“One size” traditional media

Traditional media for teaching—speech, text, and images—are so ingrained in our methods and curriculum that we rarely pause to consider their use. Instead of thinking carefully about which medium to use in a given situation, we usually select what we have chosen in the past or what is convenient now.

What few of us recognize is that these media have very different things to offer. The inherent communicative strengths and weaknesses of speech, text, and images determine their suitability for different instructional purposes. As teachers, when selecting a medium for teaching, we should consider its appropriateness for the particular content or activity. But the selection process does not stop there. We also need to weigh the characteristics of our students. Each individual’s facility with a medium is a function of the proclivities, strengths, and weaknesses of their learning networks and the particular demands each medium makes on these networks.

This analysis is not usually a part of how we understand and appraise our students’ capacities, how we teach, and how we evaluate learners’ progress. Unwittingly, we have allowed traditional media to shape these practices. Instead of considering students individually, we operate on a one-size-fits-all mindset. When we set goals, we often tie them to particular media without considering alternatives. When we evaluate children’s abilities, it is often on the basis of their performance within a single medium. We categorize as disabled those students for whom a printed textbook, a lecture, a chart, or a videotape is difficult or impossible to use. We then prescribe for them special goals, teaching methods, and materials—often with a remedial focus. Students are assessed according to standards and standardized tests with little regard for how the chosen media affects their learning or their ability to demonstrate that learning. This situation has developed in part because traditional instructional media and materials are inflexible and not amenable to individualization.

When we realize that students’ capacities really exist in the connection between their inherent qualities (the patterns of strength, need and interest in their three brain networks) and the media, materials, and methods they find in school, we view the curriculum in a new light. Students with exceptional talents or passionate interests, whether or not they have disabilities, may find a roadblock to learning in inflexible curricula that don’t let them shine or pursue their real interests. When given the right tools for obtaining information, the right tools for expressing what they know, and content that is of interest to them, students with widely varied learning profiles can find appropriate challenge, engage with learning, and progress. Many problems previously placed entirely at the feet of students actually are caused by limitations in the curriculum. Creating a flexible curriculum that can adapt to different learners’ needs and interests is of vital importance in reaching every learner.