I thought to myself, "Did I just hear that a method that worked in a special situation for a special population could be generalized to the mainstream population?" Surely not. Oh, but I did. In fact, I heard more than one special education expert say the same thing to different people.
Now I could understand that someone untrained might have the notion that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. But, I would never expect an expert in the field to make such a statement without empirical evidence. None was forthcoming, however. That's because the statement is counterintuitive. What is good for special education students should be easier for regular education students.
I hear too many stories coming out of education like this. I remember the 1990s. It was the decade of the learning style (Ken and Rita Dunn), even the reading style (Marie Carbo). A four segment teaching plan was circulated for a while that bordered on learning style. The categories of styles were different, such as "kinesthetic" or "visual," but were stylistic categories nonetheless.
Of course, if the originators of the style theories had done empirical studies on their theories to prove them, the notion of styles enhancing learning would have been less trendy than they were. But, no, quantitative evidence was not forthcoming. The learning style theory faded into oblivion with other notional ideas about education like hemisphericity of the brain. And, testing over a common curriculum will share the same fate as the rest of the notions as it runs its course in a few more years, thankfully.
I would hope that colleges of education would provide more informed educators in the future in order to lead eager and willing students into a better way of thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment