Intelligence is assessed in school either we do so intentionally or not. Either it is spoken or unspoken, a pupil/student's ability to interact with the material without teacher intervention is ultimately something we as teachers (on whatever level) have a conscious relationship with on a daily basis.
Intelligence is assessed, therefore, both formally and inadvertently through testing and informally through daily interaction. Even though we say we are testing skills, we are actually testing a pupil's ability to pick up the concepts and ideas as they have been presented, worked with and discussed by a specific teacher or in a specific school (milieu). If identical twin testing proves that two kids in different milieus do the same, that may actually only prove that traditional teaching forms (the classroom model, which to a very great degree most of the western world abides by) doesn't do much for kids' incremental intellectual growth at all. In other words, current international models gives them facts, does teach them how to learn.
Informally kids' intelligence is assessed in the school setting on a daily basis, simply because (using a bell curve) a teacher strives to get as many kids as possible inside the body of the bell - and hence getting as many as possible to grasp the material at hand at a sufficient enough level to be able to successfully move on to the next stage in their learning progression plan. The cost/effort of having to follow up those who lag behind is enormous, so the middle of the bell curve is best placed at a level that allows for the least amount of lag. The crux of this matter is that the apex of the bell should not depend on the average or mean IQ of the class, but rather be dependant on the teacher's ability to work with the material and the class in such as way that he or she initially reaches as many as possible. Therefore, as opposed to assessing intelligence, we should assess didactical approaches and learning outcome results.
Since it is a human quality to be able to learn, nobody simply cannot learn - as has been indicated that some people think in the discussions we have had. This problem was also discussed in some of the course material we had to read for week 2, even though I disagree with that particular newsletter. (That is a whole different discussion). There are, however, some kids that teacher simply cannot teach - not because the kids cannot learn but because that teacher does not have the time/ability/skills to approach that kid in an appropriate matter. Naturally, this effects the educational opportunities children are given in one way or another.
I realise that this stance argues for differentiation of kids in school, and perhaps that is the best way to go about reaching out to those children, who for one reason or another, have not had the incremental, additive intellectual growth which you otherwise see in "smart" kids. Now, intelligence is a complex construct which means that while some kids have more blocks stacked in their favour than others, other kids might have the same starting point, but lacking the catalysts for intellectual growth they stagnate much earlier than we hope (if, of course, you think that people have to stagnate all together at some point - which I don't). This thinking is in line with Gordon Stobart - and I am looking forward to reading his book on ability and intelligence.
As to learning, being intelligent does not necessarily mean you are en expert learner - or even a good learner. Very intelligent kids can be horrible learners, and end up with very poorly developed thoughts and stances on a number of complex issues. just as slower (?) kids can end up - with the right training - to be able to follow and develop complex lines of thoughts and arguments. And if there is one think which we can be side of concerning the future of education, it is that we need more people who are able to grasp and content with complex problems and constructs which face society today.
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar