Book - the Homework Myth

I have a new author I am reading at the moment, and I like his stuff.

He is an American educator called Alfie Kohn. I've got two books of his off Amazon in the last few weeks. The first was recommended by Bern, who had had it from the library - "Punished by Rewards: The trouble with gold start, incentive plans, A's, praise and other bribes." This book essentially debunks Behaviourism, which is a theory which says that people are only the sum total of their behaviours, and the best way to get them to do something is to train them by offering a 'goodie' for doing what you want, or a 'stick' for failing to do it.

He uses examples from teaching, raising children, and the workplace, and it's very readable. To sum up, he explains how extrinsic motivators (anything that's outside of the task or behaviour itself) only make people do a worse job, and take shortcuts - that is, do the minimum they can to get the 'goods'. Alternatively, if a person is intrinsically motivated (that task is worth doing for its own sake) then people are likely to do better, work longer and harder, and enjoy it more.

(Sounds a lot like me and reading education books!!! But then, I only read the ones I'm interested in.)

I highly recommend it. We own the book, so can lend it when we have finished.

The other book of this author's I'm reading is "The Homwork Myth: Why our kids get too much of a bad thing." Again, this is based on an American schooling model, but I don't think it's so far of what we have in schools here. In summary, 6-7 hours of school a day is actually quite long enough for kids to learn the academic things they need (although the teachers may have to make good use of that time). Time spent doing homework is usually time wasted because: 1) it is often 'practice' work, and either the child already knows how to do that task and doesn't need to practice, or they don't know how and the teacher really needs to be able to give them instant feedback, or 2) it takes up time the child could better use on activities of their own choice (like cooking a meal - in our house anyway - or reading for pleasure, or playing a board game), and especially the chance to make decisions about how to use their time.

Also, the author claims there is absolutely no research evidence that more hours doing homework helps kids to learn more or better. I haven't looked into the research myself.

Here's what I think about homework:
1. When your child is young, read to them every day. And when they get a bit older, keep reading to them every day. Also, let them see you reading (be a role model) and take them to the library so they can choose books. But this must always be pleasant. If it gets to be a chore, take a break and do something else.
2. Talk with your child. And listen. If this is a 'conversation', so much the better. 'Conversation' is a special kind of talking where each person's input depends on what the other person said in their turn. This means it includes so many high level thinking and emotive skills I don't think I could list them. The best time to have a conversation is when you are doing something else.

That's it.

Having said that, my kids' school gives homework, and every year the teachers say that they have some parents who want more homework, and some who want less. I'm in the second group. New entrants bring home a reading book every day, and that's just fine - since we were going to be reading anyway! If the child wants to read it, well and good. If not, just read it to them. That's just as good. (We would also read other books.) After all, they don't have to learn everything about reading this very day.

My favourite kind of homework the kids have had is 'choosing' homework. Sophie and Elanor often had this in year 3 and 4, and its a compromise to appease both sets of parents I suppose. In this, the child chooses a task to complete during the week. A long list of suggestions are given (like, 'bake a cake', or 'make a model', or 'read a book and write about it', or 'learn an instrument') but the kids can alternatively choose anything they like. They do have to write a few sentences about it, and 'evidence' is good (especially in the form of food to share with their table group). Sophie once made fudge, and we took a photo of it for her homework book (and took the fudge to school). Elanor once made a collage. Then she talked about it with her table group. Fabulous!

In high school, Katie and Rowena are also getting homework, but not as much as we were led to believe before they started the school (as far as I know). What is noticeable is that the subjects they like they will do more work for, and we have dinner table conversations about many of their subjects as a matter of course ("what are you doing in Maori lately?") which seems to head off any problems. All good so far anyway.

Highly recommended, and an easy to read book. He may be 'preaching to the converted' though, so I'd be interested to hear the impressions of someone whose kids were struggling.

(This post was a bit of a book chapter in itself - congrats to any reader who is still with it!)

What is the purpose of education?

This is, in fact, an extremely broad, highly important, but increasingly contested question.

The economic rationalists tell us that education is to enable the individual to become a contributing member of the workforce, and take their place in the Market as a provider of services, and a consumer (of course).

Me, I don't think that's good enough. A society of individuals, who are, by definition, motivated by their own best interests, will fall apart like a house of cards at the first puff of breath.

My Curriculum and Assessment paper is run by a lecturer called Jim. Jim has taught the course for about 12 years, and has now written a book covering the lectures within it. So, we don't have a book of readings. We just get one chapter of his book for each lecture. (The book failed to make it to print before the start of the course - otherwise we'd be buying the book.) Next week will be the 2nd week. I'm reading chapter 2. You can work that out!

This phrase caught my eye: "What do these expert systems, both sincere and insincere,
produce? First, they enfeeble two things that ought to animate education: curiosity and wonder."

(Don't worry right now about expert systems - you can always read the book!)

This caught my eye because it sounds like something I have written myself.

"Through learning in a supportive play environment, children develop the curiosity and courage to try new things and the motivation to extend themselves."

If I had to talk about the more important purposes of education, it would include the ideas of developing curiosity and courage (which are learning dispositions - more later), because if a child (or an adult for that matter) does not have curiosity they will not care to learn about anything new, and if they do not have courage they will not risk taking any new steps.

(I may not have expressed that as well as possible, so will have to work on it.)

Oddly enough, where you have a curriculum and an education system which is more and more prescribed, you find that curiosity and courage are early causalities. For example, the National Party talks about having more testing of school pupils. In fact, testing leads to less education, because the stress of having to achieve the test means that only the prescribed topics are discussed, and are looked at in a limited way as may be met in the test. This effect is felt by both teachers and pupils. You don't have to try new things (only the 'approved' things). You don't have to want to learn (only to 'achieve'). And you don't have to develop the emotional resources of bravery (because you'll be led by the hand by a teacher whose job depends on 'passes').

(By the way, this thinking isn't limited to 'rightist' politics.)

As a teacher, I'm very aware that the first thing a small child (this also applies to older children, and adults, by the way) needs in an environment is to feel "settled and happy". This relates to the Te Whaariki goals of Well-being and Belonging, and they are part of the common human experience. Once they feel "settled and happy" it is possible to learn to become part of the group, be an active agent, care for others, set ones own learning goals, and follow them through. "Settled and happy" are such primary human needs that it is impossible (I think) to talk about courage and curiosity until these have been established.

(All good stuff, but am going to have to leave it here and have tea!)

two new masters papers

This week I have started two new masters papers. The first is Curriculum and Assessment, which is a first trimester course. The second, this afternoon, is Research Methods, a full year paper.

So that, in a nutshell, is what I will be grappling with this year. Curriculum, Assessment (yes, capital 'A'!!) and Research Methods.

First things first: the C&A paper has a lecturer I had last year, he has a very clear style (to me), gives good workshops, I know how to write the essays he likes to receive, and the assessments are 1500 words and 3000 words respectively. All good. (Except that they're due in April and May. Hmmm.)

So I am thinking about curriculum.

Here's a question for any teacher-types: What is a Curriculum? Well, I think it is the sum of knowledge (however that is defined) which is to be dispensed in a formal educational setting. Like a school. Or an EC centre. Or family childcare....?

Well yes, but family childcare is supposed to be like a home - and there isn't a curriculum for the learning which is dispensed in an informal setting like a home. (Despite the fact that all children spend most of their time in homes and communities - informal settings - and I can guarantee that they do most of their learning and 'knowledge gaining' in those settings.)

So we have a grey area. This is, of course, what makes study fun. This means there is room for more information, argument, opinion or even political determinism.

Tomorrow.... Assessment!

Beyond Quality in ECE

Two of the international keynote speakers at Convention were Gunilla Dahlberg and Alan Pence, two of the authors of Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education. I got hold of this book earlier in the year, and have found it very compelling reading.

In a nutshell, the book problematises the notion of quality in current official writing about early education, (and even the prevailing ideas about childhood). This is largely because they have been developed from a Western, and mainly American, viewpoint, and it turns out that these ideas don't work out comfortably when transported into other countries and cultures (or even many groups of minority culture within America and other Western countries). Then, these singular ideas are used to further disenfranchise groups of local decision making, and the ability to determine how to raise their children (for example).

It was very exciting to meet authors I had read 'in the flesh' (so to speak). As it happened, we sat next to these two on the first morning. This is due to my habit of sitting near the front. We got talking, and, as I have thought that some of their ideas worked out very well in the way that Playcentre works (which is currently very non-establishment, in that it's not meeting government agendas either well or willingly), I was able to talk about how their ideas played out in my area.

(Hopefully I didn't bore their ears off!)

(I had a copy of their book in my motel, so later in the week I tracked down Gunnilla and got her to sign it for me. I felt a bit embarrassed about this, but heck, how often do you meet the author of a book you like when you actually have it with you?!)

ps, the pic is of the 1999 edition. I have the 2nd edition, published (and updated) in 2007.

Early Childhood Convention

I have put off blogging about Convention as I have needed space to get my head round it. Practically, there isn't going to be 'space' until my essay is done, so I'd better start writing comments anyway!

The 2007 Early Childhood Convention was held in Rotorua last week, from Sunday afternoon 23 September, to Friday afternoon 28 September. Bern and I both went. We had planned to attend together for 4 years (since the last Convention) as he went last time (in his role as early childhood boffin at the ERO policy unit) and I wanted to go, but missed out. The reason I missed out was that we had asked Bern's mum to come and stay with the kids (which she was happy to do), but she suddenly died of cancer during that year. So I stayed home.

Anyway, this year we are both postgrad education students, and I'm working in early childhood (and am committed to professional development) and Bern is doing general social research, with a preference for education, so all good enough reasons to send ourselves to Convention.

We had a ball! Bern shmoozed like mad (I think the 'nice' way to say this is 'networking'!!) and gave away all his business cards to people potentially wanting research done. I met loads of people I knew, including Playcentre, university, teacher and ministry people. We bought some books, (gave away a couple - another story), had dinner with friends, and together, went to loads of workshops which stretched us (and had each other to 'debrief' with afterwards) and generally had a whale of a time.

(Did I mention that it's the first time we've been away together without the kids for more than a weekend?)

The convention had about 1600 participants, and is apparently the largest early childhood convention anywhere in the world. It's probably so big because it's geared to appeal to teachers as well as academics and policy people. We set a meeting point so we could find each other at break times, and that worked well. We spent the ride home talking about the papers that we are both going to present next time - no pressure, as it's still 4 years off!

Grrr - Study!

My essay is doing my head in!

It's for the Education Policy paper, and I'm trying to weave about 20 theads together to comment on a particular EC policy. I keep finding new things (like Third Way political management, and globalisation) which turn out to be relevant and which I need to say 3 intelligent sentences on. (Which involves reading 3 books!)

I still have the option of writing a 'bad' essay, which I'm holding back in case I need to use it later. (I could write that sort of essay (and get a C) with no more reading at all.)

I'm sure that spending the last 2 days reading a novel has helped me to be refreshed and to focus...!!

Essay - An Ethics of Care

Still reading for my essay, but I have had a good study day today and I now have an introduction and an outline of each of the paragraphs (more or less). We also went to Annie's for tea, so I made food and had some social time too.

I am reading Dahlberg and Moss "Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education" (I think it's called). Reading about an 'ethics of care', which seems to be part of what I'm getting at for my essay.

Traditional, or universalistic, ethics are based on a rational idea of right and wrong, and the idea that if an action is 'right' for one person to do in a particular situation, then it will be 'right' for anybody else to do in the same sort of situation. It has as an ideal being not emotionally involved, but being dispassionate. Of keeping the situation at arm's length. It is rule based.

In contrast, an ethics of care has been written about by feminist theorists, but is not conceptualised as a 'woman's ethics', but as an approach available to both genders (and children, of course). The ethics of care comes at situations in relational terms and based on concrete and individual situations. What is best to do with these particular people in this particular situation at this time. (This is from memory.) It is not universalistic, as the 'right' thing may be different depending on the actor. It weights up the actor's responsibilities to the various people in the situation (this will include self).

There are two other types of ethics discussed by these authors in this chapter, but tomorrow will do. The point for my purposes is that helping children to think about the 'other' in concrete situations is probably more suitable for their learning, and basing caring actions on values such as 'kindness', rather than a set of abstract rules, resonates better with me. Although, there are rules which have served us well as proxies for moral development. For example "you can't mess up someone else's work/play".

I keep thinking that I should blog about my reading, but it is a bit confused in my head at the moment. This is a problem because I am supposed to be producing an essay (due in a fortnight).
The structure of the essay is that we are to choose a problem in education (any sort of problem at all), and address it in relation to an evaluative framework to which we are personally committed. (We must justify the framework.) Then we propose a solution.

Simple.

The problem I am focusing on at present is the way early childhood centres focus on individual learning goals for children, at the expense of developing caring interdependence among the group members, both in child:child relations and child:adult relations. That is, adults do a lot of 'caring' for little children, but it is also important for adults to create a space where children are integral parts of the group, who care for each other, and are aware they can sometimes care for the adults. This requires the adults to be humble and accept child-caring, rather than being 'teacher-ish' and think that adults take the lead in all the good 'learning stuff' that goes on.

(This goes back to my conviction that all learning is relationship based. Usually between people, but also sometimes with, eg, objects.)

My problem (with my reading) is finding other authors who have written about this issue, in order to support my arguments. I have a great author, Nel Noddings, who writes about caring in the context of school, and high school age in particular. I really like lots of her stuff. I have another great book, by Dahlberg, Moss & Pence, which talks about the early childhood centre as a forum where adults and children meet, discuss and carry out community. (That doesn't do it any kind of justice.) In any case, it seems relevant too. I have a third great book, by G. Cannella, who talks about some of the problems with traditional (some of them new-traditional) ways of viewing children and education which are quite limited in conception.

My nagging doubt at the moment is that I am somehow looking for a 'problem' where none actually exists - that I am 'spitting in the wind'!

However, I keep going back to my experience of family life, where each family member, no matter what age, contributes what they are able. Where a child 'helps' to the best of their ability - starting with just keeping you company while you do the job. A toddler can fetch and carry; by the time they are 3 or 4 they are actually drying a reasonable number of dishes; and by 11 can cook a meal without help. Where life is busy and only actually 'works' if everyone pulls together. I think it's essential that if children are going to be in group care or education (which they generally should be for some time before starting at school) that they are able to learn and use skills, caring relations, initiative, to contribute to other children and adults outside the family. I guess it's part of moral development, empathy, agency, and 'give and take'.

I think all this deserves more attention than it gets in the centres I have seen, and some of the reason for this is structural (eg, requirements by ministry of education and ero). So I press on.

First Essay Back

Well, I got my first masters essay back this evening - it was very well received, so I'm stoked! It's a real confidence boost to know that I can write at this level.

Now.... just got to get a topic for the next one....

Why I teach toddlers.

I'm quickly re-reading John Holt's "How Children learn", looking for specific material to build my evaluative framework for my essay, and I want to share a quote which neatly sums up why I'm in the 'toddler teaching' business.

"A friend said to me after reading this book, 'I always was very fond of little children, especially my own. But until now I could never have imagined that they might be interesting.'
They interest me now even more than when I wrote this book. Watching babies and children explore and make sense of the world around them is for me one of the most exciting things in the world. I have watched them and been with them at many times and places, and I find not just more pleasure but much more food for serious thought in what they say and do than in the sayings and doings of a great many older people. Not to like little children, or find them interesting and enjoy their company, is no crime. But it is surely a great misfortune, and a great loss, like having no legs or being deaf or blind."

My reading this evening

I'm having an excellent time reading for my essay due shortly. More truthfully... I'm having an excellent time reading(!), and I sometimes read some stuff that's relevant to my essay!

I've been reading a masters thesis by Ella Kahu on "Family and paid work: a critical discourse analysis of government policy and mothers' talk". In her research she looked at the document "Action Plan for New Zealand Women", published in 2004, and notes how it talks about women being able to make choices in their lives, then very clearly privileges the choice to be in full-time paid employment over any other choices, such as caring (mothering) roles. Later she is going to compare this with the talk of first time mothers about how they see their (multiple) roles, but I haven't got to that bit yet. It's very interesting, but only tangentially related to my own topic (which is about the devaluation of parent involvement in their children's education).

But at least I have an introduction to the essay now which I think will work. The next part is writing 200 words on each of 8-10 paragraphs to prove my points.

In fact, it's quite a good read just because Ella is a very clear writer, and the "-ologies and -isms" which I have been trying to get my head around (eg, post-modernism, structuralism) she explains as part of her research methodology.

Moral of story: always find a good reason to read the thing you want to read!

How Children Learn by John Holt

I've sent away to Amazon.com for several of the books on my reading list for Theoretical Foundations of Education. Amazon helpfully suggests that the books should arrive in 4 to 8 weeks. The first one, "How Children Learn" by John Holt, came in 9 days. Total cost about $22.50NZ. I'm very pleased.

I have been reading it avidly, and am finding it more interesting that Holt's other book (which I have blogged about separately a bit). This is because he is writing a lot about younger children - the age I have been working with for years in Playcentre and my teaching diploma, as well as the Little Kids I care for now. The current chapter, reflecting on language and how kids make sense of it and learn to use it, is just fascinating. Throws light on the current situation of I(child) learning words (and E using more and more words). It's really hard to choose a short extract to post to give the flavour of the chapter. I'd rather lend the book out once I have read it a couple of times.

on concentration

I was reading John Holt´s ¨How children fail¨ a week or so ago. In this book one of the problems he talks about is that children find school so boring that they cannot keep their minds on the work, and so do not learn it. (He was writing in 1960s America.) This seemed to be for two reasons. Firstly, the style of teaching was often for the teacher to leacture on the topic, asking the class questions from time to time to check understanding (or that they were paying attention). Secondly, the children could not connect the topic being covered with their own real life, and the teachers didn´t see this as a priority. So the topic covered was much less memorable; there was nothing to hook the child´s interest, so they were bored by it and didn´t learn.

I think John Holt is onto something here, and so must many teachers, as I´m sure my kids school makes the effort to relate what they are learning to how it can be used in real life. Another way of looking at this is that they use the children´s real life as a starting point for the topics they want the children to learn.

John Holt makes the point that children he observed did not know when their minds were wandering. Even with the best will in the world, if the material was stultifying then the kids would miss big chunks of the explanation and not be able to reproduce it. He suggested that the difference between a good and a poor student may be that the good student knows when their attention has wandered and can make some effort to go back to that point. He also comments that he finds this effect in himself (of his mind wandering when listening to a boring speaker), even when he is trying to fight it.

This is the point I am at this morning. This week I am reading a book called ¨An introducation to the philosophy of education¨ by SJ Curtis. It´s lovely and peaceful to study here, sitting partly in the sun and the kids at school. But I keep finding my mind has wandered off somewhere else, and I have to go back a few sentences to find out what I have been reading! Sometimes I can catch what my mind is working on instead of understanding about what I am supposed to be reading. Sometimes it´s even related to what I´m reading. But it´s quite annoying because it´s making the book go very slowly.

One thing I was being distracted about was how I might blog the thoughts I was having – so I´m doing that to get it over and done!!

I have a really helpful lecturer who talks about how to read a book. He suggests that you don´t have to understand a book on the first read through; in fact you shouldn´t try too hard. Just let it sink into your brain. Then go back and read the book through a second time, this time trying to engage with the ideas a bit. I´m holding out hope that this method will let me ´get´ the content of this book in time. Because it´s not that it is uninteresting or I can´t relate it to my life and work (which I can) – my mind is just doing other things as the same time!

Church Camp at Waikanae

We spent the weekend at El Rancho in Waikanae - and what a beautiful weekend it was. Lovely weather, good friends, and the kids reliably disappearing for stretches at a time. (Katie and Rowena didn't even sleep in our cabin.) I was carrying round (and even read some of) a book by John Holt "How Children Fail", which sounds like a depressing title, but is actually a classic book with some telling insights into things that make school hard for kids, and ways to overcome them. (He makes some points which I personally agree with - which is always a good way to know that an author is writing sense!!!)

Bit of a slow start to the weekend though. We spent over an hour in s--l--o--w m--o--v--i--n--g traffic up the coast, due to road resealing. We had an unprecedented chance to check out people's gardens. Then, when we arrived, we couldn't go into the campground because about a dozen police cars were there before us - an armed offenders squad call-out. We went off to the beach/cafe, and by the time my latte had arrived someone had had a text that it was all over and we could get in. I didn't see anything in yesterday's paper about it, so will have to keep a look out.

(Later)
Reading the above, it sounds like I am pleased to not see my kids for large chunks of the weekend - which is not the case. However, there is a huge contrast with what going to camp was like 8 or 10 years ago with little kids. In fact, I felt like we had all the advantages of being a childless couple hanging out with friends, plus all the advantages of having children - with none of the disadvantages of either.

Tina Bruce on Play

I have an excellent assignment for the first two weeks of one masters paper. We have to choose a book on an education topic which we have always wanted to read but not had the time, read it cover to cover twice, then present a 5 minute seminar to the class on it. In the second week we have to do the same with a book by a different author.

I have been reading a book by English early childhood writer Tina Bruce. She is an advocate for play-based learning in an education system which seems to favour formal methods for quite young children.

What is interesting about this book is that she has created a list of 12 Features of Play - in essence, what you would expect to see in a child’s play when they are fully engaged, and are likely to be learning. Her list is reproduced below in full.

12 features of play: (p. 30)

1. In their play, children use the first-hand experiences that they have in life.
   
2. Children make up rules as they play, and so keep control of their play.
   
3. Children make play props
   
4. Children choose to play. They cannot be made to play
   
5. Children rehearse the future in their role play
   
6. Children pretend when they play
   
7. Children play alone sometimes
   
8. Children and/or adults play together, in parallel, associatively, or co-operatively in pairs or groups
   
9. Each player has a personal play agenda, although they may not be aware of this
   
10. Children playing will be deeply involved, and difficult to distract from their deep learning. Children at play wallow in their learning
    
11. Children try out their most recent learning, skills and competencies when they play. They seem to celebrate what they know.
    
12. Children at play co-ordinate their ideas, feelings and make sense of relationships with their family, friends and culture. When play is co-ordinated it flows along in a sustained way. It is called free-flow play.
    

She gives examples using narrative observations of actual children at play. She then analyses the examples according to her theory to illustrate the learning goals which the child is engaged in. Maybe I’ll try that out myself sometime.

She also makes the point that play is hard work for children when they are fully engaged - what she calls ‘free flow play’. I’ve certainly observed that free flow play takes a lot of concentration. She contrasts periods of this full-on play with periods of, for example, quite watching, or copying or helping an adult, or resting.

Food for thought. I’ve got out a couple of her other books to read (not for the 2nd seminar though!).

Quotes on the subject of play.

Gearing up for the MEd

It's orientation time at Victoria University, and I have been to two postgraduate orientation talks in the last two days. Yesterday's one had wine, and today's had lunch, so this is not as reckless as it sounds. Anyway, having enrolled, and paid, the starting of the Masters is looming large. I have to admit that it's feeling a bit daunting - but 'exciting daunting' at this stage, so still keeping it together.

I have a book of readings for one of my courses (which is a first half course), and met the lecturer today. He has also given us work to do at home for the next two weeks, so it's 'heads down' from now on. The other paper (a full year one) doesn't start for a few weeks.

I took the two Little Kids to this mornings meeting. Fortunately I had Bern to help me as he was also going (he's starting a PhD). They made themselves quite at home - there was plenty of room for them to explore. I think that having children around must remind people why they are studying education in the first place.