Well, this concept came up... at some point in class. We've abandoned the model of teaching to the middle, or at least that is what I am to believe. Instead, we differentiate instruction, and teach to everyone. However, this concept leaves me with a whole network of questions. Are we essentially preparing three separate lessons, or four, per lesson? I say three or four because it seems like the student grouping is viewed as follows: Bottom, middle, top, and special needs, or differently able, or what have you. This, along with the inclusive model of education, puts a huge strain on teachers, and really challenges them to step up in a lot of ways. Now, I'm coming out and saying it right now, I'm all for inclusive education. I mean, the last thing I want to do is brand a group of students as "The stupids" and shove them into the basement. However, I have a whole host of questions and concerns. Isn't differentiating instruction doing the same thing a bit? I mean, "Here you go Johnny, here is your special test! And your biiiig felt marker to write it with!" (I so stole that joke off of someone.) Moreover, I can't help but feel a certain level of futility with changing terms for students. It seems like any special-needs related term eventually becomes stigmatized... but then I think I agree with it, still. I mean, we aren't calling people "Morons" "Retards" or "Cretins" anymore... not in any official way, anyways. I'd prefer to go in the direction of the positive, to keep from beating someone down. Only so much wordplay can go on, though...
At any rate, back to differentiating. I can't help but think that kids at the lower end will get the attention. I mean, we assume that students at the top will merely take it upon themselves to be good, active, and engaged learners, because they are good. We neglect the possibility that they may get bored, and reject formal education... and without that, they are kind of sunk in this day and age in terms of an intellectual career of some kind. Which is the greater tragedy? A kid falling through the cracks from the bottom or the top? How differentiated can differentiated instruction be? Can I show students a history documentary, and have some recite facts from the documentary, while getting others to give me an in-depth analysis of the events outlined in the documentary? Do I grade students on a relative scale, based on their own person growth? Or do I make them all jump through the same hoop, or over the same hurdle?
Honestly, it makes sense to me to grade students based on their own personal improvement. What else can we expect, really? As long as they are improving themselves, and show drive, are we not succeeding? Obviously, I don't mean infinitesimal improvement, but significant strides. In a gym class we don't look at every student and say "Welp, your final is to become Charles Atlas." No, they get assessed in the beginning, and graded on their improvement. I mean, it's important not to discourage the lower kids by setting them up for failure with the impossible requirement, while, at the same time, making sure that the "smart" kids don't just coast.
This has become more long winded than I thought it would, so I'll save my critical thought speech for next time. Speaking of which, tune in next time... same bat time, same bat channel!
Friday, January 28, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Changing gears again... EPS 350 - Jan. 20, 2011
We are supposed to keep a reflective journal, so I figured why not a reflective blog? Ooh-rahh...
A friend of mine brought up the idea of being auto-didactic today. It's a funny concept to me, in the sense that right now auto-didactism is much more accessible than ever before. Like, the internet, libraries, etc. etc. etc. are accessible to pretty well anyone. However, even though information and education is way more accessible, there is absolutely no value in auto-didactism. Despite the fact that you can acquire any information you want, the only valuable information has to come from a formal institution. Taught yourself to be a mechanic? No good, you need this certificate or that training. Have an innate, or self-taught, sense of the business world? Have fun with that, we only take admin grads here. I don't know. I find modern-day university to be kind of strange, some four-year stopover on the road to real-life. Mind you, I'm in a professional program, so it's much less strange where I am. However, there are a lot of basically worthless degrees out there... I mean, I've seen jobs posted that require "A university degree." Not a specific university degree, just a degree. I find something like, profoundly strange about that. I mean, how is a degree in history relevant to any job other than like, "historian?" People tell me it shows dedication, and I suppose I can agree with that, but I feel like a lot of places may be closing their doors to a lot of potentially quality employees with this sort of thing. Someone else told me "A university degree is the new high school degree." That outright scares me... university is expensive, and for it to produce the equivalent of the last generation's high school degree is kind of garbage. Nevermind the fact that formal academia is NOT for everyone. I mean, the academic world and the workforce really are quite far removed from one another, so it just seems so strange to consider achievement in one relevant to the other.
Well, that's my first post... Kind of all over the map, and I think I've raised more academic issues than I've tackled. In the future, I plan on discussing it with my friends, and pouring the results out on here.
A friend of mine brought up the idea of being auto-didactic today. It's a funny concept to me, in the sense that right now auto-didactism is much more accessible than ever before. Like, the internet, libraries, etc. etc. etc. are accessible to pretty well anyone. However, even though information and education is way more accessible, there is absolutely no value in auto-didactism. Despite the fact that you can acquire any information you want, the only valuable information has to come from a formal institution. Taught yourself to be a mechanic? No good, you need this certificate or that training. Have an innate, or self-taught, sense of the business world? Have fun with that, we only take admin grads here. I don't know. I find modern-day university to be kind of strange, some four-year stopover on the road to real-life. Mind you, I'm in a professional program, so it's much less strange where I am. However, there are a lot of basically worthless degrees out there... I mean, I've seen jobs posted that require "A university degree." Not a specific university degree, just a degree. I find something like, profoundly strange about that. I mean, how is a degree in history relevant to any job other than like, "historian?" People tell me it shows dedication, and I suppose I can agree with that, but I feel like a lot of places may be closing their doors to a lot of potentially quality employees with this sort of thing. Someone else told me "A university degree is the new high school degree." That outright scares me... university is expensive, and for it to produce the equivalent of the last generation's high school degree is kind of garbage. Nevermind the fact that formal academia is NOT for everyone. I mean, the academic world and the workforce really are quite far removed from one another, so it just seems so strange to consider achievement in one relevant to the other.
Well, that's my first post... Kind of all over the map, and I think I've raised more academic issues than I've tackled. In the future, I plan on discussing it with my friends, and pouring the results out on here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)