The two most difficult challenges, for me, as I strive to make every workshop and every class I teach as “learner centered” as possible are:

· To ask probing questions

· To keep Mesibov from over-talking

The two are inter-related: the more I over-talk, the less time I leave for probing questions; the more probing questions I ask, the less time for me to over-talk.

Here’s a strategy I use to get myself into the habit of peppering the students in my class, or the teachers, administrators, parents, staff developers, or board members in my audience with probing questions:

Every once in awhile, I will resolve that the next time I face an audience, I will say nothing that is not a question. I will make no statements. This forces me to think in terms of questioning techniques. Once I have forced myself through an entire 45 or 90 minute class without once making a statement, I can usually find an appropriate mix of questions and statements for at least six months before I have to apply this therapy again.

Here’s an example:

Students, would you please turn to page 23 in the book with the yellow cover?

In the next five minutes would you read the first three paragraphs?

Would you please take out a piece of paper and record what you feel is the single most important point that is made in the paragraphs you just read?

Would you please get into the same groups of three you were in yesterday? In the next five minutes, can you all agree on the two most important points in the paragraphs you just read and can you agree on which of the two points is more important, and why?

Would one person in each group please share what your group agreed is the most important point and could you describe your reasoning?

(Note: Student responses may elicit additional questions from me: “Do you think your parents would agree that is the most important point? Why? Why not?)

Now that you have completed this part of the assignment, could you discuss how well you feel you worked together as a group?

Would you take five minutes to agree on the following?
On a scale of one to five, how well did you function as a group?
What one factor contributed the most to the success of your group?
What is one thing you could have improved upon to make your group function even more successfully?

Could one person from each group please share your responses and could we make it a different person than the one who shared on the previous report-out? If you were me and you were going to grade each group on how well it analyzed the three paragraphs you read at the start of class and, also, how well you functioned as a group, what grade would you give yourselves on each of those criteria and why? If I allow you five minutes to come up with a group grade on analysis and another group grade on the effective functioning of your group, and if I also ask you to give reasons, is five minutes enough time for you to accomplish these tasks?

Five minutes later

Have you had enough time, or do you need a few more minutes?

Could I ask that the one person in each group who was not the reporter on either of the last two report-outs, please share your group’s decisions about what grade you would give yourselves on analysis and group functioning, and also what is your reasoning?

When I force myself to limit my verbosity to questions, it is like jogging the same route for a week: after awhile you feel as if you could do it with your eyes closed. Asking questions instead of making statements can be habit forming – for me it sometimes can last up to six months. Recently I conducted a brief session during which I spoke too long, made too many statements, and asked far too few questions. Must be time for my six month check-up!

Next week: How do I “Mesibov-proof” a lesson against over-talking?

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2003, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

How do I “Mesibov-proof” a lesson (or staff development session) to prevent myself from doing the talking instead of the participants?

• Structure the lesson tightly; plan every activity and plan the essential questions that will generate dialogues. Before I begin the lesson, I review my plan and make sure it is a series of questions and/or activities that place the burden of thinking, not listening, on the students.

• Stick to the structure I created when I was rested and had time for thoughtful design of the lesson; this can be done without sacrificing the flexibility needed to let student responses drive the lesson. I can improvise questions, even create activities on the spot, but if I replace a planned group activity, I remind myself to replace it with something that is equally as student centered.

• Whenever possible, have the students teach each other that which I want them to learn.

• Plan lessons with this sequence in mind:
o ask a question to force students, individually, to articulate their perceptions of what I am about to teach. Perhaps have them write their thoughts on a piece of paper.
o Pair, share or create groups of three for purposes of sharing.
o If time allows, combine pairs (or groups of three) and share.
o Ask one person in each small group to report out. (If time is limited, hear reports from a few groups, not necessarily all.)
o Create an activity that requires students to prepare lessons to teach each other that which I want the entire class to learn. Whenever possible, have students prepare lessons to teach another class, visitors to our class, the entire class, or anyone who can constitute “an audience beyond the teacher for a grade.” (This is one of the keys to authenticity – having students prepare work for an audience other than the teacher).

• When I’m tired, I need to remind myself to trust the process (and agenda) I created when I was rested and had the time to think things through. Don’t improvise with lecture when you are tired and in the poorest position to exercise good judgment. Don’t make the mistake of conducting a Q and A with the entire class for more than a few minutes. The temptation is strong to give lengthy responses to each question posed even though the question may be relevant for only one or two students in the entire class.

• If I’m talking more than 5 minutes, stop at the end of the next sentence and either put people in groups, challenge them with a question, or do something to shift the microphone from myself to someone else.

• Ask that someone in the audience act as a regulator:
“It is my intention to speak for five minutes and then put you in pairs and ask you to address some questions I will pose related to what I will say. Marcia, will you signal me after four minutes and then announce when another minute has passed? Once Marcia has announced that I have spoken for five minutes, I will conclude my remarks within one more minute or you can all leave.”

• Look in the eyes of the people in the audience as I am speaking. If I look toward their eyes I will realize that some of them have their minds elsewhere, some are looking at or whispering to their neighbors, and even the ones who appear to be paying attention are not giving evidence of what is going on in their minds.

• Work from notes, when I am speaking, and stick to the notes that I jotted down earlier when I had time to think about what it was important to say.

• Remind myself of two quotes from R. T. Johnson:
o We only break down stereotypes (prejudices) when we are eyeball to eyeball and knee to knee with people we wouldn’t ordinarily choose to be with. (This won’t happen while the teacher is talking and students are seated quietly in rows.)
o Research indicates that people at a workshop, and this is particularly true of students in a college methods class, remember everything they do and nothing you say.

Adults at workshops get restless when they are forced to sit and listen. Adults enjoy dialoguing with each other and having access to the presenter, and they become particularly active and engaged when they are working on a product (authentic) they will be able to put to use after the conclusion of the workshop. I continually ask myself, “Are children in a classroom any different than adults in terms of what motivates them and is effective in helping them learn?

• Children learn when they are forced to articulate that which we want them to learn

• Children must take an interest in what we are teaching in order for learning to occur; this “interest” is best generated when students believe work will be fun or, at least, authentic (meaning relevant for each of them).

• We all much prefer to talk then to be talked at.

• The best assessment is when the students are so actively engaged that they don’t notice the teacher; this allows the teacher, as the mouse in the corner, to achieve a realistic set of snapshots of student thinking and learning.

How do I “Mesibov-Proof" a lesson so I lock myself into a plan that doesn’t allow me to fall into a 40 minute trap of me talk, you listen?

In a nutshell, I plan a sequence of activities that will challenge students to think and allow me to see them thinking. Secondly, I keep reminding myself to visualize a glass that can hold words. The glass can only hold a finite number of words. The more words I put into the glass, the less room there is for the students’ words. The less students’ words that go into the glass, the less data I have for purposes of assessment.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2003, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

A teacher who can respond affirmatively to each of these twenty seven questions is most likely applying constructivist theory about how people learn to their classroom practice. The 27 questions are separated into five categories:

Lesson Construction
Student Focus on Task Understanding
Purposefulness of Instruction
Assessment of Student Learning
Reflection

Lesson Construction

1. Are your students challenged to evaluate, synthesize, and analyze in every lesson?

2. Does something happen at the start of every lesson that is designed to “grab” the students’ attention and interest?

3. Do you use effective strategies, at the start of a lesson or unit, to access (and assess) prior knowledge of students?

4. Are your students frequently engaged in authentic real-world tasks that have an audience beyond the teacher who is doing the grading.

5. When your tasks are not completely authentic (i.e., don’t have an audience beyond the teacher who is doing the grading) are students engaged in activities or simulations that are cast in a real-world context?

6. Options, options, options: Do your students frequently have options to choose among when they have to complete a task?

7. Do you provide raw data or sources of raw data, whenever possible, and challenge students to reach conclusions?

8. When you lecture (whether for three minutes or 45) has a context for student listening been established? In other words, are the students engaged in a task such that they will recognize the need for the information the teacher is imparting through a lecture? Or stated another way, do you hold back telling students what you want them to know until they want it, and do you make them want it?

Student Focus on Task Understanding

9. If an observer walked into your classroom and approached one of your students, could the student explain what he is doing, why he is doing it and what will be the next step?

10. Is most of your time, at the beginning of a lesson or unit, devoted to helping students understand their task rather than leading them through a series of “how-to” steps?

11. If a visitor walked into your classroom, would you encourage the visitor to interrupt your students and ask questions about their work because you would view it as a learning opportunity for students if they have to articulate what they are doing to an outsider?

Purposefulness of Instruction

12. If an observer walked into your classroom and approached the teacher, could the teacher quickly share one or two primary learning objectives for the lesson or unit under study and produce an assessment instrument for the learning objectives she identified?

13. Do you ask more questions than you make statements during the course of a lesson?

14. When a student struggles with a response, do you close off the student’s mind, or do you extend the dialogue until the student develops a defensible response (even if this requires ending class without necessarily resolving the student’s dilemma)?

15. Do your lessons or units begin with no more than five minutes of teacher dialogue? If you talk at the beginning of class is the purpose to set up the student dialogue that will follow?

16. When students engage in group work, do you focus students as much on how they functioned in their group as on the content of their work? In other words, after the group work is completed, is there as much discussion about how effectively, or ineffectively, the groups functioned as there is about the curriculum content under discussion?

Student Focus on Task Accomplishment

17. Are students working, independently and/or in groups, a majority of the time so that you are available for individual or small group consultation?

18. By the end of most lessons, have a majority of students spoken before the entire class, at least once, even if for only ten seconds?

19. Does every student speak before the entire class at least once every few days?

20. Does every student engage in dialogue, at least within a small group if not in front of the entire class, almost every day for at least a few minutes?

Assessment of Student Learning

21. Could you accurately grade every student without the need for a final test? In other words, are you using multiple assessments on an on-going basis; such assessments could include any or all among the following: portfolios, graphic organizers, graphic representations (such as concept maps, flow charts, decision-making, trees), teacher observation, student presentations, student creations, student work-products, student feedback sheets, student journals, class reflection sessions (and other reflective activities), and audience reactions to student work on authentic tasks?

22. At the end of a lesson, can you articulate what each of your students knows and how you know what he knows?

23. Are there frequent opportunities every class period for you to hear and see what your students are thinking? If so, can you articulate what you do that enables you to hear and see students’ thinking?

Reflection

24. Prior to engaging students in a performance task, do you utilize exploratory activities to force them to reflect on and articulate their prior knowledge?

25. Do you utilize interventions (planned and spontaneous) to cause students to reflect on what they are doing (when they are engaged in a task), why they are doing it, and whether what they are doing is achieving the desired outcome?

26. Do you bring closure to authentic tasks with individual and group reflective activities?

27. Do you try to end every class with some kind of brief individual or group reflective activity?

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2003, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

When Ella Fitzgerald sang, “If they asked me I could write a book,” she made it sound easy.

Hopefully, you’ve noticed that this newsletter hasn’t appeared since April. I took two months off to collaborate with Pat Flynn, Paul Vermette, and Mike Smith on a book entitled, “ Applying Standards-Based Constructivism: A Two-Step Guide for Motivating Students.” There will be an elementary and a secondary edition, the difference being in the examples that are used. Out intent is to translate constructivist theory into practical school and classroom application.

Writing a book may have been easy for Ella, I found it very difficult. By the time I reached page 100, as I tried to edit, I had difficulty remembering what we had written on page ten.

Perhaps in another 60 years, I’ll try a second book – for now, this is it.

Once the book was completed (to be published late summer/early fall), it was time to devote full attention to our summer conference which begins this Monday at St. Lawrence University. Once again, we have a sold out conference with 275 cutting edge teachers, administrators, staff developers, parents, students, university professors, board members, and others ready to converge on Canton, New York for a week of participation in a constructivist design intended to model the learner centered strategies so many of you are implementing in the classroom.

A complete list of teams and the tasks that will engage them is attached.

This newsletter will resume, with frequency, in early August.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2003, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

High Stakes assessment was the topic of an optional Tuesday evening session at our recently concluded constructivist conference at St. Lawrence University. Moderator Terry Mazany did not express an opinion on this controversial topic – rather, he facilitated the group toward identification of issues and discussion of alternatives to the current system. Mr. Mazany is Director of Education Initiative, Chicago Community Trust and he is serving on a commission that is studying the issue of high stakes testing.

From the many handouts we received, I’d like to quote observations from an 11 page paper entitled, “Rethinking and Redesigning Educational Assessment,” by James W. Pellegrino of the University of Illinois at Chicago.

From paragraph one, page one:

“In an ideal system, assessments help teachers, students and parents determine how well students are learning. They help principals and superintendents document the progress of individual students, classrooms and schools. And they help policymakers and the public gauge the effectiveness of educational systems.”

From paragraph three, page one:

“The recent National Research Council (NRC) report, Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment, suggests that it is time to rethink the basic assumptions underlying how we assess students, and how we use assessment data to enhance teaching and learning. The report sums up the critical importance of developing new kinds of classroom and large-scale assessments that work together to help students learn and succeed in school by making as clear as possible to them, their teachers and other education stakeholder the nature of their accomplishments and the progress of their learning.”

From paragraph four, page one:

“This essay draws on the arguments developed in the NRC report. Its purpose is to consider why change is needed and how contemporary knowledge and information technologies can bring about the necessary and desired redesign of educational assessment.”

From paragraph two, page two:

“Standards-based reform has increased both the amount of testing and the stakes attached to test results. Currently, 48 states have state-wide testing programs, compared with 39 in 1996, and many school districts also have their own local testing programs (in addition to the range of classroom tests teachers regularly administer). A result of this heightened emphasis on assessment as an instrument of reform is that spending on high-scale testing has doubled in the past four years, from $165 million in 1996 to $330 million in 2000 (Achieve 2000). More pressure is placed on current assessment systems than they were meant to bear, highlighting several of their limitations.”

The author then cites four sets of what he calls “limitations.” I shall mention the four “limitations, but I will not provide the explanations offered by the author. The website for the complete article is listed below.

“At least four sets of concerns exist about the current assessment systems of many states:

· Effectiveness of measurement. Do the most widely used assessments effectively capture the complex knowledge and skills emphasized in contemporary standards and deemed essential for success in the information-based economy? Probably not. Limits on the kinds of competencies currently being assessed also raise questions about the inferences one can therefore draw from test results. If scores go up on a test that measures a relatively narrow range of knowledge and skills, does that mean student learning has improved, or has instruction simply adapted to a constrained set of outcomes?

· Utility for improving teaching and learning. How useful are current assessments for improving teaching and learning – the ultimate goals of education reforms? Not very. Most current large-scale tests provide very limited information that teachers and education administrators can use to identify why students do not perform well, or to modify the conditions of instruction in ways likely to improve student achievement. . .

· “Snapshots” versus progression over time. Can we tell how much a student has progressed in a year? Not really. Most assessments provide “snapshots” of achievement at particular points in time, but they do not capture the progression of students’ conceptual understanding over time, which is at the heart of learning. . .

· Fairness and equity. Are tests fair and equitable? Perhaps not. Much attention is given to the issue of test bias – whether differences occur in the performance of various groups for reasons that are irrelevant to the competency the test is intended to measure. Standardized-test items are subjected to judgmental and technical reviews to monitor for this kind of bias. The use of assessments for high-stakes decisions, however, raises additional questions about fairness. If the assessments are not aligned with what students are being taught, it is not fair to base promotion or rewards, especially if less advantaged students are harmed disproportionately by the outcome.

If current assessments do not effectively measure the impact of instruction ore if they fail to capture important skills and knowledge, how can educators interpret and address gaps in student achievement? One of the main goals of current reforms is to improve learning for low-achieving students. If this goal is to be accomplished, assessment must give students, teachers, administrators and other stakeholders information they can use to improve teaching and inform instructional decisions for individuals and groups, especially those not performing at high levels.”

(For more on this article, see http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/24/88/2488.htm).

I offer these thoughts for the reader to take for what the reader feels they are worth.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2003, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

When the 4th and 8th grade assessments became a reality a few years ago, an immediate reaction from many teachers in disciplines other than ELA was, “These exams are as much an assessment of a student’s ability to read and write as of the content in my curriculum.” An immediate plus that I observed was that social studies and math teachers who, in the past, may have resisted efforts to have them integrate reading and writing across their curriculum were suddenly not only receptive to the notion that they need to teach these skills, but often were requesting that there be a district-wide emphasis on reading and writing skills.

Unfortunately, despite the positive effect of making teachers of other disciplines aware of the need for the entire school to focus on reading and writing skills, there is a downside that (as Victor Borge might have said) makes the cure worse than the disease.

An assessment needs to assess the standards students are being asked to address. When our purpose is to assess social studies content, critical thinking skills, or math or science competence, then we need to use a vehicle for assessment that allows students to demonstrate what they understand and can apply. In other words, if we want to know whether students understand the Pythagorean Theorem, an assessment that favors those students with strong reading skills (or essay writing skills) is not assessing understanding of the theorem; rather, it is assessing the ability to read and/or write.

I am not suggesting we shouldn’t assess reading and writing. I am not suggesting we shouldn’t give students practice reading and writing in every discipline – the more they practice, the better they will become. I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t require students to articulate their mathematical, scientific, or social studies understanding with the written word, at times. I am suggesting that when the purpose is to know how well students understand content or concepts in disciplines other than ELA, then we need an assessment that allows them to demonstrate this understanding in whatever way they can do best.

Why is this so important?

1. An assessment of how well a student knows the Pythagorean Theorem, the laws of gravity, or the causes of the civil war, or how well a student can paint a portrait, is not a valid assessment of that learning objective if the ability to read or write precludes the student from demonstrating his/her ability. If we want to know whether a student understands the causes of the civil war, what’s the difference if it is expressed in writing, graphically, verbally, or in pantomime? Are we interested in whether the student truly understands the causes of the war, or are we interested in how well the student can utilize a particular form of expression?

2. Students who are weak in the intelligence Gardner has labelled “linguistic,” are probably struggling more than the average student to keep above water throughout their scholastic careers. If we truly want to help students improve in linguistic areas such as reading and writing, we need to find areas of strength where we can offer praise. I am a clod with anything technological or mechanical, or anything that involves spatial relationships. I can joke about my weak areas, and I am willing to try to improve because I can take pride in some of my areas of strength and I can convince myself that I am not a complete dummy. When students are weak linguistically, we should want to reinforce them if they have capabilities in math, science, or social studies. When the test is advertised to be a social studies test, it should test competencies and understandings in the field of social studies. Can you imagine the frustration of students who work very hard to pass a math assessment, know the material, then get a poor grade because of difficulty understanding directions or expressing what they know?

Does it make any sense at all to flunk students in science because of their deficiencies in reading or writing when we are already giving them poor grades in ELA because of deficiencies in reading and writing?

We need to be asking ourselves, when we frame test questions, what is it we want to assess and are these questions actually giving us an accurate assessment?

If we ask this question with the intent of generating a valid response, I suspect we will find that multiple forms of assessment are going to have to be explored if we are truly to design assessments that assess student mastery of state and local standards.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2003, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

Last week’s newsletter focused on the importance of assessing what the student knows about the curriculum being taught, and not getting the student bogged down with the vehicle used for assessment. Two responses are particularly worth sharing:

Special Education teacher Frank Pinkus of Gloversville writes:”

“Not only is the linguistic sphere the currency we live and work in, but the assessments are also used to evaluate our (schools) effectiveness. We hardly speak about the broad use of the 4th and 8th grade assessments to evaluate schools. Regardless of how incorrectly we use the student information we gather from the assessments, we must contend with the often inappropriate use of them as barometers of our own successes.”

Carol Amberg, world literature teacher at Gouverneur High School, comments on one of the “authentic” experiences offered to her students:

“Thank you for reminding us all to build multiple assessments of learning into our planning. In reflecting on your newsletter article, I remembered my last year's student teacher's test for understanding the novel about the plight of the migrant farm workers in The Grapes of Wrath. She gave students options and the freedom to design their own presentation as a performance assessment.

“I will never forget the afternoon when we swapped classrooms with a teacher on the first floor so that the group who attended automotive technologies classes in the morning could wheel in a real car engine on a rolling "block" and show us what the effects of the dustbowl environment and long miles with overloaded vehicles would be on a motor. The guys even referenced many of the engine problems of the Joads which are detailed in the novel and showed us what Al Joad would have had to do to the sparkplugs to get the family back on the road again. This very knowledgeable group of young men were master teachers that day and held their audience's attention and respect firmly in their grasp. The next day, we were back in our regular classroom watching a student-made video which parodied one of the climactic scenes in the book in a "Saturday Night Live" or David Letterman sort of way.

“These demonstrations of learning were authentic; they drew on students' prior knowledge, tapped into their interests and creativity, and generated a good deal of enthusiasm in the classroom. How many paper and pencil, short answer tests have that power?”

Fred Newmann of the University of Wisconsin defines an authentic task as one which has an audience beyond the teacher for a grade. Carol has given us excellent examples of authentic tasks (the car engine and the student-made video).

Later this week, I’ll repeat an article from last year in which Carol Amberg describes how she focuses students on multiple intelligences during the opening days of classes so that they can revisit this concept throughout the year. Because of the number of teachers who have indicated they are using Carol’s approach, after reading about it here, I like to provide this information early in the school year.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2003, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

Here is a repeat of an article I run every year at this time. It discusses strategies for helping students understand their own multiple intelligence strengths.

As you read Carol’s description of how she teaches multiple intelligences and then helps students use their understanding of their strengths, please consider another important idea: to teach a concept requires learning over a period of time; it requires experience with a concept in a variety of situations. I understand the concept of integrity by applying my definition in different situations – for instance, I wrestle with integrity when hearing of a ballplayer using a corked bat, when seeing someone lie about his age in order to get a discount, and when discussing what constitutes cheating on a test. My learning of the concept of “integrity” grows with each different situation I think about.

Because few of us grasp a concept in one class period, or even a week, it is important for a teacher to revisit important concepts throughout the year. Therefore, I am suggesting that teachers identify the most difficult concepts embedded in the standards their students will address, and introduce them early in the school year so that there are numerous opportunities to have students apply their understanding in a variety of situations. Gouverneur world literature teacher Carol Amberg introduces the concept of multiple intelligences during the first week of school and this allows the full year for students to apply this concept.

Carol sent me the following e-mail, three years ago:

“Who says learner-centered strategies don't work in senior high schools?” After only 3 days of school, my seniors have written in journals, have an awareness of the 8 intelligences, have worked with partners, read each other's work, used graphic organizers, and written two pieces which will be candidates for their eventual portfolios.”

I immediately sent Carol an e-mail, asking how she addresses multiple intelligences in her classroom. Here was her reply:

“On the first day of class, I introduce communication theory and ask the students to brainstorm diverse ways we send messages (body language, sign language, writing, talking, dance, scent, songs, etc.). I have a "wheel graphic" of the multiple intelligences, labeled in ‘shorthand’: Word Smart, Math Smart, Body Smart, People Smart, Self Smart, Music Smart, Picture Smart, Nature Smart posted on the bulletin board. I introduce multiple intelligences using that and we talk about how people with each kind of "smarts" send and receive messages.

“Then I ask the students to come up with jobs in which each intelligence would be an asset (i.e. architects = spatial intelligence, athletes = bodily-kinesthetic, etc.) We carry that over into our discussions of characters we meet in poems we analyze together, each of the first three days, and authors we discuss (i.e. Thoreau must have had nature intelligence to live at and write about Walden Pond).

“This is carried over into our first novel, “Siddhartha” where we conclude that someone who practices meditation develops intra personal intelligence, someone who becomes an ascetic scorns bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, etc. In other words, I try to weave it into everything we do to reinforce the learning. The same thing goes for how we receive messages through our senses, so poets and writers appeal to them through imagery.

“I find that starting with theory and then recognizing concrete examples as we go helps them apply the theory as well as remember the examples. The process culminates in the students designing projects near the end of the semester where they choose one self-identified preferred/strong intelligence and one weaker one and use both in demonstrating their understanding of a communication concept.”

Thank you, Carol, for the permission to share your innovative work with multiple intelligences.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2003, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

Newspaper Report: Dozens of schools in Oklahoma City are reeling from the financial turmoil that forced the closing of seven schools and the dismissal of 600 teachers at the end of the last school year.

Mesibov Observation: Our federal government is pledged to leaving no child behind.

Newspaper Report: Thirty eight of Alabama’s 129 school systems are on the verge of bankruptcy. Birmingham closed nine schools before the fall term began this month.

Mesibov Observation: At least one commissioner of education has publicized a goal of focusing on low performing schools and low performing students. Recently I visited one of this commissioner’s low performing schools. It has been hit so hard by revenue shortfalls, that resources have dried up, morale has sunk, and much of the talent that remains is job hunting and will be gone with the first opportunity. With this kind of a school climate, will it make a difference that the commissioner has said the focus will be on improving such schools?

Newspaper Report: Boston closed five schools and eliminated 1,000 jobs, including 400 teaching positions.

Mesibov Observation: I was recently in a city school district which, according to a top administrator, “Used to be among the leaders in the support services we offered students. Now we barely have a social worker available to our students.”

Newspaper Report: “Laura Bush says education is at risk in cash strapped states.”

Mesibov Observation: Why can’t we fight the war for our children’s education the way we are fighting the war on terrorism? The president announced that we will spend whatever we need to spend, and do whatever we need to do, to win the war on terrorism. Whether or not I agree with every policy initiative to defeat terrorism, I agree that we need to do whatever needs to be done. But don’t we also need to do whatever needs to be done to win the war to avoid leaving a single child behind?

This is not an issue for Republicans vs. Democrats. All our leaders need to wake up to the fact that there is a crisis confronting our efforts to educate every child. There are Democratic and Republican governors and legislators cutting back on educational funding.

Politicians are passing legislation to hold everyone accountable for student achievement except themselves. Simultaneously, as legislators and state education department officials mandate high stakes assessments, under the guise of accountability, they are depriving professional educators and parents of the resources they need to raise student achievement. It’s sort of like telling construction workers they are accountable for completing work on a house while you confiscate their equipment.

The problem is that everyone feels at the mercy of everyone else. States blame the federal government. The federal government claims there’s no funding problem. Commissioners of education blame the economy, the legislatures, or whatever.

We need to find peaceful ways to wake up Washington to the realities of what’s happening in our schools. Administrators and teachers with whom I speak have stories to tell about the devastating impact of budget cuts in their schools. Too many students are in schools that smell, schools that have inadequate heating (or air conditioning), or schools with uncertified teachers, too much administrative or teacher turnover, or unsafe walls or ceilings.

So that I’m not simply joining the ranks of the complainers, here’s a practical suggestion: I’d like some of the high ranking officials in just one of the fifty states to suspend work on the design and implementation of high stakes assessments in his/her state for a few weeks. I’d like them to lead a march (or procession of cars) on a trip to Washington. The trip will gain nationwide publicity if it is led by a commissioner of education or other high ranking state officials. The message at every stop should be simple: what’s the purpose of trying to hold schools accountable for raising student achievement if we can’t guarantee them the resources to get the job done?

Why do I suggest the march be led by an education commissioner or some other high ranking officials? These are the people who are leading the efforts to reform our schools. Their efforts, as much as anyone’s, are being sabotaged by the low priority given educational spending by state and national governments. They are victims of depleted state and federal coffers and will be blamed for the results, so isn’t it in their best interest to sound the alarm and help us wake up everyone to what’s happening to our schools?

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2003, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.