I was extraodinarily informal in my teaching methods with my first batch. I just showed them something once or twice, and expected them to get it, and they usually did. Lots of times they got it without being shown, or maybe someone else showed them, and I never knew about it. This time I've provided so many opportunities for learning, by buying and making all kinds of learning tools, and I expected that this extra step (which I didn't even do last time around) would make the difference, and jumpstart the new kids' learning. Surprise to me! I was wrong.
I have not been able to just present the children with various learning toys, and expect them to be able to figure them out, even with extensive teaching, showing, modeling, explanations... you get the picture! I wish I knew more about Down syndrome, and how children with DS learn, and how it affects all aspects of learning, but I suspect that there isn't that much actual knowledge. I know research is being done, and I've hunted for some, but I haven't learned much new lately.
So, we know that there are certain developmental milestones which must be achieved before a learner can accomplish a task, but anecdotally, from my observations, I begin to think that possibly there are developmental stages within the stages, which lead to achieving tasks within tasks. Sometimes it's like watching development under a microscope, some of the steps seem so minute, but still lead to the next step. It just makes me wonder if science is missing out on the opportunity to study human development at a fraction of the pace of typical development, because babies normally achieve so many developmental milestones so quickly, and we are probably not even aware of what goes into each milestone. Here we possibly have an opportunity to learn more about human development, but we don't employ it because we don't recognize Down syndrome as having anything to teach us about typical.
I've mentioned before that I know some people say you shouldn't treat your children with Down syndrome like a science project, but I treated my first batch of kids that way, so why should I change now? Besides, if they feel warm, fed, snuggled, smooched, and cherished, who cares if their mother is a mad scientist?
All that to lead up to our lesson on learning to string beads. We couldn't figure out how with the only beads I could find, which were small, so I hit on the idea of macaroni, like we all made necklaces from, back in first grade! However, macaroni is also small, and we have pincer grip issues, so I came up with rigatoni! We still couldn't get it though, with yarn, so next time we'll try pipe cleaners. See what I mean about going backwards, thinking how to make it work, and always going to the level that came before this level? We did try chop sticks, though, and that was a little more successful, but other issues became obvious, like holding them in the wrong place, in the wrong direction for gravity, etc. This is what I mean about realizing the many minute steps that lead up to what would normally be considered a small step. I don't know much about developmental science, but if this isn't researched, it seems an opportunity.
Everyone got in on the action, and it quickly became an excuse to climb on the table. |
Big brother is modeling his necklace. Notice Big Girl's posture. I love it when they tuck themselves in, because it takes strength to hold that position. |
It really became more of a sensory exercise, and you can see that the noodles didn't really stay in the bowl. |
I'm sure they learned a lot, and it was really fun! |
No comments:
Post a Comment