From: watson@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (laura.k.watson)
Subject: Re: How to have a smarter baby?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:10:30 GMT

Okay, one more stab at this thing, then I'm dropping the subject.

In article <1992Aug19.203508.24567@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> lauraf@classy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Laura Floom) writes:
>In article <TIGGER.92Aug19115439@satyr.Sylvan.COM> tigger@satyr.Sylvan.COM (Grace Sylvan) writes:
>>
>>It's not teaching so much as sharing the baby's experience and adding
>>to it. Seeing the world through a baby's eyes can be very refreshing.
>>It's amazing the things you will see. I remember the first time Kayvan
>>carried Katherine over to a tree trunk and she patted it and touched
>>it in wonder.

Perhaps we are suffering from a problem of semantics here.  What if we
substitute the words "exposing the child to experiences from which 
learning is likely to take place" instead of "teaching".  Sometimes
when people are disagreeing about something it is because the English
language doesn't have different words to convey the meaning of two
different things, and they are arguing about what the proper assignment
of the one word is.  Maybe "teaching" is one of those words that can
mean a lot of different things.  Also it seems that the words 
"teaching" and "educational" have got a lot of negative connotations 
for some people, probably owing to their own childhood.  It seems 
like perhaps people are associating teaching and learning with not 
being fun, therefore not desireable for young children.  But it doesn't 
have to be that way.  In fact, children learn a lot more and a lot 
better when they are having fun.  That is in fact one of the KEY 
principles of early childhood learning, to keep it FUN.  It just 
doesn't work otherwise.

Like this morning, I was taking my daughter into daycare (I'm trying
to rehabituate myself to call it "playschool" intead), and she 
said "What's that?" and pointed to the doorstop bolted to the concrete 
which keeps the door from hitting the wall.  I told her it's a "doorstop"
and explained that it was to keep the door from hitting the wall, and
and demonstrated that it stopped the door to her.  Was I teaching her?  
Yes.  Was I "pushing" her?  No.  Now if I was subscribing to this 
philosophy to just let her go around absorbing whatever bits of random
knowledge she happened to pick up, or saw on Public TV, she would not 
have ever known it was a doorstop.  I had to tell her.  This is 
teaching.  So what's the problem here?   I can't see it as being a 
bad thing.  I just can't figure out why some people think this is a 
terrible thing to teach a child!  This annoys the heck out of me.  It 
annoys me when people say we shouldn't be teaching our children.

>I agree! This thread has come up many times before and almost always from
>a person who is about to become a parent. Anyone who has had a child will
>soon realize that it not necessary to teach young children - they will 
>teach you. Thier minds are little sponges and not yet prejudiced by the 
>world. They learn from everything, and you will learn to look at the 
>world in a different way. It would be a pity to ignore this in favor of 
>Dolman's or anyone elses agenda. 

Nobody is saying that you should ignore or in any way interfere with
this wonderful and natural process by which children learn and absorb 
general knowledge from the world around them!  Doman does not say that.
Absolutely not!  You did not read him very closely if that is what 
you think.  But his idea is to rather to augment the process by 
including some things for them to absorb that are perhaps more 
worthwhile than the words to "The Wheels On The Bus Go Round and Round" 
and the ability to recognize 5 different kinds of breakfast cereals on 
sight.  Like maybe birds.  

When we were at the beach my husband was telling our daughter which 
birds were seagulls, which ones were pigieons, and sandpipers and so 
forth.  And she was "what's that?"ing and learning them.  It's probably 
a lot better than telling her that they are all "birdies." I mean, she 
can probably tell that they don't all look alike, or else she wouldn't 
have kept asking "what's that" when we saw a different type.  And she 
was having fun doing it.  This was teaching.  She was not being 
"pushed".  And it's not BAD.  I just will not accept the premise that
we should not be teaching our children.  It is just absurd.  And it just
makes sense that the more children learn, the smarter they are going 
to be.

>I cant say for sure that they are 
>mutally exclusive, but my gut feeling is the more you try and 'teach' 
>your child, the less they will learn on their own.

Again, I think the problem is primarily semantical with the word "teach"
and it's negative connotations.  I cannot figure out any rational
basis for concluding that teaching would cause a decrease in natural
learning.

Yes, there are probably certain *styles* of teaching which are
de-motivational.  Such as a style of teaching which includes a lot 
of "testing" for comprehension.  Kid's don't respond well and will
get turned off if you are constantly askind them "What color is this"
to see if they have really learned it, just like you probably didn't like 
taking tests in school.  You have to allow them to just demonstrate
their knowledge serendipitously, or make a fun game out of it somehow.

>My new inlaws were in town this week, and they wanted to spend as much 
>time with their new (and first) grandchild. Most days they just stayed 
>in the hotel. I have never realized how wonderful a hotel is, until I 
>heard all the different areas a 2.5 year old can find amusement.

The knowledge he 'absorbed' will probably be of great use to him
later in life if he becomes a travelling salesman.  
-- 
Laura Watson           lkw@falcon3.att.com   lkw@burt.att.com
                                 
Mom of Stephanie W. Zolayvar ( 2 yrs, 3 months ) and
       Eric W. Zolayvar (8 weeks)
Newsgroups: misc.kids