Per your reading of Chapter 4 in Educational Psychology, identify the three most important “take aways” for you (i.e., the most important learnings for you at this point in your professional development).
My first take-away was learning about how the chapter discussed how we should actually describe people with disabilities--which is just that, people with disabilities, not handicapped or for them to be solely labeled by their disability. They should be thought of as normal but at times you may have to describe their condition according to their specific disability. The importance being to recognize that they are not totally disabled or handicapped and defined by their condition. As a sociology student, one thing that always stuck with me was about how when you label someone, you negate them. That is to say that when you label them, you are basically telling them everything that they are not and in doing so you are limiting them in life. My second take away from the chapter was learning about just how many different learning disabilities that there actually are. I could not help but think that at sometime most people might fall into one of these categories. It really puts into perspective how difficult it must be for standardized tests to really account for anything because they assume that everyone learns the same way. In order to be an effective teacher, it is beneficial that I know all I can about all of these categories of learning disorders. It also made me think that teaching is really a balancing act in that you have to juggle so many different methods and strategies and issues going on with your students. You have a lot to consider nowadays and if you are teaching correctly, there is nothing simple about it unless you are prepared for everything that you are going to come up against. Third and last, dealt with the gifted and talented students and how to work with them. Again it comes down to extremes at times when you have some students that are having trouble keeping up, and then you have these others that need to be pushed ahead and not stifled. For me it made me think about the Ted Talk where he spoke about keeping everybody together in schools based on only their age when they could be grouped according to abilities or other commonalities. It was interesting to note that teachers were not very successful in picking out gifted students. Maybe if schools were not focused on standardization and making everybody the same, they could focus on enriching each individual student's talents.
I love your line "When you label someone, you negate them." That is such a good point - labeling a student as "challenged" or "low-achieving" just means they won't ever try to be more.
I like your statement "I could not help but think that at sometime most people might fall into one of these categories." I agree --if we all took learning disability test or physiological test we probably would find something that would fit. As educators we really have to think about peoples abilities.
The three most important items for me in Chapter 4 include: 1. The Flynn effect: IQ scores have been increasing over the years at about 18 points per generation. I would hypotheses that we could also find a correlation here to why more individuals are graduating from college. (It is not just an increase in student grants and loans but that college age individuals are actually smarter than the generations before them.) 2. Learning Disabilities; Student Characteristics and Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities. The part regarding learned helplessness has encouraged me to make sure students do no become frustrated and discouraged when they do not understand. This goes for children in pre-kindergarten to adults in professional development training. I have been in a few training sessions where no one will talk or ask questions because the trainer will roll her eyes, tell people to be quiet, puts people down for not understanding. She also goes on to tell people if you do this incorrectly you will be wrote up-- it is just like the animal receiving an electric shock. So now instead of people being able to learn and gain information from training-- step by step instructions have to be written to go along with the training because no one gets it if there not. 3. Students with ADHD --the advice to teachers from a student with ADHD was very insightful. I hate it when I walk up to teachers talking about student needing to be on medication or talking about a students behaviors -- other students or people might hear. We have confidentiality laws but it still happens.
I keep hearing that graduating from college is being seen as "easy" or "normal" as graduating high school used to be, and getting a Master's is now the new "college" - the expectations that professionals and businesses have now are changing, so the merits of education are changing. It's unfortunate, because college is just so crazy expensive that it's not an option for many.
On learned helplessness, I have seen a lot of this as a substitute teacher. Students just don't think that they can do something so they never try again. And they don't want to try, even if I come along and show them how to do it and I am enthusiastic about teaching them. It has to be something we as educators refuse to let happen.
The term "crystallized information" was new to me, but the idea wasn't. In previous classes, this has been called "prior knowledge" and is using in scaffolding; building knowledge on top of things students already know and tying it into experiences they've previously had, but I've heard that this information that students come to class with is one of the most important factors to consider when designing lessons and working with students, which makes sense because you can't tap into experiences if not every student has the same experiences, which is why hands-on learning or demonstrations can be so incredibly helpful in the classroom.
I liked the section on intelligence and how it's often thought of as something very quantitative, but perhaps it's more fluid, like the book says. It's not about the knowledge or ability a person has regarding a concept, it's about how they get from point A to point B - their thought process. I've never looked at it that way, but I like that definition of intelligence!
Also along that same idea is multiple intelligences, which I have learned about before, but not as "entry points", which is what is discussed in the book and I found a very interesting take on that idea. Again, I think "intelligence" is so much more than a number or something anyone could really ever FULLY see or understand, so the idea of using these "intelligences" to tap into the mind makes more sense to me, from a logical standpoint, than saying a child has aptitude in some area but no aptitude in another. It's not fair to a student to make that assumption, and I also think that teachers should take that as a challenge, not as hard fact.
I also like the idea of intelligence being fluid rather than very simply measureable. I also agree that figuring out how to get from point A to point B does is not equal to being smart. I think that this is one big idea that the whole field of education needs to reevaluate and see that intelligence is not measurable in this sense. Some kids may never say a word in class but they know more than anyone else. There are people that cannot write or read but know more than most people as well. I think of Forrest Gump in that he was not not traditionally smart yet he outperformed everybody he went up against in life.
Some people are sponges and don't talk in class and others talk allot. I am not sure how the follow statement relates to the topic above "teacher should take that as a challenge not as hard fact". I like the statement but I don't see a clear reason for it. It is also important to note that most teachers don't know children's IQ scores unless that child has had testing completed by a diagnostician and the diagnostician administered actual IQ tests. State test scores are not a reflection of IQ scores.
I think I understand better-- are you talking about multiple intelligence and saying that teachers should not assume a child has no aptitude in one area just because they have high aptitude in another?
My first take-away was learning about how the chapter discussed how we should actually describe people with disabilities--which is just that, people with disabilities, not handicapped or for them to be solely labeled by their disability. They should be thought of as normal but at times you may have to describe their condition according to their specific disability. The importance being to recognize that they are not totally disabled or handicapped and defined by their condition. As a sociology student, one thing that always stuck with me was about how when you label someone, you negate them. That is to say that when you label them, you are basically telling them everything that they are not and in doing so you are limiting them in life. My second take away from the chapter was learning about just how many different learning disabilities that there actually are. I could not help but think that at sometime most people might fall into one of these categories. It really puts into perspective how difficult it must be for standardized tests to really account for anything because they assume that everyone learns the same way. In order to be an effective teacher, it is beneficial that I know all I can about all of these categories of learning disorders. It also made me think that teaching is really a balancing act in that you have to juggle so many different methods and strategies and issues going on with your students. You have a lot to consider nowadays and if you are teaching correctly, there is nothing simple about it unless you are prepared for everything that you are going to come up against. Third and last, dealt with the gifted and talented students and how to work with them. Again it comes down to extremes at times when you have some students that are having trouble keeping up, and then you have these others that need to be pushed ahead and not stifled. For me it made me think about the Ted Talk where he spoke about keeping everybody together in schools based on only their age when they could be grouped according to abilities or other commonalities. It was interesting to note that teachers were not very successful in picking out gifted students. Maybe if schools were not focused on standardization and making everybody the same, they could focus on enriching each individual student's talents.
ReplyDeleteI love your line "When you label someone, you negate them." That is such a good point - labeling a student as "challenged" or "low-achieving" just means they won't ever try to be more.
DeleteI like your statement "I could not help but think that at sometime most people might fall into one of these categories." I agree --if we all took learning disability test or physiological test we probably would find something that would fit. As educators we really have to think about peoples abilities.
DeleteThe three most important items for me in Chapter 4 include:
ReplyDelete1. The Flynn effect: IQ scores have been increasing over the years at about 18 points per generation. I would hypotheses that we could also find a correlation here to why more individuals are graduating from college. (It is not just an increase in student grants and loans but that college age individuals are actually smarter than the generations before them.)
2. Learning Disabilities; Student Characteristics and Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities. The part regarding learned helplessness has encouraged me to make sure students do no become frustrated and discouraged when they do not understand. This goes for children in pre-kindergarten to adults in professional development training. I have been in a few training sessions where no one will talk or ask questions because the trainer will roll her eyes, tell people to be quiet, puts people down for not understanding. She also goes on to tell people if you do this incorrectly you will be wrote up-- it is just like the animal receiving an electric shock. So now instead of people being able to learn and gain information from training-- step by step instructions have to be written to go along with the training because no one gets it if there not.
3. Students with ADHD --the advice to teachers from a student with ADHD was very insightful. I hate it when I walk up to teachers talking about student needing to be on medication or talking about a students behaviors -- other students or people might hear. We have confidentiality laws but it still happens.
I keep hearing that graduating from college is being seen as "easy" or "normal" as graduating high school used to be, and getting a Master's is now the new "college" - the expectations that professionals and businesses have now are changing, so the merits of education are changing. It's unfortunate, because college is just so crazy expensive that it's not an option for many.
DeleteOn learned helplessness, I have seen a lot of this as a substitute teacher. Students just don't think that they can do something so they never try again. And they don't want to try, even if I come along and show them how to do it and I am enthusiastic about teaching them. It has to be something we as educators refuse to let happen.
DeleteThe term "crystallized information" was new to me, but the idea wasn't. In previous classes, this has been called "prior knowledge" and is using in scaffolding; building knowledge on top of things students already know and tying it into experiences they've previously had, but I've heard that this information that students come to class with is one of the most important factors to consider when designing lessons and working with students, which makes sense because you can't tap into experiences if not every student has the same experiences, which is why hands-on learning or demonstrations can be so incredibly helpful in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteI liked the section on intelligence and how it's often thought of as something very quantitative, but perhaps it's more fluid, like the book says. It's not about the knowledge or ability a person has regarding a concept, it's about how they get from point A to point B - their thought process. I've never looked at it that way, but I like that definition of intelligence!
Also along that same idea is multiple intelligences, which I have learned about before, but not as "entry points", which is what is discussed in the book and I found a very interesting take on that idea. Again, I think "intelligence" is so much more than a number or something anyone could really ever FULLY see or understand, so the idea of using these "intelligences" to tap into the mind makes more sense to me, from a logical standpoint, than saying a child has aptitude in some area but no aptitude in another. It's not fair to a student to make that assumption, and I also think that teachers should take that as a challenge, not as hard fact.
I also like the idea of intelligence being fluid rather than very simply measureable. I also agree that figuring out how to get from point A to point B does is not equal to being smart. I think that this is one big idea that the whole field of education needs to reevaluate and see that intelligence is not measurable in this sense. Some kids may never say a word in class but they know more than anyone else. There are people that cannot write or read but know more than most people as well. I think of Forrest Gump in that he was not not traditionally smart yet he outperformed everybody he went up against in life.
DeleteSome people are sponges and don't talk in class and others talk allot. I am not sure how the follow statement relates to the topic above "teacher should take that as a challenge not as hard fact". I like the statement but I don't see a clear reason for it. It is also important to note that most teachers don't know children's IQ scores unless that child has had testing completed by a diagnostician and the diagnostician administered actual IQ tests. State test scores are not a reflection of IQ scores.
DeleteI think I understand better-- are you talking about multiple intelligence and saying that teachers should not assume a child has no aptitude in one area just because they have high aptitude in another?
Delete