Lo que venía afirmando en la práctica todo el movimiento de Educadores Infantiles
en los Movimientos de Renovación Pedagógica queda demostrado:
La Formación Académica Temprana reglada e impartida antes de los 7 años
produce daños a largo plazo
en el desarrollo personal y social de las personas.
Esta investigación revela efectos negativos del anticipo de impartición de contenidos académicos en las Unidades Preescolares, en las Escuelas de Infantes, o en las Mal llamadas guarderías (botánicos, jardines, zoológicos...) infantiles.
sin él, no hay desarrollo personal ni social adecuados.
Many preschool and kindergarten teachers have told me that they are
extremely upset—some to the point of being ready to resign—by the
increased pressure on them to teach academic skills to little children
and regularly test them on such skills. They can see firsthand the
unhappiness generated, and they suspect that the children would be
learning much more useful lessons through playing, exploring, and
socializing, as they did in traditional nursery schools and
kindergartens. Their suspicions are well validated by research studies.
A number of well-controlled studies have compared the effects of academically oriented early education classrooms with those of play-based classrooms (some of which are reviewed here (link is external),
in an article by Nancy Carlsson-Paige, Geralyn McLaughlin,and Joan
Almon).[1] The results are quite consistent from study to study: Early
academic training somewhat increases children’s immediate scores on the
specific tests that the training is aimed at (no surprise), but these
initial gains wash out within 1 to 3 years and, at least in some
studies, are eventually reversed. Perhaps more tragic than the lack of
long-term academic advantage of early academic instruction is evidence
that such instruction can produce long-term harm, especially in the
realms of social and emotional development.
A Study in Germany that Changed Educational Policy There
For example, in the 1970s, the German government
sponsored a large-scale comparison in which the graduates of 50
play-based kindergartens were compared, over time, with the graduates of
50 academic direct-instruction-based kindergartens.[2] Despite the
initial academic gains of direct instruction, by grade four the children
from the direct-instruction kindergartens performed significantly worse than
those from the play-based kindergartens on every measure that was
used. In particular, they were less advanced in reading and mathematics
and less well adjusted socially and emotionally. At the time of the
study, Germany was gradually making a switch from traditional play-based
kindergartens to academic ones. At least partly as a result of the
study, Germany reversed that trend; they went back to play-based
kindergartens. Apparently, German educational authorities, at least at
that time, unlike American authorities today, actually paid attention to
educational research and used it to inform educational practice.
A Large-Scale Study of Children from Poverty in the United States
Similar studies in the United States have produced comparable
results. One study, directed by Rebecca Marcon, focused on mostly
African American children from high-poverty families.[3] As expected,
she found—in her sample of 343 students--that those who attended
preschools centered on academic training showed initial academic
advantages over those who attended play-based preschools; but, by the
end of fourth grade, these initial advantages were reversed: The
children from the play-based preschools were now performing better,
getting significantly higher school grades, than were those from the
academic preschools, This study included no assessment of social and
emotional development.
An Experiment in Which Children from Poverty Were Followed up to Age 23
In a well-controlled experiment, begun by David Weikart and his
colleagues in 1967, sixty eight high-poverty children living in
Ypsilanti, Michigan, were assigned to one of three types of nursery
schools: Traditional (play-based), High/Scope (which was like the traditional but involved more adult guidance), and Direct Instruction (where
the focus was on teaching reading, writing, and math, using worksheets
and tests). The assignment was done in a semi-random way, designed to
ensure that the three groups were initially matched on all available
measures. In addition to the daily preschool experiences, the
experiment also included a home visit every two weeks, aimed at
instructing parents in how to help their children. These visits focused
on the same sorts of methods as did the preschool classrooms. Thus,
home visits from the Traditional classrooms focused on the value of play
and socialization while those from the Direct-Instruction classrooms
focused on academic skills, worksheets, and the like.
The initial results of this experiment were similar to those of other
such studies. Those in the direct-instruction group showed early
academic gains, which soon vanished. This study, however, also included
follow-up research when the participants were 15 years old and again
when they were 23 years old. At these ages there were no significant
differences among the groups in academic achievement, but large,
significant differences in social and emotional characteristics.
By age 15 those in the Direct Instruction group had committed, on
average, more than twice as many “acts of misconduct” than had those in
the other two groups. At age 23, as young adults, the differences were
even more dramatic. Those in the Direct Instruction group had more
instances of friction with other people, were more likely to have shown
evidence of emotional impairment, were less likely to be married and
living with their spouse, and were far more likely to have committed a crime than
were those in the other two groups. In fact, by age 23, 39% of those
in the Direct Instruction group had felony arrest records compared to an
average of 13.5% in the other two groups; and 19% of the Direct
Instruction group had been cited for assault with a dangerous weapon
compared with 0% in the other two groups.[4]
What might account for such dramatic long-term effects of type of
preschool attended? One possibility is that the initial school
experience sets the stage for later behavior. Those in classrooms where
they learned to plan their own activities, to play with others, and to
negotiate differences may have developed lifelong patterns of personal
responsibility and pro-social behavior that served them well throughout
their childhood
and early adulthood. Those in classrooms that emphasized academic
performance may have developed lifelong patterns aimed at achievement,
and getting ahead, which—especially in the context of poverty—could lead
to friction with others and even to crime (as a misguided means of
getting ahead).
I suspect that the biweekly home visits played a meaningful role.
The parents of those in the classrooms that focused on play,
socialization, and student initiative may have developed parenting
styles that continued to reinforce those values and skills as the
children were growing up, and the parents of those in the academic
training group may have developed parenting styles more focused on
personal achievement (narrowly defined) and self-centered values—values
that did not bode well for real-world success.
---
What has been your experience with early education, as a parent or a
teacher? What effects have you seen of early academic training, or,
conversely, of experience in traditional play-based preschools and
kindergartens? This blog is a forum for discussion, and your views and
knowledge are valued and taken seriously, by me and by other readers.
Make your thoughts known in the comments section below. As always, I
prefer if you post your comments and questions here rather than send
them to me by private email. By putting them here, you share with other
readers, not just with me. I read all comments and try to respond to all
serious questions. Of course, if you have something to say that applies
only to you and me, then send me an email.
Source: Basic Books, with permission
See also: Free to Learn (link is external); and alternativestoschool.com (link is external); and join me on Facebook (link is external).
References
[1] Nancy Carlsson-Paige, Geralyn Bywater McLaughlin, & Joan
Wolfsheimer Almon. (2015). Reading Instruction in Kindergarten: Little
to Gain and Much to Lose. Published online by the Alliance for
Childhood. http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/sites/allianceforchildhood.org/files... (link is external)
[2] Linda Darling-Hammond and J. Snyder. 1992. “Curriculum Studies
and the Traditions of Inquiry: The Scientific Tradition.” Edited by
Philip W Jackson. Handbook of Research on Curriculum. MacMillan. pp.
41-78.
[3] R. A. Marcon, 2002. “Moving up the grades: Relationship between
preschool model and later school success.” Early Childhood Research
& Practice 4(1). http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/marcon.html (link is external).
[4] Larry J. Schweinhart and D. P. Weikart. 1997. “The High/Scope
Pre- school Curriculum Comparison Study through age 23.” Early Childhood
Research Quarterly 12. pp. 117-143
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
Danos tu opinión, Escribe tu comentario, AQUÍ