It all started with the philosopher-physician John Locke and his idea of the tabula rasa—the blank slate. Prior to Locke’s writings, people generally believed that there were some innate notions and principles present in every person from birth. However, Locke, in his 1690 work An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, virtually changed the very idea of innate notions and negated it, saying, "it is evident, that all children and idiots have not the least apprehension or thought of them [preconceived notions]". Basically, since children (and idiots) aren't aware of their own preconceived notions that must mean that they don't exist and, therefore, are what he likes to say--blank slates. Because of his theory adults began producing literature specifically designed to teach children the very essentials of being a "good" person and mold them into the people that parents and adults wanted them to be.
As a result, children’s literature as a genre and industry exploded in the 18th century and since then has been used as a tool to ingrain the most important lessons into our children. So, what do you guys think?
1. Are we still following Locke’s philosophy and primarily using literature as a tool to teach?
2. Is there an alternative purpose to children’s literature?
3. In our day and age, what are the most important lessons that children’s books want to teach kids?
Added: How effective do you think stories like the ones assigned for Wednesday were in molding kids the way adults intended to?
13 comments:
When I was a senior in high school, one day my AP English teacher asked the class to raise our hands if we could remember our parents reading to us as kids. The majority of my classmates and I raised our hands. My teacher then said that he asks this to all of his students and in the AP classes our response was typical: about 80% could remember and 20% couldn't. On the other hand, he said that in the lower-level English classes he taught, the percentages were reversed. Obviously, these results only indicate a general trend, but he was arguing that children's literature (and the forging of healthier parent-child relationships because of it) is very important in the growth of kids.
I always remember that exercise, and I think my teacher was correct to highlight the importance of children's literature. I think that it still is primarily used as a tool for instilling values in kids. The importance of stories like "Where the Wild Things Are" is found in the lessons it teaches about morality, albeit indirectly. Obviously, there are also lots of more overt children's books, like Making Counting Fun! or stuff like that.
As I hinted at earlier, I think that there can be excellent alternative purposes to children's literature, in the form of relationship development between parents and kids. When I think of my parents reading to me, I can remember very clearly the experience of it happening, even if I can't exactly remember what some of the stories were about. I think that those are definitely memories to cherish, and the act of reading to children should be an integral part of parenting.
When thinking of the most important lessons that children's books teach, the first things that come to mind are respect for others, acceptance (sorta falls into the same category), and just general happiness. As some possible food for thought though, how do children's books fit into a growing movement of social justice in the world? I read about a school district in California that faced outrage from parents after teaching a book called "And Tango Makes Three" - a story about two male penguins bonding and raising a child together. Is it fine to leave out stories like this, because general morals of acceptance and respect can be learned from less controversial books? I think it'd be wonderfully beneficial to include stories like that, but maybe there are other opinions?
I just read all three stories. I admit my first reaction was "phew, I can understand this stuff right away!". :) My other immediate reaction was how each one strove to teach a lesson. I haven't looked at children's books for a very long time, but I have a gut reaction that we still follow Locke's philosophy. I think the books still intend to teach children good behavior and morals (sharing, how to apologize, good behavior...etc). I just believe that there is more to children's literature than Locke's philosophy. I think it's also a form of pleasure, expanding vocabulary and bonding with the parents who read to the kids. For example, "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" appears to be more for amusement. In addition, it also improves their grammar. In my case, I read much more than my brother did and I am more advanced in reading. I also had a particular teacher in elementary who told me "read, read, read!". She knew it was vital in our language development. To this day, I can still picture her telling us. It is hard for me to say what the most important lessons are today since I do not read them- but I have an urge to read some! I have fond memories of books such as "If you give a mouse a cookie" or "Where the Wild Things are". My guess, though, would be lessons about diversity and kindness. I say this because nowadays, there are much more authors, which means more diverse backgrounds, so those authors will want to teach children how to accept others. I was exposed to a book (I do not remember the name) in a SPED class that told the story of a girl, describing her characters, and at the very end it is revealed she is in a wheelchair. We watched a video of the children's reactions. A purpose of this book was to teach children that people with disabilities are very similar to people without disabilities. I also say kindness because I've noticed bullying on the news several times and I would think teaching kindness is of timeless importance.
I don't think that today we are still following Locke's philosophy and primarily using literature as a tool to teach. Since our society is so advanced in the world of technology, books have taken the backseat in the world of learning.
When I was in elementary school, reading children's literature was a huge part of my educational experience. I remember having "reading buddies" where a 4th or 5th grader would read to the 1st and 2nd grade students. I participated in being read to by the older kids and reading to the younger ones. This exposed me to numerous methods of learning and opportunities to develop ideas of what a "good" person in society entails. These children's stories would typically teach the students to share, to be honest, not to discriminate, and to stay out of trouble.
I think this method of learning has completely gone out the window for the most part. My five year old cousin learns most things from the Television. Today there are shows such as Dora the Explorer, Blues Clues, Noddy, The Backyardigans, and many more! These shows are what teach children the lessons that I previously learned from children's literature. There are even computers at her school so that the kids can play educational games/activities and learn the alphabet, numbers, math, English, colors, etc. These programs track the student's activity so that the teacher can assess their comprehension, among other things.
I do think that in our day and age, the basic learning concepts of the past are still important lessons for young children today. The only difference is that kids today are learning these things in a different format. Instead of mainly using children's literature as a learning tool, the students are using computers and television for educational purposes.
I don't necessarily think this is a negative thing, as long as the children are learning good values and are understanding the things that they are supposed to know for their age/grade. What do you guys think? Is using technology as an alternative to children's books a positive or negative tool?
I believe we are indeed still following Locke's philosophy because everything we learned starting as a child assumes that at birth we are unaware and must be taught everything. I agree that children are blank slates and as adults, teachers, and parents we should recognize this and teach children what is best for them and instill good manners and ideals into them not just force them to memorize and recite certain things. I think that the overall purpose to childrens literature is to be informative in some way and helpful. I do not think there are any alternatives. Today, the most important lessons that children books try and teach is working together and manners. I think that the stories that we have to read for Wed are effective because like "Dirty Boots" it teaches manners, self-control, and respect to children. Without these things a child would have a rough time growing up and managing relationships with friends, family, and everyone. I really like this story and I can see it as something that children can still read today and relate to.
As someone who is not studing educaiton I cannot soundly judge if we are or aren't still utilizing Locke's principles on children and education but just from what I read in this blog post I began thinking about the idea I've heard a lot about in my lifetime that children are like sponges. Often this was in conjunction to discussions about words or ideas that should not be spoken around or introduced to children.
The image of the sponge versus the image of the blank slate might indicate a lot about our different time periods: currently we see children as beings who cannot think for themselves just yet, but still receive impressive amounts of information which they will tap into later; whereas just after Locke's ideas spread around, children were considered as small versions of adults onto which specific ideas and values could be imposed. This is evident in the didactic qualities of "Evenings at Home" and "Dirty Boots" but it is blaringly obvious in the list of strict behavioral instructions found iin "Rules for Behavior."
I agree as well that children are sponges that need to be taught by teachers and parents (Ferrell children do exist) , the only issue is, what is the correct way to educate children. There is no true definition of a correct education or correct method. What these texts imply is that the only way to connect with a child is to force the information rather than utilize the metaphorical sponge of a mind, and let the child gather at his or her own will.
Jefferson's rigid schedule molds the child into a well versed and intelligent being but he or she has no individual self. They could listen to a symphony on a record and describe every detail of the symphony but this child most likely will never play in one, compose one, or even see one because he or she will be locked in a room studying the infinite amount of information found in books. There needs to be a divide between gathering information and expressing without another's guidance for one to be an individual. These parenting tips turn the child into an encyclopedia not a human.
I would have to disagree with Cholie some. While educational television does play some role in children's education nowadays, it has not completely replaced it (or even by a large margin in my opinion). Not only that, but we had then growing up too. I have a three year old brother that is in love with books. He is always trying to get someone to read to you, or someone to listen to him point out the letters. Yes, television is adding to the experience, but the book experience isn't folding in the towel just yet.
Books in our day and age seem to be following Locke's philosophy. It treats children as blank slates than need to learn good behavior. There seem to be so so many books focusing on good social behavior, like sharing or acceptance. I feel tv shows help reinforce that, and show these lessons in different ways. While tv is becoming more interactive (and having kids "read along" or spell here and there), it just is not the same experience.
I think to at least some extent we’re still following Locke’s philosophy and using children’s literature to teach and instruct. I know some modern children’s books still focus directly on things such as spelling, language, and moral instruction, while others (as a previous poster observed) deal with these themes in more indirect ways. I think the children’s books which aren’t as obviously educational often attempt to socialize children and help them to start thinking about things outside their limited experience. I also realize there’s less useful children’s literature like the book we looked at in class on Monday, (I forget the name) which failed to communicate why cooperation is important.
But I think children’s lit does have potential outside educational or moral instruction. For example, if a book is entertaining without being educational I think it still serves the purpose of acquainting kids with language. If at an early age kids are engaged with books for their entertainment value there’s probably a better possibility that they’ll be drawn to literature later in life. Like the poster above, I don’t remember every book my parents read to me when I was a child. But I remember my mom reading to me often, and I have to assume that this early introduction had something to do with my later interest in literature.
I can’t speak directly to the third question concerning the most important lessons in children’s books today. This is mostly because I can’t remember a lot of what I read as a child and I don’t know about the books currently being published. I do think that it’s probably good to combine moral/educational instruction with entertaining material which can keep a child’s interest. In class we looked at Thomas Jefferson’s letter to his daughter, which proscribed a strict, daily educational schedule. We then talked about how this schedule left little room for free time or friends. I think the most important thing children’s literature can do is get kids to start thinking and learning, so that they can later chose to continue in this pursuit. If literature or education in general becomes about approval or merit, then there’s probably a better chance children will rebel against learning.
I don't believe in the whole idea that children are entirely blank slates. I do think that the intelligence of developing children is further enhanced by how adults interact with them during certain developmental stages. For example we know that a 1 month old hasn't yet develop their skills to engage in verbal communication. However, we do know that they have natural reflexes that respond to objects that are in or around their hands, and because of this we gradually and repetitively introduce the concept of eating with your hands. In other words, a child may have the tiny bottles of formula in the hospital, then they may gradually move on to a regular bottle, then a sippy cup with handles, and once they nail down their grasping reflexes then we introduce eating utensils into the mix. Although, a child needs nurture and nature to develop and build on their knowledge, some things are simply innate, especially if they are drawing on their five senses. I believe that an alternative to children's literature would be a scapegoat for children who cannot escape their home environment. Finally, I believe that the children's books of today have improved greatly in the sense that they no longer "dump down the language" because the authors realize that children are literally like sponges, who are anxiously absorbing everything in arm's reach.
I fully believe that children's literature still follows Locke's arguments. If you go into any book store and look through the children's section, you will find numerous books intended to teach children some skill, value, behavior, etc. Today we know that children depend on education to help them develop accordingly. Parents often turn to books to teach their children and I believe this will continue.
I think besides acting as a teaching tool, children's literature serves as entertainment. I worked as a camp counselor for a few years for 4-6 year olds, and despite all the advances in technology and media, my campers still were familiar with many of the same books I read as a child. This surprised me, these books still interest children despite all these advances.
I definitely agree that we are still incorporating Locke's philosophy in teaching children through education. Up until this year, I was a secondary education minor, and so got to see firsthand how kids were influenced by the literature that we read. Since the youngest group I worked with was sixth grade, I didn't get to see them learning to read firsthand, but I did get to observe how early exposure to literature had shaped their reading experience.
I don't think that we ever really stop learn learning through literature; not only do we learn practical lessons such as learning how to read, vocabulary, or even history, but I think that when one reads we learn a lot about ourselves as well. We are able to compare our actions or reactions with that of other characters, and so in a sense develop a stronger understanding of ourselves, aiding in emotional growth as well. And so children's literature can serve this purpose for children without explicitly being a typical "educational" book (like the ABC reader).
Contemporary society still, for the most part, maintains Locke's idea of the blank slate (though, new research in behavioral genetics is beginning to change this understanding), but the instructions implanted into young minds are much different than those of the 18th century. The readings for today emphasized civic roles. Many people back then believed that individuals were born with characteristics fit for certain roles within the social hierarchy. And this is evinced by the children's stories we read for today. Each story is constructed for a certain type of individual--a future woman, a future middle-class man, a future aristocrat--and has instructions accordingly. Today, in our democratic society, we tend to emphasize individuality when instructing our children. We tell them to dream big and to work towards those dreams. We are less focused on social standing, because social standing, today, is more affected by an individuals actions than it was 3 centuries ago.
Today, I think the primary use of children books is to teach basic concepts to children while entertaining them. Children are easily amused and can't enjoy activities (or physically do activities) like older toddlers. So, by reading to them with big, colorful, elaborate pictures their senses and brains are stimulated. The repetition of reading and looking at picture books helps children learn and become better children.
Today, children books do not place such a serious emphasis on what to teach children as the readings fro the eighteenth century do. Children books from this century focus on social interactions with other people. Subjects like, "sharing is caring;" being a good friend; taking care of animals; loving your mommy and daddy; being a good brother or sister are all the types of learning expected from youngsters. But, in the Rules for Behavior piece, there is a huge emphasis on how to act publicly so you don't disgrace your parents.
Stories like the ones we read for class definitely were successful in teaching children how to act and behave. The moral of the Rules for Behavior were that Tommy ad Jacky grew up to be polite gentlemen in society. The Rules were complete with table etiquette and how to be seen and not heard. The other story about the two fairies was also successful because it showed that, even at a young age, Melissa picked the more fervent, honest and domestic "House-wifery" instead of Dissipation. She came to that conclusion on her own most likely because of the books and lessons she learned.
Post a Comment