In the classroom, one size does not fit all
Have you ever consciously or curiously wondered what constitutes your map of the world? In simple terms, a map is not just what you come across in the geography book; it also means an individual’s perception of reality and cognitive representation, forged, and formed by their environment, culture, beliefs, and cognitive processes.
While referring to reality, it is wise to consider that it is not the same for everyone. The concept of reality is very subjective. We know that the human visibility spectrum varies approximately from 430 terahertz (THz) to 750 THz, and the auditory range spans from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. This validates that anything beyond these ranges is imperceptible to the primary human sensory channels: visual and auditory.
Aristotle, in his celebrated work De Anima, mentions the five primary sensory modalities: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and gustatory. The neuroscientists added 16 more to push the number to 21, however, due to the overlapping of some these were zeroed down to four major areas: Thermoception (heat), Nociception (pain), Equilibrioception (balance) and Proprioception (body awareness).
Eco-psychologist Michael J Cohen adds 32 more to push the list of senses to 53. He categorises these 32 senses under four heads: radiation senses, chemical senses, feeling senses (not to be confused with the Aristotelian kinesthetic), and mental senses. Cohen argues that our identity as beings is deeply intertwined with our sensory nature. He emphasises that our human senses constitute a significant aspect of our essence. These senses have been bestowed upon us not for mere indulgence, amusement, or ornamentation. Rather, they are inherent mechanisms meticulously crafted to facilitate our survival and prosperity within the realm of the natural world.
Neuro Linguistic Programming, a domain that emerged in the 1970s as a collaborative pursuit of Richard Bandler and John Grinder, claims that people use their five senses (VAKOG) to create mental representations of their experiences. These mental representations are known as internal representations or “internal representation systems” (IRS). The concept of the internal representational hierarchy suggests that people tend to favour one or more of these sensory modalities when processing and storing information, and this preference influences how they perceive and respond to the world around them, and how they remember, interpret, and communicate about their experiences.
If we accept that we process the information picked up by our sensory modalities differently, then our preferred learning styles are likely to differ from one another. In this context, it is obvious that a classroom consists of learners with varying learning styles: visual, auditory, and kinesthetic, the last being a combo pack of movement, feeling, touch, smell, and taste. Every individual has two maps, viz., the inner or mental map and the linguistic map.
Alfred Korzybski, a Polish American philosopher and scientist, introduced the phrase “the map is not the territory” as a fundamental concept in his theory of general semantics. He aimed to highlight the distinction between human perceptions, abstractions, and models (the “maps”) and objective reality or experience itself (the “territory”). This concept emphasises that our mental representations of the world are not identical to the actual external reality they represent.
The term “linguistic map”, on the other hand, refers to the mental representation that an individual constructs, often unconsciously, to organise and comprehend language. In essence, a linguistic map serves as a guide for a person’s understanding and production of language. The linguistic map may be referred to as ‘mental grammar’, which encompasses the implicit knowledge that speakers of a specific language have about the rules and structures that govern their language structure. This map shows the dynamic interplay between language, cognition, culture, beliefs, and values that shapes how individuals process and make sense of linguistic information.
In the classroom, one size does not fit all. Every learner is a unique individual, shaped by their experiences, preferences, and cognitive processes. To truly connect and engage with learners, educators must go beyond delivering information and ensure that they are meeting their learners at their “map.” This metaphorical concept emphasises the importance of tailoring teaching methods, content, and strategies to match each learner’s individual learning style, preferences, and needs. However, even before observing and calibrating the learners and identifying their styles, we educators need to be aware of our preferred styles so that unconsciously we do not end up imposing our styles on the learners and, when they fail to connect, brand them as stupid, unmindful, inattentive, etc.
One of the key aspects of meeting learners at their level involves not only recognising and accommodating various learning styles but also allowing oneself to be aware of the diversity and uniqueness of patterns that one has. We educators can ignite our creativity in terms of designing and delivering the courses, foster inclusivity, exemplify compassion, and most importantly, create a space where every learner can blossom according to their potential.
HOD – Dept of Literature and Language
SRM University AP
Education is a dynamic and multifaceted journey, and successful educators understand that effective teaching goes beyond simply delivering information. To truly empower and inspire learners, educators must meet them at their doorstep. As we navigate the complex landscape of education, let us remember that meeting learners on their map is a compass that guides us towards a brighter future for all.
And to quote John Lennon:
“You may say I’m a dreamer.
But I’m not the only one.
I hope someday you’ll join us.
And the world will be as one” amidst its multifarious patterns.
