mktyler Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Hi, I am wondering if anyone is aware of research about the trivium as it has been interpreted for homeschooling? I have 3 children on the autism spectrum and I find myself feeling a need to " start at the very beginning.". One of the statements that gets bandied about is that the trivium aligns with children's cognitive development. Does anyone have any suggestions where to look for more information? I've only found info on Piaget's stages and am not sure where to go from here. Thanks, Melissa Barely maintaining sanity in Minnesota Dd 14 Dd 10 Ds 8 Ds 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang!Zoom! Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Have you already read The Well Trained Mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Dorothy Sayers, in a speech called "The Lost Tools of Learning," is the one who attached each area of the trivium to a specific stage of development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mktyler Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 I've read TWTM and Dorothy Sayers as well as other classical education theorists such as Mortimer Adler, Doug Wilson and the Bluedorns. All of these authors make statements about how children learn, but there is no data that I can find that supports them. Originally the trivium was a course of study for high schooling and college age kids, right? Now we are applying a course of study for near adults to the cognitive development of young children. I've just finished reading Bloom's revised taxonomy. It divides education into types of knowledge (factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive) and types of cognitive processes (remember, understand, analyze, apply, evaluate, and create). It's a very different model in that it is not hierarchical- you can teach any or all cognitive processes or knowledge domain at anytime. So, according to Bloom's syncophants, the cognitive process of evaluate (this word has a precise meaning in the book) which I would stick in the rhetoric stage could be taught to a 1st grader, someone in the grammar stage. Maybe I'm looking for something that doesn't exist. I was hoping for empirical data about the relationship between children's cognitive development and the tenets of classical education. The ideas make sense to me and its what I've done for my kids, but things have gotten really difficult of late and I'm evaluating everything again (I started off an unschooler):tongue_smilie: Thanks, Melissa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang!Zoom! Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Oh Melissa, you might be ready to start exploring the big leagues! Where's your thoughts on the Quadrivium? Ever looked at Corbett, Classical Rhetoric? You can buy this one in paperback if you wish, or it's PDF on the web. https://www.ocps.net/lc/southwest/edv/schoolinfo/Documents/Hart's%20Book.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mktyler Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 Thank you one*mom! This looks really great. I haven't read Corbett's book yet, though it's in my 1001 books I'd love to read saved-for-later wishlist on Amazon. Does it address these issues directly? I haven't looked at it for a while. Thanks, Melissa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang!Zoom! Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Do a board search on Corbett, you'll find a ton of stuff already written/discussed. It's very beloved. Also, I have Sister Miriam Joesph, The Trivium. This is major concrete, like hardcore logic stuff. It's very stern, slightly painful, but brilliant all the same. You might also be interested in Circe as a developmental theme. You can find them here, and some most interesting discussions in the board history. http://circeinstitute.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I've read TWTM and Dorothy Sayers as well as other classical education theorists such as Mortimer Adler, Doug Wilson and the Bluedorns. All of these authors make statements about how children learn, but there is no data that I can find that supports them. Originally the trivium was a course of study for high schooling and college age kids, right? Now we are applying a course of study for near adults to the cognitive development of young children. My opinion is that the whole thing is contrived. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyP Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I don't know if this fits what you are looking for, but Why Don't Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom seems like it might fit. Although it does not mention CE, I know I found myself thinking, "hey, that's classical education" several times when he would explain techniques that work to help kids learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mktyler Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 It's funny that you bring up Dan Willingham because I recently emailed him to see if he had any suggestions of where to look for research as I had just read his book. He replied that he didn't know anything about classical education and therefore couldn't recommend anything. He suggested I needed to figure out what I want for my children and teach to that goal. I reread some of his articles and I felt he focuses more on how to present information and help kids retain it vs. deciding what to teach when, which is more of what I'm asking than the former. Does that jive with your reading? Melissa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I've just finished reading Bloom's revised taxonomy. It divides education into types of knowledge (factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive) and types of cognitive processes (remember, understand, analyze, apply, evaluate, and create). It's a very different model in that it is not hierarchical- you can teach any or all cognitive processes or knowledge domain at anytime. Would you giving a quotation from the book for the bolded part? Because this is something I've been wondering about. From what I've read in various sources online, Bloom's taxonomy is hierarchical, in the sense that each process builds on the previous ones. So you can't learn a process (other than in a limited way) until you've mastered the ones before it. Also, Bloom's was originally designed for college students. So transferring it to elementary education seems potentially as iffy to me as the Sayers model. Do you happen to remember if they address the rationale behind applying the results of their research in this way? Sorry to bug you! :) I got into a discussion about this recently with someone else, but they didn't have references handy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mktyler Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 Kai, Could you expostulate ( hey! Word of the day!) further on why you think-I'm assuming classical education- is contrived. It's kind of what I've been thinking, too, at least in its modern incarnation. I don't mean to imply therefore bad or wrong, I just want understand what I'm doing. Melissa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyP Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 It's funny that you bring up Dan Willingham because I recently emailed him to see if he had any suggestions of where to look for research as I had just read his book. He replied that he didn't know anything about classical education and therefore couldn't recommend anything. He suggested I needed to figure out what I want for my children and teach to that goal. I reread some of his articles and I felt he focuses more on how to present information and help kids retain it vs. deciding what to teach when, which is more of what I'm asking than the former. Does that jive with your reading? Melissa Yeah, it absolutely does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang!Zoom! Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I spent about 4 years in a charter designed for (excuse me, I know) advanced studies with my oldest daughter which implemented Blooms right along side Howard Gardner (Multiple Intelligence Styles). All parents were trained, educated in Blooms, and although it's been "redesigned" recently, I found it to be very scaffolding in approach. Now that I'm teaching under this method, I see where all three get along famously; and I'm seriously appreciative of those early years. I'd have to say the biggest difference, and the missing element in the Blooms/Gardner experience was the quality, depth, progression and outline of materials. They were using PS common materials which were not, in comparison, as intensive as the recommendations via WTM recommendations. One more element that was missing was the scattering of subject materials to appease state guidelines. Mile wide, and an inch deep looking back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mktyler Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 Hi Eleanor, Here is a quote from the Revised Taxonomy, published in 2001: Pg. 267 11. (11th of 12 changes in the revised taxonomy) The process categories do not form a cumulative hierarchy The revised framework is a hierarchy in the sense that the six major categories of the cognitive proces dimension are presumed to be ordered in terms increasing complexity. The categories of the original scheme claimed to be a cumulative hierarchy, however. This meant that mastery of a more complex category required prior mastery of all the less complex categories below it-- a stringent standard. Subsequent research provides empirical evidence for a cumulative hierarchy for the middle categories, comprehension, application, and analysis, but empirical support was weak for ordering the last two. I only have the standard version not the expanded version so it may be they go into more detail in that volume. The book uses examples from 2nd grade through 12th grade to illustrate using the taxonomy. Melissa (have to get my dd off to harp lesson so won't be able to respond for a tick) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 The revised framework is a hierarchy in the sense that the six major categories of the cognitive proces dimension are presumed to be ordered in terms increasing complexity. The categories of the original scheme claimed to be a cumulative hierarchy, however. This meant that mastery of a more complex category required prior mastery of all the less complex categories below it-- a stringent standard. Subsequent research provides empirical evidence for a cumulative hierarchy for the middle categories, comprehension, application, and analysis, but empirical support was weak for ordering the last two. Thanks, Melissa! :) So the impression I'm getting is that the people who did the revision wanted to be able to present a more systematic basis for the taxonomy. And since the last two processes (Synthesis and Evaluation, or whatever they're called in the revised version) didn't seem to fit the observed pattern of cumulative progress, they decided to set aside that pattern altogether, and act as if it no longer applies anywhere in the sequence. (?) At the same time, they also changed the order of the last two processes. Which seems gratuitous. Because if they can't figure out which one comes first, why didn't they just leave them the same way as before? The whole thing is too weird for me to get my head around. Is this how educational psychology usually works? :leaving: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I've read TWTM and Dorothy Sayers as well as other classical education theorists such as Mortimer Adler, Doug Wilson and the Bluedorns. All of these authors make statements about how children learn, but there is no data that I can find that supports them. Maybe I'm looking for something that doesn't exist. I was hoping for empirical data about the relationship between children's cognitive development and the tenets of classical education. Thanks, Melissa I really like what you are getting at here, but I'm not sure how a researcher would go about it. There are no end of educational theories, but how would a researcher show in some scientific method that, say, the trivium theory of mind development is correct for most (some ?) kids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mktyler Posted June 23, 2012 Author Share Posted June 23, 2012 I really like what you are getting at here, but I'm not sure how a researcher would go about it. There are no end of educational theories, but how would a researcher show in some scientific method that, say, the trivium theory of mind development is correct for most (some ?) kids? You bring up a good question. I think it could be possible to disprove it, for example by showing that younger children can be taught and can perform higher levels of learning such as those in the logic or rhetoric stage. However, as demonstrated by the response from Dan Willingham, such specific issues are probably not on researchers' radar. I would love to post more, but family calls-well, screams. I am going to compile all the trivium/cognitive development quotes to which I have access and see if anything shakes out. I think some of the questions I'm really trying to answer are: What cognitive skills and knowledge are essential for deep satisfaction with ones life and the ability to support oneself and a family? With reference to those skills and knowledge, are there times within a child's development when those things are better (by better I mean increases the probability that the stated goals above are accomplished) taught, whether in whole or in part? Would such generalizations as described above in fact be useless in the face of individuality? Melissa Thanks to anyone willing to discuss this with me!:grouphug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 I don't have anything really to contribute, but it seemed almost like eavesdropping to read everything here and follow the conversation so much and not say something. This is a wonderfully thought provoking conversation, and one that has been niggling at the back of my brain for awhile now, but I have been too lazy/too busy to really research it all. This has definitely kick started my reading. Thanks everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang!Zoom! Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 We need Hunter. STAT. Oooaoaooo Hunter...come join in.... Paging Hunter....:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 You bring up a good question. I think it could be possible to disprove it, for example by showing that younger children can be taught and can perform higher levels of learning such as those in the logic or rhetoric stage. However, as demonstrated by the response from Dan Willingham, such specific issues are probably not on researchers' radar. I am going to compile all the trivium/cognitive development quotes to which I have access and see if anything shakes out. I like the idea of trying to disprove, that seems the most scientific to me, but I'm not sure that's sufficient -- the idea is that following the trivium is the most effective way to get to the endgame, I think. Also, large-scale randomized tests on real human kids seems rather barbaric. I hope we can get beyond quotes, though -- a lot of the problems in these areas stem from what I think your initial question was. That is, anyone can propose a theory, and talk about it to death, but testing it in the real world is the real key. For example, I'm sure that SWB's kids are going to be outstanding human beings. But is that because of her methods? Or just because she happens to be a great teacher, and could be successful with any number of methods. Or is it because she's given them a great environment to grow up in? I think some of the questions I'm really trying to answer are: What cognitive skills and knowledge are essential for deep satisfaction with ones life and the ability to support oneself and a family? Are these even correlated? Someone else, in another thread, was talking about how her adult peers (friends? relatives?) who grew up in a world that didn't value education, and they had teen-age level conversation at the dinner table, only about pop stars and tabloid fodder and such. And yet, despite their ignorance, (or maybe because of it), I bet they had no deep dissatisfaction with their life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 My opinion is that the whole thing is contrived. I'm with you. And the biggest practical shortcoming in the early elementary years is the assumption that "grammar stage" children are not capable of logic, critical thinking, or creative problem solving. The idea that their minds are simply empty vessels to be filled with facts is a big miss IMO. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang!Zoom! Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Melissa, while you are out there kicking around, do take a pause and look around at Jesuit Education in a historical sense. Sounds like you are a really good & curious research hound. You'd probably get a kick out of some of that stuff too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Melissa, while you are out there kicking around, do take a pause and look around at Jesuit Education in a historical sense. The Jesuits are more known for high school education, though. (They did have a few elementary schools; I once knew a young adult who had attended one in Newfoundland. Boy, did he like to argue. About everything. And he was always confident that he was right, even if what he was saying made no sense. His mother told me, "I should never have sent him to the Jesuits!" :lol:) They also didn't teach women until recently. And I don't know about their history with special needs, but from what I've seen, I doubt they had much to do with those students. Basically, their methods were developed through working with the most academically successful 10 - 25% of the adolescent and young adult male population. So if you want to think of it as "research based," it only extends that far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitten18 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 We need Hunter. STAT. Oooaoaooo Hunter...come join in.... Paging Hunter....:) I think you would need to PM her. I don't think I've ever seen her post over her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang!Zoom! Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Hunter has the most beautiful thoughts on these things. There's some epic quality to her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.