Alice L Erickson
Professor Wentworth
English 111
20 October 2012
Students strive for educational success, but not all are able to meet strict guidelines that have been provided by today's educational institutions. Unfortunately, students are not given equal opportunities to succeed; socio-economic factors, educators, and learning environments all differ from student to student. Does success derive solely from the responsible, self-motivated student? Society tends to rely on the individual to succeed, but, as Malcolm Gladwell points out in his analogy Teachers and Quarterbacks, “what matters more than anything in predicting professional success is the quality of the learning environment that the quarterback is drafted into, not the quality of the experience he was drafted from.” (3) Educational institutions must adapt to meet diverse learning needs.
Dr. Howard Gardner challenged traditional education beliefs in 1983 with his “Multiple Intelligences Theory.” This theory suggests that humans posses all nine intelligences, but each person demonstrates these intelligences in various ways. So, if each person shows acquired knowledge differently, there must be different approaches for acquiring knowledge. Gardner labels intelligence in a new way; to him intelligence is, “the ability to create an effective product or offer a service that is valued in a culture; a set of skills that make it possible for a person to solve problems in life; and the potential for finding or creating solutions for problems, which involves gathering new knowledge.” (2). Clearly then, if knowledge can so broadly be demonstrated then educational institutions must offer students a variety of ways to show this. Literally and figuratively institutions are robbing the learner of potential success by restricting them to uniform learning policies.
In addition, Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory insists that teachers must “encourage equal interaction between the teacher and the student,” and, in this way the student will not be an inferior to an all-knowing teacher, but an equal. Does the collaboration of ideas not provide the most successful results? Paulo Freire would agree with this statement; in his article “The “Banking” System” he explains how modern educational institutions are not providing students with a quality education because educators are simply depositing information into learners like a bank, yet another example of teacher superiority. Like Gardner, Freire expresses that equal interaction between teachers and students is essential; otherwise “knowledge becomes a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing.” (1) By indifferently depositing information into students, by cutting corners in order to meet curriculum standards, schools are, essentially, discouraging growth and exploration amongst students by confining them to their impractical, vague agenda.
As discouraging as it is, schools and teachers have adopted an egocentric philosophy. Consequently, students have, yet again, been stripped the opportunity for a diversified education because colleges are eager to achieve great social status. Teachers are now considered businesspersons; trading in a students thorough education in order to meet basic curriculum needs in x amount of time. Former English professor at Harvard University, and critic for “The New Yorker,” Louis Menand writes of, in “What Are Universities For,” his concern with this professionalism problem in high-level education. More boldly, teachers are being pressured by colleges who want merely to reproduce as many graduates in as little amount of time as possible. So, vague introduction courses, and standardized tests seem to be the best way for students to become, or what their university policy regards as, well-rounded, intellectual citizens. Menand proposes in “What Are Universities For?” the idea that universities are pushed to “...keep out “unqualified” practitioners... by monopolizing both instruction and scholarship.” (4) How then can this business like approach be named beneficial for even the most intellectual learners let alone diverse learners? By “monopolizing instruction” students grow lethargic, and apathetic; when educational success revolves primarily around conforming to curriculum code, students make school irrelevant due to pressure to be well rounded. By depriving students the freedom to diversely, and intellectually express themselves, colleges are missing opportunities for genuine student understanding, and even more importantly, student interest.
Professor Wentworth
English 111
20 October 2012
Students strive for educational success, but not all are able to meet strict guidelines that have been provided by today's educational institutions. Unfortunately, students are not given equal opportunities to succeed; socio-economic factors, educators, and learning environments all differ from student to student. Does success derive solely from the responsible, self-motivated student? Society tends to rely on the individual to succeed, but, as Malcolm Gladwell points out in his analogy Teachers and Quarterbacks, “what matters more than anything in predicting professional success is the quality of the learning environment that the quarterback is drafted into, not the quality of the experience he was drafted from.” (3) Educational institutions must adapt to meet diverse learning needs.
Dr. Howard Gardner challenged traditional education beliefs in 1983 with his “Multiple Intelligences Theory.” This theory suggests that humans posses all nine intelligences, but each person demonstrates these intelligences in various ways. So, if each person shows acquired knowledge differently, there must be different approaches for acquiring knowledge. Gardner labels intelligence in a new way; to him intelligence is, “the ability to create an effective product or offer a service that is valued in a culture; a set of skills that make it possible for a person to solve problems in life; and the potential for finding or creating solutions for problems, which involves gathering new knowledge.” (2). Clearly then, if knowledge can so broadly be demonstrated then educational institutions must offer students a variety of ways to show this. Literally and figuratively institutions are robbing the learner of potential success by restricting them to uniform learning policies.
In addition, Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory insists that teachers must “encourage equal interaction between the teacher and the student,” and, in this way the student will not be an inferior to an all-knowing teacher, but an equal. Does the collaboration of ideas not provide the most successful results? Paulo Freire would agree with this statement; in his article “The “Banking” System” he explains how modern educational institutions are not providing students with a quality education because educators are simply depositing information into learners like a bank, yet another example of teacher superiority. Like Gardner, Freire expresses that equal interaction between teachers and students is essential; otherwise “knowledge becomes a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing.” (1) By indifferently depositing information into students, by cutting corners in order to meet curriculum standards, schools are, essentially, discouraging growth and exploration amongst students by confining them to their impractical, vague agenda.
As discouraging as it is, schools and teachers have adopted an egocentric philosophy. Consequently, students have, yet again, been stripped the opportunity for a diversified education because colleges are eager to achieve great social status. Teachers are now considered businesspersons; trading in a students thorough education in order to meet basic curriculum needs in x amount of time. Former English professor at Harvard University, and critic for “The New Yorker,” Louis Menand writes of, in “What Are Universities For,” his concern with this professionalism problem in high-level education. More boldly, teachers are being pressured by colleges who want merely to reproduce as many graduates in as little amount of time as possible. So, vague introduction courses, and standardized tests seem to be the best way for students to become, or what their university policy regards as, well-rounded, intellectual citizens. Menand proposes in “What Are Universities For?” the idea that universities are pushed to “...keep out “unqualified” practitioners... by monopolizing both instruction and scholarship.” (4) How then can this business like approach be named beneficial for even the most intellectual learners let alone diverse learners? By “monopolizing instruction” students grow lethargic, and apathetic; when educational success revolves primarily around conforming to curriculum code, students make school irrelevant due to pressure to be well rounded. By depriving students the freedom to diversely, and intellectually express themselves, colleges are missing opportunities for genuine student understanding, and even more importantly, student interest.