The elements are interdependent (links school-family, school, neighborhood, links between learning and students outside of the school, development of common rules and laws).

The child is then a victim of what determines it has little hope in her desire; it is this desire that says default a greater desire. The role of the school is then to create a place so rich that it becomes full of promise; through the cooperative relationship with the group, thanks to the good relationship of the children with the master. Gradually, the child creates and knows that it will lead to something because it happened to him. The child can present his work, bring knowledge. Any creation is then saturated with promise. He no longer needs the desire “all at once”. * Francois Perdrial talking about a movie (?) Who was shot on the “What” school (?) In Riec sur Belon (Philippe Bertrand ??). When you arrive at the school, children do not necessarily pay attention to newcomers, they are very busy working, very involved, it’s serious. Children rejoice. * Create an environment where the child will discover the satisfactions. The ICEM now has 80 years of practice and research in this area, but is not living up to its empirical findings. This would take the theoretical principles of practices, raise the level of theoretical knowledge, invent new forms of transmission of knowledge and know-how. * Marc Chatellier says to grab the crate conceptual tools to analyze what we do and why we do it. We can prove that all children are able to access knowledge, analysis (not a gift). * Desire = essence of man. Desire is opaque, non-programmable, non-rationnalisable, and he is a victim of its determinations. A child can not move on its own bases. His desire can be powerful only within its singularities. M.n: the child becomes the master of his own desire through work, while respecting its singularity. Nicolas Go back to the example of the child who draws a circle. We ask the child to make a personal creation and then allows it to go after his groping. When he knows what to do (improve his creation, turn to go further), it may ask the other students, the teacher who then starts “in the footsteps of the child”: “What you wanted to do? If you tried this, how will you go about it? “The child can then go back to work, he knows what to do and he will continue to experiment and groping. Then it can continue to go back to the teacher or other students, or present his creation to the class: “What do you think? What can he do? How can he improve his creation? “The child is then put into position process. By working so socialemennt we organize access to knowledge in interaction with the teacher, students. In addition, it makes you want to others, although research is ongoing, the group took over the subject (the circle) and there are already sharing knowledge -> Working fermentation of the idea. At the very end, after much trial and error, the child must reach a final production and account of a mathematical concept. This is not only a student performance, a result but also the process to get there. One can have in the class objects of curiosity that will enable the guesswork (Paul’s son cage Bohec The microscope …) * Testimony of a therapeutic education engineer the Nantes CHU working with adults with chronic diseases (taking individual and collective empowerment). 1st time: educational diagnosis, listening to patients (resistance caregivers but bebefice patient) End: assessment of everything that has been said, magic circle, talking stick. * Marc Chatellier said that when he entered for the first time in a Freinet class, he felt that it was magic. Everything that he aspired was implemented. But it’s not magic, it’s possible. * To enter the m.n and to practice it, we can not only from a PRIOR theory and implement it practically. It seems necessary to enter into a personal process, to become his own trainer, groping for, to dare to start and go in search of tracks, incentives … like, go to a class to work, see ICEM film on playing … MN MN is applied to ourselves. The master creates a harsh environment. The m.n, this is not “Now, you do what you want”. Print Add comment
By Claude Beaunis on 17/08/09 – 9:50 In: Grand West Region> GD 44 – Loire-Atlantique Salon report a French conference> Oral Language Training and research> Research Conference Follow Isabelle Delcambre Questions: 1 – Side portability to demonstrate, keep looking on this theme. Research in Mons enlightens and gives important lines of work. Under what conditions is it transferable? Dropping performances. Difficult question. It is a condition of school attendance, condition set by the AI. Question untreatable, since this supports a speech on a proven system. But this means to put in place all the conditions for research, another school with another team. Furthermore, limitations to this unusual experience. One can apply this model. Examples: how was constituted exceptional investment team of the team (the project formed in 1974) Sector NEI’s tenacity for the project to be assembled and mounted the competence of teachers and beliefs These conditions ask the possibility of transferability of experience. Another thing: the educational work mode Freinet system operates. Transfer is to transfer the system. You can not take a few elements. The elements are interdependent (links school-family, school, neighborhood, links between learning and students outside of the school, development of common rules and laws). This interdependence of elements partly explains the success of this teaching with these students. To go further, it is likely that micro-systems can be transferred (what’s new from morning maintenance …), with the risk that we fall into formalism operation. Operation rules to apply, without links to learning, unrelated families with no accountability of students at present. philosophy-joint device to keep. Marcel Thorel: Precautions regarding portability, but we have to up our sleeves. Another view of teachers. Empirical transferability. Researchers have improved intelligibility practices of teachers. You have to be agreed with the authorities around the school (understood as an entire school Freinet). Marcel is less conservative researchers, it think it is quite feasible on condition not to take what is done as a model. Hence the interest to make a correct diagnosis (conditions around, relationships between parents, teachers positioning …). We must therefore make an individual project, do not “like”. This does not stop to exchange with colleagues, taking their ideas. Isabelle Delcambre can do as a researcher, ensure portability. But as a trainer, cautiously, we can innovate in the classroom. 2 – Do what you can with the means we have, even in fragmented classes. Even if we do things one day in the week, this may have an interest, as it is positioned differently. You have to start somewhere. 3 – Pedagogy of oral in our classes, claimed by Francoise, by what we are talking more and otherwise in Here,,,,,,,,,,,,, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
our classrooms. They have a relationship with another of a different nature, but also a different relationship to knowledge. Children learn more things than elsewhere. It is through oral language that we develop the thought and therefore a relation to knowledge also developed. It is difficult to say that the teaching of oral provides access to more knowledge. You should be careful. But we can see that the position is allowed to take the student (building knowledge through mathematical research, desk research …), provides support for the child. They are authors, with an individual and collective responsibility for the construction of knowledge.

Categories: Bllog

Comments are closed.