Spelling and other thoughts (was unschooling questions)
susan Rizzo
Hi, Rachel!
My son (10.5y) has a desire to learn the accepted spelling for words so that his writing will be taken seriously on a message board he posts on frequently. One day, a few months ago, he complained to me that some of the other "posters" on the board were disregarding his messages because of his poor spelling and grammar skills. He asked for help, so I helped him. We went over basic grammar together and also talked about spelling strategies: learning word families, practicing visual memory, phonics, etc. It was all low key and we didn't spend much time on it. Basically, it became important to him, so he worked on it with my encouragement and support. That's how this unschooler handles spelling :- )
My husband cannot remember the standard spelling for most words, and it hasn't held him back from becoming a very successful business person . He is a wiz at mental math, is well-traveled and understands the social customs of many cultures, can turn a piece of wood into furniture, and is a terrific problem solver. He also relies on spell check and, occassionally, his wife's very good spelling ability ;- ) to help him keep his reports and correspondence looking like everyone else's Aren't we all handicapped in some area? Yet, all of us have learned how to cope with our weaknesses: we adapt, seek help, etc.
Of course, it's good to remember that the spelling of words was not "standard" until fairly recent history. The printing press and mass publishing of printed material made having some kind of standard desirable. But let's face it, spelling is arbitrary and evolves along with language. Just pick up a book printed in the early part of the last century, and you are sure to find some words spelled differently from today.
I see a shift taking place as more and more people use their computers for personal communication (instant messaging, chat rooms, message boards, etc) to accepting more relaxed spelling and especially abbreviations of words: Ur 2 much! (Please note: I'm not negating what I shared about my son's experience with internet communication; his spelling was unusual enough to make reading it difficult ; - ) .)
Rachel, here are some questions to ask schools, or anyone who teaches in a forced learning environment, how a particular skill or subject area is taught (we'll use spelling here): Why do you think the way you teach spelling (or any other subject) is effective? How do you know? Is a typical "school" style test a good way to evaluate the effectiveness of your methods?
---Okay, here is what I'm getting at: LOTS of adults who went to school cannot spell well (and there will be lots of adults who un-schooled who won't be able to spell well either), on the other hand, there will be those who WILL be able to spell well. So why do we think that forced, school-style learning is effective forl earning how to spell? (or anything else for that matter!) School-style tests almost always isolate the skill or subject being taught; for example, you write spelling words in "list" format. (But, in real life, I do most of my writing in prose.) When I was a public school teacher 15 years ago, I remember children getting all of their spelling words right on the test and then misspelling the same words when they used them in their writing. The traditional spelling test (and, indeed, most school-style tests) really test nothing more than the student's short-term memory ability. I can remember cramming for a history test in college and scoring an "A", but I can't remember *anything* about that course today. And, yet, I can tell you lots about some things that I learned in my childhood because they truly fascinated me. One of those things I learned was how to spell--but it wasn't because I was taught spelling in school; it was because I was (and still am) utterly fascinated by the written word.
What is learning? I can tell you what it's not: it's not TEACHING.
Learning happens when there is: need, desire, curiosity, or interest.
Teaching happens when there is: fear (a need to control, shape or effect an outcome) or money ---can anyone think of any other reasons that teaching happens?
Learning is personal. Teaching is generic. Learning is process oriented. Teaching is product oriented. Learning is about hope. Teaching is about limits.....(anyone got more ideas here?)
Susan in MA
living and learning with: Seth 10y, Zachary 8y, Amy 5y, and Emmeline 2y
"Just as eating against one's will is injurious to health, so studying without a liking for it spoils the memory, and it retains nothing it takes in." - Leonardo Da Vinci
"My grandmother wanted me to have an education, so she kept me out of school.� - Margaret Mead
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
My son (10.5y) has a desire to learn the accepted spelling for words so that his writing will be taken seriously on a message board he posts on frequently. One day, a few months ago, he complained to me that some of the other "posters" on the board were disregarding his messages because of his poor spelling and grammar skills. He asked for help, so I helped him. We went over basic grammar together and also talked about spelling strategies: learning word families, practicing visual memory, phonics, etc. It was all low key and we didn't spend much time on it. Basically, it became important to him, so he worked on it with my encouragement and support. That's how this unschooler handles spelling :- )
My husband cannot remember the standard spelling for most words, and it hasn't held him back from becoming a very successful business person . He is a wiz at mental math, is well-traveled and understands the social customs of many cultures, can turn a piece of wood into furniture, and is a terrific problem solver. He also relies on spell check and, occassionally, his wife's very good spelling ability ;- ) to help him keep his reports and correspondence looking like everyone else's Aren't we all handicapped in some area? Yet, all of us have learned how to cope with our weaknesses: we adapt, seek help, etc.
Of course, it's good to remember that the spelling of words was not "standard" until fairly recent history. The printing press and mass publishing of printed material made having some kind of standard desirable. But let's face it, spelling is arbitrary and evolves along with language. Just pick up a book printed in the early part of the last century, and you are sure to find some words spelled differently from today.
I see a shift taking place as more and more people use their computers for personal communication (instant messaging, chat rooms, message boards, etc) to accepting more relaxed spelling and especially abbreviations of words: Ur 2 much! (Please note: I'm not negating what I shared about my son's experience with internet communication; his spelling was unusual enough to make reading it difficult ; - ) .)
Rachel, here are some questions to ask schools, or anyone who teaches in a forced learning environment, how a particular skill or subject area is taught (we'll use spelling here): Why do you think the way you teach spelling (or any other subject) is effective? How do you know? Is a typical "school" style test a good way to evaluate the effectiveness of your methods?
---Okay, here is what I'm getting at: LOTS of adults who went to school cannot spell well (and there will be lots of adults who un-schooled who won't be able to spell well either), on the other hand, there will be those who WILL be able to spell well. So why do we think that forced, school-style learning is effective forl earning how to spell? (or anything else for that matter!) School-style tests almost always isolate the skill or subject being taught; for example, you write spelling words in "list" format. (But, in real life, I do most of my writing in prose.) When I was a public school teacher 15 years ago, I remember children getting all of their spelling words right on the test and then misspelling the same words when they used them in their writing. The traditional spelling test (and, indeed, most school-style tests) really test nothing more than the student's short-term memory ability. I can remember cramming for a history test in college and scoring an "A", but I can't remember *anything* about that course today. And, yet, I can tell you lots about some things that I learned in my childhood because they truly fascinated me. One of those things I learned was how to spell--but it wasn't because I was taught spelling in school; it was because I was (and still am) utterly fascinated by the written word.
What is learning? I can tell you what it's not: it's not TEACHING.
Learning happens when there is: need, desire, curiosity, or interest.
Teaching happens when there is: fear (a need to control, shape or effect an outcome) or money ---can anyone think of any other reasons that teaching happens?
Learning is personal. Teaching is generic. Learning is process oriented. Teaching is product oriented. Learning is about hope. Teaching is about limits.....(anyone got more ideas here?)
Susan in MA
living and learning with: Seth 10y, Zachary 8y, Amy 5y, and Emmeline 2y
"Just as eating against one's will is injurious to health, so studying without a liking for it spoils the memory, and it retains nothing it takes in." - Leonardo Da Vinci
"My grandmother wanted me to have an education, so she kept me out of school.� - Margaret Mead
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
-=-Just pick up a book printed in the early part of the last century, and you
are sure to find some words spelled differently from today. -=-
In the 1960's I was taught to spell this: Hallowe'en
And in the 1930's to-day was hyphenated.
Plough has gone to plow in the U.S. I think in the past 70 years or so.
Sandra
are sure to find some words spelled differently from today. -=-
In the 1960's I was taught to spell this: Hallowe'en
And in the 1930's to-day was hyphenated.
Plough has gone to plow in the U.S. I think in the past 70 years or so.
Sandra
Kate Green
>an outcome) or money ---can anyone think of any other reasons that teaching
>Teaching happens when there is: fear (a need to control, shape or effect
happens?
Well as someone who does earn money from teaching perhaps I'm not the best
to comment. But teaching can also happen when there is a genuine love of
what you want to share with others. If you are excited and your
students/audience/kids have a choice in being with you, then teaching can
lead to joyful learning.
Teaching itself is not a bad thing -- forcing someone to sit at your feet
while you share the information and then insisting they repeat it back to
you in an identical manner or be punished is what makes the whole formal
system of teaching and learning so negative.
I have been in classes (both as a teacher and a student) in which the
learning that is taking place is invigorating, exciting, and life changing.
Unfortunately I've also been in classes in which the total opposite is also
true!
I teach many things during each day. From my children to my university
students to my animals. They in return constantly teach me as well. It's a
reciprocal relationship IMO and if respect is shown from both sides is very
rewarding. So I guess I don't see teaching as a negative action in itself.
It's the structure and scaffolding we place around it that often spoils it.
Kate
>Teaching is product oriented. Learning is about hope. Teaching is about
>Learning is personal. Teaching is generic. Learning is process oriented.
limits.....(anyone got more ideas here?)
>without a liking for it spoils the memory, and it retains nothing it takes
>Susan in MA
>living and learning with: Seth 10y, Zachary 8y, Amy 5y, and Emmeline 2y
>
>
>"Just as eating against one's will is injurious to health, so studying
in." - Leonardo Da Vinci
>school.� - Margaret Mead
>
>
>"My grandmother wanted me to have an education, so she kept me out of
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
susan Rizzo
Hi Kate,
You are right, teaching can be good if a person chooses to put himself under the tutelage of another. I have taken many delightful classes where I have enjoyed my teachers very much and have appreciated their enthusiasm and willingness to share what they have learned with others.
The distinctions I drew in my post between teaching and learning were definitely rigid. In positive learning environments (non-coercive) those distinctions are much fuzzier and not as important.
I became a public elementary school teacher because I like children and wanted to help them learn and grow. I wanted to create a positive learning environment and experience for them. I was an enthusiastic teacher. I found that my students were not always enthusiastic learners--and why should they be? They had little (if any) choice in what they were taught.
if you are excited and your
students/audience/kids have a choice in being with you, then teaching
can
lead to joyful learning.
I think that "choice" is the key. My children have teachers for guitar and piano. It is their choice to learn from these people. It's a positive thing. Unfortunately, most school aged children do not have the choice of being or not being under someone's teaching.
I really like what you wrote here:
Teaching itself is not a bad thing -- forcing someone to sit at your
feet
while you share the information and then insisting they repeat it back
to
you in an identical manner or be punished is what makes the whole
formal
system of teaching and learning so negative.
And, this I think, is a universal experience:
I have been in classes (both as a teacher and a student) in which the
learning that is taking place is invigorating, exciting, and life
changing.
Unfortunately I've also been in classes in which the total opposite is
also
true!
I'm not so sure about this:
I teach many things during each day. From my children to my university
students to my animals. They in return constantly teach me as well.
It's a
reciprocal relationship IMO and if respect is shown from both sides is
very
rewarding. So I guess I don't see teaching as a negative action in
itself.
It's the structure and scaffolding we place around it that often spoils
it.
Well now, sharing our lives and experiences together is different from teaching. I learn from my animals and children, and they learn from me, but I'm not sure if we are actually teaching each other. The very idea of teaching --the teacher/student relationship-- is bound in the idea of have and have not, authority/power and submission/passivity, the active and the passive. But, I do agree that teaching and the student/teacher relationship are not necessarily bad. It can be a very positive and rewarding experience to be taught.when you desire to learn in that setting.
So I'm not against teachers or teaching, really. In my post, I just wanted to help Rachel look at learning from a different perspective. I probably sounded a little dogmatic! Sorry .
I enjoyed your response. You made a very important point about the motive of teachers: But teaching can also happen when there is a genuine love of what you want to share with others. I do think that this is what motivates most teachers. I'm sorry if my post made teachers sound like villains. It was truly not my intention to villify them (though re-reading the money / need to control thing that I wrote, I can certainly see how others might think that it was!)
Susan in MA
Kate Green <karegree@...> wrote:
happens?
Well as someone who does earn money from teaching perhaps I'm not the best
to comment. If you are excited and your
students/audience/kids have a choice in being with you, then teaching can
lead to joyful learning.
Teaching itself is not a bad thing -- forcing someone to sit at your feet
while you share the information and then insisting they repeat it back to
you in an identical manner or be punished is what makes the whole formal
system of teaching and learning so negative.
I have been in classes (both as a teacher and a student) in which the
learning that is taking place is invigorating, exciting, and life changing.
Unfortunately I've also been in classes in which the total opposite is also
true!
I teach many things during each day. From my children to my university
students to my animals. They in return constantly teach me as well. It's a
reciprocal relationship IMO and if respect is shown from both sides is very
rewarding. So I guess I don't see teaching as a negative action in itself.
It's the structure and scaffolding we place around it that often spoils it.
Kate
limits.....(anyone got more ideas here?)
in." - Leonardo Da Vinci
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You are right, teaching can be good if a person chooses to put himself under the tutelage of another. I have taken many delightful classes where I have enjoyed my teachers very much and have appreciated their enthusiasm and willingness to share what they have learned with others.
The distinctions I drew in my post between teaching and learning were definitely rigid. In positive learning environments (non-coercive) those distinctions are much fuzzier and not as important.
I became a public elementary school teacher because I like children and wanted to help them learn and grow. I wanted to create a positive learning environment and experience for them. I was an enthusiastic teacher. I found that my students were not always enthusiastic learners--and why should they be? They had little (if any) choice in what they were taught.
if you are excited and your
students/audience/kids have a choice in being with you, then teaching
can
lead to joyful learning.
I think that "choice" is the key. My children have teachers for guitar and piano. It is their choice to learn from these people. It's a positive thing. Unfortunately, most school aged children do not have the choice of being or not being under someone's teaching.
I really like what you wrote here:
Teaching itself is not a bad thing -- forcing someone to sit at your
feet
while you share the information and then insisting they repeat it back
to
you in an identical manner or be punished is what makes the whole
formal
system of teaching and learning so negative.
And, this I think, is a universal experience:
I have been in classes (both as a teacher and a student) in which the
learning that is taking place is invigorating, exciting, and life
changing.
Unfortunately I've also been in classes in which the total opposite is
also
true!
I'm not so sure about this:
I teach many things during each day. From my children to my university
students to my animals. They in return constantly teach me as well.
It's a
reciprocal relationship IMO and if respect is shown from both sides is
very
rewarding. So I guess I don't see teaching as a negative action in
itself.
It's the structure and scaffolding we place around it that often spoils
it.
Well now, sharing our lives and experiences together is different from teaching. I learn from my animals and children, and they learn from me, but I'm not sure if we are actually teaching each other. The very idea of teaching --the teacher/student relationship-- is bound in the idea of have and have not, authority/power and submission/passivity, the active and the passive. But, I do agree that teaching and the student/teacher relationship are not necessarily bad. It can be a very positive and rewarding experience to be taught.when you desire to learn in that setting.
So I'm not against teachers or teaching, really. In my post, I just wanted to help Rachel look at learning from a different perspective. I probably sounded a little dogmatic! Sorry .
I enjoyed your response. You made a very important point about the motive of teachers: But teaching can also happen when there is a genuine love of what you want to share with others. I do think that this is what motivates most teachers. I'm sorry if my post made teachers sound like villains. It was truly not my intention to villify them (though re-reading the money / need to control thing that I wrote, I can certainly see how others might think that it was!)
Susan in MA
Kate Green <karegree@...> wrote:
>an outcome) or money ---can anyone think of any other reasons that teaching
>Teaching happens when there is: fear (a need to control, shape or effect
happens?
Well as someone who does earn money from teaching perhaps I'm not the best
to comment. If you are excited and your
students/audience/kids have a choice in being with you, then teaching can
lead to joyful learning.
Teaching itself is not a bad thing -- forcing someone to sit at your feet
while you share the information and then insisting they repeat it back to
you in an identical manner or be punished is what makes the whole formal
system of teaching and learning so negative.
I have been in classes (both as a teacher and a student) in which the
learning that is taking place is invigorating, exciting, and life changing.
Unfortunately I've also been in classes in which the total opposite is also
true!
I teach many things during each day. From my children to my university
students to my animals. They in return constantly teach me as well. It's a
reciprocal relationship IMO and if respect is shown from both sides is very
rewarding. So I guess I don't see teaching as a negative action in itself.
It's the structure and scaffolding we place around it that often spoils it.
Kate
>Teaching is product oriented. Learning is about hope. Teaching is about
>Learning is personal. Teaching is generic. Learning is process oriented.
limits.....(anyone got more ideas here?)
>without a liking for it spoils the memory, and it retains nothing it takes
>Susan in MA
>living and learning with: Seth 10y, Zachary 8y, Amy 5y, and Emmeline 2y
>
>
>"Just as eating against one's will is injurious to health, so studying
in." - Leonardo Da Vinci
>school.� - Margaret Mead
>
>
>"My grandmother wanted me to have an education, so she kept me out of
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/5/03 6:15:09 AM, karegree@... writes:
<< So I guess I don't see teaching as a negative action in itself.
It's the structure and scaffolding we place around it that often spoils it. >>
I don't either, but unless someone CAN learn to live with a person without
teaching, unschooling won't work with their kids.
And even in paid-to-teach situations, if the "teacher" thinks of it as
facilitating the learning of others, it puts the focus on them (whether they're
getting it, whether it's engaging them, whether it's understandable, whether they
need a break) instead of on the teacher (is my hour up? did I leave anything
out?).
I don't suck as a teacher, but I had to learn to turn that off to let my kids
take a year to discover something I could have explained to them in ten
minutes, for the benefit of the other connections they will make and the confidence
they will have from having developed their minds in their own minds' way.
And that ten minutes often still comes, it's just now when I first thought of
the topic, it's when they've finally synthesized enough of a theory or question
to say, "It seems to me that these things work this way..." and THEN I get to
do my jazzy dance. <g>
There's a Kilgore Trout story. . .
"A flying saucer creature named Zog arrived on Earth to explain how wars
could be prevented and how cancer could be cured. He brought the information from
Margo, a planet where the natives conversed by means of farts and tap dancing.
"Zog landed at night in Connecticut. He had no sooner touched down than he
saw a house on fire. He rushed into the house, farting and tap dancing, warning
the people about the terrible danger they were in. The head of the house
brained Zog with a golf club."
(Kurt Vonnegutt, Breakfast of Champions, page 58 in the edition I have)
If nobody's listening, there's no communication happening,
and so if nobody's learning, nobody's teaching.
That's why I keep reminding people how important it is to know how NOT to
teach, because teaching feels good when it DOES work, and some people get stuck
wanting to do that all the time, but it won't work all the time, and at its
worst can do some damage.
Sandra
<< So I guess I don't see teaching as a negative action in itself.
It's the structure and scaffolding we place around it that often spoils it. >>
I don't either, but unless someone CAN learn to live with a person without
teaching, unschooling won't work with their kids.
And even in paid-to-teach situations, if the "teacher" thinks of it as
facilitating the learning of others, it puts the focus on them (whether they're
getting it, whether it's engaging them, whether it's understandable, whether they
need a break) instead of on the teacher (is my hour up? did I leave anything
out?).
I don't suck as a teacher, but I had to learn to turn that off to let my kids
take a year to discover something I could have explained to them in ten
minutes, for the benefit of the other connections they will make and the confidence
they will have from having developed their minds in their own minds' way.
And that ten minutes often still comes, it's just now when I first thought of
the topic, it's when they've finally synthesized enough of a theory or question
to say, "It seems to me that these things work this way..." and THEN I get to
do my jazzy dance. <g>
There's a Kilgore Trout story. . .
"A flying saucer creature named Zog arrived on Earth to explain how wars
could be prevented and how cancer could be cured. He brought the information from
Margo, a planet where the natives conversed by means of farts and tap dancing.
"Zog landed at night in Connecticut. He had no sooner touched down than he
saw a house on fire. He rushed into the house, farting and tap dancing, warning
the people about the terrible danger they were in. The head of the house
brained Zog with a golf club."
(Kurt Vonnegutt, Breakfast of Champions, page 58 in the edition I have)
If nobody's listening, there's no communication happening,
and so if nobody's learning, nobody's teaching.
That's why I keep reminding people how important it is to know how NOT to
teach, because teaching feels good when it DOES work, and some people get stuck
wanting to do that all the time, but it won't work all the time, and at its
worst can do some damage.
Sandra