The realization that there is more to teaching than a sharing of information and a testing for recall springs from our ever-expanding understanding that intelligence is modifiable, multiple, and multifaceted, Mr. Bellanca reminds us. Here are two statements from one teacher in the science department of a large, college-directed suburban high school. When I teach biology, my job is to cover the content. To get all the material required in our curriculum covered, I use two strategies. In class, I lecture or show films to get the material across. In the lab, I work through the lab book with the students. The labs correspond with the text chapters. I use pop quizzes, chapter tests, lab book grades, and a semester final to decide a student’s grade for the semester. When I teach biology, my job is to interest students in the value of this science. This is much more than giving them information to spit back out on a test or quiz. I have to help them understand how all the information fits together and why it is important. I also have to help them get as excited about biology as I am. In class, I use a variety of methods. First, I teach them how to gather the right information from a variety of sources. These can include some lectures, some films, targeted reading from the text, or online resource materials. I also structure all-class and cooperative-group discussions so that they can relate the specific topics to the “big picture.” Finally, I use the lab to engage them in applying the new information. I use the lab book as a start for the students to investigate applications outside the classroom. I use pop quizzes and tests to check what they know about the material. But I also observe and grade how they do lab work, defend their findings, execute outside-of-class projects, contribute to the discussions, and complete the final exam. Unless I actively engage their minds in doing biology, I believe that I have shortchanged their opportunity to understand and to enjoy the subject. These two views, expressed at different times, reveal changes in beliefs and practices that distinguish this teacher from most of the other biology teachers in the school. This teacher’s new practices, developed from a study of Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, provide concrete examples of “teaching for intelligence.” In this teacher’s science department, biology is usually taught as a body of information transferred from the text and each teacher’s understanding of the subject to the students’ heads. At set times, each student is expected to show the teacher how much was absorbed. Test scores document the amount of information recalled on each chapter test. Each day, the teacher enters the room, takes attendance, provides the day’s lecture, and answers questions. On some days, the teacher precedes the lecture with a quiz or shows a video to illustrate a key topic. The students are expected to read the chapters, take notes in class, ask questions, follow the lab instructions, complete the workbook pages, and study for the unit tests. If students need extra help, they can schedule an appointment to see the teacher. The department chairperson explains that these are accepted practices that have worked well in preparing students for college over the last 40 years. The department chair’s claims, supplemented with the school’s record of high test scores (its American College Testing Program scores have led the state for the last decade), seem to make the school a strong candidate for the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” award. However, appearances often belie reality. In the same school we can find students who don’t have high grades, high test scores, or a high motivation to achieve. When high standardized scores are the focus, it is difficult to switch attention to the needs of such students. It is even more difficult to argue how an intelligence-rich model of teaching and learning, which differs from the traditional information-centered model, might benefit the high achievers as well.
Terms of Use: This is an academic paper. Students should NOT copy our materials word to word, as we DO NOT encourage Plagiarism. Only use as a guide in developing your original research work. Thanks.
Disclaimer: All undertaking works, records, and reports posted on this website, eprojectguide.com are the property/copyright of their individual proprietors. They are for research reference/direction purposes and the works are publicly supported. Do not present another person’s work as your own to maintain a strategic distance from counterfeiting its results. Use it as a guide and not duplicate the work in exactly the same words (verbatim). eprojectguide.com is a vault of exploration works simply like academia.edu, researchgate.net, scribd.com, docsity.com, course hero, and numerous different stages where clients transfer works. The paid membership on eprojectguide.com is a method by which the site is kept up to help Open Education. In the event that you see your work posted here, and you need it to be eliminated/credited, it would be ideal if you call us on +2348064699975 or send us a mail along with the web address linked to the work, to eprojectguide@gmail.com. We will answer to and honor each solicitation. Kindly note notification it might take up to 24 – 48 hours to handle your solicitation.