The educational system uses standardized testing to measure student achievement. Intelligence tests assess I.Q. levels. Schools rate students based on test scores, but schools prefer to educate students with analytical learning styles. Other students must adapt to the school’s one-sided, cognitive teaching methods, experience academic problems, or teach themselves. Nonetheless, learning disabled and gifted students experience interesting, unique journeys as they go through the school system.
Defining Exceptional And Gifted Students
Educators define an exceptional student as one who has scored above-average on a standard intelligence quotient test. If the student demonstrates a learning pattern of inconsistency and a certain amount of difficulty grasping and comprehending various classroom lessons, educators will label the exceptional student as learning disabled (Shalaway, 1998). An inconsistent pattern of learning manifests itself through the student’s inability to absorb properly, remember consistently, and recall information accurately.
On the other hand, if a student scores above-average on the intelligence test but does not display inconsistent patterns of learning classroom material, according to Shalaway, educators will label the student as “gifted”. Although administrators and teachers believe learning disabled and gifted students have special needs and require special services from schools, the “intelligence test” is the educational standard that drives the labeling process.
Students Must Take Intelligence Tests
The key element to measure a student’s academic abilities is the intelligence test. The result norm-referenced examinations presume to determine is a student’s Intelligence Quotient (I.Q.), which is a test score that supposedly identifies a student’s cognitive capabilities in comparison to others in the same grade. However, based on extensive research by Amos Wilson (1980), psychologists do not agree on the definition of intelligence. Wilson cites several well-known psychologists who have different definitions of intelligence, which include Alfred Benet, Charles Spearman, Louis Leon Thurstone, and Joy Paul Guilford.
What Is The Definition Of Intelligence?
Wilson’s study reveals Benet’s definition of intelligence is the ability to have a unifying singular component that helps a person develop adequate verbal comprehension and reasoning skills. Spearman views intelligence as the ability to construct relationships between abstract things and ideas. Thurstone believes intelligence is the ability to discover complex ways to solve problems. And Guilford thinks intelligence is the ability to develop a sophisticated system to process information in a number of ways. However, if psychologists cannot agree on the definition of intelligence, what do intelligence examinations test?
Furthermore, psychologist Howard Gardner claims individuals have several intelligences, which are: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, interpersonal-social, musical-rhythmic, bodily-kinesthetic, and intrapersonal-introspective (McNergney and Herbert, 1998). Gardner published his theories in 1993, but he subsequently added two more intelligences: contemplative (questioning the life process) and naturalistic (identifying plants and animals). However, American schools base their curricula on exclusively developing the areas of verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical (Chapin, 2006).
Although psychologists do not agree on the meaning of intelligence, as Wilson points out, their search for a definition leads educators to believe intelligence is real. The attempt to define intelligence, along with the belief in its authenticity, has led to the establishment of an educational system that features on-going dichotomies among educators about methods to teach either superior or inferior students. As long as educators believe intelligence exists, the prevailing thought is some students are more intelligent than others. This idea complements America’s competitive culture. However, even if one accepts Gardner’s "several intelligences" theory, it does not eliminate the “superior/inferior” dynamic. Therefore, the concept of intelligence affects elementary school students in some way.
Learning Styles
Gardner’s intelligence theories supplement contemporary learning style theories. As Chapin indicates, educators believe every student has a learning style, which is the principal way a student learns. The dominant learning styles teachers try to enhance through instructional methods are sensory based. The accepted belief is children could either be visual (demonstration, videos), audio (oral directions and explanations), kinesthetic (dramatization, field trips), or tactile (manipulating materials) learners.
Because the school system primarily develops a student’s linguistic and mathematical abilities, Gardner’s theories have failed to penetrate mainstream educational culture. Therefore, the dominant cognitive learning styles Janice Hale (1982) assesses in her research probably explain the intolerant response to Gardner’s ideas. According to Hale, psychologists refer to the two cognitive learning styles as analytical and relational. Although a learning style is the technique a person uses to choose and categorize information, Hale explains: “Cognitive style refers to the process of utilizing ‘logical’ skills” (p. 31).
Analytical And Relational Learning Styles
According to Hale, an analytical learner is stimulus centered, follows rules, conforms to the environment, likes standards, is rigid, logical, finds common principles in activities, and learns materials that have no personal relevance. On the other hand, a relational learner is unique, expressive, democratic, self-centered, ignores commonalities, likes flexibility, is creative, and learns concepts and materials that must have personal relevance.
Although elementary school students have either learning style, Hale explains that American schools cater to analytical learners. Students who do not acquire analytical learning skills tend to do poorly in school. Therefore, because schools focus on mathematical and linguistic development, only analytical learners become gifted students. They are the students who shine, and at the same time blind teachers because they spend a great deal of time polishing these students.
Exceptional And Gifted Students In The Classroom
Linda Shalaway’s position about teaching exceptional and gifted students is the cooperative learning situation, which is a form of inclusion, harms gifted students. In other words, when teachers group gifted students with non-gifted ones, the “advanced” students do not benefit. Shalaway thinks gifted students become resentful and frustrated with this arrangement because working with or helping non-gifted students is neither motivating nor challenging.
The placement of learning disabled (LD), regular education, and gifted students in the same classroom, which is inclusion, is a dominant trend in education today, but Shalaway believes such an arrangement negatively affects gifted students. However, when educators place LD students in regular education classes, Shalaway views this arrangement as beneficial for everyone. Integrating regular education and LD students is not detrimental to either group, but when regular education or LD students work with gifted students, it is, in Shalaway’s estimation, harmful to gifted students.
Because Shalaway clearly favors gifted students who are, of course, analytical learners, it is an indication that advanced or, according to standardized test scores, “highly intelligent” students receive elitist-type treatment in the school system. For example, in an inclusion class, if a gifted student does not care to do the work, the teacher may think the work is not challenging enough. On the other hand, if a LD student refuses to do the work, the teacher may think the work is too difficult or the student is lazy.
According to the elite-centered, standardized test-driven educational system, gifted students cannot be lazy, only special in a positive way. They get frustrated and impatient, however, when they work with regular education students, but LD students may be exceptional only because they are not gifted. In other words, it is better to be gifted and refuse to do school work than it is to refuse school work as an exceptional student, even if he or she has Gardner’s interpersonal-social, visual-spatial, musical-rhythmic, bodily-kinesthetic, and intrapersonal-introspective intelligences.
Teaching Methods For Exceptional And Gifted Students
For learning disabled students, many experts advise teachers to modify instructional materials, employ behavioral modification strategies, speak with parents regularly, and be cognizant that, at times, they may consciously or unconsciously treat LD students as inferiors. In contrast, experts instruct teachers to allow gifted students a choice of learning activities and materials, offer them challenging, complex work, create independent studies assignments, and have them perform extra credit projects (Shalaway, 1998).
Although many LD students are exceptional, the general belief is something must be wrong with them. These students have some sort of internal disorder. If LD students do not respond favorably to the school environment, educators believe something internally is not quite right, so the student needs a diagnosis. However, nothing internally is wrong with gifted students. If they display dissatisfaction with the school environment, the problem is external. The problem either is the school’s fault or the teacher is not challenging the brilliant student.
It is difficult for educators to ignore the educational achievements of gifted students, so teachers should recognize the accomplishments and abilities of such students. After all, recognition and status builds confidence and self-esteem. However, unlike gifted students, the learning disabled label stigmatizes many students who are exceptional, and schools have yet to discover a way to remove the stigma.
Sources:
Chapin, J., R. Elementary Social Studies. Boston: Pearson, 2006, pp. 67, 68.
McNergney, R. and Herbert, J. Foundations of Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998, pp. 332, 333.
Hale, J., E. Black Children Their Roots, Culture, and Learning Styles. Brigham Young University Press, 1982, pp. 30, 31.
Shalaway, L. Learning to Teach. New York: Scholastic Books, 1998, pp. 55, 56.
Wilson, A., N.. The Developmental Psychology of The Black Child. New York: African research Publications, 1980, p. 118, 119.
William Cook - Mr. Cook is a graduate of Hunter College of the City University of New York. He is pursuing a Ph.D in History and Education.
