Multiple intelligences theory and seventh-grade mathematics learning: A comparison of reinforcing strategies

Purpose. This study's purpose was threefold. The study evaluated the effectiveness of reinforcing strategies based on Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences on students' learning of mathematical concepts; compared students learning when reinforcing strategies were differentially aligned with strengths and weaknesses with respect to the seven intelligences; and correlated student ability profiles for the seven intelligences with learning gains when reinforcing strategies were aligned with those profiles.; Methodology. Six seventh grade mathematics classes were randomly assigned to treatments. Four of these groups participated in a Solomon four group design to compare the effectiveness of reinforcing strategies based on multiple intelligence theory with traditional reinforcing methods in the first part of the study. In the second part of the study, the students were placed in groups according to whether they were in the top, middle, or bottom third for each of the seven intelligences as measured by a self-reporting instrument. The posttest scores of the top and bottom one third groups were compared for each of the seven intelligences when concepts were reinforced using strategies based on that same intelligence. In the third part of the study, posttest scores were correlated with multiple intelligence subscale scores.; Results. Statistical analysis yielded the following: (1) There was no significant difference in students' learning of the mathematical concepts when reinforced using the multiple intelligences in a non-aligned manner. (2) The top one third groups outperformed the bottom one third groups in six of seven cases when reinforced with intelligences aligned with the group membership criteria. Although the top one third group was significantly higher than the bottom one third group only for two of the intelligences (logical-mathematical and interpersonal), all but spatial intelligence yielded a top one third group score numerically higher than the bottom one third group score. A binomial probability analysis indicated that six out of seven such groups had higher posttest scores at a 0.0625 level of significance. (3) The posttest scores when a student was reinforced with an intelligence did not correlate highly with that student's perceived strength in that intelligence.