Smart People or Smart Context
I think gifted and accelerated programs are beneficial for students who have the capability of meeting the paper/pencil testing procedures that are used to indicate those students who qualify for the program. Those students who excell in these types of testing environments benefit and that is a good thing, but how do we identify those students who may not excell under these types of testing practices. How do we identify students who excell in other areas such as art or music. Many times the first programs to take cuts are visual arts and music. Those students who are gifted in these areas may not be identified because the learning environment does not stimulate or engage those talents. In addition many students do not excell in traditional agrarian type learning environments because they find them unstimulating and they may not find their interests and talents in the traditional school setting. The traditional testing procedures identify a specific type of “gifted” student and those students are stimulated in their interests and continue to excell while non-conforming students remain in the typical classroom structure where the environement may not be as stimulating. As Aaron mentioned it is impossible to teach to every persons learning style, but de-standardized testing practices may help to identify a variety of gifts and talents that could be stimulated by using a variety of teaching methods.
My ideal learning environment or experience usually has to do with hands on activities and directed learning. I generally excell in learning environments that have demonstrations and activities intertwined with lectures. Courses that stimulate creativitiy and use activities to foster learning work best for my learning style and are environments in which I generally excell.
test Filed under Uncategorized | Comments (2)
1:51 am - 9-27-2010
Just to stir up some argument here, do you agree that “it is ‘impossible’ to teach to every person’s learning style?”
You all are right, though, that testing and placing students in appropriate programs has been a huge challenge and the system is far from perfect. We do now at least have the opportunity to identify gifted students in the arts in Ohio (using portfolio/performance assessments vs. paper test), but since few schools offer appropriate arts programming, all the identification does is give us a count of students whose needs we know we’re not meeting. Hopefully this will become a more positive experience in the future if more out-of-school arts organizations can get involved and work with students directly. (There’s even a new “credit flexibility” policy framework that would allow students to do some of their learning in school, and other parts outside working with a mentor in an arts organization or museum.) I’m frustrated about the current state of arts education, but am also optimistic that things can improve.
10:18 am - 9-27-2010
I believe it is possible to teach to everyones learning style. By creating a “rounded” learning environment you can connect with each student. I don’t think that each student should only be taught to their personal learning style, but they should be exposed to various experiences. If the learning environment is rounded they can gain knowledge from many different directions as well as learn to recognize their own strengths and weaknesses. Often times it is our strengths that help us develop our weaker skills. If you can use an alternative method to teach a student math skills and then compare that to the traditional approach the student can draw a paralell and then Eureka! they get it. Melissa