my reflection on the statement that subject-centered approach makes robots out of children

MY REFLECTION ON THE PROPOSITION “SCHOOL THAT ADHERE TO THE SUBJECT-CENTERED APPROACH MAKE ROBOTS OUT OF CHILDREN”

By: Julti K. Madjaruki

I have been puzzled for so many years in my career as secondary school teacher over the issue on child-centered and subject-centered approach to education that has long been occupying broad arguments in education atmosphere. Many hundred years ago in Europe, the naturalist (Jean Jacques Rousseau) and the humanist (Voltaire assumed name of Francois Marie Arouet) reviled each other as the result of their contradicting philosophy. They saw themselves as though locked in war of two conflicting ideals. I imagine that calling someone subject-centered adherent then would have been like coining the term Sunni-Shiite nowadays who is responsible for the thousands of death in Middle East Countries and in the international world. The two sides saw each other as fundamentally and irreconcilably antipathetic. Child-centered has a strong spirit of anti-traditionalism. These two powerful artistic ideals came to represent the two poles of a dividing world.

The line which states that subject-centered approach making robots comes to me like the driving movement of the tectonic plate that have caused thousands of death in Nepal weeks ago and so on.  The cord between the human and the non-human becomes cut, and as much as we might strive to talk about non-human, we cannot escape our own humanity.   With that said, there is a difference between escaping and thinking beyond the human.

This is not the first time I ask this question to myself.  I know a number of answers, and thus it is not a leading question, but I do not recall seeing those answers. Perhaps, good fate dawned in when I enrolled in curriculum development (Ed. 205) and offered the chance to explore deep beneath the philosophy. I felt the heavenly light casted on which lighted my conception of philosophies and how I went astray, puzzled in the middle of choosing whether which I would adhere to blossom my teaching career.

The numerous philosophies in circulation nowadays, a teacher finds it difficult to choose which philosophy would satisfy his principle, the trending one or that which had produced great educators and thinkers in the past. I believe that all teachers have their own philosophy, whether they would take the child-centered approach or the subject-centered approach; that could not be taken away by anyone. In fact, I still find some teachers in my time having faith in the subject centered approach. Though diminishing as it is because they have to stay attuned with the trend of the curriculum.

However on my part, I have changed so much most particularly when I came across the note left by Froebel before his death that states:

 “We grant space and time to young plants and animals because we know that, in accordance with the laws that live in them, they will develop properly and grow well. Young animals and plants are given rest, and arbitrary interference with their growth is avoided,/because it is known that the opposite practice would disturb their pure unfolding and sound development; but, the young human being is looked upon as a piece of wax or a lump of clay which man can mold into what he pleases.”
 

"Children are like tiny flowers: They are varied and need care, but each is beautiful alone and glorious when seen in the community of peers." - Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852)

                                                                                                                          

Speaking of care is so to speak of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Literarily it means to feel affection or love and concern for somebody (thesaurus dictionary). I believe this is already enough to convince everyone to the side that humans need attention and a shoulder that understands. Thanks to Carl Rogers for taking us away from creating robots out of humans. Thanks to what he left us, the child-centered approach. Indeed, somehow robots take the human form in subject-centered approach.

my reflection on the statement that subject-centered approach makes robots out of children

MY REFLECTION ON THE PROPOSITION “SCHOOL THAT ADHERE TO THE SUBJECT-CENTERED APPROACH MAKE ROBOTS OUT OF CHILDREN”

By: Julti K. Madjaruki

I have been puzzled for so many years in my career as secondary school teacher over the issue on child-centered and subject-centered approach to education that has long been occupying broad arguments in education atmosphere. Many hundred years ago in Europe, the naturalist (Jean Jacques Rousseau) and the humanist (Voltaire assumed name of Francois Marie Arouet) reviled each other as the result of their contradicting philosophy. They saw themselves as though locked in war of two conflicting ideals. I imagine that calling someone subject-centered adherent then would have been like coining the term Sunni-Shiite nowadays who is responsible for the thousands of death in Middle East Countries and in the international world. The two sides saw each other as fundamentally and irreconcilably antipathetic. Child-centered has a strong spirit of anti-traditionalism. These two powerful artistic ideals came to represent the two poles of a dividing world.

The line which states that subject-centered approach making robots comes to me like the driving movement of the tectonic plate that have caused thousands of death in Nepal weeks ago and so on.  The cord between the human and the non-human becomes cut, and as much as we might strive to talk about non-human, we cannot escape our own humanity.   With that said, there is a difference between escaping and thinking beyond the human.

This is not the first time I ask this question to myself.  I know a number of answers, and thus it is not a leading question, but I do not recall seeing those answers. Perhaps, good fate dawned in when I enrolled in curriculum development (Ed. 205) and offered the chance to explore deep beneath the philosophy. I felt the heavenly light casted on which lighted my conception of philosophies and how I went astray, puzzled in the middle of choosing whether which I would adhere to blossom my teaching career.

The numerous philosophies in circulation nowadays, a teacher finds it difficult to choose which philosophy would satisfy his principle, the trending one or that which had produced great educators and thinkers in the past. I believe that all teachers have their own philosophy, whether they would take the child-centered approach or the subject-centered approach; that could not be taken away by anyone. In fact, I still find some teachers in my time having faith in the subject centered approach. Though diminishing as it is because they have to stay attuned with the trend of the curriculum.

However on my part, I have changed so much most particularly when I came across the note left by Froebel before his death that states:

 “We grant space and time to young plants and animals because we know that, in accordance with the laws that live in them, they will develop properly and grow well. Young animals and plants are given rest, and arbitrary interference with their growth is avoided,/because it is known that the opposite practice would disturb their pure unfolding and sound development; but, the young human being is looked upon as a piece of wax or a lump of clay which man can mold into what he pleases.”

"Children are like tiny flowers: They are varied and need care, but each is beautiful alone and glorious when seen in the community of peers." - Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852)

                                                                                                                          

Speaking of care is so to speak of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Literarily it means to feel affection or love and concern for somebody (thesaurus dictionary). I believe this is already enough to convince everyone to the side that humans need attention and a shoulder that understands. Thanks to Carl Rogers for taking us away from creating robots out of humans. Thanks to what he left us, the child-centered approach. Indeed, somehow robots take the human form in subject-centered approach.

my reflection on the statement that subject-centered approach makes robots out of children

MY REFLECTION ON THE PROPOSITION “SCHOOL THAT ADHERE TO THE SUBJECT-CENTERED APPROACH MAKE ROBOTS OUT OF CHILDREN”

By: Julti K. Madjaruki

I have been puzzled for so many years in my career as secondary school teacher over the issue on child-centered and subject-centered approach to education that has long been occupying broad arguments in education atmosphere. Many hundred years ago in Europe, the naturalist (Jean Jacques Rousseau) and the humanist (Voltaire assumed name of Francois Marie Arouet) reviled each other as the result of their contradicting philosophy. They saw themselves as though locked in war of two conflicting ideals. I imagine that calling someone subject-centered adherent then would have been like coining the term Sunni-Shiite nowadays who is responsible for the thousands of death in Middle East Countries and in the international world. The two sides saw each other as fundamentally and irreconcilably antipathetic. Child-centered has a strong spirit of anti-traditionalism. These two powerful artistic ideals came to represent the two poles of a dividing world.

The line which states that subject-centered approach making robots comes to me like the driving movement of the tectonic plate that have caused thousands of death in Nepal weeks ago and so on.  The cord between the human and the non-human becomes cut, and as much as we might strive to talk about non-human, we cannot escape our own humanity.   With that said, there is a difference between escaping and thinking beyond the human.

This is not the first time I ask this question to myself.  I know a number of answers, and thus it is not a leading question, but I do not recall seeing those answers. Perhaps, good fate dawned in when I enrolled in curriculum development (Ed. 205) and offered the chance to explore deep beneath the philosophy. I felt the heavenly light casted on which lighted my conception of philosophies and how I went astray, puzzled in the middle of choosing whether which I would adhere to blossom my teaching career.

The numerous philosophies in circulation nowadays, a teacher finds it difficult to choose which philosophy would satisfy his principle, the trending one or that which had produced great educators and thinkers in the past. I believe that all teachers have their own philosophy, whether they would take the child-centered approach or the subject-centered approach; that could not be taken away by anyone. In fact, I still find some teachers in my time having faith in the subject centered approach. Though diminishing as it is because they have to stay attuned with the trend of the curriculum.

However on my part, I have changed so much most particularly when I came across the note left by Froebel before his death that states:

 “We grant space and time to young plants and animals because we know that, in accordance with the laws that live in them, they will develop properly and grow well. Young animals and plants are given rest, and arbitrary interference with their growth is avoided,/because it is known that the opposite practice would disturb their pure unfolding and sound development; but, the young human being is looked upon as a piece of wax or a lump of clay which man can mold into what he pleases.”

"Children are like tiny flowers: They are varied and need care, but each is beautiful alone and glorious when seen in the community of peers." - Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852)

                                                                                                                          

Speaking of care is so to speak of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Literarily it means to feel affection or love and concern for somebody (thesaurus dictionary). I believe this is already enough to convince everyone to the side that humans need attention and a shoulder that understands. Thanks to Carl Rogers for taking us away from creating robots out of humans. Thanks to what he left us, the child-centered approach. Indeed, somehow robots take the human form in subject-centered approach.

my reflection on the statement that subject-centered approach makes robots out of children

MY REFLECTION ON THE PROPOSITION “SCHOOL THAT ADHERE TO THE SUBJECT-CENTERED APPROACH MAKE ROBOTS OUT OF CHILDREN”

By: Julti K. Madjaruki

I have been puzzled for so many years in my career as secondary school teacher over the issue on child-centered and subject-centered approach to education that has long been occupying broad arguments in education atmosphere. Many hundred years ago in Europe, the naturalist (Jean Jacques Rousseau) and the humanist (Voltaire assumed name of Francois Marie Arouet) reviled each other as the result of their contradicting philosophy. They saw themselves as though locked in war of two conflicting ideals. I imagine that calling someone subject-centered adherent then would have been like coining the term Sunni-Shiite nowadays who is responsible for the thousands of death in Middle East Countries and in the international world. The two sides saw each other as fundamentally and irreconcilably antipathetic. Child-centered has a strong spirit of anti-traditionalism. These two powerful artistic ideals came to represent the two poles of a dividing world.

The line which states that subject-centered approach making robots comes to me like the driving movement of the tectonic plate that have caused thousands of death in Nepal weeks ago and so on.  The cord between the human and the non-human becomes cut, and as much as we might strive to talk about non-human, we cannot escape our own humanity.   With that said, there is a difference between escaping and thinking beyond the human.

This is not the first time I ask this question to myself.  I know a number of answers, and thus it is not a leading question, but I do not recall seeing those answers. Perhaps, good fate dawned in when I enrolled in curriculum development (Ed. 205) and offered the chance to explore deep beneath the philosophy. I felt the heavenly light casted on which lighted my conception of philosophies and how I went astray, puzzled in the middle of choosing whether which I would adhere to blossom my teaching career.

The numerous philosophies in circulation nowadays, a teacher finds it difficult to choose which philosophy would satisfy his principle, the trending one or that which had produced great educators and thinkers in the past. I believe that all teachers have their own philosophy, whether they would take the child-centered approach or the subject-centered approach; that could not be taken away by anyone. In fact, I still find some teachers in my time having faith in the subject centered approach. Though diminishing as it is because they have to stay attuned with the trend of the curriculum.

However on my part, I have changed so much most particularly when I came across the note left by Froebel before his death that states:

 “We grant space and time to young plants and animals because we know that, in accordance with the laws that live in them, they will develop properly and grow well. Young animals and plants are given rest, and arbitrary interference with their growth is avoided,/because it is known that the opposite practice would disturb their pure unfolding and sound development; but, the young human being is looked upon as a piece of wax or a lump of clay which man can mold into what he pleases.”

"Children are like tiny flowers: They are varied and need care, but each is beautiful alone and glorious when seen in the community of peers." - Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852)

                                                                                                                          

Speaking of care is so to speak of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Literarily it means to feel affection or love and concern for somebody (thesaurus dictionary). I believe this is already enough to convince everyone to the side that humans need attention and a shoulder that understands. Thanks to Carl Rogers for taking us away from creating robots out of humans. Thanks to what he left us, the child-centered approach. Indeed, somehow robots take the human form in subject-centered approach.