Improving cognitive abilities in socially and culturally disadvantaged
children - Evaluation of the Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment program.
Malkova Gabriela
Charles University in Prague Faculty of Humanities, Czech Republic
Abstracts
Presentation reports data from one year evaluation study of the Instrumental Enrichment
program in the context of Czech primary school. This study was designed to prove positive
effect of IE training on cognitive abilities and school attainment of culturally (Romi children)
and socially (Czech children from the low social economic status background) disadvantaged
children.
Project was designed as a comparative study. We were interested in differences between
experimental and control groups in the performance on assessment battery before and after
intervention and also in changes at the level of children’s behaviour that happened as a result
of intervention. Assessment battery consisted of measures of cognitive abilities and IQ, school
attainment tests and measures of self-esteem. Data from both experimental (N=9) and
matched control (N=9) group were analysed using a nonparametric test. For qualitative
analyses we included lecture’s diary and also some tests from assessment battery to describe
change at the level of children’s behaviour in learning situations, general problem solving
and learning strategies.
Quantitative analyses revealed significant differences in performance on reading
comprehension test in favour of experimental group, and improvements on some cognitive
abilities tests too. Experimental group of children demonstrated positive changes at the level
of learning and problem solving strategies a at the level of attitude to learning as a result of
FIE training.
-----I believe that people attending this conference know Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment
(FIE) very well and are familiar with its theoretical basis. For that reason I am not going to
talk about Instrumental enrichment itself. For those, who are not familiar with this
intervention programme: see presentation of Professor Feuerstein in this book or see
Feuerstein at al 1980. I am going to talk about one of the first attempts to evaluate this
programme in the context of Czech educational system. I am going to present only a little bit
from the whole study. There is not enough time to talk about it in details. I would like to give
you an idea, what FIE can do when we use it as a tool for enhancing cognitive and learning
skills in primary school children with learning difficulties.
The really first attempt to evaluate FIE time in Czech Republic happened in late
nineteen’s. Thanks to professor Kozulin some people from Department of School and
Educational Psychology (DSEP) at the Charles University in Prague had a change to be
introduced to this programme and its theoretical background. As a result of this introductory
visit of professor Kozulin, some people from DSEP realized pilot study to show an affect of
FIE as a tool for working with primary school children with learning disabilities (Pokorma,
Hadj Moussova 1997). There were not many publications from this pilot study, as it suffered
many methodological and organisational problems. However this study had one important
effect: it made Dr. Pokorna impressed by FIE. Today, FIE exists, lives and is being
inseminated in Czech Republic only thanks to this lady.
The study I am going to report about started in 2001 and was a part of
interdisciplinary. research project of Masaryk’s University in Brno and Charles university in
Prague aimed at minorities and different cultures living in Czech republic (for more see
Dalajka, Macek at al 2005). My contribution to this great project was to evaluate FIE as a tool
for improving cognitive abilities in Roma children (the very common minority in Czech rep.)
and in Czech children from low social economic status background. This project was
designed as a one year evaluation study. It was realized at one school with approximately 20
kids and with 1 trainer, who worked with FIE to enriched cognitive abilities in children from
“experimental” group. We deliberately chose this research design. Previous research projects
realized in UK (for ex. Savell at al 1986, Burden 1987, Blagg 1991.) same as the first Czech
pilot study with FIE had great difficulties to control a quality of mediated learning experience
between lectures working with FIE. We also decided to work with such a small group of
children, so that we could pay enough attention to the process in which they are getting
familiar with FIE and change their cognitive abilities and thinking skills.
Aim of this research was to:
Evaluate FIE as an additional training to curriculum of socially and culturally
disadvantaged pupils aged 9 -10 years (third and fourth grade)
Research hypotheses
1. Experimental group of children will reveal significantly better results in chosen
assessment battery as a result of implementation of FIE.
2. Experimental group of children will show positive changes at the level of their behaviour
in situations of problem solving, and at the level of learning strategies and the process of
getting familiar with given instrument (more effective strategies for solving problems,
a skill to verbalize procedure for solving given tasks, a skill to plan how to solve given
task…)
Method
For final analyses 18 children participated. At the beginning of our study, assessment of
Roma and Czech children did not revealed any significant differences between Czech and
Roma children within both research groups (experimental and control). Because of that:
Experimental group consisted of 9 children (4 Roma, 5 Czech)
Control group consisted of 9 children (4 Roma, 5 Czech) paired according to age, sex, and
ethnicity. Tab No. 1 shows descriptive of age at the beginning of our study.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for age of children (experimental and control group)
at the beginning of the study (in months).
Group
N
Mean (SD)
Range
Experimental
9
115 (7,04)
101-121
Control
9
117,7 (7,42)
101-125
Children from experimental group were working with FIE during the period of 10
months, 3 hours per week within two working groups: Czech and Roma. Having these two
working groups enabled us to look for and describe specificities or special needs of Roma
children comparing to Czech ones when working with FIE (hypothesis No. 2). Total time for
training with Roma group was 60 hours, 72 hours with group of Czech children. Children
from our experimental group finished only one instrument: Organization of dots.
We decided to evaluate given research hypotheses by using both qualitative and
quantitative data analyses.
For the first hypothesis, we were using quantitative analyses (nonparametric ManWhitney test) to show whether children from experimental group revealed significantly better
results in assessment battery after one year of FIE training. Assessment battery consisted of:
• Measures of IQ and cognitive abilities
o TCF (Thorndike) – language, numeric, figural
o Rey- Osterrieth Figure
o Raven Coloured
• School attainment tests
o Reading fluency test
o Numeric skills (adding and substraction)
o Vocabulary in writing
• Self confidence measures
o SPAS (Boersma & Chapman)
To evaluate second hypothesis, we were using qualitative analyses of

Additional questions to Raven Couloured to find in what way children were thinking
to solve particular task from the test

The way children were drawing Rey Osterrieth figure

Lecture’ s diary describing each training lesson, preparation for each lesson,
discussions in lessons, children’s comments to the FIE material and the course of the
training as a whole
Results
Table 2 shows performance on assessment battery for both research groups before
intervention (T1) and after the intervention (T2) and p ( for Mann-Whitney) on tests from
assessment battery after the intervention for experimental FIE group and control group.
Children from experimental group after the 10 month training with FIE did comparing to
control matched group of children significantly better in two tests: reading fluency test and in
Rey- Osterrieth figure –copying. Improvement in reading fluency might be a result of the
constant tendency of lecture to coax children to verbalize their thoughts and provoke
discussions during FIE lessons. Copying Rey – Osterrieth’ s figure demands in children for
example a skill to find a good strategy for drawing, a skill to plan drawing, to understand
relationships between all the aspects of figure, have a good visual and memory skills to grasp
all the details of figure … all these skills are trained when working with FIE.
Table 2
Performance on assessment battery for both research groups before intervention (T1) and after the intervention
(T2) and p ( for Mann-Whitney) on tests from assessment battery after the intervention for experimental FIE
group and control group
T1 mean (SD)
T2 Mean (SD)
p
Exp.
Con.
Exp.
Con.
TCF*
169 (43.2)
186 (57.0)
233 (53.0)
257 (72.7)
0,41
Rey-Ost. -kopie**
56 (7.8)
56 (17.4)
63 (12.2)
57 (18.4)
0,05**
Rey-Ost.- repro**
38 (9.8)
36 (10.8)
46 (11.3)
42 (18.5)
0,378
Raven Coloured
28 (5.3)
29 (5.4)
32 (4.7)
31 (6.2)
0,11
Reading comp.
83 (5.9)
91 (10.3)
88 (8.3)
90 (10.9)
0.01**
Numeric
98 (5.7)
96 (9.2)
88 (8.3)
94 (7.1)
0,02
SPAS*
21 (6.3)
28 (8.6)
23 (7.9)
32 (6.1)
0,10
Vocabulary in writing
31 (16.6)
40 (17.7)
27 (9.7)
35 (13.1)
0,44
*raw scores
** significant in favour of FIE experimental group
TCF / Test of cognitive functions (Thorndike); Rey-Osterrieth-c :Rey Osterrieth figure copy; Rey-Osterrieth-r
:Rey Osterrieth figure reproduction; Reading comp.: reading comprehension test; Numeric: test of numerical
skills, adding and subtraction; SPAS: Self confidence measure
Qualitative analyses of additional questions for Raven Coloured enabled us to explain
dramatically decreased number of mistakes experimental children did in this test after the
intervention. All of them had (same as controls) ceiling effect. What has dramatically changed
was the way in which children were explaining how they thought about the arguments for
choosing particular matrices. These children were much better in identifying arguments for
choosing matrices and in verbalizing their thinking when solving this task. Children were
using more precise and accurate vocabulary to verbalize method for solving given task.
In case of Rey - Osterrieth figure drawing, the most important is to mention, that
children from experimental group completely changed strategies for drawing this figure. They
gave up impulsive behaviour and replaced it by systematic and planned strategy for grasping
and this figure.
Lecture’s diary enabled us to identify differences in approach to instruments between
Czech and Roma children. For example, for Roma children it meant 2 months more to
establish learning style FIE uses: “bridging” and discussions about problems or interesting
questions that happen in FIE lessons. Generally, Roma children had much more difficulties
with an abstract character of instruments. For a first month it was hard for them to accept or
understand a fact, that they are not doing math or Czech and that it can help them to be better
in school.
Results derived from quantitative analyzes would not probably be sufficient to accept
firs hypotheses. From all the assessment battery, we can show significantly better
performance of children from experimental group only in case of two tests. However, second
hypothesis can be accepted as it is. Qualitative analyses enabled us to show, how dramatically
FIE changes learning style, problem solving strategies, skills of verbalization and the whole
attitude to learning in people who were introduced to its instruments.
Discussion:
There might of course be a question: Why is that so, that we are facing a situation of having
clear proof of a change at the level of behaviour changes in learning and problem solving
strategies and do not have a significantly better results in measurements of IQ, school
attainment tests and test of self confidence?
People who know FIE themselves would probably mention the question of a total time
devoted to the intervention. 70 hours per one school year is not so much. On the other hand,
this is probably maximum we can have if we want to implement FIE as an additional lesson to
normal curriculum in primary school. It is said, that FIE works like snow ball: after a
particular time spent on IE, people can become independent learners and can enhance their
learning style and cognitive functions themselves. But for that they need to have already
established prerequisites of learning. My suggestion would be to look for different distribution
of FIE lessons during a school year. For example a one similar to that we offer in training
courses for IE lectures. Maybe it would be much better to start with FIE in a very intensive
training (one week only IE and no other subjects?), so that children can faster become familiar
with FIE and could internalize the learning style this program uses. My feeling is that this
intensive start would safe much time for other lessons where we can focus on cognitive
deficits, improvement and enhancement of cognitive functions of children. Other lessons can
be then distributed in a frequency of 3 hours per week. So probably the key for effective
implementation of FIE is not a total time devoted to intervention, but the intensity of training
at the beginning of implementation of program in school.
References
Blagg, N. (1991). Can we Teach Intelligence? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey
1991.
Burden, R. (1987). Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment Programme: Important Issues in
Research Evaluation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2(1), str. 3-16.
Dalajka, J., Macek, P., Eds. (2005):Vývoj a utváření osobosti v sociálních a etnických
kontextech. Brno, Masarykova Universita.
Feuerstein, R. Rand, Y., Hoffman, M B., Miller, R. (1980): Instrumental Enrichment. An
Intervention Program for Cognitive Modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Pokorna, V., Hadj-Moussova, Z. et al (1997): Evaluation of Instrumental Enrichment in
Czech primary school; unpublished research report.
Savell, J.M., Twohig, P. T., Rachford, D. L. (1986). Empirical Status of Feuerstein’s
„Instrumental Enrichment” (FIE) Technique as a Method of Teaching Thinking Skills.
Review of Educational Research, 56 (4), 381-409.
malkova_gabriela@email.cz