teaching a child to learn?
Sandra Dodd
I don't know who wrote this quote. I found it in a sigline
somewhere. No one needs to claim it or defend it. (Well, if you
want to defend it, go ahead; good luck.)
If you give a child a fish, you feed him for a day.
If you teach a child to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.
But if you teach a child to learn, you feed him for a lifetime
and he doesn't have to just eat fish.
The first part is traditional, and is about not giving handouts to
the poor, but helping them become self-sufficient. (If you give a
man a fish...)
Now as to children, parents SHOULD feed their children.
Never mind those two first lines, though. It's the last part that
concerns me, in an unschooling light.
If a parent thinks she has taught a child to learn, she's taking too
much credit to herself.
If a parent thinks a child has to be taught to learn, unschooling is
going to be a difficult concept to grasp.
For those who understand this, could you try to rephrase me or quote
John Holt or something to help those who wonder what I could possibly
be objecting to?
For my part, I have this to offer:
http://sandradodd.com/teaching/
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
somewhere. No one needs to claim it or defend it. (Well, if you
want to defend it, go ahead; good luck.)
If you give a child a fish, you feed him for a day.
If you teach a child to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.
But if you teach a child to learn, you feed him for a lifetime
and he doesn't have to just eat fish.
The first part is traditional, and is about not giving handouts to
the poor, but helping them become self-sufficient. (If you give a
man a fish...)
Now as to children, parents SHOULD feed their children.
Never mind those two first lines, though. It's the last part that
concerns me, in an unschooling light.
If a parent thinks she has taught a child to learn, she's taking too
much credit to herself.
If a parent thinks a child has to be taught to learn, unschooling is
going to be a difficult concept to grasp.
For those who understand this, could you try to rephrase me or quote
John Holt or something to help those who wonder what I could possibly
be objecting to?
For my part, I have this to offer:
http://sandradodd.com/teaching/
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Vicki Dennis
"Birds fly, Fish swim, Humans learn"
*Teaching* doesn't necessarily come into play...........except to interfere
with learning.
vicki
*Teaching* doesn't necessarily come into play...........except to interfere
with learning.
vicki
On Feb 18, 2008 3:24 PM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> If a parent thinks a child has to be taught to learn, unschooling is
> going to be a difficult concept to grasp.
>
> For those who understand this, could you try to rephrase me or quote
> John Holt or something to help those who wonder what I could possibly
> be objecting to?
>
> For my part, I have this to offer:
> http://sandradodd.com/teaching/
>
> Sandra
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
strawlis
Maybe it should read like this
If a child wants a fish, get him/her one
If a child wants to eat fish...cook him/her one.
If a child wants to go fishing take him/her.
Stock your child's pond well and he/she will be a happy clam.
Kinda fizzles at the end there... Elisabeth
If a child wants a fish, get him/her one
If a child wants to eat fish...cook him/her one.
If a child wants to go fishing take him/her.
Stock your child's pond well and he/she will be a happy clam.
Kinda fizzles at the end there... Elisabeth
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
> I don't know who wrote this quote. I found it in a sigline
> somewhere. No one needs to claim it or defend it. (Well, if you
> want to defend it, go ahead; good luck.)
>
>
> If you give a child a fish, you feed him for a day.
> If you teach a child to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.
> But if you teach a child to learn, you feed him for a lifetime
> and he doesn't have to just eat fish.
>
> The first part is traditional, and is about not giving handouts
to
> the poor, but helping them become self-sufficient. (If you give a
> man a fish...)
>
> Now as to children, parents SHOULD feed their children.
>
> Never mind those two first lines, though. It's the last part that
> concerns me, in an unschooling light.
>
> If a parent thinks she has taught a child to learn, she's taking
too
> much credit to herself.
> If a parent thinks a child has to be taught to learn, unschooling
is
> going to be a difficult concept to grasp.
>
> For those who understand this, could you try to rephrase me or
quote
> John Holt or something to help those who wonder what I could
possibly
> be objecting to?
>
> For my part, I have this to offer:
> http://sandradodd.com/teaching/
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Holly O
If a parent thinks she has taught a child to learn, she's taking too
much credit to herself.
If a parent thinks a child has to be taught to learn, unschooling is
going to be a difficult concept to grasp.
For those who understand this, could you try to rephrase me or quote
John Holt or something to help those who wonder what I could possibly
be objecting to?
I think it's all how one defines "teach" and "learn". If you look at the etymology you find this:
Teach: "Middle English techen to show, instruct, from Old English tæ?can; akin to Old English tacn sign"
from Merriam-Webster Online
Learn: Middle English lernen, from Old English leornian; akin to Old High German lernen to learn, Old English last footprint, Latin lira furrow, track
from Merriam-Webster Online
With regard to teaching: if you take it as a root meaning, "to show", then learning has nothing to do with "teaching as being the cause of learning". Learning and teaching are opposite sides of the coin. They balance each other out. They are one and separate (like the left and right sides of a stick; together they are the stick, you can't take one away.) In the root meaning, we all have the ability to "teach". If my son wants to learn how to tie his shoes I can show him.
With regard to learning: if you take it's root as "furrow", how does one make a furrow? Well, it's done with effort and repetition by oneself. When my son learns how to tie his laces, the learning comes from within himself...all I have done was offer a gift of my own learning, my own know-how. He has to "dig his own furrow" so to speak. When he has tied them himself, then he has "mastered" the technique...he's learned how.
So, yes, "teaching a child to learn" seems absurd in this respect. Learning is a "doing thing", done by the "doer". It's active and done by choice. And we can learn from all sorts of teachers: wind, rain, food, animals, religion, culture, art, our own emotions, experience, etc.
No one can make anyone do anything. I wholeheartedly belive this to be true. However, in our society, I would also say that "forcing one to learn" is true. Learning IS a choice. However, if you are in a very stressful situation, you may choose to learn how to do something at a particular time/place that you would not have if you had other choices. I also think "learning under duress" creates a shallow furrow....that's why most of us forgot what we "learned" all those years ago in our public "learning" institutions.
Holly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
much credit to herself.
If a parent thinks a child has to be taught to learn, unschooling is
going to be a difficult concept to grasp.
For those who understand this, could you try to rephrase me or quote
John Holt or something to help those who wonder what I could possibly
be objecting to?
I think it's all how one defines "teach" and "learn". If you look at the etymology you find this:
Teach: "Middle English techen to show, instruct, from Old English tæ?can; akin to Old English tacn sign"
from Merriam-Webster Online
Learn: Middle English lernen, from Old English leornian; akin to Old High German lernen to learn, Old English last footprint, Latin lira furrow, track
from Merriam-Webster Online
With regard to teaching: if you take it as a root meaning, "to show", then learning has nothing to do with "teaching as being the cause of learning". Learning and teaching are opposite sides of the coin. They balance each other out. They are one and separate (like the left and right sides of a stick; together they are the stick, you can't take one away.) In the root meaning, we all have the ability to "teach". If my son wants to learn how to tie his shoes I can show him.
With regard to learning: if you take it's root as "furrow", how does one make a furrow? Well, it's done with effort and repetition by oneself. When my son learns how to tie his laces, the learning comes from within himself...all I have done was offer a gift of my own learning, my own know-how. He has to "dig his own furrow" so to speak. When he has tied them himself, then he has "mastered" the technique...he's learned how.
So, yes, "teaching a child to learn" seems absurd in this respect. Learning is a "doing thing", done by the "doer". It's active and done by choice. And we can learn from all sorts of teachers: wind, rain, food, animals, religion, culture, art, our own emotions, experience, etc.
No one can make anyone do anything. I wholeheartedly belive this to be true. However, in our society, I would also say that "forcing one to learn" is true. Learning IS a choice. However, if you are in a very stressful situation, you may choose to learn how to do something at a particular time/place that you would not have if you had other choices. I also think "learning under duress" creates a shallow furrow....that's why most of us forgot what we "learned" all those years ago in our public "learning" institutions.
Holly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Learning and teaching are opposite sides of the coin. They balance
each other out. They are one and separate-=-
People can learn without a teacher, and people can "teach" without
anyone learning. People can think they're teaching. They can go
through the motions and collect a paycheck, or they can demonstrate
and explain (and piss off their target learner) without any learning
taking place (except that learner learning to avoid that "teacher").
-=-With regard to learning: if you take it's root as "furrow", how
does one make a furrow? Well, it's done with effort and repetition by
oneself. -=-
A furrow is usually made in one pass of a plow. A tractor can make
several furrows at the same time. Not a good analogy, and doesn't
take repetition.
-=-And we can learn from all sorts of teachers: wind, rain, food,
animals, religion, culture, art, our own emotions, experience, etc.-=-
Why does that make them teachers?
Just because I learn from art doesn't mean art was my teacher.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
each other out. They are one and separate-=-
People can learn without a teacher, and people can "teach" without
anyone learning. People can think they're teaching. They can go
through the motions and collect a paycheck, or they can demonstrate
and explain (and piss off their target learner) without any learning
taking place (except that learner learning to avoid that "teacher").
-=-With regard to learning: if you take it's root as "furrow", how
does one make a furrow? Well, it's done with effort and repetition by
oneself. -=-
A furrow is usually made in one pass of a plow. A tractor can make
several furrows at the same time. Not a good analogy, and doesn't
take repetition.
-=-And we can learn from all sorts of teachers: wind, rain, food,
animals, religion, culture, art, our own emotions, experience, etc.-=-
Why does that make them teachers?
Just because I learn from art doesn't mean art was my teacher.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Holly O
"People can learn without a teacher, and people can "teach" without
anyone learning. People can think they're teaching. They can go
through the motions and collect a paycheck, or they can demonstrate
and explain (and piss off their target learner) without any learning
taking place (except that learner learning to avoid that "teacher")."
First, let me thank you for this opportunity.
I would agree that one can teach without anyone learning, however, I would not agree that one can learn without a teacher. My point is that "Teach", as in "to show", is always right in front of us. We can choose to learn, to know cause and effect, to discern "what is" if we chose to do so. This definition/point of view is not antagonistic or limited; it's meant to be open and holistic. And, if you can "demonstrate and explain", then I would say one has learned....regardless of your feelings or the other person's emotional response.
"A furrow is usually made in one pass of a plow. A tractor can make
several furrows at the same time. Not a good analogy, and doesn't
take repetition."
A furrow, throughout history, and even today does take a great deal of effort. It depends on how far you look. If you where able to own an oxen or horse there is effort in the care and training of the animal. From what I have read in agricultural literature, plowing a field with an oxen or horse is not an easy endeavor. Even today, if a furrow is dug by a tractor, it has taken a great deal of time and energy, resources to produce that tractor and maybe even to buy it. Effort is there. If you ever have the opportunity to plow a field with a tractor you may find it takes some skill.
"-=-And we can learn from all sorts of teachers: wind, rain, food,
animals, religion, culture, art, our own emotions, experience, etc.-=-
Why does that make them teachers?
Just because I learn from art doesn't mean art was my teacher."
Again, I mean it from the perspective that "teach" is "to show". Everything, the whole universe is here and now, it's all right in front of you. One can choose to see how things are or one can choose not to. If I spit in the wind, the wind "shows/ has taught me" what happens. Show/teach is not necessarily a force directed at someone, it's what is. As per your example, art is in front of you, it's an experience. You can choose to glean something from it or not. As another example, if I learn how to pollinate my squash by watching the bees, I would say, with gratitude, that the bees are my teacher. If the art or the bees weren't there for me to see/experience I wouldn't have learned from them.
One can teach/show another anything in a forceful, negative way. If so, then that is your way. It doesn't make the teaching, the showing itself negative...it's the intent, the person who is expressing negativity - the showing is the same. Either Hitler of Mother Theresa could have shown a child how to tie a shoe. The process/mechanics are the same (give or take differences in technique) - it's the intent that may be different. They are both showing/teaching.
Art is not a being of free will. It cannot actively direct itself at you....however, it can teach/show you many things about history, other peoples customs or yourself. Humans and other sentient beings, however, can choose to teach/show with intention and with and out of love (or out of the desire to control). Teaching/showing can be a gift from one to another. A gift is freely given and acceptance is a choice.
Namaste,
Holly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
anyone learning. People can think they're teaching. They can go
through the motions and collect a paycheck, or they can demonstrate
and explain (and piss off their target learner) without any learning
taking place (except that learner learning to avoid that "teacher")."
First, let me thank you for this opportunity.
I would agree that one can teach without anyone learning, however, I would not agree that one can learn without a teacher. My point is that "Teach", as in "to show", is always right in front of us. We can choose to learn, to know cause and effect, to discern "what is" if we chose to do so. This definition/point of view is not antagonistic or limited; it's meant to be open and holistic. And, if you can "demonstrate and explain", then I would say one has learned....regardless of your feelings or the other person's emotional response.
"A furrow is usually made in one pass of a plow. A tractor can make
several furrows at the same time. Not a good analogy, and doesn't
take repetition."
A furrow, throughout history, and even today does take a great deal of effort. It depends on how far you look. If you where able to own an oxen or horse there is effort in the care and training of the animal. From what I have read in agricultural literature, plowing a field with an oxen or horse is not an easy endeavor. Even today, if a furrow is dug by a tractor, it has taken a great deal of time and energy, resources to produce that tractor and maybe even to buy it. Effort is there. If you ever have the opportunity to plow a field with a tractor you may find it takes some skill.
"-=-And we can learn from all sorts of teachers: wind, rain, food,
animals, religion, culture, art, our own emotions, experience, etc.-=-
Why does that make them teachers?
Just because I learn from art doesn't mean art was my teacher."
Again, I mean it from the perspective that "teach" is "to show". Everything, the whole universe is here and now, it's all right in front of you. One can choose to see how things are or one can choose not to. If I spit in the wind, the wind "shows/ has taught me" what happens. Show/teach is not necessarily a force directed at someone, it's what is. As per your example, art is in front of you, it's an experience. You can choose to glean something from it or not. As another example, if I learn how to pollinate my squash by watching the bees, I would say, with gratitude, that the bees are my teacher. If the art or the bees weren't there for me to see/experience I wouldn't have learned from them.
One can teach/show another anything in a forceful, negative way. If so, then that is your way. It doesn't make the teaching, the showing itself negative...it's the intent, the person who is expressing negativity - the showing is the same. Either Hitler of Mother Theresa could have shown a child how to tie a shoe. The process/mechanics are the same (give or take differences in technique) - it's the intent that may be different. They are both showing/teaching.
Art is not a being of free will. It cannot actively direct itself at you....however, it can teach/show you many things about history, other peoples customs or yourself. Humans and other sentient beings, however, can choose to teach/show with intention and with and out of love (or out of the desire to control). Teaching/showing can be a gift from one to another. A gift is freely given and acceptance is a choice.
Namaste,
Holly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
harmony
Thought I'd share some "teacher" wisdom. I was at a lifeguard training class last night and 3 people in the class are teachers. The instructor asked one of the teachers to put in a dvd and turn on the tv and find the correct remote. It took about 10 minutes for her to find the remote in a pile of 4 remotes. It didn't take long for the other 2 teachers to jump in and help. It was the funniest thing ever, 3 teachers talking back and forth, all of them sounding like 3 year olds learning to use a tv and remote, none of them had a clue what they were doing. All the other people in class were just watching and only the teachers tried to help.
I'm glad they weren't "teaching" the class and I'm glad my kids aren't in any of their classes.
I'm glad they weren't "teaching" the class and I'm glad my kids aren't in any of their classes.
> "People can learn without a teacher, and people can "teach" without
> anyone learning. People can think they're teaching. They can go
> through the motions and collect a paycheck, or they can demonstrate
> and explain (and piss off their target learner) without any learning
> taking place (except that learner learning to avoid that "teacher")."
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
I don't get your analogies.
So what if you learn something by doing it?
Who is your "teacher"?
Kids do this even more than adults (before someone tells them they need to "learn" from a "teacher").They learn by doing, They try until they get it and than perfect it to their satisfaction or ability.
I can give lots of examples of things I learned by myself, including reading at about 4 and a half and no my mom did not have time to read books to us. She seldom did but we had lots of them at home.
alex
Holly O <hollyo@...> wrote:
"People can learn without a teacher, and people can "teach" without
anyone learning. People can think they're teaching. They can go
through the motions and collect a paycheck, or they can demonstrate
and explain (and piss off their target learner) without any learning
taking place (except that learner learning to avoid that "teacher")."
First, let me thank you for this opportunity.
I would agree that one can teach without anyone learning, however, I would not agree that one can learn without a teacher. My point is that "Teach", as in "to show", is always right in front of us. We can choose to learn, to know cause and effect, to discern "what is" if we chose to do so. This definition/point of view is not antagonistic or limited; it's meant to be open and holistic. And, if you can "demonstrate and explain", then I would say one has learned....regardless of your feelings or the other person's emotional response.
"A furrow is usually made in one pass of a plow. A tractor can make
several furrows at the same time. Not a good analogy, and doesn't
take repetition."
A furrow, throughout history, and even today does take a great deal of effort. It depends on how far you look. If you where able to own an oxen or horse there is effort in the care and training of the animal. From what I have read in agricultural literature, plowing a field with an oxen or horse is not an easy endeavor. Even today, if a furrow is dug by a tractor, it has taken a great deal of time and energy, resources to produce that tractor and maybe even to buy it. Effort is there. If you ever have the opportunity to plow a field with a tractor you may find it takes some skill.
"-=-And we can learn from all sorts of teachers: wind, rain, food,
animals, religion, culture, art, our own emotions, experience, etc.-=-
Why does that make them teachers?
Just because I learn from art doesn't mean art was my teacher."
Again, I mean it from the perspective that "teach" is "to show". Everything, the whole universe is here and now, it's all right in front of you. One can choose to see how things are or one can choose not to. If I spit in the wind, the wind "shows/ has taught me" what happens. Show/teach is not necessarily a force directed at someone, it's what is. As per your example, art is in front of you, it's an experience. You can choose to glean something from it or not. As another example, if I learn how to pollinate my squash by watching the bees, I would say, with gratitude, that the bees are my teacher. If the art or the bees weren't there for me to see/experience I wouldn't have learned from them.
One can teach/show another anything in a forceful, negative way. If so, then that is your way. It doesn't make the teaching, the showing itself negative...it's the intent, the person who is expressing negativity - the showing is the same. Either Hitler of Mother Theresa could have shown a child how to tie a shoe. The process/mechanics are the same (give or take differences in technique) - it's the intent that may be different. They are both showing/teaching.
Art is not a being of free will. It cannot actively direct itself at you....however, it can teach/show you many things about history, other peoples customs or yourself. Humans and other sentient beings, however, can choose to teach/show with intention and with and out of love (or out of the desire to control). Teaching/showing can be a gift from one to another. A gift is freely given and acceptance is a choice.
Namaste,
Holly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
So what if you learn something by doing it?
Who is your "teacher"?
Kids do this even more than adults (before someone tells them they need to "learn" from a "teacher").They learn by doing, They try until they get it and than perfect it to their satisfaction or ability.
I can give lots of examples of things I learned by myself, including reading at about 4 and a half and no my mom did not have time to read books to us. She seldom did but we had lots of them at home.
alex
Holly O <hollyo@...> wrote:
"People can learn without a teacher, and people can "teach" without
anyone learning. People can think they're teaching. They can go
through the motions and collect a paycheck, or they can demonstrate
and explain (and piss off their target learner) without any learning
taking place (except that learner learning to avoid that "teacher")."
First, let me thank you for this opportunity.
I would agree that one can teach without anyone learning, however, I would not agree that one can learn without a teacher. My point is that "Teach", as in "to show", is always right in front of us. We can choose to learn, to know cause and effect, to discern "what is" if we chose to do so. This definition/point of view is not antagonistic or limited; it's meant to be open and holistic. And, if you can "demonstrate and explain", then I would say one has learned....regardless of your feelings or the other person's emotional response.
"A furrow is usually made in one pass of a plow. A tractor can make
several furrows at the same time. Not a good analogy, and doesn't
take repetition."
A furrow, throughout history, and even today does take a great deal of effort. It depends on how far you look. If you where able to own an oxen or horse there is effort in the care and training of the animal. From what I have read in agricultural literature, plowing a field with an oxen or horse is not an easy endeavor. Even today, if a furrow is dug by a tractor, it has taken a great deal of time and energy, resources to produce that tractor and maybe even to buy it. Effort is there. If you ever have the opportunity to plow a field with a tractor you may find it takes some skill.
"-=-And we can learn from all sorts of teachers: wind, rain, food,
animals, religion, culture, art, our own emotions, experience, etc.-=-
Why does that make them teachers?
Just because I learn from art doesn't mean art was my teacher."
Again, I mean it from the perspective that "teach" is "to show". Everything, the whole universe is here and now, it's all right in front of you. One can choose to see how things are or one can choose not to. If I spit in the wind, the wind "shows/ has taught me" what happens. Show/teach is not necessarily a force directed at someone, it's what is. As per your example, art is in front of you, it's an experience. You can choose to glean something from it or not. As another example, if I learn how to pollinate my squash by watching the bees, I would say, with gratitude, that the bees are my teacher. If the art or the bees weren't there for me to see/experience I wouldn't have learned from them.
One can teach/show another anything in a forceful, negative way. If so, then that is your way. It doesn't make the teaching, the showing itself negative...it's the intent, the person who is expressing negativity - the showing is the same. Either Hitler of Mother Theresa could have shown a child how to tie a shoe. The process/mechanics are the same (give or take differences in technique) - it's the intent that may be different. They are both showing/teaching.
Art is not a being of free will. It cannot actively direct itself at you....however, it can teach/show you many things about history, other peoples customs or yourself. Humans and other sentient beings, however, can choose to teach/show with intention and with and out of love (or out of the desire to control). Teaching/showing can be a gift from one to another. A gift is freely given and acceptance is a choice.
Namaste,
Holly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Nancy Wooton
On Feb 20, 2008, at 4:09 AM, Holly O wrote:
while they fashion and use tools, and learn by watching and imitating,
they don't teach each other, even their own offspring. Humans, on the
other hand, teach others (especially our own offspring) readily,
joyfully, gaining pleasure from it and rewarding the learner with
encouragement and praise, so that both parties are engaged and happy.
(Or was I the only one on the list who watched "Nova" on PBS last
night? ;-)
You can see the whole show at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/apegenius/
Really, really interesting for a number of reasons.
Nancy
> Teaching/showing can be a gift from one to another.It would appear that this is what separates the great apes from us;
while they fashion and use tools, and learn by watching and imitating,
they don't teach each other, even their own offspring. Humans, on the
other hand, teach others (especially our own offspring) readily,
joyfully, gaining pleasure from it and rewarding the learner with
encouragement and praise, so that both parties are engaged and happy.
(Or was I the only one on the list who watched "Nova" on PBS last
night? ;-)
You can see the whole show at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/apegenius/
Really, really interesting for a number of reasons.
Nancy
Sandra Dodd
-=-First, let me thank you for this opportunity.
I would agree that one can teach without anyone learning, however, I
would not agree that one can learn without a teacher.-=-
**I** don't "agree" that one can teach without anyone learning. One
can talk, write on a board, show slides, tell stories, sing and
dance, but if no one learned anything, they didn't teach anything.
The accounting departments of school districts define "teaching"
differently, but for the purposes of helping people understand
unschooling, that definition isn't at all useful.
If you don't want to read this, don't, but here it is again: http://
sandradodd.com/teaching
-=-We can choose to learn, to know cause and effect, to discern "what
is" if we chose to do so.-=-
Choosing to do something isn't as simple as it sounds. There are
many people who can't discern things that come easily to others.
http://sandradodd.com/multipleintelligences
-=-"A furrow is usually made in one pass of a plow. A tractor can make
several furrows at the same time. Not a good analogy, and doesn't
take repetition."
A furrow, throughout history, and even today does take a great deal
of effort... -=-
You're going to too much effort to defend your original statement:
"if you take it's root as "furrow", how does one make a furrow? Well,
it's done with effort and repetition by oneself."
A furrow can be made with a stick in the ground, and however much
effort it might be to find the stick and sharpen it and drag it
forcefully through the dirt, it's not "repetition by oneself."
Etymology is great. I LOVE etymology. It doesn't make a teacher of
a bee, though. People didn't know bees were pollinating plants for a
LONG time. They didn't know men were "pollinating" women for a long
time. The theories on reproduction of people, plants and animals are
fun to hear or read about, but only what really happens happens. The
idea that there were eggs in women wasn't obvious. Genetics isn't
an ancient science, and it's not something each person learns
separately by watching bees. Just as a tractor involved centuries
of development in plow design, metal refinement, invention of the
internal combustion engine and all that, genetics and shoe-tying have
histories too.
People learn by building on what they know. However they come upon
what they know, adding to it is done all inside them.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I would agree that one can teach without anyone learning, however, I
would not agree that one can learn without a teacher.-=-
**I** don't "agree" that one can teach without anyone learning. One
can talk, write on a board, show slides, tell stories, sing and
dance, but if no one learned anything, they didn't teach anything.
The accounting departments of school districts define "teaching"
differently, but for the purposes of helping people understand
unschooling, that definition isn't at all useful.
If you don't want to read this, don't, but here it is again: http://
sandradodd.com/teaching
-=-We can choose to learn, to know cause and effect, to discern "what
is" if we chose to do so.-=-
Choosing to do something isn't as simple as it sounds. There are
many people who can't discern things that come easily to others.
http://sandradodd.com/multipleintelligences
-=-"A furrow is usually made in one pass of a plow. A tractor can make
several furrows at the same time. Not a good analogy, and doesn't
take repetition."
A furrow, throughout history, and even today does take a great deal
of effort... -=-
You're going to too much effort to defend your original statement:
"if you take it's root as "furrow", how does one make a furrow? Well,
it's done with effort and repetition by oneself."
A furrow can be made with a stick in the ground, and however much
effort it might be to find the stick and sharpen it and drag it
forcefully through the dirt, it's not "repetition by oneself."
Etymology is great. I LOVE etymology. It doesn't make a teacher of
a bee, though. People didn't know bees were pollinating plants for a
LONG time. They didn't know men were "pollinating" women for a long
time. The theories on reproduction of people, plants and animals are
fun to hear or read about, but only what really happens happens. The
idea that there were eggs in women wasn't obvious. Genetics isn't
an ancient science, and it's not something each person learns
separately by watching bees. Just as a tractor involved centuries
of development in plow design, metal refinement, invention of the
internal combustion engine and all that, genetics and shoe-tying have
histories too.
People learn by building on what they know. However they come upon
what they know, adding to it is done all inside them.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robyn L. Coburn
<<<<The instructor asked one of the teachers to put in a dvd and turn on
the tv and find the correct remote. It took about 10 minutes for her to
find the remote in a pile of 4 remotes. It didn't take long for the other 2
teachers to jump in and help. It was the funniest thing ever, 3 teachers
talking back and forth, all of them sounding like 3 year olds learning to
use a tv and remote, none of them had a clue what they were doing. All the
other people in class were just watching and only the teachers tried to
help. >>>>
I don't quite get your point. Was it a test to discover the right remote?
Why didn't the first person just ask the instructor which was the right one
and save 9 of the 10 minutes?
Maybe the rest of the class thought there were already too many cooks
working on that particular dish.
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
the tv and find the correct remote. It took about 10 minutes for her to
find the remote in a pile of 4 remotes. It didn't take long for the other 2
teachers to jump in and help. It was the funniest thing ever, 3 teachers
talking back and forth, all of them sounding like 3 year olds learning to
use a tv and remote, none of them had a clue what they were doing. All the
other people in class were just watching and only the teachers tried to
help. >>>>
I don't quite get your point. Was it a test to discover the right remote?
Why didn't the first person just ask the instructor which was the right one
and save 9 of the 10 minutes?
Maybe the rest of the class thought there were already too many cooks
working on that particular dish.
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
Sylvia Toyama
And we can learn from all sorts of teachers: wind, rain, food,
animals, religion, culture, art, our own emotions, experience, etc.-=-
****
Teacher is a word describing someone who teaches -- that's something
one does, actively.
If you really feel a need to give some credit to the source for what
you learn, it would be more accurate to say "seeing the effects of
the wind on other things was my lesson".
The bigger question, tho, of whether a child must be taught to learn
isn't just one of semantics. People are born learning. Even if no
one actively engages in teaching a child, he will learn from his
surroundings.
The whole concept of teaching a child to learn has always bothered
me. It presumes that children are not only blank slates, but that
the ability to learn isn't inborn. If it's something that must be
taught (or learned) then it's also something that can be lost or
never devlop at all.
Here's one of my favorite quotes -- from one of my favorite books
about the topic of learning.
"The official theory that learning requires structure and effort has
enormous destructive power." Frank Smith, from The Book of Learning
and Forgetting
I don't if the person who owns that tagline, or any defenders of
the 'teach children to learn' concept have read this book, but it's
the one I recommend first and most often to anyone asking about
unschooling. And the author isn't even an unschooler, but he's put
together an amazing amount of data about how people learn, and
why 'teaching' as it's done in schools today, fails children.
Sylvia
animals, religion, culture, art, our own emotions, experience, etc.-=-
****
Teacher is a word describing someone who teaches -- that's something
one does, actively.
If you really feel a need to give some credit to the source for what
you learn, it would be more accurate to say "seeing the effects of
the wind on other things was my lesson".
The bigger question, tho, of whether a child must be taught to learn
isn't just one of semantics. People are born learning. Even if no
one actively engages in teaching a child, he will learn from his
surroundings.
The whole concept of teaching a child to learn has always bothered
me. It presumes that children are not only blank slates, but that
the ability to learn isn't inborn. If it's something that must be
taught (or learned) then it's also something that can be lost or
never devlop at all.
Here's one of my favorite quotes -- from one of my favorite books
about the topic of learning.
"The official theory that learning requires structure and effort has
enormous destructive power." Frank Smith, from The Book of Learning
and Forgetting
I don't if the person who owns that tagline, or any defenders of
the 'teach children to learn' concept have read this book, but it's
the one I recommend first and most often to anyone asking about
unschooling. And the author isn't even an unschooler, but he's put
together an amazing amount of data about how people learn, and
why 'teaching' as it's done in schools today, fails children.
Sylvia
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/20/2008 7:09:57 AM Eastern Standard Time,
hollyo@... writes:
I would agree that one can teach without anyone learning, however, I would
not agree that one can learn without a teacher.
I would disagree with you on that. Wyl learned to read all on his own, even
though we were not unschooling at that point, we were not yet homeschooling,
either, as he was not "the right age" (obviously before the concept of
whole-life unschooling melded into my brain). I had great visions of the wonderful
tools I would use as I sat down and shared my knowledge with him as a
"teacher". But he was the catalyst-he helped me understand that there need not be a
teacher and that I should follow his lead. He may have seen that reading was
*possible* by seeing and hearing others read, but no one taught him what age
he "should" read, how to read or even that *he* could read.
Peace,
De
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
hollyo@... writes:
I would agree that one can teach without anyone learning, however, I would
not agree that one can learn without a teacher.
I would disagree with you on that. Wyl learned to read all on his own, even
though we were not unschooling at that point, we were not yet homeschooling,
either, as he was not "the right age" (obviously before the concept of
whole-life unschooling melded into my brain). I had great visions of the wonderful
tools I would use as I sat down and shared my knowledge with him as a
"teacher". But he was the catalyst-he helped me understand that there need not be a
teacher and that I should follow his lead. He may have seen that reading was
*possible* by seeing and hearing others read, but no one taught him what age
he "should" read, how to read or even that *he* could read.
Peace,
De
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
K Hykes
Isn't the idea of teaching to use the knowledge and experience of the teacher to allow the "student" to learn something that might otherwise, for reasons of lack of exposure or lack of interest, be missed? It is important to let children and adults follow their interests, but in weaker yet essential areas (things like finances come to mind), it is wise to have a teacher, someone who can help the student to avoid some of the bumps along the way.
I guess that I envision a world devoid of teachers as a world where much time is spent recreating the wheel. Not that there might not be some pretty cool wheels created, but it would come at a price--- for some reason I am thinking of learning to drive a stick shift with no teacher... Also, if there is someone who has broader experiences, they teach of things that may never otherwise enter the radar.
Bottom line--- I liked the sig line... it isn't perfect, but makes a neat point... I think it is more about exposure than "teaching", but if there is a subject of particular interest, it seems that pursuing a "teacher" with vast experience would make sense to me (though it may be a truck driver or mechanic in my son's case).
Saying more than I should,
Kitti
a teacher of computer skills
and mother of Lane (2.5)
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I guess that I envision a world devoid of teachers as a world where much time is spent recreating the wheel. Not that there might not be some pretty cool wheels created, but it would come at a price--- for some reason I am thinking of learning to drive a stick shift with no teacher... Also, if there is someone who has broader experiences, they teach of things that may never otherwise enter the radar.
Bottom line--- I liked the sig line... it isn't perfect, but makes a neat point... I think it is more about exposure than "teaching", but if there is a subject of particular interest, it seems that pursuing a "teacher" with vast experience would make sense to me (though it may be a truck driver or mechanic in my son's case).
Saying more than I should,
Kitti
a teacher of computer skills
and mother of Lane (2.5)
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-The whole concept of teaching a child to learn has always bothered
me. It presumes that children are not only blank slates, but that
the ability to learn isn't inborn. If it's something that must be
taught (or learned) then it's also something that can be lost or
never devlop at all. -=-
That might be the point I had hoped to make. Thanks, Sylvia.
If learning has to be taught/learned, then there IS no natural learning.
But I know there IS natural learning. Kirby and Marty and Holly are
proof. They didn't "teach" me that there's natural learning, nor did
I teach them. <g>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
me. It presumes that children are not only blank slates, but that
the ability to learn isn't inborn. If it's something that must be
taught (or learned) then it's also something that can be lost or
never devlop at all. -=-
That might be the point I had hoped to make. Thanks, Sylvia.
If learning has to be taught/learned, then there IS no natural learning.
But I know there IS natural learning. Kirby and Marty and Holly are
proof. They didn't "teach" me that there's natural learning, nor did
I teach them. <g>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Isn't the idea of teaching to use the knowledge and experience of
the teacher to allow the "student" to learn something that might
otherwise, for reasons of lack of exposure or lack of interest, be
missed? -=-
Ideally.
Marty wanted to have a medieval signature--his SCA name in some
justifiable medieval font. I wrote it out a couple of ways in an
Irish uncial style, and he picked the letters he liked best and
practiced. I pointed out the ones I thought were the best letters,
and that his "l" needed to be higher, and that he could make the "r"
and "f" match a little more similar, for the artistic effect.
I didn't "teach him calligraphy." I chose that font because he's a
lefty and it's a 0-degree slant and he was using felt-tipped pens. I
told him that.
He asked me to use my knowledge and experience to help him learn
something he wanted to acquire quickly.
Every day for the past sixteen years or so I've used my knowledge and
experience to help other parents learn something they express a
desire to understand.
-=-It is important to let children and adults follow their interests,
but in weaker yet essential areas (things like finances come to
mind), it is wise to have a teacher, someone who can help the student
to avoid some of the bumps along the way. -=-
When people want to learn about unschooling, it's wise to find
unschoolers who can help them avoid some of the bumps along the way.
One of the biggest bumps is the belief that teaching is somehow crucial.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
the teacher to allow the "student" to learn something that might
otherwise, for reasons of lack of exposure or lack of interest, be
missed? -=-
Ideally.
Marty wanted to have a medieval signature--his SCA name in some
justifiable medieval font. I wrote it out a couple of ways in an
Irish uncial style, and he picked the letters he liked best and
practiced. I pointed out the ones I thought were the best letters,
and that his "l" needed to be higher, and that he could make the "r"
and "f" match a little more similar, for the artistic effect.
I didn't "teach him calligraphy." I chose that font because he's a
lefty and it's a 0-degree slant and he was using felt-tipped pens. I
told him that.
He asked me to use my knowledge and experience to help him learn
something he wanted to acquire quickly.
Every day for the past sixteen years or so I've used my knowledge and
experience to help other parents learn something they express a
desire to understand.
-=-It is important to let children and adults follow their interests,
but in weaker yet essential areas (things like finances come to
mind), it is wise to have a teacher, someone who can help the student
to avoid some of the bumps along the way. -=-
When people want to learn about unschooling, it's wise to find
unschoolers who can help them avoid some of the bumps along the way.
One of the biggest bumps is the belief that teaching is somehow crucial.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Feb 20, 2008, at 3:40 PM, K Hykes wrote:
as mentors and guides and pointer-outers of stuff that might be
interesting rather than teachers.
Teaching, in school terms, is pushing knowledge that someone else
wants into a child.
Learning, in unschooling terms, is the child pulling what interests
the child in.
While we can see the world in terms of teaching -- that a table above
us "teaches" us not to stand up under it ;-) -- to understand
unschooling, it's far more helpful to see the world in terms of
learners.
To see how the child chooses to pull in what interests him, is to see
that it works far more effectively when someone's not pushing to get
it -- or worse something else -- in.
So you *can*, if you wish, see teachers everywhere. But it won't
help, and will probably hinder, your understanding of unschooling.
(And if you already understand, then pointing out the teachers could
possibly hinder someone else's understanding.)
Lots of "getting" unschooling is a matter of shifting viewpoint. One
of those viewpoints is shifting from seeing teaching to seeing learning.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> It is important to let children and adults follow their interests,It's better, in helping people understand unschooling, to see parents
> but in weaker yet essential areas (things like finances come to
> mind), it is wise to have a teacher, someone who can help the
> student to avoid some of the bumps along the way.
as mentors and guides and pointer-outers of stuff that might be
interesting rather than teachers.
Teaching, in school terms, is pushing knowledge that someone else
wants into a child.
Learning, in unschooling terms, is the child pulling what interests
the child in.
While we can see the world in terms of teaching -- that a table above
us "teaches" us not to stand up under it ;-) -- to understand
unschooling, it's far more helpful to see the world in terms of
learners.
To see how the child chooses to pull in what interests him, is to see
that it works far more effectively when someone's not pushing to get
it -- or worse something else -- in.
So you *can*, if you wish, see teachers everywhere. But it won't
help, and will probably hinder, your understanding of unschooling.
(And if you already understand, then pointing out the teachers could
possibly hinder someone else's understanding.)
Lots of "getting" unschooling is a matter of shifting viewpoint. One
of those viewpoints is shifting from seeing teaching to seeing learning.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robyn L. Coburn
<<<< > Isn't the idea of teaching to use the knowledge and experience of the
teacher to allow the "student" to learn something that might otherwise, for
reasons of lack of exposure or lack of interest, be missed? It is important
to let children and adults follow their interests, but in weaker yet
essential areas (things like finances come to mind), it is wise to have a
teacher, someone who can help the student to avoid some of the bumps along
the way. >>>>
This is skirting dangerously close to the idea that there are "basic skills"
that are too important to allow the Unschooling process to unfold so they
must therefore be taught.
Long time Unschoolers have found that to be a false assumption.
The idea of "teaching" is that the person with the knowledge controls the
experience, controls the schedule, the pace the ordering of the imparting.
In natural learning the learner is in charge of their own processes.
The issue for Unschoolers is not "does/should teaching exist" but "how do we
move towards Unschooling?"
If you want to move towards Unschooling let go of seeing yourself as your
child's teacher. A really useful exercise is conciously and mindfully to
replace all permutations of the word "teach" with permutations of the word
"learn" whenever the word comes up in your speech or thinking. Sometimes it
takes a real effort!
****Isn't one facet of learning to use the knowledge and experience of
competence models and knowledgable people to inspire the "student" see more
possibilities. It is important to let children and adults follow their
interests, and see the connections between all knowledge. It is often
helpful to have a more experienced person be available to the student to
answer questions.****
It is also worth examining why one is retaining an attachment to the words
and idea of teach teaching, teacher. It is one way to discover any "hold
out" assumptions, the last barriers preventing the full embracing of
Unschooling.
<<<<< I guess that I envision a world devoid of teachers as a world where
much time is spent recreating the wheel. Not that there might not be some
pretty cool wheels created, but it would come at a price--- for some reason
I am thinking of learning to drive a stick shift with no teacher.>>>>
Funnily enough I was just thinking about the idea of "reinventing the wheel"
last night. There is a kind of cultural assumption that this must
necessarily always be a bad thing, along with the idea of time being wasted.
Yet in school every child is supposed to follow along with the history of
the wheel, to extend the metaphor.
Suppose the ability and freedom to reinvent the wheel were celebrated and
extolled in our culture instead. What would happen?
My experience with Jayn is that if she invents her wheel in her own way, it
is a wheel that she intimately understands and appreciates and can use - a
better wheel for her - a better way of *making* a wheel for her. The price
of not allowing her to have that process is much higher than any difficulty
within that process.
No child's learning experience is time wasted.
A world devoid of teachers is not a world devoid of people doing stuff. The
absence of teaching is NOT the absence of knowledge or the willingness to
share experience or modelling or the answering of questions.
You don't *need* a teacher to drive a stick shift, just the opportunity to
watch someone doing it, the chance to sit in the driver's seat, and support
to ask questions without being judged for doing so.
Insert ANY skill instead of the phrase "drive a stick shift" and you
have...Unschooling.
Missing out on stuff - knowledge gaps - lack of exposure to certain ideas or
skills - another post (maybe a long one).
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
teacher to allow the "student" to learn something that might otherwise, for
reasons of lack of exposure or lack of interest, be missed? It is important
to let children and adults follow their interests, but in weaker yet
essential areas (things like finances come to mind), it is wise to have a
teacher, someone who can help the student to avoid some of the bumps along
the way. >>>>
This is skirting dangerously close to the idea that there are "basic skills"
that are too important to allow the Unschooling process to unfold so they
must therefore be taught.
Long time Unschoolers have found that to be a false assumption.
The idea of "teaching" is that the person with the knowledge controls the
experience, controls the schedule, the pace the ordering of the imparting.
In natural learning the learner is in charge of their own processes.
The issue for Unschoolers is not "does/should teaching exist" but "how do we
move towards Unschooling?"
If you want to move towards Unschooling let go of seeing yourself as your
child's teacher. A really useful exercise is conciously and mindfully to
replace all permutations of the word "teach" with permutations of the word
"learn" whenever the word comes up in your speech or thinking. Sometimes it
takes a real effort!
****Isn't one facet of learning to use the knowledge and experience of
competence models and knowledgable people to inspire the "student" see more
possibilities. It is important to let children and adults follow their
interests, and see the connections between all knowledge. It is often
helpful to have a more experienced person be available to the student to
answer questions.****
It is also worth examining why one is retaining an attachment to the words
and idea of teach teaching, teacher. It is one way to discover any "hold
out" assumptions, the last barriers preventing the full embracing of
Unschooling.
<<<<< I guess that I envision a world devoid of teachers as a world where
much time is spent recreating the wheel. Not that there might not be some
pretty cool wheels created, but it would come at a price--- for some reason
I am thinking of learning to drive a stick shift with no teacher.>>>>
Funnily enough I was just thinking about the idea of "reinventing the wheel"
last night. There is a kind of cultural assumption that this must
necessarily always be a bad thing, along with the idea of time being wasted.
Yet in school every child is supposed to follow along with the history of
the wheel, to extend the metaphor.
Suppose the ability and freedom to reinvent the wheel were celebrated and
extolled in our culture instead. What would happen?
My experience with Jayn is that if she invents her wheel in her own way, it
is a wheel that she intimately understands and appreciates and can use - a
better wheel for her - a better way of *making* a wheel for her. The price
of not allowing her to have that process is much higher than any difficulty
within that process.
No child's learning experience is time wasted.
A world devoid of teachers is not a world devoid of people doing stuff. The
absence of teaching is NOT the absence of knowledge or the willingness to
share experience or modelling or the answering of questions.
You don't *need* a teacher to drive a stick shift, just the opportunity to
watch someone doing it, the chance to sit in the driver's seat, and support
to ask questions without being judged for doing so.
Insert ANY skill instead of the phrase "drive a stick shift" and you
have...Unschooling.
Missing out on stuff - knowledge gaps - lack of exposure to certain ideas or
skills - another post (maybe a long one).
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
Pamela Sorooshian
>>I would agree that one can teach without anyone learning, however,I would not agree that one can learn without a teacher. My point is
that "Teach", as in "to show", is always right in front of us.<<
If you define absolutely anything that contributes to learning as "a
teacher, then of course nobody could, by your definition, learn
anything without a teacher.
But, a "teacher" is not just anything that contributes to learning -
it is "a person who teaches, especially in a school."
A useful point to make - that we can learn from anything we come into
contact with and, in fact, makes the point that we don't NEED "a
teacher" in order to learn.
Why hang onto a school-word, trying to stretch its meaning to fit this
very different view of how learning happens?
My mom used to do this - she used to say that I taught my kids to
read. But I never did - I provided them with an environment that
allowed them to learn to read. To say, "I was their reading teacher"
would give a false impression because it would lead people to think I
gave them reading instructions, that I prepared lessons, that I
actually taught them. She would say, "Well, you designed the
curriculum." <G> I'd say, "Huh? What curriculum?" She'd say, "Well,
I'd call creating an interesting, stimulating environment the same as
creating a really wonderful perfectly individualized curriculum." I'd
say, "You can call it that, but it isn't what other people are going
to think you mean by it, so why purposely cause that kind of confusion
by making up your own meanings for common words?"
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Holly O
Well, obviously I see things differently than many of you on this list. Thanks for the discussion. I do respect your point of view. It's just too limited for me.
I wish you all well.
Holly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I wish you all well.
Holly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
Colis arrivé sur site, livraison en préparation.
Can someone who speaks French possibly tell me what the above really
means? Has my packaged been delivered to its final destination - or it
is about to be or ??
Roxana (my 20 yo daughter) is in France and has lost her phone
charger. I ordered her one on Amazon.fr. I managed to do it, entirely
in French, by using the Babelfish translation tool to translate the
amazon.fr webpages until I managed to find what I wanted to buy, got
it into my shopping cart, paid for it, and got a confirmation email.
YAY me! <G>
So now I'm trying to figure out where it is - whether it has been
delivered or will be delivered tomorrow (today in France) or ?
When I put in the tracking number, the above sentence is what I get.
It translates to:
Package arrived on site, delivery in preparation.
But, I'm not sure I understand what that means.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Can someone who speaks French possibly tell me what the above really
means? Has my packaged been delivered to its final destination - or it
is about to be or ??
Roxana (my 20 yo daughter) is in France and has lost her phone
charger. I ordered her one on Amazon.fr. I managed to do it, entirely
in French, by using the Babelfish translation tool to translate the
amazon.fr webpages until I managed to find what I wanted to buy, got
it into my shopping cart, paid for it, and got a confirmation email.
YAY me! <G>
So now I'm trying to figure out where it is - whether it has been
delivered or will be delivered tomorrow (today in France) or ?
When I put in the tracking number, the above sentence is what I get.
It translates to:
Package arrived on site, delivery in preparation.
But, I'm not sure I understand what that means.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
jenstarc4
>right one
> Why didn't the first person just ask the instructor which was the
> and save 9 of the 10 minutes?Or maybe it was highly entertaining? Why didn't anyone just look at
>
> Maybe the rest of the class thought there were already too many cooks
> working on that particular dish.
>
the brand of the remote and the tv and player? Or the other big clues,
like wether it has a rewind or fastforward button on it...
Maybe it was a point that teachers think they "know" things that others
don't.
jenstarc4
If I had to guess, I would say that the item is in the nearest
warehouse, ready to be put on a truck, to be delivered to her house.
warehouse, ready to be put on a truck, to be delivered to her house.
Sandra Dodd
-=-Package arrived on site, delivery in preparation.
But, I'm not sure I understand what that means.-=-
It's in the right town but not yet at the right house.
There's a tracking statement like that from UPS, "arrived in
Albuquerque", and then the next day it will say en route or some
such, meaning it's on the truck.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
But, I'm not sure I understand what that means.-=-
It's in the right town but not yet at the right house.
There's a tracking statement like that from UPS, "arrived in
Albuquerque", and then the next day it will say en route or some
such, meaning it's on the truck.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-> Why didn't the first person just ask the instructor which was the
right one and save 9 of the 10 minutes? -=-
Why didn't they all just ask the youngest person in the room, who
would have no problem?
If they needed a fountain pen filled, they should ask the oldest
person. If they need a vinyl LP album cleaned, ask someone who's
50. (Holly happened to need that the other day, and I knew where the
discwash stuff was; people much older than I am probably never used it.)
"Authority" and experience and principle get all mixed up. If the
purpose is to get a video going, why ask someone with authority
instead of someone with ability?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
right one and save 9 of the 10 minutes? -=-
Why didn't they all just ask the youngest person in the room, who
would have no problem?
If they needed a fountain pen filled, they should ask the oldest
person. If they need a vinyl LP album cleaned, ask someone who's
50. (Holly happened to need that the other day, and I knew where the
discwash stuff was; people much older than I am probably never used it.)
"Authority" and experience and principle get all mixed up. If the
purpose is to get a video going, why ask someone with authority
instead of someone with ability?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
harmony
> If you want to move towards Unschooling let go of seeing yourself as yourIf a child comes home from school and you ask them "What did you learn today" The answer is usually Nothing. Or they will say something that interests them like "Billy has a pet snake"
>
> child's teacher. A really useful exercise is conciously and mindfully to
> replace all permutations of the word "teach" with permutations of the
> word
> "learn" whenever the word comes up in your speech or thinking. Sometimes
> it
> takes a real effort!
Everyday, all the time, people are learning things. It is constant. We don't realize that the learning is taking place, we just live and experience life.
Sometimes there is a specific thing that we choose to learn that cannot be learned naturally, and then classes and teachers are wonderful. If you want to learn CPR, your not going to ask your friend how to do it, or just practice with someone, your going to go take a class.
We have weeks where I can see my children engaged in a lot of different activities and I know they are learning a lot. Those are the same weeks when my husband complains that they arent doing anything and should be in school. Just last night I found a not my husband had written to himself that said " 2 Hours TV 2 Hours computer 1 hour shopping rest of the day PLAY zero school work"
It reminded me of sandras page that described a typical day. From an outsiders point of view not much happened that day. From an unschoolers point of view it was much different and I don't have time to write a book to explain everything that went on in our day.
Harmony
harmony
> Or maybe it was highly entertaining? Why didn't anyone just look atThe instructor was doing something else at the time, it was during a break. It was very entertaining. The teachers all jumped in with the attitude that they are teachers and they can do anything. The other people in the class were teenagers who are used to being in class and having the teacher lead the class, so they didn't offer to help. And I just sat back and observed and chuckled to myself. Maybe not nice of me, but it was funny.
> the brand of the remote and the tv and player? Or the other big clues,
> like wether it has a rewind or fastforward button on it...
>
> Maybe it was a point that teachers think they "know" things that others
> don't.
Sandra Dodd
-=-Just last night I found a not my husband had written to himself
that said " 2 Hours TV 2 Hours computer 1 hour shopping rest of the
day PLAY zero school work"
It reminded me of sandras page that described a typical day. From an
outsiders point of view not much happened that day. From an
unschoolers point of view it was much different and I don't have time
to write a book to explain everything that went on in our day.-=-
Do you have time to explain it to your husband or help him to stop
expecting any "school work"?
Both parents must understand and support unschooling for it to
work. It might not happen all at once, but if you don't move toward
it, you might find yourself moving quickly away from it permanently.
Maybe I misunderstood and the note you found was old, not current.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
that said " 2 Hours TV 2 Hours computer 1 hour shopping rest of the
day PLAY zero school work"
It reminded me of sandras page that described a typical day. From an
outsiders point of view not much happened that day. From an
unschoolers point of view it was much different and I don't have time
to write a book to explain everything that went on in our day.-=-
Do you have time to explain it to your husband or help him to stop
expecting any "school work"?
Both parents must understand and support unschooling for it to
work. It might not happen all at once, but if you don't move toward
it, you might find yourself moving quickly away from it permanently.
Maybe I misunderstood and the note you found was old, not current.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lara Miller
I have been thinking about this lately. In the mainstream world (as
in my husband's family!) there is this huge assumption that
everything that schooled kids learn during their school years comes
directly from the school. We know an unschoolers life will provide
them with all of the learning and skills that they need, but are
schooled kids simply unconsciously unschooling? Of course we know
this to be true, but I wonder just how true it is? Just how much of
a schooled kids knowledge was acquired through life learning while in
school?
My older two kids (8,9) attended public school for a period and we
are still heavily in the de-schooling mode. But my 6 yo who has
never gone to school has an amazing way of learning things. Well I
suppose it really isn't amazing, just normal. I just love to sit and
watch him think.
Blessings,
Lara Miller
Currently in Sunny Bradenton, FL!
http://www.mytripjournal.com/millerfamily
in my husband's family!) there is this huge assumption that
everything that schooled kids learn during their school years comes
directly from the school. We know an unschoolers life will provide
them with all of the learning and skills that they need, but are
schooled kids simply unconsciously unschooling? Of course we know
this to be true, but I wonder just how true it is? Just how much of
a schooled kids knowledge was acquired through life learning while in
school?
My older two kids (8,9) attended public school for a period and we
are still heavily in the de-schooling mode. But my 6 yo who has
never gone to school has an amazing way of learning things. Well I
suppose it really isn't amazing, just normal. I just love to sit and
watch him think.
Blessings,
Lara Miller
Currently in Sunny Bradenton, FL!
http://www.mytripjournal.com/millerfamily
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> If a child comes home from school and you ask them "What did you
> learn today" The answer is usually Nothing. Or they will say
> something that interests them like "Billy has a pet snake"
> Everyday, all the time, people are learning things. It is constant.
> We don't realize that the learning is taking place, we just live
> and experience life.
Sylvia Toyama
Well, obviously I see things differently than many of you on this list.
Thanks
for the discussion. I do respect your point of view. It's just too
limited for
me.
****
How is a perspective learning happens naturally and independently of a
teacher or agenda, limited?
Sylvia
Thanks
for the discussion. I do respect your point of view. It's just too
limited for
me.
****
How is a perspective learning happens naturally and independently of a
teacher or agenda, limited?
Sylvia