Parker Palmer talks about "we are who we teach" which I find pertinent to my own work and teaching. Having started out my educational pursuits and personal passions in the field of art, this permeates everything I do in my teaching. Creativity is the source of my teaching and I cannot separate it from my work as a teacher educator. But often, I find this conflicts with the current expectations of teachers to standardize and generalize experiences in the classroom. Today in class with my students we were discussing how even art class has become standardized. A student raised the point that their child is given "directions" on how to do their art. Is this art? And more importantly, is this learning and creating, two skills we deem crucial, at least in theory.
In many art classes today children are expected to reproduce, not create, a product which the teacher deems worthy of duplication, but this is not art and definitely does not support creativity in children. But I guess my question is, has even the field of art education fallen prey to a standardized curriculum? Is this how art education "stays alive"? And if so, what is the point when art is the one means of escaping high stakes testing, measurement and standardization? But I think this comes to a more fundamental question about what is teaching and learning. Is learning just the mere absorption of what the teachers tells you or is it something more. And so I would like to pose the question, how do you define teaching and learning?
Monday, January 30, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Fantasy vs. Reality
I have been struck lately by a phenomenon I have noticed in early childhood educators and it is in relation to the conception of fantasy and reality. I think we as teachers are confused by how to facilitate these two forms of thinking and what I would define as children's ability to make sense of their world. I believe this leads to a disconnect in how we facilitate learning in the classroom. How often do teachers discredit children's level of creativity and imagination when they are engaged in the act of creating something. For example, a child paints a tree purple or puts wings on a car, only to be told that trees are purple and cars can't have wings. And yet, when we teach, more so than not, we shift out of reality in order to help children "learn" what it is we would like to "teach" them, let me provide two examples.
Recently during a study group session with a group of teachers we were reflecting on videos taken in the classroom that were to show discussions teachers had with children on their project topic. The one classroom was doing a study on trees and had begun to identify different leaves and types. The video was about a discussion on the parts of trees. As the means of trying to give children a context to which they could relate, the teacher started talking about the trunk of the tree having legs and the branches were like the arms. She kept making this analogy and yet, when she was trying to see if the children knew what the roots of a tree were called and a young boy called out that what held the tree in the ground were the shoes, the teacher said, "silly, trees can't wear shoes." I am quite sure she was unaware of the disconnect and misinformation she was providing the child which led to his answer of a tree. For me, he was only logically responding using the analogy of the body she was referring to and yet he was quickly told his answer was "silly". We do this all the time to children. Another instance was a group of teachers studying butterflies and when the children were on the playground and began to chase a butterfly the teacher cautioned them not to touch the wings. When asked why, the teacher said, "the butterfly had fairy dust on her wings and if they touched it, the dust would fall off and she wouldn't be able to fly." When asked why she used this explanation, the teacher responded that she couldn't remember what was on the wings of butterflies that shouldn't be touched and so she made things up. Additionally she said that children wouldn't understand the real terminology anyway. And yet, what does this do to children when we can "make things up" when we are unsure or don't know something, but children are quickly discredited when within the context of fantasy and imagination engage in something "not real". Here is where the real disconnect comes in because children when engaged and interacting with the real world want to know the truth, not the fairy dust answers. And they are fully cognizant of when they are manipulating reality within the context of fantasy. Children know there are no purple trees for example, but when engaged in fantasy are taking what they know and making something new.
As teachers, we are uncomfortable when we don't know how to answer children's questions about the real world, but children want to make sense of the world around them. At the same time, when they truly are engaged in some form of fantasy play, drawing or other creative act, children wanted to manipulate and transform what they know about the world to something else. We need to be comfortable and willing to support both, but more importantly we need to know, as children do, that when talking and studying the real world it is pertinent to provide the knowledge of the particular subject of investigation, not to trivialize it and "make things up." Children know the difference and if we belittle them by figuring that they won't understand anyway. They do and they know when we don't give them the true, hard facts about something they want to know. And they also know how important it is within the context of play and the act of creating to manipulate what we know about the world and create something new that is truly unique to the creator/the child. We need to step back and truly observe children as the means of our learning the role of both fantasy and reality within the classroom and how we need to be careful not to mix these two worlds.
Recently during a study group session with a group of teachers we were reflecting on videos taken in the classroom that were to show discussions teachers had with children on their project topic. The one classroom was doing a study on trees and had begun to identify different leaves and types. The video was about a discussion on the parts of trees. As the means of trying to give children a context to which they could relate, the teacher started talking about the trunk of the tree having legs and the branches were like the arms. She kept making this analogy and yet, when she was trying to see if the children knew what the roots of a tree were called and a young boy called out that what held the tree in the ground were the shoes, the teacher said, "silly, trees can't wear shoes." I am quite sure she was unaware of the disconnect and misinformation she was providing the child which led to his answer of a tree. For me, he was only logically responding using the analogy of the body she was referring to and yet he was quickly told his answer was "silly". We do this all the time to children. Another instance was a group of teachers studying butterflies and when the children were on the playground and began to chase a butterfly the teacher cautioned them not to touch the wings. When asked why, the teacher said, "the butterfly had fairy dust on her wings and if they touched it, the dust would fall off and she wouldn't be able to fly." When asked why she used this explanation, the teacher responded that she couldn't remember what was on the wings of butterflies that shouldn't be touched and so she made things up. Additionally she said that children wouldn't understand the real terminology anyway. And yet, what does this do to children when we can "make things up" when we are unsure or don't know something, but children are quickly discredited when within the context of fantasy and imagination engage in something "not real". Here is where the real disconnect comes in because children when engaged and interacting with the real world want to know the truth, not the fairy dust answers. And they are fully cognizant of when they are manipulating reality within the context of fantasy. Children know there are no purple trees for example, but when engaged in fantasy are taking what they know and making something new.
As teachers, we are uncomfortable when we don't know how to answer children's questions about the real world, but children want to make sense of the world around them. At the same time, when they truly are engaged in some form of fantasy play, drawing or other creative act, children wanted to manipulate and transform what they know about the world to something else. We need to be comfortable and willing to support both, but more importantly we need to know, as children do, that when talking and studying the real world it is pertinent to provide the knowledge of the particular subject of investigation, not to trivialize it and "make things up." Children know the difference and if we belittle them by figuring that they won't understand anyway. They do and they know when we don't give them the true, hard facts about something they want to know. And they also know how important it is within the context of play and the act of creating to manipulate what we know about the world and create something new that is truly unique to the creator/the child. We need to step back and truly observe children as the means of our learning the role of both fantasy and reality within the classroom and how we need to be careful not to mix these two worlds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)