Golden Nugget: Chapter #3
The word discipline seems like such a frightening one. Not only does the word discipline seem as if it should never be said I do not entirely know what the word means. In the DAP book the word discipline is replaced with the word guidance, and these suggestions helped to clarify what my responsibility as a teach is. I really need some clarification as to what I can do to help guide my students, beyond prevention.
The example of the teacher going to the student’s parents and discussing how the television their daughter was watching influenced her behavior was my favorite positive example. It modeled creating a caring community of learners by developing families (p. 35). It also exemplified how a teachers positive example of using language, and communication can resolve conflict. In this example the teacher followed the DAP advise that, “in their interactions with others, caregivers model how they want children to behave” (p. 95). This positive example of respectful behavior from the teacher will hopefully influence her student’s to model her behavior of respectful communication.
Communication is more than verbal, and this is a vital part of guiding children. The story that modeled this for me was the story about the teacher trying to stop the three boys from jumping on the coach. The book use your words suggested that the teacher raise her eyebrows, and change her tone of voice. I realized that this is DAP appropriate on several points. The first obvious reason is that children do not have as large as a vocabulary as an adult and that by “imitating the object or action, pointing to the object or illustration” the physical communication of hand movements and gestures helps the child to understand what is being said (p. 166). Even babies being to understand gestures “before they understand even simple word combinations, they read gestures, facial expressions, and tone of voice” (p. 55). When I am teaching and I can guide a student by communicating to them through my tone, physical proximity, and actions what I expect, create clear limits in the classroom, and define for my students what actions I will and will not tolerate.
After taking SFL classes I have been avidly against spanking and hitting. In truth it makes no sense. The book also mentions the irony, “poorly informed parents who shout, “Don’t you ever hit,” punctuating each work with a slap (Mooney p. 66). So, I am against hitting, but what is next. I was glad that the book had a few simple suggestions such as: Stop (what needs to be done), you’re hurting Jessie, (why it needs to be done), tell her you’re still using the trike (giving the child the actual alternative to pushing or hitting and the words to use as well) (Mooney p. 68). although I will have to practice this simple formula I can see how it is DAP appropriate because, “preschoolers’ thinking still tends to be egocentric; that is, they tend to take into account only their own point of view and have difficulty understanding how the world looks to other people” it is important to use my words and guide my students to an understanding of how other’s feel and what are acceptable ways to work with others (p. 135).
While I read this chapter I could not help but to reflect on the statement from the DAP about development of the conscience. According to the DAP handbook, “One of the most important advances in children’s development is their gradual internalization of values and expectations for behavior” (p. 125). This chapter illustrated for me that children understand that in society they want to be viewed as “good” and that if they are viewed as “bad” they feel that something is wrong with them. As the different teachers began to communicate clearly what society views as good the children became more confident and able to model good behavior. For example when the teacher clearly told the student that he could not run to the next point without his partner and he did not listen the student was not surprised when the teacher took his hand as she had promised. When the teacher made the rules clear and the consequences defining the student was able to quickly realize that his behavior was “bad” and did not mistakenly think that he was “bad.”
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
SFL Golden Nugget #2
Golden Nugget: Chapter #2
I spent a great amount of time reflecting on the idea that children need lots and lots of language to understand. Why I believe that this thought has turned over in my mind so much is because I am wondering were to draw the line between talking to much, and not talking enough with children. According to the DAP I thought that I should be speaking as little as possible. I had begun to associate speaking time simply with instruction time. When I reread, “Caregivers frequently talk with, sing to, and read to infants.” (p. 79). I realized how wrong I was and that it is not simply cutting the instruction time that is important but making instruction time precise and clear.
The example from the book that illustrated this idea best for me came from chapter 2. In chapter two one of the lead teachers was feeling overwhelmed by how many toddlers and babies were in her classroom. She requested more teacher aids to come and help protect the babies from the running and rambunctious toddlers. Her supervisor suggested that she teach the children what the rules of the classroom are, and why those rules make everyone feel safe, including the babies. Slowly the entire class transformed into a safe environment as the children learned what was appropriate and what was inappropriate behavior in the classroom. At the end of the example one of the two-year-olds stopped a younger child from toughing a toy block; all he said was baby.
This was a great story for me to learn from on multiple levels, but the first thing that I learned was about the ambiguity of language. One of the discouraged traits outlined in the DAP book is “Caregivers talk at toddlers and do not wait for a response,” (p. 94). I took this thought and applied it to the above situation. When the parents and lead teacher were saying such ambiguous phrases as: watch for the babies, be careful, and settle down they were talking at the toddlers. The toddlers did not understand these phrases. Most of the children were probably thinking, I am watching the baby while I jump over it, this is careful, or should I lay down? Such sentences are simply talking at children, because the teacher is not thinking about what the child’s response will be. When the teachers began to define clear limits: the trikes need to stay in this part of the room. The teacher was no longer talking at the children but to the children when she made sure that the children understood her.
I also made the connection that children are apart of the environment in the classroom, and that in order to have a safe environment the student’s need to be safe. It is easy to realize because it has been stressed so often in the DAP book that, “young infants thrive on responsive care giving, an engaging environment,” (p. 59). I had turned this idea into a simple check off list: lead-free, easy-to-clean paint; carpeting and flooring are easy to clean; diapering and food-preparation areas are separate; storage for disinfectants, gloves, and plastic bags is clearly labeled (p. 89). The list goes on, but it did not occur to me that having safety aware children in my classroom is a vital part of establishing a safe environment.
The other golden nugget that I learned was how to identify and correct a problem in the classroom. Babies getting stepped on is a big problem for a classroom. It was an easy enough problem to identify, but how the teacher corrected it is remarkable. She did not condone the toddlers, and tell them that they were being bad or wrong. Instead she realized that she had not clearly communicated with them the rules of the classroom and why those rules are important. She kept a DAP appropriate tone of voice as suggested being “the tone of the interactions is warm and caring; caregivers use pleasant, calm voices as well as simple language and nonverbal cues” (p. 91). Not only did she keep her voice down, but she identified the real problem. The real problem was not the children wanting to hurt or harm the babies. The toddlers were not bad or wicked, they simply did not understand. The lead teacher realized what the problem was; the problem was that the children did not understand. Then she addressed that specific problem.
I spent a great amount of time reflecting on the idea that children need lots and lots of language to understand. Why I believe that this thought has turned over in my mind so much is because I am wondering were to draw the line between talking to much, and not talking enough with children. According to the DAP I thought that I should be speaking as little as possible. I had begun to associate speaking time simply with instruction time. When I reread, “Caregivers frequently talk with, sing to, and read to infants.” (p. 79). I realized how wrong I was and that it is not simply cutting the instruction time that is important but making instruction time precise and clear.
The example from the book that illustrated this idea best for me came from chapter 2. In chapter two one of the lead teachers was feeling overwhelmed by how many toddlers and babies were in her classroom. She requested more teacher aids to come and help protect the babies from the running and rambunctious toddlers. Her supervisor suggested that she teach the children what the rules of the classroom are, and why those rules make everyone feel safe, including the babies. Slowly the entire class transformed into a safe environment as the children learned what was appropriate and what was inappropriate behavior in the classroom. At the end of the example one of the two-year-olds stopped a younger child from toughing a toy block; all he said was baby.
This was a great story for me to learn from on multiple levels, but the first thing that I learned was about the ambiguity of language. One of the discouraged traits outlined in the DAP book is “Caregivers talk at toddlers and do not wait for a response,” (p. 94). I took this thought and applied it to the above situation. When the parents and lead teacher were saying such ambiguous phrases as: watch for the babies, be careful, and settle down they were talking at the toddlers. The toddlers did not understand these phrases. Most of the children were probably thinking, I am watching the baby while I jump over it, this is careful, or should I lay down? Such sentences are simply talking at children, because the teacher is not thinking about what the child’s response will be. When the teachers began to define clear limits: the trikes need to stay in this part of the room. The teacher was no longer talking at the children but to the children when she made sure that the children understood her.
I also made the connection that children are apart of the environment in the classroom, and that in order to have a safe environment the student’s need to be safe. It is easy to realize because it has been stressed so often in the DAP book that, “young infants thrive on responsive care giving, an engaging environment,” (p. 59). I had turned this idea into a simple check off list: lead-free, easy-to-clean paint; carpeting and flooring are easy to clean; diapering and food-preparation areas are separate; storage for disinfectants, gloves, and plastic bags is clearly labeled (p. 89). The list goes on, but it did not occur to me that having safety aware children in my classroom is a vital part of establishing a safe environment.
The other golden nugget that I learned was how to identify and correct a problem in the classroom. Babies getting stepped on is a big problem for a classroom. It was an easy enough problem to identify, but how the teacher corrected it is remarkable. She did not condone the toddlers, and tell them that they were being bad or wrong. Instead she realized that she had not clearly communicated with them the rules of the classroom and why those rules are important. She kept a DAP appropriate tone of voice as suggested being “the tone of the interactions is warm and caring; caregivers use pleasant, calm voices as well as simple language and nonverbal cues” (p. 91). Not only did she keep her voice down, but she identified the real problem. The real problem was not the children wanting to hurt or harm the babies. The toddlers were not bad or wicked, they simply did not understand. The lead teacher realized what the problem was; the problem was that the children did not understand. Then she addressed that specific problem.
SFL Golden NUgget #1
Golden Nuggets Chapter 1:
When I started reading the book I was expecting obvious stories, about teachers that were obviously wrong. I was not expecting to read about regular experiences. Things that happen every day in a classroom. That is why I probably like this book. It is not simply a list of what not to do, and what to do. Instead it is about changing to an entire new mentality. The mentality that children want to understand, and through clear communication they can understand. In the first chapter the first story about teachers discussing students really got me thinking about how to change my mentality of students, and those around me.
One of the stories was about two teachers arguing about taking the children outside in the snow or not. I could imagine this conversation so clearly in my mind, but above all I could imagine the children listening to the conversation. The author points out that the argument was simply over going out into the snow or not. Some of the phrases that the teachers were say were: getting sick and they’ll disappear. In the context of the conversation most adults would consider these phrases unimportant, but out of context and literal these few words can be terrifying.
I used to think that helping children learn through conversation was limited to just the times that I am directly speaking to a child. The author Mooney states, “This is something demanding more thought from all of us. Every early childhood textbook cautions beginning teachers against talking about the children as if they were not listening and watching adults’ every move. Yet it‘s easy to do this without giving any thought to our words or their consequences.” (p. 10) I thought about how according to the DAP book “Scientists all over the world are studying how very young babies listen to language,” (p. 53). With that I began to flip through my own memories of working with children. My niece Eva is starting to pretend to talk on the phone. She blabs, pauses, blabs, and then says luv u and puts the phone on the coach cushion and walks away. No one ever sat her down and explained how a telephone conversation should go. She learned by listening to her mother.
In the example above there is no doubt in my mind that the children heard ever word the teachers were saying. I believe this mostly because I realize that children particularly preschool children and well into the grade school years are very egotistical. If the conversation the teachers were having was about them, the children were probably very interested in what is being said. Goodness, I know that when I can hear people talking about me in the same room I am very interested in what they are saying.
As I identified this example I realized that children are always listening, and because they are always listening it is my responsibility to invite them into the conversation. The idea of inviting children into the conversation to discuss what they want to do, and how they think things are is DAP appropriate. In the compare and contrast section of the DAP hand book one of the negative examples is that, “Teachers do not recognize how important it is for children to guide some of their own activities, such as play, and they frequently interrupt and undermine children’s immersion in or managing of their own activities” (p. 155) The golden nugget I learned in the story above is that I need to change my mentality to believing that children are always listening to what I say. I also need to practice inviting children into a conversation, particularly when the conversation involves them directly.
When I started reading the book I was expecting obvious stories, about teachers that were obviously wrong. I was not expecting to read about regular experiences. Things that happen every day in a classroom. That is why I probably like this book. It is not simply a list of what not to do, and what to do. Instead it is about changing to an entire new mentality. The mentality that children want to understand, and through clear communication they can understand. In the first chapter the first story about teachers discussing students really got me thinking about how to change my mentality of students, and those around me.
One of the stories was about two teachers arguing about taking the children outside in the snow or not. I could imagine this conversation so clearly in my mind, but above all I could imagine the children listening to the conversation. The author points out that the argument was simply over going out into the snow or not. Some of the phrases that the teachers were say were: getting sick and they’ll disappear. In the context of the conversation most adults would consider these phrases unimportant, but out of context and literal these few words can be terrifying.
I used to think that helping children learn through conversation was limited to just the times that I am directly speaking to a child. The author Mooney states, “This is something demanding more thought from all of us. Every early childhood textbook cautions beginning teachers against talking about the children as if they were not listening and watching adults’ every move. Yet it‘s easy to do this without giving any thought to our words or their consequences.” (p. 10) I thought about how according to the DAP book “Scientists all over the world are studying how very young babies listen to language,” (p. 53). With that I began to flip through my own memories of working with children. My niece Eva is starting to pretend to talk on the phone. She blabs, pauses, blabs, and then says luv u and puts the phone on the coach cushion and walks away. No one ever sat her down and explained how a telephone conversation should go. She learned by listening to her mother.
In the example above there is no doubt in my mind that the children heard ever word the teachers were saying. I believe this mostly because I realize that children particularly preschool children and well into the grade school years are very egotistical. If the conversation the teachers were having was about them, the children were probably very interested in what is being said. Goodness, I know that when I can hear people talking about me in the same room I am very interested in what they are saying.
As I identified this example I realized that children are always listening, and because they are always listening it is my responsibility to invite them into the conversation. The idea of inviting children into the conversation to discuss what they want to do, and how they think things are is DAP appropriate. In the compare and contrast section of the DAP hand book one of the negative examples is that, “Teachers do not recognize how important it is for children to guide some of their own activities, such as play, and they frequently interrupt and undermine children’s immersion in or managing of their own activities” (p. 155) The golden nugget I learned in the story above is that I need to change my mentality to believing that children are always listening to what I say. I also need to practice inviting children into a conversation, particularly when the conversation involves them directly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)