SmileyPR Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 (edited) Why is this point "Match sets of objects to numerals that represent the number of objects" under "Shape, Space and Measure" and not under "Numbers as Labels and for Counting"? Edited May 24, 2009 by SmileyPR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 UGH the whole thing is ludicrous if you start to pick it apart - why is the one about exploring malleable materials such a later 'step' and not an earlier one - why is the one about understanding that quantity remains the same when split into different ways such an 'easy' step, when it's actually quite a difficult concept. I suppose this one could be about recognising the shape of the numeral, could it? Why isn't there much about creativity in creative development? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catma Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 (edited) possibly because there is a strong thread linked to comparative language in SSM and the difference between sets of objects. Personally I would link it more directly to calculation. But in reality I don't think it makes too much difference - it's all interlinked anyway. Why isn't there much about creativity in creative development? I have to disagree here - it's all about creative thinking and using different media to express your ideas and responses to experiences. If that's not creative development I'm not sure what is!!!! The child with the worst representational skills can still be the most creative child. Cx Edited May 24, 2009 by catma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 (edited) Yes, I take your point, but it always seems to be sadly lacking in basic levels - there's not as much 'meat' in it as I'd like. When held alongside the other 5 areas it's almost as if they got bored and said 'oh it'll do' I believe that Creative Development is a very important area of learning and it just doesn't seem to be given the same importance as the others, that's all. What there is is good, but there could be SUCH a lot more, is what I'm meaning. Ok just been to count my 'stepping stones' In PSED there are 78 in CLL there are 96 in PRSN there are 82 in KUW there are 73 in PD there are 65 and in CD there are only 58 Edited May 24, 2009 by Cait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyMaz Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 What there is is good, but there could be SUCH a lot more, is what I'm meaning At the risk of hijacking this thread which is about PSRN, what else would you put in Cait? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyMaz Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 Why is this point "Match sets of objects to numerals that represent the number of objects" under "Shape, Space and Measure" and not under "Numbers as Labels and for Counting"? I suspect human error is at the root of this one - I can't really understand why either, SmileyPR. Hats off to you for noticing! Maz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kittycat1279 Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 (edited) On the subject of creative development - can anyone explain this statement? "Use ideas involving fitting, overlapping, in, out, enclosure, grids and sun-like shapes." We never know what it exactly means - the fitting, overlapping, in, out bit is fine but the rest we're just not that sure about. What are sun-like shapes? circles? Edited May 24, 2009 by SP61HJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 "Understand the concept of a word" sounds like something out of a psychology textbook! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Does the sun-like circles thing mean - they can use cogs?? Makes me feel like i've not got very far on my stepping stones.. durr..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacquieL Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 On the subject of creative development - can anyone explain this statement? "Use ideas involving fitting, overlapping, in, out, enclosure, grids and sun-like shapes." We never know what it exactly means - the fitting, overlapping, in, out bit is fine but the rest we're just not that sure about. What are sun-like shapes? circles? I think, but don't quote me...that enclosures are about the enclosing of space. In drawing the first scribbles will have developed from lines into joined up random shapes or ovals, circles etc. this would transfer to 3D work where they would be making bricks into circles. squares, and model making with insides and outsides. etc. Sun like shapes would be just that, those circles with bits coming off which might represent people, trees, animals, features and of course the sun! Grids are as described, creative activiites based on squares and rectangles or something with intersecting lines and would probably involve simple pattern making of some sort in 2D or 3D. I think Jasper Johns uses grid-like shapes in some of his work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 "Understand the concept of a word" sounds like something out of a psychology textbook! Absolutely crucial though for the development of reading and writing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kittycat1279 Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 What annoys me though is that it makes things more complicated by using such bizarre statements. A document such as the EYFS should be able to picked up by anyone and the statements should be able to be understood. What is interesting is that the bizarre statements are often the one's that there appears to be no clarification for. Could the people who wrote not understand the statements either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Absolutely crucial though for the development of reading and writing! Agree 100% - this means able to recognise the difference between a word, a phoneme, a picture etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catma Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 But as a developmental framework it is describing the typical behaviours of children at different points gleaned from decades of research, so shouldn't be a mystery! It makes perfect sense to have "children understand the concept of a word" as that is exactly, developmentally, what they do. I can't see it could be any clearer than that? As a professional it's my job to know what that means. Cx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacquieL Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Exactly so catma. We should be understanding, through our professional knowledge and understanding of child development and learning, what these statements mean. Words like 'concept' are our bread and butter as it is a cognitive unit of meaning. So the example of 'enclosure' means a use of space and 'word' is as catma and Susan describe. All professionals have language which enables them to communicate, and this is our language of learning and understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kittycat1279 Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 But as a developmental framework it is describing the typical behaviours of children at different points gleaned from decades of research, so shouldn't be a mystery! It makes perfect sense to have "children understand the concept of a word" as that is exactly, developmentally, what they do. I can't see it could be any clearer than that? As a professional it's my job to know what that means.Cx I don't think anyone has said that they don't understand this particular statement. I do however feel that there are statements like the one I mentioned earlier that are a little bizarre to say the least. As professionals it is indeed our job to know what different statements mean. However as professionals we also have a lot of other things to do and if there are statements that are not clear we spend time discussing the meaning rather than doing things far more important. We are after all trying to do the best for every child and as a reception teacher if there is a statement in the 40-60+ month section that I don't think has been covered because we don't understand it I think that is a concern and we are being professional by asking the question. I also believe that the EYFS should be accessible to all who work with children birth to 5, some have a very good grasp of the English language but others may not but are fantastic with the children, by putting statements in a complex way we are in a way, putting barriers in their way. Sorry for the rant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacquieL Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Isn't this then a matter for training? If we are unable to understand what we are required to identify and support then that means that training is at fault. Taking your example, if we have to support creative development and the development of drawing, painting, and graphics, and this is difficult for some people to comprehend, then something is wrong with the training that is being given. We should understand the developmental stages of children towards representational images. If not then training is not meeting the requirements of the curriculum, or the needs of practitioners and their understanding of child development in this learning area. We should also understand the word 'concept'. We should know why the 'concept' of a 'word' is absolutely crucial to a child's development of literacy. Every profession has it's shared language to enable people to communicate effectively, and this is something that we need to enable us to enter into conversation, without the language getting in the way of the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catma Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 I don't think anyone has said that they don't understand this particular statement. I do however feel that there are statements like the one I mentioned earlier that are a little bizarre to say the least. But that's really my point - personally I don't see them as bizarre! I see them as clear descriptors of what is known about the generally agreed stages of children's cognitive/physical etc etc development. Cx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacquieL Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 This is really interesting and explains the stages of drawing http://k-play.com/pdf/The%20Developmental%20Sta.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kittycat1279 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 This is really interesting and explains the stages of drawing http://k-play.com/pdf/The%20Developmental%20Sta.pdf Thanks for that link - it makes it very clear. I think we were thinking it more complicated than it actually is but that really clarifies things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 This is really interesting and explains the stages of drawing http://k-play.com/pdf/The%20Developmental%20Sta.pdf Thank you Jacquiel - will be useful for staff development. Sunnyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green hippo Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Thanks JacquieL - very interesting, will print out for collegues and family (my little boy (2yo) loves mark-making!) Green Hippo xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upsy Daisy Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I wonder if the problem is that all of these statements are very open to interpretation. We are all trying to work out what the people who wrote these statements were thinking of but perhaps we should just be looking at what they mean to us. I think we all agree that it is impossible to pin a child's learning and development down to such specific detail so perhaps we should just use it to help us look for progress and note it in the way which fits our own concepts. Does that make sense to anyone else? Probably not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacquieL Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 The trouble with that is that we need a common understanding, so that if one person notes that a child can do something then that means the same thing to someone else. That's why it is so important for us to have moderation exercises for training, where we can discuss observations. I think that we are all on a journey to understanding what we do, and sharing ideas and opinions is an important part of our learning. Perhaps we should be recording our own learning journeys. Learning journeys have no end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catma Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 We are all trying to work out what the people who wrote these statements were thinking of but perhaps we should just be looking at what they mean to us. But they didn't just create it - I still hold that it is coming from long received understandings from all the child development research over aeons demonstrating how most children do develop and the cognitive stages they go through in any given area - e.g the paper that JaquieL found (which took me back to my uni days!!)gives a clear overview of how children will typically develop. I don't think it's about what we think they mean really, more us all knowing what developmental stage/feature of that stage they refer to. It was all there long before EYFS after all! Cx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Ok Catma, I'll consider my knuckles well and truly rapped for daring to suggest that some of the stepping stones could be worded a little better or placed in more sensible places. I'll think twice before expressing an opinion on them in future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 A good point, well made Cait - but hopefully we can all feel free to express an opinion or ask a question. Sunnyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyMaz Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 but hopefully we can all feel free to express an opinion or ask a question. Hope so. Otherwise I would miss out on the excellent advice and opinions given by members who are not only more qualified and more knowledgeable than me, but also those whose job role involves supporting groups to come to terms with what the EYFS means in practice, undertaking profile moderation etc. Thanks for helping me with my learning journey, chaps - and what a great question from SmileyPR to start it all off! Maz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kittycat1279 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I wonder if she realised what a debate she would start. I too appreciate differing opinions - it really helps to see things from different points of view based of different experiences, qualifications etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmileyPR Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 Indeed, my purpose was not to create a debate but my surprise on why this statement was put under shapes/space/measures and not under labels/counting, which is more reasonable. Later on they will have to count reliably and write the correct answer, now they are just matching... recognising the numeral. These correspond to label/counting. Sorry if I have caused any inconvenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts