The Beam Vol. XI. No. 1 Fall, 1990, 7–254. Retrieved November 15, 2004, from http://www.newhorizons.org/art_mireserch.html.
  12. Campbell, L. M., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (1992). Teaching and learning through the multiple intelligences. Seattle: New Horizons for Learning.Google Scholar
  13. Carson, D. (1995). Diversity in the classroom: Multiple intelligences and mathematical problem-solving. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Alabama, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Coskungonullu, R. (1998). The effects of multiple intelligences theory on fifth graders’ mathematics achievement. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  15. Demircioglu, H., & Guneysu, S. (2000). The new targets and the multiple intelligence approach. The Journal of Child Development and Education, 1(2), 47–50.Google Scholar
  16. Dunn, R., Deing, S., & Lovelace, M. K. (2001). Two sides of the same coin or different strokes for different folks? Teacher Librarian, 28(3), 9–16.Google Scholar
  17. Eilers, J. L, Fox, J. L. Welvaert, M. S., & Wood, J. M. (1998). Increasing teacher, parent and student involvement to promote student learning and self-esteem. Dissertations, ERIC: ED422095.Google Scholar
  18. Eming, V. B. (1997). A multiple intelligences inventory. Educational Leadership, 50(1), 47–50.Google Scholar
  19. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligence (2nd ed.). London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligence for the 21st century. NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligence. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4–10.Google Scholar
  23. Gomleksiz, M. (1997). Cooperative learning: An experiment on fourth year students’ mathematics achievement and their friendship relationships. Adana: Baki Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Greenhawk, J. (1997). Multiple intelligence meet standards. Educational Leadership, 55, 62–64.Google Scholar
  25. Gulten, D. C., & Derelioglu, Y. (2006). A study of scale development to evaluate candidate teacher’s attitudes toward teaching learning mathematics. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 24, 103–111.Google Scholar
  26. Gurbuz, R., & Catlıoglu, H. (2004). The evaluations of the applicability of the materials about the possibility which were developed according to the multiple intelligence theory. XII. Congress of the Educational Sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 1781–1787). Ankara: University of Gazi Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hopper, B., & Hurry, P. (2000). Learning the MI way: The effects on students’ learning of using the theory of multiple intelligences. Pastoral Care, 18(4), 26–32.Google Scholar
  28. İflazoğlu, A. (2003). The effectiveness of cooperative learning method supported by multiple intelligence theory on elementary school 5th grade students’ academic achievement and attitudes toward science course. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cukurova, Adana, Turkey.Google Scholar
  29. Jensen, E. (1999). Teaching with the brain mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning mathematics and cooperative learning lesson plans for teacher. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  31. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. From http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html.
  32. Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative learning. Paseo Espada: Resources for Teachers Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (1998). Multiple intelligences: The complete MI book. San Clemente: Kagan Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Kaplan, R. G., Yamamoto, T., & Ginsburg, H. P. (1989). Teaching mathematics concepts. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum (pp. 59–82). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  35. Kelly, T. B. A. G. (2005). A study of the teaching and learning of mathematics through multiple intelligences and differentiated instruction with selected third grade teachers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Union Institute and University, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Leazar, D. (1999). Eight way of teaching: The artistry of teaching with multiple intelligences. Palatine: Skylight Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Martin, H. (1996). Multiple intelligence in the mathematics classroom. Illinois: Skylight Training and Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. McGraw, P. L., Jr. (1997). Multiple intelligences theory and seventh-grade mathematics learning: A comparison of reinforcing strategies. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia State University, USA.Google Scholar
  39. McLelland, M. J. (2005). The impact of instrumental music on student academic achievement. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Wilmington College, Delaware, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2004). The elementary education mathematics course (1–5. grades) The Teaching Program. Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  41. Muehlbauer, C. F. (2000). The effects of an arts-infused, multiple intelligences program on mathematical achievement. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Duquesne University, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Mueller, M. M. (1996). The educational implication of multiple intelligence groupings within a cooperative learning environment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(10), 3828A. (UMI No. 9604379).Google Scholar
  43. Negangard, A. S. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning versus lecture-discussion on student attitudes and achievement in a mathematics methods course for preservice elementary school teachers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio University, USA.Google Scholar
  44. Nelson, N. K. (1998). Developing students’ multiple intelligences. New York: Scholastistic Professional Books.Google Scholar
  45. Nguyen, T. T. (2000). Differential effects of a multiple intelligences curriculum on student performance. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, USA.Google Scholar
  46. Nolen, J. L. (2003). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Education, 124(1), 115–119.Google Scholar
  47. Ozdemir, P., Guneysu, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Enhancing learning through multiple intelligences. Journal of Biological Education, 40(2), 74–78.Google Scholar
  48. Ozder, H. (1996). The effectiveness of the cooperative learning model based on the whole learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  49. Panitz, T. (2000). Using cooperative learning 100% of the time in mathematics classes establishes a student-centered interactive learning environment. Opinion Papers, ERIC: ED448063.Google Scholar
  50. Peoples-Marwah, A. M. (2005). A study of the effects of visual/spatial and musical intelligences on sixth grade Ohio proficiency test (OPT) math scores. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, George Washington University, USA.Google Scholar
  51. Posluoglu, Z. Y. (2002). The effect of cooperative learning technique in teaching the skills of mathematical problem solving to the students of primary and secondary school at fifth grade level. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Gazi, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  52. Rolfs, T. K. (1994). Self-Reflection on the transition of an elementary school teacher to middle school and the adaptation of cooperative learning to a seventh-grade basic math class. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
  53. Saritas, E. (2002). The level of acquisition, attitudes and learning strategies of successful and unsuccessful problem solving students in the traditional and the cooperative classrooms. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Dokuz Eylul, Izmir, Turkey.Google Scholar
  54. Sever, S. (1997). Turkish teaching and mastery learning [Turkce ogretimi ve tam ogrenme]. Ankara: Ani Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. Shalk, A. C. (2002). A study of the relationship between multiple intelligences and achievement as measured by Delaware student testing program (DSTP) scores in reading, mathematics, and writing. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Wilmington College, Delaware, USA.Google Scholar
  56. Sohn, S. C. (2003). A method for introducing Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences to middle school students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Boston College, USA.Google Scholar
  57. Sonmez, V. (2001). The teacher’s handbook. Ankara: Ani Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  58. Soylu, D. & Bulut M. (2004). The characteristics of effective mathematics teaching and learning. XII. Congress of the Educational Sciences, (Vol. 3, pp. 1739–1755). Ankara: University of Gazi Press.Google Scholar
  59. Talu, N. (1999). The multiple intelligence theory and its reflections on education. Ankara: Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 15, 164–172.Google Scholar
  60. Tanisli, D. (2002). Effectiveness of knowledge exchange technique in mathematics teaching. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Anadolu, Eskisehir, Turkey.Google Scholar
  61. Tarım, K. (2003). Effectiveness of cooperative learning method on teaching mathematics and a meta analytic study for cooperative learning method. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cukurova, Adana, Turkey.Google Scholar
  62. Teele, S. (2000). Rainbows of intelligence: Exploring how students learn. California: Corwin Pres Inc.Google Scholar
  63. Temur, O. D. (2001). The effect of the teaching materials prepared according to the multiple intelligence theory on 4th grade students’ mathematics acquisition and the retention of the acquired knowledge. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Gazi, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  64. Ucak, E., Bag, H., & Usak, M. (2006). Enhancing learning through multiple intelligences in elementary science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(10), 61–69.Google Scholar
  65. Ulgen, G. (1997). Eğitim psikolojisi: kavramlar, ilkeler, yöntemler, kuramlar ve uygulamalar [Education psychology: Concepts, principles, methods, theory and apply] (2nd ed.). İstanbul: Alkim Publishing.Google Scholar
  66. Yesildere, S. (2003). Multiple intelligence theory in seventh grade mathematics. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Dokuz Eylul, Izmir, Turkey.Google Scholar
  67. Yıldırım, K. (2006). The effect of the cooperative learning method supported by the multiple intelligence theory on the fifth grade students’ academic achievement in mathematics course, on the self-respect and on the retention. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Cukurova, Adana, Turkey.Google Scholar
  68. Yıldırım, K., Tarım, K., & İflazoğlu, A. (2006). The effect of the cooperative learning supported by the multiple intelligence theory on academic achievement and on retention in the mathematics course. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 2(2), 81–96.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Elementary Education Department, Faculty of EducationÇukurova UniversityAdanaTurkey

Personalised recommendations