A. ISKAKOVA, M. TAJIYEVA
Abay Kazakh National Pedagogical University, Almaty city, Kazakhstan
APPROACHES TO LEARNING IN THE EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION AND CARE (ECEC): THE HIGHSCOPE AND FOREST
SCHOOLS
Annotation
In this article, the authors analyze their experience in concept development and educational programs Hayskop and Forest schools that are successfully used in the pre-school organizations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and other European countries.
Keywords: еarly development, innovative educational approaches, concepts, methods of learning, development, curriculum.
Бұл мақалада авторлар Ұлыбританияның біріккен королдігінің жəне басқа да Еуропа елдерінің мектепке дейінгі ұйымдарында тиімді қолданыстағы Хайскоп жəне Лесные мектептері нің білім беру бағдарламалары мен тұжырымдамаларына жəне олардың даму тəжірибелеріне талдау жасайды.
Түйін сөздер: ерте даму, инновациялық білім беру технологиясы, тұжырымдама, оқыту əдістері, даму, оқу жоспары.
Аннотация
В данной статье авторами анализируется опыт развития и концепция образовательных программ Хайскоп и Лесные школы, которые успешно используются в дошкольных организациях Соединенного Королевства Великобритании и других Европейских стран.
Ключевые слова: ранее развитие, инновационные образовательные технологии, концепция,
методики обучения, развитие, учебный план.
N
owadays world has a rich source of many innovative educational approaches. In early years there are numerous approaches, and each aims to be the best-known in early learning. In this article we would like to highlight and describe the well-known approaches among the best-known list: the Highscope and Forest schools. These two are seen good alternatives to traditional approaches and can inspire early years practitioners for innovative educational progress. Of course, we will try to provide an overview and philosophy of the two approaches, to introduce them to readers and researches and highlight key points of each. To understand a specifi c content of them, one must observe its environments and teacher-child interactions, read its documentary evidences and talk to parents, interview staff. Because here we discuss how these approaches addresses all areas of early learning. The information from this article can be as additional information to the readers and students of Early Years degree.
These two approaches represent an explicit concept and aim to improve society by helping children realize their full potential as intelligent and creative persons.
As director of special services in the Ypsilanti (Michigan) public school district, David Weikart became increasingly interested in the academic performance of a number of at-risk children from poor neighborhoods. These students did poorly on district-wide, standardized tests and also received low scores in IQ assessments.
Weikart brought together, and collaborated with, a committee of elementary education leaders that included Perry School’s Charles Eugene Beatty, Michigan’s fi rst African-American principal. Known as the Perry Preschool Project (1962), members discussed possible changes to teaching methods and curriculum choices. Even though they did not expect to radically change Ypsilanti’s teaching core (which mostly worked), they explored why it seemingly failed a certain population of students.
While searching for better teaching methods and programs, Weikart (now also part of a special services committee tackling the same issue) zeroed in on programs for three- and fouryear-olds. Outside the normal organization of the school district, Weikart hired four teachers and began operation of a preschool at Perry Elementary School (Hohmann, M, 2008).
Weikart and Perry School’s teachers and staff chose to differ from traditional nursery school settings by designing a program that focused on a child’s intellectual maturation rather than a child’s social and emotional advances. They wanted a program that
Possessed a fi rm, legitimate bed of theory for teaching/learning, ungirding its structure;
Supported the child’s talents through an active process of learning; and Relied on teachers, administrators, and families to support the success of the program.
The forest schools were originated in Sweden in the 1950s as a way of teaching children about the natural world. In 1995 a team from Bridgwater College in Somerset went to Denmark, where the concept of Forest schools in the early years was well established, on an exchange visit. They visited FS and observed 5-7-year-olds exploring a challenging and exciting outdoor environment. So enthusiastic were they about what they had seen that they established the fi rst Forest School within a Children’s Centre in England (www. forestschools.com).
Forest schools, as an initiative, have a relatively short history but outdoor provision in the education of young children has a very long history (Miller, 2011). In the 18th and early 19th centuries, the writing and experimental schemes of Rousseau (Wokler, 2001) and Pestalozzi (Curtis, 1963; de Guimps, 2009) emphasized the importance of nature and the outdoor environment. In the early part of the 19th century, albeit in different countries, Robert Owen and Friedrich Froebel (Miller, 2011) established nurseries based on Pestalozzi’s ideas.
Owen believed so strongly in contact with gardens, fi elds and woods that he sent two of his own sons to Pestalozzi’s school in Yverdun, in Switzerland, where they were to be engaged in what was termed ‘spend husbandry’ (Miller, 2011). At New Lanark, the site of his mill, he ensured that the young children of his employees spent many hours each day in the open air.
Early in the 20th century, the McMillan sisters set up the fi rst nursery school in London in response to the poor health of children in Deptford. Their fi rst initiative in the area was an outdoor night camp to improve the health of those at risk of contracting tuberculosis. The nursery school, set up shortly after the introduction of the night camp, had a large garden and classrooms were described as shelters- designed simply to shelter children in bad weather. The expectation was that children would normally live, work and play outdoors. Margaret McMillan also set up an outdoor residential camp in Kent so that children from Deptford could experience the countryside (Miller, 2011).
These two approaches view children as young researchers and authors of their own physical and cognitive development, strongly infl uenced by nature and environment, discovering the way toward growth and learning.
Theory, curriculum and concept
Highscope has developed a comprehensive approach to early years education that addresses all areas of development and uses the dimensions of learning typically found in the standards of early childhood professional organizations and government education agencies (Miller, 2011).
According to fi gure 7.1, of Ann S. Epstein and others’ research (Miller, 2011), it is shown the Highscope key developmental indicators, which are the building blocks of thinking and reasoning. The eight Highscope curriculum content areas are: approaches to learning; language, literacy and communication; social and emotional development; physical development, health and well-being; mathematics; science and technology; social studies; and the arts.
Active learning
The HighScope Curriculum emphasizes active participatory learning. Active learning means students have direct, hands-on experiences with people, objects, events, and ideas. Children’s interests and choices are at the heart of the HighScope programs. They construct their own knowledge through interactions with the world and the people around them. In active learning settings, adults expand children’s thinking with diverse materials and nurturing interactions (Hohmann, M., 2008).
Learning environment
A HighScope school classroom is divided into well-defi ned interest areas that typically include a house area, art area, block area, toy area, and other areas that refl ect the children’s interests. Children are able to access all facilities independently as well as take some responsibility for use of these areas.
Daily routine
HighScope classrooms follow a predictable sequence of events called the daily routine. The daily routine in a HighScope classroom includes plan-do-review, small- and large-group times, outside time, transition times, and eating and resting times (Epstein, A. S., 2007).
Plan-do-review
A key component of the HighScope approach is the plan-do-review sequence. Children fi rst plan what materials they want to work with, what they want to do, and whom they want to do it with (this can be done formally or informally in small groups). Once they have made a plan, however vague, of what they want to do, they can go and do it. Then, after this chosen worktime, the children discuss what they did and whether it was the same as, or different from, what they had planned.
Adult-child interaction
Shared control between adults and children is central to the HighScope Curriculum. In addition to sharing control, adults in a HighScope classroom participate in children’s play, converse as partners with them, focus on children’s strengths and offer them support, and encourage children’s problem solving (Hohmann, M., 2008).
Key developmental indicators
The HighScope Curriculum is organized into eight content areas: (1) approaches to learning; (2) language, literacy, and communication; (3) social and emotional development; (4) physical development and health; (5) mathematics; (6) science and technology; (7) social studies; and (8) creative arts. Within these content areas are 58 key developmental indicators (KDIs). The KDIs are statements of observable behaviors that defi ne the important learning areas for young children. HighScope teachers keep these indicators in mind when they set up the learning environment and plan activities (Hohmann, M., 2008).
Assessment
HighScope assesses children’s development with comprehensive observations. HighScope teachers record daily anecdotes describing what children do and say. Several times a year, teachers review these anecdotes and rate each child using an assessment tool that is organized into six areas of development. These scores help the teachers design developmentally appropriate learning opportunities and can be used to explain children’s progress during conferences (Epstein, A. S., 2007).
Forest school aims to provide each child with the opportunities and experiences that will enable them to learn and develop in order to achieve their potential as a human being.
In forest schools fi rst week begins to explore the senses, such as sight, sound and touch.
Age-appropriate opportunities will be made available to introduce these- such as looking and listening stops and feeling textures within the forest. The young learners gain experiences of exploring forest step-by-step. Children are led by practitioners. Small successes for a child each week build up their confi dence and self-esteem. Their knowledge of the environment increases to the names of trees and types of fl ora and fauna. The approach offers a continued inspirational dimension to learning outside, an insight into the world around a child, and a sound base on which to build self-awareness, self-esteem and intrinsic motivation to achieve their potential (Miller, 2011).
In conclusion of this article we would like to say that these two approaches were investigated deeply by early years researchers and encourage both parents and practitioners in teaching and learning young children to reach their full potential from early years.
REFERENCES
1 Curtis,S. (1963) History of Education in Great Britain. London: University Tutorial Press Ltd.
2 de Guimps, R. (2009) Pestalozzi, His life and Work. Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar
3 Epstein, A. S. Essentials of active learning in preschool. HighScope Press, 2007
4 Hohmann, M., Weikart, D.P., & Epstein, A.S. (2008) Educating young children (3rd. ed.), HighScope Press,
5 Miller, L., Pound, L., (2011) Theories and
Approaches to Learning in the early Years. SAGE
6 Wokler, R. (2001) Rousseau: A Very Short
Introduction. Oxford; Oxford University Press
7 www.forestschools.com