Ch 7 Learning Styles/MI

Join Teachers.Net

Chatboards

Recent Groups

Prof Readings

MEMBERS

2 Members

+ Join Group

Pinned Posts

ALLAll Teachers

Teachers.Net LIVE CHAT Support group - Tues eve!

Featured Jobs

Full-timeMontessori Teacher

Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada

TemporaryTeachers, rural schools

Peace River North School District

Full-timeHead Teacher: 2nd/3rd Grades – Mills College Children’s School

Mills College

Teaching Jobs on Teachers.Net

Featured Job special only $39!

https://teachers.net/jobs

Become a Teachers.Net sponsor!

Professional Readings Chatboard

Ch 7 Learning Styles/MI

by brad

Jan 29, 2011

Well, I dare not admit that I'm moving on while all of you are happily continuing the conversation of the previous chapter(s)...

I have found this chapter, for some reason, to be the best- written of all of the chapters. I feel like there is a logical cohesive argument here and he brings together all his examples in a way that bolsters his argument. This is unlike other chapters where I had trouble following his train of thought, as the train occasionally veered off in tangential directions.

This chapter is the hardest chapter to get other teachers to understand. I usually don't argue it too much; I usually just hand them Willingham's article on this same topic in American Educator. Through my experiences, I have found it's the content or skill you are trying to get across that dictates the teaching method/instructional strategy moreso than the student. When this remains fairly consistent, then I have the mental freedom/capacity to determine how to best reach the chil...See MoreWell, I dare not admit that I'm moving on while all of you are happily continuing the conversation of the previous chapter(s)...

I have found this chapter, for some reason, to be the best- written of all of the chapters. I feel like there is a logical cohesive argument here and he brings together all his examples in a way that bolsters his argument. This is unlike other chapters where I had trouble following his train of thought, as the train occasionally veered off in tangential directions.

This chapter is the hardest chapter to get other teachers to understand. I usually don't argue it too much; I usually just hand them Willingham's article on this same topic in American Educator. Through my experiences, I have found it's the content or skill you are trying to get across that dictates the teaching method/instructional strategy moreso than the student. When this remains fairly consistent, then I have the mental freedom/capacity to determine how to best reach the child.

I recently entered a conversation with a group of colleagues the other day in which they were talking about, "if a group of children doesn't get a skill, how are you going to reteach it." I shared that, in my experience, it is usually not the method in which it was taught (assuming most variables are in control, such as classroom management, behavior, technology, etc.) that needs changing, it is the granularity with which I taught the content/skill. AHA! The old idea of task analysis rears its ugly head.

I think teachers are exhausted thinking they have to have Santa's Enormous Bag of instructional strategies to reach different types of students. More and more, I'm finding that students are actually MORE successful when we keep our teaching strategies consistent and vary our content/skill. This goes back to Jan/Madeline's old adage, "If the content is new/difficult, the process should be familiar/easy; if the process is new/difficult, the content should be familiar/easy." Or as another staff developer I've been working with has related, "When we keep the lesson framework consistent, it frees the student to focus on the content of the lesson, rather than the structure."

Man, I've missed you guys...

brad

Comment

(21)

report post

view previous comments

brad Grace,

I've heard of this book, whether through catalogues or you, I really wonder about the premise you state, because it does sound worth exploring. Does he mention classroom implications?

brad

Feb 1, 2011

report post

brad cavey,

There's a lot of truth in what you post. I do wonder if what you and I see are the differences in demographics, as I'm primarily in an urban setting and you are suburban/rural (?) I have students who come to older grades without a strong foundation from the earlier grades, so even though the concept is "grade level," many students a...See More

Feb 1, 2011

report post

KimK1ca I liked Chapter 7 enough to go back and re-read it this morning, in an attempt to solidify my understanding of Willingham's arguments against the proliferation of Gardner's MI theory.

I was finishing my credential and working on my masters when MI was really hot. In my learning theory class, one student gave us all a questionaire so we cou...See More

Feb 5, 2011

report post

Jan On 2/01/11, brad wrote: > cavey, > > There's a lot of truth in what you post. I do wonder if what you and I see > are the differences in demographics, as I'm primarily in an urban setting > and you are suburban/rural (?) I have students who come to older grades > without a strong foundation from the earlier grades, so even though ...See More

Feb 6, 2011

report post

Jan, who forgot to say... On 2/06/11, Jan wrote: > On 2/01/11, brad wrote: >> cavey, >> >> There's a lot of truth in what you post. I do wonder >> if what you and I see are the differences in >> demographics, as I'm primarily in an urban setting >> and you are suburban/rural (?) I have students who >> come to older grades without...See MoreOn 2/06/11, Jan wrote: > On 2/01/11, brad wrote: >> cavey, >> >> There's a lot of truth in what you post. I do wonder >> if what you and I see are the differences in >> demographics, as I'm primarily in an urban setting >> and you are suburban/rural (?) I have students who >> come to older grades without a strong foundation from >> the earlier grades, so even though the concept is >> "grade level," many students aren't even at >> "grade level," so differentiating on the >> upper end is rare. My issue is always helping >> teachers understand how to scaffold rather than go >> "all the way back" in the curriculum to the >> gap and try to remediate within the regular setting. >> This is NOT to say we don't have gifted students; we >> most certainly do. However, due mostly to funding and >> personnel (dependent on funding), we have a very tiny >> gifted program. We do what we can, and we try to >> educate families and teachers on how to assist with >> gifted students in the regular classroom. >> >> I strongly agree with you, though, that we can't go >> around not talking about differentiation for these >> very reasons. Some kids need something else. How we >> get there is where this discussion lies, I think. > > I don't think it's ever been the case that we don't > differentiate instruction. "Selecting the > Objective at the Correct Level of Difficulty" is > one of Madeline Hunter's four elements of instruction. > The question is HOW we do it.....and Carol Ann > Tomlinson, in my view, has it all wrong, and has, > perhaps, done more damage to instruction than any other > single person. Schmoker is so right on this. You cannot > differentiate a la Tomlinson, and plan and deliver the > substantive lessons that they are now saying we must > revert to.

Forgot to say, that in "Selecting the Objective...." we differentiate both content and process. A task analysis will have component objectives at each level of DIFFICULTY of the content, and each level of COMPLEXITY with the process. Bloom is what we use for complexity. I notice that Barbara Blackburn in her book on rigor does the same thing. Bloom is the tool for building rigor into a lesson. You have to wonder if Bloom's work will ever not be useful. We are using it more now than we did in 1956 when he wrote his Taxonomy. >> >> brad

Feb 6, 2011

report post