I’m a part of our school’s new Kindergarten/Grade 1 Calm, Alert, and Learning Book Club. As I’ve blogged about many times before, Stuart Shanker‘s book has transformed my teaching practices probably more than any other professional resource. I just started Foundations 4 through The MEHRIT Centre, and coupled with Calm, Alert, and Learning, I think that these self-regulation courses are giving me a better understanding of Self-Reg and the importance for overall student success. I share all of this because while I was eager to participate in our Book Club, I wasn’t sure how much value I’d get re-reading the book (I’m not a person that usually likes to re-read books anyway). I was wrong though. I realize now how much I missed the first time, and how my new learning helps me better understand Shanker’s book.

This morning, I was reading Chapter 3 on The Cognitive Domain, and I re-read the spotlight article on The Cognitive Value of Play (pages 49-50). When I last read Shanker’s book, I was teaching Grade 5, and while “play” had its place in the classroom, I think that we were more focused on inquiry-based learning versus play-based learning. Now I’m a Kindergarten teacher that runs a very play-based program, and I really connected with this article. I don’t think that I ever realized what role self-regulation plays in “play.” As children socialize and collaborate with each other (as they do during authentic play), they really need to self-regulate in order to maintain this play (page 49).

But what about those students that struggle with self-regulation and with this open-ended play? I always thought that scaffolding was the solution. Reading this article again today though, makes me wonder. As Shanker mentions, it’s often these students that struggle the most that need, and would benefit from, this play the most (page 50). Maybe then, instead of restricting where the children can play and what they can do, we — as the adults — need to be there to step in, ask the questions that can help the students think of ways to down regulate, and when needed, model some problem solving options that children can later use independently.

I keep thinking about what this looks like in a classroom environment. With many students, and possibly many needs, sometimes it’s easier to provide the options for the children. Sometimes it’s easier to work in the scaffolding even before problems occur to help avoid them in the first place. Sometimes it’s easier to punish (i.e., This child is grabbing away all of the action figures and throwing them around the carpet, so he/she needs to move to another area to play alone.). Is easier always better? In the long run, will the easier method result in a growing level of independence? Will the easier method result in positive changes for the child? I’m not so sure that it will … and this is kind of an “uncomfortable” discovery, as it’s making me re-think how I’ve approached play in the classroom.

• I am the teacher that has a child move when there is a problem.
• I am the teacher that provides options for children that seem to struggle with more open-ended choices.
• I am the teacher that will make a choice for a child if a child can’t seem to make one on his/her own.

Maybe though, I need to become the teacher that follows the unsure child until he/she makes a choice. Then I need to become the teacher that inserts myself into the play when a major problem arises, and uses different questions and modelling to help the child problem solve and remain in this play situation instead of automatically moving to another one. 

I wonder how this might work if more than one problem presents itself at a time. I wonder if there is a need for some small group mini-lessons on problem solving and self-regulation for those students that seem to struggle the most. Is it better to learn in context, or is it better to learn first and apply later? Maybe the answer to this changes depending on the child and the classroom dynamic. I just keep thinking back to tweets and blog posts that I’ve seen before about the “benefit of the struggle.” If this is true in an academic situation, is it also true in a social situation? It seems as though more and more educators are encouraging children to try, fail, and try again in all subject areas. Why can’t this also be true for the Learning Skills? What do you think?

Aviva