Slashdot Mirror
When Schools Overlook Introverts
Esther Schindler writes: A few years ago, Susan Cain's book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking seemed to give the world a bit of enlightenment about getting the most out of people who don't think they should have to be social in order to succeed. For a while, at least some folks worked to respect the needs and advantages of introversion, such as careful, reflective thinking based on the solitude that idea-generation requires.
But in When Schools Overlook Introverts, Michael Godsey writes, "The way in which certain instructional trends — education buzzwords like "collaborative learning" and "project-based learning" and "flipped classrooms" — are applied often neglect the needs of introverts. In fact, these trends could mean that classroom environments that embrace extroverted behavior — through dynamic and social learning activities — are being promoted now more than ever." It's a thoughtful article, worth reading. As I think many people on slashdot will agree, Godsley observes, "This growing emphasis in classrooms on group projects and other interactive arrangements can be challenging for introverted students who tend to perform better when they're working independently and in more subdued environments."
But in When Schools Overlook Introverts, Michael Godsey writes, "The way in which certain instructional trends — education buzzwords like "collaborative learning" and "project-based learning" and "flipped classrooms" — are applied often neglect the needs of introverts. In fact, these trends could mean that classroom environments that embrace extroverted behavior — through dynamic and social learning activities — are being promoted now more than ever." It's a thoughtful article, worth reading. As I think many people on slashdot will agree, Godsley observes, "This growing emphasis in classrooms on group projects and other interactive arrangements can be challenging for introverted students who tend to perform better when they're working independently and in more subdued environments."
Did in being an introvert. SM (as opposed to S&M, which is for another topic) is the current be-all-end-all to a great many people. It's sort of like AOL was the internet back in the early 90s, SM is the internet.
But for introverts, who don't feel like posting every aspect of their life for all to see (I am one of those) we are overlooked in this mad rush to get 10,000 "friends" or 20 million "likes" and I feel it's infecting schools as well. Not directly, but in the way of thinking that everything (learning) must be done in groups, or socially, or collaboratively, which is not the way we all think or learn.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
I am an introverted person and I do well on my own, but I also like having some contact with other people. When I was younger, spending time away from other people allowed me to learn more about myself. As time went on, I started to reach the limits of what I could learn about myself alone and I needed to be around people to find out more about me.
Being around people is a large energy drain for me, but I do require some interaction to be optimal.
The most interesting thing to note is that the rise in these more group-oriented methods of teaching has happened in parallel with, but slightly lagging, the rise of what's commonly called "political correctness".
But maybe it shouldn't be surprising that this has happened. Political correctness, as it's called, is the philosophy of suppressing individual thought and expression in order to create a cohesive, dull, uninspired collective thought that's devoid of originality. The best way to eliminate a person's individual intellectual abilities is to control and shape them from the very earliest years of this person's life.
Schools are, after all, the primary place where a society shapes its future generations. Teachers, most of whom have moved from school directly to college, and then directly to teaching in the schools they attended only a few years before, have never had any meaningful position or interaction outside of academia.
The concept of political correctness originated within the leftist-, socialist-, and communist-oriented segments of academia, most often from what are called the "social sciences" (but which tend to have absolutely nothing to do with science in any way). These college academics are the ones who taught the school teachers, thus seeding political correctness into the education systems around the world.
So we end up with the situation we have today, where all school-related participation must be at the group level. Individualism cannot be tolerated. It's not considered acceptable for a pupil to have his or her own thoughts, especially if they may disagree with or conflict with what the academic leadership has deemed to be correct. Any students who dare show signs of individualism are systematically crushed until they become part of the group conformity.
The current education system is just a byproduct of the pernicious attitude that colleges and academia has toward any free thought and free expression that doesn't exactly correlate to what these academics believe.
Gods, how I hated that crap.
If I am going to succeed or fail in school it should NOT be based on the morons the teacher groups me with, but on my own capabilities.
In my memory of my school years, group work inevitably devolved into the rest of the group chatting among themselves while I did the work anyway.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I can see how "collaborative learning" and "project-based learning" might be problematic for introverts
It's been my experience that those terms have a much more sinister meaning in real life that they appear on the surface. "Collaborative learning," "project-based learning," any kind of focus on groups or group projects, and so on are often a teaching buzzwords for "Put all the kids in a group so the smart kids can carry the dumb kids and then on paper it looks like everyone is doing well." Here is the way a "group project" worked at my old school:
1) Put at least one smart kid (like me) in each group (with the dumb and mediocre kids)
2) Smart kid does all the work because he/she actually wants an "A"
3) Dumb and mediocre kids do fuck all, learn fuck all, and accomplish fuck all, Mostly they just nap or play on their cellphones while the smart kid works.
4) Group gets an "A" because the smart kid works his/her ass off
5) Dumb and mediocre kids get an "A," look on paper like they're really improving and learning
EDUCATION!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I can just see the extrovert teacher saying: No problem with introverts here! I've never heard them complaining.
This is to get them all ready for the work experience....
love is just extroverted narcissism
"Collaborative learning," "project-based learning," any kind of focus on groups or group projects, and so on are often a teaching buzzwords for "Put all the kids in a group so the smart kids can carry the dumb kids and then on paper it looks like everyone is doing well."
That's probably the most cynical way of putting it. A well-organized group project with proper evaluation and assessment can do more than that. Part of the problem is finding suitable types of projects for group work. Projects that are open-ended, exploratory, require experimentation (and often benefit from people with different ideas for approaches) -- group work can be good there.
With younger children -- who haven't yet become so utterly cynical about education and haven't bought into the American malaise of anti-intellectualism -- groups of different ability levels can be incredibly beneficial. It's a common approach in many Montessori and private school classrooms, where grade levels are often combined to everyone's benefit. The younger or slower kids watch the older and smarter kids, and they often have an innate capacity to help each other learn together.
Here is the way a "group project" worked at my old school:
I empathize with your description; I recall many similar situations in school myself. Part of the problem is the cultural divide I mentioned above -- many older kids and teenagers simply don't value excellence in education.
But another major flaw in your description is the lack of an appropriate assessment. "Dumb and mediocre kids" shouldn't get an "A" just because the overall work of a group gets an "A." Learning should be tested via a separate assessment -- whether an individual report or a test on the material learned through the group project or whatever.
Group work shouldn't be a vehicle to give everyone an "A." It's a different learning strategy, which can sometimes be helpful with proper guidance from a teacher. The results of the group should not be substituted for an individual assessment strategy, and if you had teachers who did that, you're probably correct that it wasn't the best method of education.
Unless an introvert is absolutely brilliant they will be ignored. This world totally caters to people who can't stop talking about themselves. That's just the way it is.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Resign.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
It's fucking uncanny how literally everyone posting here is a solitary genius surrounded by incompetent, lazy fools.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I've got some feedback to point you toward, NotDrWho.
The style of classroom you describe is used extensively by the University of Oklahoma School of Computer Science after a bunch of research. Several years worth of studies essentially found that the lower performing students in those groups would later take individual exams and score roughly half a letter grade higher than those who didn't work in those group projects... follow up studies attributed this gain mostly to being forced to be in proximity to the already-successful students. The already-successful students ALSO BENEFIT from the system, showing a notable jump in their own individual exam scores, but, more importantly, showing a significant jump in their individual *retention* of information a year later, attributed to not only having to learn the material but attempting to teach the material. The situation is pretty much loathed by the already-successful students, but the data has been repeated year after year that it is better for nearly all the students in the environment, both the top performers and the bottom performers. Moreover, over several years of exposure, a peer pressure effect builds up, and you get more and more students actively participating in the later years.
If you want to learn more, the term you should Google is "Readiness Assurance Tests"... these are tests that students take twice, once as a group and once as individuals, and your score is the average of the group and the individual. You can also take a look at these links:
https://ccistudentcenterblog.w...
http://slideplayer.com/slide/4...
https://www.ou.edu/idp/teamlea...
I hear you there. In high school I struggled so much with "How are ya?" As a depressed person living in my head with a huge amount of anxiety, the true answer to that question involved minutes of conversation. Knowing that nobody wanted those minutes still took me several seconds to blast over and discard, then trip and stumble through an answer before landing on something. It took a lot of work to just be able to say "good", even when that wasn't the true answer, or even an appropriate response to the question asked. They are just simply social barks of no meaning.
It was a long time coming before I realize what you said above, that most of the time people aren't in the mood to engage their brains and have a serious discussion right as soon as you meet up, that you have to work up to that kind of thing.
In terms of learning, I've always been of the mind that you have to keep the difficulty proportional to the skill. I game a lot so they are useful analogies for me, but when teaching someone, you can't throw them in against a professional player and expect growth, you have to first teach the person to be average level and familiar before time with excellent players is beneficial in the slightest.
Ironically, middle and high school is probably some of the most treacherous and brutal social situations we all have to go through, and at a time when we are all weakest at doing so. Interacting with most sane adults is generally the best practice before people get thrown to the lions, but that never seems to be the way it goes.
In some ways I wonder that its generally easier to interact with adults because we have all been mostly scarred at one point or another in high school, and thus learn empathy properly, but eh.
I'll add that if you were the smart kid put into a group of dumb fucks, then it was intentional. To quote Game of Thrones, "he's grooming you for command." The teacher knew you were the smart kid who wouldn't learn anything from the menial work of the activity itself. So he intentionally put you into a position where you'd have the chance to assume a leadership role and direct others on how to do the work. That way you'd learn something new - how to lead and teach others, project coordination, delegating responsibilities. If your response to the situation was to curl up in a ball and do all the work yourself, then you weren't as smart and creative as you think you are. The teacher handed you an opportunity, and instead of taking advantage of it to figure out a new way to deal with the new situation, you crawled back to your tried and true solution - do everything yourself - even though it was completely inappropriate and non-optimal for the situation.
Not everyone wants to be a leader. I say this as an introvert who has taken on leadership roles. I appreciate that some people are awesome at being top-notch individual contributors, and teachers who try to shoe-horn kids into extrovert styles are doing those students a disservice. Frankly, it's way more common that teachers are extroverts, so they're trying to make their students act like extroverts too.