MI Theory as used in special education shares many of the same perspectives of "best practice" rules for general education. The idea of focusing on what one does best and cultivating it, instead of concentrating on a struggle, has been a philosophy of special education departments for years, who even have developed an almost new vocabulary to be more encouraging with their students. Something to realize about these special needs students is that while it's true they have different needs from some of their peers, this doesn't mean that they don't still possess many of those same eight intelligences we've been reading about. In fact, a list of high-achieving people facing personal challenges includes Edgar Allen Poe, Agatha Christie, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Thomas Edison, Ludwig van Beethoven and many others. If they had been put into an environment that didn't encourage their special talents, they may never have cultivated them. Yet, it seems like in many classrooms we DON'T cultivate all of these proclivities and talents because we're so focused on teaching "to the test" and such. This statement is even more true when it comes to special education, if we don't allow these students to try new experiences and let them do things things that interest them, we are doing them a great disservice. What if Agatha Christie had been in a classroom where she was never allowed to write freely because her teachers or parents didn't think her learning disability would allow it? Think of the great British novels we wouldn't have.
Teachers can be discouraging to students in other ways as well, including their style of grading. It's suggested that perhaps we as teachers shouldn't be grading students on so many things, and putting it behind one letter. Teachers will normally take into consideration grades on tests and homework, behavior, amount of improvement, etc. and squash all of that information into one grade. So really, a student could be doing perfectly on his tests and papers, but because he hasn't "improved" or simply doesn't have a great attitude, his entire grade for the class suffers. The argument is that these things are not truly cumulative, and are so different that putting them together doesn't make much sense. The suggestion stands that perhaps separate grades for separate things would be more appropriate. Yes, it's important for students to have a good work ethic, but is that one the same level as how highly they score on a test? In my opinion, I believe in the "one score fits all" theory, but this is probably because I was always that kid who could get by if they at least showed they were trying. I once wrote a song about radian circles on my ukulele for class and got 3 extra points on my final grade, because the teacher saw I was trying so hard to understand, and that I was putting time into this class. I put a very high value on trying, and while I will never put it as high as the actual academic grade earned, it will always be a consideration.
No comments:
Post a Comment