Posts
A second grader's worksheet was corrected because she didn't capitalize a proper noun. Only trouble is, this was never taught.
When asked about this by the mother, the teacher replied, "We're not allowed to pre-teach."
So this is discovery learning? They have to "discover" that proper nouns get capitalized by doing it wrong first?
I'd almost sooner return to the days when self-esteem was god. Almost.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
YOU'RE TOO MUCH!!
YOU'RE RIGHT!!!
I'VE BEEN THINKING THIS FOR 2 YEARS NOW, GOING ON THREE!
I'll take self-esteem over character education any day.
Seriously.
Exactly what is "pre-teach?"
It seems like this teacher is calling pre-teaching anything that the students don't already know.
So then what is teaching? Is that when you teach them something they already know?
No, no, that is review.
Where is the teaching?
There is no need for teaching when you're a grammar tour guide. This is a journey in "discovery grammar".
With the "Homework For Parents" and now "We Don't Teach It, But We Still Count It Wrong," I feel like KTM is some sort of News Of The Weird blog today. Next up will be an article on the furry lobster and a two-headed sheep whose surrogate momma is a three-legged duck.
Hey! I had almost finished those posts, but here you go, spoiling everything. I hope you're happy.
8-)
Suggestion for future homework problem:
Schroedinger's Cat, Alive or Dead?
That should just about guarantee wrong answers, and that's the point, isn't it?
Teaching is no longer in vogue. Now we pay our teachers to be facilitators of the child's discovery.
Oh and black is white. And the sky's no longer blue.
The world has turned upside down.
They’re apparently not pre-teaching at my school, either.
From the Think Math website:
The curriculum allows students to get involved in solving real problems, figuring out what to do without first being told. Instruction is then used to provide good explanations of reliable techniques.
real problems? as opposed to?
fake problems? Or do they mean concrete problems as opposed to abstract problems?
"Hey! I had almost finished those posts, but here you go, spoiling everything. I hope you're happy."
Make sure you include how the momma duck had to teach the sheep to graze, because the farmer refused to "pre-teach" and the sheep was starving to death.
Grumble, grumble, grumble, argh.
:)
Survival of the fittest. If the sheep can't figure out how to eat, they aren't smart enough to deserve to live.
Wait, are we speaking in metaphors here? It can be so hard to tell.
8-) (I hope?)
"They’re apparently not pre-teaching at my school, either."
Mine, either.
My principal emailed me regarding TERC:
"As far as the math program: This is my first experience with this actual program but I have been involved with other similar programs and most of them are based in the concept of children discovering the solutions instead of being told how to do something."
Good grief!!
Here is the hypothetical that I would be tempted to post to the teacher/principal involved:
Assume that the union contract provided for a specified number of sick days for which the teacher would be paid, and after that number of days was used, the teacher would not be paid.
However, in keeping with the spirit of discovery learning, let's suppose that the teacher was not provided with that information, but instead had to discover it on his/her own. So, teacher uses up the specified number of days. After the teacher misses work again, she is not paid. When he/she goes into inquire, she is finally told the rule.
I realize that my hypothetical may have some flaws, but I would submit that the underlying philosophy is the same.
Uh, let's make that "pose" and not "post." When will I learn to use the Preview feature! Perhaps I need some form of reward (or punishment?) system in place to help me modify my behavior. : )
karena,
No matter how far out there you try to make your analogy some school official will have already done it.
In the school I used to teach at we had 15 days of sick leave per year. Also at the end of the year we would get an evaluation from our VP and one of the things evaluated was number of days of work missed.
In the 2004/2005 school year I developed kidney stones and had to miss a total of 7 days. At the end of the year I got a 2 on the evaluation, meaning I had met the expectations. A 1 would mean I did better than the expectations a 3 would mean I did worse and a 4 would mean I missed way too many.
In the 2005/2006 school year I again developed kidney stones and had to miss 6 days (got that one day less than the year before). At the end of the year I got a 3. I asked what happened and I was told that they had decided 4 missed days would be the new criteria but had forgot to tell us at the beginning of the year and then never got around to it.
When I pointed out how that was not a good way to handle things and what they should have done was to go by the old criteria and announced the change for the next year, I was told it did not matter they don't use these evaluations for anything anyway.
As I said, it's the school I "used" to work at. you can see part of the reason I left education to go back to engineering.
Well, I was hoping to make the broader point that as a general rule, most people are more likely to follow the rules in the first place if they know what those rules are. That is, if one could, by analogy, try to have a teacher who was dogmatically insisting on the virtues of discovery learning realize how much he/she themselves would prefer to know the rules in advance.
For example, when it comes to grammar, the general rule is that proper nouns are to be capitalized. Of course, statement of that rule itself presupposes that kids know what nouns are in general and what proper nouns are in particular. If not, those concepts would need to taught first (i.e., the scaffolding, as educators like to refer to it).
A quick discussion about why it is that proper nouns are to be capitalized would be useful as well. And then, of course, the kids would receive lots of opportunities to practice those concepts until they had mastery of the general rule.
Of course, there are often exceptions to the rule(s) and those rules that are ambiguous to begin with are potentially subject to interpretation.
In my attempt over the years to teach the fundamental concepts of law to college students, I have learned how important it is to start with the fundamental, or general rule, first. Yes, there are exceptions, and yes there are nuances, and yes, rules are subject to interpretation, but let's get the fundamentals in place first. Then we can talk about the exceptions, etc.
That's my point with teaching grammar: teach the rule or skill directly, and then have the students practice it. Then, later, when the student does forget to capitalize a proper noun, circle it, and remind them of the rule.
Jeff--I feel your pain (both with the "shifting sands" changing of the rules and for the kidney stones themselves. Ouch!)
My hope would be that in using a hypothetical, it would get that teacher to reflect (yes, I said, "reflect") on what his/her preferred style of learning is, so to speak, and then try to have that individual see the analogy to his/her own teaching techniques.
I would submit that this in itself would be at least a form of critical thinking.
Let's get the fundamentals in place first. Yes!!!
By the way, Karen, I loved your analogy. It was very fitting and I would absolutely love to send it to my BOE members. I just might do it.
News Of The Weird
woo-hoo!
Post a Comment