If you live in Montclair, have a kid in school or attend BOE meetings, you know the term Differentiated Learning. It's considered a core component of our district's approach to teaching.
I always like the basic idea behind this "theory" of learning, which posits that everyone learns, well, in different ways. For instance, if you need to draw diagrams and sketches to understand something, you may be a VISUAL learner. If you take things in just by hearing them, e.g., through traditional lectures, you may be an AUDITORY learner. The theory also encompasses all that stuff about right-brain vs. left-brain dominance.
I like the idea because we are all different, because it stresses an individualistic, personalized approach to education.
And it could be the dead-wrong one. In fact, according to researchers quoted in an article in the NYTimes today:
The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing.
Gulp.
(BTW, this same article includes some wonderful new research about study skills, research that also debunks much of our common "knowledge" of how people/kids learn and memorize.)
What bothers me about this is not that the whole theory might be wrong, but that I wonder if anyone in a position of power in our schools will be brave enough to investigate the claim, to dig into the research deeply and honestly, and figure out how we can adapt to the science.
Posts
I've spent a lot of time reading and talking about Gifted Education. Differentiated teaching is always given, in Montclair, to explain "our program" for reaching gifted kids.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't.
There are many other programs to reach gifted kids. They take money, planning, and dedication on the part of the school system. People have to admit that there IS such a thing as a gifted child, that very few qualify (3% or less), and that there is much that can be done to bring out their talents and avoid having them go crazy with a curriculum that bores them to tears.
Montclair fails on this. We haven't the money and in this community it is politically incorrect to funnel time or money on kids who "have it all" while others "can't even read."
This school system tackles an enormous task, with abilities over the entire spectrum, and does it "reasonably" well. This is especially true for many at the "lower end" of the learning skills spectrum. For above average kids, and many of the gifted, parents take charge. There is a ton of outside "help" in the form of gifted programs, summer camp, tutors, etc.
It's an old story in Montclair, but this leaves the "middle of the pack" kids floating.
Many of the kids who are struggling to get a "B" could greatly benefit by the time and attention of a teacher and/or other programs.
But the answer, and I've experienced this personally, is "your kid is passing. be happy. that's 'enough.'"
But I'm not answering the "main" question which I see as "Does our school system take into account cutting edge educational and learning research and programs, including technology?" And the answer to me is "No."
Programs implemented are old, and the use of technology to support pedagogy is minor.
It would be a fairly straightforward matter to put together a team to at least be aware of "what's out there" but I don't know that this is being done. And in a day and age where technology is dramatically changing the scene in a most beneficial fashion we ignore it.
Cary Africk