TalentEd No. 41, Autumn 1993

Kathryn (aged 8) distinguished work and play by saying that some work is not fun, but play is. Patrick (10) said that to play you choose what you do, and it is usually fun. Kathleen (10) said work is necessary, play is free choice. Kathleen said you would 'get sick of playing all day' and Patrick pointed out that if you played all day 'you would not be educated'. Kathleen said that people work 'to earn a living, for education and for early childhood development. Patrick pointed out that some people, such as the fire brigade, work when they 'don't have to'. In reply to 'If you were never going to work, would you have to do lessons?' Kathryn replies 'No - but if I was not sure I'd still do lessons in case'. Kathleen said you would have to do lessons 'if your parents made you '.

Anna (10) said she would like to 'be able to' play all her life but would still work all the same as it would be boring to play all the time. Mark (12) also indicated that he would like to have the choice, but would still work even if it was not necessary. He pointed out that some people work unnecessarily 'for satisfaction, pleasure and greed'. He said with regard to lessons that 'it's good simply to know things'. Jenny (16) said that 'work is a means to an end. Play is an end in itself'. Kate (14) pointed out that lessons 'could be your idea of fun'.

Alex (7) said that a present is 'a toy - something that makes you laugh'. He thought that when we pay for something in a shop we give the shop people a present 'because they can buy things they like'. He thought we have to pay in shops 'because some shops donate to the Red Cross or something'.

Kathleen (10) said that a Christmas card is 'a sign of friendship and eternal love and that people send them to say "I care".' A present is a gift showing 'you gave him/her a thought'. She said that when we buy something we give the shop people a present 'because otherwise how are the shopkeepers going to earn a living'.

I showed Kathleen books of Michelangelo and Paul Klee reproductions. She liked the Michelangelo because they look real and the Paul Klee because 'they stand for something' - pointing out that 'the girls' green eyes are seeing right into the world'.

Kate (14) was sceptical about the interpretation of the pictures and sculptures give by the book's commentary. Kathleen accepted it without question.

The youngest children, aged five to seven, thought they would be the same people if they had different names, but Mark and Raphael (12) said that names affect the whole personality, and also affect the way other people react. In reply to 'Would it matter if people gave you a nasty nickname?' Kathleen (10) said 'It depends on personal feelings'. She said she would prove she was not silly (if someone called her 'a silly jackass') by showing that she is mature. Jenny (16) thought it impossible to prove one is not silly, 'whatever you said, they'd make out that was silly too'. Kathleen would reply to children who called her names by asking them politely not to. Mark and Raphael said they would 'walk away'. In reply to 'would you like to change your name?' Kathleen said she might have to, pointing out that spies use different names. Mark would not like to change his name because he is proud of his father.

I asked to whom a bicycle would belong if a boy sold it for ten cents. Mark and Raphael thought it would belong to the boy who paid the ten cents, but Jenny regarded it as really the property of the parents who bought it. Kate (14) said her bicycle is her property, as she bought it with money she earned (from her parents).

The question 'What is ownership?' evoked some discussion among the older children. We talked about the Aborigines and Australia. Mark said that the people who are in a country make the rules.

Jenny and Kate were indignant on hearing that a twelve-year-old boy had had his name changed by adoptive parents, on the ground that they should not have tried to change the boy himself. Kathleen said she would not mind such a name change 'because I'd still have the same personality'.

All the children said that they 'own' their names, but were unable to explain the nature of this ownership, in view of the fact that different people can have the same name.

The question, 'What is a dingo?' was answered as 'a wild dog' by the youngest children (6 to 8). Kathleen (10) however, explained that it is an Australian native dog, whether wild or not. Peter (11) in another group, gave this definition too. Opinions differed on 'Is it wrong for a dingo to kill sheep?' Kathleen said that 'from a human point of view it is, but it's basically part of survival.' Peter thought it is not wrong 'because the dingo doesn't know it's wrong'. The children thought that animals like being tame if they are well treated. Colin (11) said we tame animals by teaching them not to be frightened of us. Kate (14) said that animals brought up as tame are 'like us - if we're used to discipline we take it for granted'. Jenny (16) said we tame animals by 'always having people around. With pack animals we make ourselves the leader'. She pointed out that dogs can be trained to sit when commanded, but not cats. Patrick (10) said that 'instinct has something to do with it.'

In reply to 'If you own a dog, does the dog own you?' Kathleen said that we do not own a dog 'we only possess their love.' The younger children simply said, 'No' to this question. Kate said that even though a dog knows who his master is this is not ownership. She pointed out that 'That's my school' does not mean that I own the school. She said in reply to 'Does a bird own its nest?' that there are different kinds of ownership, legal, moral and practical. The bird's ownership is, she said, 'practical'. Peter said, 'If you make something, it's yours.' He thought that children belong to their parents 'all the child's life'. Kate and Jenny thought children belong to their parents till they are legally adults.

The youngest children thought it wrong to take eggs from a bird's nest 'because the bird doesn't like it', but that it is all right to take domestic hen's eggs 'because we eat them'. Peter thought it wrong to take any eggs 'because it's killing baby birds'. Jenny and Kate thought that wild birds may not notice if eggs are taken, and that 'they don't feel like us'. Jenny said that chickens (domestic fowls) are 'almost invented by humans'. Kate added that 'they're mass-producing eggs all the time' and pointed out that they are specially fed to produce this result.

I began reading Keeping Henry by Nina Bawden (Puffin, 1989), to the ten and eleven year old group. In this story there is a seven-year-old who swears frequently in imitation of a farm hand with whom he is friendly. The group agreed that there was nothing wrong in the child's using 'bad language' since he did not understand that it is 'bad'. They said that nothing a child does is wrong until he or she has been taught that it is wrong.

All the children answered correctly 'A boy said, "This must be a snake because it doesn't have legs, and snakes don't have legs". Was he right?' Patrick (10) said, 'A fish doesn't have legs and it's not a snake'. They were successful, too, with 'Snakes don't have legs. There are 35 kinds of lizards that don't have legs. If you found a legless reptile with earholes, would it be a snake or a lizard?' I had shown them an Australian Geographic article on legless lizards before we began. They had more difficulty with 'Can we be sure that a reptile without a disposable tail is a snake?' In reply to 'If we know that no snakes are lizards, do we know that no lizards are snakes?' Joseph (8) wrote 'sort of' and explained that, though it follows many people do not know it. Kathleen (10) in another group gave a similar answer, treating the question as being one about people's knowledge: 'Yes. But sometimes people mistake lizards for snakes'.

All replied 'No' to 'Some lizards act like snakes. Are the lizards pretending to be snakes?' but 'Yes' to a similar question about birds which behave as if they are injured. All, including Jenny (16) and Kate (15) asserted that the bird knows it is pretending. I asked Kate and Jenny whether chameleons know they are changing colour. None of us understood how this happens.

To 'Why do birds fly?' Joseph answered 'because they're built that way'. Frances (6) said, 'To get their food'. Kathleen said, 'Why do humans walk?' and Peter (11) explained that birds have developed over millions of years.

Kathleen's answer to 'If we know that some birds can fly and that penguins are birds, do we know from this that penguins can fly?' was 'No. It's like saying because a dog's a kelpie it's a good working dog'.

Peter said that deducing 'No lizards are snakes' from 'No snakes are lizards' is 'a vice-versa'. He gave the same answer to 'If the squirrel looked like great-uncle Henry, did great-uncle Henry look like the squirrel?

Two new six-year-olds did the questions the other children had last week, with similar results, except that Matthew gave an unusual answer to the question on taking eggs from a nest. He said, 'It's all right if it's an experiment'.

 

 

TalentEd No. 42, Winter 1993

Jenny (16) and Kate (15) discussed euthanasia. They thought that people with no hope of recovery who want to die should be allowed to do so, but Jenny opposed the suggestion that defective babies should also be allowed to die. She cited the case of her sister, a very premature baby whose breathing was established only after twenty-one minutes work of the doctor. Fifteen minutes is she told us, the advised maximum, since after that the infant will be seriously brain-damaged. Jenny said the doctor had predicted that her sister would be blind and profoundly retarded. The sister, now eighteen, has recently returned from several months in Japan, and is thinking and dreaming in Japanese.

In reply to 'Do animals work?' Frances (6) said they do 'when they're getting their babies'. Patrick said that animals work on farms. One of the six-year-olds said that animals work to get their food. Several of the children said that dogs play. Kate (15) said that she sees birds playing on the lawn. Jenny suggested that it is difficult to tell whether birds are playing or 'doing courtship things'.

I showed Joseph (8) some art books. I asked him to choose the 'best picture' from a book of Velasquez reproductions. He chose a detail from 'Old woman cooking eggs' - a boy holding a pumpkin. He chose this because 'it's the most real'. I drew Jenny's attention to this picture. She commented 'The boy's ugly - but then some people are ugly'. In a book of Australian paintings Jenny rejected most of the group on their being 'not clear enough', one on the opposite ground, 'it's too clear' (the main figure stood out against a fairly plain background). The one she preferred depicted trees with very definite outline standing out against a distant detailed bright landscape. Jenny had queried my request that she choses the 'best picture' asking me in what way I meant 'best'. Did I, she asked, want her to choose the most realistic, or the one she would prefer to hang in her bedroom. Joseph looked also at a book of Paul Klee reproductions, did not like them (and decided that one of them was 'gross').

Joseph looked at some puzzles on my desk and I indicated that the one he had in his hand was 'difficult, but not impossible'. He replied, 'Nothing is impossible'. His sister, Frances (6), after a pause, commented, 'But some things are impossible.' Joseph explained that he had meant 'Nothing here [among the things displayed] is impossible.'

The children noticed on arrival that the clock in the hall showed 5 p.m. whereas it was in fact four o'clock, and asked why. They worked out that 'we're on Eastern Standard Time' and that the clock was 'fast' because it had not been adjusted. At the end of the lesson Karl (7) commented, looking at my desk clock, 'It goes slower now'. In reply to questions he revealed that he thought the hands take longer to go round when we are on standard time.

A set of questions on town and country proved difficult for the six to eight year old children. The question, 'All Australian capital cities are on the coast. Why?' was answered only by Frances (6) in this group. She said, 'More people come by boat'. She answered 'What would happen if everyone lived in the country?' by 'It would be very crowded'. Alex (7) said 'There would be plenty of room to play.' All those children preferred to country to the town on the ground that town is too crowded. Jenny (16), however expressed a preference for town life because of its convenience for shopping and the likelihood that one's neighbours would be less weird. She gave as an advantage of city life the greater possibility of finding congenial people. Karl (7) said that if everyone lived in towns they would be very rich because they would have shops. Karl is the boy who some months ago said it would not be better if we did not have money 'because I want to be rich'.

The youngest children had trouble with a set of questions on the seasons. They answered that autumn is when the leaves fall, but could not attempt 'Why do seasons happen?' Joseph (8) knew that years happen because the earth goes round the sun. Frances (6) said they happen 'so that people can have birthdays'. Her reply to 'Why do some trees lose their leaves in autumn?' was (correctly) 'Because they're made that way'. This question proved difficult to all the pupils, as did 'Why do birds build their nests in spring?' Colin (10) said that 'these are more insects' and Peter (11) 'So that they will be ready to fly away in winter'. Peter was thinking of the discussion in migrating birds which we had a few weeks ago. The older children knew what season it is in Japan when it is summer in Australia but some who were right with this thought it is summer in England when it is autumn here. They seems to have been confused by the differences in longitude. Colin said that some trees lose leaves in autumn 'because they are deciduous' and Kathleen (10) answered 'Do plants grow more quickly in summer or in winter?' by 'It depends on the species, but mostly in summer'.

The high school girls found most of the 'seasons' questions easy, but had difficulty with why birds build nests in spring, suggesting that it is 'because everything is warm and cheerful'. The question, as usual, provokes longer discussion of related issues with these older girls. They talked about whether there are seasons at the equator, why there are no polar bears in Antarctica or penguins at the north pole, the equinoxes, and differing dates for New Year's Day in different cultures. There was some discussion about northern rooms getting winter sun and about where the sun rises and sets in winter.

The children had a set of questions on feeling and thinking. Joseph (8) said that animals must be able to feel, otherwise they would not feel the electric fence. Plants 'sort of' feel water and sunshine, and put out shoots in spring'. Animals think - they would not otherwise be able to be trained. Plants do not think &emdash; 'they don't move around'. Babies know when they want to be fed and to sleep. In reply to 'How do you know that other people think' he said 'Otherwise you wouldn't be thinking now? He said 'you stop thinking when you die'. I asked if he could stop thinking when alive. 'I doubt it'. I asked whether older people think better than younger ones. His reply was that 'middle-aged people do - not very old people if they get a disease or problems with their brain'.

The girls agreed that older people think better than younger on the ground that they themselves think better now than when they were younger and they expected the improvement to continue. Kate mentioned finding a copy of a letter she wrote some years ago. She wonders now how she could have written anything so silly. Jenny recalled not understanding how traffic lights control traffic - she had thought all traffic travels in one lane. Jenny's answer to 'Can you stop thinking?' was that if we could we would never start again - we couldn't think it was time to do so.

The others were uncertain about these questions. 'Any day in the year could be New Year's Day' caused trouble even for Kate (15). The really difficult item was 'Each new day begins in the Pacific area, at longitude 180 degrees'. Jenny said that each new day begins 'where you are', though she, alone, understood the date line.

I asked how many colours there possibly are in the rainbow. Two children had seen a computer demonstration of over two hundred. Peter (11) said there are only three, since the others are combination of red, yellow and blue. In discussing 'There are seven colours in the rainbow' some of the children had seen a computer treatment of this topic which indicated that more than two hundred can be distinguished. I had discussed the rainbow the previous week with some groups and Jenny had mentioned at home my assertion that the number of colours in the rainbow is infinite. She said that we do not have an infinite number of names for colours, and that only those we name 'exist'.

I gave all the groups a set of questions on relative terms. In response to 'Can you tell by looking at a plant that it is a weed?' Matthew P. (6) said that 'Weeds grow in the wrong place'. Jenny (16) said, 'No. I don't know what the people in charge think of it'. Everyone gave a negative answer to 'If someone tells you, "This is an interesting book" does this tell you that you will be interested in it?' Jenny said, 'No. Someone must have thought Catcher in the Rye is interesting. It's set for the H.S.C'. Three of the children aged ten and eleven said that an old or young person could be 'any age', and one of them gave the same answer to a question on how old an 'old jumper' is. Matthew P. said that a 'new boy' in his class is one who came one or two days ago. Jenny said anyone who joined the class this year is 'new'. Peter (11) said that 'Patrick is a big boy' might indicate Patrick's age, because 'big' in this context sometimes means 'mature'. Peter said that a relative term is 'a comparison to something'. Of the terms 'big, soft, blue, long, wet, tree, intelligent, difficult,' Peter thought that only 'tree' is not relative. Patrick (10) thought that only 'big' and 'long' are relative.

Karl (7) said that weeds are recognisable because 'they are very green', and that we cannot tell by looking at a boy that he is a cousin 'if he's a stranger'. Alex said that a book described as 'interesting' 'could be about something you don't like'. Karl, strongly, said that his 'old jumper' might be seven years old. Alex asked him how old he was seven years ago and had to explain that 'you were a little baby then'.

The children had no difficulty with 'Could there be a person without a name?' as they pointed out that new babies have no names. Most of them thought that a person could not be a different person if he forgot his name, but Jenny suggested that while the name forgetting by itself would not change personality, whatever caused the person to forget it might do so. The children said they can think of things for which they don't know the names. Kathleen (10) said that 'words are just representations'.

The older children were asked, 'Why do people sometimes misunderstand what other people say?' Jenny commented that there is often misunderstanding when a child asks a question in class. This, she said, is because teachers are 'usually distracted' and often the question is about something said five minutes ago whereas the teacher thinks it is about what she has just said. 'And often the child just gives up'. Patrick (10) said there are misunderstandings because words can have different meanings. Kathleen said that 'nationality' can cause misunderstanding. Jenny denied that words can limit our thinking. 'If there is not a word for it you can explain in several words'. Patrick said words do not limit our thinking because 'you could think about something that would never happen'. I think he meant that it is possible to think of something unnamed because non-existent.

In reply to 'Do birds think of new ways of building nests?' Peter (11) said they gradually invent new ways. He pointed out that bower birds now use blue plastic. I asked whether it will always be possible to make up new music, seeing that there are only seven notes in octave. Peter said that we go outside the octave, that there are many octaves, and that there are many sounds not on a piano.

Kathleen said some animals do not see colour. She had experimented with her dog and found he did not distinguish colours. Both said it is 'a matter of personal choice' whether some colours look better together than others, and whether flowers, trees and shapes are beautiful. To 'Is beauty a relative term?' both replied 'Yes.' 'Does "that is beautiful" only mean "I like it"?' Peter wrote, 'Yes' and Kathleen 'usually.'

Kathleen had brought written answers to last week's questions. She was away last week and I had sent her the questions as she is so keen. A 'new' dress is 'something that is new to the beholder of a newly designed or newly made dress.' The ideas that make a new book come from '(Factual) The environment that surrounds the author. (Fiction) The author's imagination.' She wrote that birds do not think of new ways of building a nest. 'The technology of building a nest has been developed over hundreds of years (in a certain series) and takes hundreds of years to change.'

Peter (11) said that we can learn languages 'just for interest'. All the nine to eleven year olds said that animals have language, Kathleen (10) said that babies 'miraculously' have language. All in this group hold that communication of any kind is language. Kathleen, in answering that deaf people can think added that 'even pictures are a language'. Colin (11) said that babies can think, 'you have to think to move'. In reply to 'would it be possible to invent a language?' Peter wrote that Tolkein invented a language for the dwarfs to speak.

Kathleen (10) gave some interesting answers to the week's questions. To 'Nocturnal birds fly silently. Why?' she replied, 'They don't want to attract their carnivorous friends'. To 'All marsupials are mammals. Does this tell us that all marsupials are mammals?' she answered 'No. Mammals are warm-blooded life forms. Marsupials are categorised for their pouch. Humans are mammals, but do they have a pouch?' While the children were working these questions I heard Kathleen explaining to her neighbour that though all sparrows are birds it is not true that all birds are sparrows. In reply to 'Bears love sweet food. The North American bear has a thick coat. How does this help him to get sweet food?' she wrote, 'One of the main forms of sweet food is honey. The American bear uses its coat as protection against disgusted bees'.

 

 

TalentEd No. 43, Spring 1993

In reply to 'Can there be sounds that nobody can hear?' Matthew H. (6) said that animals make sounds we can't hear. Jenny (16) said that 'sound' implies being heard (by a person or an animal). She denied that there could be inaudible sound. Matthew answered 'No' to 'Is there a sound for everything that exists?' I asked for an example and he pointed to one of the toys - a device which illustrates how a hovercraft works but is not itself a hovercraft. The children had no difficulty with 'Could there be a person without a name?' as they pointed out that new babies have no names. Most of them thought that a person could not be a different person if he forgot his name, but Jenny suggested that while the name forgetting by itself would not change personality, whatever caused the person to forget it might do so. The children said they can think of things for which they don't know the names. Kathleen (10) said that 'words are just representations'.

Kate (15), in discussing 'What is sound?' asked, 'Do birds hear sounds differently from us?' To 'Can there be colours that nobody can see?' she replied, 'Birds can see infra-red.' She answered 'If somebody forgot his name, would he be a different person?' by 'Everyone is a different person by the second.' She said that there are 'some emotions which we can think about but cannot name.'

Jenny (16) said that nobody can know everything because 'everything changes, and there is so much of it.' She said that two hydrogen atoms are identical and that they are so simple that they cannot differ. To 'Can you make something that nobody else has made?' Jenny answered 'Yes - a baby.' Kate said, 'Easily. By drawing.' Jenny thought she could tell a story that nobody else has told. Kate said that something original is something not done before 'in this country.' Jenny said that the longer a sentence is the more likely it is that it will not have been said before.

Matthew H. (6) said it is not possible for anyone to know everything because 'we can't know what is in a black hole in space.' He said he could invent things whenever he wanted to, that twins and triplets are exactly the same and that invention means 'making something' and discovering 'finding something.' Alex (7) said that two books can be exactly the same.

I gave the children a set of questions designed to bring out the fact that 'new' things are in fact re-arranged 'old' material. Patrick (10) said that sunlight ('one of the ingredients of plant food') is new. Patrick asked how human beings get re-cycled.

'Are all trees beautiful?' produced negative answers. No bare trees are beautiful. They were doubtful about green trees, but all see beauty in autumn leaves. The boys reacted to 'Are some shapes more beautiful then others' by telling me confidently that shape has nothing to do with being beautiful. Colour is the essential thing.

Kathleen said some animals do not see colour. She had experimented with her dog and found he did not distinguish colours. Both said it is 'a matter of personal choice' whether some colours look better together than others, and whether flowers, trees and shapes are beautiful. To 'Is beauty a relative term?' both replied 'Yes.' 'Does "that is beautiful" only mean "I like it"?' Peter wrote, 'Yes' and Kathleen 'usually.'

Looking at an Australian Geographic magazine, Peter was concerned at finding a map showing a mountain on Heard Island with a height greater he said than Kosciusko. 'How could that be if Kosciusko is Australia's highest point and Heard Island is marked 'Australian' on the map?'

Jenny (16) had a logic problem for me: 'I think, therefore I am. The amoeba can't think. Therefore, the amoeba doesn't exist'.

I gave the children a series of logic questions. The first was: A professor has discovered that wombats have the best developed brain of any marsupial. Does this mean that (a) Wombats are muddle-headed? (b) Some wombats are intelligent? (c) Wombats are more intelligent than kangaroos? (d) Some intelligent animals are wombats? Kathryn (9) asked whether the initial statement 'means that they're intelligent'.

I did the Anno's Hat Tricks (Bodley Head, 1984) problems with the children aged six to eleven. Only the six-year-olds had difficulty with them, and even they understood the reasoning after a short discussion.

All the young philosophers to whom I put the question, 'Is it true that if some horned animals are not cows then some cows are not horned animals?' had difficulty with it. Kate (15) managed it after hesitation, but she could not cope with 'If lightning can be without thunder, thunder can be without lightning'. Such questions, based on the fact that we cannot validly convert propositions of the form 'S is not P' always prove troublesome. The younger children also had difficulty with 'If we know that no Australian trees are deciduous, we know that no deciduous trees are Australian'. There may have been some verbal confusion here, since the correct answer involves saying, in effect 'Yes, they aren't Australian', a construction contrary to common usage.

I showed some of the children 'cave flowers' produced by standing a stone in a lime and white vinegar solution. I asked how we could know they are not plants. Jenny (16) said 'by their cellular structure. Patrick (11) said 'because plants don't usually grow in vinegar'.

The younger children easily dealt with 'The spinifex-hopping mouse lives in central Australia. It lives in burrows up to one metre deep. Why does it make such deep burrows?' though Kate conjectured that 'it might be a very big animal'. There was difficulty with 'Some frogs live in central Australia. How do they protect themselves from the sun?' though the answer is suggested by the mouse question. Kathryn (9) doubted whether frogs can burrow.

I asked the children to name any two things, such as roses and flowers, or cats and dogs. Peter (11) suggested 'birds and rosellas'. I drew the 'bird' circle and asked where 'rosellas' should go. Kathleen (10) suggested 'castles and shacks'. Peter then pointed out that if the only birds were rosellas the circles would be on top of one another.

Kate and Jenny discussed names. Jenny said that people are affected by their names because the names affect the way the people are treated by others. She said that 'Martha' is 'an old person's name', explaining when I challenged the possibility of this, that there are fashions in names and 'Martha' is no longer fashionable. She liked, however, 'Hannah'. Kate said that 'Martha' is 'a servant's name' (she does not know the Biblical story).

I showed Joseph (8) the puzzle about how to get gas, water and electricity into three houses without having the lines cross. This problem is stated in Johnson and Glenn's Topology (John Murray, London, 1964) to be insoluble. Joseph solved it immediately by putting one of the lines under a house. Some years ago a ten-year old pupil produced a similar solution.

I asked Matthew P. (6) who would be right if his older brother said something was easy and he himself said it was hard. Matthew replied that it is usually the other way round. It is Colin, aged ten, who says things are hard. Eventually he decided that both are right. The next question was about its being 'cold' in Fiji at 22ūC and 'hot' in England at 18ūC. Matthew realised then 'it's the same thing again' (as the previous question). He had realised 'hot' and 'difficult' are relative terms.

I asked Peter and Kathleen, both aged eleven, to make up some thinking questions. They immediately produced sets of questions.

Peter's were: What is the difference between long and short? What is up? What is left? Where does everything come from and how is it made? What is life? What is death? What is sound? What is sight?

Kathleen's questions were: How are philosophy and science connected? What is civilisation? Are all atoms the same? Can we touch the sky? What is a story? Is fiction true? Why have we changed from the cavemen to living in houses? Is fire living? (To live you have to reproduce, consume, die, use oxygen. How is fire different?) Why do we live? (My father says 'To do wonderful things'.) Why are there so many religions?

I then gave Jenny questions from Logic in Everyday Life (Zachary Slech, Wordsworth, 1988). All her answers were correct. We then discussed a passage from John Passmore's The Philosophy of Teaching (Duckworth, 1980) on whether it is right for teachers to influence their pupils' feelings about a subject (e.g. by imparting their own enthusiasm) or should they simply impart facts. She agreed with Professor Passmore that it is not only acceptable but desirable that pupils 'catch' interests from teachers.

When one of the six year olds was commenting on 'good' teachers he mentioned a 'nasty' one and added that it was just as well that his brother had not had that teacher. The brother is four years older. He is in fact the less confident of the two. I was interested in his concern for an older sibling.

A new pupil, Daniel (9) sensibly asked whether 'Do people sometimes learn without a teacher?' referred to a trained teacher. Kathryn (9) said teaching is 'showing how to do things' and that a good teacher 'does lots of things with the students'. Daniel said a good teacher 'explains so that others understand'.

 

 

TalentEd No. 44, Summer 1993

Jenny (17) brought Philosophy for Beginners (Richard Osborne, New York, Writers and Readers Publishers, 1992) which her mother bought for her during a recent trip to England. It is a cartoon-illustrated history of philosophy and explains why Jenny was able to tell me a couple of weeks ago that philosophy began with the theory that everything is made of water (Thales).

We discussed the cloning of human embryos and the resulting possibility that people could have identical siblings many years different in age from themselves. Neither Jenny nor Kate (15) thought this desirable.

In reply to 'Should people be punished if they break the law?' Peter (12) said, 'It depends what law.' Colin (10) said 'Yes. Laws are made for people's safety', a view shared by the younger children. Jenny said 'Yes, if they know they are breaking it and have a choice.' She explained that someone might have no choice but to exceed the speed limit if driving away from a bush fire. Kate thought they should be punished as a 'motive to stop others'. Peter said that a punishment is 'the opposite of a privilege.' Jenny said a punishment is not the same as revenge. Revenge, she said, takes place to satisfy someone's feelings. Punishment is 'the accepted consequence of crime.' Kathleen (11) said that if there were no laws 'the balance of human rights in the community would be broken.' Peter said that punishments for adults should depend on whether they have psychological problems. Jenny said no human should be given physical punishment.

In reply to 'What sort of punishments should there be for children?' Joshua (6) said 'Not ride the motor bike' and Matthew P. (6) said, 'Banned from the computer.'

Joseph (8) answered 'What is an unfair punishment?' by 'When you're honest' and Alex (8) by 'They send you to your room.' Joseph explained that it is 'when you say you didn't do it and they still punish you' and Alex 'if they say you hit someone and you only did it very lightly.' He demonstrated the very light hitting. Daniel (9) said there ought to be an eleventh question: 'Should parents be punished?'

Peter was attempting a difficult manipulative puzzle and I tried to help by explaining the principle of the solution. Peter said, 'I think I know the principle. The thing is, can I do it.' He added that he was going to do this, and that he never quits. He succeeded. Daniel (9) commented that the puzzle (removing a spiky object from a cage) is 'like getting a baby out of a high chair.'

Kathryn (10) said that children should obey parents because 'it's not good to disobey', but Kathleen (11) replied 'Not necessarily', pointing out that there are bad parents. Colin (10) said parents should be obeyed since otherwise they 'would be upset'. Daniel (9) said obeying parents is 'the correct thing'. Colin said that adults should obey their parents 'because they love them'. Daniel said they should be respectful to their parents.

To 'Should younger children obey older children?' Kathleen said 'It depends what you mean by obey'. Daniel said 'No - you might be told to do something wrong.' Colin replied 'Yes, if a parent or teacher tells you to.' Kathryn and Daniel thought children should obey teachers to avoid trouble. Kathleen said 'it depends what the order is'. Daniel said teachers should obey principals because 'they could get sacked'.

None of the children thought it right to escape from jail - people are put there 'for a reason'. Kathleen said with reference to escaping from an enemy jail 'It depends who the "enemy" is. Some people think the police are their enemies.' Kathleen thought it might be all right to run away from boarding school if one had been ill-treated there. Colin said it is wrong to run away from boarding school because 'you might get taken away by someone'.

Colin said it is not wrong to disobey bad laws. The bad laws should not be allowed. He cited Robin Hood as justified in disobeying bad laws. Kathleen said that a bad law is one where 'the punishment overweighs the crime'. Kathryn and Colin said that laws imposing 'unfair tax' are bad laws.

Matthew P (6) said that children play games 'to win' and adults 'to try'. In reply to 'What is a game?' he mentioned luck and skill. There can, he thought, be a game without rules, such as 'races'. 'Playing' is not, he said, the same as 'having a game'. 'Just having fun is not playing a game'. A competition is 'trying to win'. Games are not always competition - 'swimming'. His answer to 'Should dangerous games be allowed?' was 'Yes. I play Aussie rules in the back yard'.

Kathleen (11) said that children play 'to develop skills' and adults 'for entertainment'. Play is 'an activity mental or physical'. She commented that the type of games played depends on the players' 'image' and added that when her brother had 'just started school' he came home and played a game of drinking beer. People compete 'because it's human nature' and 'because they're good at competing'.

Daniel (9) and Colin (10) thought people should be allowed to play dangerous games if they choose to take the risk. Joseph (8) and Alex (8) were emphatic that dangerous games should not be allowed. Kathleen said 'It depends what the game is. It could be with guns'.

In reply to 'Which things that you can see from here would exist if there were still only Aborigines in Australia?' Daniel (8) mentioned the Aboriginal painting hanging in the room. Matthew (6) and Joshua (6) said 'Sky'. Jenny (6) said 'Air, mountains, sun'.

Joseph (9) said that people give Christmas presents 'to be nice to each other'. He had difficulty with 'What is a present?' 'A gift - it's usually gift-wrapped - That's a hard question. You know what it is but you can't exactly explain'. (I think the problem here for children is to distinguish a 'present' as given for a birthday or Christmas, from other things they are given, such as clothes.) Joseph said that a toy is 'something you play with' but a kitten is not a toy. 'You can't use an animal as a toy'. He said adults sometimes have toys, mentioning a model glider that belongs to an adult neighbour. He said that a book is sometimes a toy. 'It's a toy to a baby'.

Colin (10) said that people give Christmas presents to others 'because they think it will make them happy'. Peter (12) said it is 'to celebrate when Jesus died to free us from sin'. Kathleen's (11) answer was that gifts represent love and worship and are given to 'represent the gifts of the three kings'.

Kathleen and Daniel said that whether a teddy bear is a toy or not 'depends on who's looking at it'. Daniel explained that some teddy bears are kept as ornaments. Daniel said a book can be a toy - 'you can get squeaky books or just ones you read'. Kathleen said a toy is used for play which a child can relate to future life. Colin said that domestic animals play, for instance with cotton balls. Kathleen said that to domestic animals 'everything is a toy'. A new pupil, Beau Kim (4) said that domestic animals play with pom-poms.

Margaret Mackie, Armidale

©TalentEd is located at the School of Education, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.

This page updated: 23 January 2006 Webmaker: Howard Smith. hsmith4@une.edu.au