Terminology (was Arm Yourself Against Stupidity!)
Danielle Conger
Sandra wrote: Numbers come on their own. Math can too, if the parts of the
brain where it
Here's a question I've been mulling over for sometime.
Sandra, several times you've mentioned avoiding schoolish
terminology--mostly math examples like multiplication or geometry, but I'm
guessing this would apply to things like simile, alliteration, etc. I'm
wondering why you think terminology clutters up the brain. I know the terms
are made important by schools and that's problematic, but isn't there a way
to take the terms out of the school setting and use them in helpful ways?
See, I'm far more apt to use the term itself as a way of demystifying it and
integrating it into life instead of avoiding the term. If multiplication or
geometry are something that happen around the house and not just in a school
building in 8th grade classrooms, it's going to be part of living and not
some mysterious, scary thing that requires experts to provide access to it.
And if alliteration is something we do when we're being silly or something
we find in Scooby-Doo then it, too, will be part of life, part of thinking,
speaking and playing with language.
So, I'm talking about using a term as a means of identifying something that
comes up in life, *not* as a subject that must be covered, learned and
prepared for and lectured on--if that distinction makes sense.
Just curious and wanted to hear you elaborate a bit.
--Danielle
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
brain where it
> works haven't been loaded with numbers and math terminology that theymight
> want to use someday. They need room inside to do cartwheels and they'llfill in
> the numbers in their own way later.==========================================
Here's a question I've been mulling over for sometime.
Sandra, several times you've mentioned avoiding schoolish
terminology--mostly math examples like multiplication or geometry, but I'm
guessing this would apply to things like simile, alliteration, etc. I'm
wondering why you think terminology clutters up the brain. I know the terms
are made important by schools and that's problematic, but isn't there a way
to take the terms out of the school setting and use them in helpful ways?
See, I'm far more apt to use the term itself as a way of demystifying it and
integrating it into life instead of avoiding the term. If multiplication or
geometry are something that happen around the house and not just in a school
building in 8th grade classrooms, it's going to be part of living and not
some mysterious, scary thing that requires experts to provide access to it.
And if alliteration is something we do when we're being silly or something
we find in Scooby-Doo then it, too, will be part of life, part of thinking,
speaking and playing with language.
So, I'm talking about using a term as a means of identifying something that
comes up in life, *not* as a subject that must be covered, learned and
prepared for and lectured on--if that distinction makes sense.
Just curious and wanted to hear you elaborate a bit.
--Danielle
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/24/04 8:19:46 AM, danielle.conger@... writes:
<< Sandra, several times you've mentioned avoiding schoolish
terminology--mostly math examples like multiplication or geometry, but I'm
guessing this would apply to things like simile, alliteration, etc. I'm
wondering why you think terminology clutters up the brain. >>
Terms before examples are confusing static.
Terms AFTER examples are just more vocabulary, like "clock" or "dog."
No child who has never seen a dog nor a picture of a dog needs to hear the
word "dog."
<< I know the terms
are made important by schools and that's problematic, but isn't there a way
to take the terms out of the school setting and use them in helpful ways?>>
Sure. When it comes up in real life and the kids notice the patterns,
mention the term. If they forget it, mention it again in six months or three years
when it comes up again.
If you don't ever mention it, they will find it on their own when reading or
hearing a comedian speak or something later.
There are lots of things I know that I didn't learn from school or from my
parents.
-=-See, I'm far more apt to use the term itself as a way of demystifying it
and
integrating it into life instead of avoiding the term.-=-
Mystification can be good. If a kid is playing with his own newly-found idea
that superheroes names tend to have same beginning sounds, like Clark Kent
and Lois Lane, Peter Parker (what was the guy in Unbreakable? his name did that
too), and cartoon characters do too sometimes, like Daffy Duck and Bugs
Bunny, don't jump in TOO soon to tell him he's not the first one to notice that and
that it has a name.
If he comes and reports his news to you, say "How cool!" and think of some
more with him. And then you can say that before rhyming final syllables was the
cool things to do in English poetry, what they really liked, the Anglo-Saxons
and the Vikings, was alliteration, which is that beginning sounds match.
"Alliteration." It's related to "letter" and "literate" (etymologically
speaking).
You could say some or all of that, depending on the person's other interests
or prior knowledge.
But to bring it up one day cold, and say "Someday you might notice that
sometimes a write will choose words that match at the beginning, and you should be
on the lookout for that, because it might be on a standardized test someday,
or you might want to study literature or the history of English, and the word
is 'alliteration,' so try to remember that," you will just be making noise.
And really irritating noise. And if and when the kid WERE to come across that
and remember what you said, it wouldn't be a joyous moment.
Too many terms and too little discovery squeezes the joy out of their
discoveries.
-=So, I'm talking about using a term as a means of identifying something that
comes up in life,-=-
Right.
Like a dog or a clock.
But when it comes to "disciplines" and "subject areas," I made a conscious
decision when Kirby was five (and told all my friends who thought I was goofy)
NOT to categorize things for him as being "science" or "math" or "history." I
chose NOT to tell him that triangles had to do with counting. Because honest
to God, they DON'T, outside of school. I didn't tell him worms had to do
with surgery. I didn't tell him the moon was related to volacnos. In the life
of a five year old child (and anyone else outside of school or a personal
philosophical internal ramble) they aren't.
Ancient Egyptians and 19th century Hawaiians? Why should they be set
side-by-side? Why, if a child is excited about the Great Wall of China, should a
parent start in on history in general, or geography in general, or the entire
history of wars or human migration, or anything else except JUST what directly
has to do with what the child knows or wonders at that moment about that wall?
Answer their questions. Show them one more cool thing, maybe--a dot to
connect, that you know they have inside. But don't plot the thing on the map of
your state's curriculum. Just let it be what it is. Let the child have the
joy of the gradual discovery of what relates to what else in what ways. He'll
probably do it WAY more thoroughly and more in keeping with his personal
model of the universe than he will do with someone else coaching him about what's
important and what parts he should remember or be most proud of having learned.
Sandra
<< Sandra, several times you've mentioned avoiding schoolish
terminology--mostly math examples like multiplication or geometry, but I'm
guessing this would apply to things like simile, alliteration, etc. I'm
wondering why you think terminology clutters up the brain. >>
Terms before examples are confusing static.
Terms AFTER examples are just more vocabulary, like "clock" or "dog."
No child who has never seen a dog nor a picture of a dog needs to hear the
word "dog."
<< I know the terms
are made important by schools and that's problematic, but isn't there a way
to take the terms out of the school setting and use them in helpful ways?>>
Sure. When it comes up in real life and the kids notice the patterns,
mention the term. If they forget it, mention it again in six months or three years
when it comes up again.
If you don't ever mention it, they will find it on their own when reading or
hearing a comedian speak or something later.
There are lots of things I know that I didn't learn from school or from my
parents.
-=-See, I'm far more apt to use the term itself as a way of demystifying it
and
integrating it into life instead of avoiding the term.-=-
Mystification can be good. If a kid is playing with his own newly-found idea
that superheroes names tend to have same beginning sounds, like Clark Kent
and Lois Lane, Peter Parker (what was the guy in Unbreakable? his name did that
too), and cartoon characters do too sometimes, like Daffy Duck and Bugs
Bunny, don't jump in TOO soon to tell him he's not the first one to notice that and
that it has a name.
If he comes and reports his news to you, say "How cool!" and think of some
more with him. And then you can say that before rhyming final syllables was the
cool things to do in English poetry, what they really liked, the Anglo-Saxons
and the Vikings, was alliteration, which is that beginning sounds match.
"Alliteration." It's related to "letter" and "literate" (etymologically
speaking).
You could say some or all of that, depending on the person's other interests
or prior knowledge.
But to bring it up one day cold, and say "Someday you might notice that
sometimes a write will choose words that match at the beginning, and you should be
on the lookout for that, because it might be on a standardized test someday,
or you might want to study literature or the history of English, and the word
is 'alliteration,' so try to remember that," you will just be making noise.
And really irritating noise. And if and when the kid WERE to come across that
and remember what you said, it wouldn't be a joyous moment.
Too many terms and too little discovery squeezes the joy out of their
discoveries.
-=So, I'm talking about using a term as a means of identifying something that
comes up in life,-=-
Right.
Like a dog or a clock.
But when it comes to "disciplines" and "subject areas," I made a conscious
decision when Kirby was five (and told all my friends who thought I was goofy)
NOT to categorize things for him as being "science" or "math" or "history." I
chose NOT to tell him that triangles had to do with counting. Because honest
to God, they DON'T, outside of school. I didn't tell him worms had to do
with surgery. I didn't tell him the moon was related to volacnos. In the life
of a five year old child (and anyone else outside of school or a personal
philosophical internal ramble) they aren't.
Ancient Egyptians and 19th century Hawaiians? Why should they be set
side-by-side? Why, if a child is excited about the Great Wall of China, should a
parent start in on history in general, or geography in general, or the entire
history of wars or human migration, or anything else except JUST what directly
has to do with what the child knows or wonders at that moment about that wall?
Answer their questions. Show them one more cool thing, maybe--a dot to
connect, that you know they have inside. But don't plot the thing on the map of
your state's curriculum. Just let it be what it is. Let the child have the
joy of the gradual discovery of what relates to what else in what ways. He'll
probably do it WAY more thoroughly and more in keeping with his personal
model of the universe than he will do with someone else coaching him about what's
important and what parts he should remember or be most proud of having learned.
Sandra
Dawn Adams
Danielle writes:
Here's a question I've been mulling over for sometime.
Sandra, several times you've mentioned avoiding schoolish
terminology--mostly math examples like multiplication or geometry, but I'm
guessing this would apply to things like simile, alliteration, etc. I'm
wondering why you think terminology clutters up the brain. I know the terms
are made important by schools and that's problematic, but isn't there a way
to take the terms out of the school setting and use them in helpful ways?
See, I'm far more apt to use the term itself as a way of demystifying it and
integrating it into life instead of avoiding the term. If multiplication or
geometry are something that happen around the house and not just in a school
building in 8th grade classrooms, it's going to be part of living and not
some mysterious, scary thing that requires experts to provide access to it.
I think it was Sandra maybe, or maybe I read it elsewhere, who brought up a story of a mathmatician who if he had kids (or he had kids but decided that if he could do it again) he would not teach them any math. That's really stuck with me. At least the point of it...every other detail as you can tell is vague. :)
Dawn (in NS)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Here's a question I've been mulling over for sometime.
Sandra, several times you've mentioned avoiding schoolish
terminology--mostly math examples like multiplication or geometry, but I'm
guessing this would apply to things like simile, alliteration, etc. I'm
wondering why you think terminology clutters up the brain. I know the terms
are made important by schools and that's problematic, but isn't there a way
to take the terms out of the school setting and use them in helpful ways?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.I've been thinking about this for awhile too so if you don't mind could I add my bit? I do use the terms but I'm trying to get away from most of it.
See, I'm far more apt to use the term itself as a way of demystifying it and
integrating it into life instead of avoiding the term. If multiplication or
geometry are something that happen around the house and not just in a school
building in 8th grade classrooms, it's going to be part of living and not
some mysterious, scary thing that requires experts to provide access to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.I come at this from the perspective of never having kids in school. Math is natural and fun around our house and doesn't need any demystifying. Starting to attach labels would add to the confusion here. It would also start cutting math up, making borders my kids might feel aren't to be crossed. I want them to feel math is as open to exploration and play as the backyard. How I was taught it (or rather not taught it) in school was that it was done this way, studied under these labels and not open to play at all (I remember getting marked down for getting right answers the wrong way). Maybe it's a different matter if your kids have already been exposed to the terms but here demystifycation isn't important because it's never been mystifyed. The labels they can learn when they need to but they don't need those labels to learn.
I think it was Sandra maybe, or maybe I read it elsewhere, who brought up a story of a mathmatician who if he had kids (or he had kids but decided that if he could do it again) he would not teach them any math. That's really stuck with me. At least the point of it...every other detail as you can tell is vague. :)
Dawn (in NS)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
queenjane555
This has been floating about in my head for awhile and i thought
maybe this thread about "terminology" might be a good place to put it.
It occurred to me that Seamus might never (in his childhood)learn the
terms "pronoun" "noun" "verb" "adverb" etc. The phrase "a noun is a
person place or thing" might be completely foreign to him. A huge
part of my childhood years in school was spent "diagramming"
sentences and defining these terms. Seamus is surrounded by people
who basically speak well, use proper sentence structure unless we are
being sloppy on purpose, etc. He seems to always use the right words
in the right places. His vocabulary might be somewhat "advanced" for
his age (he will use some really "hard" words when its least
expected), although i am not sure exactly how a 7 yo is supposed to
talk or what "vocabulary" words the typical 7 yo uses.
So i guess my question is, is it important that he know the
terminology for stuff he does naturally already? I suppose he might
want to memorize the basics before the SATs, but other than that, is
there anywhere in real life this stuff comes up? I think i explained
what a "vowel" was to him the other day because it came up in
conversation, but usually this kind of stuff doesnt come up. I
suppose i could strew some SchoolHouse Rock (i *still* dont know what
a conjuction is, nor what its function is)
We went garage-saling today and came across a ton of "teaching
materials", textbooks, teacher manuals etc. My sister said "This
mustve been a homeschooling family" and kept saying i should buy the
stuff. Instead i bought a pokemon card tin, some plastic pokemon
figures, a jenga (wooden puzzle thing)game, an unopened box of 600
plastic pieces that you attach pennies to to make structures (can't
remember the name, but seamus loves them and they are expensive in
the store), a bag of glitter, some kids books, some "family fun"
magazines, and some big wooden storage cubes. Ahhhh i love my
"unschooling curriculum".
Katherine
maybe this thread about "terminology" might be a good place to put it.
It occurred to me that Seamus might never (in his childhood)learn the
terms "pronoun" "noun" "verb" "adverb" etc. The phrase "a noun is a
person place or thing" might be completely foreign to him. A huge
part of my childhood years in school was spent "diagramming"
sentences and defining these terms. Seamus is surrounded by people
who basically speak well, use proper sentence structure unless we are
being sloppy on purpose, etc. He seems to always use the right words
in the right places. His vocabulary might be somewhat "advanced" for
his age (he will use some really "hard" words when its least
expected), although i am not sure exactly how a 7 yo is supposed to
talk or what "vocabulary" words the typical 7 yo uses.
So i guess my question is, is it important that he know the
terminology for stuff he does naturally already? I suppose he might
want to memorize the basics before the SATs, but other than that, is
there anywhere in real life this stuff comes up? I think i explained
what a "vowel" was to him the other day because it came up in
conversation, but usually this kind of stuff doesnt come up. I
suppose i could strew some SchoolHouse Rock (i *still* dont know what
a conjuction is, nor what its function is)
We went garage-saling today and came across a ton of "teaching
materials", textbooks, teacher manuals etc. My sister said "This
mustve been a homeschooling family" and kept saying i should buy the
stuff. Instead i bought a pokemon card tin, some plastic pokemon
figures, a jenga (wooden puzzle thing)game, an unopened box of 600
plastic pieces that you attach pennies to to make structures (can't
remember the name, but seamus loves them and they are expensive in
the store), a bag of glitter, some kids books, some "family fun"
magazines, and some big wooden storage cubes. Ahhhh i love my
"unschooling curriculum".
Katherine
[email protected]
-=-So i guess my question is, is it important that he know the
terminology for stuff he does naturally already?-=-
Certainly not at seven, and maybe never.
-=-other than that, is
there anywhere in real life this stuff comes up?-=-
MadLibs! They're at bookstores and available online (booklets to buy, and also some online versions).
We have Schoolhouse Rock. Had it on video, now have it on DVD. I used to just put it on for background, and the kids would pay attention to the ones that attracted their attention and go about their business otherwise. That's how they were intended to be used when they were first created. I never said "pay attention," but sometimes now when we're playing madlibs and one has forgotten, I'll sing a snippet of a song.
-=-an unopened box of 600
plastic pieces that you attach pennies to to make structures (can't
remember the name, but seamus loves them and they are expensive in
the store)-=-
Marty's had two sets, one new and one used. He's done some cool things with those.
-=-(i *still* dont know what
a conjuction is, nor what its function is)
-=-
They join things. Junction=intersection.
They work like those connectors between pennies in those kids. Honest.
This and that and the other thing, or something else.
and
or
When I want ways to explain things or examples, I go to google now. I used to go other places, not hardly ever anymore. <g>
Sandra
terminology for stuff he does naturally already?-=-
Certainly not at seven, and maybe never.
-=-other than that, is
there anywhere in real life this stuff comes up?-=-
MadLibs! They're at bookstores and available online (booklets to buy, and also some online versions).
We have Schoolhouse Rock. Had it on video, now have it on DVD. I used to just put it on for background, and the kids would pay attention to the ones that attracted their attention and go about their business otherwise. That's how they were intended to be used when they were first created. I never said "pay attention," but sometimes now when we're playing madlibs and one has forgotten, I'll sing a snippet of a song.
-=-an unopened box of 600
plastic pieces that you attach pennies to to make structures (can't
remember the name, but seamus loves them and they are expensive in
the store)-=-
Marty's had two sets, one new and one used. He's done some cool things with those.
-=-(i *still* dont know what
a conjuction is, nor what its function is)
-=-
They join things. Junction=intersection.
They work like those connectors between pennies in those kids. Honest.
This and that and the other thing, or something else.
and
or
When I want ways to explain things or examples, I go to google now. I used to go other places, not hardly ever anymore. <g>
Sandra
Fetteroll
on 4/25/04 3:55 AM, SandraDodd@... at SandraDodd@... wrote:
controlled readers? Schoolhouse Rock wouldn't exist -- not even under
another name ;-) -- if schools weren't requiring that kids learn that
knowledge.
Grammar words must come up in crossword puzzles but I can't recall any
recently.
They might come up in other verbal puzzles but that's just a guess since I
can't think of any.
Jeopardy?
Except for immersion programs, most foreign language programs - even the
ones intended for use when someone isn't in school -- use grammar words. I
found the hardest part of trying to learn German was the esoteric verb
tenses that I was supposed to have grasped in English grammar, but still
couldn't even after looking them up for the class.
If schools didn't teach grammar, would there be grammar questions on the
SATs?
Grammar words come up in discussions of the development of langauge and
writing and the structure of languages.
If you type in "noun" into Google and start eliminating grammar words (like
"singular" and "proper noun") the pages are still pages about grammar with a
few pages about the structure of other languages.
Here's some that came up with verb that aren't about learning grammar:
"God Is a Verb [title of a book] promises to do for Judaism what The Tibetan
Book of Living and Dying did for Buddhism"
VERB public service advertising campaign about exercise.
There's Dan "Phrasal Verb page" (http://www.eslcafe.com/pv/) that seems to
be a collection just for the fun of it.
There's a BBC radio program called The Verb: A cabaret of words
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/speech/theverb/competition1.shtml).
(There was a competition to come up with new words:
Many thanks to everyone who entered our invented words competition.
The winner, chosen by Ellie Levenson, was Ginspiration¹, submitted by Geoff
Lowe Definition: brain waves after the third or fourth drink.
Geoff also came up with Testoblerone
Definition: A special hormone that gives you the strength to break huge
triangular pieces of chocolate into smaller bits
Second, submitted by Jeffrey Meddle, was to Verbiform¹: to make up new
words on Saturday nights.
Third placed was, Canguage¹ submitted by Darrell Lloyd, which means 'words
that dogs understand'.
Congratulations to all of you, and especially to Geoff Lowe. There will be
another competition soon: tune into The Verb for details.)
Grammar vocabulary seems most prevelent purely for the teaching of grammar.
Joyce
> -=-other than that, is there anywhere in real life this stuff comes up?-=-MadLibs are "real life" but wouldn't Schoolhouse Rock be more like
>
> MadLibs! They're at bookstores and available online (booklets to buy, and
> also some online versions).
>
> We have Schoolhouse Rock.
controlled readers? Schoolhouse Rock wouldn't exist -- not even under
another name ;-) -- if schools weren't requiring that kids learn that
knowledge.
Grammar words must come up in crossword puzzles but I can't recall any
recently.
They might come up in other verbal puzzles but that's just a guess since I
can't think of any.
Jeopardy?
Except for immersion programs, most foreign language programs - even the
ones intended for use when someone isn't in school -- use grammar words. I
found the hardest part of trying to learn German was the esoteric verb
tenses that I was supposed to have grasped in English grammar, but still
couldn't even after looking them up for the class.
If schools didn't teach grammar, would there be grammar questions on the
SATs?
Grammar words come up in discussions of the development of langauge and
writing and the structure of languages.
If you type in "noun" into Google and start eliminating grammar words (like
"singular" and "proper noun") the pages are still pages about grammar with a
few pages about the structure of other languages.
Here's some that came up with verb that aren't about learning grammar:
"God Is a Verb [title of a book] promises to do for Judaism what The Tibetan
Book of Living and Dying did for Buddhism"
VERB public service advertising campaign about exercise.
There's Dan "Phrasal Verb page" (http://www.eslcafe.com/pv/) that seems to
be a collection just for the fun of it.
There's a BBC radio program called The Verb: A cabaret of words
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/speech/theverb/competition1.shtml).
(There was a competition to come up with new words:
Many thanks to everyone who entered our invented words competition.
The winner, chosen by Ellie Levenson, was Ginspiration¹, submitted by Geoff
Lowe Definition: brain waves after the third or fourth drink.
Geoff also came up with Testoblerone
Definition: A special hormone that gives you the strength to break huge
triangular pieces of chocolate into smaller bits
Second, submitted by Jeffrey Meddle, was to Verbiform¹: to make up new
words on Saturday nights.
Third placed was, Canguage¹ submitted by Darrell Lloyd, which means 'words
that dogs understand'.
Congratulations to all of you, and especially to Geoff Lowe. There will be
another competition soon: tune into The Verb for details.)
Grammar vocabulary seems most prevelent purely for the teaching of grammar.
Joyce
kayb85
> MadLibs are "real life" but wouldn't Schoolhouse Rock be more likeunder
> controlled readers? Schoolhouse Rock wouldn't exist -- not even
> another name ;-) -- if schools weren't requiring that kids learnthat
> knowledge.I don't know who invented mad libs or why (A quick google search
for "who invented mad libs" didn't come up with anything), but I'm
guessing they exist because someone wanted to come up with a fun way
for kids to practice grammar? If so, even mad libs wouldn't exist if
schools weren't requiring that kids learn that knowledge.
Sheila
Aimee
That usually happens pretty naturally, too. Noun,
verb, pronoun, etc came up when we were doing madlibs.
They were words, and types of words, that he already
knew, so the labels were easy to process.
What I like about unschooling is that the label can
come after the thing has been learned, it's like it
finds its place in his terminology way after he's
comfortable with it. it's often a lightbulb type
moment, lol. "Oh, I already knew that, is that what
it's called?" Effortless to retain it after that.
~Aimee
<<So i guess my question is, is it important that he
know the
terminology for stuff he does naturally already? >>
verb, pronoun, etc came up when we were doing madlibs.
They were words, and types of words, that he already
knew, so the labels were easy to process.
What I like about unschooling is that the label can
come after the thing has been learned, it's like it
finds its place in his terminology way after he's
comfortable with it. it's often a lightbulb type
moment, lol. "Oh, I already knew that, is that what
it's called?" Effortless to retain it after that.
~Aimee
<<So i guess my question is, is it important that he
know the
terminology for stuff he does naturally already? >>
Elizabeth Hill
** If schools didn't teach grammar, would there be grammar questions on the
SATs?**
Well, since you asked, my theory is that grammar questions on SATs and
other academic forms of tests are an attempt to give advantage to native
speakers. Because I think some of the questions hinge on grammar
subtleties and vocabulary shades of meaning that really can't be
memorized or learned by "rules" in our crazy language. It seems to me
that being raised in a home where people correctly speak English with a
sophisticated vocabulary is a big advantage in passing these tests that
claim to measure academic potential or academic achievement.
Betsy
SATs?**
Well, since you asked, my theory is that grammar questions on SATs and
other academic forms of tests are an attempt to give advantage to native
speakers. Because I think some of the questions hinge on grammar
subtleties and vocabulary shades of meaning that really can't be
memorized or learned by "rules" in our crazy language. It seems to me
that being raised in a home where people correctly speak English with a
sophisticated vocabulary is a big advantage in passing these tests that
claim to measure academic potential or academic achievement.
Betsy
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/25/04 9:09:37 AM, sheran@... writes:
<< > MadLibs are "real life" but wouldn't Schoolhouse Rock be more like
of school. LOTS of people think word histories are really interesting. I
don't blame those 85 percent who think it's not one bit interesting.
Pronunciations and the way they change is interesting to me. Most people don't care.
Schoolhouse rock existed to combat (verb, not noun, so it's pronounced
comBAT) the anti-television prejudice. Educators were cranky that kids could
memorize commercials but couldn't learn "facts" at school, so TV folks came up with
commercials for parts of speech and the times tables. Those were shown along
with commercials, one or two an hour, on Saturday mornings in the early
1970's.
-=-
I don't know who invented mad libs or why (A quick google search
for "who invented mad libs" didn't come up with anything), -=-
Before the days of e-mail humor, there was office humor.
Before that, there were things that kids (and women in offices, pre-copy
machines) would write up and pass on to other people because they were funny.
Jokes, lists, stories. They go by e-mail now, but I used to collect hand-done
copies. I wish I'd saved them all.
Some of those were mad-libs-style things, so the form of humor, of asking for
names and actions and descriptions in advance and then plugging them into a
story, predates anyone publishing them.
Scholastic books, which specialized in cheap newsprint-paper paperbacks for
the school market in the 1960s, came up with MadLibs, because kids would buy
them. They used to be 50 cents a pad, and they were like little pads of paper.
They're still in that format, more or less.
Maybe people who don't enjoy math would say that booklets of logic puzzles
exist because school wants kids to like math, but I disagree. Puzzles and
analysis are fun, for those who are analytical. And I bet lots more people would
be analytical if schools didn't make it seem as fun as mucking a stable.
-=- If so, even mad libs wouldn't exist if
schools weren't requiring that kids learn that knowledge. -=-
This suggests that grammar is only a school-thing, and that's not true. The
way schools teach it makes it seem boring and repetitive, but they seem to
manage to do that with anything they turn into assembly line batch-delivery
"information."
Discovery is always more fun that delivery, and with schoolhouse rock a kid
can learn the song without even thinking about the words or understanding what
it's about, and later on spill it and examine it, on some long road trip or
off riding his bike.
Sandra
<< > MadLibs are "real life" but wouldn't Schoolhouse Rock be more like
> controlled readers? Schoolhouse Rock wouldn't exist -- not evenunder
> another name ;-) -- if schools weren't requiring that kids learnthat
> knowledge. >>I really like grammar. People being analytical about language exists outside
of school. LOTS of people think word histories are really interesting. I
don't blame those 85 percent who think it's not one bit interesting.
Pronunciations and the way they change is interesting to me. Most people don't care.
Schoolhouse rock existed to combat (verb, not noun, so it's pronounced
comBAT) the anti-television prejudice. Educators were cranky that kids could
memorize commercials but couldn't learn "facts" at school, so TV folks came up with
commercials for parts of speech and the times tables. Those were shown along
with commercials, one or two an hour, on Saturday mornings in the early
1970's.
-=-
I don't know who invented mad libs or why (A quick google search
for "who invented mad libs" didn't come up with anything), -=-
Before the days of e-mail humor, there was office humor.
Before that, there were things that kids (and women in offices, pre-copy
machines) would write up and pass on to other people because they were funny.
Jokes, lists, stories. They go by e-mail now, but I used to collect hand-done
copies. I wish I'd saved them all.
Some of those were mad-libs-style things, so the form of humor, of asking for
names and actions and descriptions in advance and then plugging them into a
story, predates anyone publishing them.
Scholastic books, which specialized in cheap newsprint-paper paperbacks for
the school market in the 1960s, came up with MadLibs, because kids would buy
them. They used to be 50 cents a pad, and they were like little pads of paper.
They're still in that format, more or less.
Maybe people who don't enjoy math would say that booklets of logic puzzles
exist because school wants kids to like math, but I disagree. Puzzles and
analysis are fun, for those who are analytical. And I bet lots more people would
be analytical if schools didn't make it seem as fun as mucking a stable.
-=- If so, even mad libs wouldn't exist if
schools weren't requiring that kids learn that knowledge. -=-
This suggests that grammar is only a school-thing, and that's not true. The
way schools teach it makes it seem boring and repetitive, but they seem to
manage to do that with anything they turn into assembly line batch-delivery
"information."
Discovery is always more fun that delivery, and with schoolhouse rock a kid
can learn the song without even thinking about the words or understanding what
it's about, and later on spill it and examine it, on some long road trip or
off riding his bike.
Sandra
mamaaj2000
--- In [email protected], Fetteroll
<fetteroll@e...> wrote:
I
because I memorized lists of words) until after learning German and
Latin. Then English seemed so simple!
I'll never forget the guy in German class who wrote out the 'past
tense' of every vocabulary word, not just the verbs...because he
didn't really understand the concept of verb.
--aj, listening to Schoolhouse Rock as I type
<fetteroll@e...> wrote:
I
> found the hardest part of trying to learn German was the esotericverb
> tenses that I was supposed to have grasped in English grammar, butstill
> couldn't even after looking them up for the class.I didn't really understand English grammar (tho' did well in grammar
because I memorized lists of words) until after learning German and
Latin. Then English seemed so simple!
I'll never forget the guy in German class who wrote out the 'past
tense' of every vocabulary word, not just the verbs...because he
didn't really understand the concept of verb.
--aj, listening to Schoolhouse Rock as I type
mamaaj2000
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
Oh, I'm into language, too. Took 2 years of Linguistics classes in
college until historical linguistics killed off the last interest I
had in the entire subject! Liked to play with it, didn't want to do
research in it...
and recite the Preamble to the Constitution, the teacher wouldn't let
them sing it (most of the class knew it from Schoolhouse Rock). Only
counted if it was a PITA to learn, right?
Puzzles and
We've been enjoying the music of Jim Gill and how he plays with
language (http://www.jimgill.com, of course!). Your answer has to
rhyme with his question and won't necessarily make sense...Lift your
arms with any word that starts with B in 'My Bonnie Lies Over the
Ocean" and lower them with the next B word...and so on.
--aj
> I really like grammar. People being analytical about languageexists outside
> of school. LOTS of people think word histories are reallyinteresting. I
> don't blame those 85 percent who think it's not one bitinteresting.
> Pronunciations and the way they change is interesting to me. Mostpeople don't care.
Oh, I'm into language, too. Took 2 years of Linguistics classes in
college until historical linguistics killed off the last interest I
had in the entire subject! Liked to play with it, didn't want to do
research in it...
>pronounced
> Schoolhouse rock existed to combat (verb, not noun, so it's
> comBAT) the anti-television prejudice. Educators were cranky thatkids could
> memorize commercials but couldn't learn "facts" at school, so TVfolks came up with
> commercials for parts of speech and the times tables.I remember someone telling me that when their class had to memorize
and recite the Preamble to the Constitution, the teacher wouldn't let
them sing it (most of the class knew it from Schoolhouse Rock). Only
counted if it was a PITA to learn, right?
Puzzles and
> analysis are fun, for those who are analytical. And I bet lotsmore people would
> be analytical if schools didn't make it seem as fun as mucking astable.
We've been enjoying the music of Jim Gill and how he plays with
language (http://www.jimgill.com, of course!). Your answer has to
rhyme with his question and won't necessarily make sense...Lift your
arms with any word that starts with B in 'My Bonnie Lies Over the
Ocean" and lower them with the next B word...and so on.
--aj
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/25/04 10:53:25 AM, ecsamhill@... writes:
<< ** If schools didn't teach grammar, would there be grammar questions on the
SATs?**
Well, since you asked, my theory is that grammar questions on SATs and
other academic forms of tests are an attempt to give advantage to native
speakers. Because I think some of the questions hinge on grammar
subtleties and vocabulary shades of meaning that really can't be
memorized or learned by "rules" in our crazy language. >>
Vocabulary isn't grammar.
I don't remember grammar questions on the SAT. I remember word analogies. I
remember them asking which word best would go in a spot in a paragraph, and
sometimes the choices were different forms of the same word (if I'm recalling
correctly, which I might not be) so that technically you might be choosing
between an adjective form or an adverb or a noun, but they didn't SAY so. It was
just knowing what sounded right and flowed, without any analysis of why.
And I remember there being choices between similar words--similar sounding or
looking words.
I just think grammar problems (when there are any) can be figured out the
same way math question can be, by finding a similar known situation and
extrapolating from one what the unknown is going to be. One of the most common errors
people make is to say "I" when they should say "me."
Godzilla attacked my son and I.
No, Godzille didn't attack I.
Try them separately and then you know what to use in combo.
Godzill attacked my son and me.
. . . him and me.
. . . us.
But you don't need the terminology for that type of pronoun (nor even to know
it's a pronoun) to figure out what the word should be (I don't think).
Sandra
<< ** If schools didn't teach grammar, would there be grammar questions on the
SATs?**
Well, since you asked, my theory is that grammar questions on SATs and
other academic forms of tests are an attempt to give advantage to native
speakers. Because I think some of the questions hinge on grammar
subtleties and vocabulary shades of meaning that really can't be
memorized or learned by "rules" in our crazy language. >>
Vocabulary isn't grammar.
I don't remember grammar questions on the SAT. I remember word analogies. I
remember them asking which word best would go in a spot in a paragraph, and
sometimes the choices were different forms of the same word (if I'm recalling
correctly, which I might not be) so that technically you might be choosing
between an adjective form or an adverb or a noun, but they didn't SAY so. It was
just knowing what sounded right and flowed, without any analysis of why.
And I remember there being choices between similar words--similar sounding or
looking words.
I just think grammar problems (when there are any) can be figured out the
same way math question can be, by finding a similar known situation and
extrapolating from one what the unknown is going to be. One of the most common errors
people make is to say "I" when they should say "me."
Godzilla attacked my son and I.
No, Godzille didn't attack I.
Try them separately and then you know what to use in combo.
Godzill attacked my son and me.
. . . him and me.
. . . us.
But you don't need the terminology for that type of pronoun (nor even to know
it's a pronoun) to figure out what the word should be (I don't think).
Sandra
queenjane555
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
me when i will be watching tv and someone who should know better
screws this up.
Katherine
> I just think grammar problems (when there are any) can be figuredout the
> same way math question can be, by finding a similar known situationand
> extrapolating from one what the unknown is going to be. One ofthe most common errors
> people make is to say "I" when they should say "me."This is my number one grammer pet peeve. It irritates the heck out of
me when i will be watching tv and someone who should know better
screws this up.
Katherine
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/25/2004 7:11:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
fetteroll@... writes:
Grammar vocabulary seems most prevelent purely for the teaching of
grammar.<<<<<<<
I'd say it's for the study and enjoyment of language! <G>
But then, I LIKE it!
You mathies might enjoy knowing the "math vocabulary" for addition and
logarithms and square roots. But they really only exist so that it has a
name----right? I mean---the ideas and rules EXIST, but we need words to discuss them.
Grammar is similar; we need the words, the terminology, in order to discuss them.
It can be hard to explain how to use the nominative/subjective case vs. the
accusative/objective case in Sandra's example in another post for the (sorry,
I forget the example!) "my son and I" vs. "my son and me" withOUT the
terminology we've given them. Sandra just said to say it without the "and"---- and
that way it can make more sense to people. Without the "and" it's easy----you
need to use the accusative case to make sense of it. If you know the reason and
the terminology, though, it's major easy to understand.
Someone a few weeks ago said that she didn't even know what an indirect o
bject was. Then two or three others chimed in that they didn't either. Yes, you
do. You ALL do. You use it every day. You just can't give a definition for the
grammatical terminology. In Latin and German, we have a whole separate case
(dative) for the indirect object (makes it VERY easy!).
"Give ME the book."
ME is the indirect object. "Book" is the direct object.
Grammar and syntax exist because that's how language exists. Without some
kinds of rules for grammar, we just have a jumble of words. Sometimes, that's all
we have ANYway! <BWG> We learn the rules from others in a holistic
manner----by using them correctly, we can ensure our children use them correctly. Or not!
Plenty of people use it in strange ways. We can still understand them----most
of the time (to me, it's kind of like nails on a chalkboard though!).
Children acquire language incrementally, adding structure as they go. We can
understand them too. But sometimes a person will do something so funky, it makes no
sense. The rules were bent/broken TOO much.
Grammar is a necessary component of all languages. It must exist to make
sense out of language. But everybody doesn't need to "study" and enjoy it. Just a
few (only 15%, Sandra?) of us. Words and how they fit together to make
language is as fascinating to some of us as all that math stuff is for some of you!
<G>
I don't need to know Fibonacci's number (is that it?) in order to notice how
petals fit on a flower----but it makes more sense (and is cooler) when I know
it. I don't need to know what an adverb is in order to use it correctly, but
it makes more sense when I do.
To me, grammar just makes sense. It's logical.
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fetteroll@... writes:
Grammar vocabulary seems most prevelent purely for the teaching of
grammar.<<<<<<<
I'd say it's for the study and enjoyment of language! <G>
But then, I LIKE it!
You mathies might enjoy knowing the "math vocabulary" for addition and
logarithms and square roots. But they really only exist so that it has a
name----right? I mean---the ideas and rules EXIST, but we need words to discuss them.
Grammar is similar; we need the words, the terminology, in order to discuss them.
It can be hard to explain how to use the nominative/subjective case vs. the
accusative/objective case in Sandra's example in another post for the (sorry,
I forget the example!) "my son and I" vs. "my son and me" withOUT the
terminology we've given them. Sandra just said to say it without the "and"---- and
that way it can make more sense to people. Without the "and" it's easy----you
need to use the accusative case to make sense of it. If you know the reason and
the terminology, though, it's major easy to understand.
Someone a few weeks ago said that she didn't even know what an indirect o
bject was. Then two or three others chimed in that they didn't either. Yes, you
do. You ALL do. You use it every day. You just can't give a definition for the
grammatical terminology. In Latin and German, we have a whole separate case
(dative) for the indirect object (makes it VERY easy!).
"Give ME the book."
ME is the indirect object. "Book" is the direct object.
Grammar and syntax exist because that's how language exists. Without some
kinds of rules for grammar, we just have a jumble of words. Sometimes, that's all
we have ANYway! <BWG> We learn the rules from others in a holistic
manner----by using them correctly, we can ensure our children use them correctly. Or not!
Plenty of people use it in strange ways. We can still understand them----most
of the time (to me, it's kind of like nails on a chalkboard though!).
Children acquire language incrementally, adding structure as they go. We can
understand them too. But sometimes a person will do something so funky, it makes no
sense. The rules were bent/broken TOO much.
Grammar is a necessary component of all languages. It must exist to make
sense out of language. But everybody doesn't need to "study" and enjoy it. Just a
few (only 15%, Sandra?) of us. Words and how they fit together to make
language is as fascinating to some of us as all that math stuff is for some of you!
<G>
I don't need to know Fibonacci's number (is that it?) in order to notice how
petals fit on a flower----but it makes more sense (and is cooler) when I know
it. I don't need to know what an adverb is in order to use it correctly, but
it makes more sense when I do.
To me, grammar just makes sense. It's logical.
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/25/2004 6:17:18 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
kbcdlovejo@... writes:
It can be hard to explain how to use the nominative/subjective case vs. the
accusative/objective case in Sandra's example in another post for the
(sorry,
I forget the example!) "my son and I" vs. "my son and me" withOUT the
terminology we've given them. Sandra just said to say it without the
"and"---- and
that way it can make more sense to people. Without the "and" it's easy----you
need to use the accusative case to make sense of it. If you know the reason
and
the terminology, though, it's major easy to understand.
------------------
You just more or less used trig when you could've used arithmetic (as it
were), Kelly. Sheesh!!!
subject pronoun (who does it to Godzilla)
object pronoun (to whom does Godzilla do it, whatever 'it' is?)
Is there any difference in English between nominative and accusative?
You're like speaking Greek (Latin).
--------
-=- the indirect object (makes it VERY easy!).
"Give ME the book."
-=-
Right.
Direct object: Give the book to [whoever; me, him, dad, Bozo]
but indirect: Give Bozo the book, or give them the book or give Godzilla the
book.
-=-Without some
kinds of rules for grammar, we just have a jumble of words. -=-
But people can use the rules without knowing the rules.
Native speaker's intuition is what it's called, when people come to know what
sounds wrong just because they know that language well enough to knew when
someone's using it in a non-standard way.
-=-But everybody doesn't need to "study" and enjoy it. Just a
few (only 15%, Sandra?) of us. -=-
That number is probably too high. I pulled it outen my ass.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
kbcdlovejo@... writes:
It can be hard to explain how to use the nominative/subjective case vs. the
accusative/objective case in Sandra's example in another post for the
(sorry,
I forget the example!) "my son and I" vs. "my son and me" withOUT the
terminology we've given them. Sandra just said to say it without the
"and"---- and
that way it can make more sense to people. Without the "and" it's easy----you
need to use the accusative case to make sense of it. If you know the reason
and
the terminology, though, it's major easy to understand.
------------------
You just more or less used trig when you could've used arithmetic (as it
were), Kelly. Sheesh!!!
subject pronoun (who does it to Godzilla)
object pronoun (to whom does Godzilla do it, whatever 'it' is?)
Is there any difference in English between nominative and accusative?
You're like speaking Greek (Latin).
--------
-=- the indirect object (makes it VERY easy!).
"Give ME the book."
-=-
Right.
Direct object: Give the book to [whoever; me, him, dad, Bozo]
but indirect: Give Bozo the book, or give them the book or give Godzilla the
book.
-=-Without some
kinds of rules for grammar, we just have a jumble of words. -=-
But people can use the rules without knowing the rules.
Native speaker's intuition is what it's called, when people come to know what
sounds wrong just because they know that language well enough to knew when
someone's using it in a non-standard way.
-=-But everybody doesn't need to "study" and enjoy it. Just a
few (only 15%, Sandra?) of us. -=-
That number is probably too high. I pulled it outen my ass.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/25/2004 8:54:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
I UNDERSTAND it. I canNOT teach the shit! <g> I'm worthless in a class!
That's why YOU were paid the big bucks!
sounds wrong just because they know that language well enough to knew when
someone's using it in a non-standard way.<<<<<<<<<
Right. And I can use math without the lingo. Lingo helps, but it's not
necessary for me to use it.
We can address the lingo when we're interested or when we need it.
someone's using it in a non-standard way<<<<<<<,
Unless someone's learned it wrong to begin with. LOTS of folks have learned
your example above----using "I" when they should use "me"----not to mention
adverbs and gerunds and "if and whether" and.....-----wrong in the first place,
so it *never* sounds right to them. That's when/how language changes and
evolves. Many people say things wrong grammatically; eventually it becomes common
and accepted.
Latin. German. English, too----as far as I know. I've heard the term
"nominative accusative" when using the verb "to be" in English. Nominative is a fancy
name for subject. Accusative for object. Maybe I'm mixing up
languages----it's happened before. But maybe it's just clearer to me in Latin and German.
Having a Dative case made the indirect object SOOOO much clearer!
That number is probably too high. I pulled it outen my ass.<<<<<<<
And about the same number enjoy math?
~Kelly, duckin' <g>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
>>>>You just more or less used trig when you could've used arithmetic (as itwere), Kelly. Sheesh!!!<<<<<<<<<
I UNDERSTAND it. I canNOT teach the shit! <g> I'm worthless in a class!
That's why YOU were paid the big bucks!
>>>>>But people can use the rules without knowing the rules.Native speaker's intuition is what it's called, when people come to know what
sounds wrong just because they know that language well enough to knew when
someone's using it in a non-standard way.<<<<<<<<<
Right. And I can use math without the lingo. Lingo helps, but it's not
necessary for me to use it.
We can address the lingo when we're interested or when we need it.
>>>>> when people come to know whatsounds wrong just because they know that language well enough to knew when
someone's using it in a non-standard way<<<<<<<,
Unless someone's learned it wrong to begin with. LOTS of folks have learned
your example above----using "I" when they should use "me"----not to mention
adverbs and gerunds and "if and whether" and.....-----wrong in the first place,
so it *never* sounds right to them. That's when/how language changes and
evolves. Many people say things wrong grammatically; eventually it becomes common
and accepted.
>>>>Is there any difference in English between nominative and accusative?You're like speaking Greek (Latin).<<<<<<
Latin. German. English, too----as far as I know. I've heard the term
"nominative accusative" when using the verb "to be" in English. Nominative is a fancy
name for subject. Accusative for object. Maybe I'm mixing up
languages----it's happened before. But maybe it's just clearer to me in Latin and German.
Having a Dative case made the indirect object SOOOO much clearer!
>>>>>>>-=-But everybody doesn't need to "study" and enjoy it. Just afew (only 15%, Sandra?) of us. -=-
That number is probably too high. I pulled it outen my ass.<<<<<<<
And about the same number enjoy math?
~Kelly, duckin' <g>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lisa H
Aimee wrote: <<What I like about unschooling is that the label can come after the thing has been learned>>
I love this one point...how many of us unschoolers have been happily unschooling before reading J. Holt or any other book or elist or magazine that labeled what it is we are/were doing? In our home, we used to call our style of parenting Primal Parenting and then one day discovered there is something called "attachment" parenting "natural parenting" ...all of which unschooling is a natural extension of...
Lisa H.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I love this one point...how many of us unschoolers have been happily unschooling before reading J. Holt or any other book or elist or magazine that labeled what it is we are/were doing? In our home, we used to call our style of parenting Primal Parenting and then one day discovered there is something called "attachment" parenting "natural parenting" ...all of which unschooling is a natural extension of...
Lisa H.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pam sorooshian
The chance of him getting through life without EVER playing Mad-Libs is
slim, I think.
-pam
slim, I think.
-pam
On Apr 24, 2004, at 9:00 PM, queenjane555 wrote:
> It occurred to me that Seamus might never (in his childhood)learn the
> terms "pronoun" "noun" "verb" "adverb" etc.
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.
pam sorooshian
On Apr 25, 2004, at 8:07 AM, kayb85 wrote:
have grammar in school. Parts of speech are natural, kids notice on
their own that there are "categories" of words, and once they've
grasped that (maybe not particularly consciously), then having names
for those categories of words makes perfect sense. That's real, not
school-made-up.
-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.
> If so, even mad libs wouldn't exist ifNah - they're fun. We had 'em even in the radical 60's when we didn't
> schools weren't requiring that kids learn that knowledge.
have grammar in school. Parts of speech are natural, kids notice on
their own that there are "categories" of words, and once they've
grasped that (maybe not particularly consciously), then having names
for those categories of words makes perfect sense. That's real, not
school-made-up.
-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.
queenjane555
--- In [email protected], pam sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@m...> wrote:
"pronoun" now he would look at me like i'm crazy. He doesnt seem to
be the kind of kid who will, anytime in the next few years, really
care what the *definitions* of grammer words are (despite using them
correctly.) Sometimes, even now, he will forget what the "name" of a
certain letter is (usually G or R)but he knows how to pronounce it.
It seems school focuses alot on defining terms as somehow a clear
path to using correctly whatever is being defined. I think playing
Mad Libs is probably the only time in the last 10 years or so where
i've had to actually remember what these terms mean.
Katherine
<pamsoroosh@m...> wrote:
> The chance of him getting through life without EVER playing Mad-Libs is
> slim, I think.Oh, we've played Mad Libs. But i bet if i asked him to define
>
> -pam
"pronoun" now he would look at me like i'm crazy. He doesnt seem to
be the kind of kid who will, anytime in the next few years, really
care what the *definitions* of grammer words are (despite using them
correctly.) Sometimes, even now, he will forget what the "name" of a
certain letter is (usually G or R)but he knows how to pronounce it.
It seems school focuses alot on defining terms as somehow a clear
path to using correctly whatever is being defined. I think playing
Mad Libs is probably the only time in the last 10 years or so where
i've had to actually remember what these terms mean.
Katherine
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/29/04 11:57:24 PM, queenjane555@... writes:
<< Oh, we've played Mad Libs. But i bet if i asked him to define
"pronoun" now he would look at me like i'm crazy. >>
Asking someone else to define something is rarely more than entrapment,
though. If a kid asks me to define something, I might be able to do it off the top
of my head, but I usually double check anyway.
Define X is a school thing, not such a life thing. Real life is an open-book
situation. A spell-check situation.
If you remind him what a pronoun is at the beginning of a Madlibs game, can
he come up with some? If so, he understands what a pronoun is.
I can ride a bike, but I wouldn't be able to build a bike.
-=It seems school focuses alot on defining terms as somehow a clear
path to using correctly whatever is being defined. I think playing
Mad Libs is probably the only time in the last 10 years or so where
i've had to actually remember what these terms mean. -=-
Most adults (BIG most) don't need to know the difference between an adverb
and an adjective. Those who find they suddenly need to know can look it up in a
dictionary in minutes.
I wouldn't worry about terminology. I memorized math terms and got A's in
math, and found they never, ever EVER came up in the real world. Addends.
Divisors. Common denominators comes up because it's used in situations which
don't really involve math. <g>
The real English words are used. Numerals, sum, product (used in many and
broader senses). The made-up-for-math-books words are used in math books.
Same with grammar. Some words are common, real words. Word, syllable,
vowel. Some are only to be found in grammar discussions.
Sandra
<< Oh, we've played Mad Libs. But i bet if i asked him to define
"pronoun" now he would look at me like i'm crazy. >>
Asking someone else to define something is rarely more than entrapment,
though. If a kid asks me to define something, I might be able to do it off the top
of my head, but I usually double check anyway.
Define X is a school thing, not such a life thing. Real life is an open-book
situation. A spell-check situation.
If you remind him what a pronoun is at the beginning of a Madlibs game, can
he come up with some? If so, he understands what a pronoun is.
I can ride a bike, but I wouldn't be able to build a bike.
-=It seems school focuses alot on defining terms as somehow a clear
path to using correctly whatever is being defined. I think playing
Mad Libs is probably the only time in the last 10 years or so where
i've had to actually remember what these terms mean. -=-
Most adults (BIG most) don't need to know the difference between an adverb
and an adjective. Those who find they suddenly need to know can look it up in a
dictionary in minutes.
I wouldn't worry about terminology. I memorized math terms and got A's in
math, and found they never, ever EVER came up in the real world. Addends.
Divisors. Common denominators comes up because it's used in situations which
don't really involve math. <g>
The real English words are used. Numerals, sum, product (used in many and
broader senses). The made-up-for-math-books words are used in math books.
Same with grammar. Some words are common, real words. Word, syllable,
vowel. Some are only to be found in grammar discussions.
Sandra
[email protected]
SandraDodd@... writes:
each other like trick ponies and playing entrapment games or springing schoolish
performance demands on kids (defining words or writing book reviews or
ANYTHING) And I agree that when answers are in books, we should of course open
them!
I guess defining the parts of speech makes a good example of
irrelevance for most folks, but I think the above goes beyond that, to say defining
terms and building bicycles aren't part of real life.
Carefully, formally defining and delimiting terms in clear language is
not merely some torment conceived by "school." It's part of daily real-life
endeavors such as legal and legislative work, scientific and research work,
academic work, computer programming, and probably lots of things I know less
about, cartography and medical diagnostic work perhaps? I'm guessing mathematics
is fairly reliant on clear definitions too?
I know clearly expressed definitions are important to me when I hear a
sales pitch, sign a contract, invest my money, explain what I need someone to
do, or explain what I am willing (and not willing) to do.
Imo the "quest" for a unique definition involves several cognitive
abilities that we do use in real life, and defining something is a real part of
thinking about it. Definition answers to your own questions often aren't in the
books, and if they are, some other humans had to work long and hard to get
them there. The most interesting concepts to me are the ones we assume can be
easily defined until we try, and then we find it's like a snowflake -- we're
looking for that one unique identifier but it's not visible to the casual glance
in a snowstorm. You have to look really closely at a LOT of snowflakes and
concentrate hard to see, and accurately describe, the difference. And if what you
learn is that you can't, that is valuable information too. Maybe you will
publish your findings and let others build on them as *they* see fit!
The whole process of thinking this way is intellectual work. School
does a poor job of it, trivializes it, makes kids loathe and avoid it even, but
for that we should blame school, not the intellectual task itself. Imo anyway,
JJ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Asking someone else to define something is rarely more than entrapment,Still wrestling with this thread -- I fully agree with not treating
> though. If a kid asks me to define something, I might be able to do it off
> the top
> of my head, but I usually double check anyway.
>
> Define X is a school thing, not such a life thing. Real life is an
> open-book
> situation. A spell-check situation.
>
> If you remind him what a pronoun is at the beginning of a Madlibs game, can
> he come up with some? If so, he understands what a pronoun is.
>
> I can ride a bike, but I wouldn't be able to build a bike.
>
>
each other like trick ponies and playing entrapment games or springing schoolish
performance demands on kids (defining words or writing book reviews or
ANYTHING) And I agree that when answers are in books, we should of course open
them!
I guess defining the parts of speech makes a good example of
irrelevance for most folks, but I think the above goes beyond that, to say defining
terms and building bicycles aren't part of real life.
Carefully, formally defining and delimiting terms in clear language is
not merely some torment conceived by "school." It's part of daily real-life
endeavors such as legal and legislative work, scientific and research work,
academic work, computer programming, and probably lots of things I know less
about, cartography and medical diagnostic work perhaps? I'm guessing mathematics
is fairly reliant on clear definitions too?
I know clearly expressed definitions are important to me when I hear a
sales pitch, sign a contract, invest my money, explain what I need someone to
do, or explain what I am willing (and not willing) to do.
Imo the "quest" for a unique definition involves several cognitive
abilities that we do use in real life, and defining something is a real part of
thinking about it. Definition answers to your own questions often aren't in the
books, and if they are, some other humans had to work long and hard to get
them there. The most interesting concepts to me are the ones we assume can be
easily defined until we try, and then we find it's like a snowflake -- we're
looking for that one unique identifier but it's not visible to the casual glance
in a snowstorm. You have to look really closely at a LOT of snowflakes and
concentrate hard to see, and accurately describe, the difference. And if what you
learn is that you can't, that is valuable information too. Maybe you will
publish your findings and let others build on them as *they* see fit!
The whole process of thinking this way is intellectual work. School
does a poor job of it, trivializes it, makes kids loathe and avoid it even, but
for that we should blame school, not the intellectual task itself. Imo anyway,
JJ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/30/04 10:40:03 AM, jrossedd@... writes:
<< I guess defining the parts of speech makes a good example of
irrelevance for most folks, but I think the above goes beyond that, to say
defining
terms and building bicycles aren't part of real life. >>
In discussions like these we're asked to define our terms all the time. But
people are not required to be in discussions like these.
Bicycles are built daily, but it is possible, and even moral, to ride a
bicycle one was incapable of building, and people can use language and use it as
well as a trick cyclist without being able to define the parts of speech without
review.
-=I'm guessing mathematics
is fairly reliant on clear definitions too?
-=-
You don't need to know the definitions of the terms to be mathematically
minded, intelligent or talented. You need the definitions of the terms to discuss
mathematics in an analytical way. That's a separate endeavor from just
using math. Discussing grammar is not necessary for someone to be a good writer
or speaker. It's only necessary if one is interested in anayzing grammar.
-=And if what you
learn is that you can't, that is valuable information too. Maybe you will
publish your findings and let others build on them as *they* see fit! -=-
Or maybe you'll realize it's pretty complicated, you will have learned
something and STILL not need to define snowflakes.
-= The whole process of thinking this way is intellectual work. School
does a poor job of it, trivializes it, makes kids loathe and avoid it even,
but
for that we should blame school, not the intellectual task itself. Imo
anyway, -=-
Do you want to define "intellectual"?
(You don't need to. Someone can be analytical without being "intellectual."
It's a vile concept, "intellectual.")
Sandra
<< I guess defining the parts of speech makes a good example of
irrelevance for most folks, but I think the above goes beyond that, to say
defining
terms and building bicycles aren't part of real life. >>
In discussions like these we're asked to define our terms all the time. But
people are not required to be in discussions like these.
Bicycles are built daily, but it is possible, and even moral, to ride a
bicycle one was incapable of building, and people can use language and use it as
well as a trick cyclist without being able to define the parts of speech without
review.
-=I'm guessing mathematics
is fairly reliant on clear definitions too?
-=-
You don't need to know the definitions of the terms to be mathematically
minded, intelligent or talented. You need the definitions of the terms to discuss
mathematics in an analytical way. That's a separate endeavor from just
using math. Discussing grammar is not necessary for someone to be a good writer
or speaker. It's only necessary if one is interested in anayzing grammar.
-=And if what you
learn is that you can't, that is valuable information too. Maybe you will
publish your findings and let others build on them as *they* see fit! -=-
Or maybe you'll realize it's pretty complicated, you will have learned
something and STILL not need to define snowflakes.
-= The whole process of thinking this way is intellectual work. School
does a poor job of it, trivializes it, makes kids loathe and avoid it even,
but
for that we should blame school, not the intellectual task itself. Imo
anyway, -=-
Do you want to define "intellectual"?
(You don't need to. Someone can be analytical without being "intellectual."
It's a vile concept, "intellectual.")
Sandra
[email protected]
SandraDodd@... writes:
have! JJ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Do you want to define "intellectual"?Goodness, maybe I had better! What a difference of definition we must
>
> (You don't need to. Someone can be analytical without being "intellectual."
>
> It's a vile concept, "intellectual.")
>
have! JJ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Elizabeth Hill
** Carefully, formally defining and delimiting terms in clear
language is
not merely some torment conceived by "school." It's part of daily real-life
endeavors such as legal and legislative work, scientific and research
work,
academic work, computer programming, and probably lots of things I know
less
about, cartography and medical diagnostic work perhaps? I'm guessing
mathematics
is fairly reliant on clear definitions too?**
Yeah, definitions have utility. We shouldn't throw the baby out with
the bath water.
However, I would generalize that definitions are most useful "in
context" of real work or real interest. School tends to take
definitions *out of context* and make a fetish about memorizing terms
and brief (rather shallow) definitions of those terms. How much good
are abstract definitions learned without context? Will students really
be able to retain and apply them meaningfully in the future?
Also, having a *verbal* definition of a term is more important when the
topic must be discussed in text, rather than conveyed by pictures,
objects or demonstrations. School tends to accidentally elevate words
over pictures, objects and demonstrations because a low-cost education
can mostly supply words and a few pictures.
Betsy
PS Kind of a tangent...
I find it odd that classical educations books, e.g. The Well Trained
Mind, think that words about squid on a page are *better* than a Jacques
Cousteau video of a squid. I think the moving pictures convey more than
words.
(Should I define "tangent" as used in mathematics? ;-) )
language is
not merely some torment conceived by "school." It's part of daily real-life
endeavors such as legal and legislative work, scientific and research
work,
academic work, computer programming, and probably lots of things I know
less
about, cartography and medical diagnostic work perhaps? I'm guessing
mathematics
is fairly reliant on clear definitions too?**
Yeah, definitions have utility. We shouldn't throw the baby out with
the bath water.
However, I would generalize that definitions are most useful "in
context" of real work or real interest. School tends to take
definitions *out of context* and make a fetish about memorizing terms
and brief (rather shallow) definitions of those terms. How much good
are abstract definitions learned without context? Will students really
be able to retain and apply them meaningfully in the future?
Also, having a *verbal* definition of a term is more important when the
topic must be discussed in text, rather than conveyed by pictures,
objects or demonstrations. School tends to accidentally elevate words
over pictures, objects and demonstrations because a low-cost education
can mostly supply words and a few pictures.
Betsy
PS Kind of a tangent...
I find it odd that classical educations books, e.g. The Well Trained
Mind, think that words about squid on a page are *better* than a Jacques
Cousteau video of a squid. I think the moving pictures convey more than
words.
(Should I define "tangent" as used in mathematics? ;-) )
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/30/04 11:38:48 AM, jrossedd@... writes:
<< > Do you want to define "intellectual"?
have! JJ >>
Even if we have the same definition, maybe we have different ideas of how and
whether it should apply to homeschooling discussions.
There are fun, non-commital ways for people (regardless of age or education)
to analyze topics, ideas and meanings. There are constant opportunities for
discussions of philosophical concepts outside the formal study of philosophy.
Here's an example from myt house, last night. I posted it at
unschooling.com, but I'll put it here too:
By Sandra Dodd (Sandradodd) on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 06:49 pm:
this is hard to convey, because it was quick and sometimes two or three
people were talking at once. Sometimes I couldn't quote, and there was laughing and
gesturing, but here it is for the sake of its punchline:
My husband brought papers for me to sign. He's moving my IRA to the Navy
credit union (his dad was a WWII pilot, and his brother was on a submarine years
later)
We were talking about insurance policies his dad has for the kids, which are
paid for by interest from an IRA that's in Holly's name, bought by her
grandparents. Holly wanted us to tell her what we were talking about. I said it would
be enough money if she died that we could bury her and have a party. She
acted like that sounded good. I said maybe we could put her out between Purple and
Luna (a cat and rat of hers, bothin the flowerbed out back). I said maybe we
could pay the house off with the insurance money so we wouldn't ever have to
sell it and lose Holly's grave.
Illegal to bury her in the yard? Maybe.
I suggested that we could get a stone that says "Luna, beloved rat of Holly,"
and underline Holly, so God would know it was actually her.
Holly said God is a genius and would know anyway.
"Why's God a genius?" Keith asked. He just is. I suggested "butterflies."
Holly concurred.
Keith said God's omnipotent, so he knows everything.
Will he turn us in to the city?
Probably.
I said, "That's omnicient. Omnipotent means he can do anything, all-powerful.
And (to Holly I said) the question that goes with that is whether God can
make a rock so big that he himself can't pick it up. If not, he's not omnipotent.
Holly, without missing a beat: "I thought the question was whether Jesus
could microwave a burrito so hot that he himself couldn't eat it."
I HOOTED!
Me: "Well yes, that's the same question, updated. Where did it come from?"
"The Simpsons."
"Who asked it?"
"Homer."
---
Sandra
===========================
Definitions, theology, law, finance...
Matters for 12 year old girls and cartoon characters.
Sandra
<< > Do you want to define "intellectual"?
>"intellectual."
> (You don't need to. Someone can be analytical without being
><<Goodness, maybe I had better! What a difference of definition we must
> It's a vile concept, "intellectual.")
>
have! JJ >>
Even if we have the same definition, maybe we have different ideas of how and
whether it should apply to homeschooling discussions.
There are fun, non-commital ways for people (regardless of age or education)
to analyze topics, ideas and meanings. There are constant opportunities for
discussions of philosophical concepts outside the formal study of philosophy.
Here's an example from myt house, last night. I posted it at
unschooling.com, but I'll put it here too:
By Sandra Dodd (Sandradodd) on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 06:49 pm:
this is hard to convey, because it was quick and sometimes two or three
people were talking at once. Sometimes I couldn't quote, and there was laughing and
gesturing, but here it is for the sake of its punchline:
My husband brought papers for me to sign. He's moving my IRA to the Navy
credit union (his dad was a WWII pilot, and his brother was on a submarine years
later)
We were talking about insurance policies his dad has for the kids, which are
paid for by interest from an IRA that's in Holly's name, bought by her
grandparents. Holly wanted us to tell her what we were talking about. I said it would
be enough money if she died that we could bury her and have a party. She
acted like that sounded good. I said maybe we could put her out between Purple and
Luna (a cat and rat of hers, bothin the flowerbed out back). I said maybe we
could pay the house off with the insurance money so we wouldn't ever have to
sell it and lose Holly's grave.
Illegal to bury her in the yard? Maybe.
I suggested that we could get a stone that says "Luna, beloved rat of Holly,"
and underline Holly, so God would know it was actually her.
Holly said God is a genius and would know anyway.
"Why's God a genius?" Keith asked. He just is. I suggested "butterflies."
Holly concurred.
Keith said God's omnipotent, so he knows everything.
Will he turn us in to the city?
Probably.
I said, "That's omnicient. Omnipotent means he can do anything, all-powerful.
And (to Holly I said) the question that goes with that is whether God can
make a rock so big that he himself can't pick it up. If not, he's not omnipotent.
Holly, without missing a beat: "I thought the question was whether Jesus
could microwave a burrito so hot that he himself couldn't eat it."
I HOOTED!
Me: "Well yes, that's the same question, updated. Where did it come from?"
"The Simpsons."
"Who asked it?"
"Homer."
---
Sandra
===========================
Definitions, theology, law, finance...
Matters for 12 year old girls and cartoon characters.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/30/2004 2:21:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ecsamhill@... writes:
School tends to take
definitions *out of context* and make a fetish about memorizing terms
and brief (rather shallow) definitions of those terms. How much good
are abstract definitions learned without context? <<<<
I'll give you an example!
One of Ben's friends in high school was asked to give the definition if
HIATUS.
He said, "I have a hiatus between my teeth."
<g> We still laugh about that! David Letterman has one too! <BWG>
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ecsamhill@... writes:
School tends to take
definitions *out of context* and make a fetish about memorizing terms
and brief (rather shallow) definitions of those terms. How much good
are abstract definitions learned without context? <<<<
I'll give you an example!
One of Ben's friends in high school was asked to give the definition if
HIATUS.
He said, "I have a hiatus between my teeth."
<g> We still laugh about that! David Letterman has one too! <BWG>
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Have a Nice Day!
"Real life is an open book situation".
We need a bumper sticker that says something like that.
Kristen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We need a bumper sticker that says something like that.
Kristen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
mamaaj2000
--- In [email protected], Elizabeth Hill
<ecsamhill@e...> wrote:
brain, I keep letting go of things like "I'll teach my kids to
memorize the state capitals because it's always bothered me that I
don't know them." My son knows the names of many states and cities
because we go there or know people. I know the capitals of the states
I've lived in because the laws made there mattered to me and I
listened to news about what happened there.
I remember learning the names, in order from the sun, of the planets
because I felt like it. Still know those. Chick-fil-A is giving away
planets in the kids meals. I love that place. My son was blowing
bubbles yesterday saying they were "planet bubbles". "Look, there
goes Pluto." I like having planets strewn about the living room...
--aj, babbling aimlessly
<ecsamhill@e...> wrote:
> However, I would generalize that definitions are most useful "interms
> context" of real work or real interest. School tends to take
> definitions *out of context* and make a fetish about memorizing
> and brief (rather shallow) definitions of those terms. How muchgood
> are abstract definitions learned without context? Will studentsreally
> be able to retain and apply them meaningfully in the future?I was thinking about state capitals this morning. As I deschool my
brain, I keep letting go of things like "I'll teach my kids to
memorize the state capitals because it's always bothered me that I
don't know them." My son knows the names of many states and cities
because we go there or know people. I know the capitals of the states
I've lived in because the laws made there mattered to me and I
listened to news about what happened there.
I remember learning the names, in order from the sun, of the planets
because I felt like it. Still know those. Chick-fil-A is giving away
planets in the kids meals. I love that place. My son was blowing
bubbles yesterday saying they were "planet bubbles". "Look, there
goes Pluto." I like having planets strewn about the living room...
--aj, babbling aimlessly