Education: Direct Instruction versus Exploration and Free Play

I read an article recently titled “Why Preschool Shouldn’t be like School“. The article highlighted a concern about the pressure on kindergartens and nurseries to become more like schools with increased direct instruction. They felt that very young children should be “allowed to explore, inquire, play, and discover” because although “direct instruction can help children learn specific facts and skills”, it made them “less likely to discover new information about a problem and to create a new and unexpected solution”.

One study examining how 4-year-olds learned about a new toy confirms the concern that direct instruction made children less curious and less likely to discover new information on their own. The toy had 4 tubes and each tube could do something interesting – “if you pulled on one tube it squeaked, if you looked inside another tube you found a hidden mirror, and so on. For one group of children, the experimenter said: “I just found this toy!” As she brought out the toy, she pulled the first tube, as if by accident, and it squeaked. She acted surprised (“Huh! Did you see that? Let me try to do that!”) and pulled the tube again to make it squeak a second time. With the other children, the experimenter acted more like a teacher. She said, “I’m going to show you how my toy works. Watch this!” and deliberately made the tube squeak. Then she left both groups of children alone to play with the toy. All of the children pulled the first tube to make it squeak. The question was whether they would also learn about the other things the toy could do. The children from the first group played with the toy longer and discovered more of its “hidden” features than those in the second group.”

Another study, also involving 4-year-olds and a new toy, confirmed that direct teaching made children less creative. In this study, the children were given a toy and the experimenters “demonstrated sequences of three actions on the toy, some of which caused the toy to play music, some of which did not. For example, [the experimenter] might start by squishing the toy, then pressing a pad on its top, then pulling a ring on its side, at which point the toy would play music. Then she might try a different series of three actions, and it would play music again. Not every sequence she demonstrated worked, however: Only the ones that ended with the same two actions made the music play. After showing the children five successful sequences interspersed with four unsuccessful ones, she gave them the toy and told them to “make it go.”

[The experimenter] ran through the same nine sequences with all the children, but with one group, she acted as if she were clueless about the toy. (“Wow, look at this toy. I wonder how it works? Let’s try this,” she said.) With the other group, she acted like a teacher. (“Here’s how my toy works.”) When she acted clueless, many of the children figured out the most intelligent way of getting the toy to play music (performing just the two key actions, something she had not demonstrated). But when she acted like a teacher, the children imitated her exactly, rather than discovering the more intelligent and more novel two-action solution.”

It was agreed that there was a benefit to be derived from direct instruction – children learned a lot more quickly through direct instruction. The downside was that it taught them to be less curious and it robbed them of their creativity. The conclusion was that “it’s more important than ever to give children’s remarkable, spontaneous learning abilities free rein. That means a rich, stable, and safe world, with affectionate and supportive grown-ups, and lots of opportunities for exploration and play. Not school for babies.”

Okay, all that made sense. But my question now is: why is this limited only to young children? If young children benefitted from opportunities that gave them a free reign to explore and discover new things on their own, then why would it be different for older children? In other words, if school is bad for young children, then why would it be any different for older children? Why is it okay for older children to be taught with direct instruction? If it is killing the creativity of our young children, surely it is doing the same with our older children and we should be looking to reform the education model not just for young children but for all children.


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

How do you Teach a Baby to Swim? Part 1

How to Teach Your Baby to Swim is written by Douglas Doman.


I had all the best intentions to teach Gareth to swim from as early as possible.  I even bought him the special neck float.  Up until recently, it was another one of those activities that I really wanted to do with the boys but could never find the time to get serious about it.  So this is me getting serious.  I went out and bought the book by Douglas Doman.

I scanned the chapter headings of the book in the store and thought it would be a handy book to get because it is divided into sections to help you teach your child to swim from birth to age six.  I had assumed that meant that you could teach a child how to swim using the methods described as long as he is under six years old.  Unfortunately, there is a bit of continuity between the chapters.  Each higher age group builds upon skills learned earlier so if your child is just starting out, it means having to start from scratch.  This works fine for an older child who is able to take instruction, but it gets a little tricky with a child between 6 and 12 months old, like Gareth.

Although both boys love the water, I find Gareth a lot more adventurous compared to his brother.  At this age, he is willing to do a lot more in the water than his brother was.  In fact, he is still willing to do a lot more in the water compared to his brother.  Displaying such eagerness every time he sees water, I felt I could not pass up this opportunity to try to teach him about swimming.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, babies have a dive reflex so that they do not inhale water when they are beneath the surface.  This reflex is present anywhere from birth up to one year.  Gareth, unfortunately, has started to choke on occasion when his head goes under so I get nervous about trying to teach him to dive.  Although he has been under a couple of times and does not appear phased by it, I find it difficult to intentionally dunk him under the water to encourage him to hold his breath.

Nevertheless, it hasn’t stopped me trying to teach the boys how to swim…

Some of the things I’ve been working on with them:

  • floating on their backs
  • blowing bubbles in the water
  • balancing
  • running under water

The following are very brief notes from the book “How to Teach Your Baby to Swim“.  I seriously recommend getting a copy of the book and reading it yourself before attempting this with your children.  Alternatively, try to attend a professional lesson on teaching babies how to swim.  I’m sure I don’t need to tell you, but as with all things that involve water and children – safety first.

As with all early learning activities, make sure there are lots of cuddles, laughter and fun in the activity.  The first lot of activities are done with newborns, but you can also do them with an older child.  With newborns, you can begin your program in a bathtub.  Unfortunately, we don’t have a bathtub big enough so we’ve got to get to a pool to practice.

Here the summary of things your baby should be able to do by the time you are through with this segment:

  • balancing and floating with chin on mother’s shoulder
  • floating on the back
  • blowing bubbles
  • bobbing up and down
  • passing under a shower followed by going underwater (after the tenth pass under the shower)
  • jumping into the bath or pool
  • grasping the side of the tub or mother’s thumbs

It is important to make sure that your baby is well rested and fed before scheduling a swimming session.  Also remember to bestow lots of hugs and kisses throughout the session.


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Book Review: That’s Not My…

There is a series of touchy-feely books by Usborne that I really like titled “That’s Not My…“.  They are terrific for introducing books to infants and toddlers once they’ve progressed beyond the cloth books and the basic single word board books.

What’s so great about them?

  • the books are bright and colourful to attract young children
  • the pictures on each page are simple and clear (neither too distracting nor too busy)
  • there is one short sentence on each page; e.g. “That’s not my tractor, its seat is too scratchy.”
  • there are touchy-feely parts on each page which introduces textures
  • the touchy-feely parts correspond to the part discussed; e.g. the tractor seat has a scratchy texture.

Each book is about a subject – dragons, trains, tractors, monkeys, dinosaurs, monsters, etc.  Each page introduces parts to a child – e.g. funnel, headlights, seat, wheels, etc.  The textures reinforce the part discussed.  Each book costs about RM30 each (plus/minus depending on which bookstore you get it from).

Both Gavin and Gareth loved these books.  They still loves them…

Other titles in this series:

  • That’s not my dragon
  • That’s not my train
  • That’s not my monkey
  • That’s not my monster
  • That’s not my dinosaur
  • That’s not my tractor
  • That’s not my mermaid
  • That’s not my teddy
  • That’s not my frog
  • That’s not my pirate
  • That’s not my puppy
  • That’s not my pony
  • That’s not my fairy
  • That’s not my tiger
  • That’s not my dolly
  • That’s not my snowman
  • That’s not my baby
  • That’s not my angel
  • That’s not my kitten
  • That’s not my bunny
  • That’s not my plane
  • That’s not my car
  • That’s not my princess
  • That’s not my lion
  • That’s not my penguin
  • That’s not my reindeer
  • That’s not my santa
  • That’s not my truck
  • That’s not my bear
  • That’s not my robot

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

 Powered by Max Banner Ads