For those of you interested in what edu-geeks of times past argued about, here's a selection of journal articles* from the 70s:
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
6/10
7/10
8/10
9/10
10/10
It's both unnerving and comforting that we are still unpacking these things in the 2020s. Some problems will likely never be resolved to our satisfaction.
*All from 'Educational Leadership', clearly a kick-ass journal. Go check it out: ascd.org/publications/e… (🔓)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Labels play an important role in education. They help students access targeted support and guide us in responding to particular needs.
However, they can also have unintended downsides—they are a double-edged sword.
Labels can influence expectations.
Teachers who know a student’s diagnosis can—often unconsciously—lower their expectations, asking fewer complex questions or offering less peer collaboration.
*Diagnostic overshadowing* can thwart inclusive teaching.
What's useful for teachers to know:
↓
Diagnostic overshadowing is a term originating in medical contexts (and introduced to me by @Barker_J).
It describes the phenomenon where doctors inadvertently place too much emphasis on a patient's diagnosis, overshadowing other significant health concerns.
For example, a patient diagnosed with depression might have their physical symptoms—like fatigue or headaches—mistakenly attributed to their mental health condition, potentially overlooking a critical underlying physical illness requiring separate treatment.
The first idea—cognitive similarity—helps us understand that:
→ the way people learn is more similar than it is different.
Despite its intuitive appeal (largely because it aligns with our modern liberal values), the notion that students learn best when taught in a way that is unique to their particular needs or preferences lacks empirical support and can even impede learning.