Subject:
|
Educational theory and what we "know" (was: Porn for sex education)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 18:42:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1178 times
|
| |
|
|
I kind of neglected part of this before.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> Look, my point is that our understanding of things depends on our
> level of thinking and our experiences. An unstructured mind is effective at
> managing unstructured concepts like playing and fun. A structured mind is
> effective at managing structured concepts like planning a playground or
> being a parent. Emotion has a key role because children are still learning
> to govern their emotions, and that affects rational thought. With all your
> education, how can you possibly reject these fundemental concepts of human
> growth and development?
"With all [my] eduction," I can reject lots of well regarded psychological
theories. In fact, I have to since many of them are contradictory. There are
thousands of people who have spent their academic lives positing learning
theory. They all made some pretty good cases for their side of things, but
they can't all be right.
Skinner (as the most well known behaviorist) suggests that there are no mental
processes beyond what behavior you can observe. Do you believe that? It's
obviously ludicrous and yet most of educational psychology is sitting on
Skinner's shoulders as foundation. (Of course he based his start on Pavlov and
Thorndike, but he really drew everything together.) Even Piaget thinks that
kids suddenly grasp the ability to abstract at around age 11 and that's their
final cognitive milestone. If that is so (and he is certainly a beloved
theorist where do you get the notion that 11 year olds are functionally less
capable than 18 year olds at deciding when it is appropriate to have sex?
I tend to align myself with Bruner, Rogers and Raths on educational theory, but
none of them really take the plunge into learning freedom that A.S. Neil,
Goodman, Holt, Friedenberg, and most particularly the contemporary Sudbury
Valley School movement. ( http://www.sudburyvalleyschool.com/ )
The evidence that I have best fits with these educators and psychologists. So
now you know where I'm arguing from.
[snip]
> But there is such thing as providing exposure and experience. As adults and
> parents, WE are responsible for what our kids learn or don't learn. We don't
> say "Go out and learn something," that's strictly for adults. In regard to
> kids, WE guide them, direct them, motivate them, teach them, and nurture
> them. There's often little real freedom for the kids in this matter, it is
> more "required learning" for their benefit. That's how it works in the most
> basic sense.
I know that I sound-bit this already, but what you are describing isn't set in
stone. There are many good, happy, well adjusted, proffessional, educated
people who went to free and democratic schools. Places that encouraged them to
learn *whatever* they wanted. By whatever, I include things like social and
conversational skills, fishing, sports, cooking, art, AND all of the more
normal academic topics. There is tremendously strong evidence suggesting to me
that kids given that kind of responsibility for their lives grow into teens and
adults who are capable of wielding their powers justly and responsibly. These
kids don't fail at college because they're already used to managing their time.
They don't chafe at societal restrictions because they were brought up in a
democracy full of rules -- but were empowered to change things as needed.
I urge anyone out there to rethink what they think they know about how kids
must be handled and educated. I have -- I lucked into it -- and I found a
whole new world. A much prettier one.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Porn for sex education
|
| (...) You mean "wrong" to you? Sexuality is a very personal thing and people have different levels of it. Some wish to be private, some are more open, so it's not realistic to say either is "wrong." Sexuality is an intimate part of an individual and (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
189 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
