Blog Post #1 - Nelsen.pdf

 

    I found the Nelsen reading to be extremely interesting. I never considered that having "play" included in curriculum to be so important for a child's learning and literacy growth, but after reading Nelsen's input, I feel like I have been shown a whole new point of view regarding childhood education. In summary, Nelsen is trying to convince the reader that "playful instruction" is necessary for improved childhood development in a classroom setting. "Prescriptive and test-focused literary instruction fails students, especially marginalized ones" (Nelsen, pg. 4). Many of the points he made revolved around the fact that when the curriculum for students is solely test-based, the marginalized students get left behind and that their learning is haltered. These marginalized students who struggle in a test environment may not be lacking learning ability, rather they need an alternative style of teaching. The education system needs to alter its curriculum in order to help all types of children get the same amount of attention and support. For those students that do not do well in the "normal" class-setting, it is easy for them to get passed on by their peers when it comes to placement tests and reading levels. Adding a playful approach to school curriculum (in all age levels) can allow for more opportunities for student innovation in a classroom. 

    Something that I thought about while reading this is how interactive learning was for me in my own early learning experiences. As far as I know, most preschools and kindergarten levels of school are very much "play-oriented" and allow for students to work through problems in their own way. During those years, these children also get a lot of play time and recess for them to take a break from the learning and to allow for them to interact with each other. As Nelsen explains, play like this allows for students to conceptualize ideas better and practice interactions with others. They also learn to establish a set of rules and learn to follow them. I find this quite interesting, because after that preschool and kindergarten phase of learning, these young children are moved up to first grade in which the play is significantly reduced and that these students are now expected to follow the rules of the classroom and a strictly test-and-homework-based curriculum. This alone can be extremely difficult for young kids to adjust to and unfortunately for those struggling to keep up, this transition is permanent and the education system continues to restrict the amount of play and freedom as the children age. 

    I think that Nelsen makes a lot of very strong points regarding why including play in education, even in high school curriculum, will be helpful for the literary progression of students, especially those that have been marginalized and passed on by and left by their peers. He is stressing the idea that a scheduled recess is not enough and that this idea of "playful instruction" must be included into the learning curriculum for his ideas to work (Nelsen, pg. 9). Looking back at my own educational background, I can think of many instances in which I would have appreciated more fun in the classroom. I can also think of multiple peers that would have gained a lot from being granted more space for their own innovation and more freedom to understand the materials in their own way. I feel that the Nelsen reading explains the issues with the education system well and addresses the idea that not all students learn the same. It is the education system's duty to be equally accommodating for all learning styles and all types of students in order to give all the students an equal chance at success.