Students will learn best what they want and need to know. That is, when they have developed the skills of analyzing what is important to them and why, as well as the skills of directing their behavior towards those wants and needs, they will learn more easily and quickly. Most educators and learning theorists would agree with this statement, although they might disagree on exactly what contributes to student motivation. Knowing how to learn is more important than acquiring a lot of knowledge. In our present society where knowledge is changing rapidly, many educators, especially those from a cognitive perspective, share this view.
Self-evaluation is the only meaningful evaluation of a student’s work. The emphasis here is on internal development and self-regulation. While most educators would likely agree that this is important, they would also advocate a need to develop a student’s ability to meet external expectations. Feelings are as important as facts. Much work from the humanistic view seems to validate this point and is one area where humanistically oriented educators are making significant contributions to our knowledge base.
Students learn best in a non-threatening environment. This is one area where humanistic educators have had an impact on current educational practice. The orientation espoused today is that the environment should be psychologically and emotionally as well as physically, non-threatening. As a practitioner, here are some of the ways that I will implement the humanist view towards education in the future. Some of these include: Allow the student to have a choice in the selection of tasks and activities whenever possible.
Help students learn to set realistic goals. Have students participate in group work, especially cooperative learning, in order to develop social and affective skills. Act as a facilitator for group discussions when appropriate. Be a role model for the attitudes, beliefs and habits one wish to foster. Insights and Learnings on Valuable Components in the Programs Some aspects in the course have struck me such as the theory on behaviorism which is a theory of education that is more a part of a motivational strategy.
Behaviorism views development as a continuous process in which children play a relatively passive role. Behaviorists assume that the only things that are real are the things we can see and observe. One cannot see the mind, but one sees people act, react and behave. What people do, not what they think or what is real is the object of the study. I have come to observe that in studying educational psychology principles, teachers can go a long way in teaching their students. Behaviorism has developed many excellent means of discipline and classroom management.
However, the behavior is not the child. Teachers can clarify whether she thinks the behavior is merely a cause of something else that is occurring within the child. It does not seem thorough to treat the behavior only and not take into account the reason for the behavior. Within teaching, behaviorism somehow removes the enjoyment out of learning. The theory seems to be unconcerned with the child at all. It seems to me that this philosophy does not take the time to meet the child within the strident. Indeed, the love of learning is the most powerful gift a teacher can give a student.
After putting in perspective what educational philosophy she does not agree with and why, a teacher can support and discuss the philosophies that she most strongly agree with. Current directions toward inclusion are varied. Some hear opinions that students with mild and moderate disabilities will be placed in classes. Then, there are also those who say that special education students will be placed in inclusion, including those with the most severe disabilities. Definitions of inclusion already abound including issues on its subsequent translation into programming.
On the question, “Which students with disabilities will most benefit from inclusion, the different levels of responses are: Level 1—Students with mild disabilities participate full-time in regular education classrooms. Students with moderate to profound disabilities attend separate classrooms on the regular education camps. Level II – Students with mild and moderate disabilities participate full-time in regular education classrooms, with the elimination of all pull-out programs. Students with severe or profound disabilities would be served in a separate classroom on the same campus.