RE: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia

[Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>]

I would be opposed to JUST teaching the rules of mathematics or art (using the 'right' colours) AS rules before children have had a chance to do some groundwork on building up spontaneous concepts through immersion in a cultural environment in which people do the things that people do with maths and art.

I think John Holt once argued that if we taught children to talk in the same way that we teach them to read we would have many more elective mutes and children with speech delays. I am not thinking so much about the later stages of education but I think it is pretty clear that in the early years children benefit more from adults who follow and expand on their attention than from those who try to switch their attention to desirable, high value learning (like teachers who have to turn every form of play towards counting, naming shapes and colours etc.). Children are taught from very early on to associate learning with WORK - with all the affective baggage that goes with that. I often hear students saying how wonderful it is when children are learning 'without even knowing that they are learning', partly because sneaking stuff in under the radar is seen as a way of bypassing the 'work = boring and difficult' associations which children are assumed to have developed.

I do think there is a time and a place for teaching but I am not convinced that children always experience their teaching at appropriate times or in appropriate places!

All the best,

Rod

________________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
Sent: 02 March 2010 09:42
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia

So on that basis, Rod, you would also be opposed to the
teaching of mathematics, and for that matter, art, unless
the child was planning a career in a genuinely relevant
profession, such as maths teacher or art teacher. :)

Andy

Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
> I think there is a big affective difference between the way we learn first languages (or multiple mother, father and grandmother tongues) and the way we learn studied languages. I was taught French all through school but learned Italian by spending the best part of a year in Italy and i am conscious of differences in HOW I know each of these languages (and English). I have more of a feel for whether or not something sounds right in Italian but I know I know a lot more about the workings of French grammar.
>
> I wonder how useful it is to teach grammar, as a formal system of rules, to children who are still picking up on the 'feel' of their language. I still think that reading well written prose is probably the best way to develop this feel (picking up a set of 'intuitive' patterns about 'the done thing' or 'what people do, as a rule') but of course this helps to develop a 'gut feeling' about the grammar of WRITTEN language - we also need plenty of exposure to different styles of spoken language so that we can develop sensitivities to what works when and with whom (I never had much time for those primary schools which insisted that children must only be exposed to one, 'correct' way of forming letters - one font - for fear of confusing them!).
>
> The time for learning about conventional rules AS rules may be when we start to ask questions about why some people say it this way and some say it that way. We know from studies of language acquisition that a huge amount of time can be wasted on trying to condition children to follow a rule which they have not yet noticed.
>
> All the best,
>
> Rod
>
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
> Sent: 02 March 2010 02:21
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia
>
> Our immensely incompetent Labor Government yesterday
> announced their new national curriculum for schools
> (formerly this was a state responsibility).
>
> It features the teaching of history from the very beginning,
> including indigenous history (this is an unambiguous good)
> and emphasises the 3 Rs, including grammar. No curriculum
> has been set yet in Geography and other subjects.
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/a-sound-beginning-20100301-pdlv.html
>
> Helen raised with me off-line this problem of reintroducing
> the teaching of grammar: who is going to educate the
> educators? Anyone under 55 today did not learn grammar at
> school or until they did a foreign language, when they
> learnt the grammar of the other language. (Grammar means
> "Which icon do I click now?")
>
> What do xmca-ers think about teaching grammar? (I am in favour.)
>
> Also, many progressive educators here are opposed to
> curricula in toto: education should be about learning not
> content. Do xmca-ers agree?
>
> Given the disastrous implementation of policies by this
> government over the past 2 years, I fear for our education
> system. What do people think?
>
> Andy
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
Ilyenkov $20 ea

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca