A MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES APPROACH TO SPELLING INSTRUCTION Michaela T. Jones A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF READING May 2006 Committee: Dr. Cindy Hendricks, Advisor Dr. Craig Mertler Dr. Richard Oldrieve © 2006 Michaela T. Jones All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Dr. Cindy Hendricks, Advisor Spelling is a critical component of the language arts curriculum in early childhood classrooms. Most teachers address spelling in the classroom and use a variety of strategies in which to do so. The typical way these teachers implement spelling into the classroom is through an approach that follows closely with a spelling textbook or series. This approach may also include doing activities such as: memorization tasks, word sorts, writing spelling words in a sentence, writing spelling words numerous times, putting the spelling words in alphabetical order, unscrambling spelling words or solving puzzles, and looking words up in the dictionary. All of these spelling activities typically used in elementary classrooms focus on the linguistic, logical-mathematical, and intrapersonal intelligences in the brain. Although these activities are beneficial for most students, some students may not have strengths in using these three intelligences. Because all children have a unique blend of intellectual strengths, some students may not perform well on the spelling tests at the end of the week by using the typical strategies or activities to study. This research study was designed to incorporate the other human intelligences into spelling activities completed throughout the week to determine whether other intelligences helped second grade students achieve a higher score on their spelling tests at the end of the week. Although there was not a significant difference among the overall test scores in the three classes chosen for this study, the new activities had a positive impact on many of the individual second grade students. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem......................................................................................3 Research Question ................................................................................................3 Rationale ...............................................................................................................3 Definition of Terms...............................................................................................4 Delimitations.........................................................................................................5 Limitations ............................................................................................................6 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...........................................................7 History of Spelling Instruction..............................................................................8 Spelling Instruction Today..................................................................................11 Controversy of Spelling ......................................................................................12 Importance of Spelling........................................................................................15 Spelling as a Developmental Process .................................................................16 Common Myths about Spelling ..........................................................................18 Multiple Intelligences .........................................................................................19 Linguistic Intelligence ............................................................................20 Musical Intelligence................................................................................20 Logical-Mathematical Intelligence .........................................................21 Visual-Spatial Intelligence......................................................................21 Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence ..............................................................22 Intrapersonal Intelligence........................................................................22 Interpersonal Intelligence........................................................................23 Naturalist Intelligence.............................................................................23 Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom .............................................................23 Teachers and Multiple Intelligences ...................................................................25 Multiple Intelligences and Spelling ....................................................................26 Summary .............................................................................................................30 CHAPTER III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES .......................................................32 Methods...............................................................................................................33 Research Design......................................................................................33 Subjects ...................................................................................................33 Instrumentation .......................................................................................35 Procedures...........................................................................................................36 Data Collection ...................................................................................................41 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................41 Summary .............................................................................................................42 CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.....................43 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................43 Mean, Median, Mode, Range..................................................................43 Analysis of Variance...............................................................................48 Discussion of Results..........................................................................................52 Summary .............................................................................................................53 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........54 Summary of the Findings....................................................................................54 Conclusions.........................................................................................................55 Recommendations for Further Study ..................................................................57 Summary .............................................................................................................59 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................60 APPENDIX A. Attendance.............................................................................................63 APPENDIX B. Lists of Spelling Words for Class A......................................................65 APPENDIX C. Lists of Spelling Words for Class B ......................................................67 APPENDIX D. Lists of Spelling Words for Class C......................................................69 APPENDIX E. Calendar of Multiple Intelligence Activities .........................................71 APPENDIX F. Class A Spelling Scores .........................................................................73 APPENDIX G. Class B Spelling Scores.........................................................................75 APPENDIX H. Class C Spelling Scores.........................................................................77 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Three week schedule of control and conditioned classrooms.........................................39 2 General schedule of spelling activities in the control classroom....................................40 3 Class A Mean, Median, Mode, and Range of Weekly Scores........................................44 4 Class B Mean, Median, Mode, and Range of Weekly Scores ........................................46 5 Class C Mean, Median, Mode, and Range of Weekly Scores ........................................47 6 Analysis of Variance Results for Week 1 .......................................................................49 7 Analysis of Variance Results for Week 2 .......................................................................50 8 Analysis of Variance Results for Week 3 .......................................................................51 1 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Spelling instruction has been a part of elementary schools for well over 200 years (Bloodgood, 1991). Since the late 1700s, spelling textbooks, workbooks, basal spellers, and other teaching materials have been published and utilized throughout many elementary school classrooms to assist students in their ability to spell. Some textbooks focus on spelling, pronunciation, and grammar; many include drills or activities to complete in a sequence, and others rely heavily on weekly word lists (Templeton & Morris, 2001). Many activities that accompany these textbooks include: rote memorization of words, words written numerous times, fill-in-the-blank questions, matching, unscrambling words, and translating words into a secret puzzle (Schlagal, 2003). All elementary school educators approach the teaching of spelling in different ways, and implement different activities throughout the week (Schlagal, 2003). Gentry (2004) believes that, overall, there are seven methods of instruction typically implemented in elementary classrooms to teach spelling. The first method of instruction emphasizes word lists. This approach is very structured and is taught using a spelling book. Spelling that focuses on word lists is usually a component of a basal reading program as well. The second form of spelling instruction relies on word lists as well, although the teachers give above, current, and below grade level lists to their students depending on their level of achievement (Gentry, 2004). Having individualized word lists allows students to concentrate on words they need to know, or have been misspelling in their writing. A third approach to teaching spelling in the elementary grades involves common spelling patterns. Gentry (2004) said, “This method engages children in learning the common patterns found in English spelling” (p. 44). A common technique in learning these patterns is word sorting. Word sorting helps students recognize the patterns until they become automatic. Another 2 way spelling is taught in the classroom is through incidental reading and writing opportunities. Students use the different contexts to learn spelling as they complete different activities. This approach to spelling instruction may look completely different for each individual in the class, as he/she learns through his/her personal experiences with text. Focusing on just the writing activities is another method to use when teaching spelling. This is closely related to the incidental approach, but relies solely on writing instruction. Teachers look for teachable moments or opportunities to incorporate appropriate mini-lessons about spelling into writing lessons (Gentry, 2004). A method frequently used in recent years, consist what Gentry (2004) calls “Fad Programs,” (p. 44). These programs are popular among teachers without a textbook or other spelling resource (i.e. a visualization technique). Although these techniques are new, they have little or no research base supporting their effectiveness. The final method is a “Teacher’s Choice” method for spelling instruction, frequently used among teachers. The teachers who implement this form of instruction combine any of the six other teaching methods, or simply come up with their own personal teaching technique. This is generally a default method used among teachers who have no resources or available training (Gentry, 2004). Spelling instruction is a very important aspect of the elementary school curriculum, regardless of how teachers implement its instruction in the classroom (Schlagal, 2003). Over the years, spelling has been taught both as a separate task in learning to read and write, and as a subject within the language arts curriculum (Bloodgood, 1991). Teachers need to know how to teach spelling in the elementary years because it is the most beneficial time to provide young students with knowledge and opportunities to strengthen the relationship between reading and writing skills (Bloodgood, 1991). 3 Statement of the Problem Even with the vast amount of spelling textbooks and other material aids available, many teachers are implementing an explicit word list approach or an approach that relies heavily on the use of a book to teach spelling. These methods are common among teachers with a traditional approach toward instruction. A teacher with a traditional approach sees value in a weekly routine of memorization, repeated drills, and spelling tests as a way to remember spelling words (Marten & Graves, 2003). Many of the spelling curricula used by teachers with a traditional approach are designed for students to take part in this exact routine. This weekly plan may be structured for the students, but isn’t a valuable way for students to learn how to spell. Bloodgood (1991), Matz (1994), Larson, Hammill, and Moats (1999), and Schlagal (2003) believe that memory is not a sufficient tool to make spelling meaningful and lasting. Memorizing words each week and completing drills may allow some students to be successful on weekly tests, but most students will forget the spelling of these words after Friday (Schlagal, 2003). It seems as though this teaching method tests the student’s ability to memorize rather than their ability to spell. Research Question The specific question to be investigated was: “How are second grade spelling scores impacted when spelling instruction is enhanced using different multiple intelligence activities?” Rationale Using activities for spelling that incorporate the multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983) should meet the needs of each child in the classroom. Hopper and Hurry (2000) explain that a multiple intelligences approach emphasizes the student’s exploration and understanding of his/her learning process. This method of teaching should support and develop each student’s strengths in learning to spell (Shearer, 2004). All students should be able to learn in ways that are 4 most beneficial for them as individuals (Sweet, 1998). All children possess the eight intelligences (Stanford, 2003) but may not have the same profile of strengths and weaknesses. According to Osburg (1995), “a multiple intelligence approach entails multiple entry points to important concepts so that learning opportunities are maximized for every child” (p. 16). Students who don’t have strength in strictly memorizing a list of words will have numerous ways to remember the patterns and spelling of their words instead. Because there are eight different intelligences, a wide variety of activities that include one or more intelligence can be taught throughout the year. It is important that the students identify their strengths and weakness when participating in these activities as well. Once the students recognize what works best for them, they can concentrate on maximizing their learning through one or more intelligence. Even though spelling is taught to every child, he/she does not have to learn in the exact same way. Definition of Terms This section is comprised of terms used in this research study. Intelligence- the ability to think and learn skills as well as apply them (Gardner, 1983). Multiple Intelligences- the several independent forms of human intelligence that exist according to Howard Gardner (1983). The intelligences include: linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, bodily kinesthetic, musical, naturalist, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Orthography- “the rules that govern how words are represented in writing” (Carreker, 2005, p. 265). Reformist View of Spelling- A teacher with a reformist approach does not rely on textbooks, memorization, drills, and tests to guide their instruction. He/She teaches students strategies to use when remembering words (Matz, 1994). 5 Spelling- the ability to form words by arranging letters in a proper order (Larson, Hammill, & Moats, 1999). Tactile Methods- relating to or used for the sense of touch (included in the bodily kinesthetic intelligence). Traditional View of Spelling- A teacher with a traditional approach to teaching spelling sees value in a weekly routine of memorization, repeated drills, and spelling tests, as a way to remember spelling words (Marten & Graves, 2003). In this specific study, the definition of traditional instruction is very similar to the definition of Marten & Graves. A traditional approach to spelling instruction in the three second grade classrooms consists of using a spelling series to guide instruction, memorizing a new list of words each week, completing word sorts, writing the words in isolation, writing words in sentences, completing proofreading or “solve the puzzle” worksheets, and giving the students a test at the end of the week. Types of Spelling Series- Blue-backed speller, McGuffey Reader, Basal Speller (Bloodgood, 1991). Delimitations This research study was designed to determine whether activities using the multiple intelligences positively impacted the spelling scores of second graders. It was not intended to replace the current traditional approach of spelling in the three second grade classrooms. The activities were implemented to enhance the student’s spelling abilities, giving them multiple ways to practice and study their spelling words each week. Because this study was only three weeks in duration, the students did not have time to complete activities in all eight areas of intelligence (Gardner, 1983). Each class only completed activities in two of the eight areas of intelligence. This may not have given the students the 6 opportunity to find activities or intelligences that were specifically helpful toward their ability to spell. The school chosen for participation in this research study was self-selected by the researcher according to the teachers’ spelling techniques. The school was located in a rural area. Limitations Although the school chosen for this research study had three second grade classrooms, only two of the three teachers taught spelling. Class B and C were taught by the same teacher because they switched for language arts and math instruction. The three classes were also not practicing the same list of words each week. Class A was two units ahead of Class B and C in the spelling series. Over the course of the three weeks, there were many students absent from the three classes. Some were absent for the spelling activities, and other students were absent on the day of the spelling test (see Appendix A for the attendance chart). In addition to daily absences, there was no school for the students at this particular elementary school on a particular day due to a teacher work day. Class B and C only received three activities during the second week of the research study instead of four. 7 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to review previous research regarding spelling instruction and the use of multiple intelligences in the classroom. This chapter is divided into ten sections that lay out important information for the design and purpose of this research study. The first section of this chapter begins by discussing the history of spelling. Research supports the spelling instruction that has been implemented over the years along with some specific techniques teachers used as well. This leads into the second section of the chapter, what spelling instruction looks like today in the classroom. This chapter explains the ways in which spelling has evolved and ways it has not changed since it was first introduced many years ago. The third section of the chapter deals with the ongoing controversy of spelling instruction. Research supports both sides of the debate between teachers and researchers on the best way to teach spelling in the classroom. Section four discusses the reasons why there is such controversy over spelling instruction. This section is comprised of statements and support for why spelling is so important during the elementary school years. The fifth section of this chapter discusses the stages of spelling development. There are four stages through which a child passes when learning and establishing awareness for spelling knowledge. This section discusses the stages and type of spelling that might occur from the child. Section six reviews the common misconceptions of spelling in the classroom. This section discusses reasons why spelling instruction may be unsuccessful in the classroom. The seventh section of this chapter introduces the theory of multiple intelligences. It describes how the theory originated, along with the eight different forms of human intelligence. The specific multiple intelligences chosen for this research study are also explained in this section. The reasons why multiple intelligences should be used in the classroom are discussed 8 and supported in section eight. The ninth section describes what the teacher can do in the elementary classroom when implementing multiple intelligence activities. The last section discusses various multiple intelligence activities, in the areas of bodily-kinesthetic (including tactile approaches), visual-spatial, musical, naturalist, and interpersonal, likely to be beneficial for students during spelling instruction. History of Spelling Instruction Spelling instruction has been in the elementary curriculum since 1783, when Noah Webster introduced the first Blue-Backed Speller (Bloodgood, 1991). This type of text, along with others such as the McGuffey Reader, taught pronunciation and grammar as well as spelling. These spelling texts included pronunciation and grammar because spelling was integrated into the language arts instruction. These early spellers contained word lists as long as 50 words for all of the students to memorize for weekly assessments. The lists were given to all students in a grade level regardless of developmental levels, and they were to be studied as a rote memorization task (Schlagal, 2003). Rote memorization was used as the study technique because it was assumed that the English language was too irregular to teach and would be best achieved through memorization. This technique led to the emphasis of teaching students to develop a memory for the spelling of words (Templeton & Morris, 2001). Spelling books, such as the basal speller, continued to be published in the 19th and 20th century, although many teachers were now starting to focus on spelling as a lesson separate from language arts. These spelling texts still offered long lists of words to be learned each week, but there were no common features among the selected words. Research on spelling instruction throughout the 20th century focused specifically on the issue of memorization, and the concern for using words with no commonality each week. The question was raised whether spelling 9 should be taught in context (i.e. during reading or writing instruction) or to continue using a list of words each week (Schlagal, 2003). It was soon accepted that words in lists were supported over teaching words in context (Templeton & Morris, 2001). Memorization continued to be the way in which to learn spelling. Researchers in the 20th century also wanted to compare the methods of study-test (i.e. study words during the week and take the test on Friday), and test-study-test assessment (i.e. take a pretest on Monday, study missed words during the week, and retest all the words Friday) that teachers used in the classroom. The test-study-test method of assessment was supported over the study-test routine (Templeton & Morris, 2001). Teachers implemented this approach as a way to study a list of words in the classroom. Schlagal (2003) states that “it wasn’t until the 1930s that educators began to organize spelling lists around words most frequently used in reading and writing” (p. 46). High frequency words make up about 98% of vocabulary words used by both students and adults in and out of school. Using high frequency words offered a better guarantee that the words students were given to spell would be ones they would need in other subject areas. Teachers also had more control over the difficulty of words in a list (i.e. word length). This seemed to be a more beneficial way to make multiple lists of words for the school year. During the 1930s and 1940s, new strategies to study high frequency words, involving memory, were developed. Some memory activities included writing the spelling words multiple times, closing the eyes to visualize the word into memory, and self-correcting misspelled words (Schlagal, 2003). The emphasis was still on memorizing, but there were a few ways in which to store high frequency words into short and long-term memory. 10 Even though high frequency words were beginning to make up spelling lists, the researchers in the 1950s brought much criticism toward the words used in basal spellers. Many argued that the words may have been screened for difficulty, but were not promoting orthographic generalizations. There were still no patterns or common features among the lists. Because of this criticism and research, creators of basal spellers began to design a more functioning spelling system that incorporated common characteristics in the word lists (Schlagal, 2003). For example, words may have been chosen for common letter-sound patterns (i.e. –at words). During this time period, the use of word lists in spelling texts was still supported over the use of spelling in context. After the 1950s and 1960s, word lists in spelling instruction were beginning to use curriculum-based spelling words each week (i.e. words incorporated into the content areas of science, social studies, and math) (Schlagal, 2003). These lists may have been challenging because they weren’t high frequency, but they were words necessary in other aspects of the school curriculum. Published spelling series and word lists have been continually used through the late 1900s. In a matter of 30 years, spelling lists have changed from using only high frequency words, to lists with common features or patterns, and finally to curriculum-based lists. They had been changed and modified several times depending on their frequency or usefulness, other content-based information, and patterns among the words selected. The test-study-test approach is continued in many classrooms as a way to assess students’ ability to spell words. Spelling is still often taught using word lists, although new approaches to instruction are being researched. 11 Spelling Instruction Today The methodology of spelling has not changed very much over the last few decades, but the specific activities and ways of implementing them in the classroom have. Teachers went from considering spelling simply as a tool or skill for writing, to recognizing that spelling offers much knowledge on what an individual knows about words. Instead of viewing spelling as a memorization task, more teachers are exploring spelling as a subject of instruction and as a linguistic task for reading and writing (Templeton & Morris, 2001). Westwood (1999) states, “A perspective is emerging now that a well-balanced combination of a direct instruction approach and incidental approach is required to ensure that all students have the opportunity to become proficient spellers” (p. 1). Spelling skills can be strengthened through both explicit activities or lessons, and authentic writing tasks in the classroom. Some teachers are also trying to teach their student strategies in which to use when learning to spell new words. Students should understand the importance of knowing how to learn the spelling of new words. Some strategies include mastering syllables in words, remembering visual appearances of words, utilizing the meaning of words, and comparing new words with words already taught (Gentry, 2004). Although some teachers are trying new ways to teach spelling, most teachers have not considered spelling an important aspect of linguistic processing. Public schools are still exhibiting limited enthusiasm toward spelling instruction (Templeton & Morris, 2001). Many teachers have resorted back to, or kept using, spelling lists and tests because they are unsure as to how to implement a better approach into the curriculum (Westwood, 1999). Johnston (2001) reports that in a survey given to 42 public classroom teachers, grades 2-5, 57% taught spelling through workbook exercises; 53% used pretests at the beginning of the week; 33% did activities that required the students to use the spelling words in a sentence; 29% of the teachers had their 12 students put their list of spelling words in alphabetical order; 29% had their students write their spelling words five times each, and 24% of teachers had their students look their words up in the dictionary. These teacher practices and traditional weekly cycles are still deeply ingrained in educational practices (Matz, 1994). The teachers who implement these weekly routines know that they should be doing more in the classroom. In the same study of 42 public classroom teachers, grades 2-5, Johnston reported that 74% said children today generally spell worse than children did in the past, and 73% didn’t feel spelling was adequately addressed in the school curriculum. The teacher must assume an active role in teaching his/her students to spell if he/she wants to see success. Many teachers today are still using a textbook to guide their spelling instruction in the classroom. According to Morris, Blanton, Blanton, and Perney (1995), “Textbooks are still a staple in the classroom, and traditionalists argue for continued use of spelling books in the elementary grades” (p. 146). The use of a textbook influences teacher instruction in the classroom. Morris, Blanton, Blanton, and Perney (1995) believe that “it is important for researchers and educators to understand how teachers use spelling books in the classroom and how the use of the books affects student achievement” (p. 146). Traditional methods may stem from a lack of knowledge that there can be alternative techniques in spelling instruction (Abbott, 2001). More attention needs to be given to developing a knowledge base in the content and application of a spelling curriculum (Templeton & Morris, 2001). Controversy of Spelling There has yet to be solid confirmation of the most effective way to teach spelling in the elementary classroom. Gentry (1987) states, “I can’t think of any subject we teach more poorly or harbor more myths about than spelling” (p. 12). Much research has been conducted, but over 13 the past several years, there has been considerable controversy among teachers and researchers regarding appropriate spelling instruction (Schlagal, 2003). The controversy of spelling instruction has been battled between teachers and researchers with a traditional view and those with a reformist view. The traditional view of a classroom teacher sees the importance of a weekly routine. A teacher with a traditional view will typically give his/her students a list of words at the beginning of the week, complete drills during the week, and give a test at the end of the week (Scott, 2000). Marten and Graves (2003) argue that, “Traditional spelling is more a rote routine than an engaging craft; the focus is on memorization, the word lists, the lessons, and the spelling tests” (p. 22). The lists that are given to students may have an overall common trait (i.e. homophones) but the words themselves must be memorized as separate items. Memorizing these words may help some students succeed on the Friday test, but many students will have lost the spelling of the words by Monday (Schlagal, 2003). If students cannot remember their spelling words on the Monday after their test, they will not be able to spell the words correctly when writing or putting the words to actual use. Quite often, teachers with a traditional view will rely heavily on the use of a spelling textbook as well. These spelling books are created for a specific grade level of instruction and are used regardless of the various needs of the students in the class (Schlagal, 2003). Not all students are at the same level developmentally, which can make it difficult for some students to complete the activities from a textbook or workbook (Larson, Hammill, & Moats, 1999). The methods or activities in a textbook or workbook provide little or no direction for students to practice and study for the end of the week test (Scott, 2000). A teacher with a reformist view would argue that traditional instruction is more assigning and testing spelling, than actual teaching (Marten & Graves, 2003). Marten and Graves (2003) 14 wonder whether teachers can say they are teaching spelling when they give a pretest on Monday, provide homework activities during the week, and give a final test on Friday. Although explicit spelling instruction should be provided in the classroom, students should not be completing isolated workbook activities and copying their words over and over (Thomas & Sullivan 1995). Schlagal (2003) agrees, “Activities like unscrambling words, translating them into secret codes, alphabetizing them, and looking them up in the dictionary are unlikely to promote orthographic learning” (p. 53). There are very few spelling textbooks that engage students in activities to help them perceive, manipulate, or become familiar with the orthographic generalizations illustrated in the weekly word lists (Schlagal, 2003). A teacher with a reformist view also believes that students should not be tested on words for which they have no immediate use. Many of the words from a textbook or commercially made word list are usually words that are of little use outside of spelling. These words can be easily forgotten if they don’t have a purpose in other activities or lessons. Gathering words from other content areas, such as math, science, social studies, and language arts, will benefit the students because the words will be used in contexts outside the subject of spelling (Matz, 1994). The students will then encounter the words, the spelling of the word, and the meaning of the word multiple times during the week. Teachers with a reformist view on spelling instruction want to help children become proficient spellers by providing them with strategies in remembering the words, and by giving opportunities to use those strategies in many ways (Matz, 1994). Reformists don’t want to rely on textbooks, workbook activities, rote memorization, and spelling tests to guide their weekly instruction. Bloodgood (1991) says, “Students really know words when they internalize them through repeated use and they explore or test the underlying rules of how words work” (p. 206). 15 Reformers are having difficulty finding the most efficient approach to spelling instruction though. According to Bloodgood (1991), “The ostensibly ‘tried and true’ approach to spelling clearly isn’t working, but there are currently no viable alternatives” (p. 203). Johnston (2001) concludes, “While classroom teachers, like other educators and researchers, will probably never reach consensus about the best way to teach spelling, they do need clear understandings of how to create and/or implement spelling programs that meet the wide range of student needs” (p. 154). Importance of Spelling Regardless of the teaching style or instructional technique, spelling is an extremely important aspect of the school curriculum, especially in language arts. Acquiring spelling knowledge in kindergarten, first and second grade opens the door to early literacy and beginning reading (Gentry, 1997). When young children begin to learn the letters of the alphabet and the sounds each letter makes, they are acquiring knowledge of the alphabetic system, as well as knowledge they can use toward spelling words. By using this letter-sound knowledge to form words, despite the fact they may initially spell words incorrectly, children are spelling (Gentry, 1997). Students need to know how to spell words to communicate their ideas in written language (Thomas & Sullivan, 1995). Gentry (1997) explains, “Spelling is a tool for writing. The purpose of learning to spell is so that writing may become easier, more fluent, more expressive, and more easily read and understood by others” (p. 1). Whenever a word is written, the sounds, syllables, letter patterns, and meaningful associations of the word are retrieved (Larson, Hammill, & Moats, 1999). Once children are comfortable writing and communicating words, they can begin to read those words as well. Graham, Harris, and Chorzempa (2003) believe, “Learning about 16 spelling can enhance children’s reading development, especially their ability to pronounce words correctly and decode unknown words” (p. 66). The skills required for learning to spell, read, and write are all interrelated (Abbott, 2001). Spelling can and should be taught as an interesting task that strengthens those relationships among reading, writing, and vocabulary knowledge (Bloodgood, 1991). The ultimate goal of spelling instruction, beyond teaching patterns and rules of English, is to create enthusiasm for language (Carreker, 2005). Spelling as a Developmental Process Carreker (2005) suggests, “To understand the vital role spelling plays in learning to read, it is important to understand how spelling develops” (p. 259). Spelling is developed at a young age through a series of four stages, which is why spelling instruction is critical in a child’s first few years of elementary school. If children aren’t developing spelling strategies and gaining knowledge of words, they will run into reading and writing difficulties as they advance into higher grade levels (Carreker, 2005). Before children actually begin writing or spelling around the age of three and four, they draw pictures to represent their thoughts or to convey meaning. These pictures are typically drawn randomly on a page with no order or sequence (Carreker, 2005). Children are usually able to understand what their drawings say though, regardless of the organization. At this time, children are also learning how to spell their names, sing the alphabet song, and recite rhymes (Gentry, 2004). These techniques or activities help prepare young children for the first stage in spelling development. When children eventually begin to differentiate between writing and drawing, at the age of five or six, they are in the first stage of spelling development. This first stage of spelling is the 17 pre-phonetic or pre-alphabetic stage. In this stage of development, children scribble or write forms that look similar to letters and numbers. Sometimes children will write letters they know (i.e. letters of their name) spontaneously in their writing as well. They understand what writing looks like, but they don’t know the concepts of print yet. Children may not leave spaces in between their words, write in a left to right progression, or know how long a word should be. It isn’t until a child understands that letters represent sounds that he/she emerges into the second stage of spelling development (Carreker, 2005). When children begin to understand the letter/sound relationship, they are in the semiphonetic stage (Gentry, 2004). Children realize that the sounds they hear in oral language can be represented in print. Young children will begin using letters of the alphabet in their writing, but will only write one letter per syllable (Carreker, 2005). For example, a child may write “nf” for the word enough, or “b” for the word bee. However, as children become even more aware of letter sounds, they reach the third stage of development. This stage is called the phonetic stage and usually occurs at the age of six or seven (Carreker, 2005; Gentry, 2004). Children in this stage have mastered the alphabetic principle because they recognize that each individual letter has at least one sound. They continue to write words, now being able to write one letter for each sound they hear (mostly consonants), and the children are able to write in a left to right progression (Carreker, 2005). Words may still run together though, as if there are no boundaries on the page. Children who can understand and grasp the concept of phonics, move into a transitional stage of spelling. Children in this stage incorporate more vowels in their writing and demonstrate knowledge of spelling patterns (Carreker, 2005). Children at the age of seven or eight can use chunks or groups of letters to write words (i.e. CVC patterns, or short and long vowel patterns) 18 (Gentry, 2004). Although children master skills in the transitional stage of spelling, they are constantly gaining new knowledge about spelling as the words, patterns, and principles get more difficult (Gentry, 1987). The concepts and strategies of spelling become more automatic as children progress up through eighth grade (Gentry, 2004). The more experiences children have with print at a young age, the more successful they will be with reading and spelling in the future. Common Myths about Spelling Many teachers have misperceived the goals and importance of spelling development in the classroom. Gentry (1987) believes that “because of ignorance, misunderstanding, and poor teaching methods, myths about spelling are lived out daily in thousands of classrooms” (p. 7). Harboring these myths about spelling instruction can interfere with the student’s process of learning to spell. A very common myth among many teachers is that good spellers memorize a lot of information and can master a lot of rules. Memorizing a list of words may help complete short-term assignments, or assessments, but it does not allow a student to become a good speller. Good spellers find strategies that work best for them, and they can apply that knowledge when writing (Gentry, 1987). Good spellers don’t try and learn every spelling rule either. They find rules that work to their benefit to succeed. Another myth about spelling is that good spellers have to do hundreds of spelling book exercises and receive 100% on spelling tests (Gentry, 1987). The amount of time students spend on these tedious drills would be more valuable if they could complete activities in which they applied their spelling knowledge. Too many workbook activities can actually cause children to apply desperate measures when completing them (Schlagal, 2003). They will do anything to get them finished as soon as possible. Doing well on spelling tests also doesn’t necessarily mean that 19 children are good spellers (Gentry, 1987). There are many children who can apply and use a lot of spelling strategies, but are nervous test-takers. These spelling tests don’t always represent a complete and accurate picture of a child’s ability. The last common myth that many teachers portray in the classroom is that spelling errors should not be tolerated (Gentry, 1987). Teachers often reduce grades or make corrections on students’ papers, which can send the wrong message to students. According to Gentry, “Making errors is natural for learning to spell. Spelling errors should be expected and encouraged as students try to invent and modify their spelling” (p. 9). Students should be expected to correctly spell what they’ve already mastered developmentally, but should also be allowed to make mistakes when spelling and writing new words. Multiple Intelligences More than 20 years ago, a psychologist named Howard Gardner challenged the common view of intelligence and came up with his own theory known as multiple intelligences. The theory states that each individual has the capacity for several intellectual competences. Gardner (1983) believes, “there exist some intelligences, that these are relatively independent of one another, and that they can be fashioned and combined in a multiplicity of adaptive ways by individuals and cultures” (p. 9). Gardner’s theory is concerned with the differences in the process of learning (Silver, Strong, & Perini, 1997), which is why intelligence should not be viewed or tested as one whole piece, but as specific components (Gardner, 1983). Every individual has talents and weaknesses that can be categorized into eight different characteristic groups. These various groups or intelligences Gardner found include linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal, interpersonal, and naturalist. Each area of intelligence is broken into further detail to describe what the eight intelligences encompass individually. 20 Linguistic Intelligence The linguistic intelligence relates closely to the skills involved in written and oral language. Shearer (2004) explains, “The core features of linguistic intelligence include the ability to use words effectively for reading, writing, and speaking. Linguistic skills are important for providing explanations, descriptions, and expressiveness” (p. 4). Many individuals with strength in the linguistic intelligence have the ability to write poetry, or write with expression (Gardner, 1983). Gardner believes poets and other talented writers have a keen sense of semantics (meaning of words), phonology (sounds of words), pragmatics (uses of language), and syntax (rules of language) to craft their unique words and ideas. Another component of the linguistic intelligence is verbal memory. “The ability to retain information like lengthy verbal lists is another form of linguistic intelligence” (Gardner, 1983, p. 92). Because of this memory strength, words come easy to someone with strength in the linguistic intelligence. The flow of ideas is constant because they have so many words in their verbal memory. Regardless of the specific area of strength, emphasis is placed both on the written word and oral language in the linguistic intelligence (Gardner, 1983). Musical Intelligence The intelligence that emerges earlier among individuals than any other intelligence is musical talent. Shearer (2004) explains, “Musical intelligence includes sensitivity to pitch (melody), rhythm, and timbre (tone quality) and the emotional aspects of sound as pertaining to the functional areas of musical appreciation, singing, and playing an instrument” (p. 4). To have strength in the musical intelligence, individuals must have auditory abilities as well (Gardner, 1983). These auditory abilities not only allow individuals to hear and make music, they also permit the individual to remember the music experience. Gardner explains, “The musical mind is 21 concerned with tonal memory. A great percentage of what is heard becomes submerged in the unconscious and is subject to literal recall” (p. 102). Music is often incorporated into other intelligence strengths because of the memory component. Composers and performers are examples of individuals with a musical strength. Logical-Mathematical Intelligence Another form of human intellect is the logical-mathematical intelligence. Shearer (2004) says the “logical mathematical intelligence involves skill in calculations as well as logical reasoning and problem solving” (p. 4). Mathematicians are not the only individuals with strengths in this intelligence. Any individual whom is able to calculate rapidly, estimate, complete arithmetic problems, understand or reason the relationships among numbers, solve patterns or complete orderings, and read calendars or other notational systems has a strength in this intelligence (Gardner, 1983). Visual-Spatial Intelligence Spatial intelligence is sometimes referred to as visual-spatial intelligence. This intelligence encompasses the abilities to represent the world through mental images and artistic expression (Shearer, 2004). Gardner (1983) claims, “Central to spatial intelligence are the capacities to perceive the visual world accurately, to perform transformations and modifications upon one’s initial perceptions, and to be able to re-create aspects of one’s visual experience, even in the absence of relevant physical stimuli” (p. 173). There are many professions or individuals who need strength in the spatial intelligence. For example, a sailor needs to be able to navigate his boat through the spatial world; an architect has to utilize a specific amount of space to construct a building, and a quarterback has to be able to approximate how far away the receivers 22 are on the football field (Checkley, 1997). This intelligence deals with the objects and space encountered on a daily basis. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence A very active intelligence for individuals is the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. Shearer (2004) explains, “The kinesthetic intelligence highlights the ability to use one’s body (or parts of the body) in differentiated ways for both expressive (dance, acting) and goal-directed activities (athletics)” (p. 5). Dancers and swimmers for example develop mastery in moving their bodies in specific ways. There are also individuals who are able to manipulate objects with great skill, such as baseball players and instrumentalists. All individuals with a bodily-kinesthetic strength use their muscles to control their body movements, have hand-eye coordination, and are able to manipulate objects in the environment to complete a task or get a message across (Gardner, 1983). Intrapersonal Intelligence There are two intelligences that relate to an individual’s sense of self. The first personal intelligence deals with the internal aspects of an individual. It is known as the intrapersonal intelligence. Shearer (2004) explains, “Vital functions of intrapersonal intelligence include accurate self-appraisal, goal setting, self-monitoring or correction, and emotional selfmanagement” (p. 6). If an individual has intrapersonal strengths, he/she is able to understand who he/she is as a person, what his/her abilities are, how he/she reacts to things, and what he/she wants to do in life (Checkley, 1997). These individuals can make decisions and guide their own behavior without consulting other people. 23 Interpersonal Intelligence The second intelligence dealing with people and a sense of self is interpersonal. The interpersonal intelligence, as opposed to intrapersonal intelligence, deals with the ability to understand other people. Shearer (2004) states, “interpersonal intelligence promotes success in managing relationships with other people. Its two central skills are the ability to notice and make distinctions among other individuals and the ability to recognize the emotions, moods, perspectives, and motivations of people” (p. 6). Any individual working with other people on a daily basis, such as teachers, doctors, policemen, or sales people need to be skilled in this intelligence to be successful in his/her workplace (Checkley, 1997). It would be rather difficult for some individuals to work with someone they could not understand or with whom they could not relate. Naturalist Intelligence Many years after Gardner wrote his book, Frames of Mind, he found another form of intelligence. Gardner’s eighth human intellect is the naturalist intelligence. Shearer (2004) explains, “A person strong in the naturalist intelligence displays empathy, recognition, and understanding for living and natural things (plants, animals, geology)” (p. 6). There are many careers that require naturalist skills, such as farmers, scientists, geologists, and individuals whom observe natural behaviors (Shearer, 2004). Although there are many careers that need strength in the naturalist intelligence, many individuals can possess strength in this intelligence by simply understanding and appreciating the natural world. Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom When dealing with multiple intelligences, no two individuals have the same intellectual strengths and abilities. Stanford (2003) reports, “Each person has capacities in all eight 24 intelligences, but the eight intelligences function together in ways unique to each person” (p. 80). Knowing and understanding the unique ways in which the eight intelligences work together can be very beneficial for individuals. Gardner (1983) finds it very important to “identify an individual’s intellectual profile of abilities at a young age and then draw upon this knowledge to enhance that person’s educational opportunities and options” (p. 10). Once teachers recognize the profiles of their students’ abilities, they can consider developing ways to incorporate opportunities for every student to reach success. Since Gardner’s book (1983) was published, educators have been discussing enthusiastic ways to consider using multiple intelligences in the classroom (Osburg, 1995). By adopting the use of multiple intelligences in the classroom, and having a multiple intelligence perspective on content instruction, teachers may see a profound difference in their teaching style, curriculum as a whole, and the organization of their classroom (Shearer, 2004). Once teachers can really view the different forms of human intellect, they will have more effective ways of educating the students in the classroom (Gardner, 1983). Using multiple intelligences for instruction in the classroom is an effective tool that can help achieve educational goals as well (Hopper & Hurray, 2000). Because there are eight intellectual competencies in the brain, teachers can incorporate several new and different ways of approaching tasks using one or even a combination of multiple intelligences. Multiple intelligence strategies are also an excellent way for motivating students and for allowing changes to be made in the way children learn (Hopper & Hurray, 2000). Multiple intelligence strategies for instruction should focus on the strengths of each individual child’s learning process. Sweet (1998) states, “allowing students to use their knowledge about how they learn best can increase their enthusiasm, raise their achievement levels, and foster growth in their 25 other intelligences” (p. 50). When a teacher’s focus is centered on what the students need to succeed, learning will be optimized for the whole class (Nolen, 2003). Hopper and Hurray (2000) believe, “One of the key strengths of using multiple intelligences in education is the emphasis it places on the individual” (p. 28). Every child can succeed in the presence of multiple intelligences. The multiple intelligence theory can promise that the unique profiles of each student will be recognized, supported, and developed (Shearer, 2004). Teachers and Multiple Intelligences Lash (2004) states, “In order to assist our children in getting the most from their learning experiences, we first must identify the areas of intelligence in which each child excels” (p. 14). As educators observe the students in their learning environment, they need to ask themselves if they see their students demonstrating specific intelligences in the classroom. Instead of organizing the curriculum around the multiple intelligences, teachers need to organize their instruction around their specific students (Hatch, 1997). No one set of multiple intelligence strategies will work best for every student in the class because all students have different strengths and weaknesses in the eight intelligences (Stanford, 2003). Even if students display similar strengths in a particular intelligence, they may not reach success in the same way (Hatch, 1997). Teachers may have to adjust the instructional strategies they use throughout the day to fully incorporate a multiple intelligence perspective and meet the needs of each individual student (Nolen, 2003). Along with adjusting instructional strategies, Stanford believes that “instructors should shift their intelligence emphasis from presentation to presentation, so there will be time during a day when a student’s most highly developed intelligence is actively involved in learning” (p. 82). 26 Teachers should not only provide opportunities for each child to learn among his/her multiple intelligence strengths, but also help students see their fullest potential in using different intelligences or a combination of intelligences (Sweet, 1998). Some students may not know what strategies work best for them. Teachers can ask students how they enjoy learning, or give them a chance to experiment with the variety of intelligences. By pursuing different activities and challenging students to use different intelligences, the students will gain confidence and develop mastery in intelligences they’ve never explored (Hatch, 1997). Educators should constantly teach and model methods that allow students to capitalize on their dominant intelligence areas, while strengthening the weaker areas as well (Lash, 2004). Not all students will improve greatly in all areas of intelligence, but over time, students can better understand how they learn with guidance from the teacher (Checkley, 1997). Multiple Intelligence and Spelling Spelling instruction is typically taught and reinforced using the intrapersonal, linguistic, and logical-mathematical intelligences (Nicholson-Nelson, 1998). Some activities that focus on these three intelligences are: word sorts, writing words in sentences, word games (i.e. hangman or word searches), memorization of words, looking words up in the dictionary, writing words numerous times, and putting words in alphabetical order. These activities are usually completed individually (i.e. intrapersonal intelligence) either during class or for homework. Students who have strength in these multiple intelligence areas are able to succeed without much difficulty, while other students need to draw on their own strengths to master spelling (Nicholson-Nelson). To reach all students in the area of spelling, educators should incorporate a range of activities in all the multiple intelligence areas. 27 Armstrong (2003) suggests there are a number of activities that actively use manipulatives or creative body movements in remembering specific word orders or consonantvowel patterns. These activities mainly focus on the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. Some of these activities include: (a) spelling a word out loud while bouncing a ball or jumping rope, (b) spelling a word out loud while standing up whenever a consonant appears, and sitting down whenever a vowel appears, (c) spelling a word using a series of pantomimed gestures representing the letters, (d) spelling a word using alphabet blocks or plastic materials, (e) spelling a word using blue chips for vowels and red chips for consonants, and (f) write a word very large on the floor using tape and allow students to read the word with their feet. Many students find strength in these activities because they are actively involved in spelling the words (Armstrong). According to Armstrong (2003) learning the visual patterns in words is important for spelling success as well. Tactile methods have been used for many years to combine the two senses of visually seeing a word and touching the word simultaneously. Some tactile activities include: (a) tracing words on textural material (sandpaper, silk), (b) making words out of pipe cleaners, twine, string, or chains (students can paste permanently or reshape into new words), (c) write words in finger paint, pudding, whipped cream, or other messy medium, (d) manipulating block letter shapes, (e) writing words in dirt, sand, or impressionable material, and (f) building words with clay or play dough (Armstrong). Armstrong states, “There really is no end to developing ways for the visual shapes of words to be tied to their physical ‘feel’” (p. 29). Armstrong (2003) believes students may learn how to spell words using a visual approach without having to touch or feel the word at the same time. Armstrong indicates, “the reading process begins when the eye sends information about the visual forms of the markings on the page to the cortex in the brain” (p. 41). Some words make it easy for students to recognize 28 their shape. The word monkey has a tail (i.e. “y”) at the end, and the word look has two eyes (i.e. “oo”) in the middle looking at the reader. On the other hand though, many children can naturally associate pictures with words they read even if they are not drawn on the paper. For example, if a child reads the word car, he/she may picture in his/her mind the car his/her mom or dad drives at home. Activities involving the visual-spatial intelligence are especially helpful for beginning readers. According to Armstrong, some of these activities include: (a) turning letters and words into pictures (i.e. an “S” can be a snake) to remember some aspect of its meaning, (b) use a Words in Color approach (each phoneme in the English language is given a particular color), (c) use a few favorite colors to highlight or trace over words a few times, (d) use colored backgrounds when writing words on paper, (e) create a doodle diary with pictures or images for each spelling word, and (f) integrate writing with art where students can create word-image projects (i.e. letter sponges used to stamp the word on paper). Visual images allow students to remember words without having to strictly memorize. Music is a fun and beneficial way for students to learn sounds and words. Armstrong (2003) argues that “we get so focused on teaching students the meaning and spelling of words that we don’t take time to help students sit back and just savor the delicious flavors of the sounds of words” (p. 60). Student will begin to show interest in letter sounds and the flow of words when teachers approach words with rhythm and melody. A few activities that can assist teachers with spelling include: (a) teach spelling words to the sound of music (i.e. any 7-letter words go along with the song “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star”, any 6-letter word goes with “Happy Birthday”), (b) spell words rhythmically to background music or to percussion instrument sounds created by the class, (c) use tongue twisters, poems, or chants to reinforce phonemes, (d) create a song or rap from the week’s spelling list, and (e) clap or tap out rhythms of each spelling word 29 (Armstrong). Armstrong states, “Studies suggest that words and music do have important connections in the brain that can facilitate the processing of language and literacy activities” (p. 58). Armstrong (2003) argues that although words don’t tweet like birds or blow like the wind outdoors, words have a relationship with nature. When students begin to acquire literacy skills, and start to learn new spelling words, they relate to the natural world around them. For example, phonemes can be introduced and compared to sounds made in nature (i.e. Are there any creatures in nature that make this sound? An owl says Hoooo! Can you think of an animal that has a name starting with the “Ba” sound?). There are many words (i.e. usually onomatopoetic: buzz, splash) that can be associated with nature as well. (Where would you hear a splash?). Some spelling activities that put emphasis on nature include: (a) walking outside the school building to create words or sounds found in nature, (b) discussing word “roots” (i.e. ambu can be found in ambulance or ambulatory), (c) observing nature to find things that form the letters of the week’s spelling words and draw them on paper (i.e. tree branches, clouds, playground equipment), (d) using natural things to create spelling words (i.e. sticks, leaves, rocks), and (e) writing a nature haiku using the week’s spelling words (Armstrong, 2003). Students will be able to generate a wide variety of associations with nature (i.e. animals or organisms, plants, and nonliving things), which will help them in remembering their spelling words. Although many traditional spelling activities are completed individually, there’s much to be learned from peers during social interaction. Armstrong (2003) believes, “Research suggests that children are more likely to develop literacy skills through close friendships than through distant relationships” (p. 98). Some ways to make spelling a social event include: (a) give each student a letter from a spelling word (mix them up) and have the class arrange themselves in the 30 correct order to make the spelling words, (b) form letters of the alphabet with groups of students (i.e. three children lie on the ground to make an “A”), (c) students become experts on one or two spelling words, and then assemble groups with experts in all words. The experts will describe and teach ways in which they remember the spelling word/s to their group members, (d) create pen pals within the class, so the students have to write a letter to them using the spelling words, and (e) give each student a phoneme, then signal the students to walk around the room and find all the other students that form a spelling word. Students will master their spelling words if they incorporate them into their social world (Armstrong, 2003). Summary The teaching methods and ways of assessing students’ ability to spell have not drastically improved over the past several years. The immense amount of research on spelling supports that there is still no best way to teach spelling in the classroom. Teachers continue to support their beliefs on the most efficient practices, although the various spelling activities and instructional approaches used among many of these teachers are proven to be unsuccessful and ineffective toward student achievement. Teachers should consider doing activities in the classroom that focus on the different intelligences and strengths of the individual students, and not rely entirely on the traditional approaches previously stated in the chapter (i.e. memorization, writing words numerous times, solving word puzzles, and putting words in alphabetical order). Some students may be successful at these types of activities, but many children struggle with the end of the week assessments on a regular basis. By giving students the opportunity to do activities using the multiple intelligences, they can find strategies and activities that are beneficial to them as learners. It is necessary for all teachers to understand the importance of spelling, and its instruction in the classroom, because it is one of the many developmental processes every child 31 goes through. Without engaging spelling instruction, students will have a hard time succeeding with spelling as they progress through the upper grades. 32 CHAPTER III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES This study was designed to determine whether spelling activities incorporating the multiple intelligences positively impacted second grade spelling test scores. Research indicated that using multiple intelligences in the classroom gave students an opportunity to explore and understand their own learning processes (Hopper & Hurry, 2000). Understanding the ways in which learning occurs can allow students to practice and study their spelling words in a variety of ways. Most teachers incorporate activities that only focus on the intrapersonal, linguistic, and logical mathematical intelligence (Nicholson-Nelson, 1998). Every student in the classroom shouldn’t be expected to succeed at memorizing a list of words, playing word games, and completing drills each week though because these activities don’t help most students understand how words are spelled (Bloodgood, 1991). Many students have strengths in other areas of learning, which can be more closely examined during activities that focus on the different intelligences. Using a multiple intelligences approach to teach spelling in the classroom should provide teachers with the opportunity to implement a wide range of activities. Nolen (2003) states, “all of the intelligences are a better way for teachers to accommodate different learning styles in the classroom” (p. 119). The spelling activities using the multiple intelligences included in this research study not only benefit the education of the students, but they may have been more enjoyable than the traditional approach to weekly spelling instruction. Scott (2000) believes that for many students and language teachers, “spelling is a ‘necessary’ but altogether disliked component of the school curriculum” (p. 67). The ability to spell is a much sought after, but frequently unattained outcome of instruction (Larson, Hammill, & Moats, 1999), which may be why students and teachers have a lack of enthusiasm toward this language arts component 33 (Carreker, 2005). Because of the variety and diverse range of activities, the three-week instruction plan for the research study encouraged students to find the activities that worked best for them, and worked toward positively impacting their spelling test scores. Methods Research Design This research study was set up as a three-group comparative design. The purpose of this design was to be able to compare the effectiveness of the multiple intelligence spelling activities in three second grade classrooms. Each of the three classes rotated being the control group, which allowed the data from the classrooms with additional activities to be compared with the data from the classroom with only traditional activities. Subjects The three second-grade classrooms were selected for this study according to the spelling instruction in the classroom. The teachers in these classrooms had a traditional view of teaching spelling. A teacher with a traditional approach may utilize a spelling textbook or published spelling series for instruction, and use traditional strategies for practice throughout the course of the week. Traditional activities may include writing the spelling words in sentences, writing the spelling words numerous times, putting spelling words in alphabetical order, playing word games, or memorizing the entire spelling list (Schlagal, 2003). The particular school chosen for this research study used the spelling series Spell ItWrite. A typical week of spelling usually consisted of (a) giving the new list of words Monday and doing one or more of the following: discussing patterns, writing words out one time each, and completing a word sort, (b) doing an activity on Tuesday that required the students to unscramble the spelling words or solve a puzzle, (c) giving the students a homework assignment 34 Wednesday night that involved a game activity or completing a writing activity in class (i.e. writing the words in alphabetical order), (d) giving the students a worksheet to complete on Thursday that involved either proofreading, writing the missing word in a sentence, or writing the spelling words using the “Write, Cover, Check” method, and (e) playing a game, such as “Sparkle” on Friday before taking the unit test. Second grade students were chosen for this study because it is a typical age in which formal spelling is taught. At this age, the students are developmentally ready for the process of spelling. Three different classrooms were selected to compare the quantitative data (i.e. spelling test scores) each week. All three classrooms were chosen from one elementary school so the demographic information and range of ability levels was consistent. After examining writing samples from the second grade classrooms, these students seemed to be in the beginning-middle of the last stage of spelling development (i.e. transitional stage) (Carreker, 2005). The students were between the age of seven and eight, and were able to demonstrate knowledge of patterns or the use of groups of letters to represent words. Most of the students also used vowels in their writing. These students had knowledge of the concepts of print (i.e. writing in a left to right progression, leaving spaces in between words) which was also very important. There were 18 students in each of the three classrooms, all of whom were able to participate in doing the spelling activities. In class A there were 7 females and 11 males; class B had 8 females and 10 males, and there were 10 females and 8 males in class C. There were only two children identified as minority, one in class A and one in class B. The rest of the students in class A, B and C were Caucasian. Many of the students came from low–middle class families, 35 although a few of the students came from middle-high class backgrounds. The elementary school where these students attended was in a rural area. Instrumentation For this research study, five of the eight multiple intelligences were chosen to give second grade students various opportunities to be successful on their spelling tests. The five intelligences chosen were: bodily kinesthetic (including tactile activities), musical, naturalist, visual-spatial, and interpersonal. By focusing and integrating different spelling activities around these five intelligences, the second grade students learned in a variety ways (Silver, Strong, & Perini, 1997). There were many materials necessary for this study to implement the different activities using the multiple intelligences. Some of the materials were brought in, while others were already in the second grade classrooms. For the tactile activities, wikki sticks, sandpaper, felt, and play dough were necessary to complete the planned activities. Musical instruments, background music, rhymes, and songs were used for the musical activities. Kinesthetic activities needed letter mats, jump ropes, and a rubber ball to bounce. The naturalist activities needed materials found in nature, such as sticks, rocks, leaves, and sand. The materials required for visual/spatial activities were markers, crayons, alphabet stamps, and alphabet stencils. The last instrument or material necessary for this research study was the actual spelling assessment given at the end of each week. This assessment was created and given by the classroom teachers, which consisted of spelling each word one time (See Appendix B for the list of spelling words for Class A; see Appendix C for the list of spelling words for Class B, and see Appendix D for the list of spelling words for Class C). The end-of-the-week assessments were analyzed to measure differences among the three classes. 36 Procedures A three-week calendar of activities was designed to focus on five of the eight multiple intelligences during spelling instruction (see Appendix E). The five intelligences chosen for further application were musical, kinesthetic, tactile (included in the kinesthetic intelligence), visual-spatial, naturalist, and interpersonal. The three multiple intelligences that were not implemented into the three-week study were intrapersonal, linguistic, and logical-mathematical because they are typically used throughout the week for traditional spelling instruction (Nicholson-Nelson, 1998). Teachers usually apply linguistic and logical techniques, tools, or strategies when teaching spelling in the classroom (Stanford, 2003). This specific research though intended to study the significance of activities uncommonly used in the traditional classroom. The first week of this research study focused on the tactile intelligence in one classroom and the musical intelligence in another. The classroom with tactile activities wrote their words in shaving cream on Monday, used wikki (wax) sticks to spell words on a flat surface on Tuesday, traced words written on sandpaper and felt to spell their words on Wednesday, and made the spelling words out of play dough on Thursday. The classroom with musical activities, on the other hand, clapped and tapped out the letters as words were spelled on Monday, used instruments to play the rhythm of the words spelled aloud on Tuesday, sang songs that went with the length of their words (i.e. 3 letter words go with the song “3 Blind Mice”) on Wednesday, and recited songs using the weekly spelling words on Thursday (i.e. “Five Little Letters Jumping on the Bed”) (see Appendix E for the calendar). The second week of spelling activities focused on the bodily kinesthetic and naturalist intelligence. The classroom with bodily kinesthetic activities spelled their words out loud (sitting 37 when a vowel was said and standing when a consonant was said) on Tuesday, leaped to and from letter mats on the ground to spell their words on Wednesday, and spelled each word out loud while jumping rope or bouncing a ball on Thursday. The classroom with naturalist activities drew words in a tray of sand on Tuesday, found things outside that formed the letters of the words (i.e. tree branches, playground equipment, clouds) on Wednesday, and used things in the outside environment to spell words (i.e. sticks, leaves, or rocks) on Thursday (see Appendix E for the calendar). Lastly, the third week of spelling activities highlighted the visual-spatial and interpersonal intelligences. The classroom with visual-spatial activities decorated their spelling words and the shapes they made on Monday, traced over their spelling words using three favorite colors of the rainbow on Tuesday, used words to form word snakes on Wednesday, and used alphabet stamps and alphabet stencils to create the words on Thursday. The classroom with interpersonal activities completed activities with other peers in the class. On Monday, the students were given a letter card and they had to make the words with others in the class. Tuesday, the students made body formations to spell the words. On Wednesday, the students traced letters on a partner’s palm, while the partner had to guess the word with his/her eyes closed. Finally, the students wrote a secret pen pal note to a peer in the class using the spelling words (see Appendix E for the calendar). This calendar of activities was implemented in only two of the three second-grade classrooms each week. To compare among the three classes, there was one control classroom that received only the traditional spelling instruction from the classroom teacher. The two conditioned classrooms completed the calendar of activities, as well as received the traditional spelling instruction from the classroom teacher. The classes rotated so there was a different 38 control classroom each week. No two classes had the same multiple intelligence activities in order to compare the impact of each of the five intelligences (see Table 1 for schedule). See Table 2 for a general schedule of spelling activities in the control classroom. 39 Table 1 Three week schedule of control and conditioned classrooms Week #1 Traditional Instruction + Tactile Activities Week #2 Traditional Instruction Week #3 Traditional Instruction + Interpersonal Activities Class B Traditional Instruction + Musical Activities Traditional Instruction + Naturalist Activities Traditional Instruction Class C Traditional Instruction Traditional Instruction + Kinesthetic Activities Traditional Instruction + Visual-Spatial Activities Class A 40 Table 2 General schedule of spelling activities in the control classroom Monday -list of words is given to the students -patterns are discussed -words are written one time each -word sorts completed Tuesday -activity involving unscrambling the spelling words -solve the mystery puzzle activity Wednesday -writing activity using the spelling words -homework assignment given (i.e. a game to complete) Thursday -complete various worksheets -proofreading -choose a word to complete the sentence -write, cover, check method used on dry erase boards Friday -play sparkle -test is given (write each word one time) 41 Data Collection All three second grade classes took the spelling test at the end of the week given by the classroom teacher, regardless if they were a control or conditioned classroom. The tests were scored according to how the classroom teacher scores every other spelling test (i.e. number of words spelled correctly). The test scores were collected from each classroom teacher on Friday of each week. Data Analysis On Friday of each week, spelling tests were given to the students. The scores from these spelling tests were collected from all three classrooms. The tests scores from each classroom were analyzed each week. The scores represented the students’ overall ability to spell a specific list of words. The first means of data analysis for each class was calculating the mean, median, mode, and range among the test scores. The mean was the average score attained in each specific classroom. The median was the score that fell exactly in the middle of the range of scores; the mode was the score that was achieved most often among the students, and the range was the difference between the lowest and highest score among the students in each class. After the mean, median, mode, and range were calculated for each class, an analysis of variance was conducted. This analysis of variance, or ANOVA, is a statistic that measures the significant difference in scores among two or more groups. This statistic was used to determine whether there was a significant difference among the test scores in the control and two conditioned classrooms. A similar procedure (finding the mean, median, and mode, along with analyzing the variance) was completed three different times. The scores were analyzed and examined at the 42 end of each week to determine whether the activities using the multiple intelligences impacted the spelling scores in any way. Summary This investigation focused on incorporating activities using the tactile, kinesthetic, visualspatial, naturalist, musical, and interpersonal intelligences into spelling instruction. Because young students are in the middle of their spelling development, second grade students were chosen for the study. In designing the study, three separate classrooms of second graders were also chosen, so the data collected at the end of each week could be compared across all three classes. Only two of the three classes received the additional spelling activities though, allowing the test scores to be compared with a control class. The scores for each end-of-the-week assessment were collected and analyzed from each of the three classrooms to determine whether there was a statistical difference among spelling test scores. 43 CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The purpose of this study was to determine if spelling activities using the multiple intelligences enhanced the spelling scores of second grade students. The data used in this study was taken from the students’ weekly spelling tests. At the end of each week, the spelling scores were collected from each of the three classrooms and analyzed to see if there was a significant difference among the scores in the two classrooms with additional activities using the multiple intelligences and the classroom that only received the traditional spelling instruction from the classroom teacher. Three weeks of data were collected because the three classrooms rotated or took turns being the control group, only receiving spelling instruction from the classroom teacher. Each spelling test was out of 14 points total; the students received one point for every word they spelled correctly. Data Analysis Mean, Median, Mode, Range The results of the data collection were analyzed based on the mean, or average, score within a class sample of 18 students. The median, mode, and range of weekly scores were also determined to compare each individual classroom of students across the time frame of three weeks. For classroom A (see Table 3), Week 1 consisted of tactile instruction. During Week 2, classroom A had just the traditional instruction from the classroom teacher, and during Week 3, classroom A had interpersonal instruction. Classroom A had the highest mean score during week three, when the students were completing interpersonal spelling activities. The lowest score in the class during that week was a 10/14. The second highest mean score was during the first week, when the students were doing tactile activities. The lowest score achieved during week 2 was a 9/14. In both the first and third 44 Table 3 Class A Mean, Median, Mode, and Range of Weekly Scores Statistic Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Mean 13 12.78 13.44 Median 13.5 13 14 Mode 14 13, 14 14 Range 9-14 9-14 10-14 Note: n=18 45 week of the study when the students were receiving spelling activities, the mode, or the score most often achieved, was a 14/14. The second week of the research study, when the students were only receiving the traditional instruction from the teacher, scored the lowest mean score. Again, the lowest score for the second week of instruction was a 9/14. The additional multiple intelligence activities seemed to make a difference in classroom A’s average score. For classroom B (see Table 4), Week 1 consisted of musical instruction. During Week 2, classroom B had naturalist instruction, and during Week 3, classroom B had just the traditional instruction from the classroom teacher. The week of instruction that the students had the highest mean score was during week 3. Unfortunately, this was the week that they did not receive any additional multiple intelligence spelling activities. The lowest score was a 5/14. The students in classroom B scored the second highest mean score during week 1, when they were receiving musical activities. Again, the lowest achieved score was a 5/14. Lastly, naturalist instruction during week 2 had the lowest mean score. The student who scored the 5/14 during week one and three though received a 6/14 the second week. That particular student may have found a strength in the naturalist activities. Regardless of the week or particular spelling instruction, classroom B had the score of 14/14 on their spelling tests most frequently. For classroom C (see Table 5), Week 1 consisted of just the traditional instruction from the classroom teacher. During Week 2, classroom C had kinesthetic instruction, and during Week 3, classroom C had visual-spatial instruction. Classroom C had the highest mean score during week 1. The students were only receiving instruction from the classroom teacher. The lowest score during week 1 was a 9/14. The second highest mean score was received during week 3, when the students were completing visual-spatial activities. The lowest score during that week 46 Table 4 Class B Mean, Median, Mode, and Range of Weekly Scores Statistic Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Mean 12.78 12.22 12.89 Median 13 13 14 Mode 14 14 14 Range 5-14 6-14 5-14 Note: n=18 47 Table 5 Class C Mean, Median, Mode, and Range of Weekly Scores Statistic Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Mean 12.83 11.39 12.56 Median 13 12 13 Mode 14 11, 12 13 Range 9-14 7-14 5-14 Note: n=18 48 was a 5/14. Bodily-kinesthetic instruction during week 2, earned the lowest mean score during the study. The lowest score received that week was a 7/14. Overall, the highest mean score at the end of each week was achieved by class A. Class A had the highest mean score during interpersonal instruction with a 13.44, which was very high considering the total amount of points possible is 14. The next highest mean score for class A was a 13 during the week of tactile activities. The mean score for class A during the week with only traditional instruction from the classroom teacher was a 12.78 . The range of scores for each week was also much smaller in classroom A compared to classroom B and C. Analyses of Variance To determine the level of significance among the three classrooms’ spelling test scores, an analysis of variance was conducted at the end of each week. This analysis compared the mean scores from each class. The data were tested at the .05 level of significance. The first week of data were comparing the control classroom to the classroom with tactile activities and the classroom with additional musical activities (see Table 6). The second week of the research study was comparing the control classroom to naturalist activities and bodily-kinesthetic activities (see Table 7). Finally, the last week of the study was comparing the test results from the control classroom with the classrooms having interpersonal activities and visual-spatial activities (see Table 8). For a statistically significant difference during the three weeks of the study, the p-value would need to be less than .05. The p-value for the first week was 0.92, so there was not a significant difference among the three classes’ mean scores. By looking at the mean scores in all three of the classrooms during week one 13, 12.78 and 12.83, they were not very different. There was only a .22 difference among the mean scores. 49 Table 6 Analysis of Variance Results for Week 1 Source df SS MS F-Stat *p-value Class 2 0.48 0.24 0.08 0.92 Error 51 147.61 2.90 Total 53 148.09 *Significance tested at the .05 level 50 Table 7 Analysis of Variance Results for Week 2 Source df SS MS F-Stat *p-value Class 2 17.59 8.80 2.33 0.11 Error 51 192.50 3.77 Total 53 210.09 *Significance tested at the .05 level 51 Table 8 Analysis of Variance Results for Week 3 Source df SS MS F-Stat *p-value Class 2 7.26 3.63 0.90 0.41 Error 51 206.67 4.05 Total 53 213.93 *Significance tested at the .05 level 52 The mean scores for week 2 were also fairly similar: 12.78, 12.22, and 11.39. They were a little more spread apart, with a difference of 1.39, but not enough to be statistically significant among the classes. The p-value for week 2 was not less than .05. Similar to week 1 and 2, the mean scores for week three were not significantly different. The mean scores were 13.44, 12.89, and 12.56, with a difference of .88. The p-value of 0.41 indicates that there was no significance among the three classes. Discussion of Results The specific question that was investigated during this study was: “How are second grade spelling scores impacted when spelling instruction is enhanced using different multiple intelligence activities?” Based on the statistical results, the spelling scores of second grade students were not significantly impacted, positively or negatively, after using different multiple intelligence activities. The mean scores for each classroom did not significantly differ among the other classrooms during the three-week study. Although there was not a significant difference among the overall classroom mean scores, the multiple intelligence spelling activities may have impacted some of the individual students’ scores. There were eight students in Class A (i.e. students 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 15, and 18) who scored between one and four points lower during the second week of the study when they were only receiving the traditional instruction from the classroom teacher, compared to the first week when they were doing tactile activities (see Appendix F). Out of those eight students, six of the students’ scores went back up the third week when receiving interpersonal activities (i.e. students 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 15). This was the classroom that had the most student fluctuation according to when they received multiple intelligence activities. There was only one student (i.e. student 10) in classroom B who had data 53 to show that the activities may have impacted his/her scores (see Appendix G). Classroom C did not have any student data to show individual impact of having additional spelling activities (See Appendix H). Summary The data collected from three second-grade classrooms were analyzed at the end of each week. The mean, median, mode, and range were calculated from the spelling test scores in each classroom and used to compare the achievement of the three different classes. An Analysis of Variance was also conducted to compare the level of significance among the mean scores in each classroom. The data did not confirm that using multiple intelligence spelling activities, in addition to the spelling instruction of the classroom teacher, enhanced the spelling scores of second grade students. There was no significant difference among the three classrooms each week, regardless of whether or not the classrooms were receiving multiple intelligence spelling activities. The results lead to a discussion on the importance of these findings, conclusions to be drawn, and the possibility of future studies. 54 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Spelling is a very important task for children to learn during the early years of school. If they aren’t given strategies or ways in which to learn how to spell, they will not grow into successful spellers as they progress through many mores years of education. This research study was designed to determine “How are second grade spelling scores impacted when spelling instruction is enhanced using different multiple intelligence activities?” In this chapter, a summary of the study, conclusions based on the data, and future recommendations for research will be discussed. Summary of the Findings Most teachers in the early childhood classroom address spelling using a variety of teaching strategies or activities. These activities may include workbook drills, writing tasks, figuring out word puzzles, memorizing words, sorting words, or putting words in alphabetical order. Many students are successful when completing these activities and using these strategies to study for the end-of-the-week tests. On the other hand though, some students have a hard time only focusing on activities that rely on a logical, linguistic, or intrapersonal intelligence. Students who have a strength in these traditional activities usually do well on the tests, while some students struggle week after week. There has not been a noticeable change in the teaching methods used for spelling instruction among teachers in the past several years. If students are struggling week after week though, a more efficient practice for spelling instruction needs to be implemented because teachers need to give all students in the classroom the opportunity to be successful. Spelling is an important developmental process for young children and, for students to be successful, daily instruction needs to be effective. 55 A great way to involve all children in learning spelling is through activities using the multiple intelligences. Since the logical, linguistic, and intrapersonal intelligences are commonly used for activities among teachers, the other forms of intelligence need to be presented to the students as well. Each and every student has a profile of strengths and weaknesses when it comes to multiple intelligences. Allowing students to engage in activities in all areas of intellectual ability, will give them various ways to practice and study words each week. The students can also focus on their strengths. This study was designed to determine whether spelling activities using the multiple intelligences uncommonly used in the classroom enhanced or positively impacted the spelling test scores of second grade students. Three second grade classrooms were chosen for this study based on the spelling instruction given by the classroom teacher. The study was set up as a threegroup comparative so the class averages could be compared and analyzed once a week. The spelling test scores were collected at the end of each week and analyzed. The mean, median, mode, and range were calculated each week, along with calculating an Analysis of Variance for the three classes. After collecting data and analyzing the spelling test scores for each class, over the course of three weeks, there was not a significant difference in class averages among the control and conditioned classrooms. However, some of the individual scores from the students indicate that the multiple intelligence activities may have had an impact on their ability to spell their words. Conclusions The major conclusion drawn from the results of the study is that the multiple intelligence activities implemented in three second-grade classrooms, along with the traditional instruction from the classroom teacher, did not have a statistically significant impact on the spelling scores 56 of the second grade students. A significant difference among the various treatment conditions was not obtained; therefore, one may question its effectiveness in the classroom. Unfortunately, many teachers will keep relying on textbooks and spelling series because they are commonly used and supported by so many people. Much like the reformist view, this study gave students multiple strategies or ways to help them become successful spellers. Bloodgood (1991) says, “The obstensibly ‘tried and true’ approach to spelling clearly isn’t working, but there are currently no viable alternatives” (p. 203). This investigation attempted to find a viable supplement to include along with the traditional spelling instruction. Because there was no significant difference in scores to support the use of multiple intelligence activities in spelling instruction, it can not be concluded that using the multiple intelligences to enhance spelling instruction is better than the traditional approach implemented by many classroom teachers. The multiple intelligence spelling activities were given to the students in addition to the traditional strategies of the classroom teachers, so it is hard to conclude which activities may have had an impact on the students. Even though there was not statistical significance of test scores during this research study, the multiple intelligence activities implemented over the three week period were practically important and significant to many students. Some individual students had higher success during the weeks they were completing the multiple intelligence activities compared to when they were not receiving additional instruction. All students have a different style or way of learning and the activities conducted in this study gave the second grade students multiple ways to study their words. The traditional way to teach spelling in the classroom, using linguistic, logical-mathematical, and intrapersonal techniques may not give every individual student the opportunity to succeed in spelling. The 57 second grade students can take the activities presented to them in this study and use or build on them again for future spelling tests. Another conclusion that can be drawn is that while there was no statistical significance in students’ spelling scores, there was no decline either. Therefore, teaches who wish to use alternative forms of supplemental spelling instruction may include activities that focus on multiple intelligences, knowing that students did not do any worse on the spelling tests after they had been exposed to multiple intelligence activities. Recommendations for Further Study Based upon the results of this study, it is recommended that further research be conducted to consider whether this type of supplemental spelling instruction can be successful for student achievement. Time played a huge factor in the delimitations of this study. The second grade students only had the opportunity to do spelling activities in two different areas of intelligence. In the future, the study should be conducted over a longer period of time to provide the students with the opportunity to do activities in all of the multiple intelligences uncommonly used for spelling instruction (i.e. tactile, musical, naturalist, kinesthetic, interpersonal, and visual-spatial). Along with the overall length of the study, the duration of activities should be lengthened as well. The spelling activities were only 15 minutes long, which may not have given all of the students enough time to engage in and focus on the specific task at hand. In addition to allowing more time to utilize the different multiple intelligence activities, the classroom teachers and/or researcher should begin to recognize the profiles of the students’ abilities and strengths in the multiple intelligence areas, as stated in chapter two. The initial participation in these multiple intelligence activities is to determine what is helpful in assisting the students to reach success. After the students find areas of strength, then they should draw 58 upon those strengths and use them to study and practice spelling. What works for many students may not work for the entire class. Nicholson-Nelson (1998) states that students who have strength in the linguistic, logical-mathematical, and intrapersonal areas (i.e. memorization, word sorts, and working independently) are able to succeed without much difficulty, while other students need to draw upon their own strengths (i.e. other areas or combined areas of intelligence) to master spelling. When a teacher’s focus is centered on what the students need to succeed, learning will be optimized for the whole class (Nolen, 2003). Chapter two also discussed that students who use their knowledge about how they learn best can increase their enthusiasm, raise their achievement levels, and grow in the other areas of intelligence (Sweet, 1998). While this research did not confirm the best way to teach spelling in the classroom, there is enough evidence to show that this type of supplemental spelling instruction could possibly foster growth in many students’ spelling abilities if used appropriately. The teachers involved in this study saw value in the activities implemented with the students. They were supportive and flexible to try something new. One teacher has even tried some of the activities in teaching math. The students found enjoyment out of new and different engaging activities. It is recommended to teachers, principals, and educators to find new ways to teach strategies and complete activities, such as the multiple intelligences, in the classroom. It may give the students more opportunities to learn and grow as a student. New effective approaches to spelling instruction will not be supported until teachers take action, and see how the students in their classrooms learn best. It is important to note that these types of spelling activities may work more successfully in some classrooms than others. The teacher in class A may want to keep exploring the use of multiple intelligence activities because the class was achieving the highest overall mean score 59 each week. This result may have been because they were two units ahead in the spelling series, or that tactile and interpersonal activities are most beneficial for spelling success. Researchers may want to continue this study to see if these two areas of intelligence have the greatest effect on second grade students. Summary Implementing this calendar of various activities, using five different multiple intelligences, gave the second grade students many opportunities to practice and study their spelling words. The teachers were also able to observe the students developing and becoming aware of ways to be successful in spelling. Stanford (2003) says that “multiple intelligences open the door to a wide variety of teaching strategies that can easily be implemented in the classroom” (p. 82). The students didn’t have to solely rely on using their intrapersonal, linguistic, or logicalmathematical intelligences, and could find an intelligence that worked best for them. Although this investigation did not yield statistically significant results for the treatment conditions in impacting the spelling test scores for second grade students, the students were engaged and motivated for the multiple intelligence spelling activities. There were students whose test scores indicated that the multiple intelligence activities could have helped their ability to spell words each week. It is hopeful that researchers will continually contribute to the study of spelling instruction because it is such an important aspect of young children’s achievement in school. 60 REFERENCES Abbot, M. (2001, October). Effects of traditional verses extended word-study spelling instruction on students’ orthographic knowledge. Reading Online, 5(3).Available: http.//www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=abbott/index.html Armstrong, T. (2003). The multiple intelligences of reading and writing: Making the words come alive. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Bloodgood, J. W. (1991). A new approach to spelling instruction in language arts programs. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 203-211. Carreker, S. (2005). Teaching spelling. In J. R. Birsh (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (pp. 257-295). Baltimore: Paulh Brookes Publishing Company. Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven and the eighth: A conversation with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 8-13. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books Inc. Gentry, J. R. (1987). Spel is a four-letter word. New York: Scholastic. Gentry, J. R. (1997). My kid can’t spell: Practical guidelines, tools, and strategies to help your child spell better, read better, and write better. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gentry, J. R. (2004). The science of spelling: The explicit specifics that make great readers and writers (and spellers!). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2003). Extra spelling instruction: Promoting better spelling, writing, and reading performance right from the start. Council for Exceptional Children, 35(6) 66-68. 61 Hatch, T. (1997). Getting specific about multiple intelligences. Educational Leadership, 54(6), 26-29. 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. Johnston, F. R. (2001). Exploring classroom teachers’ spelling practices and beliefs. Reading Research and Instruction, 40, 143-156. Larson, S. C., Hammill, D. D., & Moats, L. C. (1999). Test of written spelling: Examiner’s manual. Austin, Texas: Pro-ed. Lash, M. D. (2004). Multiple intelligences and the search for creative teaching. Paths of Learning, 22, 13-15. Marten, C., & Graves, D. H. (2003). Word crafting: Teaching spelling grades K-6. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Matz, K. A. (1994). 10 things they never taught us about teaching spelling. Education Digest,59(7), 70-72. Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W. E., & Perney, J. (1995). Spelling instruction and achievement in six classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 145-162. Nicholson-Nelson, K. (1998). Literacy activities that tap kids’ multiple intelligences. InstructorPrimary, 107(5), 65-68. Nolen, J. L. (2003). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Education, 124(1), 115-119. Osburg, B. (1995). Multiple intelligences: A new category of losers. English Journal,84(8), 1318. Schlagal, B. (2003). Classroom spelling instruction: History, research, and practice. Reading Research and Instruction, 42, 44-57. 62 Scott, C. M. (2000). Principles and methods of spelling instruction: Applications for poor spellers. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 66-82. Shearer, B. (2004). Multiple intelligences theory after 20 years. Teachers College Record,106(1), 2-16. Silver, H., Strong, R., & Perini, M. (1997). Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 22-27. Stanford, P. (2003). Multiple intelligence for every classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic,39(2), 80-85. Sweet, S. (1998). A lesson learned about multiple intelligences. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 50-51. Templeton, S., & Morris, D. (2001, October). Reconceptualizing spelling development and instruction. Reading Online, 5(3). Available: http.//www.readingonline.org/ articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/handbook/templeton/index.html Thomas, G., & Sullivan, N. (1995). Whatever happened to spelling? Thrust for Educational Leadership, 25(2), 12-14. Westwood, P. (1999). Spelling: Approaches to teaching and assessment. Australia: Acer Press. 63 APPENDIX A Attendance 64 Appendix A Attendance (all three classes have 18 students total) Date of Activity Monday January 30 Tuesday February 1 Wednesday February 2 Thursday February 3 Friday February 4 Monday February 6 (No School) Tuesday February 7 Wednesday February 8 Thursday February 9 Friday February 10 Monday February 13 Tuesday February 14 Wednesday February 15 Thursday February 16 Friday February 17 Class A 17 17 17 16 16 17 17 18 18 14 16 17 18 18 Class B 18 18 18 17 16 18 18 17 17 16 17 18 16 17 Class C 18 18 18 18 17 16 18 18 17 15 17 16 16 17 65 APPENDIX B Lists of Spelling Words for Class A 66 Appendix B Lists of Spelling Words for Class A Week 1 Unit 21 bike duck milk took talk work rock wake back make truck sick book o’clock Week 2 Unit 22 child ship much fish each wash shoe reach push shop chance lunch shape chair Week 3 Unit 23 them thank these other than both they that then the this another nothing weather 67 APPENDIX C Lists of Spelling Words for Class B 68 Appendix C Lists of Spelling Words for Class B Week 1 Unit 19 park corn story far horse hard part north morning large short for porch scarf Week 2 Unit 20 from first form three farm born girl there children hundred tries forget true her Week 3 Unit 21 bike duck milk took talk work rock wake back make truck sick book o’clock 69 APPENDIX D Lists of Spelling Words for Class C 70 Appendix D Lists of Spelling Words for Class C Week 1 Unit 19 park corn story far horse hard part north morning large short for porch scarf Week 2 Unit 20 from first form three farm born girl there children hundred tries forget true her Week 3 Unit 21 bike duck milk took talk work rock wake back make truck sick book o’clock 71 APPENDIX E Calendar of Multiple Intelligence Activities 72 Appendix E Calendar of Multiple Intelligence Activities MI Week 1 Class A January 30February 3 Week 1 Class B January 30February 3 Week 2 Day 1 Make words in Shaving Cream Day 2 Use wikki sticks to spell words on a flat surface Day 3 Trace words written on sandpaper and felt Day 4 Make words in play dough Day 5 Spelling Test Clap and tap out the letters as the words are spelled aloud Use instruments to play the rhythm of words spelled aloud Sing silly songs using the spelling words while listening to background music Spelling Test No School! Spell a word out loud: sit when a vowel is said, stand when a consonant is said Draw words in a tray of sand Sing short songs that go with the length of the words (i.e. 5 letter words sung to Row Row Row Your Boat) Leap to and from different letter mats on the ground to spell a word Spell out words while jumping rope or bouncing a ball Spelling Test Find things outside that form letters of the words and draw them (i.e. tree branches, playground equipment) Use the spelling words to form word snakes Use things from the outside environment to make the words (i.e. leaves, sticks, rocks) Spelling Test Use alphabet stamps and stencils to form the words on construction paper Write a note or letter to a secret pen pal in the class using the spelling words Spelling Test Class C February 6February 10 Week 2 No School! Class B February 6February 10 Week 3 Class C February13February 17 Week3 Decorate spelling words and the shapes they make Give each student a letter Class A card and have them create February13- the spelling February 17 words with their peers Trace over spelling words using three favorite colors of the rainbow Get into groups and make body formations to spell out the words Trace the letters of the spelling words on a partner’s palm while the partner guesses the word Spelling Test 73 APPENDIX F Class A Spelling Scores 74 Appendix F Class A Spelling Scores Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 February 3 (Tactile Activities) 14 14 14 14 13 13 14 13 11 14 13 14 12 9 14 13 11 14 February 10 (No Additional Activities) 13 12 13 14 14 12 14 9 12 13 14 14 14 11 12 13 13 13 February 17 (Interpersonal Activities) 14 10 14 14 14 14 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 11 13 75 APPENDIX G Class B Spelling Scores 76 Appendix G Class B Spelling Scores Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 February 3 (Musical Activities) 13 13 13 13 14 12 13 14 14 14 13 5 12 11 14 14 14 14 February 10 (Naturalist Activities) 6 13 13 14 14 10 11 14 14 14 12 9 14 11 13 12 12 14 February 17 (No Additional Activities) 8 14 14 14 14 14 11 14 14 13 14 5 13 14 14 14 14 14 77 APPENDIX H Class C Spelling Scores 78 Appendix H Class C Spelling Scores Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 February 3 (No Additional Activities) 13 14 14 13 10 13 14 14 12 14 12 14 12 14 12 9 14 13 February 10 (Kinesthetic Activities) 8 12 13 11 10 13 14 13 12 12 11 14 11 12 7 7 14 11 February 17 (Visual-Spatial Activities) 12 14 13 14 13 14 14 14 12 13 13 14 13 13 5 10 12 13
© Copyright 2025 Paperzz