What classical education is and why it is attractive

[ekfk]

Spy Car,

 

What you continue to describe though is something more along the lines of direct instruction rather than true discovery. Where a knowledgeable person is heavily involved in guiding what the child is learning. This is not actually discovery learning. If a teacher or parent provides a lot of guidance the child is no longer discovering something for themselves. They are being led to the right answer. This is typically what happens in a homeschool environment, so parents buying into a discovery philosophy generally isn't as harmful as in a school where a teacher can't provide the guidance.

 

Discovery learning in its true form doesn't work for many reasons. Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work explains some of it. Or you can look up cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham. Yes, direct instruction can be done badly. But it can also be done really well. Discovery learning in it's pure form can never be done well. That's the difference.

[ElizaG]

I agree that in the main for a "discovery" approach to work it takes great parent/teacher involvement and that sort of support is beyond the capacity of many schools.

 

But home educators have the advantage here of being able to employ techniques that schools that need to educate a "mass" of children are less capable of doing well. But why give the advantages of a one-on-one tutoring environment away? It is illogical not to seize on the advantages one-on-one methods offer, and this includes using discovery methods where they are effective.

I agree with Bill here.

 

The flip side is that some "discovery" methods such as Montessori (and maybe Reggio Emilia, though I'm not so familiar with that one) tend to be more effective in a large classroom than in a homeschool, because they were designed specifically to take advantage of the "children's community." But in either case, their success still depends on having highly skilled and insightful teachers, who are -- as ever -- in short supply. :tongue_smilie:

 

As for ekfk's point about "discovery learning in its pure form" -- after reading more writings on education than I'd care to count, I'm starting to think that really great teachers tend to end up in the same place, no matter which method they started out with. Unfortunately, we can't take that place and bottle it. Teaching also has to be learned by discovery. Though not purely so. ;)

 

With mediocre teachers, direct instruction seems like a safer way to go. Are we homeschoolers mostly mediocre? Perhaps. (Please don't eviscerate me!!!!!)

[Spy Car]

Spy Car,

 

What you continue to describe though is something more along the lines of direct instruction rather than true discovery.

 

Because there is no "true discovery" program as you define it. The straw-man you are trying to defeat is a fiction. There are great programs that use discovery and direct instruction to good effect. The very best programs aimed at home educators (in my estimation) use both.

 

No one I know of on this forum, myself included, thinks children should be left alone to re-invent the wheel. But many of us know how valuable discovery methods can be as part of the educational process. It can be a way to excite children's natural curiosity and to foster the sort of critical thinking skill that exemplify the highest form of education.

 

Where a knowledgeable person is heavily involved in guiding what the child is learning. This is not actually discovery learning.

 

We disagree on the terms. You are defining discovery learning in a way that is not relevant to the way discovery learning is used in this on-line community.

 

If a teacher or parent provides a lot of guidance the child is no longer discovering something for themselves.

 

I'm sorry but you are misinformed. The discovery method typically is a guided process. There is a difference between guiding discovery (and then following up with discussion—including exploying the Socratic method and, where appropriate having direct instruction, and neglecting a child and thinking they will "discover" the secrets of the Universe. The latter is a lampooned distortion of what discovery means.

 

They are being led to the right answer. This is typically what happens in a homeschool environment, so parents buying into a discovery philosophy generally isn't as harmful as in a school where a teacher can't provide the guidance.

 

One does not need to "buy into a philosophy" to use means that are effective. It is the extreme all or nothing thinking of "educational philosophies" that does so much harm in the public school realm, with wild swings from one extreme philosophy to another.

 

It is far better to seek Third Ways that draw on various teaching modalities that maximize the strength of each.

 

Discovery learning in its true form doesn't work for many reasons. Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work explains some of it. Or you can look up cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham. Yes, direct instruction can be done badly. But it can also be done really well. Discovery learning in it's pure form can never be done well. That's the difference.

 

As I have already stated the criticisms of "minimal guidance" program have no similarity with the reality of discovery learning as employed by home educators. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

Bill

Edited February 1, 2012 by Spy Car

[ekfk]

Spy Car,

 

How is it discovery if it is being guided by the parent? What I initially addressed was the fact that leaving kids alone to learn something is ineffective. What you continue to describe is direct instruction with some space for a child to learn on their own.

 

I sent my child to a science camp once where the teacher expected the kids to figure out how to build a solar power robot. All of the kids got some pieces of it together but no one completed it. The teacher had to put together everyone's robot on the last day. My daughter was disappointed that she didn't get to put together her own robot. She had no idea what any of the parts did or why they were put together they way they were.

 

The teacher did go from child to child to offer some help but it wasn't enough. If the teacher had used a direct instruction approach and told the kids how to actually put together the robot piece by piece and explained what each piece did, all of the kids could have put their robots together and had some basic understanding of how they work. Instead, thanks to the teacher's use of a discovery approach with minimal guidance, I spent $185 to have someone build a toy robot for my child. It was asking way too much to ever expect young kids to build something like that on their own.

 

This is what I am criticizing when I say discovery doesn't work. I think having kids figure things out for themselves is hugely valuable when it is guided and includes direct instruction. But that really isn't what most people mean by discovery learning. What most people mean is what my child experienced at that science camp and it failed.

[staceyobu]

:lurk5:

Edited February 4, 2012 by staceyobu

[Spy Car]

Spy Car,

 

How is it discovery if it is being guided by the parent? What I initially addressed was the fact that leaving kids alone to learn something is ineffective. What you continue to describe is direct instruction with some space for a child to learn on their own.

 

Do you have any experience with the programs that have discovery aspects that are popular with this community? I ask because you seem to have a very different conception of what the discovery method entails that those us who use discovery as one tool in our kit do.

 

I don't favor leaving children to re-invent the wheel either nor do I advocate educational neglect. These are not hallmarks of discovery programs used in this community.

 

I sent my child to a science camp once where the teacher expected the kids to figure out how to build a solar power robot. All of the kids got some pieces of it together but no one completed it. The teacher had to put together everyone's robot on the last day. My daughter was disappointed that she didn't get to put together her own robot. She had no idea what any of the parts did or why they were put together they way they were.

 

This is not an example of discovery learning, it is just an example of an opportunity going wrong.

 

The teacher did go from child to child to offer some help but it wasn't enough. If the teacher had used a direct instruction approach and told the kids how to actually put together the robot piece by piece and explained what each piece did, all of the kids could have put their robots together and had some basic understanding of how they work. Instead, thanks to the teacher's use of a discovery approach with minimal guidance, I spent $185 to have someone build a toy robot for my child. It was asking way too much to ever expect young kids to build something like that on their own.

 

You are confusing neglect or bad teaching with employing a discovery method to facilitate problem solving. This sounds like baby-sitting.

 

This is what I am criticizing when I say discovery doesn't work. I think having kids figure things out for themselves is hugely valuable when it is guided and includes direct instruction. But that really isn't what most people mean by discovery learning. What most people mean is what my child experienced at that science camp and it failed.

 

Not most people here. Hang out a little, keep and open mind and you may learn something about how discovery methods apply in active home education.

 

Bill

[justamouse]

I agree with Bill here.

 

The flip side is that some "discovery" methods such as Montessori (and maybe Reggio Emilia, though I'm not so familiar with that one) tend to be more effective in a large classroom than in a homeschool, because they were designed specifically to take advantage of the "children's community." But in either case, their success still depends on having highly skilled and insightful teachers, who are -- as ever -- in short supply. :tongue_smilie:

 

As for ekfk's point about "discovery learning in its pure form" -- after reading more writings on education than I'd care to count, I'm starting to think that really great teachers tend to end up in the same place, no matter which method they started out with. Unfortunately, we can't take that place and bottle it. Teaching also has to be learned by discovery. Though not purely so. ;)

 

With mediocre teachers, direct instruction seems like a safer way to go. Are we homeschoolers mostly mediocre? Perhaps. (Please don't eviscerate me!!!!!)

 

Hmm. From what I'm remembering about Reggio Emilia, the atelier was most definately based on a children's community-democratic in a way. But not alone discovery based. Very much led. Maybe I should look at it again, I think I actually have it in a bag to be given away.

 

Montessori, from what I understood is much more about the singular child. Yes, they ahve large rooms, but the children were allowed to work by themselves on structured 'toys' that the teachers were specifically trained in, and then the teachers taught the children how to play with those toys exactly the same way. I'm not thinking I would call that discovery, I would understand it to be leading the child to the connections.

 

Though I could be totally wrong.

 

I wouldn't call any of them discovery based. If it has a specifically trained teacher, whose job it is to lead the child toward the discovery (even within an allowable framework of time) I'd still call that instructional.

Edited February 2, 2012 by justamouse

[ElizaG]

Montessori, from what I understood is much more about the singular child. Yes, they ahve large rooms, but the children were allowed to work by themselves on structured 'toys' that the teachers were specifically trained in, and then the teachers taught the children how to play with those toys exactly the same way. I'm not thinking I would call that discovery, I would understand it to be leading the child to the connections.

I'm not thinking you've read enough Montessori. :D The teacher demonstrates to the child how to work with the materials (which are viewed as tools, not toys), but the connections -- their "secret meaning" -- are discovered through the child's insight while using them.

 

Peers are very important, too. In the 3-6 classroom, they mainly serve as role models, but there's a lot of group work at the elementary level.

 

I wouldn't call any of them discovery based. If it has a specifically trained teacher, whose job it is to lead the child toward the discovery (even within an allowable framework of time) I'd still call that instructional.

It's a form of teaching, but it's not direct teaching. They're supposed to be facilitating the children's own discoveries, and keeping adult intervention to a minimum (which, IME, is a harder task than just teaching them directly). If they failed to do this, it would just be babysitting, as Bill said. Or maybe Lord of the Flies. :tongue_smilie:

[ekfk]

Spy Car,

 

I did a lot of research on different teaching methods when I was planning to homeschool. What you describe seems a little more like a Montessori approach where a child learns things themselves but with more teacher involvement. I have read the views of discovery learning advocates and they absolutely don't describe what you describe. They say that teachers should facilitate learning and that knowledge that isn't discovered by the child is not real learning. From what I understand of Montessori, it isn't wrong for a teacher to step in and guide learning.

 

What my child did at camp was very much along the lines of descriptions I have read of how discovery learning should be done. The teacher was trying to facilitate learning among the kids rather than teach them. But this group of 4 to 8 years olds had absolutely no ability to figure this out for themselves. They figured some of it out but not one child completed the robot by themselves.

 

What good teachers quickly realise is that facilitation doesn't really work and they step in and provide more and more guidance when they see that kids are struggling to figure things out for themselves. In that case "discovery" can work but isn't real discovery anymore. If discovery learning was really like something you describe, I don't think very many people would criticize it.

Edited February 2, 2012 by ekfk

[ekfk]

Spy Car,

 

What you are describing seems more like a approach where a child learns things themselves but with heavy teacher involvement. I have read the views of discovery learning advocates and they absolutely don't describe what you describe. They say that teachers should facilitate learning and that knowledge that isn't discovered by the child is not real learning.

 

What my child did at camp was very much along the lines of descriptions I have read of how discovery learning should be done. The teacher was trying to facilitate learning among the kids rather than teach them. But this group of 4 to 8 years olds had absolutely no ability to figure this out for themselves. They figured some of it out but not one child completed the robot by themselves.

 

What good teachers quickly realise is that facilitation doesn't really work and they step in and provide more and more guidance when they see that kids are struggling to figure things out for themselves. In that case "discovery" can work but isn't real discovery anymore. If discovery learning was like something you describe, I don't think very many people would criticize it. What you describe is actually a quite effective method of learning.

[Spy Car]

Spy Car,

 

I did a lot of research on different teaching methods when I was planning to homeschool. What you describe seems a little more like a Montessori approach where a child learns things themselves but with more teacher involvement. I have read the views of discovery learning advocates and they absolutely don't describe what you describe. They say that teachers should facilitate learning and that knowledge that isn't discovered by the child is not real learning.

 

What my child did at camp was very much along the lines of descriptions I have read of how discovery learning should be done. The teacher was trying to facilitate learning among the kids rather than teach them. But this group of 4 to 8 years olds had absolutely no ability to figure this out for themselves. They figured some of it out but not one child completed the robot by themselves.

 

What good teachers quickly realise is that facilitation doesn't really work and they step in and provide more and more guidance when they see that kids are struggling to figure things out for themselves. In that case "discovery" can work but isn't real discovery anymore. If discovery learning was really like something you describe, I don't think very many people would criticize it.

 

The type of approach I describe is how people in this community understand "discovery" learning. It is an element of many of the very best of the best programs aimed at the home education market.

 

There are a variety of learning/teaching modalities that are not "direct instruction" including Socratic questioning that are guided learning. Different modes have their place at different times.

 

You would miss out on a great number of exciting programs if you allow preconceived notions about "discovery" learning to close your mind to programs that include employ methods other than an exclusive reliance on direct instruction.

 

No one here is advocating for baby-sitting or for Lord of the Flies. Honestly.

 

Bill

[justamouse]

Eleanor,

 

Tools, yes, I forgot. But the secret material is still very planned. These tools were not random. These teachers are not everywhere.

 

I'm thinking it's semantics. A child raised by wolves who makes symbols and a language is discovery to me. Lord of the Flies, lol.

 

Though it may be thought of as discovery, I just can't see it. So it may all be superior, but I still think of it as instruction, indirect though it may be.

 

You want the Emilio book?

Edited February 2, 2012 by justamouse
posting from kindle. durn autocorrect

[WTMCassandra]

I have finally waded through this whole thread, after promising myself for DAYS that I would do so. Larry, I think you have some points worth pondering. I strongly recommend that you read Latin-Centered Curriculum and Wisdom and Eloquence. I think you will find them kindred spirits.

 

It is obvious that you are not the typical homeschool newbie. Your life experience and training in philosophy show. But also be aware that people here are not automatically going to be awed by someone new to the community, so I recommend that you stick with us and stay in dialogue. I think you have a lot to contribute to the Hive, and perhaps we can give you a pointer or two as well.

[ElizaG]

You want the Emilio book?

Thanks for the offer -- I'd be happy to swap you for a couple of McLuhan books (we have some duplicates... they seem to be reproducing :001_huh:).

 

As I understand it, Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning are the names of two specific methods that were developed in the 1960's. I was using these terms in a broader sense, though, as I thought that's what all of us were doing. Neither of the specific methods seems to be used much by homeschoolers, though the DI-based Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons is somewhat popular.

 

Where I've written "discovery," you could substitute inquiry-based, constructivist, or inductive. These probably have different precise meanings to educationists, but in my fuzzy understanding, the underlying idea is similar. The students build knowledge for themselves by making observations, generalizing to form a concept, then testing it. Pretty much the scientific method. When this works, it's great. Unfortunately, for many reasons, it often falls flat in real-life teaching situations. :tongue_smilie:

[LarrySanger]

All, I just wanted to say thanks--I'd continue but I'm thinking about other stuff now. I did read all the replies, though, and learned a lot from this conversation. You haven't heard the last of me on these philosophical issues, trust me!

[Way2blessed]

All, I just wanted to say thanks--I'd continue but I'm thinking about other stuff now. I did read all the replies, though, and learned a lot from this conversation. You haven't heard the last of me on these philosophical issues, trust me!

 

I had to quit reading this thread about half way through for lack of time, but just in case you return to it once more, I have to say, Larry, that I am excited to see you advocating early reading. I came across Doman's book when my oldest were just babies. I found it fascinating, but wasn't sure I bought into the idea. After 6 weeks of playing with his program, and seeing the results I got scared and stopped the program (my twins were 18 mo. old at the time and I spent all of maybe five minutes "teaching" them each day). The cat was out of the bag, and with no more effort on my part one was reading fluently at 30 months and the other at closer to 3 yrs. They were not "sight reading". They were decoding. And they never went through that annoying "sound it out" phase and always read with perfect inflection. I was so excited at how spot on Doman's ideas were at the time that I went on a homeschooling message board to discuss it. I couldn't believe the negative reaction I got from parents that claimed I was cruel for pushing my children. I often think that is why I shied away from homeschooling my older two because I was afraid of making my children too smart to fit into average society. So, although they have only had a public education in one of the worst performing states, at seventeen their ACT scores put them in the top 1-5%. So, yes, you have someone else here that completely gets your excitement for early reading. (Even if I still believe you should include an occasional project if for nothing else than the fun/memorable experience factor:tongue_smilie: )