s/o direct instruction and creativity

[Colleen in NS]

I think all of us have the possibility of those moments (I'm assuming we all do?).

 

hmmm...yes, I sort of know what you mean....

 

Which is why you can't write it out. You have nothing but air to write out. BUT, I think learning to write it out is an extremely valuable process...

 

Does questioning help aid the communication process? I'm thinking about the difference between me saying to my daughter when she was in grade 1: "tell me about that chapter you just read," and using the narration questions that are in WWE to help her formulate her thoughts about that chapter. Because I'll tell ya, until I learned about those questions (and all the other sets of thought-provoking questions in WTM for different subject areas), I could never put my thoughts into words, either. It was very frustrating.

[justamouse]

Does questioning help aid the communication process? I'm thinking about the difference between me saying to my daughter when she was in grade 1: "tell me about that chapter you just read," and using the narration questions that are in WWE to help her formulate her thoughts about that chapter. Because I'll tell ya, until I learned about those questions (and all the other sets of thought-provoking questions in WTM for different subject areas), I could never put my thoughts into words, either. It was very frustrating.

 

Socratic dialog would greatly enable a teacher to pinpoint how the student processed, and be excellent in getting the student to be able to understand their process.

[justamouse]

Or that way.

 

In college when I was facing a particularly stressful courseload I did my homework listening to christian radio...and I am not christian. The voices were so soothing and it helped me think. Floating in a pool would have worked too, unfortunately I was nowhere near nature and it was COLD.

 

Yup, sometimes you have to put yourself in the mode via a transitional tool. Whatever works for you. Gregorian Chant. ;)

[Colleen in NS]

Socratic dialog would greatly enable a teacher to pinpoint how the student processed, and be excellent in getting the student to be able to understand their process.

 

Yes! That's the term I was trying to think of. I guess really what it is, is a way to get to know the mind of the student; and then, with that knowledge, to lead the student to free the thoughts in that mind so the rest of humanity (or locals, lol) can understand.

[Colleen in NS]

The voices were so soothing and it helped me think. Floating in a pool would have worked too

 

You people are speaking my language. :D I love listening to classical music while doing quiet activity or thoughtful activity (I know, classical music lovers, one is not supposed to do this! Sorry! :D).

[Corraleno]

This sounds sort of miraculous or something. Will you explain with words (notice I'm not asking for "steps"), since it's hard to draw pictures here, and since many humans communicate via words, how this happens?

Unfortunately, no, I can't, because I don't think that way, and the person I know who thinks in an extreme VSL way (DH), can't put it in words. That's kind of the whole point. As I mentioned in the other thread, the best way he can describe it is that he thinks in images in multiple dimensions with webs of connected things nested inside each other, with things in every level connected to every other level, and he has the ability to pop in and out of each level or dimension as needed, and to work on problems in different levels/dimensions simultaneously and often unconsciously. He will often wake up in the middle of the night with the solution to some technical problem or mathematical algorthim, or he'll start talking to himself in the middle of dinner about something that makes no sense whatsoever to me, but which apparently is the solution to some problem that's been percolating in the back of his mind for years. There are things he works on for years, without writing anything down, until suddenly the whole thing pops into his head and he can sit at the computer and write out the code or the equations or draw the solution.

 

DebbS described a similar process in the other thread:

I'm a non-linear thinker and a systems analyst. I don't use a structured systems design approach but rather I learn about the requirements and then a week or two later, the design, in it's complete form down to every detail, pops into my conscience thought space.

 

Yes, she then has to describe that design to others in a way that allows them to implement it, but that's not the same thing as describing how she arrived at the design. She also said that she's near the middle of the spectrum rather than at one end:

I do translate and can actually think linearly when I have to. But, tests show that I'm fairly equal left/right brained (and dyslexic) though I do my most creative and challenging work non-linearly. Given that it's difficult for me - one close to the middle of the spectrum, to deal with challenges in my less preferred way, I can imagine how a person who is way out at the end of either side would find that nearly impossible

DH has been forced to explain his work because he filed patent applications for it, but I can tell you that the translation process from his brain to paper via my brain was the single most cognitively difficult thing I have ever done in my life. And I have a lot of experience editing technical and scientific papers, including those written by scientists for whom English was their 2nd or 3rd language. That was nothing compared to trying to work with someone whose "first language" isn't even words.

 

Jackie

[Tullia]

I think for some people the problem isn't that they haven't been taught to write properly, but that there is an inherent difficulty in documenting a thought process that looks like a cloud of fuzzy concepts that suddenly forms into a whole, complete answer, often in a way that is not even accessible to the conscious mind. It's really not the same thing at all as a child who thinks sequentially but is perhaps not good at describing those steps in words. How can a student "document the steps" in his thought process if there were no steps? Often the best they can do is start from the answer and try to work backwards, which can be very time-consuming. Drawing the answer and then trying to describe the drawing or diagram in words is another approach, but for a non-sequential person, understanding what order to put the steps in can be problematic because for them the solution was simultaneous.

 

Jackie

 

Jackie, you quoted the portion of my post in which I was referring to something quite different than the issue you're addressing. Later on I did acknowledge the fact that there are people for whom this is difficult not because they lack discipline or are victims of inadequate teaching but simply because their brains are wired differently. I believe we generally agree at least on that point. However, I also believe that we do a disservice to the nonlinear thinker by uncritical support of very real differences especially when those differences hinder that person's grades or interactions with peers either in the classroom or in the workplace.

 

Nonlinear thought processing is a reality, but IME it occurs from a variety of causes among them lack of intellectual discipline and/or inadequate teaching. My experience in the classroom was that the truly differently wired brain does exist but is relatively uncommon. I think, too, that one of the most valuable aspects of looking at all disciplines through a classical lens is its focus on teaching structural awareness which in turn gives students a common vocabulary and set of concepts around which their thinking, writing, and discussion may be organized. That process helps all students improve their ability to support conclusions in a way that is comprehensible to other people.

 

Jane's practice of including a variety of different types of problems and allowing choice is a wonderful way to make allowances for different ways of approaching problems, but I'm guessing she would still require some information about how a student progressed from the initial problem to a solution. Also, I don't think the point of this is communicating normally with other humans so much as being able to participate effectively within an intellectual discipline. The OP's post seems to me to be not about celebrating vs. squelching neurodiversity as it is about helping students do better at expressing themselves within the conventions of physics. Whether you're engaging in literary analysis, solving a math problem or formulating an hypothesis it is important to be able to communicate with other people.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Martha in NM
typos; clarity

[Colleen in NS]

DH has been forced to explain his work because he filed patent applications for it, but I can tell you that the translation process from his brain to paper via my brain was the single most cognitively difficult thing I have ever done in my life.

 

How did he translate from his brain to yours so that you could put it on paper?

[Colleen in NS]

...one of the most valuable aspects of looking at all disciplines through a classical lens is its focus on teaching structural awareness which in turn gives students a common vocabulary and set of concepts around which their thinking, writing, and discussion may be organized.

 

I think this is why I latched onto classical methods of teaching - not because I think I'm a linear thinker, but because I am more of a pictorial thinker. The structure/common vocab/common concepts within disciplines that I am learning is what is helping me to translate from my brain to other people.

 

And I apologize - I think I've gone off-track a bit. Hoping regentrude finds some solutions.

[Ester Maria]

I still think there is a fundamental difference between an educational institution and, well, life. For example, I have a knack for languages, but the answer "it just sounds good to me" cannot possibly cut it on an exam at school, let alone at university - filling the correct answers is only a part of the process, there is a whole meta-linguistic level about that, which one has to master, to be able to successfully finish that course of studies, so "sounds good" is not an acceptable answer in that context: I need to demonstrate that I know the principle behind it.

 

Most of the linguistic problems I solved here for people were solved in two steps: first, I just knew intuitively how do you say that in Latin, and then second, I translated that explanation to the grammatical jargon of English: okay, this is called partitive genitive, that means this, it is combined into this construction because of X and Y, etc. I do have a moment of "just knowing" the answer, and I can remain on that level, but if needed, I can do the whole meta-language thing.

 

Now that I think about it, it really is a good example, because I actually had to learn how to do it: not only the whole terminology, but also how to explain things in layman terms too, how to adapt my explanation to the audience, how to explain it to somebody whose native language follows more or less the same principles in some cases or to somebody whose is very different, which then requires a knowledge not only of Latin or English, but of language as such, as a system, which I take in as a whole naturally, but I did learn with time how to successfully dissect it.

 

Same thing about my native language: the process of studying it involves systematically building up that meta-layer of how you talk about what you are doing, not only about the know-how. I think it is an integral part of the discipline to also master the conventions that go with it, in the university setting: of course, with providing maximum help for students who struggle with it.

 

I know people who flunked in university as foreign language majors because of this, by the way. Yes, they can speak a language perfectly, intuitively, but it is just not enough - not in that context - the level of the "intellectualization" of what is done and why, the mastering of the jargon of the discipline, is needed, no matter how good their intuition is.

 

I think what regrentrude needs to do is to offer maximum help possible: in terms of office hours, openly talking about this with students, being reachable by them, but not give up on that layer.

[Corraleno]

How did he translate from his brain to yours so that you could put it on paper?

Hours and hours of incredibly torturous discussion, where an extreme VSL tried to describe incredibly technical processes, involving mathematics, computer science, and human neurology, to someone with zero background in any of those areas, where the information was presented in no particular order and often in the format of drawings and diagrams that I didn't understand. I would ask millions of questions, 90% of which would turn out to be the wrong questions because I'd totally misunderstood something. Eventually I would sit down and write up what I thought he was talking about, and he would read it and tell me all the places where I'd misunderstood what he meant. And then the process would start over.

 

Honestly, if he wasn't married to me I don't think he would ever have been able to get these patents through, because the lawyers he sent his initial "draft" to could not understand one. single. word. of it, and the specialist they sent it to, who worked on it for several months, completely misunderstood everything and rewrote something that did not even vaguely resemble DH's technology. He owes me BIG TIME and he knows it! :lol:

 

Jackie

[regentrude]

But my question is: does it therefore necessarily follow that a student must do both these things you mention (draw and write a step-by-step process) every single time, for every single problem, to accomplish your aims? Must the step-by-step process take only one particular form, or are there a variety of possible ways to show how they got there?.

 

Yes. A diagram is an integral part of any physics problem and one of the most valuable instruments for the researcher - this is a skill students MUST develop and practice and apply to any given problem. They resist mightily - I ould suspct the visual learners would have it easier here than more verbal people.

 

The language of physics is mathematics, so I am not expecting any essays or full sentences. First and formeost, I require the student to state which law of physics applies to the situation at hand - this is the fundamental conceptual insight that precedes solving each problem, and the very first step. It makes a huge differnce if energy is conserved or momentum, and the student must recognize this and show me that he does. (A student who uses the wrong conservation law and arrives at the correct answer because he made a math mistake down the line has not understood the prpblem - the seemingly correct answer is worthless. Happens more often than you think)

 

I do NOT mandate a recise series of steps, nor do I require them to show every single stp in their algebra. But stating what basic physics concept applies, in form of the corrresponding equation, and showing how this factis used to solve the problem is esential and can not be skipped.

[Corraleno]

Nonlinear thought processing is a reality, but IME it occurs from a variety of causes among them lack of intellectual discipline and/or inadequate teaching. My experience in the classroom was that the truly differently wired brain does exist but is relatively uncommon.

I think you're using either the word "nonlinear" or the word "causes" in a way I don't understand. A nonlinear thinker, or VSL, or "right-brained" person, or however you want to label it, is wired a certain way; there is abundant neurological evidence for that. If you're saying that "lack of intellectual discipline" and "inadequate teaching" can actually cause someone to become a right-brained/VSL/nonlinear thinker, I don't understand that. Or by "nonlinear" do you just mean someone who is not good at putting their thoughts into words in a linear way? Or someone who is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum who can function in a linear/verbal mode but just hasn't had much practice at it?

 

I think, too, that one of the most valuable aspects of looking at all disciplines through a classical lens is its focus on teaching structural awareness which in turn gives students a common vocabulary and set of concepts around which their thinking, writing, and discussion may be organized. That process helps all students improve their ability to support conclusions in a way that is comprehensible to other people.

I don't understand what you mean by "structural awareness"?

 

Jackie

Edited July 12, 2011 by Corraleno

[regentrude]

My take as a former instructor (but not in a STEM field) is that you might ask students if they know how to document their thinking processes, but are failing to do so. If that's the case perhaps you explain the importance of being able to communicate their thought processes with others and give them a few examples of what you expect. If they have never been taught or find the process difficult perhaps they need to make more use of the tutoring center?

 

Thanks - that is exactly what we are doing, in all intro courses. We show the students how they should document and explain exactly what the expectations are. (They get to see this when students working on the board are graded, and when I grade homework, which I do, in order to provide this kind of feedback, for every student and every problem every week) For every single example that I work on the board, I how it with all the bells and whistles and talk them not just through the physics, but through the procedure. Every single time, so it can become automatic. We give them handouts explaining this. They get equation sheets with the basic lawas from which they must start.

I personally offer four hours of tutoring; together with the other courses and the tutoring center they have access to 20(!) hours of free learning assistanc each week.

 

Really, I dont quite know what else to do.

[Guest]

Yes. A diagram is an integral part of any physics problem and one of the most valuable instruments for the researcher - this is a skill students MUST develop and practice and apply to any given problem. They resist mightily - I ould suspct the visual learners would have it easier here than more verbal people.

 

The language of physics is mathematics, so I am not expecting any essays or full sentences. First and formeost, I require the student to state which law of physics applies to the situation at hand - this is the fundamental conceptual insight that precedes solving each problem, and the very first step. It makes a huge differnce if energy is conserved or momentum, and the student must recognize this and show me that he does. (A student who uses the wrong conservation law and arrives at the correct answer because he made a math mistake down the line has not understood the prpblem - the seemingly correct answer is worthless. Happens more often than you think)

 

I do NOT mandate a recise series of steps, nor do I require them to show every single stp in their algebra. But stating what basic physics concept applies, in form of the corrresponding equation, and showing how this factis used to solve the problem is esential and can not be skipped.

 

This is different from what I imagined you were saying at first; I imagined you were requiring all mathematical steps in the process to be written down. What you're saying doesn't sound like any problem or resistance my particular child has ever shown; she'd have no trouble with what you describe, and especially if the math could have shortcuts in it or go from equation (the right one) to answer.

 

So I'm really curious now exactly what kinds of students are having such difficulties. What do you know about them and the way they think? If you ask them where in the process they run into internal resistance, can they specify? Where is it? Do they do just as badly on the multiple choice questions (I forget whether you said and I'm sorry, it's late and my eyes are bugging out so I'm not going to go back and search just now)? What specific clues have you had that led you to think their issues might be the result of wiring differences -- I mean, is there any other specifics you have in mind, or is it just general reluctance to answer according to your specifications (which as I said, now that you've explained seem not all that much of an issue for someone like my own child; no idea about others).

 

If it's the diagramming, then this as you say sounds like the reverse of what a VSL kid would resist.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Guest
Edited for bad typing; sorry -- it's late for me.

[onaclairadeluna]

My experience -I was more like an ESL student and recorded the lecture then went home and figured things out, then bounced any remaining thoughts off my study partner or went to office hours. .

 

I have been taking a course on teaching English Language Learners and it's amazing how many of the techniques seem like they would be useful with my DS. It's not processing time he needs but retrieval. But it's the same idea.

 

The other thing that I found useful in College was working in groups. It's a fad now and I see it used in all the wrong ways and some kids just hate it. For me it was fantastic because I need to talk things out. It was an upper division math class and all the teacher did was suggest that we work on the homework in groups. He made the assignments difficult enough that the suggestion seemed like a good idea. It was very helpful to have a fellow math person to talk math with. There is a point in an undergraduate degree that I started feeling a bit isolated. You know, the point when you can no longer talk to the engineers about your homework. Anyhow that was something that helped me personally. I think opportunities to talk out ideas can help students get them on paper.

 

Regentrude, everything you are doing sounds great. I wouldn't worry too much or feel bad about not doing enough. Teaching is a constant learning process. We search for what works best and apply what we can. We experiment with new ideas and keep what works. It sounds like you are on the right track.

[Ester Maria]

They have commonly known and accepted meanings, and there are tests and checklists to assess where children fall on the spectrum.

Jackie, can I ask something here? Do you really, honestly believe that checklists are an adequate way of "diagnosing" how one learns? Do you not find that, if we were to talk in a truly scientific way about these things, it would have to involve MRI / other modern brain research technology / hardcore material proofs of a fundamentally different writing, rather than checklists which are mostly based on "impressions" and which can apply to many people?

 

According to "checklists", I can fit the VSL bill too. According to another "checklist" I took once online when I was bored to death, I am not even fully NT. :lol: I mean really, these things can be so dependent on the mood, the day, the individual impressions, many of items there are easily applicable to most anyone at some stage... It is not that I completely ditch the idea of learning styles, not at all (or of even more fundamental neurological differences), but I find that we would have to talk about these things in a lot more scientific way for it to be really 'acceptable' to me. I mean, a thorough neuropsych evaluation with most modern technology and knowledge available to pinpoint what we are talking about is one thing, the best we have at the moment, but "diagnosing" a kid based on online checklists (for anything - gifted, VSL, whatever) just seems a bit scientifically irresponsible to me (not that you are suggesting it, I am just thinking out loud), or even based on most tests I have seen which are just not "scientific enough" for me. Where I stumble in most of learning differences discussions AND most of gifted discussions is exactly this point - most of the current methods of diagnosing either, and the methods of diagnosing behind most people's "proofs" of being one or the other, just do not seem fundamentally scientific enough to me. Now of course, you may say that I obsess precision unnecessarily, but sometimes it really bugs me - I even know kids who got medicated for ADHD based on checklists and impressions. :001_huh: No fundamental biochem evidence of the need for a certain drug to be added to the chemistry of brain for optimal functioning, not even blood tests or food experiments or checking other parameters in the kid's life to see if the imabalance is actually there. It disturbs the hell out of me because it seems so irresponsible to me. Now, learning differences are not as drastic as this example as they normally do not include drugs, but what I am trying to point out is my inherent suspicion of "(self-)diagnoses" of a neurological difference via checklists or things of the kind.

 

(Yes, I do know that most of you with kids who are wired extremely into one direction have done more than superficial tests, took them to detailed neuropsych evaluations, saw experts and are well-versed in most modern technology, etc. I am just pointing out to some of my issues with checklists.)

Edited July 12, 2011 by Ester Maria

[Colleen in NS]

Let me complicate your hypothesis. I show some mixed traits in tests for VSL vs. linear sequential thought, but I fall mostly into the linear camp. I did extremely well in an educational system that is based on and rewards this type of thinking; I have a PhD in literary analysis -- in READING techniques. Yet I am one of the people who is often accused of misreading others' posts.

 

I find that two things help me with this: mentally diagraming sentences to figure out what the person's point is, and asking questions for clarity if I still don't understand.

[Colleen in NS]

:confused:

Are you saying that classical education and a visual-spatial learning style are mutually incompatible, like attachment parenting and Babywise? Or that of us who are giving our VSL kids a classical education don't belong on this board or shouldn't have these conversations?

 

Nope. That's why I specifically put in the adverb "almost." See how I italicized it, so it would get noticed?

 

(in relation, I don't believe AP and Babywise are completely incompatible, lol. But let's not get into that here.)

Edited July 12, 2011 by Colleen in NS

[Corraleno]

Jackie, can I ask something here? Do you really, honestly believe that checklists are an adequate way of "diagnosing" how one learns?

Most psychological and psychiatric tests are checklists; if a person has a certain number of the behaviors or traits on a list, then they are considered to have that condition. That's what the DSM is, and that's how people are diagnosed. Doing brain scans to assess whether someone is predominantly left- or right-brained or to measure the uptake of dopamine to diagnose ADD, is just not feasible for the vast majority of people. Studies do show the correlation between the behaviors and the neurology, so professionals assume that, most of the time, people who fit the behavioral checklist will have the correlated neurology.

 

IQ tests can also indicate learning preferences, because the subtests often focus on the areas separately. Gifted children in general score much higher on visual-spatial tasks, and it's often extremely high scores in those areas on top of good scores in linear-sequential tasks, that pushes IQ into the highest levels of giftedness. What researchers noted, though, was that there was a subset of gifted kids who had extremely high V/S scores and very poor linear-sequential scores. It's this group of people — high visual-spatial scores and low linear-sequential scores, that are refered to as VSLs. Many gifted people are high in both areas and can switch back and forth. (It sounds like you would fall into this category?)

 

Full IQ testing (e.g. WISC) would be the ideal way to diagnose VSLs, but it's very expensive and not available to everyone. The quickie "giftedness screening tests" they give in public schools often do not pick up VSLs, and gifted VSLs are much less likely to be included in gifted programs than gifted linear-sequential kids. IME, however, people who are VSLs can pretty much diagnose themselves, if they know what the criteria are. Most people fall somewhere towards the middle of the spectrum, but a person who answers "yes" to every single item on the VSL checklist and "no" to every single item on the linear-sequential list, can be pretty confident they are in fact a VSL.

 

Given the enormous impact that this has on students — especially gifted VSLs are who truly not being well served by schools — I do think that even the simple checklists like those on the visualspatial.org website could be very useful in schools. Maybe fewer VSL kids would be written off as lazy or uneducated, if teachers had at least some form of assessment other than just personal opinion.

 

Jackie

[Guest]

Most psychological and psychiatric tests are checklists; if a person has a certain number of the behaviors or traits on a list, then they are considered to have that condition. That's what the DSM is, and that's how people are diagnosed.

 

 

:iagree:

During dd's extensive, multi-day diagnostic testing by a neuropsychologist, a surprising number (surprising to me, anyway) of the "tests" were in checklist form. And many relied on my observations and feelings as a parent about what I saw in my daughter.

[onaclairadeluna]

As some of you know, I teach physics at a university, and reading your descriptions makes me suspect that I may have the occasional student who thinks "differently".

With the insight you have into your children's learning process, is there any advice you could give a college instructor how to work with this kind of student?

 

Apologies to those of you who are following both threads. I wanted to repeat my referral to the Eides and their work as I think the referral might be applicable to the OP's original question.

 

http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/

 

http://www.amazon.com/Mislabeled-Child-Solutions-Childrens-Challenges/dp/1401308996/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310516368&sr=8-1

 

Coincidentally this very relevant video was one of the more recent posts on their blog.

 

 

 

I have found their work extremely helpful in educating my 2e dyslexic child and also I have found it helpful as a professional educator in meeting the needs of other learners.

[Corraleno]

 

 

:iagree:

I highly recommend that anyone who is interested in these issues watch this video. The Eides are neurologists who specialize in "differently-wired" kids, particularly those who combine giftedness and VSL traits, and they describe very well the differences between VSL and linear-sequential learners. Below is a quote from their presentation (note: they refer to VSL skills as "crow skills" and linear-sequential skills as "turkey skills"):

 

Viewing individuals who show strengths in crow skills but weaknesses in turkey skills as simply learning disordered is a huge mistake and one with potentially disastrous consequences, not only for the individuals themselves but for us as a society, because we’ll be deprived of their contributions. Yet this is exactly what we do when we make turkey skills the gold standard of achievement and the gatekeeper for advancement. If turkey skills rule the educational roost, many crows will be lost before they reach the place where they can show their true worth.

 

[This] loss will be experienced by any college or training program that weeds out potential candidates on the basis of poor performance on a broad range of turkey skills. This is especially true in the design-based, mechanical, or STEM disciplines, such as science, technology, engineering, and math. This practice of requiring a high level of turkey achievement to advance in areas where creative crow skills are especially important makes as little sense as selecting members of the Olympic team by written exam, but that’s essentially what we’re doing.

 

Jackie

[Teachin'Mine]

Jackie that video was awesome!

 

Thank you for posting the link OCD! : )

[DebbS]

Thanks for posting the video OCD!

[Ester Maria]

Gifted children in general score much higher on visual-spatial tasks, and it's often extremely high scores in those areas on top of good scores in linear-sequential tasks, that pushes IQ into the highest levels of giftedness. What researchers noted, though, was that there was a subset of gifted kids who had extremely high V/S scores and very poor linear-sequential scores. It's this group of people — high visual-spatial scores and low linear-sequential scores, that are refered to as VSLs. Many gifted people are high in both areas and can switch back and forth. (It sounds like you would fall into this category?)

Got it now - so the term would *not* be applicable to me because I am one of those cases which are what I called "versatile" in the original thread, and that "versatility" would show up by high scores on both.

 

Would the typical school experience be in many aspects problematic for children on the other extreme? I am thinking that there are many things which are studied at schools which require that visual-spatial sensitivity (much of science, maybe, is dependent upon the ability to visualize - think 3D visualizations of how molecules fit together; then, classical example, geometry; art history probably as well, especially the architectural part, and design if studied; maybe even geography, etc.). I imagine an artistic lycee would be a hell for those kids, maybe even a scientific one (because of the component of design and technical drawing, for example). A linguistic one, though, would be a good match, as well as a classical one.

Which now leads me to think about something: in a "stratified" system, it seems to me that many children who are naturally drawn into the same direction of thinking find themselves in a same class. Maybe there is a sort of unconscious adaptation from a large number of professors who teach there? I recall having talked to somebody about something tangential, they taught history with geography in an artistic and in a classical lycee and said that they designed completely different approaches for different classes (I was not sure how much those differences existed already in the program and how much was the adaptation). So maybe that would be one of the arguments in favor of a more "stratified" school system.

Given the enormous impact that this has on students — especially gifted VSLs are who truly not being well served by schools — I do think that even the simple checklists like those on the visualspatial.org website could be very useful in schools. Maybe fewer VSL kids would be written off as lazy or uneducated, if teachers had at least some form of assessment other than just personal opinion.

Yes, I see your point.

 

Mind you, I still have a problem with the fact these things are far less scientific than I wish they were (and then IQ tests are a whole 'nother can of worms), but anything is better than nothing if it helps somewhat.

[Guest]

So maybe that would be one of the arguments in favor of a more "stratified" school system.

 

 

It's your friendly politically correct colleague here, :D fresh from my own personal battle with the word "different" (see other thread) -- agreeing with much of what you say, but taking exception with the word "stratified," which implies a hierarchy. How about more diversified? Offering more of a spectrum of choices? More options? We need a phrase that doesn't imply one type of school or teaching approach is above, higher, better than, the others.

[Guest]

:iagree:

I highly recommend that anyone who is interested in these issues watch this video. The Eides are neurologists who specialize in "differently-wired" kids, particularly those who combine giftedness and VSL traits, and they describe very well the differences between VSL and linear-sequential learners. Below is a quote from their presentation (note: they refer to VSL skills as "crow skills" and linear-sequential skills as "turkey skills"):

 

 

Jackie, I'd love it if you would also post this quote and your comments on the direct instruction/creativity thread as well.

[Ester Maria]

It's your friendly politically correct colleague here, :D fresh from my own personal battle with the word "different" (see other thread) -- agreeing with much of what you say, but taking exception with the word "stratified," which implies a hierarchy. How about more diversified? Offering more of a spectrum of choices? More options? We need a phrase that doesn't imply one type of school or teaching approach is above, higher, better than, the others.

Hm... stratum actually does imply a horizontal layer, and the consequence is that it may be read the way you read it, yes. With, of course, the classical lycee above all, because of tradition, tradition, and more tradition. :tongue_smilie:

 

Okay, diversified school system.

[Guest]

Hm... stratum actually does imply a horizontal layer, and the consequence is that it may be read the way you read it, yes. With, of course, the classical lycee above all, because of tradition, tradition, and more tradition. :tongue_smilie:

 

Okay, diversified school system.

 

One stratum is horizontal, and I understand it, basically homogeneous; strata are stacked on top of each other and vary. If you were talking about a bunch of different kinds of schools, yes, I read that as referring to more than a single stratum, and therefore, someone's "type" is on top and someone else's on the bottom.

 

And okay, enough from me about that.

[Corraleno]

Got it now - so the term would *not* be applicable to me because I am one of those cases which are what I called "versatile" in the original thread, and that "versatility" would show up by high scores on both.

Yes, the term VSL is generally applied people who are extremely "right-brained," so to speak, rather than being "ambi-brained."

 

Would the typical school experience be in many aspects problematic for children on the other extreme? I am thinking that there are many things which are studied at schools which require that visual-spatial sensitivity (much of science, maybe, is dependent upon the ability to visualize - think 3D visualizations of how molecules fit together; then, classical example, geometry; art history probably as well, especially the architectural part, and design if studied; maybe even geography, etc.). I imagine an artistic lycee would be a hell for those kids, maybe even a scientific one (because of the component of design and technical drawing, for example).

Yes, but (and this is a huge pet peeve of mine regarding the local university system) extreme linear-sequential learners are much more catered to, in terms of core requirements. For example, a science major must take 3 English courses, 3 Humanities courses, 4 Foreign Language, 4 Social Science, and 2 Art (at least one of which must be art history). In contrast, a history major must take 3 science courses, only one of which needs to be a lab course, and there are many special "science for nonmajors" courses to choose from. There are no courses called "English for Physicists" or "History for Science Majors"! Science majors have to take the same English and History courses as English and History majors, and they have to take 16 courses that are "out of their element," while humanities majors only have to take 3. I find that enormously unfair.

 

Which now leads me to think about something: in a "stratified" system, it seems to me that many children who are naturally drawn into the same direction of thinking find themselves in a same class. Maybe there is a sort of unconscious adaptation from a large number of professors who teach there? I recall having talked to somebody about something tangential, they taught history with geography in an artistic and in a classical lycee and said that they designed completely different approaches for different classes (I was not sure how much those differences existed already in the program and how much was the adaptation). So maybe that would be one of the arguments in favor of a more "stratified" school system.

Well, I share Karen's preference for "diversified" :D, but I do think it would help enormously if there were separate schools that catered to different learning styles, so that instead of just going to whatever school was in their neighborhood, kids could go to the school that would best meet their needs. The attempt to teach everyone the same way, and measure everyone with the same standardized tests, has been a failure for everyone, IMHO, except for perhaps a small group of mostly-linear, somewhat-above-average (but not gifted) kids who learn to play the game. Everyone else ends up with either too much or not enough of something.

 

Jackie

[Ester Maria]

Yes, but (and this is a huge pet peeve of mine regarding the local university system) extreme linear-sequential learners are much more catered to, in terms of core requirements. For example, a science major must take 3 English courses, 3 Humanities courses, 4 Foreign Language, 4 Social Science, and 2 Art (at least one of which must be art history). In contrast, a history major must take 3 science courses, only one of which needs to be a lab course, and there are many special "science for nonmajors" courses to choose from. There are no courses called "English for Physicists" or "History for Science Majors"! Science majors have to take the same English and History courses as English and History majors, and they have to take 16 courses that are "out of their element," while humanities majors only have to take 3. I find that enormously unfair.

*whistling happily for being European*

 

No such things by us. I mean, yes - if related to your field. Many social sciences students must take statistics for obvious reasons, just like science students are often required to take a specialized foreign language course which will deal with the scientific jargon needed to master to read scholarship and follow world trends in science (the assumption is that the basics of foreign language have been acquired by that point, though, so that is only another layer to build up), law students are sometimes required to take history, but it is studied in the legal context, etc. There may be electives, but no requirements of this kind, in most institutions. But that is a difference between school systems / the idea of the purpose of each stage of education. We are "specialists" on the tertiary level, while you are "more like specialists" on the secondary level (you cover less fields, but often more deeply, if done well) and then continue with general education requirements further along the path. I prefer our way of fleshing things out - but I agree with you that the above is ridiculous.

 

Honestly, I think it stems from the concept of "general knowledge" which is greatly skewed towards humanities in the first place, and societal feelings about various fields that go about it. For example, it is perfectly socially acceptable in most places to basically "brag" how you do not get math or how you almost flunked it at school, but "bragging" about having an elementary school grasp of history is basically a social suicide. Go figure.

 

I mean, I understand where that comes from - that same educational tradition I 'worship' so much which has been first and foremost focused on the transmission of culture and then on everything else, including modern scientific knowledge - but I still find it amusing, in a sort of sad way, quite often.

[regentrude]

So I'm really curious now exactly what kinds of students are having such difficulties. What do you know about them and the way they think? If you ask them where in the process they run into internal resistance, can they specify? Where is it? Do they do just as badly on the multiple choice questions (I forget whether you said and I'm sorry, it's late and my eyes are bugging out so I'm not going to go back and search just now)? What specific clues have you had that led you to think their issues might be the result of wiring differences -- I mean, is there any other specifics you have in mind, or is it just general reluctance to answer according to your specifications (which as I said, now that you've explained seem not all that much of an issue for someone like my own child; no idea about others).

 

If it's the diagramming, then this as you say sounds like the reverse of what a VSL kid would resist.

 

Sorry for not getting to it sooner.

When I encounter resistance to show work, I had always assumed I am dealing with a student who is unwilling to comply with requirements - it was basically your thread about different learning styles who gave me the thought that, possibly, I am dealing with students who might be unable to do so.

I had once a student who DID get rather correct answers without showing work; he had accommodations through the disability office (extra time) and the counselor had mentioned something along the lines hat this student was "thinking differently". (He was an extremely difficult student with whom I never managed to have a constructive conversation - no idea what exactly his issues were.)

 

Of course, there are plenty of students who resist showing work simly because, in high school, it was never required of them (some even tell me so), and they have never experienced a problem difficult enough that you HAVE to use a diagram and steps in order to think through. Every semester, this is a battle for the first few weeks; most students "get" it, and learn to appreciate being taught a systematic procedure - and some resist to the end. (They typically do not suceed because they are not genius enough to see the solution without working it in a systematic way)

[regentrude]

Thanks for the links - I will check them out as soon as I get a chance.

 

Apologies to those of you who are following both threads. I wanted to repeat my referral to the Eides and their work as I think the referral might be applicable to the OP's original question.

 

http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/

 

http://www.amazon.com/Mislabeled-Child-Solutions-Childrens-Challenges/dp/1401308996/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310516368&sr=8-1

 

Coincidentally this very relevant video was one of the more recent posts on their blog.

 

 

 

I have found their work extremely helpful in educating my 2e dyslexic child and also I have found it helpful as a professional educator in meeting the needs of other learners.

[regentrude]

Yes, but (and this is a huge pet peeve of mine regarding the local university system) extreme linear-sequential learners are much more catered to, in terms of core requirements. For example, a science major must take 3 English courses, 3 Humanities courses, 4 Foreign Language, 4 Social Science, and 2 Art (at least one of which must be art history). In contrast, a history major must take 3 science courses, only one of which needs to be a lab course, and there are many special "science for nonmajors" courses to choose from. There are no courses called "English for Physicists" or "History for Science Majors"! Science majors have to take the same English and History courses as English and History majors, and they have to take 16 courses that are "out of their element," while humanities majors only have to take 3. I find that enormously unfair.

 

We do not have this issue in Germany, because the general education is provided during the high school years when EVERYBODY who wishes to attend university has to take all three sciences for all years, math through calculus, two foreign languages (10 and 7 years of instruction, respectively), and social sciences. So, every student has to work on subjects that are outside his comfort zone.

The university education is then used to specialize in one's major of choice, with minimal general ed requirements.

I find this a much more sensible system.

[regentrude]

Also, the physics class content (as well as freshman chem) is packed compared to high school for many students so it is a challenge. Personally, I was VSL enough as an undergrad that I couldn't actively participate during the physics or chem lectures as there was insufficient processing time (no handouts of lecture notes were given back then) ...I was more like an ESL student and recorded the lecture then went home and figured things out, then bounced any remaining thoughts off my study partner or went to office hours.

I would suggest a processing break in the class, or if this is 23, perhaps the recitation could be changed to address the issue. Also, the hw set could be changed to scaffold the skill..

 

Thanks. We (My colleagues and I) are aware of the fast pace. That is why the students receive a detailed schedule that lists a reading assignment for every lecture, which they are supposed to pre-read before class - so that they are coming to class prepared and already know roughly what is going to be presented. This way, if they DO the reading and take notes on it, there is time for them to process, formulate questions, and attend the class AFTER they have done this initial processing. That's how it is SUPPOSED to work - and the students who do this consistently perform at top of the class.

 

Now if somebody could only give us the magic bullet that would convince the students to actually DO it... most students just skip this step, despite us telling them over and over how important and beneficial it is (and giving reading quizzes for points as incentive). In fact, it is the single most important advice we give students who are underperforming. And it would take care of the problems you mentioned.

The whole idea that class time is only one third of the time they are expected to invest in a subject is so hard to get across.

[Teachin'Mine]

I imagine an artistic lycee would be a hell for those kids, maybe even a scientific one (because of the component of design and technical drawing, for example).

 

 

Leonardo da Vinci did okay. :D

[Guest]

I had once a student who DID get rather correct answers without showing work; he had accommodations through the disability office (extra time) and the counselor had mentioned something along the lines hat this student was "thinking differently". (He was an extremely difficult student with whom I never managed to have a constructive conversation - no idea what exactly his issues were.)

 

 

This sounds very, very extreme. I wonder what ever happened to him; do you know?

 

The main problem that you mention, kids not having to show work in high school classes, stuns me. In dd's algebra class, it was the RIGID requirement that she show each and every step for each and every homework problem, regardless of her ability (and willingness) to do so on tests and regardless of her correct answers if she didn't show every step in the homework, that caused her reaction. (I was taught the same way, and now I am very good at doing that but incapable of approaching a problem from any other angle or through any other method, which I consider quite a thinking handicap.) I had imagined it was like that for every high schooler, and that problems would arise in this fashion rather than the reverse.

 

Does anyone have a child in a public or private school, or an on-line class, where kids are not required to show work step by step all the time? How common is that?

Edited July 13, 2011 by Guest

[Guest]

And by the way, I must either have had charmed classes or incredibly bright students (or both) during the ten years I taught literature at the University of California. While the kids had some difficulties grappling with 18th-century syntax and narrative conventions that hadn't been modernized in the texts they were using, they were in general really good writers and didn't fight or balk the essay requirements or weekly response papers they had to do for some classes. They had some trouble thinking about the texts in particular ways, but overall most were interested in learning how to do so; I largely taught upper division classes, so kids wanted to be there, and engineering students looking for to fulfill a breadth requirement generally disappeared after I said I didn't grade on a curve. :lol:

[Pepper Potts]

Colleen,

Thanks for the clarification :001_smile:

[Colleen in NS]

Colleen,

Thanks for the clarification :001_smile:

 

You're welcome.

[LizzyBee]

The main problem that you mention, kids not having to show work in high school classes, stuns me. In dd's algebra class, it was the RIGID requirement that she show each and every step for each and every homework problem, regardless of her ability (and willingness) to do so on tests and regardless of her correct answers if she didn't show every step in the homework, that caused her reaction. (I was taught the same way, and now I am very good at doing that but incapable of approaching a problem from any other angle or through any other method, which I consider quite a thinking handicap.) I had imagined it was like that for every high schooler, and that problems would arise in this fashion rather than the reverse.

 

Does anyone have a child in a public or private school, or an on-line class, where kids are not required to show work step by step all the time? How common is that?

 

My high schoolers had open house and got their schedules and syllabi this week. My 15 yo's geometry syllabus specifically says, "No work = no credit."

[Teachin'Mine]

My high schoolers had open house and got their schedules and syllabi this week. My 15 yo's geometry syllabus specifically says, "No work = no credit."

 

That make sense. With algebra, the steps are used to arrive at the answer. With geometry proofs, the steps are the answer.