Dewey, Piaget, & Vygotsky on "Learner-Centered" Education

Dewey, Piaget, & Vygotsky on "Learner-Centered" Education

Forming a "Learner-Centered" Classroom

By: Kaylyn Meagor

    In a society where the "traditional school" model has dominated American education, the phrase "learner-centered education" might sound like a new progressive approach created only recently. However, if we look back at history we will see that this learner-centered approach has actually existed for quite some time. In 4th century B.C.E., Socrates placed great emphasis on the learner, centered on questions and critical thinking. Socrates believed that participants could gain a deeper understanding of concepts through dialogue--known as Socratic dialogue--rather than memorizing information that was simply given to them (Henson 1). 

     In the 19th century, the learner-centered approach developed through the contributions of American philosopher John Dewey, Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, and Russian sociologist Lev Vygotsky. All three believed that education should respond to the needs and interests of the students themselves rather than responding to the interests of the outside world (Ostroff). 

       John Dewey once wrote, "[T]he fundamental issue is not of new versus old education nor of progressive against traditional education but a question of what, if anything whatever, must be worthy of the name Education" (Mooney 1). 

     Dewey's statement brings me to ask another question: What is the point of education? Whatever the answer to this question might be, it is essential, as it shapes what and how students learn. Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky believed that education should focus on the development of the individual, to nurture children's intellects in an effort to form a better society (Ostroff).  Since children were seen as the catalyst for change, all three believed that educational models should center on the child rather than on subject matter.

       This week our seminar group discussed the educational theories of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Lev Vygotsky from Carol Garhart Mooney's book, Theories of Childhood: An Introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget & Vygotsky. During seminar, we explored how common elements found in each theory can be applied to form a "learner-centered" classroom.

What is "Learner-Centered Education" Anyway?

    As defined by McCombs and Whisler, learner-centered education is the perspective that combines a focus on individual learners (their experiences, perspectives, backgrounds, talents, interests, and needs), along with understanding how learning occurs, and about teaching practices that are most effective in promoting the highest levels of motivation, learning, and achievement for all learners (Henson 2).

How do the educational theories of Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky fit with the "learner-centered" philosophy? Let us look at some key elements found in all three theories.

Learn by "doing"

   Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky all believed that children learn by "doing." For instance, imagine learning how to right a bicycle. First, we must learn how to balance, then we learn how to propel ourselves forward by peddling--we might even discover that it is far easier to keep our balance when traveling at greater speeds! Although we may learn what riding a bike looks like by watching someone else, we learn how to ride a bike by doing it.  

       Dewey believed that education depended on action, and that knowledge and ideas emerged only from a situation in which learners had to draw from experiences that were meaningful and important to them.  He also believed that these situations had to occur in a social context such as a classroom, where learners could build their knowledge together.

    As a student of Montessori's work, Piaget believed that learning takes place when a child interacts with his or her environment, and by interacting with the environment a child "constructs their own knowledge by giving meaning to the people, places and things in their world" (Mooney 61). Piaget believed that children should be given every opportunity to do things on their own so they could learn from those experiences.

The following YouTube clip offers a glimpse into the Montessori school model, and features how "doing" is essential in the learning process for children.

       Vygotsky also believed that people construct their knowledge by "doing" through language and social interactions. Vygotsky viewed interaction among peers as an effective way of developing skills and strategies, and suggested that teachers use cooperative learning exercises where less skilled children can develop with help from more skillful peers--within the zone of proximal development (ZPD). ZPD is defined as "the distance between the most difficult task a child can do alone and the most difficult task a child can do with help" (Mooney 83). Essentially, it is what a child can achieve with help--this help can come from an adult or a peer who is more experienced. 

The following YouTube clip illustrates the scaffolding technique to help two students' complete a puzzle.

      Scaffolding offers students support and guidance by highlighting critical features of a task as well as providing hints or questions that might help learners understand the task at hand (Mooney 84). As we saw in the clip, the students were able to complete the puzzle with guiding questions from the adult.

      As we have seen, Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky value moments where children are able to experience their environment by actively participating in it. In a learner-centered classroom, a teacher could offer opportunities for his or her students to explore will all their senses, as well as encourage students to discuss what they are doing with their peers. Teachers can also promote a learner-centered classroom by incorporating cooperative learning experiences by having students work in pairs or small groups. Cooperative learning will not only offer students moments to support each other and share their knowledge, but also reinforce a cooperative learning environment rather than a competitive environment common in classrooms today.

Observation

     Observation in the classroom is an important method of evaluating and recording specific information about what is going on in the classroom. Observation also allows teachers to learn about their student's interests on a deeper level, which can help shape the classroom curriculum.

     Dewey placed great emphasis on teacher observation because he believed that it was crucial in planning and organizing lessons for students.  Dewey believed that observation was important in understating a child's interests as well as their current knowledge. For teachers to be successful, Dewey argued that curriculum should be based on student interests and experiences. By fully understand ones students, a teacher can form educational experiences and avoid what Dewey described as "mis-educative" experiences.

       Dewey described "mis-educative" experiences as activities that lack purpose or organization and do not build on a student's knowledge of the world (Mooney 4). For example, if students are asked to finger-paint with no guidance or purpose that builds on their current knowledge, it is not educative. However, if students are asked to finger-paint insects that they studied from a previous lesson, it would be "educative" as it expands on their current knowledge of the world.

       Vygotsky also believed that observation was an important element in successful teaching. He believed that in order to scaffold well, teachers needed to observe each child to gain an understanding of where the child was in the "learning process," and to determine when it is appropriate to stretch their knowledge (Mooney 84).

       Dewey and Vygotsky both believed that through observation, teachers could learn about his or her students' interests and skills, which is essential in forming classroom curriculum.  By observing students, teachers can do far more than assess a student's performance; he or she can build on their own knowledge of each individual student in order to create a classroom centered on the learner. Knowing the individual student is essential in a learner-centered classroom, as the curriculum is shaped to serve the needs of every learner (Henson 2). 

Importance of Play

      

   Peter Gray, research professor at Boston College and author of Free to Learn writes, "Playing with other children, away from adults is how children learn to make their own decisions, control their emotions and impulses, see from others' perspectives, negotiate differences with others, and make friends. In short, play is how children learn to take control of their lives" (Gray 273). Piaget also valued free play, as it helps support cognitive development of "preoperational children" (Mooney 73). By allowing large blocks of free play, children can develop cognitive skills through real-world experiences and open-ended activities (74).

       Vygotsky also believed that much of children's learning occurs during play.  He believed that play was important in social and linguistic development in children.  When children play, they talk to one another. They explain what they are doing to peers, develop rules for games, and assist each other through explanation.

In the video below, Toy Industries of Europe teamed up with Early Childhood Ireland to ask children at The Cottage Kids Playschool in Ireland what they think about play.

     In this video, we could see that the children truly valued their individual play free from adult intervention. In fact, children who become accustomed to adult intervention during play are less likely to "follow their natural interest in engaging with the environment" (Ostroff 66). During peer play, the children talked to one another, and offered support or explanations.  Piaget and Vygotsky alike would consider these moments as pivotal learning experiences for children.  A teacher seeking to develop a learner-centered classroom may provide ample free play opportunities where children are free to seek out their interests and build on their social and linguistic skills with other children.

Conclusion 

     In order for teachers to create a learner-centered classroom, they should strive to "serve the needs of every learner" by focusing on the individual interests and needs of each individual learner (Henson 3). As we have seen, teachers can do this by incorporating more hands-on activities for students to experience their world by "doing" as Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky suggest, focus on  student interests and needs through observation and incorporating those findings into the curriculum, and allowing multiple opportunities for children to play. If our answer to the question posed earlier (what is the point of education?) center on a child's development for the sake of the child, an educational philosophy that centers on the child is essential. 


References

Gray, Peter. Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-reliant, and Better Students for Life. New York: Basic Books, 2013.

Henson, Kenneth T. "Foundations For Learner-Centered Education: 
A Knowledge Base."  Education 124.1 (2003): 5-16. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. 

Mooney, C.G. (2000). Theories of Childhood: An Introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget & Vygotsky. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

Osfroff, Wendy.  "Some Guiding Theory." Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 25 Feb 2014. 


Ostroff, Wendy. Understanding How Young Children Learn: Bringing the Science of Child Development to the Classroom. Alexandria, Virginia, USA: Ascd, 2012

Is Praise Best? - Ashley Aquila

Is Praise Best?

On Tuesday February 18^th 2014, my classmates and I sat down to discuss the topic of praise and how it affects students within the classrooms. Many of us including myself came to class confused and not sure if the praise that we have been giving was beneficial to our students to keep going or if we have created an environment where students felt unmotivated to continue on.  Praising statements such as “Good Job!” and “You finished that very quickly, you must be very smart!” can have negative consequences for some children. Yet we all find ourselves praising with similar statements. I know what you are thinking, “How can praise negatively affect a person?” 

According to Mueller and Dweck (1998), “praise can have a direct effect on children’s goals and on their interpretation of achievement. “  There are two different forms of praise. The first form is praising for effort or hard work while the second form is praising for ability or intelligence.  Mueller and Dweck (1998) say that praising intelligence measures how “smart” they are.  In another article Mueller (2007) writes states that, “children with a fixed mind set only care about being judged if they are smart or not and fear trying new things because they are afraid to not succeed.”  Many students are so content with not learning anything new so that they can continually be praised over and over again. This continuous praise is expected in order for students to move on. They aren't motivated to improve or learn something new for the fear of not being able to hear that “You are so smart” praise or seeing that good job on their papers.  

Let me present an example of what this may look like. There is a boy who all throughout middle school has done well in math, receiving A’s all throughout the three years he has attended.  Every time his teachers  praise him for  getting all his homework problems right, acing the test, and in front of the class saying that he is their math super star, offering him to be a tutor for help. One day he opens up his high school geometry book to do the first problem, gets stuck, tries his best, and receives a C on it. He then thinks he should try harder and maybe asks for help but instead decides that it is not worth it and nobody uses geometry anymore. Ultimately, he decides to quit geometry and math all together. Because he has always received praise for good he was, he never got any praise for effort that he put into it achieving math.  I bet most of you right about now are saying so what are we not supposed to make students feel good about the good things they do, doesn't that build up their confidence to move on. Maybe so but it isn't what Mueller and Dweck recommend.  They encourage teachers to use praise for effort. 

Naturally as future teachers, my classmates and I were curious on how this would look like in a classroom and what we were really supposed to do about it. Here are some of the questions and answers that came about during our discussion of praise.

1

.       As future teachers how can we teach and enforce praise for effort when parents at home praise intelligence?

·         We have all heard the saying that parents only want their children to have a better life than they did. There is such a push for excellence, high achievements, and becoming the best that I believe parents sometimes forget that it is not all about that. Parents push for the best grades and put too much pressure on it. Telling kids they are smarter than that. So that when they do get there, there isn't any gratitude or appreciation for the hard work and effort it took. It’s now just expected because they proved they were “smart”.  As teachers we can praise and acknowledge the progress each student is making and motivate them to do better. Best of all when you praise effort be as detailed and specific as possible.

2

.       Because so many students are afraid to fail or just don’t want to fail how can we set up a classroom environment so that the students can learn and be praised correctly?

·         There so much anxiety to succeed and pass from parents, teachers, and peers that in order to create this environment we need to get rid of the high expectations. Show the children that it is certainly okay to make mistakes because how else do we learn. Most children tend to forget that the only way to learn is to first fail and try again harder. It’s not natural that we learn things the first time around. We also need to address the needs of all students. It might be possible that our students might learn in all different kinds of ways. A suggestion our class came up with was creating different learning centers in the classroom to acknowledge the different learning styles.  You could do this by adding video clips and pictures to show your students. Again don’t forget to praise praise praise the process they are taking to complete the task at hand. Mueller (2007) says, “When students believe that they can develop their intelligence, they focus on doing just that.”

3

.       So what does praise for effort look like exactly?

·         Some examples of this could be:

-          You really studied for your English test, and your improvement shows it. You read the material over several times, outlined it, and tested yourself on it. That really worked!

-          I like the way you tried all kinds of strategies on that math problem until you finally got it.

-          It was a long, hard assignment, but you stuck to it and got it done. You stayed at your desk, kept up your concentration, and kept working. That's great!

-          I like that you took on that challenging project for your science class. It will take a lot of work — doing the research, designing the machine, buying the parts, and building it. You're going to learn a lot of great things.

Some things to remember about this kind of praise is to be as specific as possible about what you are praising, focus on the process not their ability, say it with meaning and act like you care, and encourage to keep on trying.

Before my classmates and I gathered for our discussion our professor left us with this video that might help illustrate what I have been saying. The author I have been mentioning, Carol Dweck talks about the value of praise. Check it out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhbtCcmsyQ

By: Ashley Aquila

References:

Dweck, Carol S. "The Perils and Promises of Praise." Educational Leadership 65.2 (2007): 34-39. Education Research Complete. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.< http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.459dee008f99653fb85516f762108a0c>.

Mueller, Claudia M., and Carol S. Dweck. "Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children's Motivation and Performance." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75.1 (1998): 33-52. Print.

Sudbury Valley School - Callie Lockwood

SUDBURRY VALLEY SCHOOL: DISCUSSING DIFFERENT SCHOOLS AND HOW THEY WORK

         On the evening of January 28^th, 2014, a class of prospective teachers gathered to discuss pressing questions we prepared about Peter Gray’s Free to Learn, our reading assignment for the week. We had read the first half of the book for the previous class, so we understood Gray’s points coming into seminar. Sitting around a table snacking on cookies and grapes, we began discussing the problem with our education system that prevents students from developing passionate interests, and later pursuing them in their education. In Free to Learn, Gray explains his ideas and points on why school has become a constant cycle of preparing for testing, testing, and repeating. Little time is left during the school day for extra activities such as something so simple as being outside. Students are expected to sit at a desk, read, write, and absorb massive amounts of information without their brains receiving any break. We discussed Gray’s examples and solutions to this stable education system.

            In part of our reading assignment, Gray thoroughly explains the Sudburry Valley Elementary School; a school based on free play and no authorities. Sudburry Valley was founded in in 1968 in Framingham, Massachusetts and has continued to run by the same original founders. This school is founded on the belief of “Human nature- that children have an innate curiosity to learn and a drive to become effective, independent human being, no matter how many times they try and fail” (Marano 2006). Sudburry holds very unconventional beliefs that would frankly scare most parents away; however, proven by result, these kids come out of this school ready for the real world. At Sudburry, there are no teachers, just adult helpers that are there to help with whatever needed. “Adults do not control children’s education; children educate themselves” (Gray 92). There are no classrooms, lectures, homework assignments, tests, or grades. The students may request information or lectures on any subject they desire, and the students at this school range from four to eighteen. The school is located with a mansion with rooms, libraries, a kitchen, a large barn outside, and the grounds are located on 10-acres, all at the disposal for the students. Anywhere the adults go, the students can go, and the students run the school as a democracy. The helpers are voted in or out each year, and any new requests for the school must be discussed and voted on by the students. Students spend a large amount of time talking to each other, reading in quiet corners, drawing or painting, hunkered in the computer rooms and especially playing. “The basic premise of the school’s educational philosophy is that each person is responsible for his or her own education” (Gray 94).

            During discussion, the group brought up some key points and questions that we wrestled with and eventually came up with general consensus of how we feel about the Sudburry Valley School.

           

1. What is your opinion on the school’s philosophy, and do you think this type of schooling would work for children in our society?

            The schooling today clearly does not fit today’s society if the school system has been the same for the past fifty years. This radical type of change to school may just be the key to improving the success of children. The group was shocked at the ideas of no teachers and student-run schooling. The main concern was the lack of job security the helpers experienced. The school required all contracts re-signed each year, giving the students a voice in who helps them grow as people. People brought up that teachers today get tenure, and that allows some of the worst teachers to continue to have their job, while the new exciting teachers have to get pink-slipped in order to keep paying the old teachers. Also, we discussed how children can be irrational sometimes due to emotions, and how that could affect the outcome of people’s jobs. With having a student-run school, it allows children to grow up without fear of authority. At the school the adults and children are equal, and there is no separation due to authority.  Gray conducted a study on the graduates in their success and troubles in higher education and what he found was that “the graduates reported that they had good relationships with professors and employers, communicated easily with them, and had no difficulty asking them for help or advice when needed” (Gray 96). Also, having an open relationship between the adults and students allows for a healthy atmosphere centered on trust.

2. How can we begin to incorporate Sudburry philosophy into the public system?

            In discussion, the thought of bringing zone of development into public schools might allow students to find their interests at a younger age, instead of finding it in college, like most kids going through public school. Giving students at a young age the opportunities to explore their interests might produce better results in testing and it encourages personal incentives. This type of schooling “works well for all normal children because it provides the conditions that optimize children’s natural instincts to take charge of their own lives” (Gray 99). Also, the group brought up the benefits of age mixing today’s schools. In an article by Maria Scinto, she praises the idea of age mixing, and because of it “Children are free to group themselves however they like, based on shared interests, rather by age or achievement level” (Scinto 2012). Also, age mixing would discourage competition based on classmates, and encourage empathy to catch-up and help the others. The hostility of competition was mentioned because it has so much to do with the fact that we blatantly compare and pin the students against each other.

            At Sudburry, there are no tests, but in public school the students need to be regulated on how they are doing simply because there are so many students. The group thought that yearly evaluations could work in a way of regulating the students and seeing how they progress each year. The students can keep their work in a portfolio and at the end of the year; the teacher evaluates them based on a same rubric each grade uses. This way the students can see how they are progressing, and the teachers can stay informed on the students’ individual needs. Often in schools, students continue to ask the same question, “Why are we learning this and when are we ever going to use it again?” We wondered why children were still asking the same questions we asked when we were in school, and unfortunately we concluded that we were given no incentives on what was to come after we finished school. The group discussed how today’s teachers could encourage students to be more motivated and we did not want to put too much pressure on the idea of college. We found ourselves at a young age being told that if we did not make it to college, we were not smart; and that is not what we want our students to think. Therefore, we thought that teaching more about jobs and showing students that every profession has jobs for them would get them motivated to pursue their interests. Having more career days, requiring students to complete internships before graduation, and continuing job shadows could force students to find their passion. Children need to understand that education is a privilege, and that going to school is something they should be grateful for.

3. Is this type of school possible for a city setting?

            This question made everyone think more about the real-life families and the struggles that they faced. It is highly unlikely that we can find a ten-acre space in the city for this school, but we believe that there is plenty of culture in the city to expose students to. The amount of museums, parks, and life that charges through a city can force a student to see the real world up close and personal. However, with the city comes violence. In fact, we thought of the communities that do not allow their children outside because of what could happen to them. Places in this country are unsafe, but children go to school in those areas, so this type of schooling can be implemented in those. Having more security and locating the school in a central location with the most accessible public transportation can be some solutions as well. The different ages of the students allows for a lot of trust. The younger students see the decisions and mistakes the older students make and they learn from them. In the city, the students’ “curiosity is continuously provoked” (Gray 114).

            In conclusion, the group felt that the Sudburry Valley School has many useful and knowledgeable ideas that we should implement into our school system. The students today are too stable and need time and space to be adventurous, curious, creative and alive. Unfortunately, the society sees adults as the ones who know how to learn, but in reality it is engraved into our brains to learn, even when we do not realize it. Children are the most organic at learning; and instead of getting in the way of that developmental process, we, as their educators and mentors need to trust them and give them every opportunity they require to learn. 

References

Gray, Peter. Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students For Life. 2013. Basic Books. New York, NY.

Scinto, Maria. "Sudbury Schools: A Radical Alternative to No Child Left Behind." Education.com. Education.com, n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2014.

Marano, Hara E. Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, 1 May 2006. Web.

Forced to Learn - by Sarah Fazio

Forced to Learn: A discussion about compulsory education in the United States

              On Tuesday, January 21^st, 2014, a group of future educators, myself included, gathered around a long table in a cramped office to discuss the subject of compulsory education in the United States. The conversation was centered on Peter Gray’s book, Free to Learn, and his theory that children are born with a natural desire and capacity for learning that the current model of education in the U.S. inexplicably works to undermine and extinguish. This contradiction is particularly difficult for future educators to accept. How can we, in all good conscience, work to perpetuate a system that we know is not designed with the student's best interests in mind? How can we change the  education system, and bring it into alignment with what we now know about the way that children learn? The goal of the discussion was to address key points from Free to Learn, such as: the importance of free-play for children, pressure from parents and from schools on children to succeed, and the damaging effects of compulsory education. The following are several questions that were posed within the group and the important points that were brought up in response to them.

                          How do we begin to reinstate free-play into the lives of children?

      In Free to Learn, Peter Gray defines free-play as “play in which the players themselves decide what and how to play and are free to modify the goals and rules as they go along (17),” and gives the example that pickup baseball is free-play, whereas a Little League game is not (17). In a more general sense, free-play is that type of playing that children seem to do instinctively which facilitates their learning about their environment, their community, and themselves. No one in the seminar group disagreed with Peter Gray’s claims about the importance of free-play for children. The main concern of the group was trying to figure out how we can create more time and space for this type of learning. One suggestion was to change the age that children started their formal education from 4 and 5 years of age to 8 or 9. Here are some of the pros and cons of this idea.

 

 A. Pros

1. Children will have the opportunity to spend more time at home, thereby increasing the amount of time that they will have to build relationships with and be influenced by their parents and their siblings

2. Children will spend more time engaging in free-play and less time sitting behind a               desk in a classroom being drilled on their ABC’s and 123’s

B. Cons

1. Childcare issues. Many families in which both parents work and single parent families depend on schools for childcare

2. Schools provide children with opportunities for socialization. This is especially important for children who don’t have siblings, neighbors or relatives living close by

As the group discussed these advantages and disadvantages to children starting their formal education at a later stage in their development, it became clear to us the childcare issue would ultimately be the deciding factor in whether or not the idea would be feasible. One suggestion was the creation of more informal types of childcare facilities that weren’t academically focused. However, this does not solve the bigger issue of the fact that schools are being designed to better serve parents than students.

Is society more dangerous today than 50 years ago?

 A study on the fear of crime published in the Canadian Journal of Criminology states that “the fear of crime may itself be seen as a form of psychological distress which lessens the quality of life, restricts access to social or cultural opportunities, and undermines the social integration of local communities (Sacco, 1993, p.2).” A major obstacle to free-play is fear. Many parents, if not most, live in real fear that if they take their eyes off their children, even for a moment, that something terrible will happen to them (the children not the parents). As a result, parents often don't feel comfortable allowing their children to play outside and around their neighborhoods without supervision.  For children, constant parental or adult supervision interferes with their ability to fully engage in real free-play, but it hasn't always been this way. Several of us in the group recalled being allowed to roam freely in our neighborhoods until dinner time without any adults being present, so what has caused this change in attitude? Where does this fear come from? Is modern society more dangerous now than it was 50 years ago?

One possible explanation for the source of this fear is the media. The group felt that the constant media coverage of school shootings, child abductions, natural disasters, and murderers are making the world appear to be more dangerous now than in previous years. A quick Wikipedia search of the year 1964 (50 years ago) reveals that in that year a 28 year-old woman was stabbed to death in New York, and  even though 38 of her neighbors heard her screaming for help, not one attempted to respond. The second most powerful earthquake ever recorded in the U.S. hit Alaska, killing 125 people, three civil rights workers were murdered by Klansmen in Mississippi, and a 15 year-old boy was killed while riding the Matterhorn Bobsleds at Disneyland, not to mention the often dangerous and always intense civil rights movement and the start of the Vietnam War. These events sound like they could have come right from todays headlines, they don't exactly support the idea that times were safer then. In fact, the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire reports that crimes against children have actually declined in recent years. I don't know if this evidence can provide a definitive yes or no to the question, but I do know that today's media is still saturated with stories like these. If you combine the negative impact of newspapers and television news with the internet and social media, it makes sense that parents would begin to believe that their children are vulnerable to attack whenever they leave the house!

                                                      

 

Is being “well-rounded” best for children? 

"Well-rounded" is defined as being: (1)educated in many subjects, (2) including many different things, (3) having a lot of variety. The group discussed the common opinion that in order for children to be successful in life, they need to have a “well-rounded” education. This is why so many children, after spending 6 or more hours in school, also find themselves involved in multiple extracurricular activities. The group discussed the pros and cons of being “well-rounded” and came up with the following:

 

A. Pros

    1. Exposure to as many options and opportunities as possible can help children  

B. Cons

             1. Too much time spent in extracurricular activities takes away from free time and

                 family time 

             2. Too many options can make it hard to focus on one interest

             The general opinion of the group was that being well-rounded can lead to kids being exposed to a lot but not especially good at anything specific. This led to a discussion about the value of ROP classes and trade schools. When students are encouraged to dedicate their time and energy toward the things that are of interest to them, they not only become better learners, but are better equipped to compete in that specific job market. Unfortunately, there are some negative attitudes toward vocational education and training. The pressure that parents feel to raise children that are well-rounded leads us to our next question.

 

                 How does pressure from parents affect students and the school environment?

            Most parents want the best for their children. The desire to give children a better future and a better way of life than that of the previous generation is a fundamental part of society in America. It is what this country was founded on. For many parents, the child is a reflection of them, the family, and the family’s values and social position. For this reason, parents often put a lot of pressure on their children to be the best that they can be so that the family is cast in a positive light. Parents may also try and live vicariously through their children, hoping that the child will fulfill their own unrealized dreams.

            The pressure to achieve can cause students to become very competitive in school. In a journal article published in Developmental Psychology, a study of 6-7 year old boys revealed that “Boys rated by teachers as highly competitive were found to be less empathic than less competitive boys,” and “Both aggressive and competitive dispositions in 6-7-year-old boys appear to be associated with heightened self-concern, which may serve to make the feelings of other individuals less salient (Barnet et. al. 1979).Competitiveness can undermine the learning process by putting too much emphasis on the end result (grades, etc…) Competitiveness can prevent children from building healthy friendships in which children see themselves as equals. Competitiveness can also lead to bullying when children become focused on who is the best in the class and who is the worst. The pressure that parents put on their children can, in some cases, actually achieve the desired results. I won’t argue that no one has ever benefitted from being pressured to perform at a certain standard, but the negative results can be so devastating as to make children doubt the validity of their own lives.

 

                                                 The “eighth sin” of compulsory education?

            Lastly, one individual in our group brought to our attention a point which I felt was a very important one to keep in mind: education is a privilege. There are people all over the world who aren’t allowed to attend school. There are children everywhere that can’t read or write and who don’t have access to any means of learning how to. The current model of education in the U.S. is not the best that it could be, but it helps to remember that people are out there trying to make it better. The worst aspect of compulsory education is that when children are forced to go to school, school stops being a privilege. The fact that most American school children hate school is truly our society’s greatest loss. My own daughter, who goes to a great school, gets good grades and has many friends has the following opinion of school, Ruby Fazio.
  
          The current model of public education appears to be unaware of what theories and research have revealed about how children learn. They need time to play and explore freely, without constant direction from adults, instead of long days sitting at a desk, doing what they are told to do. It is the job of future educators and parents to fight for the social and emotional well-being of children instead of perpetuating a broken system that does not meet the needs of children. I personally want to help children love school. Why shouldn't they? The whole country, from politicians, to parents, to students, needs to change its attitude toward education and give it the respect and reverence that it deserves. That is the first step in undoing the damage that has been done by compulsory education.

 

 

References

Gray, Peter. Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students For Life. 2013. Basic Books. New York, NY.

Sacco, Vincent F. Social support and the Fear of Crime. Canadian Journal of Criminology.Vol 35 Apr, 1993, Issue 2, p187-196.

Barnett, Mark A. Matthews, Karen A. and Howard, Jeffrey A. Relationship Between Competitiveness and Empathy in 6- and 7-Year-Olds. Developmental Psychology, Vol 15(2), Mar, 1979. pp. 221-222. American Psychological Association.