Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Early Years' started by ineedsomehelp, Mar 5, 2011.
I am afraid not the finest of health...they tell you to do it and you do it.. so everything is alright then! well I prefer to be ill with dissent, , disbelief and disagreement. If there is a strong reaction then perhaps there are still a numnber of people out here who recognise a wolf in sheep's clothing, and that is what we've got here. So time to bang a few pots and pans.
We were playing with numicon today, filling the board with 100 you know? And we got to the end there were 2 spots empty so I asked all "What do we need?" and most said "Two" but a few said "That one" and pointed. One boy most insistent, grabbed out the 7 next to this empty space and swiftly replaced it with a 9 which of course, fitted exactly.
And it was really exciting!
We didn't talk about how 9 was 2 more than 7 - mainly because I was just too astonished - but this is what children can do. And this is how they learn.
When they know that you have put 2 out of 3 things in a tin or bag, and that these things are still there and there are still 3 of them then that is surely enough without counting sheep to send them to sleep.
Conservation of number is not a taught item. It is an understanding of number, mainly through social application and experience, also through tactile and visual aids - when we want to children to become good with number, then we must give them good things to think with. Not duplo sheep. Conservation of number was an idea from Piaget and stuff about when children develop concepts and if I have it right he suggested little children could not actually do this. So that is of course, why we teach it in nursery. Find something they cannot do and then get them to do lots of it. Brilliant idea.
Hughes and Gallistiele? (sp) researched all this and found that young children could conserve number - in activities which had meaning for them, social meaning often like er how many children can you get in a toilet cubicle before the grown ups hear the fuss and come along to tell you not to do this, and why.
The putting of a limited number of sheep in a "field" or other kind of set enclosure is a nod to playfully structuring adult dictated learning in a workshop area. Like this is fun, not.
So to the opening poster do your activity and get yer boxes ticked. But be aware that this is a limited way to develop the essential number concepts of young children. And if you have a double bike and trailer, use that for three children and take turns and see what combinations they can make, just the three of them. (Unwise to use the toilet cubicles for this scale point).
Furthermore - I think that was originally one of the scale points for the Early Learning Goals - seem to remember it being around a while, that got itself attached to the EYFS perhaps in the wrong place and because it is kinda immediately kinda - wot- er - concrete - it grabs you as something you ought to be teaching and might be in bother if you don't. Was it a blue stepping stone once? Msz will know this kind of thing.
Yes, the very best, cheers
Nursery children will not always know this. They have to see and count the partitioned group to know the total, even if they have already counted the non-partitioned group (that's part of the 'beginning to' bit).
When you supply the social application, experience and tactile and visual aids you are teaching them, aren't you.
Anything can be fun if you are with playful people.
Mmmm. Might make yourself unpopular getting them to do lots of swapping around when they want to ride up the garden. Maybe if you hare around after them yelling numbers?
There is a very good video Margaret Carr and Wendy Lee use to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of this type of activity for assessing understanding. The children work out that saying "four" makes the teacher happy so they say it without knowing why... having worked with a teacher who did this and having to pick up the pieces when all those ticks didn't relate to anything I still say STUPID!
You have utterly no evidence that this would be the case with this teacher and these children. Any teaching activity is fraught with the possibility that children will try to second guess what the teacher is after. Some teachers work with a strong awareness of this but maybe the one you 'picked up the pieces from' did not. You cannot exptrapolate anything from that.
Msz, I know you will go on for ever with this argument if i carry on responding, so I doubt I will respond again.
I do not agree with what you and others have written in this thread.
I can see your point but think you are giving it too much weight.
I love an argument when it is carried on well. This one has degenerated. The worst part is that it is unhelpful (in fact, hostile) to rubbish someone else's work no matter how opposed you are to its rationale, and the OP asked for help.
I am certainly not rubbishing the OP thumbie
or calling the OP stupid for the record
This is where you rubbished her for choosing this activity for her observation, at the same time assuming that she thought her children wouldn't understand, which she had not said. If you are trying to rubbish my practice of playing a few games around this with children to see how they respond I'm afraid it's water off a duck's back. Don't bother.
I thought you weren't going to respond ...
It needed saying.
SPOT ON MSZ!!!
Farewell TES friends. Until Easter. Enjoy ......
*** - looking for ideas on setting up activities which might address this objective and instead read all of this. Get a grip.
Might use the sheep idea though cheers