In spite of the ever increasing need for functional proficiency of English in the globalized society, low achievement and underachievement are phenomenal in English as a school subject. The discrepancy between learners’ potential to acquire English as a foreign language/second language and his/her actual achievement in English classroom is termed as Underachievement in English. Underachievement as a phenomenon among school students exists in all subjects but it is more pronounced in English, especially among students whose medium of learning is vernacular [1,2]. Now, underachievement in English is so widespread that it has become a serious concern for students, teachers and parents alike.

Among the factors that contribute to underachievement in English, lack of learning motivation due to inadequate teaching-learning strategies is, perhaps, the most studied one [3-6]. These studies have put forth many activity-based and ability-based teaching-learning strategies for minimising underachievement in English. One of the foremost of these is based on the theory of Multiple Intelligences [7], linking Multiple Intelligences (MI) and learning English as a second language. Gardener viewed that it is very important for students that they explore their intelligence and that they know how to use it in a proper way. The MI-theory is an effective model for developing systematic approach to teaching underachievers by proving active learning experiences based on their dominant intelligences in a classroom setting. It is also important for teacher to know how to work with the different intelligences and be able to use various ways of teaching. Activities used by teacher must be appealing and suitable for the students to develop the intelligences [8]. This will have the effect of a double-edged sword. On one edge the MI-based teaching-learning activities enable people to assimilate knowledge by utilising their dominant intelligences; on the other edge, the instructional strategy sharpens their multiple intelligences.

Though studies are not sparse to show that achievement can be optimised by basing teaching on the multiple intelligences of learners, very few research attempts   has   been   made   so   far   to    find    out    whether teaching and learning strategy has any effect on multiple intelligences  of  learners [9-11].  These   studies,  however, have focused on one or two multiple intelligences components, all with normal achievers. This report is a part of an investigation carried out to find out the effect of Activity Based Instruction (ABI) on multiple intelligences of underachievers and overachievers in English.

Objective

To find out the effect of activity based instruction on multiple intelligences of underachievers and overachievers in English.

Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between underachievers and overachievers in English with respect to the effect of activity based instruction on their multiple intelligences.

Method of Study

A pre-test and post-test single group design was adopted for the study.

Population

Discrepant achievers (underachievers and overachievers) in English studying in 9^th grade in schools affiliated to the Board of Secondary Education, Govt. of Kerala (India), is the population of the study. 

Sample

The sample for the study comprised 44 underachievers and 41 overachievers in English, separated statistically from a larger sample of 223 ninth grade students selected randomly form the population. 

Tools Used

Multiple Intelligences Scale for Secondary School Students (MIS): The multiple intelligences of the participants were assessed by the Multiple Intelligences Scale for Secondary School Students, developed by Heera and Arjunan. It is a 100-item standardised instrument developed by the investigators for the purpose of the study. It assesses 10 components of multiple intelligences such          as         Verbal-linguistic         intelligence,       Logical- mathematical     intelligence,     Visual-spatial    intelligence, 
Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, Musical intelligence, Intrapersonal intelligence, Interpersonal intelligence, Naturalistic intelligence, Existential intelligence and Moral-ethical intelligence. The MIS has a concurrent validity of 0.76 and component wise test re-test reliability varying from 0.77 to 0.92.

Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test of Intelligence

The discrepant achievers in English were identified by regression method. It consumed secondary data pertaining to English achievement and intelligence of participants measured by the Progressive Matrices Test of Intelligence, developed by Raven. It is a 60-item non-verbal test of intelligence having a validity ranging from 0.84 to 0.91 and split-half reliability varying from 0.79 to 0.86.

Procedure

Identification of underachievers in English in the control group and experimental group were done on the basis of the average score obtained for English in two Unit Tests and the Intelligence Test (Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test) score secured by each student. The Regression Method suggested by Farquhar was adopted to classify the participants into underachievers, overachievers and normal achievers. The pre-testing of the multiple intelligences in both the groups were done by administering the MIS prior to the pedagogic intervention. The selected content area of the prescribed English textbook was taught to the underachievers and overachievers in 36 classes each of 40 minutes duration by following ABI method with the help of ABI Lesson Transcripts developed by the investigators. The pre-test and post-test scores of MI of underachievers and overachievers were consolidated and subjected to statistical analysis with SPSS. The gain scores of multiple intelligences of the discrepant achievers were estimated and the groups were compared by applying independent sample t-test to find out the significant difference, if any.

Analysis and Interpretation

Table 1 presents the data and result of the independent sample t-test  performed  to  compare  the  underachievers and overachievers, intervened with activity based instruction, with respect to the gain scores of multiple intelligences.

Table 1: Comparison of Underachievers and Overachievers with Respect to the Gain Scores of Multiple Intelligences

The results of the analysis show that the t-values estimated for three of the multiple intelligences, viz., verbal-linguistic intelligence (t = 13.57; p<0.001), visual-spatial intelligence (t = 3.38; p<0.001) and interpersonal intelligence (t = 2.94; p<0.01), are significant. To put differently, a true difference exists between underachievers and overachievers with respect to the improvement they made in these three multiple intelligences as a result of the pedagogic intervention with ABI. No significant difference, however, was observed between the underachievers and overachievers in English in the remaining seven multiple intelligences. A closer observation of the mean estimates for the discrepant achievers reveals that the underachievers excels the overachievers in all the three multiple intelligences where a significant differences were observed.

The study revealed the presence of significant difference between underachievers and overachievers in English with respect to the improvement they made in three of the multiple intelligences, viz., verbal-linguistic intelligence, visual-spatial intelligence and interpersonal intelligence, when intervened with activity based instruction. The discrepant achievers are almost alike with respect to the changes they made in the remaining seven multiple intelligences when ABI strategies are employed for teaching English. The ABI is more suitable for underachievers than for overachievers in promoting their verbal-linguistic intelligence, visual-spatial intelligence and interpersonal intelligence.

Acknowledgment

This paper is a part of the Ph.D research by the first author under the supervision of the second author. The authors place on record their profound and sincere gratitude to the Director, Research and Development Centre, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, for the opportunity given to carry out the research activity. Heartfelt thanks are also due to the Principals, Teachers and Students of SNM Higher Secondary School, Moothakunnam and HMYS Higher Secondary School, Kottuvallikadu for their whole hearted cooperation and support during the experimentation phase of the study.

1. Ronquillo, S.H. “Interference of English L2 in the Acquisition of Tagalog L1 Word Order.” Linguistic Research, vol. 32, no. 1, 2015, pp. 61-90.

2. Joxy, T. Study on Underachievement among Secondary School Students of Kerala. Master’s Thesis, University of Calicut, 2014.

3. Dornyei, Z. and E. Ushioda. Teaching and Researching Motivation. 2nd ed., Pearson Education, 2011.

4. Doro, K. “Meeting the Language Barrier: The Experience of First-Year Students of English.” Crosssections. Vol. I: Selected Papers in Linguistics from the 9th HUSSE Conference, edited by I. Hegedus and S. Martsa, University of Pecs, Institute of English Studies, 2010, pp. 289-297.

5. Guilloteaux, M.J. and Z. Dornyei. “Motivating Language Learners: A Classroom-Oriented Investigation of the Effects of Motivational Strategies on Student Motivation.” TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, vol. 42, no. 1, 2008, pp. 55-77.

6. Crosling, G. et al. “Internationalizing the Curriculum: The Implementation Experience in a Faculty of Business and Economics.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, vol. 30, no. 1, 2008, pp. 107-121.

7. Gardner, H. The Mind’s New Science. Basic Books, 1985.

8. Campbell, C.S. “Multiple Intelligences: Discovering the Giftedness in All.” Childhood Education, vol. 84, no. 3, 2008, p. 187.

9. Winarti, A. et al. “The Effectiveness of Multiple Intelligences-Based Teaching Strategy in Enhancing the Multiple Intelligences and Science Process Skills of Junior High School Students.” Journal of Technology and Science Education, vol. 9, no. 2, 2019, pp. 122-135. https://doi. org/10.3926/jotse.404.

10. Talib, A. and I. Bini-Kailani. “Problem Based Learning in Cooperative Situation (PBLCS) and Its Impact on Development of Personal Intelligence.” International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, vol. 3, no. 4, 2014, pp. 236-244. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere. v3i4.6969.

11. Chuang, T.Y. et al. “Using Handheld Gaming Device to Increase Multiple Intelligences with Digital Puzzle Game.” Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers   in   Education,   Edited   by   Wong, S.L. et al., Asia-Pacific  Society  for  Computers  in  Education,  2010, pp. 571-573.