the difference between teaching and learning
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/4/02 12:32:39 PM, liza@... writes:
<< If you think, and say, and write "and both are learning to read"
spontaneously and without end if people aren't taught that they need teaching
to learn.
Even "teaching yourself" is stifling compared to "learing for fun."
Sandra
<< If you think, and say, and write "and both are learning to read"
>Teaching is limited and tiny compared to learning, which can happen
>instead of
>"...are teaching themselves to read" it will be like the difference between
>looking at the ground and looking at the infinite sky.
> >>
spontaneously and without end if people aren't taught that they need teaching
to learn.
Even "teaching yourself" is stifling compared to "learing for fun."
Sandra
Liza Sabater
I have been chewing on this and have a few of comments:
1) I can see your objection to "teach vs. learning". This, though is
a classic example of what I consider deschooling. My kids could give
a fiddler's fart* about teaching or learning --they are actually
playing and having a great time with what they're doing.
I, on the other hand, am the one who qualified this as *teaching
themselves*. I wonder, though why the problem with that?
2) One could look at cognitive psychology and say that words shape
the world; therefore, the words we choose will have an impact on how
we live. I agree with that on some levels and not on others.
Yes, you may suggest learning vs. teaching, but those are your words
and not mine. I don't own them but that's OK. It does not mean that I
am doing less of a job at unschooling than other people. It just
means I have not found my own vocabulary (or at least, am in the
process of doing so).
3) I have pointed this out before so I'll do it again: When we get
into details like *learn* vs. *teach*, what we all are doing is
insisting on an UNSCHOOLING CANON. And I have to tell you, not only
do I think it is an oxymoron, but I find that very discomforting.
If unschooling is a lifestyle that is meant to counter the
"pre-packaged life" that social mores dictate we follow, each and
every one of us will find the words, the styles and the rituals that
will define our new lifestyle.
I understand you meant to point out the philosophical difference
between *teach* and *learn*. Nevertheless, I particularly like the
authority reversal of my kids being their own teachers as opposed to
somebody else. That might change though, as we do this for as long
as y'all have been doing this. But then again, it is a POV that comes
natural (or should we say 'automatic') to me ---it is, after all,
ingrained in my native tongue, Spanish.
In Caribbean Spanish, you do not raise children --children raise
themselves. We do not say, "Crié a mis hijos en Nueva York" (I
*raised* my sons in New York). We say, "Mis hijos se criaron en Nueva
York" (My sons *raised themselves* in New York). If we can 'raise
ourselves' in Spanish, why can't we 'teach ourselves' in English?
It is all just a matter of perspective.
Best,
Liza
*courtesy of Frank McCourt
1) I can see your objection to "teach vs. learning". This, though is
a classic example of what I consider deschooling. My kids could give
a fiddler's fart* about teaching or learning --they are actually
playing and having a great time with what they're doing.
I, on the other hand, am the one who qualified this as *teaching
themselves*. I wonder, though why the problem with that?
2) One could look at cognitive psychology and say that words shape
the world; therefore, the words we choose will have an impact on how
we live. I agree with that on some levels and not on others.
Yes, you may suggest learning vs. teaching, but those are your words
and not mine. I don't own them but that's OK. It does not mean that I
am doing less of a job at unschooling than other people. It just
means I have not found my own vocabulary (or at least, am in the
process of doing so).
3) I have pointed this out before so I'll do it again: When we get
into details like *learn* vs. *teach*, what we all are doing is
insisting on an UNSCHOOLING CANON. And I have to tell you, not only
do I think it is an oxymoron, but I find that very discomforting.
If unschooling is a lifestyle that is meant to counter the
"pre-packaged life" that social mores dictate we follow, each and
every one of us will find the words, the styles and the rituals that
will define our new lifestyle.
I understand you meant to point out the philosophical difference
between *teach* and *learn*. Nevertheless, I particularly like the
authority reversal of my kids being their own teachers as opposed to
somebody else. That might change though, as we do this for as long
as y'all have been doing this. But then again, it is a POV that comes
natural (or should we say 'automatic') to me ---it is, after all,
ingrained in my native tongue, Spanish.
In Caribbean Spanish, you do not raise children --children raise
themselves. We do not say, "Crié a mis hijos en Nueva York" (I
*raised* my sons in New York). We say, "Mis hijos se criaron en Nueva
York" (My sons *raised themselves* in New York). If we can 'raise
ourselves' in Spanish, why can't we 'teach ourselves' in English?
It is all just a matter of perspective.
Best,
Liza
*courtesy of Frank McCourt
>In a message dated 7/4/02 12:32:39 PM, liza@... writes:
>
><< If you think, and say, and write "and both are learning to read"
>>
>>instead of
>>"...are teaching themselves to read" it will be like the difference between
>>looking at the ground and looking at the infinite sky.
>> >>
>
>Teaching is limited and tiny compared to learning, which can happen
>spontaneously and without end if people aren't taught that they need teaching
>to learn.
>
>Even "teaching yourself" is stifling compared to "learing for fun."
>
>Sandra
>
>Liza Sabater wrote:
>>OK Zensei.
>>Grasshopper is at a loss here.
>This is about parents more than about kids, I think.'
>To some of you it might seem "just words" or too picky, but please breathe
>and consider that *perhaps* it is the crucial point at which "just relaxed
>homeschooling" turns to unschooling.
>
><< and BOTH are teaching themselves reading >>
>
>
>If you think, and say, and write "and both are learning to read"
>
>instead of
>"...are teaching themselves to read" it will be like the difference between
>looking at the ground and looking at the infinite sky.
>
>Sandra
>
[email protected]
This is the second time someone has posted a response to something on one of
these HEM lists to both of them. They really are separate lists, and if the
conversations abruptly switch because something was brought over from another
list without explanation that's going to be confusing. I'd prefer to keep
them as separate conversations, but both times it was a response to something
from me that was cross-posted with comments.
<< If unschooling is a lifestyle that is meant to counter the
"pre-packaged life" that social mores dictate we follow, each and
every one of us will find the words, the styles and the rituals that
will define our new lifestyle. >>
Some won't find them until after their kids are grown, if then, unless they
are aware that there are differences and advantages. Many find them through
discussion with others, and examination of their own ideas.
I'm not the only person who has benefited from changing "teach" to learn" and
(for what it's worth) I myself learned that from a college professor who was
involved in the school reform movement of the early 1970's.
<<We say, "Mis hijos se criaron en Nueva
York" (My sons *raised themselves* in New York). If we can 'raise
ourselves' in Spanish, why can't we 'teach ourselves' in English?>>
"To raise" children isn't such a great concept for forward-looking parents to
keep either. I rarely hear it used at all anymore. But I think your
parallel in English is "my sons grew up in New York." Growing up isn't just
getting taller.
English has two vocabularies (and then some), for having the native
Anglo-Saxon words (from Germanic) and then the whole overlay of Normal French
(from Latin) and THEN they kept half the Latin that came arou we might have
five words for something that another language has one or two for.
But with teach and learn, there are issues of responsibility and duty and
constraint and success or failur. If a child is teaching himself something,
he could fail. If he's learning something, every incremental step is success.
Teaching is a transitive verb, so you have to teach someone else, or teach
yourself, but there has to be an object which is taught. Learning is
intransitive. It just happens inside.
[I didn't find the part to which the note "*courtesy of Frank McCourt"
referred.]
Sandra
these HEM lists to both of them. They really are separate lists, and if the
conversations abruptly switch because something was brought over from another
list without explanation that's going to be confusing. I'd prefer to keep
them as separate conversations, but both times it was a response to something
from me that was cross-posted with comments.
<< If unschooling is a lifestyle that is meant to counter the
"pre-packaged life" that social mores dictate we follow, each and
every one of us will find the words, the styles and the rituals that
will define our new lifestyle. >>
Some won't find them until after their kids are grown, if then, unless they
are aware that there are differences and advantages. Many find them through
discussion with others, and examination of their own ideas.
I'm not the only person who has benefited from changing "teach" to learn" and
(for what it's worth) I myself learned that from a college professor who was
involved in the school reform movement of the early 1970's.
<<We say, "Mis hijos se criaron en Nueva
York" (My sons *raised themselves* in New York). If we can 'raise
ourselves' in Spanish, why can't we 'teach ourselves' in English?>>
"To raise" children isn't such a great concept for forward-looking parents to
keep either. I rarely hear it used at all anymore. But I think your
parallel in English is "my sons grew up in New York." Growing up isn't just
getting taller.
English has two vocabularies (and then some), for having the native
Anglo-Saxon words (from Germanic) and then the whole overlay of Normal French
(from Latin) and THEN they kept half the Latin that came arou we might have
five words for something that another language has one or two for.
But with teach and learn, there are issues of responsibility and duty and
constraint and success or failur. If a child is teaching himself something,
he could fail. If he's learning something, every incremental step is success.
Teaching is a transitive verb, so you have to teach someone else, or teach
yourself, but there has to be an object which is taught. Learning is
intransitive. It just happens inside.
[I didn't find the part to which the note "*courtesy of Frank McCourt"
referred.]
Sandra
Tia Leschke
>As one who is still working on that particular language change, I'll try
>I, on the other hand, am the one who qualified this as *teaching
>themselves*. I wonder, though why the problem with that?
answering. It isn't a problem at all. It's just a different way of
looking at things. What I hear Sandra saying is that losing the word teach
altogether will help us unschool even better than reversing the subject and
object of teach.
>3) I have pointed this out before so I'll do it again: When we getI can't speak for Sandra, but I don't think you're looking at this in the
>into details like *learn* vs. *teach*, what we all are doing is
>insisting on an UNSCHOOLING CANON. And I have to tell you, not only
>do I think it is an oxymoron, but I find that very discomforting.
spirit that she wrote it. There is no unschooling canon. There are just
some people who are finding a lot of success with unschooling offering
their thoughts about why they might be having success, and it often has to
do with little changes in thinking they needed to go through in order to
have that success.
I know that I always thought I was a radical unschooler, and didn't know
why I felt so unsuccessful at it. It was when I came here and started
"listening" to all the debates about the fine points that I realized where
I could have done a better job with just a few tweaks of my thinking. I'm
grateful to Sandra for continuing to plug away at these details so that I
can continue working on my own thinking. I certainly don't see it as
having to follow certain rules or anything.
>I understand you meant to point out the philosophical differenceThis *is* a big step in everyone's thinking. I guess I just happen to like
>between *teach* and *learn*. Nevertheless, I particularly like the
>authority reversal of my kids being their own teachers as opposed to
>somebody else.
it when someone points out that my most recent big step didn't take me to
the end of the road, so to speak. I like being encouraged to go on and
take the next one. I guess that's why I hang around here.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Mary Muday
Thanks for the very positive observance, and I'm going to follow the advice to let my student, my child follow her own way, just to provide positive reassurance in education, I do believe that everything we do daily is learning. I feel that the homeschool student is better prepared for this cold world out there than the traditional school student.
Thanks
supermom50mm@...
Tia Leschke <leschke@...> wrote:
answering. It isn't a problem at all. It's just a different way of
looking at things. What I hear Sandra saying is that losing the word teach
altogether will help us unschool even better than reversing the subject and
object of teach.
spirit that she wrote it. There is no unschooling canon. There are just
some people who are finding a lot of success with unschooling offering
their thoughts about why they might be having success, and it often has to
do with little changes in thinking they needed to go through in order to
have that success.
I know that I always thought I was a radical unschooler, and didn't know
why I felt so unsuccessful at it. It was when I came here and started
"listening" to all the debates about the fine points that I realized where
I could have done a better job with just a few tweaks of my thinking. I'm
grateful to Sandra for continuing to plug away at these details so that I
can continue working on my own thinking. I certainly don't see it as
having to follow certain rules or anything.
it when someone points out that my most recent big step didn't take me to
the end of the road, so to speak. I like being encouraged to go on and
take the next one. I guess that's why I hang around here.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the Moderator, Joyce Fetteroll, at fetteroll@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks
supermom50mm@...
Tia Leschke <leschke@...> wrote:
>As one who is still working on that particular language change, I'll try
>I, on the other hand, am the one who qualified this as *teaching
>themselves*. I wonder, though why the problem with that?
answering. It isn't a problem at all. It's just a different way of
looking at things. What I hear Sandra saying is that losing the word teach
altogether will help us unschool even better than reversing the subject and
object of teach.
>3) I have pointed this out before so I'll do it again: When we getI can't speak for Sandra, but I don't think you're looking at this in the
>into details like *learn* vs. *teach*, what we all are doing is
>insisting on an UNSCHOOLING CANON. And I have to tell you, not only
>do I think it is an oxymoron, but I find that very discomforting.
spirit that she wrote it. There is no unschooling canon. There are just
some people who are finding a lot of success with unschooling offering
their thoughts about why they might be having success, and it often has to
do with little changes in thinking they needed to go through in order to
have that success.
I know that I always thought I was a radical unschooler, and didn't know
why I felt so unsuccessful at it. It was when I came here and started
"listening" to all the debates about the fine points that I realized where
I could have done a better job with just a few tweaks of my thinking. I'm
grateful to Sandra for continuing to plug away at these details so that I
can continue working on my own thinking. I certainly don't see it as
having to follow certain rules or anything.
>I understand you meant to point out the philosophical differenceThis *is* a big step in everyone's thinking. I guess I just happen to like
>between *teach* and *learn*. Nevertheless, I particularly like the
>authority reversal of my kids being their own teachers as opposed to
>somebody else.
it when someone points out that my most recent big step didn't take me to
the end of the road, so to speak. I like being encouraged to go on and
take the next one. I guess that's why I hang around here.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the Moderator, Joyce Fetteroll, at fetteroll@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/6/02 11:15:13 AM Central Daylight Time,
leschke@... writes:
*spirit* of unschooling. I read on another unschooling list and I seem to be
the instigator there. I don't mean to be. People post things like *What math
curriculum do you all use?* and I reply that we don't use math curriculum or
what ever. That sets off a storm of debate on whether or not using a
curriculum can still be unschooling. I try to explain what the spirit of
unschooling is, I must be a dismal failure though. I get replies that *We
unschool during the summer, the kids are allowed to play and have all the fun
they want exploring their own interests.* or *I let the kids study on the
porch swing or lying down on the couch.* or *We unschool subjects that don't
matter, like art and music but I make sure the kids cover the basics like
math and English. Then we do more fun things like unit studies for history,
and the kids are allowed to pick out their own reading material.* How is this
unschooling? Why deceive yourselves? Some have suggested that I am hung up on
a label or that unschooling can mean anything you want it too, it is not a
members only club. I say, no I am not hung up on a label, (but maybe I am)
and I certainly hope it isn't a club. But, to me, unschooling doesn't mean
just anything, and you can't make it mean just anything. Unschooling just is.
I too used to wonder why I was so unsuccessful. For all the attachment
parenting, family bed, prolonged nursing, freedom from institutionalized
education, I practiced, I didn't seem to be able to grasp that bigger
picture. I still had hang-ups. I wanted to use punishment effectively, I
wanted everyone to do their chores with smiles on their faces, I expected
many things to be the way I wanted them to be. Coming here has given me a
peek at the bigger picture. You can't just unschool when it comes to
*schoolish* things. You can't turn unschooling off at the end of the
afternoon and expect things to be hunky-dory. You can't respect your
children's choices in learning but not respect their choices in life. How can
we say *Johnny, mommy has decided that unschooling is what is best for you?
Now you can explore the world at your leisure, but don't forget to fold that
load of laundry exactly how I told you!* or *I trust you will learn all about
art on your own, but I am making sure you don't miss out on math!*
I certainly don't want to turn unschooling into something that says there is
only one way to unschool. I don't want visions of unschoolers at conventions
with pamphlets and smiling faces saying "can I take some time to show you how
to unschool the right way?" But, I firmly believe there is a spirit to
unschooling. There is a bigger picture. And thanks to people like Joyce, Tia,
Sandra, Sue, and all the others here, I see more of that picture everyday.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
leschke@... writes:
> I can't speak for Sandra, but I don't think you're looking at this in theWhile there may be no Unschooling Canon, I do believe there is a general
> spirit that she wrote it. There is no unschooling canon. There are just
> some people who are finding a lot of success with unschooling offering
> their thoughts about why they might be having success, and it often has to
> do with little changes in thinking they needed to go through in order to
> have that success.
>
> I know that I always thought I was a radical unschooler, and didn't know
> why I felt so unsuccessful at it. It was when I came here and started
> "listening" to all the debates about the fine points that I realized where
> I could have done a better job with just a few tweaks of my thinking. I'm
> grateful to Sandra for continuing to plug away at these details so that I
> can continue working on my own thinking. I certainly don't see it as
> having to follow certain rules or anything.
>
*spirit* of unschooling. I read on another unschooling list and I seem to be
the instigator there. I don't mean to be. People post things like *What math
curriculum do you all use?* and I reply that we don't use math curriculum or
what ever. That sets off a storm of debate on whether or not using a
curriculum can still be unschooling. I try to explain what the spirit of
unschooling is, I must be a dismal failure though. I get replies that *We
unschool during the summer, the kids are allowed to play and have all the fun
they want exploring their own interests.* or *I let the kids study on the
porch swing or lying down on the couch.* or *We unschool subjects that don't
matter, like art and music but I make sure the kids cover the basics like
math and English. Then we do more fun things like unit studies for history,
and the kids are allowed to pick out their own reading material.* How is this
unschooling? Why deceive yourselves? Some have suggested that I am hung up on
a label or that unschooling can mean anything you want it too, it is not a
members only club. I say, no I am not hung up on a label, (but maybe I am)
and I certainly hope it isn't a club. But, to me, unschooling doesn't mean
just anything, and you can't make it mean just anything. Unschooling just is.
I too used to wonder why I was so unsuccessful. For all the attachment
parenting, family bed, prolonged nursing, freedom from institutionalized
education, I practiced, I didn't seem to be able to grasp that bigger
picture. I still had hang-ups. I wanted to use punishment effectively, I
wanted everyone to do their chores with smiles on their faces, I expected
many things to be the way I wanted them to be. Coming here has given me a
peek at the bigger picture. You can't just unschool when it comes to
*schoolish* things. You can't turn unschooling off at the end of the
afternoon and expect things to be hunky-dory. You can't respect your
children's choices in learning but not respect their choices in life. How can
we say *Johnny, mommy has decided that unschooling is what is best for you?
Now you can explore the world at your leisure, but don't forget to fold that
load of laundry exactly how I told you!* or *I trust you will learn all about
art on your own, but I am making sure you don't miss out on math!*
I certainly don't want to turn unschooling into something that says there is
only one way to unschool. I don't want visions of unschoolers at conventions
with pamphlets and smiling faces saying "can I take some time to show you how
to unschool the right way?" But, I firmly believe there is a spirit to
unschooling. There is a bigger picture. And thanks to people like Joyce, Tia,
Sandra, Sue, and all the others here, I see more of that picture everyday.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Liza Sabater
>This is the second time someone has posted a response to something on one ofSorry about that. Ned cross-posted and I felt that I had to respond
>these HEM lists to both of them. They really are separate lists, and if the
>conversations abruptly switch because something was brought over from another
>list without explanation that's going to be confusing. I'd prefer to keep
>them as separate conversations, but both times it was a response to something
>from me that was cross-posted with comments.
to both. I apologize for the confusion.
>Some won't find them until after their kids are grown, if then, unless theyI completely get what you say and I do not disagree with anything. I
>are aware that there are differences and advantages. Many find them through
>discussion with others, and examination of their own ideas.
mean, really. What I am trying to articulate here is that issues of
semantics have more to do with a person's background and experience
in "un-" or "homeschooling" and less with their ability to perform as
caring and committed parents.
The bottom line is that these words, *teach* and *learn*, express a
relationship of power. I am not saying it is a good or a bad thing.
All I am pointing out is that, yes, they express a position of power
in which TEACH, by being a transitive verb, expresses power upon an
object; whereas LEARN, by being intransitive, expresses the power of a subject.
These things are fascinating because, again, a lot of this is not
about what we learn or do not learn but about who has the power over
learning (or teaching). Which brings me to the comment about canons:
I am the first one to admit to having a heck of a hard time with
taking someone else's teaching.
A lot of the times I do not write observations, I teach --and it is
hard not to because, I am after all a scholar (a creative one but a
scholar, nonetheless). So I actually react at comments that I read as
*teachings* (even though I do it myself). In other words, I am not
reacting to the observation ---I am reacting to, what I took as *the
teaching*.
All of this is part of my deschooling process and, quite frankly, I
am just letting it be. What I am trying to do with these postings is
something aching to performing a biopsy on myself --opening up the
entrails, stepping back, and just looking at what it is in there. You
may comment and I may react to it. That's cool.
The conversation is part of my search.
Best,
Liza
*courtesy of Frank McCourt : "to care a fiddler's fart" :-)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
Teaching to me is a role we all play. Learning is a growth process. My son
loves to teach me how to scooter. He shows me how to put on a helmet, to raise
my handle bars, to start and stop. He shows me just how to go off a curb, to
twirl and pop wheelies. I know these things already. I have learned them. He
gets great joy showing me all the fine details he himself has learned. He is
practicing being an expert and someone who can explain an activity to another
person. We all learn, we all get taught things from others and we all teach
when asked. A goal of unschooling my kids is to show them to believe in
themselves and everyone they interact with. We all have something valuable to
share. I hope they learn this.
Mary
loves to teach me how to scooter. He shows me how to put on a helmet, to raise
my handle bars, to start and stop. He shows me just how to go off a curb, to
twirl and pop wheelies. I know these things already. I have learned them. He
gets great joy showing me all the fine details he himself has learned. He is
practicing being an expert and someone who can explain an activity to another
person. We all learn, we all get taught things from others and we all teach
when asked. A goal of unschooling my kids is to show them to believe in
themselves and everyone they interact with. We all have something valuable to
share. I hope they learn this.
Mary
KT
>Do you remember RReil from the old AOL days? Maybe he's here, that
>
>I'm not the only person who has benefited from changing "teach" to learn" and
>(for what it's worth) I myself learned that from a college professor who was
>involved in the school reform movement of the early 1970's.
>
would be interesting.
Anyway, he said something in P/CP that was shocking to me then, but I've
thought about it for years and years and I believe he's right. Maybe
someone else can remember his whole argument, but this is the part I
remember the most. He said that (paraphrasing from long ago) teaching
was an immoral act, because it was an attempt to control the thoughts of
others. His arguments for this were very compelling.
And he is a teacher by profession, too, which makes his thoughts even
more interesting to me.
Tuck
KT
>A little bit of tweaking can go a looong way.
>
>I could have done a better job with just a few tweaks of my thinking.
>
Here's a baseball example. (We're freaks about baseball around here.)
Will plays coach-pitch. Each batter gets 7 pitches or 3 strikes,
thrown by his own coach. There are naturally some kids who get to 6
pitches and two strikes every time they get up, and it's clinch time.
If they don't hit the next pitch, the coach gets tense, the parents get
tense and all the hopes are riding on this one pitch.
Invariably, in 15 games this year, and in probably every game in the
last 2 seasons we were there, the coach says, "Okay, Jason, you *have*
to swing at this pitch." *swing at*. I believe he should be saying,
"Okay, Jason, you *have* to *HIT* this pitch."
Simple tweak of thought and therefore expectation. The "swing at"
implies to the kid that he's a strikeout. The "hit" implies to the kid
that the coach still has hope. Or maybe the coach should just harness
the power of positive thinking.
I would like to report that the coach changed his language and Jason
started hitting the ball. Jason did start hitting the ball on occasion,
but it was in spite of the coach's discouraging language. There are so
many examples in baseball that I hear male coaches use without thinking.
I want my own team!
Tuck
[email protected]
On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 18:18:06 -0500 KT <Tuck@...> writes:
where you get 5 pitches from a teammate (and with the "everyone plays
every position" philosophy, that often means 5 balls) and then three from
a coach. If you didn't hit a fair ball by then, you were out. Some of the
kids would stand there and watch the third coach-thrown pitch go by
without swinging, and we did tell thay should swing at that pitch,
whether they liked it or not. But... I think the pressure of "You have to
hit this pitch" would have been pretty hard, for Rain at least, if she
had swung and missed. It's hard if someone says you have to do something
and then you try and fail. Swinging is something you can't really fail
at. It would be nice if the kid hit the pitch, but at least with the
philosophy of Rain's league, giving a good swing would be a good thing
too. Just standing there watching the pitch go by was not so good...
It was a good starter league, very non-competitive. I much preferred it
this way, but next year she wants to do fast pitch.
I do agree that words can make a difference. I've always thought that the
language around reading was particularly annoying, the whole idea that
one either can read or can't read. I see it as such a broad spectrum, and
most people fall somewhere between the two extremes. The two year old who
chirps, "McDonald's!" when he drives by the sign is reading. I look at
certain advanced textbooks on computer programming and can't understand
any of it, I have pretty much no comprehension there... it's all a matter
of degree.
Dar
> >I'm not sure about this one. Rain played Team Pitch Y-Ball this spring,
> Invariably, in 15 games this year, and in probably every game in the
> last 2 seasons we were there, the coach says, "Okay, Jason, you *have*
> to swing at this pitch." *swing at*. I believe he should be saying,
> "Okay, Jason, you *have* to *HIT* this pitch."
where you get 5 pitches from a teammate (and with the "everyone plays
every position" philosophy, that often means 5 balls) and then three from
a coach. If you didn't hit a fair ball by then, you were out. Some of the
kids would stand there and watch the third coach-thrown pitch go by
without swinging, and we did tell thay should swing at that pitch,
whether they liked it or not. But... I think the pressure of "You have to
hit this pitch" would have been pretty hard, for Rain at least, if she
had swung and missed. It's hard if someone says you have to do something
and then you try and fail. Swinging is something you can't really fail
at. It would be nice if the kid hit the pitch, but at least with the
philosophy of Rain's league, giving a good swing would be a good thing
too. Just standing there watching the pitch go by was not so good...
It was a good starter league, very non-competitive. I much preferred it
this way, but next year she wants to do fast pitch.
I do agree that words can make a difference. I've always thought that the
language around reading was particularly annoying, the whole idea that
one either can read or can't read. I see it as such a broad spectrum, and
most people fall somewhere between the two extremes. The two year old who
chirps, "McDonald's!" when he drives by the sign is reading. I look at
certain advanced textbooks on computer programming and can't understand
any of it, I have pretty much no comprehension there... it's all a matter
of degree.
Dar
Tia Leschke
>We are *so* fortunate that dh coaches Lars' team, has since Lars was
>I would like to report that the coach changed his language and Jason
>started hitting the ball. Jason did start hitting the ball on occasion,
>but it was in spite of the coach's discouraging language. There are so
>many examples in baseball that I hear male coaches use without thinking.
> I want my own team!
7. *And* that he's an awesome coach. He's always favoured the positive
over the negative with the boys, and it shows. They won gold in the
Provincials last summer. This year they get to represent Vancouver Island
in the BC Summer Games. And with Dad's coaching and a lot of hard work and
talent, Lars has been picked for a selection camp next month that might get
him a spot on Team BC next year.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Tia Leschke
> It's hard if someone says you have to do somethingI missed that bit. I agree. We always tell the boys that *if* they're
>and then you try and fail. Swinging is something you can't really fail
>at. It would be nice if the kid hit the pitch, but at least with the
>philosophy of Rain's league, giving a good swing would be a good thing
>too. Just standing there watching the pitch go by was not so good...
going to strike out, we want them to strike out swinging. Obviously we'd
rather they hit the ball, but a lot of kids will just stand there waiting
for 4 balls, even when they've got 2 strikes on them.
Which reminds me of a joke I heard the other day.
Baseball is wrong.
A man cannot walk with 4 balls.
>It was a good starter league, very non-competitive. I much preferred itThat's a good way to start, but if she *is* competitive, a more competitive
>this way, but next year she wants to do fast pitch.
league will work well for her. And fast pitch is a great game. It's what
Lars plays.
>I do agree that words can make a difference. I've always thought that theI fell into that trap. I'm sure it wasn't good for Lars to hear that he
>language around reading was particularly annoying, the whole idea that
>one either can read or can't read.
wasn't reading yet, when he *could* read a tiny bit.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
[email protected]
i love it..
GOOD thinking, Tuck..
Linda LL
GOOD thinking, Tuck..
Linda LL
----- Original Message -----
From: KT
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Teaching vs. Learning
>
>
>I could have done a better job with just a few tweaks of my thinking.
>
A little bit of tweaking can go a looong way.
Here's a baseball example. (We're freaks about baseball around here.)
Will plays coach-pitch. Each batter gets 7 pitches or 3 strikes,
thrown by his own coach. There are naturally some kids who get to 6
pitches and two strikes every time they get up, and it's clinch time.
If they don't hit the next pitch, the coach gets tense, the parents get
tense and all the hopes are riding on this one pitch.
Invariably, in 15 games this year, and in probably every game in the
last 2 seasons we were there, the coach says, "Okay, Jason, you *have*
to swing at this pitch." *swing at*. I believe he should be saying,
"Okay, Jason, you *have* to *HIT* this pitch."
Simple tweak of thought and therefore expectation. The "swing at"
implies to the kid that he's a strikeout. The "hit" implies to the kid
that the coach still has hope. Or maybe the coach should just harness
the power of positive thinking.
I would like to report that the coach changed his language and Jason
started hitting the ball. Jason did start hitting the ball on occasion,
but it was in spite of the coach's discouraging language. There are so
many examples in baseball that I hear male coaches use without thinking.
I want my own team!
Tuck
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
KT
>You too!? I took SO advantage of that during the 7 years Will was
>
>The two year old who
>chirps, "McDonald's!" when he drives by the sign is reading.
>
learning to read. Pointing out that symbols are representations of
words or ideas and if he recognized the symbols, he was reading, and
that there were lots more symbols to become familiar with, and that he
would probably be learning new symbols all his life. It was simply a
matter of time before all those experiences with new symbols added up to
fluency in reading the English language.
Tuck
KT
>Yeah, my dh was the assistant coach on Will's team. I was constantly
>
>
>We are *so* fortunate that dh coaches Lars' team, has since Lars was
>7. *And* that he's an awesome coach.
>
pointing out ways to make it more positive, because the coach sometimes
couldn't stay positive, although his negative wasn't too bad comparitively.
We've had a kid in Little League for all of the last 15 years. I've had
a lot of time in the stands and lots of experiences with volunteer
coaches and time to think about how to teach kids to play baseball and
do it in a way that connects with the kid. Some kids are way into it,
and you can talk to them rationally about the game. They've seen lots of
professional games, play it constantly with the kids in the
neighborhood, etc. My son is one of those. There are a few of those on
every team. You usually only have to work on their fundamentals, and
teach them a little finesse.
There are also a few on every team who have rarely, if ever, played. No
one talks to them about baseball, or they talk over the kid's head about
it. The parents react negatively if they miss a grounder, etc. They're
the ones in the outfield playing in the dirt or throwing their glove up
in the air.
So, dh and I had this long conversation about giving the kids metaphors
for their imaginations to use while they're playing the game. When my
20 yo was playing catcher at 10 and 11, we had a conversation about him
being a giant magnet behind the plate, and that no ball could resist
him. My son still remembers that, 10 years later. He said it helped.
I think kids who don't live for baseball (insert other thing here) need
a way to relate the acts of baseball, either to their life or their
imagination. Metaphors will work for some kids, and I encouraged dh to
come up with a ready supply for the most common baseball situation.
I didn't think dh was putting any stock in the metaphor idea. But we
were talking about a really spectacular slide into home by Brandon, who
was playing for the first time this year. He ran like the wind and
avoided the tag, and it was not expected to happen that way. Dh
explained that while he was coaching third base and Brandon was stopped
there, he looked down in mock surprise and said, "Look, what's that on
your feet?! Wings! You're feet are growing wings!" Dh said Brandon
looked up and smiled. And then when the ball was hit, he made it home.
For the rest of the season, every time Brandon got to third they
talked about his winged feet. And even if it didn't result in improved
performance, the kid is having a great time, and seeing his face light
up like that is worth it!
Tuck
Betsy
**>I do agree that words can make a difference. I've always thought that the
critical person had tossed around the word "illiterate". I was thinking
at the time, that "pre-literate" would be a more accurate and less
worrying term for describing children who aren't yet reading.
Betsy
>language around reading was particularly annoying, the whole idea thatThere was a discussion here (I think) recently about literacy where a
>one either can read or can't read. **
critical person had tossed around the word "illiterate". I was thinking
at the time, that "pre-literate" would be a more accurate and less
worrying term for describing children who aren't yet reading.
Betsy
Liza Sabater
It is not only apt, it is correct. When we look at cave paintings or
hieroglyphs, we are not studying the work of illiterates; were are
looking at a pre-literate world.
The ability to read and understand signs is fundamental not just to
reading but to critical thinking. To get to that level though, we
have to learn how decipher not just words but the world as an
agglomeration of signs. I can't even begin to describe the many
applications these skills have.
It was not only sad to me but also frustrating to see kids come into
an honor's level class in college because they learned to follow to
rules but never learned to think critically. Many people get creamed,
not only in college but in jobs as well because they have an
underdeveloped capacity for thinking critically. Believe it or not,
the computer revolution is not led by followers but by critical
thinkers.
On a similar tangent, in this month's 'Good Housekeeping' there is an
article about Intuition. I highly recommend it. As it is explained,
it has to do with a process of the brain in which it takes signs and
symbols and makes sense of these as information; filing it away in
the subconscious until the time comes for it to be used.
So yes! Keep reading those signs. It is reading after all.
Liza
hieroglyphs, we are not studying the work of illiterates; were are
looking at a pre-literate world.
The ability to read and understand signs is fundamental not just to
reading but to critical thinking. To get to that level though, we
have to learn how decipher not just words but the world as an
agglomeration of signs. I can't even begin to describe the many
applications these skills have.
It was not only sad to me but also frustrating to see kids come into
an honor's level class in college because they learned to follow to
rules but never learned to think critically. Many people get creamed,
not only in college but in jobs as well because they have an
underdeveloped capacity for thinking critically. Believe it or not,
the computer revolution is not led by followers but by critical
thinkers.
On a similar tangent, in this month's 'Good Housekeeping' there is an
article about Intuition. I highly recommend it. As it is explained,
it has to do with a process of the brain in which it takes signs and
symbols and makes sense of these as information; filing it away in
the subconscious until the time comes for it to be used.
So yes! Keep reading those signs. It is reading after all.
Liza
>**>I do agree that words can make a difference. I've always thought that the[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>language around reading was particularly annoying, the whole idea that
>>one either can read or can't read. **
>
>There was a discussion here (I think) recently about literacy where a
>critical person had tossed around the word "illiterate". I was thinking
>at the time, that "pre-literate" would be a more accurate and less
>worrying term for describing children who aren't yet reading.
>
>Betsy