Phonics, spontaneous and non-spontaneous learning
We were discussing last week how Vygotsky emphasizes the need for spontaneous experiences with subject matter in order to have a more nuanced understanding of it. This made me think of the Ohio State Childcare Program that I am currently working at (as a practitioner), and how they use methods that look at both social construction of language through conversations, and those that rely on top-down, phonics-based processes. While a "mix of things" is considered to be the middle ground, I think what Michael said about how ridiculous it is for us to even give phonics a chance is quite pertinent.
Observing children in these naturalistic settings sort of points to Vygotsky's fears about using top-down instruction and testing as a way to help students learn concepts. The Thorndikian analytic approach that we have adopted today sort of lends to the use of top-down processes. Teachers are turned into titular leaders of their classrooms in order to disseminate knowledge to passive learners. In preschool classrooms, where linguistic prowess becomes a sort of living document, direct instruction manifests as phonics. This involves the mouthing out of words according to how they are pronounced and spelled in order to help children construct them in their minds. While this is useful to help children memorize spellings and maybe sounds, it does not help them use these words in a social context, because the way in which they are delivered is non-spontaneous.
As opposed to this, observing children when they interact with one another and their instructors in an asynchronous, non-hierarchical fashion is something that engages them a lot more. Whenever I've sat in "group" where phonics was being used, it was common to see 3 year olds wandering off away from group because it was boring, or simply mouthing the words and still getting them wrong later on when asked about them. Some kids would even climb into my lap and ask me other, unrelated questions as the lead teachers would try their best to engage students with onomatopoeic language instruction. However, when group tasks focus on understanding say, what was in the garden, or what was in a particular environment the children had been exposed to, they seem to be way more intuitive in understanding what words mean, and had little trouble using them in other conversations as the days passed. This is because the words were internalized as a part of a continuous, dynamic social process that was more spontaneous than the use of phonics.
I know this is something that I keep saying in every one of my posts, but it is salient to me. Doesn't this point back to the experiments that began our considerations about human beings being different from anthropoids? Then why do we use instruction that veers away from this? The answer may lie in the choice we made to adopt Thorndike.
Education is both cultural production and a byproduct of it. Why not make it a social process?
Observing children in these naturalistic settings sort of points to Vygotsky's fears about using top-down instruction and testing as a way to help students learn concepts. The Thorndikian analytic approach that we have adopted today sort of lends to the use of top-down processes. Teachers are turned into titular leaders of their classrooms in order to disseminate knowledge to passive learners. In preschool classrooms, where linguistic prowess becomes a sort of living document, direct instruction manifests as phonics. This involves the mouthing out of words according to how they are pronounced and spelled in order to help children construct them in their minds. While this is useful to help children memorize spellings and maybe sounds, it does not help them use these words in a social context, because the way in which they are delivered is non-spontaneous.
Phonics is basically alphabet soup
As opposed to this, observing children when they interact with one another and their instructors in an asynchronous, non-hierarchical fashion is something that engages them a lot more. Whenever I've sat in "group" where phonics was being used, it was common to see 3 year olds wandering off away from group because it was boring, or simply mouthing the words and still getting them wrong later on when asked about them. Some kids would even climb into my lap and ask me other, unrelated questions as the lead teachers would try their best to engage students with onomatopoeic language instruction. However, when group tasks focus on understanding say, what was in the garden, or what was in a particular environment the children had been exposed to, they seem to be way more intuitive in understanding what words mean, and had little trouble using them in other conversations as the days passed. This is because the words were internalized as a part of a continuous, dynamic social process that was more spontaneous than the use of phonics.
I know this is something that I keep saying in every one of my posts, but it is salient to me. Doesn't this point back to the experiments that began our considerations about human beings being different from anthropoids? Then why do we use instruction that veers away from this? The answer may lie in the choice we made to adopt Thorndike.
Comments
Post a Comment