We are complicated creatures, aren't we?
Am I wrong to wish we weren't so complicated? I think some of us have a tendency to over-analyse and over-complicate, especially when we delve into the complexities of our past. I think we should remember when we're looking through children's eyes that possibly their thinking is a lot less complicated. Love, confidence and fun are three elements that contribute to happy children. Children are not born with the uneasy feeling that they don't have the right to take too much of any of these.
So if we know this we should take advantage of it and try to extend this feeling of freedom and embodiment of love, confidence and fun for as many years as possible. Maybe with an environment that supports these elements children can grow up to be adults who are still living this way. Adults like this do exist. This is the way to live. Life could be easy most of the time if we don't go looking for limits or disaster.
So what if we never told children that love has conditions? What if we didn't erode their confidence by comparing them, by holding them to unrealistic expectations, by misunderstanding their thought processes and relatively uncomplicated feelings? What if we didn't tell them that life is hard and fun is a luxury?
If we believed love had no conditions we would be giving and receiving it freely. If we had confidence we would believe we could do anything. We wouldn't stop before jumping, we would just jump. We would be secure in knowing and trusting our strengths and feelings. If we believed we were allowed to have fun we would let ourselves enjoy the moment.
We don't want children to be plagued by our limits or neuroses do we? We could make a little difference in their lives just by being more aware of what we're modelling, what we're saying and what we're thinking. Everything we do and say is contributing to who they will become. It's a huge responsibility, but it's a huge honour.
Sunday 30 March 2014
Saturday 8 March 2014
'Let me entertain you'
What exciting activities do you have planned for today?
I need to learn to be more patient when responding to this question because it immediately puts me offside and I have to struggle to be polite. It presupposes that my role as a teacher is to entertain children when in fact I'm trying to shift the culture in my room to one of listening to children.
How many times have we said that our aim is to create life-long learners? Learning is a self-motivated and internally driven process based on curiosity, enthusiasm and desire for the accumulation of knowledge and the building of understanding. Children who need to be entertained are not internally driven and if they grow used to a social environment in which they are constantly entertained they will likely remain unmotivated and looking to others to push and prod them so that they can endure the process of learning.
If your aim is to engage in education as a means to a successful future, endurance is not the best path to take. Endurance isn't the best path to anything. Life shouldn't be about preparing to be happy in the future. I know I'm just as guilty of this as the next person, but life (and if it includes learning) should be fun now. Learning should be something we enjoy doing and something we want to do. If we make it into a chore for children they may not see the fun in it.
If we provide an environment conducive to learning children will be itching to respond to it. It's only when we step back a bit that children will feel that they have the space to exercise their sense of agency. When we give them permission to have agency in their learning they will flourish. I've seen it. They come to life before your eyes. If we start listening we will uncover what they're interested in, what they want to learn, what they love, what they're driven by, possibly even what they were born to do.
If we tell them what they need to learn we won't see them light up from inside. We won't see them tackle a task with a level of determination and persistence that we didn't know they were capable of. We won't see them extend their attention span far past the point that we thought was possible. People who achieve great things in life don't worry about how many hours they work, how much they get paid or how challenging the obstacles are. They have a passion that surpasses these tedious elements of endurance. Passion provides energy and enables us to exceed our own expectations. This is what I would wish for any child.
I need to learn to be more patient when responding to this question because it immediately puts me offside and I have to struggle to be polite. It presupposes that my role as a teacher is to entertain children when in fact I'm trying to shift the culture in my room to one of listening to children.
How many times have we said that our aim is to create life-long learners? Learning is a self-motivated and internally driven process based on curiosity, enthusiasm and desire for the accumulation of knowledge and the building of understanding. Children who need to be entertained are not internally driven and if they grow used to a social environment in which they are constantly entertained they will likely remain unmotivated and looking to others to push and prod them so that they can endure the process of learning.
If your aim is to engage in education as a means to a successful future, endurance is not the best path to take. Endurance isn't the best path to anything. Life shouldn't be about preparing to be happy in the future. I know I'm just as guilty of this as the next person, but life (and if it includes learning) should be fun now. Learning should be something we enjoy doing and something we want to do. If we make it into a chore for children they may not see the fun in it.
If we provide an environment conducive to learning children will be itching to respond to it. It's only when we step back a bit that children will feel that they have the space to exercise their sense of agency. When we give them permission to have agency in their learning they will flourish. I've seen it. They come to life before your eyes. If we start listening we will uncover what they're interested in, what they want to learn, what they love, what they're driven by, possibly even what they were born to do.
If we tell them what they need to learn we won't see them light up from inside. We won't see them tackle a task with a level of determination and persistence that we didn't know they were capable of. We won't see them extend their attention span far past the point that we thought was possible. People who achieve great things in life don't worry about how many hours they work, how much they get paid or how challenging the obstacles are. They have a passion that surpasses these tedious elements of endurance. Passion provides energy and enables us to exceed our own expectations. This is what I would wish for any child.
Saturday 1 March 2014
Are we listening?
Are we even aware of whether we're actually really listening to children?
I can't help feeling disappointed when I see someone come and land themselves right in the middle of children's play, imposing their own agenda in place of child-centred learning. Aren't we supposed to be listening to children? No, listening means really listening. When you were thinking about how impressed your boss would be if you implemented some spectacular experience and told everyone in the centre to come and witness it, you didn't notice that a child was telling another how much they love The Wizard of Oz, did you?
Precious moments and opportunities for learning are happening every minute if we are only listening. Children's voices are being lost beneath all our own motivations and chatter about educational priorities. There's so much we don't know about the children we teach because we're too busy trying to manoeuvre them into aligning with our plans, which are often about providing an educational program that is visible to others (others being peers, colleagues, parents and VIPs of the early childhood world).
This is the problem I have with long-term project work, because often you find yourself trying to somehow extend an interest beyond the point of interest. The child has moved on. A passing comment is not necessarily an interest. Drawing a group of children into one child's world has some value, but many more pertinent moments are being missed in the process. You tell a parent that his/her child is interested in fish. "Oh, really?" he/she says. Someone was drawing a fish so the child decided to draw a fish too, and that's where it ends.
Come on please, our understanding of educational theory should be much deeper than this. A snapshot of children's learning that is integral to their interest in that time in that moment has value. It could be an end in itself or re-emerge at any time. It could hold potential for a long-term project or play interest. What I'm trying to say is whether it is one or the other is important and should be absolutely clear if we are sensitive, intuitive, present and listening (no, I mean really listening).
I can't help feeling disappointed when I see someone come and land themselves right in the middle of children's play, imposing their own agenda in place of child-centred learning. Aren't we supposed to be listening to children? No, listening means really listening. When you were thinking about how impressed your boss would be if you implemented some spectacular experience and told everyone in the centre to come and witness it, you didn't notice that a child was telling another how much they love The Wizard of Oz, did you?
Precious moments and opportunities for learning are happening every minute if we are only listening. Children's voices are being lost beneath all our own motivations and chatter about educational priorities. There's so much we don't know about the children we teach because we're too busy trying to manoeuvre them into aligning with our plans, which are often about providing an educational program that is visible to others (others being peers, colleagues, parents and VIPs of the early childhood world).
This is the problem I have with long-term project work, because often you find yourself trying to somehow extend an interest beyond the point of interest. The child has moved on. A passing comment is not necessarily an interest. Drawing a group of children into one child's world has some value, but many more pertinent moments are being missed in the process. You tell a parent that his/her child is interested in fish. "Oh, really?" he/she says. Someone was drawing a fish so the child decided to draw a fish too, and that's where it ends.
Come on please, our understanding of educational theory should be much deeper than this. A snapshot of children's learning that is integral to their interest in that time in that moment has value. It could be an end in itself or re-emerge at any time. It could hold potential for a long-term project or play interest. What I'm trying to say is whether it is one or the other is important and should be absolutely clear if we are sensitive, intuitive, present and listening (no, I mean really listening).
Saturday 15 February 2014
Being Connected
Are we remembering to prioritize children's physical development?
In making decisions on behalf of children, are we thinking about the potential benefits of a course of action, or only the drawbacks of another course of action? In putting so much emphasis on rushing young children to engage in formal learning are we neglecting their physical development, and therefore possibly affecting their ability to develop strong and healthy relationships with their bodies?
Many of us spent significant time in physical activities throughout our childhoods. The world was considered less dangerous, we were given more freedom and we spent more time outside. When we look at the incidence of personal issues such as obesity, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, self-harming, and dissolution of relationships, do we ever consider the possible relationship between these concerns and a level of disconnect with our physical selves? If our generation is plagued by these problems, how might a generation that are often confined to apartments, desks and ipads fare?
The Framework gives consideration to the physical, emotional, social, cognitive and even the spiritual needs of children. I think we need to reflect further before placing value on any particular one above the other. Children begin life aware of little but their physical selves. To babies a happy body means happy emotions. Their entire wellbeing depends on their physical needs being met. As they become toddlers their priorities are testing their physical abilities, learning to trust their bodies in the physical space, becoming physically strong and confident, and learning that they can affect their own physical safety.
As preschoolers some children are still grappling with physical confidence, risk-taking, strength and coordination. Are we going to suddenly say, "Stop! That's enough playing. It's time to learn now. I want you to write your name / draw a cat / show me the yellow triangle"? We're worrying that children won't cope with the learning part of school. Think about the numerous benefits of having confidence in, and respect for your physical self. Why are we not concerned that children won't cope with this part of life?
Being in the present is considered one of the keys to happiness, and how can anything really be more important than being happy? Being connected to the natural, physical and social worlds through our senses is being truly alive and truly aware. We want our children to be truly aware and to be able to meet their lives with confidence. Awareness, health and physical functioning will surely lead to mental functioning. Being connected through their bodies to environments, objects and people will mean that children will be able to embrace their lives in balanced and fully-functional ways.
In making decisions on behalf of children, are we thinking about the potential benefits of a course of action, or only the drawbacks of another course of action? In putting so much emphasis on rushing young children to engage in formal learning are we neglecting their physical development, and therefore possibly affecting their ability to develop strong and healthy relationships with their bodies?
Many of us spent significant time in physical activities throughout our childhoods. The world was considered less dangerous, we were given more freedom and we spent more time outside. When we look at the incidence of personal issues such as obesity, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, self-harming, and dissolution of relationships, do we ever consider the possible relationship between these concerns and a level of disconnect with our physical selves? If our generation is plagued by these problems, how might a generation that are often confined to apartments, desks and ipads fare?
The Framework gives consideration to the physical, emotional, social, cognitive and even the spiritual needs of children. I think we need to reflect further before placing value on any particular one above the other. Children begin life aware of little but their physical selves. To babies a happy body means happy emotions. Their entire wellbeing depends on their physical needs being met. As they become toddlers their priorities are testing their physical abilities, learning to trust their bodies in the physical space, becoming physically strong and confident, and learning that they can affect their own physical safety.
As preschoolers some children are still grappling with physical confidence, risk-taking, strength and coordination. Are we going to suddenly say, "Stop! That's enough playing. It's time to learn now. I want you to write your name / draw a cat / show me the yellow triangle"? We're worrying that children won't cope with the learning part of school. Think about the numerous benefits of having confidence in, and respect for your physical self. Why are we not concerned that children won't cope with this part of life?
Being in the present is considered one of the keys to happiness, and how can anything really be more important than being happy? Being connected to the natural, physical and social worlds through our senses is being truly alive and truly aware. We want our children to be truly aware and to be able to meet their lives with confidence. Awareness, health and physical functioning will surely lead to mental functioning. Being connected through their bodies to environments, objects and people will mean that children will be able to embrace their lives in balanced and fully-functional ways.
Saturday 11 January 2014
Does pitch matter?
A lot of the singing that children are being exposed to is from people who have limited skills.
What interests me most is looking at the potential long-term impacts of the education of young children and how we are setting them up for their futures in education and in life. For a long time I've been wondering about the impact of children's limited exposure to singing and particularly to skilled and on-pitch singing. I understand the emotional benefits of engaging with singing and music in any situation and from people of any level of ability, but what about the impacts on cognition and auditory perception? Could lack of exposure to skilled singing affect academic and language ability, and the ability to reach a high level of skill in playing musical instruments?
My parents didn't pull out all the stops to try to turn us into geniuses, but I remember my mum singing to us a lot - on pitch. I remember listening to lots and lots of nursery rhymes, lots of Slim Dusty (my mum won't want to take the credit for that, better credit my dad for that one) and songs from musical soundtracks. I heard hymns every week at church from (even before) birth. Unfortunately I don't have perfect pitch, but my sisters and I were all enthusiastic musical instrument learners and picked them up relatively easily. We can all sing on pitch. I had ten years of piano lessons and three amazing singing teachers, and I believe this has affected my ability to hear and reproduce sounds fairly accurately including pronunciations, accents and languages other than English. Academically I believe I'm doing okay.
I'm not sure how central music is to the lives of the current generation of young children. I only know about the children that I spend time with. Some spend a lot of their time in childcare and have to fit in time at home for TV, ipads etc. so probably music and singing has taken a back foot. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that their parents belong to a generation (my generation mostly) whose parents didn't provide them with this exposure. They therefore lack the skills and confidence in this area, and possibly don't place enough value on these skills.
I'm concerned that most of the exposure that these children have to singing is coming from well-intentioned early childhood educators who unfortunately can't sing on pitch, and sing at a pitch that is far too low for young children's immature voices. Do we need to have skilled professionals come in and do quality music programs? Studies have shown that having sung and been sung to as young children has the potential to improve children's abilities in maths, spatial skills, science and reading comprehension. Let's add auditory discrimination and its effects on pronunciation and sound reproduction, and the understanding of musical concepts in preparation for learning musical instruments. I think it's worth a thought.
What interests me most is looking at the potential long-term impacts of the education of young children and how we are setting them up for their futures in education and in life. For a long time I've been wondering about the impact of children's limited exposure to singing and particularly to skilled and on-pitch singing. I understand the emotional benefits of engaging with singing and music in any situation and from people of any level of ability, but what about the impacts on cognition and auditory perception? Could lack of exposure to skilled singing affect academic and language ability, and the ability to reach a high level of skill in playing musical instruments?
My parents didn't pull out all the stops to try to turn us into geniuses, but I remember my mum singing to us a lot - on pitch. I remember listening to lots and lots of nursery rhymes, lots of Slim Dusty (my mum won't want to take the credit for that, better credit my dad for that one) and songs from musical soundtracks. I heard hymns every week at church from (even before) birth. Unfortunately I don't have perfect pitch, but my sisters and I were all enthusiastic musical instrument learners and picked them up relatively easily. We can all sing on pitch. I had ten years of piano lessons and three amazing singing teachers, and I believe this has affected my ability to hear and reproduce sounds fairly accurately including pronunciations, accents and languages other than English. Academically I believe I'm doing okay.
I'm not sure how central music is to the lives of the current generation of young children. I only know about the children that I spend time with. Some spend a lot of their time in childcare and have to fit in time at home for TV, ipads etc. so probably music and singing has taken a back foot. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that their parents belong to a generation (my generation mostly) whose parents didn't provide them with this exposure. They therefore lack the skills and confidence in this area, and possibly don't place enough value on these skills.
I'm concerned that most of the exposure that these children have to singing is coming from well-intentioned early childhood educators who unfortunately can't sing on pitch, and sing at a pitch that is far too low for young children's immature voices. Do we need to have skilled professionals come in and do quality music programs? Studies have shown that having sung and been sung to as young children has the potential to improve children's abilities in maths, spatial skills, science and reading comprehension. Let's add auditory discrimination and its effects on pronunciation and sound reproduction, and the understanding of musical concepts in preparation for learning musical instruments. I think it's worth a thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)