Working as Groups

Hello!

"Teacher, can I work with my friend(s)?"

You know most people's first thought here is, "No! You just want to talk, and put some of the responsibility of your work on others, and goof off, and be pains in my arse, and generally not work effectively." No? Well it crossed my mind. I remember being in school, everyone loved group work. We ALWAYS wanted to work with our friends, or other classmates (especially the really bright ones). Is that because we want to practice social loafing and slack off? Not entirely. Whether kids realize it or not, I believe we gravitate toward group work because we're social creatures. By that I mean to say, I believe that consulting with peers actually helps people to learn much better, and it is a beneficial technique of learning,

Some argue that group work actually causes children to learn less, due to the fact that they aren't personally responsible for as much work. So, if one child is writing the work out and three are watching him do it attentively (To make sure it is adequate and that they will all get good marks) the only student  that gets much benefit is the one writing the work out, obviously, right?

Wrong.

Our brains contain structures known as Mirror Neurons. When we watch someone performing a task, or observe them doing something, we can learn substantially from this observation. This is called, observational learning (surprise). The really interesting part, is that scans of brain activity indicate that virtually the SAME areas of the brain light up with activity when we are performing a task, as when we are OBSERVING someone perform the task. Neat huh? This means that attentively watching someone else do something actually allows our brains to learn it just as well, simply by watching. That means, with group work in the classroom every single child is benefiting from the work done by even just one member of that group. Students with weaknesses in certain areas can even be paired with students that have exceptional abilities in said area, and through observing the other student excel the weaker student improves his/her own abilities greatly, and actually learns a great deal.

Another benefit of group work brings us back to Gardner's multiple intelligences. While each child having unique styles of learning and presenting information may present certain challenges to teachers, it also opens the doors to great opportunities to mix different skills in groups and allow students to collaborate together and create unique work that reflects multiple different individual perspectives. Even us, as teachers can learn from this as we observe children collaborating in unique and creative ways, surprising as more than once over one's teaching career I would imagine.

Either way, my point is, group work is a positive force in the classroom, and a tool that I believe should certainly be utilized when applicable to create the best learning environment possible!

Zach

Inclusive Education

Hello!

Today we tackle one of the most fiercely debated topics in the education world (At the college) as far as I have noticed, and that thing is

*Drum Roll*

Inclusive Education! *Dramatic horror music*

Right, so I'm kind've over doing it. It happens. Anyways,

My opinion on this matter is that this is an incredibly (wait for it) ...Care-Bear theory and this is something I strongly feel is a step in the wrong direction, at least the way it is being implimented.

IN THEORY, being able to have children with a wide spectrum of learning and mental disabilities, as well as those with a "giftedness" or above average acadaemic skill all together in a classroom with all other students who fall into the "average" range isn't wrong. I mean, it's cool to have more social interaction, especially between students who function in distinctly different ways and can all benifet from eatchother and learn equally in the classroon. If those kids who needed it had extra help such as aides, specialized work tailored to their needs, and an INDIVIDUAL PLAN in which the best way to help them achieving learning is outlined, this would be great. But...realistically? These supports aren't there. A teacher can only be asked to do so much on their own in the way of making their lessons and classroom individual to each students needs. I mean, we can do the little things, but we can drastically alter the classroom for each and every student's needs, its just not possible.

To comment on why I have "INDIVIDUAL PLAN" In all caps up there, its because I am made to beleive that IPP's are being abolished and are not to be used anymore, because they may impart labels on kids. Hold on, we took away Individual Placement Plans? Those things that we created to outline the specific needs of each child? The things that served as tools and helped us deliver the best education possible? Perhaps I heard wrong, but this is insane,

I understand that labels are bad, I really do. Im a Psych-nut, I know all about self-fullfilling prophecy and how much labels and social treatment can affect a child. I get it. But this is NOT how to solve the problem. Labels in the form of IPP's and specialized programs to aid students in succeeding to the best of their abilities are not set with the purpose of demeaning any child, any student. They are there to HELP. Getting rid of these because other children and adults might see these classrooms and programs negatively and think bad things is just... just...Care-Bear, and incredibly illogical. It's like a leap backwards in progress. Im wondering if some of the parents of these kids are more interested in their own image and how their child looks on them than the child themself, or the academic assistance they need to succeed. Like, come on now.

Alright, well, I've made my side abundantly clear. I'd be happy to  listen to arguments, this is a complex idea and I certainly don't think it's black and white, my way or the highway. So what are some other thoughts on this?

I'll leave it at that today!

Zach

Multiple Intelligences

Hello!

First of all, this is NOT, split personality disorder. Yes, I have legitimately had people come up to be and ask "Oh, Howard Gardner and Multiple Intelligences? Like...when someone is just one person, but they think they're like...more than one person, you know....man?"

No.

Perhaps I overemphasized the "like" and "man"'s in that sentence, BUT, my point remains. Totally different.

Gardner's multiple intelligences is a theory that proposed that rather than a single domain of intelligence, or "smart" as exemplified by academic achievement, high IQ, quick cognition, etc. there are many different ways in which people think and learn.

Here is a shiny-colourful picture graphic (For all the non-linguistic favouring learners)

Interesting, no? It shows a variety of the different intelligences people may display, or rather, the different forms their intelligence may take! The diagram is actually missing one of the newer intelligences, Existentialist smart. These guys are the deep thinkers who see the big picture and ponder the big questions about the universe, you know, philosophy types.

Anyways, it just goes to show how many different forms information can take, and could be presented for learning. Huh...that seems like...ah, it is an application to teaching. Yes, there will be kids in your classroom with different preferences as far as learning and creating information. Yes, Gardner's Multiple Intelligences can help you to see this and make the classroom a much more conducive environment to learning for everyone. Yes, it takes a bit more effort and thought on the part of the teacher, but, in my opinion, well worth the results when every student can find something to be engaged and/or interested in from the class material.

Thats about all for now, Can YOU think of any additional Intelligences, or subcategories of the above that could perhaps be considered a separate form of intelligence?

I know I can. I know people who LOVE to write, and keep journals/storybooks/entire drives on their computer just for creative writing. This may fall under the linguistic category. Do you think these people would like to get up in front of the class and demonstrate a complex math problem? Or be tasked with creating a mystery story with math problems woven into it, which must be solved to find the end of the story? Yeah, its obvious. Think about it some more. =)

Zach

Intelligence Quotient

Hello!

I was quite interested in the discussion we had in class pertaining to IQ scores, and their relevance. There were many people arguing that it is incorrect to score people on such a narrow-minded degree of intelligence, and label them with a single number. Then there are those who say that it is NOT a single-sided label, but a useful tool in assessing and mapping individual children's academic needs and abilities. Who is right? Well, I have no place to say that (In my mind I'm right, of course!) But I WILL give my opinion.

I DO agree that students can display intelligence in a variety of diverse formats, as related to Howard Gardner's popular theory of multiple intelligences. (More on that in a later post, I like these!) I fully agree that an IQ score is NOT a sole representation of the intelligence of an individual, and that judging a particular student's wholesome capabilities of off a single score is the incorrect thing to do, and it is inaccurate.

That being said...

IQ tests have been created and altered thousands of times over the years by experts in the field of cognitive and learning psychology. These things aren't just some online poll surrounded by advertisements stating you've just one a free continent! (Cheesy Joke.) Well, okay, LEGITIMATE IQ tests are very complex and useful assessment tools, which have undergone rigorous study to make them as useful as possible. My point is, saying that IQ tests are useless, evil, terrible things that simply set out to label kids and make their lives miserable and underestimate them and be unfair and and and....*Takes breath* Yeah, it sounds pretty ridiculous to hear it put like that, doesn't it?
Look, IQ tests are a VERY ACCURATE measure of a SPECIFIC kind of intelligence, that being the Math, Science, Social, English language core subject academic-type prowess. You know, classic "Nerdy". It has been shown that IQ scores are EXCELLENT predictors of academic success in a traditional classroom. Why? Because they are testing the core skills that go into academic work in a traditional classroom environment, NOT intelligence as a whole. This means they are STILL very useful tools in gauging a child's abilities, and can be very good at predicting the early signs of a learning disability or subject specific weakness that can be addressed to HELP the child.

Amid all of that ranting and caps lock, the message I'd like you to take away from all this is that IQ tests are NOT a final measure of some sort of overarching smarts or intelligence, and should not be treated as such. IQ tests ARE, however, very useful assessment tools for rating a child in specific areas of intelligence, and should not by any means be minimalized or dismissed as without value. To do so is just care-bear and would be detrimental rather than useful in the long run.

NOTE: Care-bear - A word Zach uses to describe theories, practices, ideas, statements, policies, etc, etc that are based on people acting in a way that is completely illogical and unproductive due to a vastly over-exaggerated value invested in trying to make everything "nicer," more "pretty," and perfectly "ideal" for everyone, to the point it ends up being unrealistic and not practical for application the real world at all.

Zach

Gender

Hello!

Gender. Yup, Gender. As in Male, or Female. Or is it?

The debate about gender, and how pervasive it might be in our lives from childhood has been burning up in recent times. Who are we to say a boy should be a boy? A girl a girl? Well, I mean there IS biology. Needless to say, it IS relevant to the education system, and it IS a big deal.

I remember reading an article in ENGL 219, about raising gender neutral children. I read it, and I thought about it. I mean the point made by this couple was that as a human being, their child had the right to decide his (her?) own gender, and not be influenced by the bias of society and perceptions of others. I mean, fair enough...let the kid do what he/she wants. BUT. I mean come on now, the child has hardware, you know? I mean it's either a guy under the hood, or a girl. There ARE two sexes. I don't want to oversimplify, I know that they get this and that they re simply arguing that society shouldn't emphasize gender roles and expectations...well at all. It's all fine and dandy, when you say it...it sounds nice, doesn't it? Well...this is the real world, frankly. We have, males and females. I personally think all of this effort going into neutralizing gender is just wrong.

ANYWAYS, to tie it back into the conversation. Yeah, there are A LOT of gender stereotypes, and a lot of norms, and these things DO influence our students. I mean, yeah, some of them aren't gonna be all positive, that's unfortunate, but really, A LOT of things influence us in life, and if we hide from all influence, we might as well live in boxes. As teachers, we can be objective and do our best to let go of societies stereotypes and gender bias, and not let it into our classroom. That doesn't mean we should be for abolishing gender, or fighting to eliminate all gender influences on our students, its part of life. I strongly believe that there are just as many positive gender concepts as their are negative, and they both exist, its simple fact. Either way, as much as I agree that gender is an important issue, lets try not to kill it, and keep it in perspective, shall we?

Zach