Teach the kids you have: there is no substitute for getting to know every student.
Some teachers ask me, "What do you think of our kids?" The implication is that their children are damaged in some way. When kids create a body of work demonstrating their latent ingenuity and habits of mind, educators are quick to explain away such success. At times I'm accused of being a magic teacher. Occasionally educators notice that a particular topic interested students, or adequate time was provided, or a safe environment for risk-taking was created, or sufficient materials were available, or the work was relevant, challenging or fun. Some or all of these variables may have contributed to learning, but the institutional response is to invoke theories for excusing sclerotic teaching practices. In other words, theories are employed to explain why student learning is aberrational.
Great educators are well versed in learning theories and have a huge bag of pedagogical tricks at their fingertips. Theory provides an invaluable context for understanding and articulating one's practice. However, way too many educational theories are used as diagnostic dead-ends that do little to improve the young people in our charge. Too often, such theories are used to excuse why students can't learn.
Multiple Ways In, One Way Out
When traditionally unsuccessful students experience success, some educators offer explanations like, "She must be a visual learner" or "He must be more kinesthetic." This refers to Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences theory, which demonstrated that everyone learns differently.
Educators commonly apply Gardner's theory in one of two ways, both of which are wrong. They determine a student's dominant intelligence or learning style and then teach everything in that way to build upon a student's strength, or they teach nothing that way to develop other intelligences. Too often, the emphasis is on what the teacher does to the student as opposed to how to create the conditions for learning. Singing to a musical learner or drawing pictures for a visual learner confuse teaching with learning and shift agency away from the student. I often sense that schools tolerate various nontraditional learning styles but harbor suspicion that they are inferior to the classic "sit-down-and-shut-up" method.
Is a student defined by one learning style? Does that style apply to every task at any time of day and across all disciplines? Is "morning person" a learning style?
The problem with classifying students isn't the form of diagnosis; it is the idea that humans need to be classified at all. Do we really help children by taking them out of their old boxes and sorting them into new ones?
Our obsession with finding mechanistic explanations for human behavior is time consuming. We can spend time on diagnosis with little left for actually collaborating with students in meaningful learning adventures. Classrooms are not sterile laboratories where a change in one variable reliably predicts an outcome. Good teaching and learning are far more fluid, serendipitous and personal.
Districts spend a fortune hiring consultants to train teachers in differentiated instruction. However, it is dishonest and dangerous to acknowledge the obvious and then invent schemes through which kids are taught the very same skills and content in various ways. Teaching 10-year-olds to divide fractions is torturous and useless even if you sing, dance, chat or bake cookies while doing so. Such differentiated instruction too often focuses on what the teacher does, leaves the curricular content unchallenged, and forces kids to your destination, regardless of their path. That troublesome scenario represents the best case. Too often, failure to achieve an objective in the allotted time leads to lower grades or other punitive sanctions.
A teacher who reads, engages in professional activities outside of class, and knows each student will help them progress forward. Students grow when the adults around them dare to know them and cherish their individual gifts. When schools embrace theories dividing people into different piles, interest is maintained by inventing new categories. New intelligences are discovered. You can spend your career keeping up with the latest intervention strategy or excuse for failure. Alternatively, you can teach the kids you have.
Hear Gary Stager speak at the following conferences:
January 25-27, 2008 Educon 2.0 Philadelphia, Pa. educon20.wikispaces.com
February 22-24, 2088 National Association of Secondary School Principals San Antonio, Texas www.nasspconvention.org
March 5, 2008 Michigan Association for Computer Users in Learning Conference Grand Rapids, Mich. www.macul.org
March 6-8, 2008 Computer-Using Educators Conference Palm Springs, Calif. www.cue.org
March 9-12, 2008 COSN K-12 School Networking Conference Crystal City, Va. www.k12schoolnetworking.org/2008
March 20, 2008 Math, Science and Technology Conference Clarkson University, Potsdam, N.Y. www.teacherslearningcenter.org
March 24-27, 2008 Texas Distance Learning Association Conference Galveston, Texas txdla.org/conference/2008
May 3, 2008 18th Annual CHILD Conference for the Institute for School Innovation West Palm Beach, Fla. www.ifsi.org
June 29, 2008 Constructivist Consortium Celebration San Antonio, Texas www.constructivistconsortium.org
June 30-July 2, 2008 National Educational Computing Conference San Antonio, Texas www.iste.org/necc
Gary S. Stager, firstname.lastname@example.org, is senior editor of DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION and editor of The Pulse: Education's Place for Debate (www. districtadministration.com/pulse).
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||SPEAKING OUT|
|Date:||Feb 1, 2008|
|Previous Article:||Virginia Beach City (Va.) public schools: www.vbschools.com.|
|Next Article:||Self-injury: how to understand and help students who engage in this behavior.|
|Why students are feeling so testy.|
|Speak up, teach!|