This is less a descriptive post than one simple rant.
We're short-changing young children with the way we expose them to science. The prevailing tendency that I've noticed is to "dumb it down" and give them only what we think they can handle. This is horrifically short-sighted and insulting to the child's intelligence.
How many of you have seen a three or four year old playing with dinosaur toys? The kid will grasp and absorb every ounce of information that they are given. I've seen many a four year old who may not be able to pronounce his siblings' names, but can rattle off the name "daspletosaurus" with ease. So, why are we only spoon-feeding these children minute amounts of science knowledge at the age they're the most receptive?
Developmental psychology is clear that young kids' brains are like sponges, picking up anything thrown at them. I propose that we serve children better if we throw everything at them, as early as possible. As a generality, kids love animals, especially dinosaurs. Use this, give them all the information you can cram into the conversation. Will all of it stick? Probably not, but it's not going to stick 100% with many college freshmen either. Every piece of information is one that the kid has been exposed to by the time he or she reaches school age, and a head start on the complex issues ahead of time.
Best situation is one where you're working with a child and you can both learn about a topic. Kids aren't stupid. If you're enjoying learning about, say, plate tectonics, the kid that you're teaching is going to pick up on that, and the kid is going to be enriched for it. Challenge a child, and you won't be disappointed.
If you think my idea of dumping as much information on a child puts too much pressure on the kid, I present you the The Two Year Old Astrophysicist . This is what I'm talking about. The next time I hear an adult tell me things like "That's too advanced for my kid", or "He's too young for science stuff", this is an example of what you can do by harnessing the natural wonder inherent to each and every child.
People underestimate children all the time. Kelleen was constantly surprised when she would tell people that she was a preschool teacher for one-year-olds and they would say, "well you can't do much with them, huh?" She could teach them that the sun was hot and that the moon went around the Earth and what letter their name started with and how to count to five and all kinds of other things that are totally not beyond one-year-olds.
ReplyDeleteI was a dino-nut when I was still in pre-school, and you would be amazed at all the dino-knowledge I retain from those days - specifically the names of many dinosaurs and many other details.
ReplyDeleteThe things we learn when we are very young become the background onto which all future learning is painted. The richness and diversity of experience leads to a richly textured background that becomes like a "velcro wall" for future knowledge to attach to. Have you heard of the idea that "those that already know, learn more"? In education, this is called the "Matthew Effect" - after that biblical passage in which Matthew is told that to those who have much, more will be given. It is a real thing, and it means that advantages are cumulative.
I completely agree about providing all possible experiences and opportunities to even young children. But I'm not so sure that "information" is taken in in the same way as experience. It's the difference between taking your children to the art museum and showing them different paintings, telling them the names of the artists, comparing different styles, pointing out similarities - AND then restraining yourself from making "Famous Artist Flash Cards" to quiz your child and show off how they can tell the difference between a Renoir and a Jackson Pollock. Experience, and language, not cramming for an exam.