Unschooling research
Melissa Allen
A guy called Alan Thomas, who is an education
researcher in Australia, has done some REALLY
interesting research into what he calls "informal
learning," using homeschoolers (he doesn't use
the word unschoolers) as his research group. He
examines (in detail) the informal interactions of
parents and children (i.e. just talking, hanging
out, living life -- unschooling) and reports on
their educational value. He is extremely
impressed with how much children learn in this
way and compares it favorably with how they learn
in school.
Here's a sample (from
http://www.infed.org/biblio/home-education.htm):
"In school, the curriculum determines the process
of teaching and learning. It is structured
logically in easily digestible steps in order to
facilitate learning. Essentially, the job of the
student is to follow a learning sequence that is
predetermined. But when children learn
informally, they seem to do the opposite and
impose their own sequence on what they learn.
Curriculum logic and child logic do not equate.
Child logic is individual and determined by the
complex and dynamic interplay between the childs
existing level of knowledge and incoming
information, mediated by interest, motivation,
curiosity or desire to take on a challenge. Its
as if each child has his or her own theory of
learning. It is quite efficient because new
knowledge and understanding are only assimilated
when they extend existing knowledge. The converse
equally contributes to the efficiency of informal
learning when new material is unlikely to
dovetail into and extend knowledge or
understanding it is discarded. This utterly
contradicts conventional school learning in which
students are expected to persevere when they do
not comprehend, often acquiring no more than a
superficial level of understanding, what has been
called surface learning (Biggs, 1987). Informal
learning therefore follows a kind of fuzzy and
non-linear logic that is particular to each
child. It has a parallel in the childs
acquisition of language, learned in a similar
fashion and equally individualistic (Crystal,
1976). Perhaps informal learning is better suited
to the innumerable connections and networks in
the cerebral cortex. Whatever the case, it works,
and without all the effort associated with formal
learning. . . "
Melissa
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
researcher in Australia, has done some REALLY
interesting research into what he calls "informal
learning," using homeschoolers (he doesn't use
the word unschoolers) as his research group. He
examines (in detail) the informal interactions of
parents and children (i.e. just talking, hanging
out, living life -- unschooling) and reports on
their educational value. He is extremely
impressed with how much children learn in this
way and compares it favorably with how they learn
in school.
Here's a sample (from
http://www.infed.org/biblio/home-education.htm):
"In school, the curriculum determines the process
of teaching and learning. It is structured
logically in easily digestible steps in order to
facilitate learning. Essentially, the job of the
student is to follow a learning sequence that is
predetermined. But when children learn
informally, they seem to do the opposite and
impose their own sequence on what they learn.
Curriculum logic and child logic do not equate.
Child logic is individual and determined by the
complex and dynamic interplay between the childs
existing level of knowledge and incoming
information, mediated by interest, motivation,
curiosity or desire to take on a challenge. Its
as if each child has his or her own theory of
learning. It is quite efficient because new
knowledge and understanding are only assimilated
when they extend existing knowledge. The converse
equally contributes to the efficiency of informal
learning when new material is unlikely to
dovetail into and extend knowledge or
understanding it is discarded. This utterly
contradicts conventional school learning in which
students are expected to persevere when they do
not comprehend, often acquiring no more than a
superficial level of understanding, what has been
called surface learning (Biggs, 1987). Informal
learning therefore follows a kind of fuzzy and
non-linear logic that is particular to each
child. It has a parallel in the childs
acquisition of language, learned in a similar
fashion and equally individualistic (Crystal,
1976). Perhaps informal learning is better suited
to the innumerable connections and networks in
the cerebral cortex. Whatever the case, it works,
and without all the effort associated with formal
learning. . . "
Melissa
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/12/05 9:00:05 AM, melissalallen@... writes:
Same things we've been saying on message boards and lists for ten years, only
he's "a researcher" and will think he discovered it. <g>
-=- But when children learn
informally, they seem to do the opposite and
impose their own sequence on what they learn.
Curriculum logic and child logic do not equate.
Child logic is individual and determined by the
complex and dynamic interplay between the child’s
existing level of knowledge and incoming
information, mediated by interest, motivation,
curiosity or desire to take on a challenge. It’s
as if each child has his or her own theory of
learning. It is quite efficient because new
knowledge and understanding are only assimilated
when they extend existing knowledge.-=-
Researchers have known this since before I was in college in the 70's.
Cognition studies have said since the 60's or early that you can't learn
anything that doesn't connect to something you already know.
And that whole individual learning is the ONLY way anyone can learn.
Each child builds his own model of the universe.
School tries to insert one but it can't. It just can't be done. Either
the child takes the school parts and builds his (I did) or he rejects those
parts because he can't find a place to fit them, or because he just hates them and
resents their delivery, and that's called "forgetting." <g>
-=-This utterly
contradicts conventional school learning in which
students are expected to persevere when they do
not comprehend, often acquiring no more than a
superficial level of understanding, what has been
called surface learning (Biggs, 1987).-=-
Or short-term memory.
Or cramming for the test.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> HeSo....
> examines (in detail) the informal interactions of
> parents and children (i.e. just talking, hanging
> out, living life -- unschooling) and reports on
> their educational value. He is extremely
> impressed with how much children learn in this
> way and compares it favorably with how they learn
> in school.
>
>
Same things we've been saying on message boards and lists for ten years, only
he's "a researcher" and will think he discovered it. <g>
-=- But when children learn
informally, they seem to do the opposite and
impose their own sequence on what they learn.
Curriculum logic and child logic do not equate.
Child logic is individual and determined by the
complex and dynamic interplay between the child’s
existing level of knowledge and incoming
information, mediated by interest, motivation,
curiosity or desire to take on a challenge. It’s
as if each child has his or her own theory of
learning. It is quite efficient because new
knowledge and understanding are only assimilated
when they extend existing knowledge.-=-
Researchers have known this since before I was in college in the 70's.
Cognition studies have said since the 60's or early that you can't learn
anything that doesn't connect to something you already know.
And that whole individual learning is the ONLY way anyone can learn.
Each child builds his own model of the universe.
School tries to insert one but it can't. It just can't be done. Either
the child takes the school parts and builds his (I did) or he rejects those
parts because he can't find a place to fit them, or because he just hates them and
resents their delivery, and that's called "forgetting." <g>
-=-This utterly
contradicts conventional school learning in which
students are expected to persevere when they do
not comprehend, often acquiring no more than a
superficial level of understanding, what has been
called surface learning (Biggs, 1987).-=-
Or short-term memory.
Or cramming for the test.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
That's a good page, Melissa! Thanks.
This reminds me of what my friend living in England said.
-=- Most families who start out "doing school" at home find that what works
in school does not transfer easily to the home. Of necessity, home educators
find themselves pioneering new educational approaches, nearly always less formal
ones.
-=-
She was writing a presentation for some government archeology something
there, and sent some of it to me for comment. She had said that most home
educators use unschooling or natural learning. I told her that wasn't true. She
said it seemed true where she was. I said it's absolutely NOT true here.
She was out here for a few weeks, and though she could've found the same info
with google from her home, she's a busy person. But being on vacation and
considering homeschooling resources for when they move back in a year, maybe,
she started looking at local sources and U.S. sites, and was appalled at how
much repression and more-conservative-than-school stuff she found.
But the reverse of that is that maybe the U.K and Australia are NOT in the
curriculum-focussed morass so many American homeschoolers are. I'm guessing
Canada is less likely to have the fundamentalist Christian or uber-competitive
"well-trained mind" kind of stuff than we have. I HOPE so.
That could be pretty easily researched--WHY does a family want to be more
schooly than school, while another family wants to be less schooly than school.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This reminds me of what my friend living in England said.
-=- Most families who start out "doing school" at home find that what works
in school does not transfer easily to the home. Of necessity, home educators
find themselves pioneering new educational approaches, nearly always less formal
ones.
-=-
She was writing a presentation for some government archeology something
there, and sent some of it to me for comment. She had said that most home
educators use unschooling or natural learning. I told her that wasn't true. She
said it seemed true where she was. I said it's absolutely NOT true here.
She was out here for a few weeks, and though she could've found the same info
with google from her home, she's a busy person. But being on vacation and
considering homeschooling resources for when they move back in a year, maybe,
she started looking at local sources and U.S. sites, and was appalled at how
much repression and more-conservative-than-school stuff she found.
But the reverse of that is that maybe the U.K and Australia are NOT in the
curriculum-focussed morass so many American homeschoolers are. I'm guessing
Canada is less likely to have the fundamentalist Christian or uber-competitive
"well-trained mind" kind of stuff than we have. I HOPE so.
That could be pretty easily researched--WHY does a family want to be more
schooly than school, while another family wants to be less schooly than school.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]