Hi!
Charlotte here is discussing our tendency to “think” for children. She is decrying how often we step in and get between the child and the ideas, how often we “point out the moral” and prevent the children the joy and work of finding it themselves. She is discussing an example of how delighted children are when they actually go LOOK at the stars. In the example, a child tells her mother all about the stars, in such a fascinating way, and from her direct experience, so that the mother is captivated and decided she would like the study of astronomy. But then Charlotte points out what often passes for “science” in children’s classrooms–instead of walkin about under the stars and looking at them, instead we hand children abstracted lessons in a text and canned “experiments.” We shortchange them. Not that they should NEVER look at a text–but that they should FIRST have that experience of walking under the stars and learning about them in that way before getting to “light and heat” in a text.
As an example of the type of experiment she means, I recently had an interesting experience. My 12yo wanted to go to the Iowa Science Center for his birthday, so we took him. One of the many programs he saw was a short presentation on electricity. The nice young lady that was DOING the presentation told us lots of facts, but then did “gee-whiz” type things like making static electricity and using a Van de Graeff generator to make “lightning” and things like that. Now, this was actually cool for a preteen boy–my son LOVED it. But he loved it really mostly as entertainment. To him it wasn’t really an experiment. Not a lot of real learning took place. It was “gee-whiz”, “tricks of white magic.” “Demonstrations” often are. And at the time, many science classes were taught by “demonstrations” by the teacher, followed by reading in a text—and that was it. Charlotte wanted children to EXPERIENCE the natural world, take it in with their senses and imagination, then later move on to doing REAL experiments–the kind where you wonder what will happen if you mix x and y, so you formulate a hypothesis and then actually, yourself, MIX x and y. That is learning. As an example of this–the same day at the science center, we also went to a show in the little planetarium on “Iowa’s Night Sky.” We sat down under this dome in the dark and the presenter projected a star map onto it so we could see. But instantly my 12yo was whispering to me “Oh, mom, look, there’s Venus, and you really can’t see this constellation very well at our house because it’s too bright, but I saw it one night-there it is, isn’t that cool, next time it’s really dark maybe I can show it to you, OH LOOK There’s the North Star, did you know that to find the North Star you . . . ” He was excitedly telling me all of this before the presenter started talking–and it all came from his own experience. He could never have gotten all that from a dry text. It was his very own knowledge, that he had gained himself, and he didn’t really need the artificial star chart up on the ceiling except as a way to show me what he knew. (Sadly, I don’t always go out with him at night when he looks at stars.)
Charlotte is saying—texts and demonstrations are NO SUBSTITUTE for real knowledge and ideas, gained by a child through his own experience and senses.
