Designing classrooms to the needs of children

Our knowledge of child development has increased over the years, and although we are aware that every child hears a different drummer, little is done to put this knowledge into practice

Traditionally, pedagogic practices in schools have been geared towards uniformity of process and outcome. An individualised approach has never been considered practical or necessary. That school exerts an important influence on a child’s development is now an undisputed fact, backed by decades of research from the 1960s onward. Perhaps it is now time to look at teaching practices in schools with view to incorporating our current knowledge of child development and behaviour.
The nineteenth and twentieth century scholars of child development, including Freud and Piaget, brought us a long way from our initial notions of children as ‘mini adults’ to a better understanding of how children think and develop. Towards the late 1900s, there has been a deeper probe into understanding individual differences in temperaments and learning styles. As our knowledge of child development increases, we are becoming more aware of how children differ from each other. Whether it is with respect to learning style, rate of learning or adaptability to change, children vary greatly. In the school-aged child, these differences are at their peak. It is also at this stage that children are most aware of these differences. Psychologists, who describe the developmental ‘tasks’ of each stage of child development, identify ‘peer acceptance’ as the crucial mission of the school-age child. Little wonder then that a child who is perceived as different starts to agonise over its ‘differences’ at this age.
Given this backdrop of our understanding of the school-aged child, it is surprising how little of this seems to have translated into a practical tolerance of variability in our classrooms. As a developmental paediatrician, I am confronted, on an everyday basis, with parents who are asked to have their children assessed because they are too ‘inattentive’ ‘slow at writing’ ‘attention seeking’ ‘quiet’, or in some way have not met the school’s requirement of the ‘normal’ or ‘regular’ child. The usual argument is that a ratio of one teacher to 40 or sometimes even 60 students makes it impossible to individualise teaching techniques. It is challenging to have a child who distracts other children, or holds up the pace of the class because he/she is slow. Yet I have met teachers who have managed to weave in flexibility into their teaching style. The following is an example.
Nitin is a gifted child. He gets bored in the classroom. He was initially assessed because of his poor attention and distractibility, and for his tendency to argue with his teachers. He often distracted other students in the class because he was done with his work well before them. His social skills were poor and he was not popular with the other students. After his assessment, his teacher took the unusual step of meeting with his parents to try to find out what Nitin’s special areas of interest are (it turned out to be astronomy). She then used ‘time spent looking at the large book on planets in the library’ as a reward for appropriate behaviours. She also began to assign him the ‘helper’ role for other students in the classroom as soon as she sensed he was done with his work. It improved his self-esteem and social life greatly, and soon needed little time on her part.
Moving away from variations in the norm, we now know that Learning Disabilities and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder are extremely common disorders. As many as ten per cent of school-going children have a learning disability, and three per cent have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Often, the line between ‘normal’ variation in learning style and one of these disorders is blurred. Also, the differences are widespread enough that if we were to create special schools to segregate these children from regular students, we would have a huge number of special schools. These special schools would then have only one kind of student and all learning could be adapted to their skills though there are variations even within these. In addition, faced with such apparent uniformity, students and teachers would know nothing about variations in learning styles. They would expect, and have, cookie-cutter children.
Working with children with disabilities in the context of a regular school is often very gratifying for the teacher, and the other students. There is definitely a great deal to be said for the possibilities of more interesting classroom interaction created by the presence of ‘difference’. Such an interaction would engender spaces for greater contextual understanding and growth not only for the ‘special’ child but also for the ‘normal’ child. At the same time, I am not making a case for integration of all children with disabilities into regular classrooms. There are children who would benefit more from being in a setting, which offers individualised help, such as a special school. But there are many who deserve a chance for being in the mainstream. The next case-study is an example of a regular school where the teachers successfully integrated a child with a disability. They still have challenges, but as they tackle each one, their confidence in their own ability to resolve them increases.
Ajay has Asperger’s syndrome. This is part of the autistic spectrum of disorders, which has, as it’s main features, poor communication skills, poor social skills, and a restricted or repetitive range of interests. In the classroom, it translates into difficulty with following rules of the class, such as not waiting for his turn to talk, not understanding time-limits for work, etc. Ajay also has trouble in the playground. He does not seem to know how to interact with other children and play group sports. He would love to make friends, but simply does not know how.
His teachers have evolved many ingenious ways to make him ‘fit in’. He has a ‘buddy of the week’ who sits next to him to remind him about basic classroom rules. Ajay has a lot to offer his buddy too. He is an excellent speller and reader and can help the child with these tasks. Ajay gets a star in his diary if he can successfully follow a class rule for one day, while his buddy gets a star for helping. In the playground, the teacher helps to carve out roles for Ajay so he can fit into the group. For instance, since he does not have the coordination needed to join in the march-past with his classmates, his teacher made him lead the class with the flag in hands. Ajay holds his head up high on sports days as he marches ahead of his class.
When parents ask me whether it is all right to tell the school the diagnosis, I usually respond by saying that it all depends on what they think the school will do with this information. If the diagnosis is used as an excuse for rejecting the child or excluding him further, it will certainly do more harm than good. But on the other hand, if it helps to define the problem for the teacher and helps her think of effective intervention strategies, it has the potential to achieve a better education and more accepting environment for the child. In Ajay’s case, meeting with his teachers and educating them about Asperger’s disorder gave them an insight into his behaviours. Most importantly, they were willing to listen, and use the information constructively.
The onus, however, cannot be on teachers alone. Clearly, the vast literature on child development, particularly recent advances in our understanding, is not readily available to our teachers. We need to look more closely at training programmes for teachers and administrators in schools, to explore their completeness. Do they adequately sensitise them to differences in children, and teach them ways to mobilise each child’s strengths and minimise their weaknesses?  We need to create a system that empowers the teachers with the knowledge, skills and tools to identify neuro-developmental variations in children, as well as manage them successfully within the constraints of the classroom. Only when we bring science into our classrooms can we apply what we know about differences in learning to help our children achieve both academic success and more enriched life experiences.

Vibha Krishnamuthy is a developmental paediatrician, fellowship in developmental disabilities from Children’s Hospital, Boston. Currently, she is consultant developmental paediatrician, Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai and director, Ummeed Child Development Center, a non-profit organisation providing care for children with developmental disabilities

Send this page to your friends

Copyright ©Foundation for Humanisation. All Rights Reserved