Jerome Weng1, Peng-Heng Tsai2, Tien-Yu Huang3
1Department and Graduate School of Information Management , Shu-Te University.
2 Department of Industrial Technology Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University.
3 Department of Computer Science, National Pingtung University of Education.
jerome@mail.stu.edu.tw;penghen.tsai@msa.hinet.net;tyhuang@mail.npue.edu.tw
Abstract
This study used the Internet-based project learning, and the Taiwan Technology Artifacts and Industry Technique Digital Museum (TT AIT) as the information source. The 168 sixth grade students joined the project learning, and accepted the learning activities: searching tasks, higher cognition assessment, and artifacts assessment. Then they should create a briefing and guidance file to introduce the TTAIT with Microsoft Word and Media@show software. The effects of multiple intelligences and learning style preferences of students would be tested by one-way ANOVA. The results were as follows: (a) The advantage students of multiple intelligences could achieve significant better learning effect; (b) The positive students of learning style preferences in emotion variety could achieve significant better learning effect.
1. Introduction
It is critical that all students have access to the Internet and that students ’ needs must be given a high priority as technology strategies are developed and implemented rapidly. The Internet-based projects learning (IBPL) is to be described in which students used Internet information sources for their classroom learning. Doyle [1] considered that the students should recognize the need of information;
formulate questions based on the needs; identify potential sources of information; develop successful search strategies; access the information; and evaluat e, organize, and integrate the information into an existing body of knowledge.
Searching tasks with the Internet are the activities that one engages in when he/she has only a vague sense of what information is needed and the kind of information that will satisfy that need. Once the students moves into the information space, t he feedback he/she gets from interacting with the information system often results in the students revising the information need and conceptions about the kind of information that will fill his/her knowledge gap [2] [3].
However, the Internet is unlike any other existing informational resource (e.g. libraries, encyclopaedia, museums, and periodicals). It is dynamic, interrelated, uncontrolled, expanding, and instantaneously
accessible. Previous research [4] [5] has shown that students rarely employ systemat ic search strategies and spend little to no time planning their searches.
Therefore, the digital museum was used to be the information source. The information provided by the digital museum was seen as other powerful archives for students to gain accurate and structured content.
After all, the online exhibition of digital museum was verified by professionals of special fields. This study used the Taiwan Technological Artifacts and Industry Technology Digital Museum (TTAIT) was built by the National Science and Technology Museum (NSTM), Ancient Chinese Machinery Research Center (ACMRC) and Department of Industrial Design (DID), National Cheng Kung University.
From the intelligence frame of individual learning, Gardner [6] [7] proposed that our schools and culture focus most of their attention on linguistic and logical -mathematical intelligence , i.e., that the traditional notion of intelligence was based on I.Q. testing, is far too limited. Instead, he addressed eight different intelligences (Multiple intelligences theory, MI theory) to account for a broader range of human potential in children and adults. Th ere are eight intelligences included in the MI theory:
Linguistic intelligence: the intelligence of words, the knowing of individual comes through the language; through reading, writing, and speaking.
Logical mathematical intelligence : the intelligence of numbers and reasoning , the individual uses numbers, math, and logic to find and understand the various patterns that occur in our lives: thought patterns, number patterns, visual patterns, color patter ns.
Spatial intelligence: the intelligence of pictures and images , the individual represents the knowing that occurs through the shapes, images, patterns, designs, and textures people see with their external eyes, and includes all of the images they are able to conjure inside our heads.
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence: the intelligence of the whole body and the hands , the way of individual knowing happens through physical m ovement and through the knowing of his/her physical body.
Musical intelligence: the intelligence of tone, rhythm, and timbre , the knowing of the individual happens through sound and vibration.
Interpersonal intelligence : the intelligence of social interactions , the person-to-person way of individual knowing through social contact.
Intrapersonal intelligence : the intelligence of self-knowledge, at the heart of the individual is the human self-reflective abilities by which one can step outside of oneself and think about one’s own lives.
Naturalistic intelligence: an experience in the natural world , the full range of knowing of individuals involves the ability of natural observation that occurs in and through their encounters with the natural world including their recognition, appreciation, and unde rstanding of the natural environment.
Referring to the learning-style theory, learners' cognitive, affective, and physiological patterns could determine their academic outcomes. The Learning Styles Model of Dunn and Dunn [8] proposed was the most widely used and researched in the history of education in North America. The model proposed
five varieties and twenty-one elements to assess the preferences of students , there were four varieties be investigated in this study.
Environment variety: four elements, sound: quite or noise; light: dark or bright; temperature : warm or cool; seat: formal or informal.
Emotion variety: three elements, motivation: strong or weak; responsibility or irresponsibility;
structure, regular or irregular progress.
Society variety: five elements, complete the learning task individual or pair, with classmates, group, adult supervise, and variation.
Physiology variety: four elements about sensation, the sense of sight, hearing, touch, or kinesthesia;
the need of food; timing, morning or evening; movement, sitting in a long time or changing the place.
This study designed three phases learning activities and assessment: searching task, h igher cognition assessment, and artifacts assessment. The process was to let students to search information and find the accurate answer then completed the learning papers used the TTAIT as their information source . The TTAIT exhibited the technique and machines of printing industry and ancient Chinese locks. And then, students should complete their project to create their own briefing file with Media@show software. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of multiple intelligences and learning style preferences of students in the Internet-based project learning with TT AIT.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
There were sixth-grade students (n = 168) at an elementary school in Kaohsiung City, Taiwan to participate in the IBPL.
2.1. Procedure and activities
The procedure and activities in this project were survey, searching task, higher cognition as sessment, and artifacts assessment.
Survey: The students accepted the multiple intelligences test and the learning style preferences test.
Searching task: 40 problems (e.g. Who invented the movable -type printing?) in one learning paper and there were four learning papers, 40 minutes for completing one learning paper in one week, 1 point for an accurate answer.
Higher cognition assessment : to assess the critical and creative thinking of students, 5 problems (e.g. How is the print technique innovated?) in on e learning paper and there were two learning papers, 40 minutes for completing one learning paper in one week, 5 points for the completely answer, 3 points for the incompletely answer, 1 point for the indistinct answer, 0 for no answer or wrong answer.
Artifacts assessment: the students used the Microsoft Word 2003 software to make a scenario, one
class in each week, amount to three weeks, and then they used Media@show3.0 software to create a briefing, one class in each week, amount to six weeks. Then teach er, computer teacher and researcher graded the students’ artifacts, the score was from 60 to 95.
2.2. Assessments
The multiple intelligences scale was referred to Gardner and Wake [9]. There were eight questions to assess one of the multiple intelligences; there were sixty-four questions in the scale. The scale adopted Likert six points assessment. If the sum of one of the multiple intelligences of the student in eight questions was one standard deviation higher then the mean, then the student was classif ied as advantage in the intelligence. On the contrary, if the sum of one of the multiple intelligences of the student was one standard deviation lower then the mean, then the student was classified as disadvantage in the intelligence. And the other student s were classified as general in the intelligence.
The learning style preferences scale was referred to Dunn and Dunn [8]. There were four questions to assess one element of the learning style variety; there were sixty -four questions in this scale. The scal e adopted Likert four points assessment. If the sum of all elements in the variety of the student was one standard deviation higher then the mean, then the student was classified as positive in the variety. On the contrary, if the sum of all elements in th e variety of the student was one standard deviation lower then the mean, then the student was classified as reverse in the variety. And the others were classified as ordinary in the variety.
2.3. Data analysis
The one-way ANOVA was used to determine whet her significant differences existed. Where significant differences were found to exist, a post -hoc Scheffé comparison test was administered.
3. Results
3.1. The effects of multiple intelligences
Table 1 showed that the means and standard deviations of multiple intelligences of students in searching task, higher cognition assessment, and artifacts assessment. The students could complete most problems in the searching task. But, in higher cognition assessment, the students did not show more critical and creative notions. Besides, the students’ briefing files were consisted of images, sounds, and animations combined with the Media@show software.
Table 1. Means, and standard deviations for multiple intelligences of students in the IBPL
Searching task Higher cognition Artifacts assessment Intelligences Class N
Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std.
A 24 134.83 18.65 41.21 19.07 78.67 10.69
G 123 131.56 22.15 32.61 18.85 78.94 10.45
Linguistic
D 21 127.00 22.37 20.48 12.40 77.85 8.72
A 31 141.46 7.91 43.55 18.34 80.39 9.54
G 108 131.59 20.57 31.77 18.39 79.31 10.31
Logical-mathematical
D 29 120.28 29.69 22.38 15.29 74.97 10.09
A 32 136.72 13.76 37.69 16.40 80.53 8.76
G 108 132.25 19.78 32.52 19.86 78.17 10.67
Spatial
D 28 122.39 31.96 25.43 15.93 79.04 10.16
A 22 136.68 13.02 41.18 17.84 81.41 7.75
G 126 131.56 21.66 31.63 18.59 78.82 10.35
Bodily-Kinesthetic
D 20 125.10 28.02 26.90 19.67 75.50 11.39
A 27 136.56 14.72 38.22 17.65 81.41 5.16
G 115 131.83 20.84 32.88 19.47 78.66 10.93
Musical
D 26 124.50 29.25 23.73 14.69 76.46 10.69
A 30 139.27 11.21 43.23 15.67 81.80 7.27
G 112 129.96 23.08 31.51 19.08 79.51 10.32
Interpersonal
D 26 128.88 23.27 23.23 15.89 72.04 10.24
A 30 138.70 12.75 40.20 17.29 80.77 7.70
G 113 132.55 20.37 33.03 19.06 78.92 10.76
Intrapersonal
D 25 117.84 29.59 19.68 13.44 75.64 10.09
A 31 132.90 15.50 32.48 16.05 77.97 10.21
G 113 131.02 23.24 34.20 19.85 78.70 10.34
Naturalistic
D 24 131.67 21.63 23.25 15.28 80.08 10.06
A: advantage of intelligence; G: general of intelligence; D: disadvantage of intelligence
In ANOVA test of multiple intelligences, the ANOVA F = 7.723, 3.566, and 7.248 for the effect of searching task in logical-mathematical intelligence, spatial intelligence, and intrapersonal intelligence of students, respectively, in Table 2 is below the 0.05 significance level. There is significance difference among advantage group, general group, and disadvantage group . In logical-mathematical intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence, the effect in the advantage group and general group is differed from the effect in the disadvantage group; in spatial intelligence, the effect in the advantage group is differed from the effect in the disadvantage group.
In ANOVA test of higher cognition asses sment, the ANOVA F = 7.308, 10.632, 3.244, 3.421, 4.209, 8.881, 9.083, and 3.424 for the effect in linguistic intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, spatial intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, musical intelligence, interpersonal intell igence, intrapersonal intelligence and naturalistic intelligence of students, respectively, in Table 2 is below the 0.05 significance level. There is significance difference among advantage group, general group, and disadvantage group. In linguistic and intrapersonal intelligence, the effect in the advantage group and general group is differed from the effect in the disadvantage group; in logical-mathematical and interpersonal intelligence, the effect in the advantage group is differed from the effect in th e general group and the effect in the general group is differed from the effect in the disadvantage group. In spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and musical intelligence, the effect in the advantage group is differed from the effect in the disadvantage group; in naturalistic intelligence, the effect in the general group is differed from the effect in the disadvantage group.
In ANOVA test of artifact assessment, the ANOVA F = 7.820 for the effect in interpersonal intelligence of students, in Table 2 is below the 0.05 significance level. There is significance difference among advantage group, general group, and disadvantage group . The effect in the advantage group and general group is differed
from the effect in the disadvantage group.
Table 2. ANOVA analysis for the effect of multiple intelligences of students in the IBPL Intelligences Learning
Effects Source SS df MS F Post-Hoc
ST Between Groups 692.082 2 346.041 .733
HC Between Groups 4852.178 2 2426.089 7.308* A, G>D Linguistic
AA Between Groups 21.092 2 10.546 .100
ST Between Groups 6724.164 2 3362.082 7.723* A, G>D HC Between Groups 6806.925 2 3403.462 10.632* A>G>D
Logical-mathematical
AA Between Groups 532.86 2 266.43 2.592
ST Between Groups 3254.311 2 1627.156 3.566* A>D
HC Between Groups 2255.948 2 1127.974 3.244* A>D
Spatial
AA Between Groups 140.543 2 70.272 .668
ST Between Groups 1410.024 2 705.012 1.508
HC Between Groups 2374.364 2 1187.182 3.421* A>D
Bodily-Kinesthetic
AA Between Groups 367.356 2 183.678 1.770
ST Between Groups 1976.681 2 988.340 2.130
HC Between Groups 2894.565 2 1447.283 4.209* A>D
Musical
AA Between Groups 327.722 2 163.861 1.575
ST Between Groups 2251.331 2 1125.665 2.434
HC Between Groups 5794.670 2 2897.335 8.881* A>G, D Interpersonal
AA Between Groups 1514.724 2 757.362 7.820* A, G>D
ST Between Groups 6344.066 2 3172.033 7.248* A, G>D HC Between Groups 5913.483 2 2956.741 9.083* A, G>D Intrapersonal
AA Between Groups 367.066 2 183.533 1.768
ST Between Groups 87.701 2 43.850 .092
HC Between Groups 2376.082 2 1188.041 3.424* G>D
Naturalistic
AA Between Groups 61.905 2 30.953 .293
A: advantage of intelligence; G: general of intelligence; D: disadvantage of intelligence; ST: Searching Task; HC: Higher Cognition; AA: Artifacts Assessment; *p<.05
3.2. The effects of learning style preferences
Table 3 showed that the means and standard deviations of searching task, higher cognition assessment, and artifacts assessment of the positive, ordinary, and reverse preferences of students’ learning styles.
In ANOVA test of learning styles preferences, the ANOVA F = 8.293, 13.494, and 4.768 for the effect of searching task, higher cognition assessment, and artifacts assessment in emotion variety, respectively, in Table 4 is below the 0.05 significance level. There is significance difference among positive group, ordinary group, and reverse group . In searching task and artifacts assessment, the effect in the positive group and ordinary group is differed from the effect in the reverse gro up; in higher cognition