From my experience in Catholic schools, teaching and learning primarily reflects the Industrial-Age approach, however many efforts are underway to incorporate elements of the New-Science thinking. Elements that resonate with the Industrial-Age approach include students being viewed as empty vessels in which the teacher must impart his/her knowledge, thereby reinforcing the “deficit perspective.” I believe that most teachers, although they would deny it, teach class as though all children learn the same. In my experience, those learners who are wired differently are either forced to “get it” or their parents are required to look for other ways to supplement their child’s learning. These same students are the ones who are labeled as “ADD” or “learning disabled” and are made to feel “dumb” in our Industrial-Age approach. Nonetheless, we still proclaim in our beautifully written philosophy statements that “all children” are gifts from God endowed with unique gifts. This is a glaring contradiction between our actions and beliefs. Other elements that reflect the Industrial-Age approach include the fragmentation of learning and the parental (and sometimes teacher) assumption that all learning takes place in the classroom.
Great strides have been made towards eroding the Industrial-Age assumptions of learning. Many teachers and administrators have introduced new methods of teaching to reach all learning styles including the kinesthetic, visual, and auditory. Whole programs in literacy and mathematics have been developed and implemented aimed at achieving success for all students and meeting students “where they are” versus where the teachers want them to be (or think they should be). In other words, programs and teaching methods are becoming more student and learner centered versus teacher centered, and the programs encourage variety by embracing multiple intelligences and diverse learning styles. Additionally, I believe that we are doing a better job at making learning more relevant to the real world, helping students connect what they are learning with everyday life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Patrick,
Great point about schools' all-inclusive mission statement, but then students who don't "get it" are labeled as "something disabled". The reality is the capacity and breath of students' abilities to learn far exceed the abilities of educational institutions to reach their target audience. Is it no coicidence that many of the brilliant minds leave formal education early because it cannot meet their needs?
On the flip side, lots of ground breaking educational research has made huge breakthroughs. Where will you find this? In the areas of special ed/learning disabilities. Much of what is done here has great applications of ALL students
Your comment about uniform teaching struck a nerve in me, Patrick, as I’ve always likened a classroom of students to a garden of flowers. How bizarre to expect either to “bloom” at the same time! And, yet, in education, with its frequent emphasis on standardization, that is the precise expectation. Another nerve was your comment regarding contradictions between Catholic school beliefs and actions. As I mentioned in class, if we could measure the extent of that contradiction, we could probably detect the extent of a school’s functionality. An intriguing question for the classroom teacher: What is the congruence between one’s beliefs about teaching and learning and the actual implementation of those beliefs in one’s classroom? Great insights, Patrick!
Post a Comment