Last night, we had presentations on Mixed-Age, Project Spectrum, and High Scope. Do you think anyone of them benefits a child more than the others? What are those benefits? Are the benefits different and how? Wha model agrees with your ideologies?
I was impressed with the information that was given last night, especially the information on High Scope. The Spectrum Model presentation did bring up some good points about assessments and how they can be done more constructively to the child's individual level. The story about the young lady being able to assemble a meat grinder was a great analogy to that. I think the more we let children develop their own plan of action when it comes to their learning, the more learning we can have taking place. I believe that we do not give our children enough credit at what great knowledge they have ready to be used if given a constructive environment. The model I would have to most agree with is the High Scope model. The teacher is given the opportunity to guide the children in their learning and able to learn more about the individual child through the choices the child makes. I look forward to hearing other views as well...
After watching the presentations last night, I truly felt as if the High Scope model is the best for the child. I have done all my college observations at a center that holds the high scope curriculum. I believe that children learn by doing. By allowing the child to choose their own center and activities, the child is able to participate in activites that they enjoy. Children learn better when they are intrested and want to do the activity becuse they have an open mind towards the task. Theses beliefs are very diffent than say the mixed- age approach. The mixed-age does not give the children the benefits of working with children that are on the same intellectual level and that are similar in size. It is important that all children feel comfortable and to be in the best learning environment. I believe that the high scope really goes along with my belief. My ideology is giving the children the materials and allow them to play and discover and learn themselves. The environment we set up for the child impacts their development and how and what they will learn (Vygotsky).
After hearing all the workshop models and the great presentation on High Scope it makes me want to be able to observe these models in action in a classroom. I do not believe one model is better than others. Every child is unique and one model may not be suited for every child. I think a mixture between at least two theories adapted to the child's personality and learning style is the best way to provide the best learning environment for a child.
I agree Kodie that every child is unique and every model has its own pros and cons to the individual development of each child. I think Piaget's theory of adaptation in development offers each child an opportunity, no matter the model that is being used. Children by nature have to adapt to the world through assimilation and accommodation, according to the theory. We continue this throughout life to be able to succeed. We need teachers and caregivers who are willing to motivate and encourage each child to do the best they can at any task they are given. It is hard to mold a child's ability to think if we are unwilling to change ours and look at different perspectives.
I completely agree with both Kodie and Amanda in the fact that each child is different and each child has their own learning style. However, I strongly believe that the strength of the program and the teachers make all the difference in the world. You can have two teachers teaching the exact same model and have completely different approaches to how it is taught. I also agree with Amanda that teachers must first look at their own biases to understand and fully implement any program. It is important for the program to be successful but most importantly to help the children. When it comes to different theories, again, Kodie makes a great point that each child is composed of multiple theories. However, we must remember that the theories are based on the interaction with parents, caregivers and the environment.
I enjoyed listening to the High Scope speaker. It was really interesting to participate in an activity such as he would do with the children at his school. I feel it is very important to have those open-edned activites to encourage children to be creative while thinking at the same time. I find it interesting that the children get to plan their day and time themselves and then follow through with it. With this said, they are still allowed flexibility to change their mind. I am observing at a center where the teacher gets the materials out and then tells the children what to do with it. Most of the time she makes the project for them while they sit and watch. They are old enough to experiment and use creativity to do these projects on their own. I think a high scope program would benefit all children a great deal!
All three of the models were similar in the area about how the children are allowed to pick what they are interested in doing. I think that is a very important aspect in any form of teaching. If the children are not interested in what is being taught to them, they are not going to get as much from it. High Scope seems like a wonderful program and I like how the children make a plan about what they are wanting to do that day. With this approach, the children are able to use their imagination and come up with something that they want to do in that center. By having the children make a plan for what they are going to do that day, you are allowing them to think ahead and then have something to look forward to doing. I think High Scope fits the best with how I believe children should be taught.
I have to say I really liked the mixed aged model...its so montessori-ish, which I think has definate benefits to children. I have yet to meet a family with multiple children where the younger children don't develop skills faster than those families where the child is an only child. I even see this happening with my sisters children (ages 5,3,and 1)versus my 2 1/2 year old twins. Her children started walking, talking, climbing, etc much quicker than my boys. I really feel the reason for their quicker development was having older siblings to learn from.
That being said, I also like concepts from project spectrum and high scope. I think with high quality programs, there are a lot of similarities and approaches to child development that mirror each other.
I feel all the models have benefits for the child. Yes high scope is a great way for children to experience learning. If the child has an interest they will pursue learning more about the topic, if the teacher is directing correctly. The mixed aged teaching can also benefit children, both older and younger. The younger will learn from the older students and the older students will benefit in building leadership and tolerance skills. Again you have to have the right teacher leading the groups. The project spectrum model also believes in the child experiencing the learning. I feel the strength of this model is how the students create their work to show their knowledge and the use of portfolios in assessments. Again the teacher has to be motivated to help the students. As a couple of you stated it is how the teacher implements the curriculum and demonstrates the atmosphere needed in the classroom. I feel the models can intertwine in one room. A high scope teacher can have a couple of ages in the room and the teacher would follow the lead of the child, but you could also set up a portfolio for each student to track their improvements. When the child is able to create their knowledge how they would like, we as observers will usually see from the child a better, broader understand of a concept (my personal thoughts). I feel that a child should have a say in what they feel is their best and why. If we don’t let children see their own improvements they may not understand the whys in doing the work.
I agree with Kodie, that every child is different and has a special way of learning. In my opinion, the High Scope curriculum benefits a child more. Giving a child an opinion to manipulate ideas or objects will help them learn. I learn better when having hands on experience. I truly believe children are actively learning when they have a choice of what they learn. The child in High Scope will learn how to become more independent in their life skills and take a key role in their everyday learning experience. Exploring and playing is very important to children’s development. High scope agrees with my ideologies because I do not believe young children should have to worry about assessment. They should learn though play with the help of the teacher expanding their way of thinking.
Each model has it's fair share of pros and cons. I think that the most important thing to consider is the child before deciding which program to place them in. While some children may benefit from one of these models in particular, another may not. I like how high scope allows the child to take the initiative and make choices for themselves. However, some children may require more structure. I also think mixed age can be very beneficial to children who may be natural born leaders and who like to help others, but some students may work better in classrooms where they are on an even playing field with their peers. Overall, I think it is specific to the child which model they will benefit from the most.
I feel that all of the programs have their strengths and their weaknesses. such as in mixed age sometimes it works sometimes it doesnt..it depends on the teacher and how involved they are. it also depends on the child if they are willing to learn and to teach it could be benifitial. I loved high scope its kind of a mix of a lot of different models, and i feel like it is very benificial to the children. but again it has weaknesses, such as you still need willing teachers, and students. my least favorite was project spectrum, i feel that it is good but i dont see it being as benificial as the other two.
I feel the project spectrum and high scope are very similar in the way they are implemented. They both allow the child to decide how they will work with items. The difference to me is, the high scope is geared to an open creativity without specific expectations by the caregiver. The project spectrum allows the open creativity, but all I have read does put expectations on the project. I see the high scope working well with younger children, but with older children, we know that specific expectations have to be met in public school, and documented. Project spectrum allows the child the freedom of expression, as long as they can show the understanding of the concepts that must be met.
I also think their are benefits to each of these models. You have to decide which is best for your child. I agree with you Heather in that some children definitely need more structure. In public schools we as teachers are expected to provide that structure for children who need it. I also like the High/Scope model because of the fact that the children are given choices and observed. From what I have read in other books the teachers seem to be well trained, work well together, and plan together. It's a team effort, and parent involvement is important also in the planning.
Barbara I also like some of the benefits of the mixed age model. I wanted to share that I have also seen children with older siblings who don't talk or walk as quickly because the siblings do all the talking for them, and do everything for them. One of my twins tends to be a little lazier sometimes because her sister will do a lot for her. I purposely put them in separate classes this last year for that reason. My girls dont' have any other siblings and they walked at 11 months and talked a lot at 12 months. You just never know, but I've also heard that multiples develop slower sometimes (crawling, walking, talking) etc... I know my girls love to play with older children and imitate the things they say and do, so I could see how a mixed age program might work for some children.
I think of all the approaches discussed that project spectrum would probably be one that would best fit a majority of children as compared to the other two. With project spectrum it seems the appraoches are more versatile and would work with different temperaments and personalities. Some parents may find that high scope and/or mixed age are not good matches for their children, however from the presentation, it seemed that project spectrum allowed overall for enrichment of more different aspects of learning, as well as specific activities.
I think that all three are good programs. The needs on the child depends on which type of program would work best for them. The mixed age has it's benefits. It would work well with children who learn well from others. It would also allow children to practice what they have learned when they try teaching it to another childe. You have not really learned something unless you can express it in your own words, so mixed age would help with this aspect of learning. High Scope works best with my beliefs since it allows children options. The teacher is teaching, guiding, and then observing.
I agree with Tammy and Barbara about the mixed age approach. I know that growing up I learned a lot of things from my older brother. I am sure I learned some negative things also, but I feel it was more of a positive thing. Children learn by seeing other do things. If they are surrounded by children of all different ages, they get different types of experiences then they may get with a single age group. I feel that if an older child is willing to share what they know with another child it is a blessing. What could be bad about it is if the older children don't want to be around the younger children. Then the younger children may learn to ignore and be mean. However I feel this could be easily solved if there is a teacher that is active and paying attention to the classrom!
As much as I enjoyed the high scope approach, I feel that young children either need a little more direction or that groups need to be kept fairly small. Unfortunatly, in most cases, the classes are quite large and would not be accomidating to that type of instruction. I would like to see it in action though, maybe I would have a better insight into how to practice it.
After learning about project spectrum and High Scope plus the information I shared with you girls about mix-age, I have to say that I believe the three models can greatly benefit the children. However, I believe the models can only work if teachers are well informed and have the correct knowledge on how to approach such models. I also think that parent involvement can cause an impact on how much the model works. I like the mixed-age approach because that’s all I knew when growing up. In the country where I am from, age matters until a certain point. When a child is not considered to be progressing because the playmates or environment does not offer cognitive, physical, or social challenges then the child is moved up into another group of mixed-age with older children, usually no more than two years older in where the child will encounter many opportunities to put in practices his or her knowledge and opportunities for him to learn new things. I should mention though that I will continue studying about Project spectrum and High scope because it was interesting learning about such models. I truly enjoyed the speaker and I could see why High Scope can work. I also liked learning about project spectrum and surely would love to apply this model some day. Project Spectrum truly exposes children to a variety of learning experiences that encourage them to be active learners at all time. “ To do justice to our respect for the minds, bodies, and spirits of young children, we need to provide them with joyful, rich, and stimulating learning experiences through a variety of learning modes such as touch, smell, conversation, drawing, acting, manipulation, observation, investigation, and exploration ” (Roopnarine, 2005, pg. 264).
I have to say that I like Ashley Mooneyham response to Kodie and Amanda. Her words completely express how I feel about how important the strengths of the program and the teachers are in order for any model to work. She also mentions how each child have their own learning stules. I thought that Amanda and Ashley made a great point when talking about teachers looking into their own biases “to understand and fully implement any program” I myself would have to do this. Thinking back in my own experiences and working with many children that have been in mixed-age program, Montessori schools, etc I myself have to study the other projects carefully and look into my bias before implementing any program. To finish, I have to extremely agree with Ashley M. about remembering that each particular model works depending on interactions among parents, caregivers, and the environment.
Tammy- Thanks for your perspective! Until you mentioned it, I hadn't thought about another sibling "doing the work" for another, but it makes perfect sense that some children would fall into that pattern. For children like this, especially the older ones that can be "conned :) " into speaking for other children, mixed age wouldn't be appropriate. But in your case, with your twins, they are the same age....so I don't know how that would fit into the equation! I guess some siblings just operate that way, and in those situations the best thing to do is to separate them, like you did. Even though my boys are far from school age, I struggle with this issue. I'm not sure how McKinney ISD is with twins..but I used to be gung-ho on having them in the same classroom...after hearing about your girls I'm starting to think some separation could be a good opportunity for growth.
When I started to think more about mixed-age I realized that in some ways this is practiced in public schools. I know that at my son's school they have reading buddies that are in a higher grade level. Other students from different grade levels go into the classroom and pair up with younger students and they read together. I remember when I was in school, I used to go to the first grade class when I was a fifth grader and read to the whole class. So as teachers we can come up with creative ways to impliment strategies and programs that we feel our students will benefit from.
I agree with Kodie and everyone else that said each child will learn in a different fashion. One approach might work great for one child and then not work at all for another. Each of the approaches are a little similar and focus on the needs and interests of the children. Without all the different options that the children can choose from, everyone would not be able to learn the same information. Having all the different approaches is a must because teachers will need to figure out the way to reach each and every one of their students.
I think each program each program offers something different and it depends on the child's learning abilities. The mixed-age program can be beneficial for children that can learn in an enviornment where children can teach and learn from each other. Like explained in class it can be fustrating for older children, but both can learn. I liked all the models they each offer different ways to learn and asses. They each offer children individuality and learn from their interests.
After reading about and listening to the presentations on these three models, I'm most fond of High Scope. I think teaching the importance of choices and decision making to a child at an early age will vastly benefit him or her for the rest of his or her life. Mixed-age and project spectrum also offer many benefits that without a doubt may be best for some children. However, high scope best fits with my personal ideologies in the sense that it is empowering to the child and lets them learn in a way that comes naturally-through exploration.
Lorie raises an interesting point when discussing how high scope works well with young children but may create an obstacle once the children reach the public school system and are expected to meet certain criteria and do not have as much freedom for personal choices. However, I think that the skills taught by high scope will remain with the child and become evident in other areas of learning and development.
I think that mixed age is the best way a child can learn. Think about it you have older children mentoring younger children...each child is challenged both at their level and at their classmates level. I feel like my child could benefit from being around older children in the fact of that won't have to learn things by trail and error they can learn by older children who have been through the stage they are going through.
The strength of the program and and all aspects of the teacher is just as important as the child. Since all children are unique and learn differently, the way the teacher interacts with the child and the strength of the program can have diverse effects on the child. If the teacher does not interact with the child or the program is not implimented enough, then what and how the child learns will be completely different than if the teacher interacts wonderfully with the child and have a strong use of the program approach.
High Scope is in my opinion, has the most beneifits for children because it lets the teacher give direction and guides the students deeper into their learning and helps the teacher learn more about thye students. So basically the teacher is just guiding the student but he or she mainly does the work on their own. When they do it themselves they get a better understanding of it. The Spectrum model is good because it gives a layout and instructions on curriculm and and focuses more on the child's personal level of education. With my ideology, the High scope is what a agree with because I will execute and encourage that is my classroom.
I too appreciated the presentations given. I think it is definately a unique though that deserves though when palnning my lessons in the future. Good way of putting it Amanda!
31 comments:
I was impressed with the information that was given last night, especially the information on High Scope. The Spectrum Model presentation did bring up some good points about assessments and how they can be done more constructively to the child's individual level. The story about the young lady being able to assemble a meat grinder was a great analogy to that. I think the more we let children develop their own plan of action when it comes to their learning, the more learning we can have taking place. I believe that we do not give our children enough credit at what great knowledge they have ready to be used if given a constructive environment. The model I would have to most agree with is the High Scope model. The teacher is given the opportunity to guide the children in their learning and able to learn more about the individual child through the choices the child makes. I look forward to hearing other views as well...
After watching the presentations last night, I truly felt as if the High Scope model is the best for the child. I have done all my college observations at a center that holds the high scope curriculum. I believe that children learn by doing. By allowing the child to choose their own center and activities, the child is able to participate in activites that they enjoy. Children learn better when they are intrested and want to do the activity becuse they have an open mind towards the task. Theses beliefs are very diffent than say the mixed- age approach. The mixed-age does not give the children the benefits of working with children that are on the same intellectual level and that are similar in size. It is important that all children feel comfortable and to be in the best learning environment. I believe that the high scope really goes along with my belief. My ideology is giving the children the materials and allow them to play and discover and learn themselves. The environment we set up for the child impacts their development and how and what they will learn (Vygotsky).
Ashley Mooneyham
Mooneyham2006@aim.com
After hearing all the workshop models and the great presentation on High Scope it makes me want to be able to observe these models in action in a classroom. I do not believe one model is better than others. Every child is unique and one model may not be suited for every child. I think a mixture between at least two theories adapted to the child's personality and learning style is the best way to provide the best learning environment for a child.
I agree Kodie that every child is unique and every model has its own pros and cons to the individual development of each child. I think Piaget's theory of adaptation in development offers each child an opportunity, no matter the model that is being used. Children by nature have to adapt to the world through assimilation and accommodation, according to the theory. We continue this throughout life to be able to succeed. We need teachers and caregivers who are willing to motivate and encourage each child to do the best they can at any task they are given. It is hard to mold a child's ability to think if we are unwilling to change ours and look at different perspectives.
I completely agree with both Kodie and Amanda in the fact that each child is different and each child has their own learning style. However, I strongly believe that the strength of the program and the teachers make all the difference in the world. You can have two teachers teaching the exact same model and have completely different approaches to how it is taught. I also agree with Amanda that teachers must first look at their own biases to understand and fully implement any program. It is important for the program to be successful but most importantly to help the children. When it comes to different theories, again, Kodie makes a great point that each child is composed of multiple theories. However, we must remember that the theories are based on the interaction with parents, caregivers and the environment.
Ashley Mooneyham
Mooneyham2006@aim.com
I enjoyed listening to the High Scope speaker. It was really interesting to participate in an activity such as he would do with the children at his school. I feel it is very important to have those open-edned activites to encourage children to be creative while thinking at the same time. I find it interesting that the children get to plan their day and time themselves and then follow through with it. With this said, they are still allowed flexibility to change their mind. I am observing at a center where the teacher gets the materials out and then tells the children what to do with it. Most of the time she makes the project for them while they sit and watch. They are old enough to experiment and use creativity to do these projects on their own. I think a high scope program would benefit all children a great deal!
All three of the models were similar in the area about how the children are allowed to pick what they are interested in doing. I think that is a very important aspect in any form of teaching. If the children are not interested in what is being taught to them, they are not going to get as much from it. High Scope seems like a wonderful program and I like how the children make a plan about what they are wanting to do that day. With this approach, the children are able to use their imagination and come up with something that they want to do in that center. By having the children make a plan for what they are going to do that day, you are allowing them to think ahead and then have something to look forward to doing. I think High Scope fits the best with how I believe children should be taught.
I have to say I really liked the mixed aged model...its so montessori-ish, which I think has definate benefits to children. I have yet to meet a family with multiple children where the younger children don't develop skills faster than those families where the child is an only child. I even see this happening with my sisters children (ages 5,3,and 1)versus my 2 1/2 year old twins. Her children started walking, talking, climbing, etc much quicker than my boys. I really feel the reason for their quicker development was having older siblings to learn from.
That being said, I also like concepts from project spectrum and high scope. I think with high quality programs, there are a lot of similarities and approaches to child development that mirror each other.
I feel all the models have benefits for the child. Yes high scope is a great way for children to experience learning. If the child has an interest they will pursue learning more about the topic, if the teacher is directing correctly.
The mixed aged teaching can also benefit children, both older and younger. The younger will learn from the older students and the older students will benefit in building leadership and tolerance skills. Again you have to have the right teacher leading the groups.
The project spectrum model also believes in the child experiencing the learning. I feel the strength of this model is how the students create their work to show their knowledge and the use of portfolios in assessments. Again the teacher has to be motivated to help the students.
As a couple of you stated it is how the teacher implements the curriculum and demonstrates the atmosphere needed in the classroom. I feel the models can intertwine in one room. A high scope teacher can have a couple of ages in the room and the teacher would follow the lead of the child, but you could also set up a portfolio for each student to track their improvements. When the child is able to create their knowledge how they would like, we as observers will usually see from the child a better, broader understand of a concept (my personal thoughts). I feel that a child should have a say in what they feel is their best and why. If we don’t let children see their own improvements they may not understand the whys in doing the work.
I agree with Kodie, that every child is different and has a special way of learning. In my opinion, the High Scope curriculum benefits a child more. Giving a child an opinion to manipulate ideas or objects will help them learn. I learn better when having hands on experience. I truly believe children are actively learning when they have a choice of what they learn. The child in High Scope will learn how to become more independent in their life skills and take a key role in their everyday learning experience. Exploring and playing is very important to children’s development. High scope agrees with my ideologies because I do not believe young children should have to worry about assessment. They should learn though play with the help of the teacher expanding their way of thinking.
Each model has it's fair share of pros and cons. I think that the most important thing to consider is the child before deciding which program to place them in. While some children may benefit from one of these models in particular, another may not. I like how high scope allows the child to take the initiative and make choices for themselves. However, some children may require more structure. I also think mixed age can be very beneficial to children who may be natural born leaders and who like to help others, but some students may work better in classrooms where they are on an even playing field with their peers. Overall, I think it is specific to the child which model they will benefit from the most.
I feel that all of the programs have their strengths and their weaknesses. such as in mixed age sometimes it works sometimes it doesnt..it depends on the teacher and how involved they are. it also depends on the child if they are willing to learn and to teach it could be benifitial. I loved high scope its kind of a mix of a lot of different models, and i feel like it is very benificial to the children. but again it has weaknesses, such as you still need willing teachers, and students. my least favorite was project spectrum, i feel that it is good but i dont see it being as benificial as the other two.
I feel the project spectrum and high scope are very similar in the way they are implemented. They both allow the child to decide how they will work with items. The difference to me is, the high scope is geared to an open creativity without specific expectations by the caregiver. The project spectrum allows the open creativity, but all I have read does put expectations on the project. I see the high scope working well with younger children, but with older children, we know that specific expectations have to be met in public school, and documented. Project spectrum allows the child the freedom of expression, as long as they can show the understanding of the concepts that must be met.
I also think their are benefits to each of these models. You have to decide which is best for your child. I agree with you Heather in that some children definitely need more structure. In public schools we as teachers are expected to provide that structure for children who need it. I also like the High/Scope model because of the fact that the children are given choices and observed. From what I have read in other books the teachers seem to be well trained, work well together, and plan together. It's a team effort, and parent involvement is important also in the planning.
Barbara I also like some of the benefits of the mixed age model. I wanted to share that I have also seen children with older siblings who don't talk or walk as quickly because the siblings do all the talking for them, and do everything for them. One of my twins tends to be a little lazier sometimes because her sister will do a lot for her. I purposely put them in separate classes this last year for that reason. My girls dont' have any other siblings and they walked at 11 months and talked a lot at 12 months. You just never know, but I've also heard that multiples develop slower sometimes (crawling, walking, talking) etc... I know my girls love to play with older children and imitate the things they say and do, so I could see how a mixed age program might work for some children.
I think of all the approaches discussed that project spectrum would probably be one that would best fit a majority of children as compared to the other two. With project spectrum it seems the appraoches are more versatile and would work with different temperaments and personalities. Some parents may find that high scope and/or mixed age are not good matches for their children, however from the presentation, it seemed that project spectrum allowed overall for enrichment of more different aspects of learning, as well as specific activities.
I think that all three are good programs. The needs on the child depends on which type of program would work best for them. The mixed age has it's benefits. It would work well with children who learn well from others. It would also allow children to practice what they have learned when they try teaching it to another childe. You have not really learned something unless you can express it in your own words, so mixed age would help with this aspect of learning. High Scope works best with my beliefs since it allows children options. The teacher is teaching, guiding, and then observing.
I agree with Tammy and Barbara about the mixed age approach. I know that growing up I learned a lot of things from my older brother. I am sure I learned some negative things also, but I feel it was more of a positive thing. Children learn by seeing other do things. If they are surrounded by children of all different ages, they get different types of experiences then they may get with a single age group. I feel that if an older child is willing to share what they know with another child it is a blessing. What could be bad about it is if the older children don't want to be around the younger children. Then the younger children may learn to ignore and be mean. However I feel this could be easily solved if there is a teacher that is active and paying attention to the classrom!
As much as I enjoyed the high scope approach, I feel that young children either need a little more direction or that groups need to be kept fairly small. Unfortunatly, in most cases, the classes are quite large and would not be accomidating to that type of instruction. I would like to see it in action though, maybe I would have a better insight into how to practice it.
After learning about project spectrum and High Scope plus the information I shared with you girls about mix-age, I have to say that I believe the three models can greatly benefit the children. However, I believe the models can only work if teachers are well informed and have the correct knowledge on how to approach such models. I also think that parent involvement can cause an impact on how much the model works. I like the mixed-age approach because that’s all I knew when growing up. In the country where I am from, age matters until a certain point. When a child is not considered to be progressing because the playmates or environment does not offer cognitive, physical, or social challenges then the child is moved up into another group of mixed-age with older children, usually no more than two years older in where the child will encounter many opportunities to put in practices his or her knowledge and opportunities for him to learn new things.
I should mention though that I will continue studying about Project spectrum and High scope because it was interesting learning about such models. I truly enjoyed the speaker and I could see why High Scope can work. I also liked learning about project spectrum and surely would love to apply this model some day. Project Spectrum truly exposes children to a variety of learning experiences that encourage them to be active learners at all time. “ To do justice to our respect for the minds, bodies, and spirits of young children, we need to provide them with joyful, rich, and stimulating learning experiences through a variety of learning modes such as touch, smell, conversation, drawing, acting, manipulation, observation, investigation, and exploration ” (Roopnarine, 2005, pg. 264).
I have to say that I like Ashley Mooneyham response to Kodie and Amanda. Her words completely express how I feel about how important the strengths of the program and the teachers are in order for any model to work. She also mentions how each child have their own learning stules. I thought that Amanda and Ashley made a great point when talking about teachers looking into their own biases “to understand and fully implement any program” I myself would have to do this. Thinking back in my own experiences and working with many children that have been in mixed-age program, Montessori schools, etc I myself have to study the other projects carefully and look into my bias before implementing any program. To finish, I have to extremely agree with Ashley M. about remembering that each particular model works depending on interactions among parents, caregivers, and the environment.
Tammy- Thanks for your perspective! Until you mentioned it, I hadn't thought about another sibling "doing the work" for another, but it makes perfect sense that some children would fall into that pattern. For children like this, especially the older ones that can be "conned :) " into speaking for other children, mixed age wouldn't be appropriate. But in your case, with your twins, they are the same age....so I don't know how that would fit into the equation! I guess some siblings just operate that way, and in those situations the best thing to do is to separate them, like you did. Even though my boys are far from school age, I struggle with this issue. I'm not sure how McKinney ISD is with twins..but I used to be gung-ho on having them in the same classroom...after hearing about your girls I'm starting to think some separation could be a good opportunity for growth.
When I started to think more about mixed-age I realized that in some ways this is practiced in public schools. I know that at my son's school they have reading buddies that are in a higher grade level. Other students from different grade levels go into the classroom and pair up with younger students and they read together. I remember when I was in school, I used to go to the first grade class when I was a fifth grader and read to the whole class. So as teachers we can come up with creative ways to impliment strategies and programs that we feel our students will benefit from.
I agree with Kodie and everyone else that said each child will learn in a different fashion. One approach might work great for one child and then not work at all for another. Each of the approaches are a little similar and focus on the needs and interests of the children. Without all the different options that the children can choose from, everyone would not be able to learn the same information. Having all the different approaches is a must because teachers will need to figure out the way to reach each and every one of their students.
I think each program each program offers something different and it depends on the child's learning abilities. The mixed-age program can be beneficial for children that can learn in an enviornment where children can teach and learn from each other. Like explained in class it can be fustrating for older children, but both can learn. I liked all the models they each offer different ways to learn and asses. They each offer children individuality and learn from their interests.
After reading about and listening to the presentations on these three models, I'm most fond of High Scope. I think teaching the importance of choices and decision making to a child at an early age will vastly benefit him or her for the rest of his or her life. Mixed-age and project spectrum also offer many benefits that without a doubt may be best for some children. However, high scope best fits with my personal ideologies in the sense that it is empowering to the child and lets them learn in a way that comes naturally-through exploration.
Lorie raises an interesting point when discussing how high scope works well with young children but may create an obstacle once the children reach the public school system and are expected to meet certain criteria and do not have as much freedom for personal choices. However, I think that the skills taught by high scope will remain with the child and become evident in other areas of learning and development.
I think that mixed age is the best way a child can learn. Think about it you have older children mentoring younger children...each child is challenged both at their level and at their classmates level. I feel like my child could benefit from being around older children in the fact of that won't have to learn things by trail and error they can learn by older children who have been through the stage they are going through.
The strength of the program and and all aspects of the teacher is just as important as the child. Since all children are unique and learn differently, the way the teacher interacts with the child and the strength of the program can have diverse effects on the child. If the teacher does not interact with the child or the program is not implimented enough, then what and how the child learns will be completely different than if the teacher interacts wonderfully with the child and have a strong use of the program approach.
High Scope is in my opinion, has the most beneifits for children because it lets the teacher give direction and guides the students deeper into their learning and helps the teacher learn more about thye students. So basically the teacher is just guiding the student but he or she mainly does the work on their own. When they do it themselves they get a better understanding of it. The Spectrum model is good because it gives a layout and instructions on curriculm and and focuses more on the child's personal level of education. With my ideology, the High scope is what a agree with because I will execute and encourage that is my classroom.
I too appreciated the presentations given. I think it is definately a unique though that deserves though when palnning my lessons in the future. Good way of putting it Amanda!
Post a Comment