"[Bodrova and Leong] say, after all, that play should have a central place in early-childhood classrooms. And they do find fault with the academic approach, arguing that in practice, many of the early-childhood academic initiatives that have been introduced in the No Child Left Behind era have failed to produce any significant improvement in academic skills. At the same time, they don’t agree that the solution is unstructured free play. The romantic idea that children are born with flowering imaginations and a natural instinct for make-believe is simply wrong, they say. Especially these days, they contend, when children spend more time in front of screens and less time in unsupervised play, kids need careful adult guidance and instruction before they are able to play in a productive way."
I'm having some trouble with this one. It is an interesting article, but I had a few moments where I thought, Excuse me? Come again? Like here. If children are not "born with flowering imaginations and a natural instinct for make-believe", I'm not sure where it comes from. In my opinion, our job is to support and enhance those flowering imaginations. And when interest-based, emergent, child-centered curriculum is done wrong, then it can be chaos - teachers should not assume that because they are letting the children lead, they have nothing else to do. It should give you more to do to prepare for the next steps.
Children know how to play. It's what happens when we step back and watch and we don't interfere.
Read it for yourself. What do you think?
Children know how to play. It's what happens when we step back and watch and we don't interfere.
Read it for yourself. What do you think?
Wow! I'm so glad to have found your blog today, as I was thinking of not taking my preschooler back to school tomorrow Monday. I am quite confused with my kid's teacher teaching aproach. I feel she does not play part in the kids day (3 hours) in the classroom, and pretty much is just there to make sure no one gets hurt and to get the paint and glue when it's time to make art. I know how the day goes because I'm there to co-op once week as every parent in the school is required. I've been struggling with having my kid say that she did nothing at school when I ask what she did today. I would like to see the teacher giving them more instruction or direction. Most of the kids ignore most of the different stations laid out for them, with the exception of the sensory bin. Do you think I'm misjudging this teacher, should I look for another school? Or will I find a similar scenario anywhere We go? Help! I'm not sure what to expect from preschool for my kid!
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to say, Sarai, without being in the classroom. Good education involves BOTH the teacher being hands on and interactive with the children AND observing the children. I don't give any direction or instruction to the children during the free play portion of the day, which is about 1.5 hours in the morning. We sit down to do small group activities a few times a week, and at that time, we have a specific task, be it math or literacy based or based on our project.
ReplyDeleteI cannot say if you should pull your child from the school. I think you should go in for your next co-op work day and watch the children, and see that the teacher is probably doing that, too. A good teacher intervenes when necessary but is not over bearing, and gives the children space and independence.
And a note about the ignoring of "stations"-- it happens all the time. I have a lot who will spend 30-40 minutes at the sensory table this year. Many three year olds are like that. If a station doesn't strike a child's fancy, they'll choose something else. A teacher can adjust the activities for next time!
It is important, too, that your child is being social and interacting with other children. Pulling your child will also take them away from those important social experiences! And preschool is about exploring the world and fostering positive social and emotional development.
Good luck.
Regarding the romantic idea - I think this problem looks back to your initial writing here about constuctivism. Bodrova and Leong draws on Vygotskij who are known as one example of constructivistic psychology ( and Piaget too but they have some differences as well). It could be interesting to investigate these problems and what means to educational practice, but it need more time and space. But I think the term romantic is a hint to the european romantic period, where Rousseaus writing "emile" has made an impact on at least european educational thinking. Here he describes the natural child, and the concept of the natural child, which the education should seeken to set free - and this is probably what they oppose to...but then again I could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughts, Thomas.
ReplyDeleteAs I continue to teach, I am constantly reworking my philosophies and ideas about teaching and learning. As a university student, we were students of "constuctivism"-- and then we were sent into non-constructivist classrooms. How can you learn something that is not possible to practice?
I think my main issue with this "Tools of the Mind" curriculum is the same problem I have with all packaged curriculums. Professionals and new teachers alike start relying on packages and books like this, following a formula. Why? Its easier? The best ideas come from you, from teaching, from watching, from having professional conversations. Why do we need to package things up like this? Why do we need a curriculum for self control???
I think humans are capable of amazing things, don't you? So why not allow space for teachers to use their own ideas, to see the value of dramatic play without getting "answers" from "Tools of The Mind"?