Can we teach children to protect the environment?
There was much talk at our staff meeting the other day about what it means to embed sustainability in our practice. I saw the similarities to my last blog post about teaching children to have a social conscience. In no way can modelling sustainability and teaching children about recycling etc. be a bad thing. Making these practices part of our everyday lives and routines is probably one of the best ways to encourage children to make these habits part of their lives. Once again however, there is a difference between learning and caring.
It was mentioned that children of two to five years old have the capacity to understand why we should protect the environment and the practices that enable this to take place. I agree that children may be able to gain a certain level of understanding of these concepts. It occurred to me, however, that the long-term commitment of any person to the conservation of the environment is the result of true respect and caring, rather than a sense of guilt or obligation. Children have a natural curiosity about the natural world, but also a natural tendency to accept everything in their world as existing outside of themselves. The concept of themselves as people having an impact on the world is a little abstract for them at this stage.
So how do we foster children's respect and love for the natural world while their lives in cities involve concrete footpaths and trips to the supermarket to buy processed food? Let them play! Our children at work are spending hours playing in the mud, pretending to cook with bark and sand, picking flowers, planting seeds, watering, and digging for worms. They love it. We were always camping, bushwalking and making gardens as children. We always had plants and animals at home. When children develop a deep appreciation and love of nature, its beauty and the gifts it gives to us, they will want to give back. By providing children with these opportunities we'll be creating proactive, responsible adults who will bring our world through the 21st Century.
Saturday 24 August 2013
Saturday 10 August 2013
'You may say that I'm a dreamer'
Do we need to teach children to have a social conscience?
The other night I was privileged to be at Hamer Hall in the presence of the legendary Joan Baez. This is a woman who despite being an incredible singer, sees herself first and foremost as an activist. Now even as someone for whom singing is almost as necessary as breathing I can say, "Joan Baez, I get it". Although I'm not the slightest bit brave and you'll never see me venturing into a war zone, when it comes to caring about things and people I have sometimes wished I had an off switch.
Now I know that 'intentional teaching' is the new big buzz word, but surely our actions can be intentional without being obviously visible as teaching. Social conscience is all about empathy, and can empathy be taught? Sure we can talk about it, but can you make someone feel something? I think children act what they know. This sounds cliché and so does 'children do as you do and not as you say', but both are probably true. I think this is the answer. Children will develop empathy by experiencing it from others.
So at the risk of repeating myself I will say that it's about being present, about really listening to what children are telling us, about noticing when they want to tell us but aren't able to, about seeing the subtle changes in behaviour that indicate that they're feeling hurt in some way, and about responding with concern and caring when they are suffering. Once again we have to look through their eyes so we don't brush off their feelings because through adult eyes they might seem insignificant.
On the other end of the scale we must allow children to be hurt in order for them to be able to develop empathy. If we over protect them they won't understand others' suffering. They need to be exposed to a wide range of human emotions in safe environments, and to be allowed to express a wide range of emotions. We can intentionally teach children about emotions by giving names to them, and we can expand their awareness of their feelings by talking about how they are connected to their own actions and the actions of others.
I will be controversial here by saying that I think we should minimize children's exposure to violence or representations of violence. I also believe that we should restrict toys such as weapons, as they encourage children to play-out the representations of violence that they've seen. I understand that children use this type of play to come to terms with their world, but we should consider the prevalence of violent cartoons and TV shows, action figures, superheroes etc. Are we providing a subtext that this is a world permeated with threat and danger, when the reality is that in this country most people try to do the right thing and in my experience are capable of being kind and caring?
Under no circumstance is violence okay. If we ever want to experience a more peaceful world the solution lies with our children. They will create a world that reflects who they are and what they believe the world is like. What would John Lennon have said? What would Bob Dylan or Joan Baez say? What are we saying, modelling and showing to our children? Are we representing and being what we want them to become?
The other night I was privileged to be at Hamer Hall in the presence of the legendary Joan Baez. This is a woman who despite being an incredible singer, sees herself first and foremost as an activist. Now even as someone for whom singing is almost as necessary as breathing I can say, "Joan Baez, I get it". Although I'm not the slightest bit brave and you'll never see me venturing into a war zone, when it comes to caring about things and people I have sometimes wished I had an off switch.
Now I know that 'intentional teaching' is the new big buzz word, but surely our actions can be intentional without being obviously visible as teaching. Social conscience is all about empathy, and can empathy be taught? Sure we can talk about it, but can you make someone feel something? I think children act what they know. This sounds cliché and so does 'children do as you do and not as you say', but both are probably true. I think this is the answer. Children will develop empathy by experiencing it from others.
So at the risk of repeating myself I will say that it's about being present, about really listening to what children are telling us, about noticing when they want to tell us but aren't able to, about seeing the subtle changes in behaviour that indicate that they're feeling hurt in some way, and about responding with concern and caring when they are suffering. Once again we have to look through their eyes so we don't brush off their feelings because through adult eyes they might seem insignificant.
On the other end of the scale we must allow children to be hurt in order for them to be able to develop empathy. If we over protect them they won't understand others' suffering. They need to be exposed to a wide range of human emotions in safe environments, and to be allowed to express a wide range of emotions. We can intentionally teach children about emotions by giving names to them, and we can expand their awareness of their feelings by talking about how they are connected to their own actions and the actions of others.
I will be controversial here by saying that I think we should minimize children's exposure to violence or representations of violence. I also believe that we should restrict toys such as weapons, as they encourage children to play-out the representations of violence that they've seen. I understand that children use this type of play to come to terms with their world, but we should consider the prevalence of violent cartoons and TV shows, action figures, superheroes etc. Are we providing a subtext that this is a world permeated with threat and danger, when the reality is that in this country most people try to do the right thing and in my experience are capable of being kind and caring?
Under no circumstance is violence okay. If we ever want to experience a more peaceful world the solution lies with our children. They will create a world that reflects who they are and what they believe the world is like. What would John Lennon have said? What would Bob Dylan or Joan Baez say? What are we saying, modelling and showing to our children? Are we representing and being what we want them to become?
Tuesday 6 August 2013
Just Read
There is nothing more important than reading when it comes to the education of young children.
Yesterday one of my co-workers told me that she'd read my planning and noticed that I'd been focussing on literacy experiences. She said she'd been trying to think of ways to incorporate literacy into the program. I said something like, "you know what? Just read to them". Maybe this sounds overly simplistic, but I believe it 100%. I know it's not always easy to fit into the program. When I read to children I like to be able to give them my full attention. Children become frustrated when you have to stop halfway through a story. Sometimes I have to tell them that I can't read to them because I have to watch the other children or because I have to talk to a parent. I wish that I had more time to spend on uninterrupted reading with the children.
The plots and characters that children encounter through stories pop up all over the place in their play, even if we don't intentionally plan literacy experiences for them. They represent them in their artwork. They create dramatic games around them. Through their play they are working through the themes, issues and questions that concern or interest them. As well as gaining large quantities of content and theoretical knowledge, they are receiving the benefits of understanding and coming to terms with their own complex emotions and the potentially confusing social worlds in which they are existing. The fact that very young children can't read to themselves means that as well as working through these ideas in their play, we are always there to respond to their comments and questions and support their understandings.
Reading helps children to become writers. Children learn language through hearing spoken language. When children hear their siblings or other children speak they learn simple language. When they hear adults speak they hear more complex language. When they listen to books being read to them they absorb even more formal language. They are hearing complex sentence structures, unusual vocabulary and descriptive phrases. Our ability to write and the quality of our writing throughout life reflects the language that we absorb as children. The more we read and the better quality writing that we are exposed to the more chance we will have of becoming competent and effective writers and verbal communicators.
Children have been known to learn to read on their own simply by being read to. By the time they start school they will have come to understand many concepts that we haven't intentionally taught them. Yesterday I was reading 'The cat in the hat' to a group of 3-5 year olds. We had to keep stopping the story as they kept reeling off strings of rhyming words. They don't need to be taught rhyming because they have heard it over and over again through their stories. They enjoy the sound of rhyming words and the challenge of finding them. They have learned shapes, colours and counting. They have learned all about animals, countries, the weather, people's occupations and so many other things. Children will love reading because they love to learn.
We just have to remember to keep this enthusiasm going as they enter school. Let children take ownership of their reading by choosing stories. Let them use the internet. Take them to the bookshop or the library. Don't let reading become about success or failure. Don't let it become a competition. Try not to let reading become a source of stress. Let children reach their own educational milestones in their own time. If you think a child has a learning difficulty definitely seek professional support for them. If not, maybe you're just not reading enough. Just read.
Yesterday one of my co-workers told me that she'd read my planning and noticed that I'd been focussing on literacy experiences. She said she'd been trying to think of ways to incorporate literacy into the program. I said something like, "you know what? Just read to them". Maybe this sounds overly simplistic, but I believe it 100%. I know it's not always easy to fit into the program. When I read to children I like to be able to give them my full attention. Children become frustrated when you have to stop halfway through a story. Sometimes I have to tell them that I can't read to them because I have to watch the other children or because I have to talk to a parent. I wish that I had more time to spend on uninterrupted reading with the children.
The plots and characters that children encounter through stories pop up all over the place in their play, even if we don't intentionally plan literacy experiences for them. They represent them in their artwork. They create dramatic games around them. Through their play they are working through the themes, issues and questions that concern or interest them. As well as gaining large quantities of content and theoretical knowledge, they are receiving the benefits of understanding and coming to terms with their own complex emotions and the potentially confusing social worlds in which they are existing. The fact that very young children can't read to themselves means that as well as working through these ideas in their play, we are always there to respond to their comments and questions and support their understandings.
Reading helps children to become writers. Children learn language through hearing spoken language. When children hear their siblings or other children speak they learn simple language. When they hear adults speak they hear more complex language. When they listen to books being read to them they absorb even more formal language. They are hearing complex sentence structures, unusual vocabulary and descriptive phrases. Our ability to write and the quality of our writing throughout life reflects the language that we absorb as children. The more we read and the better quality writing that we are exposed to the more chance we will have of becoming competent and effective writers and verbal communicators.
Children have been known to learn to read on their own simply by being read to. By the time they start school they will have come to understand many concepts that we haven't intentionally taught them. Yesterday I was reading 'The cat in the hat' to a group of 3-5 year olds. We had to keep stopping the story as they kept reeling off strings of rhyming words. They don't need to be taught rhyming because they have heard it over and over again through their stories. They enjoy the sound of rhyming words and the challenge of finding them. They have learned shapes, colours and counting. They have learned all about animals, countries, the weather, people's occupations and so many other things. Children will love reading because they love to learn.
We just have to remember to keep this enthusiasm going as they enter school. Let children take ownership of their reading by choosing stories. Let them use the internet. Take them to the bookshop or the library. Don't let reading become about success or failure. Don't let it become a competition. Try not to let reading become a source of stress. Let children reach their own educational milestones in their own time. If you think a child has a learning difficulty definitely seek professional support for them. If not, maybe you're just not reading enough. Just read.
Saturday 3 August 2013
Group Time
Why are we so stuck on group time?
You do know don't you that when you put a group of 15 children on a carpet and talk at them you may have half of them hanging off your every word, but the other half will be thinking about Peppa Pig or staring at their toes and wondering why they have so many?
Why is there still so much pressure to provide group time while at the same time the experts are advocating small, optional, spontaneous group experiences? Furthermore, why do we justify the need for group time by saying that children have to be prepared for school, while at the same time school is changing to become more and more hands-on, as it should be? Educational theorists have known for decades that children learn best through hands-on experiences, so why are we insisting that we know better?
Piaget believed that children learn through interacting with objects and people in the environment. Vygotsky believed in practical activity in a social setting. Froebel believed in group singing, but thought that most of the time children should be interacting with nature and with educational toys which he called 'gifts'. Montessori was all about manipulative materials. Steiner advocated body exercises which could be done as a group, but his focus was on real life experiences.
I challenge anyone to find me an early childhood theorist who believes that whole group discussions, activities or flash cards are necessary. And why are we preparing children for school at 2, 3 or 4 years old? School is a lifetime away in their world. If you love the sense of power and the sound of your own voice too much maybe you should become a high school teacher. If you do, however, please remember - the best high school teachers use lots of hands-on learning.
You do know don't you that when you put a group of 15 children on a carpet and talk at them you may have half of them hanging off your every word, but the other half will be thinking about Peppa Pig or staring at their toes and wondering why they have so many?
Why is there still so much pressure to provide group time while at the same time the experts are advocating small, optional, spontaneous group experiences? Furthermore, why do we justify the need for group time by saying that children have to be prepared for school, while at the same time school is changing to become more and more hands-on, as it should be? Educational theorists have known for decades that children learn best through hands-on experiences, so why are we insisting that we know better?
Piaget believed that children learn through interacting with objects and people in the environment. Vygotsky believed in practical activity in a social setting. Froebel believed in group singing, but thought that most of the time children should be interacting with nature and with educational toys which he called 'gifts'. Montessori was all about manipulative materials. Steiner advocated body exercises which could be done as a group, but his focus was on real life experiences.
I challenge anyone to find me an early childhood theorist who believes that whole group discussions, activities or flash cards are necessary. And why are we preparing children for school at 2, 3 or 4 years old? School is a lifetime away in their world. If you love the sense of power and the sound of your own voice too much maybe you should become a high school teacher. If you do, however, please remember - the best high school teachers use lots of hands-on learning.
The art of making art
The world of art has infinite possibilities for the classroom.
A couple of weeks ago I saw the Victorian Opera's production of 'Sunday in the park with George', which dramatizes the life of French impressionist painter Georges Seurat and contemplates the life of dedication and detail which necessitates a life devoted to creating art. I started thinking about how I can teach children to see the details in the world around them and bring them to life through their artistic creations. Art is as much about seeing as it is about creating.
Fortunately children are naturally good at seeing. They exist mainly in the present and are able to connect with nature on an instinctive level. They notice tiny details that we may miss. Our job is to try to exist on their plane. To see and to really listen to what they're telling us about the world which they're observing, and to help them to reflect on what they're seeing. We need to document and discuss. We need to wonder with them and to ponder possibilities. We need to talk about colours, shades, textures and shapes. We need to provide the scaffolding that will ignite the type of passion that insists that input bursts forth and becomes creative output.
My mind is jumping with ideas at the moment and I want to do everything at once. There's a big Monet exhibition on in Melbourne and as Monet happens to be one of my top five favourite painters I'm going to start with him. Monet's waterlily paintings were about light and layering. What a fantastic way to experience the softness of pastels, to learn about colour-mixing through noticing how the shades blur into each other on the canvas, to discover light and reflection, and to explore the texture and depth that's provided by layering. This will overlap perfectly with the work we're currently doing on shapes and geometry in nature, and on planting, gardening and caring for the natural world.
Some art is spontaneous and sensory, and some is more purposefully constructed. I want to make a creative art space for the children where they can develop group visual arts projects inspired by the stimulus images and materials provided. I want them to have the opportunity to build on these works over a period of time, to jump in, to stand back, to extend and to evaluate. I want them to experience the wellbeing that is provided by engaging with beautiful, sensory materials, and to feel the satisfaction of presenting a finished piece of art which can be then be experienced and appreciated by themselves and others.
A couple of weeks ago I saw the Victorian Opera's production of 'Sunday in the park with George', which dramatizes the life of French impressionist painter Georges Seurat and contemplates the life of dedication and detail which necessitates a life devoted to creating art. I started thinking about how I can teach children to see the details in the world around them and bring them to life through their artistic creations. Art is as much about seeing as it is about creating.
Fortunately children are naturally good at seeing. They exist mainly in the present and are able to connect with nature on an instinctive level. They notice tiny details that we may miss. Our job is to try to exist on their plane. To see and to really listen to what they're telling us about the world which they're observing, and to help them to reflect on what they're seeing. We need to document and discuss. We need to wonder with them and to ponder possibilities. We need to talk about colours, shades, textures and shapes. We need to provide the scaffolding that will ignite the type of passion that insists that input bursts forth and becomes creative output.
My mind is jumping with ideas at the moment and I want to do everything at once. There's a big Monet exhibition on in Melbourne and as Monet happens to be one of my top five favourite painters I'm going to start with him. Monet's waterlily paintings were about light and layering. What a fantastic way to experience the softness of pastels, to learn about colour-mixing through noticing how the shades blur into each other on the canvas, to discover light and reflection, and to explore the texture and depth that's provided by layering. This will overlap perfectly with the work we're currently doing on shapes and geometry in nature, and on planting, gardening and caring for the natural world.
Some art is spontaneous and sensory, and some is more purposefully constructed. I want to make a creative art space for the children where they can develop group visual arts projects inspired by the stimulus images and materials provided. I want them to have the opportunity to build on these works over a period of time, to jump in, to stand back, to extend and to evaluate. I want them to experience the wellbeing that is provided by engaging with beautiful, sensory materials, and to feel the satisfaction of presenting a finished piece of art which can be then be experienced and appreciated by themselves and others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)