If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Seeking straight A's, parents push for pills
toto wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 01:29:15 GMT, "nimue" wrote: Do you know what a project is? Too well. My children had them. All right then. What are they? My ds hated *team* projects. Individual ones were fine, but he hated working with teams because often the lazy kids wanted him to do all the work for everyone. When I was teaching (middle school - 6th to 8th grades) I often gave projects (typically one per quarter) but they were always individual projects. I rarely had team projects. I do not remember ever having team projects myself in K-12 school. Team consensus building was apparently not a goal back then. We did have them in college in Economics - one per week. The professor was a visiting professor and he had tried the group project thing at MIT and it didn't work there because the students were not willing to do the work required and also were unwilling to take a lower grade which would result from not doing the work. It worked where I was (Oberlin) because, at least in those days, I think we were less grade-centric. The way it was set up - he gave us a problem to research each Friday along with suggested reading. [One problem which I remember was that we were to increase foreign aid. We had to figure out two ways to do it within a balanced budget (This was during the Eisenhower administration). One way we were to raise taxes, and we had to decide which ones to raise. One way we were to cut spending and the areas we cut spending in had to be politically feasible - i.e. we couldn't cut Social Security or something like that.] We split the reading up among the group members, and at the Monday class, we were to decide on the focus of the paper, and each of us wrote a suggested draft. One of the members (a different one each week) took the drafts and put them together into a rough report, which we finalized at the Wednesday class, and handed in on Friday. He had a system where each member graded each other member on each project. So if there was a lazy person in the group, that person would get poor grades from the others. He did have a problem with one group where there was an extremely conservative group except for one extreme radical, and they could not agree on what they were to have in the reports. Sometimes they almost came to blows, and the radical ended up writing minority reports all the time. The professor put the radical in with our group in the middle of the semester, and we were a little more successful at dealing with him IIRC. The difficulty with this system is that it required meeting with the group in addition to the class meetings, so it required much more time than the usual class. The good thing about it is that we really learned the material in order to defend our POV. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Seeking straight A's, parents push for pills
Herman Rubin wrote: snip Why? The only legitimate purpose for homework is to help learn the material. If it is not needed for that, it should not be assigned. Writing all your essays? If one or two satisfactory essays are written, what is the purpose of the rest? Practice, Practice Practice.... One improves with practice. Under your suggestion, my son should stop taking his piano lessons and stop practicing because he can play several pieces very well....... Do you not take into account improving during the term? The first time I taught a class, a student got a good A on the final, much better than earlier. I learned then that it is the end result which should count. Completing all your projects? Unless there is a VERY good reason for projects, they should be abolished. A trite but true phrase: "practice makes perfect" |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Seeking straight A's, parents push for pills
In article ,
toypup wrote: "Herman Rubin" wrote in message ... In article , toypup wrote: "Herman Rubin" wrote in message ... In article , toypup wrote: "Herman Rubin" wrote in message ... ................ I have asked you a good question and you owe me an apology. You might possibly be right about the college prep work. However, one would have to be able to compare college prep work before WWII and now. How have you done that? I was in high school before WWII, and took part of that program; the rest I studied myself. Only the honors programs match any of it, and not always then. The theorem-proof geometry course was mandatory, as was grammar-based foreign language. There was no attempt to reduce any of the college preparatory program to what the "average" student could do. The one year of algebra required (more was usually taken) then was more than the equal of two now. The physics and chemistry courses were stronger, but that did not then, and does not now, have that much relevance. Literature had more of an "ancient" flavor, and reading Shakespeare was expected of all. You took part of the program, but not all of it before WWII. Did you take any of the honors program today for comparison (since that was what you were comparing)? Which parts of the pre-WWII program did you take? Were algebra, physics and chemistry part of it? I tested out of all of these, except taking the "college algebra" course, which alas was at a much higher level than the courses of the same name now taught. After two years of high school, I took a mixed high school-college curriculum at the University of Chicago, and delayed my high school graduation so I could take a much heavier load than would be allowed otherwise, and also take comprehensives in English, humanities and social sciences without attending classes. WWII started in my first year there, but did not affect any of the curriculum. So I took, or tested out of. all of it. Last I was there, it's been almost 20 years, Shakespeare was still expected for college prep literature courses. Do you have evidence that it's no longer the case? What's wrong with it not having an ancient flavor? Modern literature has its place and should be taught along with Shakespeare. I find much of modern literature quite sickening. The attempt of the author to convince readers that his feelings were right puts it in the realm of propaganda. The pervasiveness of this should be definitely pointed out. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Seeking straight A's, parents push for pills
In article ,
toypup wrote: "toypup" wrote in message .. . "Herman Rubin" wrote in message ... In article , toypup wrote: "Herman Rubin" wrote in message ... In article , toypup wrote: "Herman Rubin" wrote in message ... ................ I was in high school before WWII, and took part of that program; the rest I studied myself. Only the honors programs match any of it, and not always then. The theorem-proof geometry course was mandatory, as was grammar-based foreign language. There was no attempt to reduce any of the college preparatory program to what the "average" student could do. The one year of algebra required (more was usually taken) then was more than the equal of two now. The physics and chemistry courses were stronger, but that did not then, and does not now, have that much relevance. Literature had more of an "ancient" flavor, and reading Shakespeare was expected of all. You took part of the program, but not all of it before WWII. Did you take any of the honors program today for comparison (since that was what you were comparing)? Which parts of the pre-WWII program did you take? Were algebra, physics and chemistry part of it? My education was only interrupted late in WWII, so there is no possibility for comparison in that manner. However, my children took some of those courses, and I have seen others who did. My son tested out of much, but my daughter took it all. Last I was there, it's been almost 20 years, Shakespeare was still expected for college prep literature courses. Do you have evidence that it's no longer the case? What's wrong with it not having an ancient flavor? Modern literature has its place and should be taught along with Shakespeare. Honestly, to follow up on my own post, you could possibly be right, or more than likely, you suffer from when-I-was-a child-we-were-so-much-more-superior-to-today's-children-because syndrome. You would really have to go back and compare your high school texts with today's and I don't think the difficulty would be much different, but maybe the subjects that are stressed are different or the approach might be different. I am quite aware of what is in the texts. The honors geometry text, if it is a theorem-proof text, is essentially an updated version of the old, with some non-obvious gaps remedied. The algebra courses are usually weaker, especially in college algebra, which is almost reduced to nothing. I have taught remedial trigonometry and college algebra. You could possibly think that what you took was so much more difficult, because when you took them, it *was* difficult. I "learned" high school algebra in less than a day; once the use of variables was seen, the rest was trivial, and this is no exaggeration. Nor did I work in the other science subjects, although I did rather more studying in biology. It was not difficult. The difficult part for me was memorization, which is not important in mathematics, the physical sciences, or grammar. The hard part of foreign language was vocabulary, but I am not bad at this. The hard part of English was writing; I still have difficulties in expressing myself. The first time you take a course, it is more challenging. Now, it's easy, and why are the high school students today taking such easy courses? I've seen this syndrome plenty. They are taking them to get grades. Also, many of them cannot handle anything other than memorization and rote, because that is all that is taught, except for writing. My late wife was sickened by teaching prospective teachers, and observing their total lack of understanding of the concepts. Now, you could very well be right, but you need to rely on more than just your memory of something, because our memories usually paint us in a more favorable light. See the above. BTW, I'm not sure by what you mean about physics and chemistry not having relevance. I thought they were the most interesting courses and had plenty of relevance. If one is going to take the courses in college, the high school courses are going to be repeated essentially from scratch. At one university, the head of the physics department told high school students this, and to get more math. My daughter teaches college chemistry, and the only real prerequisite is algebra, and this is well known among college teachers. There is one use of these courses; my daughter was steered to chemistry by the high school course taught by a good teacher. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Seeking straight A's, parents push for pills
"Herman Rubin" wrote in message ... I find much of modern literature quite sickening. The attempt of the author to convince readers that his feelings were right puts it in the realm of propaganda. The pervasiveness of this should be definitely pointed out. Even if that is your view, shouldn't it be taught so that it could be properly analyzed? |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Seeking straight A's, parents push for pills
In article ,
nimue wrote: Herman Rubin wrote: In article , nimue wrote: Herman Rubin wrote: In article , nimue wrote: Raving Beauty wrote: nimue wrote: toto wrote: I am a teacher and I can tell you that kids who get As usually do so because they love learning. ................... Essays on what? Things which the English teacher thinks are relevant? Things which the English teacher assigns because the English teacher cannot understand the subject about which the student is interested, and which may well be at a higher level? Watch your pronouns. Do you really think English teachers assign essays because they don't understand the subject? Getting an A average on tests and quizzes? Do you not take into account improving during the term? The first time I taught a class, a student got a good A on the final, much better than earlier. I learned then that it is the end result which should count. Here's a secret -- at times I agree with you. If a kid makes a phenomenal improvement, I will give that kid the higher grade. If a kid was just cutting the beginning of the term, or goofing off, I won't. Completing all your projects? Unless there is a VERY good reason for projects, they should be abolished. God no! They are FUN. This is one of the things the kids enjoy most. Projects give kids the opportunity to work together and to use all the multiple intelligences. In my English 5 course, the one project assigned (this was not a group project) was using certain resources at the public library, and writing an essay on a topic. I had already used those resources, and somehow or other I managed an essay, shorter than requested, on map projections. I am almost certain that the teacher did not understand the essay, but as it had no errors she could find, I got an "A" on the project. No, they are what YOU think are fun. Why would I find them fun? I don't do them, anymore than I do the tests, quizzes, or essays. The kids like them. They tell me so (and they don't say that about the tests, quizzes, or essays). And they detract from learning, especially by good students. It is always a few students who do all the thinking. Um, that makes no sense. If only a few students do the thinking, how does that detract from their learning? I am assuming that the students who do the thinking are the good students. Few project add to learning. Doing is not learning. Showing up to class every day? Who cares? What matters is what they learn, and even more important, what they understand. Kids learn from class discussion. I can just tell them what a poem means, or they can discover what it means for themselves during class. That is what class is for. That's why we have it. The students learn from one another and the teacher. I have never had a student who didn't learn new skills from other students. Literature is entertainment plus propaganda. What a poem means to one might be nonsense to another. This is not what an education should be. I am not ignorant of poetry, and can appreciate it. But I can also see the author's trying to convince the reader by rhetorical means, not by logical ones. Students should be taught to watch for the proselytization, not to welcome it. Oh, lord. The kids need to learn to interpret poetry. It will enrich their lives and make them less susceptible to proselytization. Once they understand how language can be used to create ideas and emotions, they will be able to identify it when others (say, politicians) employ their rhetorical techniques. I have to say, I fail to see how Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening proselytizes. That is what you are graded on. That is not a game -- that is school. You are part of the problem. What problem? I want kids to learn and to enjoy learning? What solution to this "problem" do you suggest? Enjoy learning what? To play word games, instead of using logical reasoning? You assume you know so much. You have no idea what happens in my classroom or anyone else's. I have no idea what word games you are referring to. I have no idea why you think the students don't use logical reasoning. I have no clue what made you so arrogant and so angry. I have the experiences of my children, and their friends, and what my friends reported their children went through, to go on. As for using logical reasoning, it has to be learned. Intuition often goes astray, and so formalized logic, not just the sentential calculus, needs to be taught very early. Those who understand logic know that it is quite possible that the "obvious" is false. To write what is almost all fiction in a "convincing" manner instead of a few clear and precise statements, which might have to be in mathematical symbols rather than words? If you have to write an essay about how the imagery of the sea in Romeo and Juliet mirrors the lovers' progress, mathematical symbols won't help much. I loved that essay when I was assigned it in high school and that is why I assign it to my kids. YOU loved it; many of the kids will hate it, just as you hated math. I have read many students' essays in applications for college and graduate school, and the fiction is apparent to me. Honestly, it chills me to the bone to know that you are in the teaching profession. I expect you will say the same to me, but I really think that your anger and your assumptions (created without a shred of evidence) point to some real problems on your part. You haven't read those essays. The ones for applying for college scholarships were for those intending to go into one of the sciences. Few of them had any idea of what they were going into, or how it could be used. The same is true of those applying for graduate admission in statistics. If the standards in using mathematics as a language, which is very important, were one-tenth as high as those in writing English, few English major would pass. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Seeking straight A's, parents push for pills
In article ,
Donna Metler wrote: Herman, even gifted students have to learn to write by writing. There's no other way to do it. Once you know how to write, it carries over from discipline to discipline, but some things just plain take practice to master. As I said, the big problem in writing can be to think of a way of expressing yourself. This is especially a problem if you are trying to communicate information, not to write fiction. The best choice I ever made, in retrospect, was attending a college where "writing intensive" meant what it said. Basically, for several years, I had a major research paper due in every single non-math and hard science course I took, and often minor writing efforts between times. The extreme was my music literature sequence, where there was a written response/analysis of a work required every week for several semesters in a row. The result was that when I entered graduate school, I was used to writing, used to research, knew exactly which journals were reputable, could walk right to the section of the library where books I needed were shelved without even touching the catalog, and wasn't at all scared by needing to document my writing, whether the professor wanted MLA, Chicago, or APA. I had no trouble turning out publishable writing in graduate school, and no trouble with writing my thesis. One of the problems in getting my thesis typed in an acceptable form in those old days was that the Chicago format did not agree with mathematical custom. There were typists who the thesis office accepted as knowing what could be done, so I used one of them. I do not see that writing has anything to do with using the library. Also, research in mathematics, at least, does not depend on using the literature, except to give credit where it is deserved for material leading to the research; if anything, there are too many references in mathematical articles. The students who had gone to schools where writing was limited to the required English courses (many of which had been skipped due to AP placements) had a much, much harder time with the idea that not only were they expected to research, but that they had to turn out well written documentation of their research, which met publication guidelines. As I said, research in mathematics does not require referring to the literature except to cite the sources of the previous results used in obtaining the current new results. How much exposition is used in explaining what is done is highly variable, and too much confuses. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Seeking straight A's, parents push for pills
"Herman Rubin" wrote in message ... My education was only interrupted late in WWII, so there is no possibility for comparison in that manner. However, my children took some of those courses, and I have seen others who did. My son tested out of much, but my daughter took it all. If you went to high school before Rosalie, you are older than Rosalie, and Rosalie is a grandmother. How old are your children? What decades are you comparing? Still, you are comparing only your memories of what you've learned, not the actual texts. It might surprise you, if you did. I am quite aware of what is in the texts. The honors geometry text, if it is a theorem-proof text, is essentially an updated version of the old, with some non-obvious gaps remedied. You are arguing that what is taught today is watered-down. Are you saying an updated version of the old with gaps remedied is watered-down? The algebra courses are usually weaker, especially in college algebra, which is almost reduced to nothing. I have taught remedial trigonometry and college algebra. Anyone coming into college needing remedial trig or algebra did not do well in honors trig or algebra in high school. The class might have been too difficult, not watered-down, as you deduct. You could possibly think that what you took was so much more difficult, because when you took them, it *was* difficult. I "learned" high school algebra in less than a day; once the use of variables was seen, the rest was trivial, and this is no exaggeration. Nor did I work in the other science subjects, although I did rather more studying in biology. It was not difficult. You happen to be very bright. Just because you can do it doesn't mean everyone else should be able to do it just as easily. That is one problem with very bright people that I often see. They just don't understand why other people don't "get it." The difficult part for me was memorization, which is not important in mathematics, the physical sciences, or grammar. The hard part of foreign language was vocabulary, but I am not bad at this. The hard part of English was writing; I still have difficulties in expressing myself. Perhaps this is an argument for why writing one satisfactory paper isn't good enough. BTW, I'm not sure by what you mean about physics and chemistry not having relevance. I thought they were the most interesting courses and had plenty of relevance. If one is going to take the courses in college, the high school courses are going to be repeated essentially from scratch. Then the college courses, not the high school courses need to be modified. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Seeking straight A's, parents push for pills
"Herman Rubin" wrote in message ... In article , Donna Metler wrote: Herman, even gifted students have to learn to write by writing. There's no other way to do it. Once you know how to write, it carries over from discipline to discipline, but some things just plain take practice to master. As I said, the big problem in writing can be to think of a way of expressing yourself. This is especially a problem if you are trying to communicate information, not to write fiction. But then practice in writing will help one think of a way to express oneself. One of the problems in getting my thesis typed in an acceptable form in those old days was that the Chicago format did not agree with mathematical custom. There were typists who the thesis office accepted as knowing what could be done, so I used one of them. I do not see that writing has anything to do with using the library. Also, research in mathematics, at least, does not depend on using the literature, except to give credit where it is deserved for material leading to the research; if anything, there are too many references in mathematical articles. But not everyone is writing only about math. In fact, most people do not. The point of an education is to broaden our horizons and give us more flexibility for choosing the careers we will end up with, not to prepare everyone to only do math. As I said, research in mathematics does not require referring to the literature except to cite the sources of the previous results used in obtaining the current new results. How much exposition is used in explaining what is done is highly variable, and too much confuses. As I said, we are not talking about writing as it pertains only to math. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Seeking straight A's, parents push for pills
In article ,
Donna Metler wrote: "Herman Rubin" wrote in message ... In article , toto wrote: On 8 Sep 2006 22:05:04 -0700, wrote: All good mathematics is rigorous, in the sense that what is known is what can be proved. Logic belongs in elementary school, and has been successfully taught there by those who understand it. Taught to the regular, average, run of the mill child, or to those gifted children who had mastered arithmetic before age 5 without much formal instruction? Suppes informed me that the book by Suppes and Hill was successfully taught to the upper half of fifth graders from "scratch", and that his college text was similarly taught from scratch to the top 20% of sixth graders. I believe that simplifying the sesquipedalian vocabulary and making some other modifications would bring it within reach of most third graders. My late wife's book could be similarly modified, mainly by leaving out the applications which the child would not understand. My son did it around age 6. My daughter did it around age 9 or 10, with no pressure to do it earlier. She resisted learning what her friends were not learning, and it was a real problem getting her to read well before starting school. This was when the whole word method was in ascendancy. The latter do exist, and definitely can learn quite advanced materials very early, but it is a major mistake to extrapolate that because a few children can handle algebra at age 6 and 7 (or even 12 or 13) that all, or even most, children can do so. The key part of algebra, not the emphasized part, is the ability to use variables as language. This belongs with beginning reading; a variable is something which stands for something else, which itself can be anything. So a variable can stand for a name or a person or a property or anything else. As a lingusitic entity, there are a few simple rules for well-formed formulas. Word problems now become trivial. Algebra has been pushed down in age over the last few decades, so that a class which used to be solidly high school curriculum is now typically middle school level; and the result has been that students, instead of taking Algebra as Freshmen or Sophomores in high school and then moving on are beginning algebra in 6th or 7th grade, and are STILL taking Algebra as Freshmen or Sophomores. No time has been gained, and all that has happened is that concepts which previously would have been taught in 6th, 7th and 8th grade have been missed in favor of starting Algebra early. There were no mathematical concept taught in those grades before. Having children do word problems without algebra is at best a guessing game. High school algebra is now learning a set of rules. There is ONE basic rule, which is that the same operation, no matter what it is, applied to equal entities gets equal results. But be sure it is an operation. For example, No cat has eight tails. One cat has one more tail than no cat. Therefore, one cat has nine tails. The fallacy is that "no cat" has different meanings in mathematics, which shows up if variables are used. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seeking straight A's, parents push for pills | Fred Goodwin, CMA | General | 339 | October 2nd 06 02:22 AM |
OT The "Child's" Point Of View | Pop | Foster Parents | 7 | June 20th 05 03:13 AM |
How Children REALLY React To Control | Chris | Solutions | 437 | July 11th 04 02:38 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |