
I was in Kingston yesterday for 5×5x5=creativity, talking with a group of heads, teachers, and early years practitioners about creative learning and the inclusion of boys.
Its a tricky path to follow, providing for the needs of boys, without putting them into a box, and reinforcing any stereotypical ways of seeing and working with them. I know I didn’t enjoy my time at a traditional boys school and didn’t respond to the emphasis on outdoor sports and the controlling almost dictatorial approach followed by some of the teachers. But there is research to suggest that a lot of boys do learn best through a more active full-bodied approach, and greater access to the outdoors.
My take on things is that if statistically more boys are seen to be ‘failing’ or not achieving what’s expected of them, then we’re doing something wrong, and that we’re probably doing something wrong for all children, not just the boys, but maybe (statistically speaking) the girls are more able to cope with a tradition of top-down, crowd-control, teaching methods.
Are we planning experiences for boys that build on their interests and value their strengths as active learners and problem solvers, or are we simply expecting them to be compliant, passive recipients of new skills and knowledge?
Confident, capable and creative: supporting boys achievements - DCSF
Now to me you could swap the ‘boys’ to ‘children’ and it would be even more pertinent - the reason children ‘fail’ is because our education system fails them.
I’m not a teacher, I am an artist and a creative learning consultant. I have loads of respect for teachers and learn from them each time I work with them. I am excited by the way in which I can work in partnership with educators and children, we can learn from each other, and by allowing the child to take the lead, they can show us how to work with them, where to work with them, and what they need to succeed.
But the difficulty is how to support teachers to put into practice this kind of creative, child-initiated approach when they are given so many hoops to jump through and class sizes that seriously inhibit opportunities for 1 to 1 contact with and observation of, individual children.
If each and every child was given the opportunity to learn in a way which is relevant to their needs and interests, through valuing and working with their own innate creativity, and if every child was encouraged to explore their local environment through their bodies and imaginations, then how can anyone fail - and why would we even need to teach or learn in specific ways according to gender?
14/12/2009 at 07:47 pm
This is a really interesting topic. I work at Jane Austen’s House Museum, and we are constantly thinking about the appeal it has to boys and men. In a handling session earlier today I heard my colleague apologising for the focus of female accessories rather than anything “male”. Why should girls be any more interested than boys? It’s difficult not to stereotype what we think boys are interested in - I totally agree with you that it’s about the process of educating, and us as facilitators of this process working out “how” to do it.
15/12/2009 at 08:00 am
Cat, thanks very much for your comment. I think the subject of child-centred/led learning in museums is a really important one.
The work I’m doing with English Heritage at Stonehenge and with Salisbury Museum has really shown the value of consulting with children and responding to children’s interests and behaviour, with the aim of engaging more children through catering for a wider range of needs and interests, both girls and boys.
I’m keen that boys we work with do have opportunities for more full bodied play/learning, construction etc, but that we also support boys to be more nurturing, sensitive and empathetic wherever appropriate too.Its a bit of a balancing act isn’t it?