|
0 members (),
154
guests, and
11
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
I've written a number of posts in this thread in which I champion the value of free play in child development, in every domain, including cognitive. But do we have to turn it into yet another false dichotomy? Can't children have academics AND play?
As bad as it was for my DD to pretend not to know how to write an "M" in K when she was 5, could you imagine how torturous it would be when she's 7, and consuming chapter books in her free time?
I can understand why the study would have showed benefits for underprivileged children, because that's a group that often lives in understimulating environments, and whose parents often have neither the luxury of time nor the energy to play with their children.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 669
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 669 |
Maybe the answer is that only a fraction of KG should be academic, but that the academic fraction should be at the right level for the children. There is no point in drilling a fluent reader in the alphabet or teaching a child who can count to 100 how to count to 10. This suggests readiness grouping even in KG, which is contrary to the philosophy of many educators. Totally agree. Many educators are wrong.
...reading is pleasure, not just something teachers make you do in school.~B. Cleary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,478
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,478 |
What brings the two edges together is simply the idea that play and exploration is central to learning. With those as the pillars of education philosophy rather than starting from the factory, you get some interesting effects.
Exploration: Discovering new things... learning happens at the bounds of exploration. Repetition is counter to this; skill-level-matched challenges enforces this (i.e. accelerations should happen.)
Play: Simulating, trying, interaction with other people, being creative, having fun. We learn more when engaged, being engaged is a key part of play. Creativity slowly dissolves through schooling with a rigid supression of instincts and innovations. Team and project-based work, problem solving, social experimentation are all natural to play. Pure repetition is rare in play; typically signficant variations exist from cycle to cycle.
So you see the factory stuff now starting to wiggle towards play on a feature level without the spirit of it. Even the complained about spiral curriculums resemble play where kids will pick-up new skills integrate them into their play cycle and slowly retire older ways as competence with the new increases.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
This also crossed my desk today: http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/615204/?sc=c15As someone who reads a lot in this area, this is is all rather controversial and not by any means settled. It's important to realize that you can teach, and teach advanced concepts, without it being a case of sitting at desks doing worksheets.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Interesting.
DD would have preferred more academic challenge in kindergarten. However, I know she would have much preferred to play with the many toys they had in the room, or play outside, or read books, or do arts-and-crafts, than sit and listen to the teacher go over the alphabet for the Nth time. Because at least she would have been exercising her imagination and social skills.
Formal academics (in my mind, at least) usually involves sitting still, being quiet, and listening for longer periods of time. Five year olds are often not ready for this. They need to move and talk and explore, not sit and listen all day. Maybe the answer is that only a fraction of KG should be academic, but that the academic fraction should be at the right level for the children. There is no point in drilling a fluent reader in the alphabet or teaching a child who can count to 100 how to count to 10. This suggests readiness grouping even in KG, which is contrary to the philosophy of many educators. Agreed. Fluid ability grouping with regular shifts in placement to accommodate different learning modes, readiness levels, and rate of progress. Nothing wrong with that except in the practical implementation, which is complicated in a classroom with 25 individual, unique students.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 453
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 453 |
I like a lot of what Zenscanner said here. IMO, it is not the age when schooling starts that is an issue but rather what school is. If school is about treating all children as the same and a process to get all children to a certain level by a certain arbitrary date, then it is a bad idea no matter how old a child is. On the contrary, if school is a place where you are recognized for your unique strengths, taught in a manner that fits your learning style, and allowed to explore your interests to a greater depth, then age of entry does not matter. It just becomes a natural extension of what many of the parents on this board do anyway at home for their children. Alas, schools only have so much money and resources so we get more of the former and very little of the latter approach.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 336
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 336 |
Interesting.
DD would have preferred more academic challenge in kindergarten. However, I know she would have much preferred to play with the many toys they had in the room, or play outside, or read books, or do arts-and-crafts, than sit and listen to the teacher go over the alphabet for the Nth time. Because at least she would have been exercising her imagination and social skills.
Formal academics (in my mind, at least) usually involves sitting still, being quiet, and listening for longer periods of time. Five year olds are often not ready for this. They need to move and talk and explore, not sit and listen all day. Maybe the answer is that only a fraction of KG should be academic, but that the academic fraction should be at the right level for the children. There is no point in drilling a fluent reader in the alphabet or teaching a child who can count to 100 how to count to 10. This suggests readiness grouping even in KG, which is contrary to the philosophy of many educators. Agreed. Fluid ability grouping with regular shifts in placement to accommodate different learning modes, readiness levels, and rate of progress. Nothing wrong with that except in the practical implementation, which is complicated in a classroom with 25 individual, unique students. This, exactly. I actually think many educators would like to provide more differentiation, but the practical difficulty in actually doing so in a real classroom makes it nearly impossible. I really believe many of the problems in schools today are brought on in large part by the political madness over testing, and linking teacher pay to testing, the often high number of students in a single classroom with a single teacher, and the fact that we simply don't pay teachers well enough to attract anyone who isn't into self-sacrifice.
|
|
|
|
|
