My Area Education Association (AEA) is amazing. I've been able to meet many new and experienced teachers of gifted students during my first year as a teacher.
Of the many pieces of wisdom I have gained from the in-services presented by my local AEA, the Would/Could/Should philosophy has made me rethink everything. The basic idea surrounds three questions to ask oneself when creating learning opportunities for gifted students:
- Would all students benefit from the learning activity?
- Could all students participate in the activity (do they have the capacity)?
- Should all students be involved in the activity?
I don't believe the "philosophy" is as cut and dry as "If you answer 'yes' to one of the questions, the activity isn't 'good enough' for your gifted kids." The questions are there for me as a check-and-balance. What if I answered "yes" to
all three questions? I'd definitely rethink the activity at that point. However, if I answer "yes" to question number 1 (Would?), my next step is naturally to get all students involved. For example, if all students would benefit from the activity, but they may not necessarily be able to "do" it, maybe my gifted students become the teachers. We could spend our TAG time working on their building of the lessons plans, etc., then they teach their classmates. This involves all students, but also tiers the learning.
What philosophies do you live under? How do you evaluate your lessons and activities to ensure they are meeting the unique needs of your students?
0 comments:
Post a Comment