Gopnik article on how kids learn

[SAM2]

Interesting article by Alison Gopnik on learning for children. This is consistent with the move of many teachers toward a more progressive teaching style.
http://www.slate.com/id/2288402/pagenum/all/

[Anonymous]

Of course the fun/unanswered question in all of this is the extent to which school gets in the way of older kids' learning as well.

[Anonymous]

Of course the fun/unanswered question in all of this is the extent to which school gets in the way of older kids' learning as well.

I totally agree with your point.

Because DH and I are not willing to go the homeschool / unschool / sudbury route for older child, we are looking only at schools that hew closest to the Progressive ideal. Also, that they walk the walk WRT project learning in the older grades, as well as original, self-directed research.

[Anonymous]

Agree with PP and have chosen a progressive school for that reason. Now in the middle school, there is still a large component of student-directed project-based learning. Just yesterday went to a parent event where the kids had each chosen an eminent person (got to choose whoever they wanted from Leonardo Davinci to Mark Zuckerberg), read a book on that person, did a paper based on the research, and then had a panel discussion in which they played their eminent person and answered questions from the audience about their lives and their opinions on world events, etc. It was very engaging for the kids and they learned a lot during the project about how to do research, cite sources, write well, etc. But fundamentally the kids were exploring for themselves what makes a person interesting, how that person's life circumstances affected them, and lots of other interesting and useful things. Curriculum is also very integrated so that during Social studies unit on China, for example, they did calligraphy and other related things in art, read books about China in humanities, and so on. They also do a major project of their choice related to each of the units in their social studies curriculum. I think it really helps keep the kids engaged in the learning process because they are the ones investigating and then reporting to their class and teachers rather than it always being the other way around (teacher tells you what you should know).

[Anonymous]

Sounds great, 11:07! What school?

[Anonymous]

11:07 here. My particular example is from Lowell, although I think from knowing other parents at these schools that the same approach to learning is used at Green Acres and Burgandy to a large extent up through the middle school. That is part of what defines progressive education (which does not mean politically liberal) as a philosophy. Those three schools are the only ones I am aware of in the area that purport to be truly progressive (as opposed to just having some progressive elements in an overall traditional educational structure).

[Anonymous]

I agree that schools like GA and Lowell actively tout their progressive teaching approach (which makes them super-cool in my book). But I actually think many teachers in all schools have shifted more to a progressive style, regardless of the school's reputation. That's just how teaching theory has shifted in recent years. I'm not sure it makes so much sense to draw bright lines between schools, or to label some schools as uniformly progressive or traditional. I suspect there is much variation from classroom to classroom, even at the same school.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, 11:07. We're just about to accept a spot at Green Acres and we're quite excited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course the fun/unanswered question in all of this is the extent to which school gets in the way of older kids' learning as well.

I'm a college prof, and I think that the gold standard, at least IMO, is the ability for students to not just recite information but to apply, critique, and expand upon it. This requires the mastery of factual knowledge, concepts, and categories, but also the creativity to use that knowledge in other areas. Can the student make connections to similar trends, say, in history (which I teach)? What are the similarities and differences? What side of the story are we getting? What additional information/perspectives would be useful? Students who know history facts cold have an easier time applying it, but they need to get into the habit of creative thinking and rigorous analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course the fun/unanswered question in all of this is the extent to which school gets in the way of older kids' learning as well.

I'm a college prof, and I think that the gold standard, at least IMO, is the ability for students to not just recite information but to apply, critique, and expand upon it. This requires the mastery of factual knowledge, concepts, and categories, but also the creativity to use that knowledge in other areas. Can the student make connections to similar trends, say, in history (which I teach)? What are the similarities and differences? What side of the story are we getting? What additional information/perspectives would be useful? Students who know history facts cold have an easier time applying it, but they need to get into the habit of creative thinking and rigorous analysis.

Hate to date myself here, but I was in the first group of students at my college to use computers for social science research methods and analysis. The class was team taught and the professors were very excited to launch the course. Alas, I was one of the few kids in the class who did not turn in a paper that consisted of 25 charts and graphs and no analysis. Most of the students assumed that churning out charts and graphs were sufficient and were very dismayed when that netted only a B. While my HS and MS years were at traditional schools, I was in a progressive classroom from 4th-6th grades - probably the most formative years of all my schooling.

[Anonymous]

Isn't there some sort of ideal balance between these methods- ie rote memorization AND creative use of knowledge? It's frustrating to read articles that tout the latest studies pushing for one approach versus the other. I swear I read something recently about the importance of rote memorization recently especially in earlier years of learning. Anyway, I feel there needs to be a balance in teaching styles- and that can happen at all stages of learning (ie preschool and beyond). Of course progressive, creating learning that emphasizes 'extrapolation' should happen throughout- but maybe even more emphasis as the basics are mastered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Isn't there some sort of ideal balance between these methods- ie rote memorization AND creative use of knowledge? It's frustrating to read articles that tout the latest studies pushing for one approach versus the other. I swear I read something recently about the importance of rote memorization recently especially in earlier years of learning. Anyway, I feel there needs to be a balance in teaching styles- and that can happen at all stages of learning (ie preschool and beyond). Of course progressive, creating learning that emphasizes 'extrapolation' should happen throughout- but maybe even more emphasis as the basics are mastered.

When you're dealing with 4 year olds, what memorization can one teach besides--maybe--alphabet and number recognition? At this age, everything they learn seems to be memorized.

Come to think of it, I did force my 4 year old to memorize my cell phone number...

[Anonymous]

PP here.. 4-5 year olds can learn/memorize plenty- ie piano notes, basics of reading- phonetics, counting and basic math. I just feel that we shouldn't get too carried away with romanticizing the progressive learning school of thought. Hate to bring up tiger mom- who i disagree with wholeheartedly- but i think we should try to strike a balance between the two methods- even for young children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
PP here.. 4-5 year olds can learn/memorize plenty- ie piano notes, basics of reading- phonetics, counting and basic math. I just feel that we shouldn't get too carried away with romanticizing the progressive learning school of thought. Hate to bring up tiger mom- who i disagree with wholeheartedly- but i think we should try to strike a balance between the two methods- even for young children.

I don't get where people think that progressive education means not learning how to read, count, learn notes, etc.

Progressive schools do require students to memorize letters, obviously, or else kids would never read. But how you get kids to memorize is different. At my son's progressive school, they learn letters and sounds (phonics) through multiple sensory learning--objects that begin with B, writing B with pencils, markers, and paint, forming their bodies in B shapes, looking for objects that begin with the letter B, singing songs with "b" sounds, etc. A more traditional school might have kids writing the letter down repeatedly on a worksheet (how I learned).

[Anonymous]

Why rote memorization may be getting a bad rap:

http://hechingered.org/content/rote-memorization-overrated-or-underrated_3351/

If progressive schools are so great at teaching the basics then why do they do so poorly in math and science fields. Just compare the privates around here with the kids from TJ, whitman, wootton in terms of preparing their kids for careers in engineering, math, and science. My point is just to get you to think more broadly this debate.