PDA

View Full Version : Teaching Approaches



mumofone
29-03-2016, 08:16 PM
Just wondered how many of you follow a particular teaching approach by a particular theorist such as montessori or Reggio Emilia etc? How does this manifest in your day to day teaching and setting etc? I am not sure I can tell the difference between them or see that one is better than the other etc? Montessori seems to be very "in" at the moment. Confused!

loocyloo
29-03-2016, 08:52 PM
I'm montessori trained and so, although I don't specifically follow the montessori method, bits of it are there as I work.
I have done alot of reading about Reggio and Steiner, so what I do is also coloured by those theorists.

mama2three
30-03-2016, 06:29 AM
I've never thought of myself as following a particular approach or theorist...many overlap anyway , but I have used many of their ideas as they suited me , my children etc. Looking around my ''setting'' now ( sorry , I know the word annoys many ) I can see that I am becoming more and more influenced by the reggio approach...lots and lots of loose parts and natural materials and sensory play , hardly any ''toys''.

Simona
30-03-2016, 08:44 AM
There is a huge difference between them...and it would be only fair to explain and not let confusion sink in.

Reggio Emilia is not the same as Montessori.
Steiner is not the same as Bronfenbrenner...Piaget is not Vigotsky...Freud was unique...Malaguzzi gave us the 100 Languages of children...that theory is still alive a well now

where would we be without Bowlby and attachment theory? his son still spreads the same message today
Has Tina Bruce made any difference to the way we look at play? I would say so
Anyone heard of the MacMillan sisters...that is why we now have children's records!
Has anyone come across Peter Moss?...if not do look him up...if you subscribe to EYE his articles are often in there.


It may be worth also looking at theorists that are still alive and continue to promote theory and practice.....Bruner, Lillian Katz who is absolutely mesmerising to listen to, Kathy da Silva....all are interesting.

They do all share one thing in common...the children they have studied and the theories they have written about and the practice they comment on and their message about what is really changing in Early education and childcare


Those who fondly remember EYFS 2008 will know ALL theorists and practices were embedded in that framework...until Michael Gove tried to get them out of the framework so you need to look very closely for theorists now...but they are there

While we are judged by Ofsted on our teaching...although OFSTED have repeatedly said they do not need to see a specific method and it is clearly stated in the Common Framework....we need not confuse 'teaching' with following a specific 'model'

I think we need to distinguish and respect each one ...a provider may not think they follow a particular theory but look closer and you will see it in the enabling environmemt!...if anyone uses real cutlery and crockery for the children in their care ...they are certainly following Reggio Emilia.

Do you use natural materials, mirrors, loose parts? ...Reggio again !
Do you use wooden shapes board for teaching maths, shapes and measure?....Montessori invented them! :thumbsup:

bunyip
30-03-2016, 07:36 PM
Alternatively, there's a lot to be said for the jolly ol' University of Life. :)

Simona
30-03-2016, 07:47 PM
Alternatively, there's a lot to be said for the jolly ol' University of Life. :)

Exactly what those theorists advocated all the time.....play is the University of life and it revolves around children !

bunyip
30-03-2016, 08:02 PM
Exactly what those theorists advocated all the time.....play is the University of life and it revolves around children !

Absolutely.............. and aren't there just too many theorists making a fortune out of stating the bleedin' obvious in far too many words? :p

Simona
30-03-2016, 09:12 PM
Absolutely.............. and aren't there just too many theorists making a fortune out of stating the bleedin' obvious in far too many words? :p

There are consultants and experts ...Think Tanks and politicians
Some of them are not..I personally think...anything closely related to the theorists that I have mentioned who did not make a fortune but created the University of life based on communities, families, the environment and allowed children to be children without the current trends on targets and statistics, inspections and pressure on everyone to get children ready for school at a very early age,

The obvious was again stated today in another long research that told us nothing new :rolleyes:

bunyip
04-04-2016, 04:59 PM
What bothers me is the heavy emphasis on "theory" when a theory is no more than a totally untested and unproven idea/thought.

In the world of childcare, where too many people are keen to make it all look like a very scientific, academic pursuit, terms like "theorist" are no more than a semantic con to dress up fresh air as intellectual solid ground.

In fact, there is very little or no genuinely-researched fact to underpin an awful lot of the things that entertain the minds of childcare 'professionals'. There's a lot of cherry-picked "observational data" padding out some clever theses, but it's well worth remembering the old adage that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Most of this is no more than pseudo-academic flim-flam; relatively harmless (if a little unnecessarily distracting) if it keeps a few people in work. To misquote George Bernard Shaw, " Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, teach the teachers."

I say "distracting" because I firmly believe we and our mindees would all be better served by building relationships and getting to know and develop the child as an individual, rather than squeezing theoretical models around them for our own entertainment. Or excitedly observing "oh look: a schema" as if parents haven't been subconsciously getting on with doing a damn fine job of child-rearing ever since we started walking upright.

I work with children. Let me type that again with the correct emphasis: I work with children. I don't regard them as lab-rats or playthings for my own or anyone else's pet theorising or pseudo-intellectual social modelling. Nor are they my stock-in-trade around which to twist research to prove that my job/career/sector is any more or less important than the authorities give it credit, even if the end goal (redirecting state resources) is a laudable one.

This seems to have filtered down as far as the glossy-mag that is pacey's current childcare PROFESSIONAL magazine (the periodical for people who wish to raise children without any proper knowledge of capital letters. :p) Tbh, it's becoming little more than a series of plugs for pacey shop product, but we'll leave that particular point aside for now. The word-heavy and content-light editorials are increasingly filled with assertions introduced with glib little phrases: "As you know..............", "As we highlighted previously...........", "mounting evidence shows......." and so on. This sort of language amounts to an Emperor's New Clothes-style con-trick. Nobody is going to admit to not knowing something we're all assumed to know so thoroughly that we'd clearly be ignorant if we didn't know it, IYSWIM. Hence they can bypass the small matter of actually naming any of the "mounting evidence" and applying any critical or analytical intelligence to such "research" to determine whether it:

was conducted with the sort of rigorous intellectual integrity required for its findings to be at all valid
proves whatever we're supposed to assume it proves (even though we're not told what that is, aside from a general sweeping point - which, btw, is complete but oft-repeated BS, that you can determine a person's entire life prospects by getting hold of them before school does)
that the research exists in any way, shape or form in the first place.


I'm not griping because I have a downer on academic pursuits. I'm griping because I believe we and the children deserve a whole lot better than for those pursuits to be wholly misused. :mad:

Simona
05-04-2016, 07:55 AM
I am sorry Bunyip...I was trying to really engage on this subject but I don't think it is of any use....but I like a 'debate' despite differences of opinions.


I accept and respect your opinion of course but I would not say it is 'flim-flam'...or that it is distracting or just academic pursuit.
Some theorists had it right..some wrong....while some political Think Tanks never will see the end of their nose.

To describe it as you have is to totally ignore what was very good about some of these theorists...your last sentence I think tells me how you feel about the whole thing.
we WORK with children but we also subject them to unnecessary pressure and possible mental health problem because we follow the 'regulators'...Ofsted... and cannot really argue against the 'legislators'...Morgan et al and her predecessor....or at least we put up a very flimsy argument

May I ask what you think the EY sector is going to do about the sad state of affairs when it comes to childcare practices in England? will they go down the road of the junior doctors and teachers...or will they just do 'as told'?

will you follow exactly where the blind are leading us ...or will you put up a bit of a fight and shout that the proposals are wrong and have 'nothing' to do with children's well being?

Of course you are right on questioning the 'THEORY'...it is the 'PRACTICE' that obviously will make the difference...those theorists had ideas...those ideas can be put in practice and tweaked a bit....the best bits used to adapt to your own ethos

We all have theories...each one of us has a way of being a theorist: we all have an ethos in how we run our childcare and education settings...policies are exactly that 'a window into what it takes to really care for children and how we believe we want to treat them' and how they remember us.
Do you know what it is like to meet a child you cared for 15 years ago and hear their recollection of their happy childhood with us?

I agree ...children are not 'lab rats' as you state...I personally would not even think of trying to use them as such...but every time we follow new policies we subject them to : testing, assessments, labels, categorizing, inspections, TAC meetings, paperwork and eventually failing them to pursue more and more of the politicians' ideology and vanity projects.

For as long as we follow govt's policies that is exactly what they seem to have become....but not all of us will just lie down and follow and want to treat children as lab rats'...some do believe that children have 'rights'...just as Reggio has as their main ethos.

May I ask what does 'landmark' and 'innovative' childcare mean to you?
do you know how to describe the 'golden age' of Gyimah's childcare?
do you know what we achieve by testing and re-testing children?
I am not sure any of those theorists did any of those blessed tests! or had a regulator chasing their 'targets'.
Fortunately I remember what real childcare was 20 years ago...not perfect but a lot more focussed on children's well being and attainment....not a pursuit of 'grades'.

I know what it does NOT mean to me...it means not giving the DfE ideas on how to put their dubious policies into practice...and subject children to another experiment: 6am to 8 pm childcare...is that what is going to 'build relationships' as you say?
Poor Bowlby will really turn in his grave.
I dread to think what the results will be...take a closer look at Reggio Emilia and read what happens in those schools when it comes to building relationships.

Do you doubt that ZPD works?...you don't have to follow it by the book but you can adapt to the children you work for...and care for....that is not misusing a theory...that just putting it into practice.

Sorry for the deviation ...and Thank you for the opportunity to discuss.

bunyip
05-04-2016, 05:52 PM
I would say I largely agree on the bits I understand.

Dragonfly
05-04-2016, 07:31 PM
Whoa made a mistake clicking on this subject too heavy for me:laughing:

Simona
06-04-2016, 08:01 AM
I would say I largely agree on the bits I understand.

Bunyip...I think you understand what I am talking about as does everyone else ...it is not the first time you have expressed your opinions on the subject...but I know the reluctance of members to engage in this.

I wonder why you feel the need to always use your sarcasm to answer ?

As said thank you for the opportunity to try and debate...fly away Dragonfly!!
Lets return to debate ratios instead !

bunyip
06-04-2016, 06:38 PM
My most recent post on this thread was not sarcastic. It wasn't even ironic, for those who recognise the difference.

I really do agree with you that a lot of the theory and what passes for research (albeit extremely poorly-conducted research) is wide open to being manipulated by politicians and others whose agenda for childcare is far from child/family-focussed.

I am merely admitting my own ignorance when it comes to some of the abbreviations and references in your post #10. I don't understand them and don't pretend to. That's all.

mama2three
25-04-2016, 05:59 AM
https://www.spielgaben.com/comparison-froebel-montessori-reggio-waldorf-part-2/

These articles are good for understanding the differences , and similarities , between the approaches.

mumofone
25-04-2016, 09:15 PM
https://www.spielgaben.com/comparison-froebel-montessori-reggio-waldorf-part-2/ These articles are good for understanding the differences , and similarities , between the approaches.

Thanks for sharing mama2three :-) x