The MIDAS Differentiated Reading Enrichment in the Classroom

1

The MIDAS Differentiated Reading Enrichment in the Classroom:

Multiple Intelligences-Inspired Small Group Activities

C. Branton Shearer, Ph.D.

MI Researching and Consulting, Inc.

1316 S. Lincoln St.

Kent, Ohio 44240

Abstract

The MIDAS Reading Enrichment project provided 305 students in grades two through eighth with multiple intelligences, strength-based reading activities in five rural schools. Thisis a replication of a previous study (Shearer & Reith, 2011) that determined MI-inspired small group reading activities improved reading comprehension for all types of students when implemented as an enrichment to standard reading instruction. The results of pre- and post reading tests are compared to 300 students in non-enrichment classrooms. Overall, there was a general pattern of intervention students achieving at or above grade level reading at higher rates than did comparison students. Intervention students demonstrated greater rates of progress in reading levels. Most notably, students in fourth grade, middle school, At Risk students and boys advanced at higher levels and rates than comparison students. Typical and Advanced students also made progress while the results were mixed for special education students. Participating teachers and school principals noted a number of important benefits for students that correspond to post-test reading results including increased enthusiasm for reading.Specific recommendations to enhance future MIDAS Reading programs are noted. (181 words)

Executive Summary

The MIDAS Reading Enrichment project provided 305 students in grades two through eighth with multiple intelligences, strength-based reading activities in five rural schools (207 elementary, 98 middle school students). Seventeen teachers, three principals and the support of the special education director were involved in the project that lasted seven months. The goal was to determine if MI-inspired small group reading activities would improve reading comprehension for all types of students as an enrichment to standard reading instruction.

Results were compared to 300 students in non-enrichment classrooms. Overall, there was a general pattern of intervention students achieving at or above grade level reading at higher rates than did students in comparison classrooms. Intervention students also demonstrated greater rates of progress in reading levels.

All students

More middle school students in the MI enrichment groups achieved at or above their reading grade level than did students in the comparison group (74% vs. 62%, p<.14). Likewise, more students in the MI group increased their reading skill by one or more grade levels than did the comparison group (80% vs. 67%, p<.03). Boys made significantly better progress than did middle school girls.

More fourth grade students in the MI enrichment groups achieved at or above their reading grade level than did students in the small comparison group (70% vs. 29%, p<.00). Likewise, more students in the MI group progressed in their reading skills by more than one grade level (22% vs. 0, p<.10).

More elementary students in the MI enrichment groups achieved at or above their reading grade level than did students in the comparison groups (50% vs. 35%, p=ns). Likewise, more students in the MI group increased their reading skill by more than one grade level (19% vs. 13%, p=ns).

Typical Students

Elementary, (2nd & 3rd grades, n=104; MI Group, 80; Comparison, 24).

Fifty-six percent of Typical 2nd and 3rd grade students (45 of 80) in MI classrooms achieved at or above grade level by the end of the program and this is nearly equivalent to the comparison classroom achievement levels (55%). Interestingly, Typical students in the comparison classrooms progressed by one or more levels at higher rates (83% vs. 70%) than did Typical students in the MI Enrichment classrooms. This was especially true for the Typical girls in the comparison classrooms who outpaced the Typical boys (86% vs. 80%). Boys and girls in the MI classrooms progressed at about equal levels.

Eighty percent of Typical 4th graders in the MI classrooms (37 of 46) achieved at or above grade level by the end of the program. This is a 25% better result than both the comparison and MI groups of Typical 2nd and 3rd graders where only 55% achieved at grade level. Of the Typical girls in the MI classrooms, 90% achieved at or above grade level as compared to only 70% of the Typical boys.

Middle School

Eighty-four percent of Typical middle school students (38 of 46) in the MI classrooms achieved at or above grade level by the end of the program. This is nearly the same result as for the 4th graders in MI classrooms. More boys achieved at higher levels than did the girls (93% vs 73%).

At Risk Students

Elementary, (n= 38; MI Group, 29; Comparison, 9).

Eighty-six percent of At Risk elementary students (24 of 28) in the MI classrooms made progress in reading comprehension by one or more grade levels, but only 14% (4 of 28) achieved at grade level. None of the comparison group At Risk students achieved at grade level but 56% (5 of 9) made progress by one grade level.

Middle School, (n= 30, MI Group)

Sixty-three percent of At Risk middle school students (18 of 30) in the MI classrooms achieved at grade level by the end of the program while 90% progressed by at least one grade level. More boys achieved at grade level at significantly higher levels than did the girls (86% vs 61%).

IEP Students

Elementary (n= 14; Comparison, 4; MI Group, 10)

Seventy-five percent of the IEP students in the 2nd and 3rd grade comparison classrooms (3 of 4) progressed in reading comprehension but none achieved at grade level by the end. Fifty-six percent (5 of 9) of the IEP students in the MI classrooms progressed while only one of eight achieved at grade level.

Middle School (n=4, MI Group)

None of the IEP middle school students in the MI classrooms achieved at grade level by the end while 100% (4 of 4) progressed by one or two grade levels. Interestingly, the two boys progressed by two levels while the two girls improved by only one level.

Academically Advanced

Elementary (n= 43, MI Group; Comparison, 0)

One-hundred percent of Advanced elementary students in the MI classrooms achieved at or above grade level while 71% (12 of 17) were above level.

One-hundred percent of Advanced students in 4th grade (n= 16) achieved at or above grade level (81% were above level, 13 of 16) while 50% remained the same and 50% progressed.

Middle School (n= 7, MI Group)

Eighty-six percent (6 of 7) of Advanced middle school MI students achieved at or above grade level while 29% (2 of 7) progressed by one or more levels.

In a qualitative post-intervention survey, participating teachers and school principals noted a number of important benefits for students that correspond to post-test reading results. Specific recommendations to enhance future MIDAS Reading programs are noted. Student attitude toward reading was also noted as improved by both teachers and principals. One principal expressed it in this way, “Students made observable progress in their interest in reading itself in addition to their use of strategies. This when combined with the program produced good gains with the 5th and 6th grade population.” A couple teachers highlighted the importance of using a multiple intelligences assessment in this way, “It is a great way for students to plug in their strengths while learning and to see that their strengths have academic value in the classroom. The students were excited to know their strengths area. Students spent a LOT of time reading and using their strongest intelligence to become better readers.”

The MIDAS Differentiated Reading Enrichment in the Classroom:

Multiple Intelligences-Inspired Small Group Activities

Reading is a difficult skill that can take many years to master. Despite great effort some people, even into adulthood, fail to master this skill that holds the key to success in a technologically advanced world that highly values the written word. Impaired reading ability can be a social stigma with devastating consequences throughout life (Daniel, 2006; Hinshaw, 1992; Sturge, 1982; Voss, 1966). The teaching of reading is an art with a long and complicated history that continues to elude full understanding by researchers and teachers alike. Traditional approaches to reading instruction emphasize the use of direct instruction following standard procedures. These approaches can be effective for many, but not all, learners. In fact, the one-size-fits-all curriculum may fail to fully engage learners at both ends of the continuum as well as the majority in the middle (Armstrong, 2004). As our understanding of how the brain and culture impact learning we have become more cognizant of the fact that individual differences deeply influence the results that flow from our educational efforts. The challenge is how to harness and direct these differences into productive activities in the highly structured and tradition ruled school and classroom.

Personalized instruction that honors and directs each student’s unique abilities may be a defining feature of a private education, but in the hustle and bustle of mass, public education it is economy, efficiency and standardization that take precedent. In recent years, the drive to make accommodations and modifications for learners of all types has given rise to initiatives such as individual tutoring, pullout programs, differentiated instruction (DI), Response to Intervention (RtI), diversity in education and cooperative learning groups. Of all initiatives cooperative learning has been found to be one of the most effective in class activities (Slavin,1988;Stevens, Slavin &Farnish, 1991).

Most reading curriculum follows a “building deficits” model of direct instruction but advocates of personalized instruction strive to implement a “strengths-based” approach where students use their cognitive strengths to enhance learning (Armstrong,2004; Chen, Krechevsky & Viens, 1998; Kornhaber, Fierros, & Veenema, 2004;. Implementing such an approach in the regular classroom can be overwhelming to teachers and so the MIDAS differentiated reading project was created to provide schools and teachers with research-based, systematic reading enrichment activities that can easily be implemented in tandem with regular instruction in the classroom.

The theory of multiple intelligences (MI) was introduced by Howard Gardner in his landmark book, Frames of Mind, in 1983. It was immediately embraced by teachers around the world who wished to use an MI understanding of their students’ abilities to maximize academic achievement. MI uses a unique definition of intelligence and several criteria to determine that there are eight distinct forms of intelligence possessed by people but in varying degrees of skill and ability: Linguistic, Logical-mathematical, Spatial, Kinesthetic, Musical, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal and Naturalist. Traditional intelligence as measured by the IQ delineates the academic aspects of the Linguistic and Logical-mathematical intelligences. While MI theory has been enthusiastically received by teachers it has been the subject of much criticism from established psychologists who argue that there is a lack of evidence proving that the use of an MI enhanced instruction does, indeed, promote greater academic achievement (Willingham, 2004).

This MI-inspired differentiated reading pilot project was initiated by the director of special education and implemented in 17 classrooms in five different schools in the East Holmes County school district in central Ohio. Teachers and principals participated in a brief series of seminars in October of the school year and then teachers spent the next month or so preparing materials for implementation. Some teachers began the MI classroom activities in December but others were delayed until after the winter break and didn’t start until January. The program wrapped up with a post- reading comprehension test and final reflections / responses during the month of May.

The overall goal of the program was to replicate and extend a previous pilot study (Shearer & Reith, 2011) that found that students’ reading comprehension skills were enhanced by integrating the MI-inspired group activities with the traditional classroom guided reading curriculum.

Participants

Seventeen teachers and 305 students from four elementaryand one middle school participated in this implementation study. There were two main groups involved. Students in the MI Enrichment Group participated in MI small group reading activities. Two other classes served as a small comparison group (n=37) and received only standard classroom reading curriculum along with any individual instruction as required but did not participate in MI enrichment activities. A third group of data taken at random from student records for fourth graders (n= 14) and 149 middle school students (5th n= 88; 6th n= 21; 8th n=40) was provided by the school district after the study was completed for comparative purposes.

The total MI Enrichment Group of 305 students included 207 elementary students (112 second graders, 18 third graders and 77 fourth graders) and 98 middle school students (56 fifth graders, 22 sixth graders and 20 eighth graders). The seventh grade group had to drop out due to canceled classes and a change in teachers. There were 152 girls (49%) and 153 boys. The mean age was 10 years. One hundred and eighty-three were Typical students (60%) while 71 (24%) were considered to be At Risk and 14 (5%) had Individual Education Plans (IEP) and 37 (12%) were Academically Advanced. Unique to this school district, there were 138 (45%) Amish students.

The Comparison group of 37 students came from two different elementary classes (14 second graders and 23 third graders). The mean age was 8.3. Twenty-four were typical students (65%) while 9 (24%) were considered to be At Risk and 4 (11%) had Individual Education Plans and none were Academically Advanced. There were 20 (54%) girls and 17 boys and 16 who were identified as Amish.

The MI Enrichment Group of elementary students included a total of 134 students (113 second graders, 21 third graders) where 68 (52%) were female and 65 male. Eighty were Typical students (60%) while 28 were identified to be At Risk (21%) and 9 (7%) had Individual Education Plans and 17 (13%) were Academically Advanced. There were 49 Amish (37%) and 85 non-Amish.

The MI Enrichment Group of 4th grade students consists of 77 with 39 female (51%) and 38 males. Forty-six were Typical students (60%) while 14 were identified to be At Risk (18%) and one had an Individual Education Plan and 16 were Academically Advanced (21%). There were 21 Amish (27%) and 56 Non-Amish.

Unfortunately, we have limited information about the student data provided following the completion of the study for comparative purposes. The fourth grade group (n= 14) is comprised of eight females and six males. The middle school group (n= 149) consists of 77 females and 72 males. We do not know the mix of Types but these data were selected at random and so most likely are fairly ‘regular’ classrooms with a majority of Typical students and a few Advanced students and a few At Risk students. These data will be used sparingly and with caution during the analyses.

These were all samples of convenience generated by teachers volunteering to participate. Teachers all devoted extra out of classroom time to training, planning and working sessions without additional compensation. The goal was to implement the MI enrichment groups as a formative evaluation of effectiveness rather than as a true experimental study. Implementation procedures were designed to be minimally disruptive to the regular school day, but instead were intended to be easily incorporated into the daily / weekly schedule so that they could be implemented on an ongoing basis rather than just a “one shot” effort.

Assessments

The MIDAS assessment is a valid and reliable self-completed questionnaire (Shearer, 2007) that was administered to students according to standard procedures by the teachers. The MIDAS is objectively scored using a complex scoring matrix that produces a three-page Profile consisting of main scale scores in the eight intelligences and 24 subscales. Subscales are qualitative indices of a student’s ability in specific skill related to the core intelligence. For example, there are four Musical subscales: Instrumental, Vocal, Appreciation and Musicality. Scale scores range from 0 to 100% with five levels indicating general levels of ability from Very Low to Very High. A full range of profile configurations are possible. Some students have only one or two areas of relative strength while other students may display a wide range of well developed abilities.

Prior to the onset of the MI reading activities, teachers administered to their students the MIDAS questionnaire and one of three reading comprehension pre-tests: The Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI); Directed Reading Assessment (DRA) or Qualitative Reading Inventory. These tests were repeated at the end of the program during May.

Method and Procedures

Teachers agreed to be involved in this implementation project with the encouragement of their principals. They participated in two training sessions prior to the onset of the program. They were provided with basic information regarding the educational implications of the multiple intelligences and MIDAS interpretation strategies. They were given instructions for grouping students according to their MI strengths. Teachers were assisted with adapting the MI reading activities from the 5th grade level to the 2nd and 3rd grade levels as well as for the middle school students. This involved selecting age appropriate reading texts and altering the MI small group activities. Each teacher decided upon a weekly schedule for participating in the MI small group activities in accordance with his or her time constraints. Participation ranged from one time per to three times per week for 20 to 40 minutes per session. A wide range of types of teachers were involved in this project. Some teachers had previous experience with designing MI-inspired learning activities while others were novices. Some teachers easily adapted the MI lessons to meet the needs of their students while others expressed frustration with making the necessary adaptations. Unfortunately, this resulted in a delay in implementation for several of the elementary teachers.

Teachers were given their students’ MIDAS profiles that they used to place students in MI Reading Groups as best fit with their highest scales. There were MI Reading Enhancement activities for five different groups: Linguistic, Logical-math, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal and Visual-spatial. Students with strengths in the other three areas (Kinesthetic, Naturalist and Musical) were placed in groups best matched to their next strongest MI scales.

At the end of the project, teachers and principals completed brief surveys that provided them with the opportunity to reflect on the project and comment on its benefits, limitations and to make suggestions. These observations would inform interpretation, decisions, recommendations and plans for the future.

Questions

The purpose of this implementation project was to determine if students would demonstrate increased reading comprehension ability after participating in strength-based, MI-inspired reading activities. Given that the MI reading activities were originally designed for fifth grade students it was a secondary goal to determine if the activities could be adapted by teachers for younger and older readers.