"Garwood, Robin" wrote: > Could we possibly all make an attempt to leave hyperbole, unproven > aspersions, and unhelpful insults aimed at those with whom you disagree out > of future posts to the best of our abilities? I know I've dabbled in that, > too, but it really just serves to cloud the discussions with unnecessary > emotionality and defensiveness. > > Now that that's out of the way...
Ok, let's leave the hyperbole and unproven aspersions on the sidelines and allow you to cite ONE large scale study published in a peer reviewed (or even an unreviewed) journal that shows that teaching methods using multiple intelligences has a positive impact on student achievement. > I think the idea that people learn in different ways is nearly self-evident, > an effective teaching practice, and has not been utilized as uniformly or > religiously as Mr. Swift and Atherton would have us believe. I didn't say that it had been utilized uniformly. I said that I don't think that anyone can come out of a college of education without knowing about these methods. > My mother is a > teacher in the St. Paul public school system, and uses these ideas to good > effect in the classroom. She is one of few teachers who subscribes to and > practices the theory, and (perhaps coincidentally) is one of the better > teachers in her school. Testimonials are not strong evidence. > Pamela is not supporting the theory of multiple learning styles in order to > keep parents on the outside. When I read her post, I see it as an > expression of hope for a more personal teaching/learning paradigm. A fairly > dramatic shift from attempting to put round-children into square-hole > curricula towards flexibility of teaching methods. Chasing the golden educational bullet prevents the implementation of reforms that will really help students. > We wouldn't necessarily add to bureaucracy by training teachers to be more > flexible to their students. True, you wouldn't necessarily be adding to the bureaucracy, but you would be cheating students out of effective instruction with another popular fad. > And as to "avoiding accountability through measurable means." When I read > this, I read "standardized testing." I have little faith in the efficacy of > testing, and disagree that we should make our decisions about schools based > solely or mostly on their data. Testing proves one thing beyond a doubt: > the student's ability to take that particular test. Unfortunately for this > system, there are plenty of intelligent students who grasp the content and > know how to learn who just don't test well. My sister is among them. We're not talking about your sister, we're talking about millions of students across the country. Even if you include all the students who perform poorly on tests, effective teaching methods will show a huge effect if given to large numbers of students. Education liberals don't like tests because their methods don't have any effect on student achievement. It really isn't that hard to design simple tests to verify that students can read short passages and do simple math. > To expect a teacher to be fluent in one type of learning and familiar with > others is not some pie-in-the-sky notion, and not worth the pejorative cry > of "expertism." Sure it is reasonable to expect a teacher to be fluent in more than one type of teaching method, IF (and only if) the methods can be shown to be effective. > I think we could all agree that a math teacher should be > fluent in the mathematical type of learner, and that a music teacher should > be fluent in musical learning. But what of the art kid in the math class? > And the math kid in music? The metro Arts high has, I understand, come up > with fairly inventive and effective methods for teaching geometry to > students who do not learn mathematically. And the best sort of music > teacher knows how to discuss music in its mathematical components-beats, > steps, intervals-for the benefit of those who don't just "feel it." Why is it such a great discovery that some students will be better at some subjects than others. Why does this fact require separate "intelligences?" Perhaps you could explain how one would go about teaching a student with high intrapersonal intelligence mathematics. > One last point. Part of learning is teaching one's mind to be flexible. To > process information in different ways, to give oneself a toolkit of > different methods for solving intellectual problems. Kids need to learn at > least a basic proficiency in most if not all of the forms of learning to be > truly successful in and out of school. Should we expect less of their > teachers? And why does the suggestion that the system and curriculum meet > kids halfway meet with such resistance? Because it's a waste of time and energy? > It is, after all, easier to change > an object's velocity in a non-destructive way when one works to match it > than when one hits it at sixty miles per hour. It is not easy to derail a 100 year old bureaucracy in a "friendly" polite kind of way. > P.S. Perhaps this breaks my own no-more-hyperbole rule, but I really > haven't read more uses of the word "liberal" as a harshly pejorative term > since the Reagan era than I have on this listserve over the past week. People who continually implement ineffective educational programs on faith alone and deprive minority students of a real education need to think about their responsibility in fostering social injustice. Michael Atherton Prospect Park _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
