Multiple intelligence
theory shows that young people who are highly word- and/or logic-smart perform
best in school. In other words, schools – with their traditional reliance on
lecture-style teaching, textbooks, and worksheets – are generally designed to
cater to the innate learning preferences of word- and logic-smart kids. Of
course, that doesn’t mean such children are “smarter” – or that kids with other
primary learning strengths are “dumb.” But, sadly, children whose main
strengths are something other than logic- and word-smart often feel
marginalized because they cannot “compete” with their “smart” peers. And, of
course, when kids feel bad about themselves, they tend to act out. Thus, it’s
not a huge stretch to conclude that the traditional school set-up contributes
to kids’ behavior issues.
Obviously, the exhibition
of poor behavior is a multi-faceted, complicated problem, and the school
environment is not entirely to blame. It’s equally true that changing the
system as a whole would be like turning the Queen Mary in a bath tub. However,
that doesn’t mean individual teachers are powerless.
When I was teaching at a
large, urban high school, my class rosters were nearly identical to those of
one of the science teachers. The kids came from new-immigrant families, and
some were quite poor. Each was undertaking the difficult task of learning
English as a second language while simultaneously trying to earn a diploma. Some
hadn’t been in school for years, and a few were gang wannabes. One or two were
active gang members.
Nevertheless, I viewed
them as “good kids,” and I enjoyed my time with them. They pleasantly
interacted with me, generally put forth good effort, and made progress. But to
the other teacher, they were “awful, rotten kids.” She railed against their
refusal to pay attention in class,
“laziness,” and inability to pass even the “easiest” quiz. It was as if
they changed from Jekyll to Hyde while making the trek from first floor to
third.
I was far from the
“perfect” teacher. But in hindsight I’ve noted that the other teacher and I had
created vastly different classroom environments. Hers was quite traditional. In
fact, she expected the kids to function rather like robots in terms of the
expected daily procedures. Word- and logic-smart kids managed; the others did
not. And they expressed their displeasure by acting out.
In contrast, I’d devised
an interactive workshop format and incorporated learning tasks that purposely
catered to every one of the multiple intelligence strengths. My classes – in
the language arts – were not “easier” than the science courses (I was required
to teach Shakespeare, for example). But I packaged things differently. That
motivated the kids to behave so they could learn.
Any dedicated teacher can
similarly make the best of things within the system and find ways to meet every
child’s learning needs. If you do so, you’ll reap the rewards of better
behavior, promote better learning, and make your experience and that of the
kids better all around.
*****
Photo Credit: SCSSAPICS
CK
No comments:
Post a Comment