Wow What an intense day! I am so overwhelmed with technology right now but I am excited about learning more and hopefully actually being able to access it. I have so many new user names and passwords I hope I remember them all!
Despite the small room, not enough hook ups and some technology glitches I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and discussion that followed, it really made me think about some of my own views on people with a "disability".
The most important thing I took from today's class was how the behaviour and mannerisms and physical features really influence people's (including my own) view on intelligence. Looking at Susie, with her interesting quirks and habits, one would think she was cognitively challenged. This is definately not the case. She just needed a way to communicate her thoughts and ideas. It makes me think of students I have worked with and students at my school who we have not tapped into their potential. One thought that does cross my mind is the time and energy this takes and the resources (both material and human) to do this. It can be so overwhelming that it would be so easy to take the simple road and not try to tap into their potential.
Communication is such an important means of assessing intelligence. If you cannot communicate what you know, in a traditional way, then we assume someone does not understand what has happened. This is the case for so many individuals, they are trapped inside their own minds and just need a way to show what they know.
Another thought is when do you know you have tried to tap into their potential and have exposed them to the right resources to try to get them to communicate what they know? Is it just luck, like with Susie, who had someone who knew about a new technology to try out, or is there a way to determine the best way for that individual to communicate? When is enough, enough? All the assistive technology available takes time to train on and they need to be exposed to it for a long time for it to actually be useful. When we learn to talk (the first traditional way we learn to communicate) we are exposed to language from the moment we are born. This takes about 1.5 years for this to start coming out of a child in speech. The neural pathways need to develop. This may be the case for non verbal students as well. Exposing them to the technology 1-2 times a day is like talking to/interacting with a child 1-2 times a day. Nothing will get accomplished. When do you say as a team that this is not the appropriate way for them to communicate? It would be easy to just say it is not working, but you would really have to question if it is being taught properly, exposed enough etc. There are so many factors here it makes my head ache. More dimensions of this scenario keep popping up. We often prioritize with students what is the best skills for them to be taught in school, and at a certain point the focus gets put on life skills and less on the communcation component of their lives. Are we really doing what is right? We need to think about if what they should know when they leave high school is appropriate. If Susie had not started using that communication device her life path would have been extremely different, similar to many students in out schools. Learning life skills and in a group home setting, not going to college and living on her own with assistance.
As discussed in class, you really do have to presume competency with students who are non verbal and look past some of the behaviours that interfere with your view of the student. Communication is one of the main ways we measure intelligence and if someone has difficulty communicating we assume they will not comprehend what is being presented. We need to start thinking outside the box and come up with ways for non verbal students to communicate to show us what they know.
I am looking forward to finding new ways to do this. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment