I want you to imagine being in a collage class room being taught by someone who only spoke French, but your French only got to grade 10, and you barley remember anything from grade 10. Now, same scenario, the teacher spoke in French, but wrote on the board half in English and half in French. Let’s go further with this. Now your teacher speaks in French, writes partly in English, and visually shows step by step instructions…In English. I could go on and on with the different scenarios, but the point is you only are going to fully understand the information when it is presented in a way You learn.
There are thought to be 3 main types of learners. We have: Visual learners (learn by looking at the material taught), Auditory learners (learn best with lectures), Kinesthetic learners (learn by doing). On top of those 4 learning styles there are multiple combinations, and amounts each type of learning style is retained. No one kid learns the same way, or at the same speed. There is a quote floating around that says, “We Learn . . .10% of what we read, 20% of what we hear,30% of what we see, 50% of what we see and hear, 70% of what we discuss, 80% of what we experience, 95% of what we teach others.” Although it is a nice quote it isn’t true. The truth is, they are portraying the learning style of a multitude of different learners, and the percentage is just numbers pulled out of thin air.
Let’s take me as an example. I am bad at grammar and spelling, but I don’t do half bad at science and Math (although I am kinda slow with math). When I say I am bad at spelling and grammar I am not joking. The spelling you see before you is an amazing example. The only reason half the words may, or may not, be the right spelling is thanks to spell check. Even then I often pick the wrong word to correct it to, or not even the computer can guess what I am attempting to spell, forcing me to pick a new word altogether. As for the grammar…well that is obvious. Not even a computer, with all its billion lines of code, can help me there. I got the comment, often, that I didn’t study hard enough. While I wasn’t one for homework, and a goal of grades at C+, anything higher was a plus for me. Seeing the words written on the page, or the multitude of repetition, did nothing for me. I did try, but I failed so badly I occasionally just made a 50% grade, but I never had to repeat a grade.
Math and Science were different. In math we start out with counting apples (you have one apple and your friend gives you another apple, how many apples do you have…) then moved on to money. That sold me on math. I had something Solid, even if it was just using my imagination, to work with. I could move blocks around, buy things, and so much more. It was something I could DO. Science was a similar style of teaching, usually. I got to measure, mix, see, do, and set some things on fire. I dreamed of being a stunt man, or forensic police officer (I did none of those) and I could figure out how to do those things (not that I could pull it off with just a grade 12 education).
You might notice a trend those two paragraphs. With spelling, I read, copied, and wrote. With science I did, and then I explained what I did. I was good at what I DID, not what I heard, read, or wrote. I was a classic sign of a kinesthetic learner. I also learned well by watching people do things…again I said do things, not read. It didn’t hurt that with math and science the rules governed all. With Spelling there were so many exceptions to the rule I didn’t know how anyone could remember how to spell knife. Not to mention, what’s up with the letter C. It is an useless letter. It either sounds like a K or an S. There is no real sound that is just C’s….But I digress.
When it came to testing, there was only one method used, written exams. You have to prove that you know what that poor teacher has been trying to bash into your think scull all year. So they put a piece of paper in front of you, and give you a time limit to prove your new knowledge. I don’t know about you, but I do not test well. Not only do I have to read each question and understand the subtleties of our English language (I already mentioned that I don’t learn like that), but I had a time limit (I don’t read that fast as it is, but when there are trick questions I need even longer to understand the question). There are people out there that are great at writing tests. Some of my friends even got 100% on some of their tests, but people like that are the minority of students.
With so many learning styles, it is funny that there is only one style of testing. There are some brilliant people out there that feel dumb, because they couldn’t pass a written test if their life depended on it, and tests make up the majority of most classroom grades. Some teachers I know have adapted their testing styles to include more than just written assessments. The greatest teachers I have ever had, or worked with, have tried to include as many of the different learning styles into one lesson, in order for more of the children/adults will actually understand what is going on. Changing teaching styles is only part of the changes that need to be made to truly understand what a person has learned. Testing must be done throughout the year. The style that a person learns with is not always the way a person will express what they learn. Teachers and the education system has a lot of work to do.
That brings me to the wonderful government’s standardise testing. The scores on the tests are used to determine how well a child has learned a subject, and what mistakes they are making. There are many different steps to make a standardised test, and it is no easy task, but the problem still remains. How do you know what a person knows when you are giving them only one way to express what they know. There are multiple ways to learn, and an equal amount of ways to express that knowledge.
Standardise testing is a bit of a joke among teachers (or at least it is in Canada). Some schools will drill kids on things they think are going to be on the test. Making them take past tests. Making sure a majority of students will get a high grade on the test. It makes the school look good to the government, but you lose out all the other things that they could learn. Other schools work hard on teaching as much as they can, weather it has a high probability to show up on a test. The kids learn a wider range of subjects, but don’t do as well on the government test. I am not saying there isn’t merit in those tests. I am saying you are missing out on knowing what the kids really do know. The trick is….how do you test kids in all learning styles but put the information together in a way that the government can get their statistics.
I have no idea what the answer is to correct government assessments. I do know, however, that our understanding of how people learn, and how they express themselves. It is a big job for a teacher, especially when they have so many different children in one class. 30 different children, multiple styles of learning, and multiple styles of expression. I salute those teachers that are able to work as many styles of teaching and testing, as is humanly possible, into their classrooms.
Ninhydren's thoughts 