Why the 'obsession' with imagination in primary boys??

[erebus]

Just struck me today- why is it that the 'things' that seem to glean DS2 (9.5, Y5) the highest 'point score' in Literacy is imagination, or perhaps the committing of that to paper?

Oh, the work we do on simile, metaphor; Spouting eloquent about how everything is like everything else, then bingo, level 5 in KS2.

I am not a huge agitator against 'girl focused' education (my boys are not alpha!) but on the other hand, could our professors of chemistry or nuclear physicists, our structural engineers, our software designers, our surgeons necessarily wax florid over how things are like other things? Wouldn't they bulletin point their observations?

Do boys (or those with a more male-oriented outlook) look as things as being as they are? The 'is-ness' of things, the solidity of their existence; whereas female-oriented outlooks look at what The Thing means.

I am not suggesting either approach should be dominant over the other, both have their place but I haven't yet seen evidence that the DCs (read:boys) who could distil a tract of prose into 5 bulletin points, concise and accurate, get any 'points' whatsoever. At KS2.

If you don't have an imagination then please don't try to become an engineer or scientist!

Sorry but technical subjects need a good imagination.

BTW my son had no problem with this, my daughter's who tend to over think (wondering what you want) have struggled.

Hmm. Try being a physicist without an imagination!

A wise man once said ?Knowledge is limited; but imagination encircles the world? ... his name Albert Einstein

Well then maybe they'll get a level 3 or 4 at KS2?

Not everyone can be tops at everything - I expect they are really good at maths and any logical subjects?

They may develop more creatively as they get older, or not as the case may be. It's not the end of the world if they don't.

An imaginatiive brain is an empathetic brain, a brain that is good at conversation, expanding ideas, etc

A fact based brain is a computer ,in essence

I know what kind of skills I want my son to have (and he finds it VERY difficult)

Things like simile, metaphor and comparison can be very logical. In fact, analogy is at the heart of understanding a lot of science so even a scientist needs to grasp the concept of metaphor (atoms aren't really made up of little balls floating round in circles!).

Equality for the sexes?

Why can't boys write imaginatively? I can think of some amazing male writers. My son for one. And girls can be fantastic logical mathematicians

Are you in 2011?

The sexes can be equal but different, you know.

"The golden, shimmering butterfly floated high, gossamer wings a blur, over the meadow strew with star like flowers"

"A butterfly, genus 'ornithoptera', a species noted for its rapid wing movement gained altitude as it flew out over a field populated with Asteraceae, a flwer noted for its stellate form"

Don't they both say the same thing? Except one is poetic, one is scientific.

Which do you think would score 'points' based on our current system?

'Try being a physicist without an imagination'- mm. DH is one, a good and well-paid one. In a R&D lab of a major international company. Totally devoid of imagination, the lot of them. You should sit through the Xmas party if you want to see what I mean!

A good friend of mine was the commander of a US Navy nuclear sub. Again, the imagination of a brick.

No butterflies on wings of gossamer for them!

Thing is, DS2, in his rambling chats to me, comes up with all sorts of off beat and weird'n'wonderful ideas, but because he hasn't mastered the 'skill' of waxing lyrical in Literacy, the ability (or the feel for the need) to commit his thoughts to paper, he 'fails'.

Sorry I'm a doctoral scientist, and to be honest, you can't get anywhere in science without imagination. It may just not be the kind you value.

I do think our education system is sometimes biased towards girls, usually because it can prefer those who passively do their work to those who have too much energy to sit still. Good teachers however try to over come this.

Now there are also a lot of ASD, or ASD type characters who are attracted to science; and it would be really interesting to know how much those limits to thought processes can hold them back.

However if you don't try to stretch lateral thinking, then children may not develop this high level skill.

BTW your butterfly examples, which one scores most points, depends on where it is written. To be honest the second was not very scientific, as I would have lots of questions about the nitty gritty, a scientist needs to be a good observer, very like a good poet. Which is probably why some people are both. this might interest you

A couple of thoughs spring to mind:

Learning about simile and metaphors is not just about exercising your imaginative faculties: it is also a basic foundation for understanding how other people use linguistic tricks- a very useful preparation for life in modern society! I teach literature in the English department of our local university and I spend a lot of time trying to explain to students that this is not about waxing lyrical but about method and analysis, recognising what you can do with language and what people do with language.

The bullet point approach is right for one type of situation, persuasive writing is right for another. No point trying to become a barrister if you can only deal with bullet points and listing of facts. Last time I checked there were male barristers. I even seem to remember having heard of male poets and novelists. Both types of writing need to be taught. And both are taught.

The fact that a certain type of pupil is going to struggle is hardly a reason to abolish a subject. Otherwise there'd be no maths, because my brother struggled with that. And no PE because my dd can't do that. And I seem to remember feeling I didn't have the right kind of brain for physics.

I have just marked 40 odd English essays and I can see no difference between male and female when it comes to florid language. Not incidentally something we encourage: the style of writing should be right for the genre. Now that is what they should be putting more emphasis on in the schools. Not, have you got a wide range of adjectives, but are these adjectives right for the effect you need to create in this particular situation? It's not about how you like writing, but what the situation demands.

Well I have the opposite problem the other way round, which proves the point that the boy/girl thing is not always so clear cut.

My DS1 has the most vivid imagination, he never sees things as they are but always thinks in metaphors, and he is only 4. He is extremely creative, and in fact so are most men in my family; my brother, my uncles, my father, etc...

But I think a lot of this is cultural and so I am delighted that schools are trying to address this; I think where I come from is a lot more acceptable socially and culturally for a boy to be "creative".

My DD1 is totally non-creative but because she is a girl she is expected to be. Look at the OECD document on the UK and it will say that boys in the UK only excel at Maths and not at creativity, whilst in other countries it is much more of a level playing field; this shows that it is a problem we need to fix.

Well IME most scientists are fairly lyrical about their field of study. Let's face it you couldn't come up with string theory without a healthy imagination.

Dad was a nuclear engineer. He is also a poet.

Don't make divisions where there don't have to be any,.

You can't be a good scientist without imagination, even if it is only imagination within your sphere of study.

My FIL (a physicist) is totally focused on encouraging our children to have IDEAS. If my kids talk to him about their adventures, he is always saying things like "yes, but you can have adventures within your own mind as well, please tell me about those". And he always wants them to look at things deeply and clearly - really, really look - which is something poetry can foster.

As well as being a very geeky physicist who looks like Einstein, he also launched a local Arts festival as he thinks the arts and music are hugely important.

Have you heard some of Stephen Hawking's quotes - I would call them imaginative and poetic:
"God not only plays dice, He also sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen."
"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special. "

I think you are setting up a bit of a false dichotomy assuming it is a choice between poetry or science.

"Do boys (or those with a more male-oriented outlook) look as things as being as they are? The 'is-ness' of things, the solidity of their existence; whereas female-oriented outlooks look at what The Thing means. "

and how are those two things different?
how can you analyse scientific data without being able to look at what they mean ?

all children should be encouraged to use imagination, regardless of gender.
all children need to analyse and construct coherent argument.

"The golden, shimmering butterfly floated high, gossamer wings a blur, over the meadow strew with star like flowers"

"A butterfly, genus 'ornithoptera', a species noted for its rapid wing movement gained altitude as it flew out over a field populated with Asteraceae, a flwer noted for its stellate form"

erebus it is knowing the purpose and audience both would have equal value if used in the right context.

The weird, and sad thing is they do almost no creative writing when they get to secondary. It is almost like they are expected to 'put away childish things' like writing stories and poems.

Children on The NC get too discouraged from using their imagination; the NC is so prescriptive about using X many subclauses and varying sentence length so many times and using these connectives and so many adverbs and so many adjectives (etc.). The pupils don't have energy to try to achieve all that AND be creative.

'Children on The NC get too discouraged from using their imagination; the NC is so prescriptive about using X many subclauses and varying sentence length so many times and using these connectives and so many adverbs and so many adjectives (etc.). The pupils don't have energy to try to achieve all that AND be creative."

That is one of the daftest statements I have ever read. If it is true at the school your children atend, then I would be picketting the Head's office until something is doen about it.

Those two sentences do not at all say the same thing.

And another arf at not needing imagination to be a scientist.

As for boys seeing things the way "they are" and girls seeing some other sort of opposite bullshit - yawn

what is you obsession with bulletin (sic) points anyway?

My head just emailed me this link to a short article
www.sec-ed.co.uk/cgi-bin/go.pl/article/article.html?uid=82885;type_uid=1;section=News
"Sir Ken criticised the focus on what he called a ?hierarchy of subjects? which he said was down to the influences that shaped education in the 19th century.

He pointed to a recent study by IBM of CEOs from across the world which showed that their main concerns were coping with the complexity of business in the 21st century, adapting to change, and creating and promoting a culture of creativity.