It's like this:
- 50% piece of assessment (due Tuesday)
- We are in pairs (which is fine, Gypsy is great to work with)
- The question requires us to 'teach' a chapter of the textbook (we got 'why we should teach social skills') to our tutorial group in regards to a specific type of special needs child (we got gifted and talented students). This is supposed to make us more inclusive. uh-huh. (i might add that i wouldnt use this textbook to prop up a table - i wouldnt want to insult the tables' intelligence.)
- At the beginning of the textbook it clearly states "This book does not deal with the issues of teaching gifted or talented students". In fact, one has to do the opposite than when teaching social skills to other special needs children (wow! do you think they might be.. umm smart?? gifted or talented perhaps?)
- We are not supposed to argue the chapter, or discuss it, or think critically about it! Accept! Question nothing! Treat as gospel! Higher Education? Rote learning in my book! Of course, all the outside peer-reviewed research directly contradicts the textbook. Enter my nervous breakdown left wing.
To summarise, if we answer the question accurately the format will be wrong and we fail. If we follow the prescribed format, the question cannot be answered and we fail. Of course the fact that i spent $75 on a badly written textbook, that it appears my lecturer has not even read, does not help my mood any.
I need a glass of cabernet sauvignon. and a few valium.
and a hug :(