Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Changing Educational Paradigms

Hi all,
I was encouraged by our school Principal to look this up. I'm thinking that a lot of people here would find it very interesting... I'd love to hear what comments you may have. This is based on a speech by Sir Ken Robinson- Enjoy!

This is one of my all time favourite talks - but I always love watching it again. It helps me remember why
I'm doing what I'm doing.

That video raises a bunch of separate issues. I do agree with most of what he says. It does resonate with my own experience, and I do try to make the class I teach more like his ideal. Some schools are more encouraging of those endeavors than others.

It used to be my job to set up monthly psychiatrist appointments at a remote school when kids couldn't get medication otherwise. When it comes to ADHD and medication, I feel like I've seen it all at this point.

I've known kids that functioned so well on medication that their teachers were surprised to find out they had a disability. I've seen a girl whose mother took her off medication over Christmas, and nobody noticed. I've seen a kid write in his journal that he gets angry easily and has trouble paying attention, and seen him much calmer and happier--not zombie-like--when his medication was adjusted. I knew a kid who had been exposed to cocaine in the womb who seemed to be a zombie on medication and was reportedly uncontrollable without. And I've found out kids were on medication that the parents didn't tell the school anything about. They certainly aren't required to do so.

I also know a couple of adults with severe ADHD (one used to sprinkle pepper on other people's jello in the college dining hall and once knocked me out of my chair) who were medicated as children and grew up to become significantly more successful than me!

That was fun. I don't agree with it all by any means, though. Here are two points:
- I was also twitching at the part about medicating ADHD, partly because I thought I remembered that his idea that these medications anaesthetise children is the opposite of the truth, at least for some of the meds - some of them are stimulants, aren't they? So that made me want to get my I Think You'll Find It's More Complicated Than That T-shirt
- the idea that the best learning happens in groups, extended to "imply" a bunch of other stuff such as that you shouldn't assess children individually, is very fashionable but IMNSHO it's codswallop. Group work is important and valuable in many ways, and sometimes being in a group is part of the best way to learn something, but in the end, my learning is a change in my brain, and only I can change what's in my brain. Many important things are essentially individual anyway - there are not many good collaboratively written symphonies, or novels, or plays, for example.

I don't think I know anybody who facilitates cooperative learning in the classroom who believe students should be evaluated that way even half of the time. Pairwork or group work is helpful because it gives students a chance to talk about why they chose the answers they did, and gives the students who take a little bit longer to catch onto the concepts a few more chances to get it before you come by to see what they know. A gallery walk early in an assignment gives students who are off track the opportunity to see other students doing what they are supposed to be doing, before they get even further off track.

I like to give students the opportunity to work in a group before I give them an individual graded assignment on the same topic/skill/process. Besides, research shows that cooperative learning, counterintuitively, encourages students to become independent learners.

Not always a problem for our gifted learners, of course, and many gifted adults look back on group work in school with a shudder. They use words like "exploitation". The role of cooperative learning with gifted students is a hugely controversial one.

Having been on a graduate admissions committee that unanimously turned down an applicant with solid test scores and grades on learning that nobody could work with the applicant, I insist on cooperative learning. But I also make sure that a cooperative group with a gifted student has at least one other member that *approaches* them in ability.

Oh! I want one, I want one! Actually....I think I want a closet full them in different colors and styles.....


Interesting video--I was captivated by the visual style actually and thinking how well my students would respond to that style of presenting information.

I do think that we have to re-examine how we use medication. I've had many students for whom it was an absolute gift, but I've noticed that as more students take medication, the range of what is considered typical or normal is narrowing, leading to worries about children who would have seemed relatively typical 10-15 years ago.

The summary of the divergent thinking study was interesting, but on it's face, it's hard to reach the same conclusions. Five year olds who are still in the world of tooth fairies are likely to be less bound by the rules of science in their thinking (I recall DS3 saying, "mom, when you grow back into a kid you'll like chicken with ketchup"). I'm not saying that we shouldn't do a better job maintaining divergent thinking skills, just that I don't think that the logical conclusion should be that the change happens because school beats divergent thinking out of kids

I DO believe that being able to work in a group is an important skill that deserves cultivating. I DON'T think it follows that the majority of time in school should be spent in randomized groups (or even homogenous groups), and while I am supportive of evaluating (or even grading) a child's ability to work successfully in a group, I dislike when a grade is assigned to a group product--too much outside of individual control to warrant that, and a poor message to individuals who work within groups. If your group is only as strong as your weakest/least motivated member, then it may feel as if there is either no incentive for the strongest members to fully engage, or that there is no reason for that least motivated member to fully engage.

Only two available that I know of, but here you go.

Thanks!

Oh, yes, I agree its all simplified. I think it helps to remember we aren't really the intended audience. We think too much