Positive and Negative Reflections of Maths Teaching Carried out in Learning Environment Designed Based on Multiple Intelligence Theory
Author :
Abstract
This research aims to assess qualitatively the negative and positive reflections gathered during real-class implementations of activities that are selected from learning areas of primary school 7th grade curriculum and that are designed according to Multiple Intelligence Theory. The research that is conducted based on special case study method was made in two different schools with two maths teachers, one for each class, with their 54 students and took 51 class hours. In order to collect data, in addition to interview and observation methods, students diaries were also used. The data gathered was analyzed through descriptive analysis technique. At the end of the research, it could be noted that the positive reflections of teaching carried out in the learning environment that is designed according to Multiple Intelligence Theory are that it facilitated learning and ensured more permanent learning, while the negative reflections are that it is not suitable for every maths subject and it created anxiety which could decrease students’ success rates in central exams. Students should be encouraged to take part in projects that could be conducted in groups and that could activate different intelligence areas.
Keywords
Abstract
This research aims to assess qualitatively the negative and positive reflections gathered during real-class implementations of activities that are selected from learning areas of primary school 7th grade curriculum and that are designed according to Multiple Intelligence Theory. The research that is conducted based on special case study method was made in two different schools with two maths teachers, one for each class, with their 54 students and took 51 class hours. In order to collect data, in addition to interview and observation methods, students diaries were also used. The data gathered was analyzed through descriptive analysis technique. At the end of the research, it could be noted that the positive reflections of teaching carried out in the learning environment that is designed according to Multiple Intelligence Theory are that it facilitated learning and ensured more permanent learning, while the negative reflections are that it is not suitable for every maths subject and it created anxiety which could decrease students’ success rates in central exams. Students should be encouraged to take part in projects that could be conducted in groups and that could activate different intelligence areas.
Keywords
- Anderson, A. (1995). Creative use of worksheets: Lessons my daughter me. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2(2), 72-79.
- Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, Alexandria-Virginia, ASCD.
- Ayres, P., Sawyer. W., & Dinham, S. (2004). Effective teaching in the context of a grade 12 high-stakes external examination in new south wales, Australia. British Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 141 – 165.
- Azar, A., Presley, A. İ., & Baklaya, Ö. (2006). Çoklu zekâ kuramına dayalı öğretimin öğrencilerin başarı, tutum, hatırlama ve bilişsel süreç becerilerine etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 30, 45-54.
- Baki, A., & Gökçek, T. (2005). Türkiye ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’ndeki ilköğretim matematik (1-5) program geliştirme çalışmalarının karşılaştırılması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 5(2), 557-588.
- Baki, A. (2006). Kuramdan Uygulamaya Matematik Eğitimi, Trabzon: Derya Kitabevi.
- Baki, A., Gürbüz, R., Ünal, S., & Atasoy, E. (2009). Çoklu zekâ kuramına dayalı etkinliklerin kavramsal öğrenmeye etkisi: Tamsayılarda dört işlem örneği. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 237-259.
- Balım, A. G., & Erdem, M. Ö. (2006). Çoklu zekâ kuramı tabanlı fen öğretiminde asit baz konusu etkinlik örnekleri, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 170, 67-83.
- Başbay, A. (2005). Çoklu zekâ uygulamasına katılan öğretmenlerin ve öğrencilerin uygulama hakkındaki görüşleri üzerine nitel bir araştırma. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 189-206.
- Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 1, 7-74.
- Blythe, T., & Gardner, H. (1990). A school for all intelligence. Educational Leadership, 47(7), 33-37.
- Campbell, L. (1997). Variations on a theme: How teachers interpret MI theory. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 14-19.
- Campbell, L., & Campbell, B. (1999). Multiple Intelligences and Student Achievement: Success Stories from Six Schools, Virginia USA: ASCD.
- Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven and the eight a conversation with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, 5, 1, 8-9.
- Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77-98.
- Demirel, Ö., Tuncel, İ., Demirhan, C., & Demir, K. (2008). Çoklu zekâ kuramı ile disiplinlerarası yaklaşımı temel alan uygulamalara ilişkin öğretmen-öğrenci görüşleri. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33, 147, 14-25.
- Gibson, B. P., & Govendo, B. L. (1999). Encouraging contrastive behavior in middle school classrooms: A multiple intelligence approach. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35(1), 16-22.
- Gömleksiz, M. N. (2005). Yeni ilköğretim programının uygulamadaki etkililiğinin değerlendirilmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2), 339-384.
- Greenhawk, J. (1997). Multiple intelligences meet standards. Educational Leadership, 55(1),
- Gürbüz, R. (2008). Matematik Öğretiminde Çoklu Zekâ Kuramına Göre Tasarlanan Öğrenme Ortamlarından Yansımalar. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
- Gürbüz, R. & Birgin, O. (2011). Öğrenme ortamına çoklu zekâ kuramını taşıyan iki öğretmen ve iki araştırmacının yolculuğundan yansıyanlar, Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 2(1), 1-19.
- Güven, B., & Sözer, M. A. (2007). Öğretmen adaylarının öğretimin bireyselleştirilmesine ilişkin görüşleri, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 89-99.
- Hoerr, T. (2002). Applying MI in school. http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/mi/hoerr2.htm, (Mart, 2008).
- Hopper, B., & Hurry, P. (2000). Learning the MI way: The effects on students’ learning of using the theory of multiple, Pastoral Care in Education, 18(4), 26-32.
- Hoyles, C. (1985). What is the point of group discussion in mathematics?. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16(2), 205-214.
- Işık, D., & Tarım, K. (2009). The effects of the cooperative learning method supported by multiple intelligence theory on Turkish elementary students’ mathematics achievement. Asia Pasific Education Review, 10, 464-474
- Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77-87.
- Köroğlu, H., & Yeşildere, S. (2004). İlköğretim yedinci sınıf matematik dersi tamsayılar ünitesinde çoklu zekâ teorisi tabanlı öğretimin öğrenci başarısına etkisi. GÜ, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2, 24, 25-41.
- Kyriacou, C. (1992). Active learning in secondary school mathematics. British Educational Journal, 18, 3, 309-318.
- Leikin, R., & Zaslavsky O. (1997). Facilitating student interactions in mathematics in a cooperative learning setting. Journal For Research In Mathematics Education, 28, 3, 331355.
- MEB. (2005). İlköğretim Matematik Dersi 6–8. Sınıflar Öğretim Programı. Ankara: T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı,
- Mettetal, G., Jordan, C., & Harper, S. (1997). Attitudes toward a multiple intelligences curriculum. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 115-122.
- Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 175-197.
- Moyer, P. S., & Jones, M. G. (2004). Controlling choice: Teachers, students and manipulatives in mathematics classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 104(1), 1631.
- Özben, Ş., & Argun, Y. (2005). Buca eğitim fakültesi öğrencilerinin yaratıcılık boyutları puanlarının karşılaştırılması. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18,
- Peterson, P. L., & Swing, S. R. (1985). Students’ cognitions as mediators of the effectiveness of small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 299-312.
- Saban, A. (2002). Toward a more intelligent school. Educational Leadership, 60, 2, 70-73.
- Seferoğlu, S. S., & Akbıyık, C. (2006). Eleştirel düşünme ve öğretimi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, 193-200.
- Slavin, R.E., (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, What we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69.
- Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2003). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42, 403-424.
- Talu, N. (1999). Çoklu zekâ kuramı ve eğitime yansımaları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15, 164-172.
- Umay, A. (2003). Matematiksel muhakeme yeteneği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 234-243.
- Yenilmez, K., & Bozkurt, E. (2007). Matematik eğitiminde çoklu zekâ kuramına yönelik öğretmen düşünceleri. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13, 90
- Yıldırım, K., & Tarım, K. (2008). Çoklu zekâ kuramı destekli kubaşık öğrenme yönteminin ilköğretim beşinci sınıf matematik dersinde akademik başarı ve hatırda tutma düzeyine etkisi. İlköğretim Online Dergisi, 7, 1, 174-187.
- Yılmaz, G., & Fer, S. (2003). Çok yönlü zekâ alanlarına göre düzenlenen öğretim etkinliklerine ilişkin öğrencilerin görüşleri ve başarıları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 235-245.