Chapter 4: Classroom Orientations and Learning Styles

1. Review – What did I learn?

            After reading chapter four of Jana Noel’s book, one of the things that I learned is that there are two very different viewpoints that teachers take as they attempt to understand why students may be struggling in school.  The first viewpoint, the author describes as the deficiency orientation.  A teacher with a deficiency orientation would see a student struggling and assume that the reason behind the struggle is that the student is deficient in some way.  According to the author, this attitude became popular in 1960’s educational literature. 

            In order to make the assumption that a student is deficient, the teacher would need a standard for comparison.  The standard would naturally be what the teacher knows and expects based on their experiences and cultural values.  In other words, the teacher had one way of learning and one way of problem solving and if a student didn’t conform to this mainstream way of doing things then the student was deficient in some way.

            A teacher with a difference orientation would view things quite differently.  A teacher with this viewpoint would see a student struggling and would not immediately assume there was a deficiency in the child nor would the teacher be quick to blame the child’s home life.  Instead, a teacher with a difference orientation would examine what he or she can do differently.  A teacher with this attitude would look for ways to celebrate each student’s uniqueness and then to build upon those qualities as part of the curriculum.

            In addition to contrasting two very different viewpoints or attitudes toward students, this chapter also talked about a variety of ways that students learn. In order to best meet the needs of each student, it is important to recognize the different learning styles, modalities and intelligences of each student and to be willing to adapt and use a variety of strategies so that all can be successful.  This is not only effective teaching but it also creates an atmosphere that is respectful to the uniqueness of each individual.

2. Reflect – What did it mean to me?

            The most interesting and thought provoking idea in Chapter 4 was the following statement mentioned on page 128: “I could teach these students better if they were just more like me.”  The author described this statement as one that encapsulates the viewpoint of a teacher who has a deficiency orientation. The converse of this idea: “I could teach these students better if I just knew more about them” describes the viewpoint of a teacher who has difference orientation.

            I think these two conditional statements sum up very well how two different viewpoints, one just as easy as the other to assume, can make such a difference in the way you treat your students, the way you treat the curriculum, and the way you feel about your job.  The difference orientation is one that allows hope, fuels your passion for teaching, and helps you see the best in your students.  The deficiency orientation, on the other hand, places the responsibility entirely on the student and in a sense minimizes your potential to create change.  By owning some of the responsibility, you also put yourself into a position to make a difference since you have control over how you view and teach the curriculum.

3. Refine – How will I use the information in my classroom?

            As the author said on page 127, “The key distinctions involve who is seen as needing to change or improve and whether or not there is a belief that there is one way of learning or solving problems to which all students must adhere.”  Although there have been times when I have been quick to blame students for not learning the material, I am much less likely to make that kind of premature assumption as I mature as a teacher.  My philosophy has continually evolved over the years and when I look back I feel like it has most of the time changed for the better.  I read the following quote once, “Never question student ability, always question teaching strategy,” and I think it sums up the difference between the deficiency orientation and the difference orientation very well.

            A key theme which comes through in this chapter and the preceding chapters as well is the importance of getting to know students and their background.  I do agree with the author that differences are not deficiencies, rather they are potential strengths.  Getting to know students is the key to seeing these differences in a positive light.  Tomorrow, in class, I will be asking the students to compare and contrast linear functions with exponential functions.  Before I ask them to answer these questions concerning math content, I am going to ask them to answer some similar questions regarding their culture and another culture.  In my second period class, for example, I may pair up two students, one from Guatemala and another from el Salvador, and ask them to find one similarity between their two cultures and one difference between their two cultures.  After they discuss and then share their conversation, I will then ask them to answer the same two questions but this time with linear and exponential functions.  I might even end class with a quick write asking students to tell me how their culture is more like the straight consistent nature of a linear function or more like the less predictable and curvy nature of the exponential function.

            These short writing assignments and class discussions are small things but I think if they are done frequently, they help create an atmosphere of respect for our differences rather than a culture of conformity.  I think that this kind of habit sends a great message to the students but it also helps remind me that I am not teaching content and I am teaching students and each one is unique.