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.” (Gladwell 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.” (Gardner 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 become the 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.” (Freire1) By indifferently delivering knowledge to students, and by cutting corners in order to meet curriculum standards, schools are, essentially, discouraging growth and exploration amongst students. Sadly it seems schools actually are able to confine students to some impractical, vague agenda that is unlikely to adjust to meet diverse learning needs.
Unfortunately, schools and teachers have adopted an egocentric philosophy; educators appear to now know students only as a number, or worse yet, a source of revenue. A challenging, diverse education seems to be an idea of the past because colleges are eager to achieve great socio-economic status. Teachers are now considered businesspersons; trading in the opportunity to deliver a 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 produce 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 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.” (Menand 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, school becomes irrelevant to the learner due to pressure to be well-rounded; even worse, genuine student interest is now lost, and success is unlikely. Is there an official universal guidebook that constitutes what subjects students must be well rounded in?
With an increased amount in college spending, and in rewarded bachelors degrees, it would be assumed that a job surplus would follow suit. The successful student who is supposedly provided with the most diversely valuable education is still not able to achieve (what they believe to be) greatness after attending school.
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.” (Gladwell 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.” (Gardner 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 become the 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.” (Freire1) By indifferently delivering knowledge to students, and by cutting corners in order to meet curriculum standards, schools are, essentially, discouraging growth and exploration amongst students. Sadly it seems schools actually are able to confine students to some impractical, vague agenda that is unlikely to adjust to meet diverse learning needs.
Unfortunately, schools and teachers have adopted an egocentric philosophy; educators appear to now know students only as a number, or worse yet, a source of revenue. A challenging, diverse education seems to be an idea of the past because colleges are eager to achieve great socio-economic status. Teachers are now considered businesspersons; trading in the opportunity to deliver a 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 produce 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 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.” (Menand 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, school becomes irrelevant to the learner due to pressure to be well-rounded; even worse, genuine student interest is now lost, and success is unlikely. Is there an official universal guidebook that constitutes what subjects students must be well rounded in?
With an increased amount in college spending, and in rewarded bachelors degrees, it would be assumed that a job surplus would follow suit. The successful student who is supposedly provided with the most diversely valuable education is still not able to achieve (what they believe to be) greatness after attending school.