Methods of learning in history and science

[Lisa Claus]

I have been participating in a debate on the "Educational Issues" board of parentsoup entitled "Is testing effective?" Almost 100 posts later, the topic began to deviate into a debate on the most effective way to learn history and science. Some teachers insist that reading is the 'true' way to learn history and science. Without reading, learning in these areas is impossible or at least ineffective. I have been countering with my thoughts that reading is ONE way to learn in these areas, but certainly not the only way, and not always the most effective way. Any thoughts on this topic?

Lisa

[Laura Weldon]

While I adore reading, it is hardly the end-all of learning. A great deal of the suffering in the world has been caused by those who are brilliantly educated but without any real-life perspective. I'm always sorry to hear that people are so rigid in their viewpoints that they cannot see beyond their own narrow training.

History, for example, does seem difficult to learn without books. But this topic can open up for children whether they like to read or not. Talking to an elderly person always opens the eyes if that person is willing to tell the truth about what they have lived through. My children have learned a great deal from their grandfather whose childhood included no toys at all, who lived on a farm where there were no modern conveniences and who plowed and harvested using horses, who served in WWII and whose viewpoints are very different than their own. My children have also benefited from friendships with several elderly foreign-born individuals whose stories have broadened their worldview.
Beyond talking to people who have lived history, there are marvelous documentaries about all eras and amazing interactive websites on nearly any historical topic imaginable. Plus fictional movies, museum displays, preserved areas to tour and groups putting on living history presentations. Children can become eager to learn about history just by having their imaginations stimulated---trying to build a medieval catapault, or trying to cook stew over a fire as their forebearers might have done, or weaving a net to catch fish. Their ancestors survived unbelievable odds. There's the inescapable fact that we are the product of history. The ground we stand on and the flesh we are composed of is not new, each atom has history. For anyone to fuss that the magnitude of history can be confined to a book is silly.

As for science, the same holds true and more. Documentaries, museums, learning from scientists themselves, interactive websites, there are even excellent podcasts with science updates for kids. But science isn't a dead thing best consigned to a book. Science is an ongoing process. It takes place in the lab and in the field. It's theoretical, a postulate is commonly accepted until proof is found that another one is better. Science isn't static. Throughout the history of science it has been the amateurs who have made the profound discoveries, many times confounding the erudite and knowledge-bound of their day.

If there are children who cannot or will not read for whatever reason, read to them what seems necessary on these topics. But mostly leap ahead into what is fascinating to them. Teachers who insist on a body of knowledge before striking forth on what is interesting have killed the subject before it lived for the child.

[Lisa Claus]

Laura,

Thanks for your response! I was banging my head against a wall with this debate - I knew I'd receive a fresh and SANE viewpoint from you! Silly to think that the goal of learning is to read about it in a book. Sick, also, to be so limiting. And I love books! What upset me most of all is that these are individuals in an educational setting. This is the message they are getting across to kids :( Oh, and the other reason they insisted that science is impossible without the ability to read was . . .well, how would these kids be able to follow their step-by-step labs if they couldn't read?! So, is that what science is all about? Following a lab step-by-step, repeating someone else's findings?! Is that PART of science? Of course! But to say that this is the ultimate goal in science - just to repeat, direction by direction . . . UGGGHHHH!!! Sounds to me more like an experiment with lab rats. Anyone ever heard of innovation? Creativity? New discoveries?

[Laura Weldon]

You know what's funny Lisa, is that when I was in school doing procedures in lab rarely did the experiments turn out as the textbook said they would. Many times a hefty portion of the class didn't get the "correct" results. The teacher would reinforce that the textbook was right, blather on about the terms in the book which made less sense than they had the day before, and then we'd have a test at the end of the week. It felt as if the students were the lab rats in a poorly run test of education. A year later when the school levy didn't pass we had science classes without lab because lab supplies were too expensive anyway. Then we lab rat students just memorized terms...
You are right, innovation and creativity make good scientists. Step by step rote procedures are valuable if the teachers can think well beyond the textbook and explain why the experiment went wrong, how to design it differently to correct for current conditions, and what other ways the scientific principle under discussion can be proven. I never had a science teacher like that. I've known many kids whose minds freely think that way....

[Urmila Anna Samson]

I don't know what age group you are dealing with, but as a teacher in a Free Progress School, we used drama, costumes, and crafts with 10 - 12 year olds. We did the Indus Valley Civilization building mud houses and doing pottery...We did Egypt by making costumes, props and a theatrical production researched and written by the children. My daughter was inspired by a small chapter on Prehistoric Man when she was 7, and spent a lot of time in the garden making mud pots and people, lighting fires and making sounds. (We don't do structured learning at home.) She didn't like history much until recently, when doing an in depth study of "To Kill a Mockingbird" she came across references on the internet, that led to historical events which interested her due to their connection with the characters and story. It led me to assume that history could become interesting through connections that are interesting to the individual child. (Pretty obvious, I should think!)

For science: My 14 year old daughter learns mostly from interactive CD Roms that she has turned to over the years. My 10 year old son and I have spent many happy times making 'toys' from junk that illustrate scientific principles. If and when he reads or hears about the principles, he will have already experienced them. My 7 year old son has just started taking interest in a book called "Chemistry in the Kitchen". Every so often he chooses an experiment and does most of it himself under my watchful and uninterfering eye.

I would agree with you that not only is there no one way, each child has there own entry and exit points of learning. Also, one of my favourite arguments is that when water started coming in pipes, people must have resisted for ages before switching from drawing fresh water. When books started taking the place of passing on information by mouth and memory, people must have been dismayed. Now computers, television, movies and other audio visual media are in, and we can resist them as much as we want, but in the end the transition will be complete. Already we have to tire our eyes reading much more than earlier generations. Our children may have already read more than we did by their age. (Not necessarily books.) I'm all for learning history through watching movies and science through interactive media...

[Laura Weldon]

I'm always so glad when anyone gives such clear examples. Thank you Urmila.

I also appreciate how you remarked about each child having their own "entry and exit points of learning." How very true. I think we look for entry points of learning but exit points are terribly important. Parents get themselves overinvolved and too often take over. Then the child is deprived of that innate pleasure of exploring and discovering. It's a difficult balance to encourage a child but to also step back so that the process doesn't become ours.

And you are so right about mode of information changing. I admit to being somewhat of a fussbudget when the library started getting movies. I thought that they should have only books, like a purist from some era in the past. Movies just seemed crass to me. After I sputtered for a day or so I turned into someone who is quite fond of getting movies from the library and found I could order documentaries on all sorts of topics. That's my story of preferring to draw water till I enjoyed it from a tap!

[Urmila Anna Samson]

I just read Laura's reply which brings such magic into the many ways to learn history and science. I didn't mean to end in that abrupt 'movie and internet' way. I was just reacting to people's insistence on books versus media-phobia.

[Mindy Albright]

I have to jump in and agree about entrance and exit points. My son was in fourth grade when he became fascinated with the periodic table. Now, he could care less. Then, he could find errors on a chart in a lesson. He had a great teacher, for a time, who sent him lots of websites to check out. (He is schooled over the internet.) However, something like the periodic tables, now, would not spark a bit of interest. At that time, that school had no deadlines, and allowed students to work at their own paces. That has changed at that school, and we left, as well. We next tried a totally textbook approach, which, while it had its points, eventually bored the daylights out of my son. We have swung around to part online live classes, which are quite structured, and part independent text and online classes. This might be working better, if only because it provides interaction with more people, and more exchange of ideas. This is somewhat stimulating for him. I think he is doing better with schooling, once more. We considered going back to local schools, but decided that the socialization they provide is often too negative. (We have two who went through the local schools, as well.) If I were a stay at home mom, I can almost assure you that we would be doing unschooling. Letting them follow their interests, when they are interested, is probably ideal.