OT Pedagogy can be frustrating....
Sarah Weinman
ever written and ever administered. Daunting enough. I rushed through 2
very difficult labs last week so I could get all the material done in
time to do a review session today.
I give them a handout with what to expect, generally, on the exam and
some protocols that I do not want to go through on Thurs as the class
starts at 5 PM sharp and so does the exam. It takes me about 15 minutes
to get through it. Then I ask if there are specific questions about the
lab material.
Immediately several students--thankfully not everyone, but those that
did were quite vocal--started bitching that I "hadn't given them enough
time to prepare" and how could they possibly expect to study enough for
the exam.
I, rightfully, said that they have known about this exam since day one,
they should have been keeping up all the way through and they had the
whole weekend to study, too. And I wasn't going to spoonfeed the exam
questions in a review session. I didn't chastise them or anything but I
did kind of make it clear that they shouldn't have just started studying
today and if that was the case....
That being said, I did manage to go through each lab quickly and
highlight some salient points. But when class was over I felt kind of
yucky.
And the funny thing is, I am pretty sure I gave a couple of questions
away in the review session, but I bet most will still get it wrong on
the exam. I am expecting a low average and I bet some people will try to
cheat, anyway.
Sigh. And the thing is, now that class is about halfway through I have a
general idea of who's going to do well and who won't. But somehow it's
the people that won't that are the most vocal...
But we'll see how quiz day goes. And since I get to teach this course
again this summer, and I assume in future semesters, I guess it's all a
big ole learning experience for this teaching novice.
Sarah
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
claguire
<23aa2e0e9a82d47e1fd...@mygate.mailgate.org>, Sarah
Weinman <sa...@weinmans.com> wrote:
> Immediately several students--thankfully not everyone, but those that
> did were quite vocal--started bitching that I "hadn't given them enough
> time to prepare" and how could they possibly expect to study enough for
> the exam.
>
> I, rightfully, said that they have known about this exam since day one,
> they should have been keeping up all the way through and they had the
> whole weekend to study, too....
I remember once I did exactly as your students demanded, and I had
prepared extensively for simple multiple choice exams. They then
complained that I had not prepared them properly because I had not
phrased the sentences exactly as they would be phrased on the test.
I found that the same students got the same grades, whether I went to
extra trouble to prepare them or not. (There were good students,
though, who appreciated the review because it reassured them that they
were studying the right things.)
Camille
JaneHadd
>they should have been keeping up all the way through and they had the
>whole weekend to study, too.
Listen--it doesn't matter what you tell them. Some students are not going
to pay attention, and they're going to insist it's your fault when they screw
up.
I just gave a midterm--at the top of it, it quite clearly states that they
are to pick one topic and give me an outline, rough draft AND final draft on
the resulting essay.
Guess how many ONLY gave me the final draft?
I hand out a detailed syllabus with all the assignments on it--guess how
many people come in saying they didn't know they were supposed to read whatever
over the week-end?
I could go on like this, but you get the picture.
Jane Haddam
Melissa
"Sarah Weinman" <sa...@weinmans.com> wrote in message
news:23aa2e0e9a82d47e1fd...@mygate.mailgate.org...
Gawd, Sarah, that's not much different from how my 7th graders behave. :)
Seriously, that goes with the job. I mean, the kids bitching about "you
didn't teach us that!" or whatever. It's normal, and it's frustrating as
hell most days. It's disheartening to realize that even though you gave away
some answers, that some weren't paying attention enough to get it. I know.
I've heard stories (high school) where the real test is given out as the
review, and kids STILL miss half the questions on the test. It's NOT you or
your methods--this is a widespread complaint from teachers.
FWIW, it sounds like you did everything right--gave them the information,
went over it in labs, and then expected them to keep up. Don't change that,
Sarah. Don't make it easier on them or spoonfeed them because they whine--or
because some of them whine. That's not to say you shouldn't change something
(like a schedule or procedure) if it's not working, but don't change your
expectations.
Melissa, proud of you :)
Sarah Weinman
news:a6nho1$799$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...
> One of my sisters mentioned recently that she's got students in a course
> in 18th century literature complaining because of the lack of modern
> content.
>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh man, that is so sad it is funny.
Hurricane7
"Melissa" <mmco...@alumni.utexas.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gnJj8.65626$dx2.2357416009@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Sarah Weinman" <sa...@weinmans.com> wrote in message
> news:23aa2e0e9a82d47e1fd...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > So on Thursday I am giving my students a lab exam, the first one I have
> > ever written and ever administered. Daunting enough. I rushed through 2
> > very difficult labs last week so I could get all the material done in
> > time to do a review session today.
> Sarah. Don't make it easier on them or spoonfeed them because they
whine--or
> because some of them whine. That's not to say you shouldn't change
something
> (like a schedule or procedure) if it's not working, but don't change your
> expectations.
>
> Melissa, proud of you :)
Patricia proud of you also....carry on
>
>
Jonathan Askew
Sarah Weinman wrote:
Dear Sarah,
welcome to the ranks of the oppressed and misunderstood....
> So on Thursday I am giving my students a lab exam, the first one I have
> ever written and ever administered. Daunting enough. I rushed through 2
> very difficult labs last week so I could get all the material done in
> time to do a review session today.>>
Making up tests is a bitch. But, don't ever rush through
material so you can fit it in a review. Concentrate on teaching the
material: reviewing the material before test is an extra- fine if you can
get to it but not at all important..
>
>
> I give them a handout with what to expect, generally, on the exam and
> some protocols that I do not want to go through on Thurs as the class
> starts at 5 PM sharp and so does the exam. It takes me about 15 minutes
> to get through it.>>
You're going to have to go over the exam protocols again on Thursday
before administering the exam. That's just part of test administration.
Tighten up your presentation so it doesn't take as much time.
> Then I ask if there are specific questions about the
> lab material.
>
> Immediately several students--thankfully not everyone, but those that
> did were quite vocal--started bitching that I "hadn't given them enough
> time to prepare" and how could they possibly expect to study enough for
> the exam.>>
>
> I, rightfully, said that they have known about this exam since day one,
> they should have been keeping up all the way through and they had the
> whole weekend to study, too. And I wasn't going to spoonfeed the exam
> questions in a review session. I didn't chastise them or anything but I
> did kind of make it clear that they shouldn't have just started studying
> today and if that was the case....>>
Next time, save your breath and just give them The Look. Some
conversations just aren't worth having....
>
>
> And the funny thing is, I am pretty sure I gave a couple of questions
> away in the review session, but I bet most will still get it wrong on
> the exam. I am expecting a low average and I bet some people will try to
> cheat, anyway.>>
When I am worried that most of them won't get a question right on a
test, I am worrying that I didn't teach the material properly. If you
expect them to do badly on these questions, you are worried about your
teaching. Don't transfer your fears- and we all have them- to your students.
Try to figure out why you expect them to do badly on those questions. If
they do do badly, concentrate on figuring out what you did wrong teaching
the material.
Don't worry about people cheating. It's entirely unpredictable
who will cheat and who won't.
Worry about whether you will be able to make a fair and accurate case if
you find signs of cheating because dealing with cheating is pure hell even
when you've got really solid evidence.
>
>
> Sigh. And the thing is, now that class is about halfway through I have a
> general idea of who's going to do well and who won't. But somehow it's
> the people that won't that are the most vocal...>>
who may do spectacularly well and someone you think is a great
student may blow the whole test. The vocal students aren't necessarily the
worst performers. You won't be the first teacher to be surprised and
delighted by one student's performance and horrified by another's.
There is nothing like thinking you really taught some material
really well and discovering that according to their tests results, you blew
it big-time.
>
>
> But we'll see how quiz day goes. And since I get to teach this course
> again this summer, and I assume in future semesters, I guess it's all a
> big ole learning experience for this teaching novice.
>
They paid money to take the course. It's not like they got a
tuition break because you're a novice teacher so it's your responsibility to
get your act together this semester and teach _this_ course and _these_
students well.
Considering how much students pay in tuition, I think colleges
should do a much better job of introducing their graduate students to the
art and craft of pedagogy.
cheers,
Mary
Sarah Weinman
news:3C8F7829...@rcn.com...
>
> They paid money to take the course. It's not like they got a
> tuition break because you're a novice teacher so it's your responsibility to
> get your act together this semester and teach _this_ course and _these_
> students well.
> Considering how much students pay in tuition, I think colleges
> should do a much better job of introducing their graduate students to the
> art and craft of pedagogy.
>
"guidance" I've had in teachng is asking other grad students who are
doing the same thing as me, and they had to ask other grad students,
along the line...
But at the same time, while I'm trying my hardest to teach to the best
of my own ability, I'm also being realistic--there is no way in hell I
can get everybody to understand the material after only 2+ hours a week
of total exposure. And in theory, for every hour of instruction, a
student is supposed to spend 3 corresponding hours at home trying to
study the material (as if THAT ever happens...)
In terms of tuition, well, this is a CUNY school, tuition is pretty
low--which is why most of these kids are there in the first place and
not doing something else. Which is a good thing.
BTW, to everyone else who responded in this thread, thanks--and this is
why I love RAM...
Sarah Weinman
figure out:
How much responsibility does a teacher have to try to get students to
understand the material as much as possible? Obviously, a great
responsibilty is required BUT if I explain a concept eight times, in
different ways, and most students get it but others do not, am I still
failing?
Should I assume that the only work done by a student will be in the
classroom setting itself and it's not realistic to expect them to do
work outside class?
Melissa
> Actually Mary's response hit upon a point that I'm still trying to
> figure out:
>
> How much responsibility does a teacher have to try to get students to
> understand the material as much as possible? Obviously, a great
> responsibilty is required BUT if I explain a concept eight times, in
> different ways, and most students get it but others do not, am I still
> failing?
I struggle with this DAILY, Sarah. In my case, yeah, I am failing that child
if I can't get him/her to understand the concept after I've tried a variety
of methods--assuming the kid is making an effort to understand what I am
teaching. It happens, though. I have kids who don't get it. Every teacher
does. Unfortunately.
But my kids are younger, and not in my class voluntarily. I am required by
the state of Texas to impart certain bits of information to my students, and
prove that I've done that. But it's different with college kids. They're
there voluntarily. They (should) know that they have to study independently
in college. They do have a lot more of a responsibility to hold up their
end. I never expected my college professors (or TAs) to hand me everything I
would be tested on, every fact, every little thing. I expected to be taught
the *concepts*, knowing I would have to study from the book and apply them
on an assessment.
> Should I assume that the only work done by a student will be in the
> classroom setting itself and it's not realistic to expect them to do
> work outside class?
I don't think it's unrealistic for them to do outside work, regardless of
the age. I expect my 7th graders to do work outside of class. I could never
cover all of my required skills/concepts solely in class. No way. And I have
a whole year (10 months) with my kids.
Having said that, I think the teachers should teach the important concepts
in class; the outside work should be *applying* those concepts. For example,
last week I taught a short lesson on usage--they're/their/there, good/well,
that kind of thing. Then they have to apply those skills in their writing,
which will later be turned in for a grade. I expect them to be able to use
the correct word in their writing based on the information I taught them.
Usually that means working on their writing at home IN ADDITION to the
writing time they have in class.
I don't know if that makes any sense. But I know what you're struggling
with, if that's any consolation. You are welcome to email me about this, if
a 7th grade teacher's perspective would help at all. :)
Melissa (take out nospam to email)
JaneHadd
>should do a much better job of introducing their graduate students to the
>art and craft of pedagogy.
Well...not me.
A university education should be a matter of students coming in contact with
researchers in the fields they wish to study. Presumably, students are already
committed to learning. They shouldn't have to be coaxed into it, nor should
they expect the same kind of hand holding and commitment to motivating them
that they get in high school.
Some of the most valuable teachers on the planet drone on and have little or
no classroom pizzazz, but they have great minds, original ideas, and important
things to say.
Jane Haddam
Ian
exercise involved hearing a simple set of rules and following them through a
day-long session. It was absolutely incredible what people twisted those rules
into, rather than just paying attention, taking in, and understanding what the
requirements were.
People have a lot of their own agenda going on all the time, and find it hard to
filter enough of that out to actually receive any message at all.
Ian
Jonathan Askew
Sarah Weinman wrote:
> Actually Mary's response hit upon a point that I'm still trying to
> figure out:
>
> How much responsibility does a teacher have to try to get students to
> understand the material as much as possible? Obviously, a great
> responsibilty is required BUT if I explain a concept eight times, in
> different ways, and most students get it but others do not, am I still
> failing?
If most of them get it, you're fine And, by most, I mean
70%.
It's when most _don't_ get it that you're in big trouble.
cheers,
Mary
Jonathan Askew
JaneHadd wrote:
> >Considering how much students pay in tuition, I think colleges
> >should do a much better job of introducing their graduate students to the
> >art and craft of pedagogy.
>
> Well...not me.
>
> A university education should be a matter of students coming in contact with
> researchers in the fields they wish to study. Presumably, students are already
> committed to learning. They shouldn't have to be coaxed into it, nor should
> they expect the same kind of hand holding and commitment to motivating them
> that they get in high school.>>
I'm not talking about hand-holding which is not what any good high
school teachers I've watched do either. I'm talking about the skills to organize a
college course: construct a syllabus, figure out what will be covered in class and
what will be done outside the class; deliver an organized lecture, and lead a
discussion. Elementary public speaking skills are needed, too. If you're droning,
the students in the back of the room can't hear you.
It doesn't matter how learned one is if one cannot communicate
the ideas gleaned from scholarship in a clear and organized manner.
cheers,
Mary
JaneHadd
>the students in the back of the room can't hear you.
Well--I'm still really opposed to this as a necessity for college teaching.
Like I said, some of the most valuable education I've ever had has come from
people who "droned," who had no public speaking skills, who were a complete
mess when it came to lesson plans and organizing a syllabus--but who were great
minds with great ideas.
THAT'S what university education is all about. It's up to the student to do
the work to understand the professor, not the other way around.
Jane Haddam
Larisa
Yes, but what if the professor doesn't know how to explain things?
And doesn't care? I've had some professors like that; can't say I
learned much from them. Why am I paying godawful sums of money for
someone to drone at me in an incomprehensible manner? If I wanted to
go to the library and learn things on my own, I wouldn't be paying
this drone to confuse me. And yes, I have had some classes where I
had to sit through 2 hours of incomprehensible drone, and then spend
10 hours at the library looking for books that would enable me to
understand exactly what the lecture was about, and finding out that
the material was actually quite easy - it was the lecture that made it
incomprehensible.
The professor's job is to teach - to impart knowledge. To excuse bad
teaching by "Well, he knows a lot - it's your job to get the knowledge
out of him" is not a good thing. Yes, there are brilliant people who
cannot teach, and sometimes they have wonderful ideas - but the
majority of professors who cannot teach are just frustrating and
incompetent at the job they were hired to do.
Larisa
JaneHadd
No, actually, it's not.
At least, it isn't at a first rank university.
A professor's job is to advance knowledge in his field. His teaching is
secondary, and at many large research universities, most professors don't teach
at all.
A university education is a matter of being accepted into the company of
the people who are advancing knowledge--NOT of being "taught" in the same sense
that you're taught in secondary school.
Jane Haddam
Sarah Weinman
news:20020315091438...@mb-co.aol.com...
> A university education is a matter of being accepted into the company of
> the people who are advancing knowledge--NOT of being "taught" in the same sense
> that you're taught in secondary school.
>
> Jane Haddam
Well, that's how it used to be, but considering how the tide has shifted
so that it is almost impossible to be gainfully employed after
graduation, university has become a place where one is "taught" a skill
by others and then uses that skill, in theory, in the workplace.
I went to a so-called top ranked school. Professors, no matter how vital
and grant-worthy the research, had to teach. Some were good at it, some
not. I still think a crash course in pedagogical skills would have
helped those who were lacking, just as it might help the grad students
who work as TAs (or adjuncts, or whatever title gets bestowed.)
Jonathan Askew
JaneHadd wrote:
> >The professor's job is to teach - to impart knowledge.
>
> No, actually, it's not.
>
> At least, it isn't at a first rank university.
>
> A professor's job is to advance knowledge in his field. His teaching is
> secondary, and at many large research universities, most professors don't teach
> at all.
>
You need to get out more.
Teaching is not a secondary activity for professors at first-rank
universities according to all the literature they put out and what they say to
potential students and parents.
It is possible to be a first-rate scholar and a fabulous teacher and
it's old-fashioned to think that being one precludes the other: I've never seen a
really good teaching professor who wasn't a sound scholar. In fact, I don;t think
it's possible to be a good teacher and not be a good researcher.
cheers,
Mary
Jonathan Askew
JaneHadd wrote:
> > Elementary public speaking skills are needed, too. If you're droning,
> >the students in the back of the room can't hear you.
>
> Well--I'm still really opposed to this as a necessity for college teaching.>>
Why would making the effort to make sure that your enunciation and sound
level are sufficient so that the students can hear you be a sign of an inferior
mind?
>
>
> Like I said, some of the most valuable education I've ever had has come from
> people who "droned," who had no public speaking skills, who were a complete
> mess when it came to lesson plans and organizing a syllabus--but who were great
> minds with great ideas.??
My experience has been quite different; the genuinely brilliant professors
I encountered were organized about their teaching as they were about their
research. They just enjoyed research more most of the time. Not _all_ the time:
research kept to one's self isn't that much fun.
cheers,
Mary
BoxHill
>
> No, actually, it's not.
I disagree.
Yes, it is a university professor's job to advance knowledge in their field,
but if it is part of their job to teach classes then it is part of their job to
impart knowledge.
If a professor has a purely research position, then it doesn't matter how well
he or she teaches. If the professor is also a teacher, then he or she had damn
well better make it his or her business to acquire some competence in teaching.
>A university education is a matter of being accepted into the company of
>the people who are advancing knowledge--NOT of being "taught" in the same
>sense
>that you're taught in secondary school.
I think that it goes beyond that. What good will occupying the same general
space do if the scholars make neither themselves nor their knowledge available
in any practical way?
There is also a difference between undergraduate and graduate students, even at
a university. Undergraduates rightfully expect to be taught. Yes, they are
expected to be more proactive than secondary school students, but to expect
them to simply absorb various disciplines with little or no guidance is not
realistic.
Janet
//Dear Artemesia! Poetry's a snare:
//Bedlam has many Mansions: have a care:
//Your Muse diverts you, makes the Reader sad:
//You think your self inspir'd; He thinks you mad.
JLS411
In article <20020314121152...@mb-me.aol.com>, jane...@aol.com
(JaneHadd) wrote:
I have to disagree, here. My first (and last) college math class was taught by
an elderly professor with a heavy German accent, who would frequently stop in
the middle of writing an equation, say, "No, that's not it," and start over.
Sure, it's up to the student to do the work, but if the professor doesn't
communicate effectively, how is the student expected to know what to do in the
first place?
Jenni :-)
Vanessa: Darling, you're ... champagne, and caviar ...
Leo: ... Paris in the spring ...
Vanessa: And Jake is winter in Des Moines.
-- "All My Children"
Jr@Ease
I don't know, Jane. Are you saying the purpose of universities, and
it's professors, is to accumulate knowledge, but not necessarily pass
it on? That the responsibility of the students is to extract the
knowledge from the professors, and not the other way around? I would
hope there was some middle ground here. There's got to be some
responsibilty to teach.
John
Larisa
> I think that it goes beyond that. What good will occupying the same general
> space do if the scholars make neither themselves nor their knowledge available
> in any practical way?
Not much. I've had some professors like that, too. One was my
advisor, unfortunately. He might have been a brilliant researcher,
but that didn't do me any good.
> There is also a difference between undergraduate and graduate students, even at
> a university. Undergraduates rightfully expect to be taught. Yes, they are
> expected to be more proactive than secondary school students, but to expect
> them to simply absorb various disciplines with little or no guidance is not
> realistic.
I agree. And in general, if you expect people to go around acquiring
knowledge by themselves, a) they should not be expected to jump
through the hoops of exams and midterms and assigned homework, and b)
they should not be paying awful amounts of money to an instructor. I
love to learn things on my own, but if I am just going to go to a
library and learn Advanced Underwater Basketweaving, I should not be
paying someone to avoid teaching me.
It was only when I started working, and attending courses paid for by
my place of employment, that I put all of this education stuff in
proper perspective. Yes, it is the professor's job to teach me. I'm
paying him. I should, of course, do the work and do as well as I can
- but if the professor cannot teach, I should and will seek knowledge
elsewhere, from someone who is more inclined to impart it. A lot of
professors either believe that teaching is beneath them, or love the
power trip that they get from inflicting stress on their students.
None of the above is very admirable.
LM
Larisa
> >The professor's job is to teach - to impart knowledge.
>
> No, actually, it's not.
>
> At least, it isn't at a first rank university.
By the way, this is precisely what makes me very very glad that I did
not go to a first-rank university for my undergraduate engineering
degree. I learned much more than the students who got their
undergraduate degrees at the first-rank university I attended for my
graduate school education. And the reason I learned more was
precisely because the professors at the utterly unprestigious state
university I attended did consider it their job to impart knowledge;
because they took the basic material they had to teach and made it
interesting and memorable; and because they did not consider teaching
mere undergraduates to be beneath them. They might also have been
doing great research; but I did not come there to admire their
research - I came there to learn basic engineering. I am glad that
there were people there who could teach it.
Larisa Migachyov
JaneHadd
>so that it is almost impossible to be gainfully employed after
>graduation, university has become a place where one is "taught" a skill
>by others and then uses that skill, in theory, in the workplace.
>
Oh, I agree--that's how higher education sold itself to the American public,
and that's how institutions like community colleges actually operate.
But the sales pitch was always a lie--it relied on improperly used
statistics, and was first proposed because the people in higher education were
afraid of what seemed to be the innate anti-intellectualism of American
culture, the idea that nothing is valuable if it doesn't immediately make you a
living or have some "useful"--meaning pragmatic--purpose.
The fact is, that's NOT what a university education is for. It is NOT
designed to make it possible for you to make a better living, nor is its
purpose to increase your worth in the job market.
What it is supposed to be is an introduction to the life of the mind.
>
>I went to a so-called top ranked school. Professors, no matter how vital
>and grant-worthy the research, had to teach.
Even the ones in the hard and applied sciences?
Okay--in the places I've been, the Humanities and Social Sciences
professors pretty much all taught, but lots and lots of the professors in the
sciences had pure research positions and might never even see graduate students
unless they gave those students a lab assistant's job.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
> Teaching is not a secondary activity for professors at first-rank
>universities according to all the literature they put out and what they say
>to
>potential students and parents.
Well--see my post to Sarah on the propaganda the universities put out for
the general public. Yes, I KNOW they claim this--I also know they know it's a
lie, and that the chief reason WHY they claim this is that they feel that the
real mission of the university will be unacceptable to MOST Americans, who will
tend to find it "elitist."
> It is possible to be a first-rate scholar and a fabulous teacher and
>it's old-fashioned to think that being one precludes the other
I never said one did preclude the other--only that they didn't always go
together.
>I've never seen a
>really good teaching professor who wasn't a sound scholar.
Well, I have. The community colleges are full of them--they do no original
research and are not expected to, but they are excellent at transmitting a
field of knowledge discovered by other people to students who know nothing
about it.
>In fact, I don;t think
>it's possible to be a good teacher and not be a good researcher.
See above--there's a difference between being a "researcher" and being a
"scholar." There's a difference between being someone who researches what
others have discovered and being the person who discovers new knowledge
yourself.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>space do if the scholars make neither themselves nor their knowledge
>available
>in any practical way?
And there, Janet, is my complaint--
Pure knowledge is NOT "practical." It may get to be practical once its
applied, but that's not why you investigate it, that's not why you discover new
knowledge in a field, and practical application is not what a university
education is supposed to be for.
The life of the mind is its own justification--the love of learning for its
own sake, not for what "practical" applications it might or might not have.
>There is also a difference between undergraduate and graduate students, even
>at
>a university. Undergraduates rightfully expect to be taught.
This is because we in the US actually expect undergraduate education to be
what Europeans provide as the last two years of secondary school.
>Yes, they are
>expected to be more proactive than secondary school students, but to expect
>them to simply absorb various disciplines with little or no guidance is not
>realistic.
Again--I never suggested "little or no guidance," just that university work
should BE university work: an introduction to the life of the mind by becoming
the junior colleagues of people LIVING the life of the mind.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>it's professors, is to accumulate knowledge, but not necessarily pass
>it on?
No--of course they pass it on. But their job isn't to "teach" in the same
sense as a high school teaches.
>That the responsibility of the students is to extract the
>knowledge from the professors, and not the other way around?
In general, yes. The student is admitted to the community of scholars and
begins to do scholarly work on his own. That does NOT mean he gets no input
from anywhere. That's what advisors are for, and professors in universities
have always given lectures outlining what they're researching and why.
>There's got to be some
>responsibilty to teach.
Why?
Again--I think this is essentially a misconception born of the strange way
universities have developed in the US.
Most of our students do what would be considered a secondary school course
anywhere else and call it "college," we don't start operating real systems of
higher education until grad school in most places.
But just because that's the way we've been doing it for 50 years doesn't
mean that that's the way it should be done, or that it's a good idea to do it
that way.
Jane Haddam
Mary Askew
JaneHadd wrote:
> Well--see my post to Sarah on the propaganda the universities put out for
> the general public. Yes, I KNOW they claim this--I also know they know it's a
> lie, and that the chief reason WHY they claim this is that they feel that the
> real mission of the university will be unacceptable to MOST Americans, who will
> tend to find it "elitist.">>
Actually, there are elite universities and colleges who say teaching is
important because it _is_important. And, they are stressing that fact more now
because they know people don't want to pay $30,000 and more to be taught by TA's.
Especially in the sciences and mathematics, teaching by TA's has been a problem
because of poor language skills of foreign graduate students.
But, then, I don't think being anit-elite is a particularly burning
problem in American culture and surely not at the universities.
> Well, I have. The community colleges are full of them--they do no original
> research and are not expected to, but they are excellent at transmitting a
> field of knowledge discovered by other people to students who know nothing
> about it.>>
We weren't talking about community colleges- we were discussing "elite
universities". And, I repeat, I've never seen a good teaching professor who wasn't
a good scholar doing original research.
>
>
> >In fact, I don;t think
> >it's possible to be a good teacher and not be a good researcher.
>
> See above--there's a difference between being a "researcher" and being a
> "scholar." There's a difference between being someone who researches what
> others have discovered and being the person who discovers new knowledge
> yourself.
>
>
I think research is at the heart of good scholarship and good teaching.
I think there are good researchers who don't teach. But, I think scholarship-which
means being an original, in-the-archives researcher to me- is what enlivens college
and university teaching and vice versa.
cheers,
Mary
Mary Askew
"Cheryl L. Perkins" wrote:
> Adult students, at least those who gain admission through the "mature
> students" provision often do not do well at the local university,
> according to a professor I heard addressing that very topic recently. >>
I find that fascinating because the criteria is similar to that used
by public colleges and universities here and, anecdotally, mature students do
very well compared with 18-20 year olds.
But, I wonder if that will hold when today's the ill-educated high
school graduates turn 30 and decide to go to university. There used to be
quite a pool twenty years ago of mature students who had had fairly rigorous
high school educations compared to what high schools are turning out now.
cheers,
Mary
JaneHadd
>communicate effectively, how is the student expected to know what to do in
>the
>first place?
>
Well, originally, you were expected to get all this kind of thing in
secondary school, and then, when you got to university, you spent maybe a year
doing overview and after that you were set to work as a junior colleague with
scholars doing original work in your field.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>It was only when I started working, and attending courses paid for by
>my place of employment, that I put all of this education stuff in
>proper perspective. Yes, it is the professor's job to teach me. I'm
>paying him.
And this is just the distortion of university education I've been arguing
against.
A university is not a business, where students are customers and get what
they pay for.
A university is a community of scholars engaged collegially in pursuing the
life of the mind, and a student is an apprentice in that community.
NONE of what goes on there is suppoed to "teach" you something you then take
out into the workforce and get a better salary for.
For that, you don't need a university. You need a for-profit technical
school.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>how well mature students perform?
Not that I know of.
But give me returning students any day of the week--and somebody explain to
me why an eighteen year old with nothing to do but go to school can't get his
papers in but a forty year old with a full time job and a family is never late.
Mature students outperform regular undergraduates every place I've ever
taught.
Jane Haddam
purlygates
years-how could he possibly be able to do this --his students were cheated
JaneHadd
>poseurs.
>
>
>Naomi D.
What do you teach?
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>years-how could he possibly be able to do this --his students were cheated
>
In what? I ask because, shocking as it may seem, in some computer and
technology related areas, there may be nobody else to teach the course but a 19
year old, because they are the only people who actually know what's going on.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>already
>on a very tight track and had studied no math or science since about the
>fifth
>grade. I think that's pretty sad. But he did hit the ground running at
>university in a way that most people just don't now.
Oh, lots of them still do if they go to those fancy prep schools, and they'll
know the math and science, too, these days. It'll be required.
One of the things I noticed, teaching a composition section last term, was
that my students in first year college English were getting the same course my
older son was getting in his private school's 9th grade required English class.
It's breathtaking how awful things have gotten.
Jane Haddam
Mary Askew
JaneHadd wrote:
>
>
> A university is a community of scholars engaged collegially in pursuing the
> life of the mind, and a student is an apprentice in that community.
>
>
And, in apprenticeships, the masters instructs and supervises the
apprentices from Day One. It is, in fact, the responsibility for the transmission
of knowledge which distinquishes a master from a journeyman.
cheers,
Mary
Bridget
<mmco...@alumni.utexas.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>Seriously, that goes with the job. I mean, the kids bitching about "you
>didn't teach us that!" or whatever. It's normal, and it's frustrating as
On the flip side, I had a professor give us an exam in which several
of the questions were on a chapter we hadn't been required to read
yet.
Of course I got them wrong and brought it to his attention during the
session where he went over post-exam questions.
He said, "How many people answered those questions wrong?" Many raised
their hand. He said, "I will give extra points to everyone except
Bridget. She's the first person who ever noticed the snafu and
therefore should be punished for embarrassing the teacher." What a
hoot! While taking his final, one question was one of the exact
questions I had missed on the previous test and questioned him on. In
his final he wrote a)______ b_____ c______(Bridget! Choose this one!)
d______....
I just burst out laughing!
Thanks for the flashback,
B.
Mary Askew
Naomi Darvell wrote:
>
>
> I've had some "mature" students who were real pains in the butt.
>
> But then, the subjects I teach seem to attract tiresome autodidacts and
> poseurs.
>
>
All I can say is thank God, those people never show up in English or
history classes....
cheers,
Mary
purlygates
JaneHadd
>that there are so few of them around.
>
>I think it's possible to get a decent education in a public school. It helps
>to
>have parents who know what's going on. But it's quite an uphill battle.
The thing is, I think it's all connected--the same utilitarian,
anti-intellectual take we have on university education feeds into the
"anti-elitist" rhetoric of the ed schools and ed policy.
Up here, we have the best rated public schools in the country--but I'd be
willing to bet that a good deal of that "achievement" is the result the fact
that we also have the highest per capital income of any of the 50 states. In
our rich towns, we have good schools--but we also have parents who send their
kids to Sylvan and other tutoring at the first sign of difficult. Sylvan, et
al, teaches phonics and analytical (rather than "whole") math.
Kids whose parents can't afford outside help have to stick with what our
public schools offer, which, right now, includes an elementary mathematics
program that insists that nobody actually ever has to memorize the
multiplications tables because they'll do that "naturally" if given
"meaningful" "applications."
Every time there's another pedagogical fad, we get it first. And every
parent in this state with the money has a list of first rank private high
schools by the time their kid is in first grade.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>Ugh. "Whole math." Do they have that "whole language" thing too? That's the
>absolute worst.
>
They have a modified form of it--the party line is still that "whole
language" is better and phonics drill is just right wing reactionary nonsense,
but the state legislature did manage to pass a bill mandating phonics drill, so
they get some of it.
Jane Haddam
Melissa
I can vouch for this. My husband lost his job in August and has gone back to
school for another degree (he's 34). He's not working a full-time job, but
he's busy all the time with one thing or another. Anyway, he's getting all
As right now, more motivated than he ever was the first time around.
Melissa
Robert John Guttke
>to
>> me why an eighteen year old with nothing to do but go to school can't get
>his
>> papers in
Beacuse they are busy being an eighteen year old. Isn't that obvious?
At that age life is more than just getting papers in. There are many
distractions for the young....... it is what they go through to to
attain that stage of being a forty year old.
but a forty year old with a full time job and a family is never
>late.
Which illustrates an accumulation of knowledge.
In my business I have worked with 40+ year olds who act like
irresponsible 12 year olds and I have worked with 18 year olds who are
profession, on time and prepared. I have worked with professionals in
the world world who are sociopaths. I have worked with students who
are gentle and respectful.
The vagaries of age and personality...... there are no rules.
>> Mature students outperform regular undergraduates every place I've ever
>> taught.
Maturity is flexible.
Robert John Guttke Photography
www.guttke.com
Melissa
"Naomi Darvell" <darve...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020316115159...@mb-fp.aol.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Jane wrote (excerpt):
>
> >
> >
> > Up here, we have the best rated public schools in the country--but I'd
be
> >willing to bet that a good deal of that "achievement" is the result the
fact
> >that we also have the highest per capital income of any of the 50 states.
In
> >our rich towns, we have good schools--but we also have parents who send
their
> >kids to Sylvan and other tutoring at the first sign of difficult.
Sylvan, et
> >al, teaches phonics and analytical (rather than "whole") math.
> >
>
>
the
> absolute worst.
There are parts of Whole Language that are excellent. I use aspects of it
with my 7th graders--it means we're not circling nouns and underlining verbs
from the textbook all day, but we're producing meaningful writing and
working on improving their skills within that context. It doesn't mean I
don't teach grammar skills, but I assess them in a different way.
Having said that, some parts of whole language are nuts--that invented
spelling crap is one that comes to mind. I think areas that use both phonics
and whole language instruction have it about right.
Melissa
Robert John Guttke
>with my 7th graders--it means we're not circling nouns and underlining verbs
>from the textbook all day, but we're producing meaningful writing and
>working on improving their skills within that context. It doesn't mean I
>don't teach grammar skills, but I assess them in a different way.
>
>Having said that, some parts of whole language are nuts--that invented
>spelling crap is one that comes to mind. I think areas that use both phonics
>and whole language instruction have it about right.
>
>Melissa
>
>
be a powerful tool. I worry that the youth of today (and every
professional athlete interviewed on TV) have lost the art of speaking
it, let alone comprehending the correct use of it. What is it like
indulging children in language? And I don't understand the concept of
"whole Language", forgive me.
(Robert's BIGGEST language pet-peeve:
the over use and mis-use of the word
~awesome~)
Lynn allen
> Kids whose parents can't afford outside help have to stick with what our
> public schools offer, which, right now, includes an elementary mathematics
> program that insists that nobody actually ever has to memorize the
> multiplications tables because they'll do that "naturally" if given
> "meaningful" "applications."
<snort> On my website, my husband and I sell a PC Flashcard program that
does NOTHING but enforce memorization of basic math facts. He built
this for our daughter, who was failing 4th grade math. She brought her
grade up to an A by the end of the year.
Parents (and schools) all over the country (ok and in Japan and Canada
last time I checked) buy this program because kids do NOT memorize
naturally, except for Pokemon cards. Nothing beats being able to spit
out 7 x 8 instantly once they move on to more complicated math.
Lymaree
Robert John Guttke
I never learned my multiplication tables past "Five Times". I rely
on God's invention of a calculator. When I was a kid in school is was
ALWAYS math and nothing BUT Math with a spattering of Social Studies
and some English. I was even physically abused by the teacher in
front of the class for not doing my "numbers" right. To this day my
brain siezes up around numbers.
Children don't forget the lessons subliminally taught by the grownups
around them.
Melissa
"Robert John Guttke " <gut...@junonospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c938431...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
Many of us learned to read by sounding out each word part--phonics--but the
recent trend has been more to a whole language approach. In short, the
concept of Whole Language teaches students to read by looking at the whole
picture--an entire sentence or chunk of words rather than each individual
syllable. Some places use only whole language methods, others only phonics,
others a combination. WL is controversial--many people consider it too
touchy-feely or vague or something akin to "new math." And it's led (IMO) to
a lot of guesswork--students who are not proficient readers tend to see that
a word starts with "cat-" and instead of sounding out the word, just take a
guess at it and move on. The word could be "catastrophe" or "catatonic" or
"catalog." I think, especially for non-proficient readers, it often has a
negative effect on their comprehension. Same with writing--the WL emphasis
is on getting down the ideas and concepts and worry about spelling later. So
many 1st drafts are full of hideous spelling--and once a student writes down
a word, that's how he/she internalizes its spelling. If teachers don't
require students to fix the spelling and polish a draft, it leaves the
student with the impression that the concept is more important than the
presentation.
Now remember, I am secondary certified--I have almost no training in
teaching young children to read and write. My training is working with
language--reading, writing, and interpreting text. So my opinion is affected
by my background, obviously. However, I do think that beginning writers
should be responsible for correcting their spelling--yes, concepts are
important, but they're not the only thing. And beginning readers should
learn to sound out words, and learn what letters make which sounds, and all
that phonics stuff. My godson learned to read at about age 2 or 2 1/2 by
using primarily a phonics-based program, and his comprehension is excellent.
He's in 1st grade and reads at a 2nd or 3rd grade level. So at least in his
case, it's been successful.
Having said that, I think there are some good aspects of whole language,
especially for older kids. I teach 7th grade, so my kids come to me knowing
how to read. We work on improving their reading and writing skills. I use
authentic texts--novels, newspaper articles, etc. which is a cornerstone of
WL methodology. They read novels of their choice and write response journals
for assessment. And for writing, instead of drilling kids on parts of speech
using a textbook, making them memorize comma rules and then testing them,
and quizzing them on when to use the past participle tense, I use their own
works to assess their language skills. I haven't used a textbook in four
years. Instead, my students create their own writing portfolios (based on
specific criteria that I determine and teach) and as they work on their
writing, I teach various writing skills either individually or based on
problems a majority of the kids are having. Then their job is to show me
that they understand that skill and apply it correctly in their writing. The
idea is that students are more motivated and thus internalize the lessons
more when it comes from authentic work (preferably work that they choose)
rather than boring stuff assigned by the teacher.
Whole language has gotten itself something of a bad reputation over the
years. Some of it, I will agree, is warranted. But I also believe that many
aspects of the method are really valid, especially with older students.
Melissa, feeling like she's in the education NG, not RAM :)
(and whose students are excellent writers!)
Mystmoush
>>with my 7th graders--it means we're not circling nouns and underlining verbs
>>from the textbook all day, but we're producing meaningful writing and
>>working on improving their skills within that context. It doesn't mean I
>>don't teach grammar skills, but I assess them in a different way.
>>
>>Having said that, some parts of whole language are nuts--that invented
>>spelling crap is one that comes to mind. I think areas that use both phonics
>>and whole language instruction have it about right.
>>
>
>
>heard about whole language from a relative who teaches English. At some point
>I
>started getting people who seemed to have been taught that way. It's very
>hard
>to teach them foreign languages, because they have trouble recognizing small
>differences in words.
>
>
>Naomi D.
>
>
Yeeps. This argument was going on when I was teaching reading lo these many
years ago. Phonics vs whole language - though then we called it something
else, can't remember what.
My conclusion was that some kids need phonics, some could get it holistically,
and some taught themselves to read by some mysterious method.
I worry whenever it is mandated that there is ONE way to teach reading. I do
think that phonics is helpful and should be taught regardless, but not
necessarily BEFORE doing any actual reading work at all. Of course, that may
be a lingering reaction to grading approximately 3,000,000 phonics papers per
month.
Eileeeeeen from OH
JaneHadd
Yeah--both of mine. The older one at four, the younger and about 2 and a
half. And we never did figure out how they did it.
>Of course, that may
>be a lingering reaction to grading approximately 3,000,000 phonics papers per
>month.
Phonics papers?
I got this vision of these little, sweet six year olds producing papers full
of Quine equations and nonvariable calculus.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>especially for older kids.
Obviously, I'm WAY out of the loop here. I thought the phonics/whole language
debate was about how to teach very young children--say K-2--to read.
Why do we have to have some special program for 7th graders (12 year olds?)
to be reading "authentic texts"? Shouldn't they be doing that anyway, with
everything they do?
Of course, if you asked me what was the biggest problem with the writing of
college freshmen and sophomores, I'd say that it's that they barely read
anything at all, ever, outside a classroom--but still. Don't they have, say,
articles to read for social studies and things like that by the time they get
to 7th grade?
Jane Haddam
Mystmoush
>>be a lingering reaction to grading approximately 3,000,000 phonics papers
>per
>>month.
>
> Phonics papers?
>
> I got this vision of these little, sweet six year olds producing papers
>full
>of Quine equations and nonvariable calculus.
>
> Jane Haddam
>
We had to! Our proficiency test was a real bitch.
Eileeeeen from OH
Melissa
"Mystmoush" <myst...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020316160236...@mb-cj.aol.com...
I agree, Eileeeeeen. I don't think there's One True Way to teach and reach
all kids. In a perfect world, kids would receive phonics and holistic
instruction, and all parents would read to their kids from the beginning.
Introducing literacy into a kid's life will help that student be a better
reader, and the more ways the kid gets it, the better.
Melissa
Melissa
> >Having said that, I think there are some good aspects of whole language,
> >especially for older kids.
>
> Obviously, I'm WAY out of the loop here. I thought the phonics/whole
language
> debate was about how to teach very young children--say K-2--to read.
Yes, it pretty much is about the teaching of reading. But upper grades feel
its effects as well, since many of our methods are also often in one camp or
another. My class is more portfolio-based, where students create their own
writing and work, by writing (with my help and instruction), to be better
writers. That's more of a whole language approach, although it's not
directly WL vs. phonics.
> Why do we have to have some special program for 7th graders (12 year
olds?)
> to be reading "authentic texts"? Shouldn't they be doing that anyway,
with
> everything they do?
It's not that we have a special program for 7th graders. I agree--they
should be reading authentic texts all the time. But so many teachers get
caught up in textbooks--read the story and answer the questions at the end,
or circle the nouns, or whatever--rather than having students read for fun,
and enjoy reading and writing.
> Of course, if you asked me what was the biggest problem with the
writing of
> college freshmen and sophomores, I'd say that it's that they barely read
> anything at all, ever, outside a classroom--but still. Don't they have,
say,
> articles to read for social studies and things like that by the time they
get
> to 7th grade?
>
> Jane Haddam
In my experience, yeah, the kids have to read articles for science and
social studies. I can't speak for all schools, but our teachers definitely
have kids doing this. I spend a lot of time on reading--giving silent
reading time in-class, talking about books, reading aloud to them... things
to bring literature into their lives and giving them time to enjoy it. The
last few years, my kids have told me they've read more books in my class
than ever before, and they've written more than they ever had before. And
they say it with a smile, not in complaint. Obviously, not all schools (or
teachers) do things this way. Thus the debate, even at the secondary level.
Melissa
BLIND 321
> >years-how could he possibly be able to do this --his students were
cheated >>
I'm sure he wasn't allowed to run off on his own without a supervisor.
Colleges do this all of the time--it's how they teach students. It's the same
with hospitals and medical students. They have to learn somehow.
KS
BLIND 321
absolute worst. >>
It should be "hole in their education." What ticks me off is private schools
WORK for a reason: rote memorization, STRONG discipline and parental
involvement. The third, of course, is something that you can't force in public
schools, but why in the hell don't they go back to the first two? Every single
magnet and pilot school that pops up and is applauded for turning kids around
has a strong discipline plan that they demand the kids follow. It's not extra
homework or teacher accountability or test scores, it's making them know that
there are consequences for their actions, and that school is not a social
outlet, it's a place to learn.
The reason kids are so out of control is every time they're punished for some
stupid thing they do, their parents run up and either threaten to sue the
school or go to the board of education and get the teacher fired. There is an
appalling lack of respect for teachers and administrators now--and then the
parents blame the schools for their crappy kids! Kids need structure, and they
need to know there are consequences for their actions. Teaching them that they
can get out of anything if they sue is a dangerous lesson. The number one
discipline problem in 90% of all schools today is stealing. And parents are
shocked that schools have not taught their little Snotleighs not to rip off
stuff from their friends. (And even more shocked when they have to hire a
lawyer to keep Boogerleigh out of jail)
I have a friend who's been teaching for 18 years and says the best school to
teach at would be an orphanage.
KS, don't get me started.
BLIND 321
recent trend >>
Here's the problem.
KS
Melissa
"BLIND 321" <blin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020317100535...@mb-ms.aol.com...
> << Ugh. "Whole math." Do they have that "whole language" thing too? That's
the
> absolute worst. >>
>
> It should be "hole in their education." What ticks me off is private
schools
> WORK for a reason: rote memorization, STRONG discipline and parental
> involvement. The third, of course, is something that you can't force in
public
> schools, but why in the hell don't they go back to the first two? Every
single
> magnet and pilot school that pops up and is applauded for turning kids
around
> has a strong discipline plan that they demand the kids follow. It's not
extra
> homework or teacher accountability or test scores, it's making them know
that
> there are consequences for their actions, and that school is not a social
> outlet, it's a place to learn.
I will absolutely agree with you on the second two. But as far as rote
memorization, it has its place, to be sure, but not everything can be
perfected with memorization. Okay, in math, when it comes to memorizing
times tables and formulas and whatnot, fine. Yes. But in my case (English)
I'd much rather have my kids write every day and read every day than
memorize parts of speech and definitions and such. I've done it both ways,
and I've found that kids become much better readers and writers when they do
those things every day.
> The reason kids are so out of control is every time they're punished for
some
> stupid thing they do, their parents run up and either threaten to sue the
> school or go to the board of education and get the teacher fired. There
is an
> appalling lack of respect for teachers and administrators now--and then
the
> parents blame the schools for their crappy kids! Kids need structure, and
they
> need to know there are consequences for their actions. Teaching them that
they
> can get out of anything if they sue is a dangerous lesson. The number one
> discipline problem in 90% of all schools today is stealing. And parents
are
> shocked that schools have not taught their little Snotleighs not to rip
off
> stuff from their friends. (And even more shocked when they have to hire a
> lawyer to keep Boogerleigh out of jail)
This is so true. I teach in a fairly affluent school, and this happens way
too often. ANd our administrators generally cave in to the pressure. Or they
stand up to it, but the parent goes downtown and the weak-ass district
lawyer guy caves. It's infuriating. I don't know how many times I've spoken
with a parent about something I observed the student doing--cheating,
stealing, whatever--and the parent says "oh, he wouldn't do that." They are
so willing to believe their 12-year-old trying to get out of trouble instead
of an adult who has nothing to gain. I could go on and on, but you get the
point. Thank goodness these morons are outweighed (for the moment, anyway)
by the really great, supportive parents I've had recently.
I am part of a committee working on a code of honor for our school. Yes,
it's come to that. These kids are not being taught it at home, and we're
having a real rash of cheating, including cut-n-paste from the internet and
photocopying entire packets of completed work. We have to teach them that
cheating is wrong, teach them that plagiarism is wrong, and have them
(students and parents) sign a contract saying they won't, but if they do,
these are the consequences. That way, if a parent complains, we have a
signed contract saying they agreed to abide by the rules. If administration
and/or downtown will back us up, we might actually get somewhere.
Melissa
Deborah Pesa
would have ended up serving up fries at McDonald's<G> I've never been able
to memorize - things have to make sense to me for me to remember them. I
did horribly in math class and used to excel on the tests. Never did learn
that silly multiplication table. I think that education has to be molded to
the child rather than the reverse.
As for private schools, those of my cousins who attended them were years
behind in every subject. And it's easy to keep you stats up when you can
kick out the problem kids.
--
Deborah Pesa dp...@bestweb.net
Queens, NYC AIM: DebbieJRT
http://www.geocities.com/Petsburgh/Haven/1646/
Never lend books - nobody ever returns them:
the only books I have in my library are those
which people have lent me. -- Anatole French
"BLIND 321" <blin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020317100535...@mb-ms.aol.com...
Mitchy
>>There is an
>>appalling lack of respect for teachers and administrators now--and then the
>>parents blame the schools for their crappy kids! Kids need structure, and
>>they
>>need to know there are consequences for their actions.
>
This is an old argument, one that's being debated yet again in the UK.
I have qualms about it to be honest. Yes, I think it works but only if
it's used in the right situation and if the student concerned is willing
to learn from the experience. And how often does THAT combination occur
in real life?
What's the situation in the US? Isn't corporal punishment banned in
most, if not all, states?
--
Mitchy
----------------------------------------------------------
They ask me if I feel remorse and I answer, Why of course!
There is so much more I could have done if they'd let me!
-- "The Curse of Millhaven" Nick Cave
----------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Pesa
a lunch aide. The school workers are told to avoid touching the children in
any way. This includes hugging a child that is upset as well as hitting a
bad one. Obviously, this is to avoid lawsuits, but it makes you wonder.
--
Deborah Pesa dp...@bestweb.net
Queens, NYC AIM: DebbieJRT
http://www.geocities.com/Petsburgh/Haven/1646/
Never lend books - nobody ever returns them:
the only books I have in my library are those
which people have lent me. -- Anatole French
"Naomi Darvell" <darve...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020317122039...@mb-cs.aol.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Mitchy wrote:
>
> >
> >This is an old argument, one that's being debated yet again in the UK.
> >I have qualms about it to be honest. Yes, I think it works but only if
> >it's used in the right situation and if the student concerned is willing
> >to learn from the experience. And how often does THAT combination occur
> >in real life?
> >
> >What's the situation in the US? Isn't corporal punishment banned in
> >most, if not all, states?
> >
>
>
> Actually I was joking.
>
> There is a certain amount of corporal punishment in US schools.
>
>
> Naomi D.
>
JaneHadd
>behind in every subject. And it's easy to keep you stats up when you can
>kick out the problem kids.
Well, I think that the truth about American private schools is that they're
just like American colleges--there's Harvard, and there's everything on down to
really terrible.
Like I said, my son is doing, in 9th grade in his private school, what my
students were doing in freshman English even back at Michigan State. And
students at the high end prep schools--Andover, Exeter, Taft, like
that--generally do pretty much nothing but AP courses their last two years and
enter college testing out of all the intro-level and required courses.
Then there's the sort of "private school" that was set up to take kids who
got kicked out of everyplace else, or that exists only because parents want to
say they spend money on tuition.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>most, if not all, states?
>
>--
>Mitchy
No, not banned, and used in a couple of locations, but the simple fact is
that most school districtes would be scared to death to try it. The lawsuits
would be terrific.
Jane Haddam
Melissa
"Naomi Darvell" <darve...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020317122039...@mb-cs.aol.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Mitchy wrote:
>
> >
> >I have qualms about it to be honest. Yes, I think it works but only if
> >it's used in the right situation and if the student concerned is willing
> >to learn from the experience. And how often does THAT combination occur
> >in real life?
> >
> >What's the situation in the US? Isn't corporal punishment banned in
> >most, if not all, states?
> >
>
>
>
> There is a certain amount of corporal punishment in US schools.
>
>
> Naomi D.
Not in too many places that I am familiar with. Well, at least in practice.
I think it's technically legal in a lot of places--I remember parents could
sign a yes/no form on corporal punishment. But that was 15 years ago, and in
the schools where I have taught, no one gets paddled. Hell, kids only get a
day of ISS for skipping class in my school. Corporal punishment isn't a real
danger.
Melissa
Mary Askew
> >What's the situation in the US? Isn't corporal punishment banned in
> >most, if not all, states?
> >
> >--
> >Mitchy
>
It's illegal in some states and ought to be illegal in others.
cheers,
Mary
Mary Askew
Naomi Darvell wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Mary wrote:
>
> > All I can say is thank God, those people never show up in English
> >or
> >history classes....
>
> Really? I would think history would bring them out of the woodwork.
>
> Naomi D.
Nobody gets my humor.
cheers,
Mary
Mary Askew
Mystmoush wrote:
> My conclusion was that some kids need phonics, some could get it holistically,
> and some taught themselves to read by some mysterious method.
>
> I worry whenever it is mandated that there is ONE way to teach reading. I do
> think that phonics is helpful and should be taught regardless, but not
> necessarily BEFORE doing any actual reading work at all. Of course, that may
> be a lingering reaction to grading approximately 3,000,000 phonics papers per
> month.
>
>
I don't care _how_ kids are taught to read: I care that they learn
to read. Phonics, whole language, see-and-say: it makes no difference to me as
long as they can read.
I despise the legislatures and the Federal government trying to mandate
teaching methods. Kids learn differently whether the barely literate types trying
to reform education know it or not.
I am told I could read when I was three. Honestly, I don't remember
but what I do remember is being bored shitless by Dick and Jane reading books in
first grade. If my first grade teacher hadn't read "The Lion, The Witch and the
Wardrobe" aloud to the class, I doubt if anyone would have learned to read. Why
would they have bothered? To find out that Spot got the ball? Who cares whether
Spot got the damned ball? I didn't then and I don't now.
Teachers have to be given leeway to make decisions about instructing
individual children.
cheers,
Mary
Melissa
"Mary Askew" <jas...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:3C950216...@rcn.com...
YES. Thank you. Thank goodness I have an administrator who totally believes
in giving the teachers this leeway. Unfortunately, not all of them do--he
and I are constantly going round and round with my principal on this issue.
Whew.
Melissa
JaneHadd
>first grade. If my first grade teacher hadn't read "The Lion, The Witch and
>the
>Wardrobe" aloud to the class, I doubt if anyone would have learned to read.
>Why
>would they have bothered? To find out that Spot got the ball? Who cares
>whether
>Spot got the damned ball? I didn't then and I don't now.
Ha! I remember Dick and Jane. That was see and say. I'm told I read at
just before three, too, and by the time I got to first grade I was reading
Nancy Drew. I couldn't figure out WHAT was going on in school, but I was in
trouble all the time until second grade, when I had a wonderful teacher of the
went-to-Wellesley-when
most-women-didn't-go-to-college-or-just-went-to-Normal-school-and-had-the-
school-board-scared-poopless variety, the only female principal in the system.
She just handed me stuff she thought I'd like or let me read on my own.
God, I hated the fifties.
Jane Haddam
Beth Tindall
"Mary Askew" <jas...@rcn.com> wrote
>
> Nobody gets my humor.
>
> cheers,
> Mary
tell me about it.
"Robert John Gutke"
www.myphotographywebsite.com
Beth Tindall
"Beth Tindall" <be...@cinSINcinnati.com> wrote
dude, let's talk.
newt
BLIND 321
They should bring back caning. >>
Oh, right--but who would hold the parents down while they were being caned?
KS
BLIND 321
most, if not all, states? >>
Yes, Mitchy, and I think she was teasing (or wishing out loud) It's illegal
here to make students do ANYTHING other than detention. I remember when I was
in school (shut up) if we screwed up we might be made to run the track after
school or scrape gum out from under the lunchroom tables or something else that
was bothersome or demeaning. There were not that many repeat offenders...
KS
BLIND 321
cheers,
Mary >>
*I* get it, Mary.
your friend, KS
Ric Brandt
"BLIND 321" <blin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020317164455...@mb-ca.aol.com...
You may have a point there, but I'm sure after we cane a parent or two
they'll get with the program...
Ric
BLIND 321
Jane Haddam >>
but-but-but---you told me you're 29!
KS
Melissa
A coach at my school had someone run the track for some kind of punishment
and was reprimanded. I think the parents complained that their kid was
humiliated.
I have a student this year who has goofed up and been very lazy. Hasn't
turned in projects, whatever. As a result, her mom is making her write down
her homework and have the teachers sign it every day. Well, the mom called
me and said that it was embarrassing for her to get it signed, and was there
some other way. I said no, that's her consequence for screwing up. She
didn't like it, but she accepted it. I was kinda surprised, actually, but
glad I didn't have to argue with her.
Melissa
Mystmoush
Eileeeen from OH
Deborah Pesa
--
Deborah Pesa dp...@bestweb.net
Queens, NYC AIM: DebbieJRT
http://www.geocities.com/Petsburgh/Haven/1646/
Never lend books - nobody ever returns them:
the only books I have in my library are those
which people have lent me. -- Anatole French
"Beth Tindall" <be...@cinSINcinnati.com> wrote in message
news:F88l8.163932$Hu6.37...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
Deborah Pesa
reading, but I do remember reading Encyclopedia Brown in kindergarten (a
mystery reader then<G>) and Little Women when I was in 3rd grade. I was
testing at college level in 3rd grade. I always found what the class was
reading boring! One of my best memories is being the subject of a graduate
student's study in about 2nd or 3rd grade. I would be given all kinds of
interesting books and told to come back when I was done. He would then
question me on what the story was about. I'm not sure what his study was
about, but I loved gettng to read all those different books.
--
Deborah Pesa dp...@bestweb.net
Queens, NYC AIM: DebbieJRT
http://www.geocities.com/Petsburgh/Haven/1646/
Never lend books - nobody ever returns them:
the only books I have in my library are those
which people have lent me. -- Anatole French
"JaneHadd" <jane...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020317162120...@mb-me.aol.com...
Hurricane7
really wanted to say was....they are hot collector items the prices on eBay
scare me and I sure wish I had held onto my first readers
Patricia
Look Jane look. See Spot run.
"JaneHadd" <jane...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020317162120...@mb-me.aol.com...
JLS411
In article <20020316095651...@mb-fs.aol.com>, jane...@aol.com
(JaneHadd) wrote:
<< >Sure, it's up to the student to do the work, but if the professor doesn't
>communicate effectively, how is the student expected to know what to do in
>the
>first place?
>
Well, originally, you were expected to get all this kind of thing in
secondary school, and then, when you got to university, you spent maybe a year
doing overview and after that you were set to work as a junior colleague with
scholars doing original work in your field. >>
But, again, if the professor can't communicate effectively at *whatever* level
of education, what good is he or she? I've seen the same thing happen at the
graduate level, so it's not just a matter of trying to teach a bunch of
undergraduates how to do math.
Jenni :-)
Vanessa: Darling, you're ... champagne, and caviar ...
Leo: ... Paris in the spring ...
Vanessa: And Jake is winter in Des Moines.
-- "All My Children"
Larisa
> >> My grandson,while attending Brown "taught" classes during his Jr. & Sr.
> >years-how could he possibly be able to do this --his students were cheated
> >
>
> In what? I ask because, shocking as it may seem, in some computer and
> technology related areas, there may be nobody else to teach the course but a 19
> year old, because they are the only people who actually know what's going on.
>
> Jane Haddam
Nonsense. This is on the level of saying that if little Johnny knows
how to form the letters of the alphabet at age 3, he knows how to
teach English.
Larisa
Larisa
> >It was only when I started working, and attending courses paid for by
> >my place of employment, that I put all of this education stuff in
> >proper perspective. Yes, it is the professor's job to teach me. I'm
> >paying him.
>
> And this is just the distortion of university education I've been arguing
> against.
>
> A university is not a business, where students are customers and get what
> they pay for.
>
> A university is a community of scholars engaged collegially in pursuing the
> life of the mind, and a student is an apprentice in that community.
If I am an apprentice, I at least want some contact with that "life of
the mind". How many elite scholars do not even want to look at
undergraduates, let alone teach them?
> NONE of what goes on there is suppoed to "teach" you something you then take
> out into the workforce and get a better salary for.
Engineering school is exactly that.
> For that, you don't need a university. You need a for-profit technical
> school.
Or the engineering/computer science department of any top-notch
university.
Larisa
Larisa
> >I don't know, Jane. Are you saying the purpose of universities, and
> >it's professors, is to accumulate knowledge, but not necessarily pass
> >it on?
>
> No--of course they pass it on. But their job isn't to "teach" in the same
> sense as a high school teaches.
In what sense, then? I would think that lectures should be involved;
it seems to be a fairly efficient way of transmitting knowledge to a
large group of people. And if part of the professor's job is to
lecture, he/she should be good at it.
> >That the responsibility of the students is to extract the
> >knowledge from the professors, and not the other way around?
>
> In general, yes. The student is admitted to the community of scholars and
> begins to do scholarly work on his own. That does NOT mean he gets no input
> from anywhere. That's what advisors are for, and professors in universities
> have always given lectures outlining what they're researching and why.
Unfortunately, in some fields, especially the more abstruse ones,
introductory classes are required. In order to become, say, a
paleontologist, one can't just dive right into someone's research -
there should be some transmission of a common background, so the
student can progress in the right direction. And no matter how good
high school can possibly be, I doubt that they will teach an Intro to
Paleontology course.
The same goes for, say, linguistics. In order to become a linguist,
one should know at least some languages; and your average high school
will not give you classes in Coptic or Akkadian, no matter how much
you beg. (I know; I tried). And while it is possible to learn Coptic
or Akkadian on your own, it is much more efficient to learn it with
the help of a good instructor.
> >There's got to be some
> >responsibilty to teach.
>
> Why?
Because universities are educational institutions, developed for the
purpose of transmitting knowledge. If you want to do research, there
are plenty of research institutions and think tanks you can do
research in. If you want to take money from 18-year-olds and claim
that you are educating them, you'd better educate them.
> Again--I think this is essentially a misconception born of the strange way
> universities have developed in the US.
>
> Most of our students do what would be considered a secondary school course
> anywhere else and call it "college," we don't start operating real systems of
> higher education until grad school in most places.
>
> But just because that's the way we've been doing it for 50 years doesn't
> mean that that's the way it should be done, or that it's a good idea to do it
> that way.
>
Actually, the disrespect for teaching is a very modern thing.
Contrasting "important research" with "mere teaching" is just another
expression of the total disrespect for teaching, especially teaching
at an elementary level, and of anti-intellectualism, which is the true
cause of this disrespect.
You might notice that in cultures that have a respect for intellectual
development and intelligence, teachers - not researchers, but teachers
- are very highly respected.
Larisa
P.S. Interesting to contrast the way teachers of children are treated
in Asian cultures and in the US. My Vietnamese piano students always
bow to me when they come in, their parents treat my word as gospel,
the kids practice 2 hours a day because "The Teacher Said So" - and
you know what? I'm getting much better results that way.
Thelma Lubkin
: jane...@aol.com (JaneHadd) wrote in message news:<20020316103359...@mb-fs.aol.com>...
Evariste Galois was dead at 21.
--thelma
: Larisa
JaneHadd
>> technology related areas, there may be nobody else to teach the course but
>a 19
>> year old, because they are the only people who actually know what's going
>on.
>>
>> Jane Haddam
>
>Nonsense. This is on the level of saying that if little Johnny knows
>how to form the letters of the alphabet at age 3, he knows how to
>teach English.
>
>Larisa
>
my college started its computer science department, the first courses were
taught by students because they couldn't find a professor anywhere who knew the
material.
Whether they knew how to teach or not, they knew the material--to get an
"adult" to do it the college would have had to get somebody who didn't know the
material and was teaching rote out of a book.
Technology can march on faster than training programs can be devised to
prepare people to teach it. Then you find the people who DO it to pass that
knowledge along.
Jane Haddam
Mary Askew
BLIND 321 wrote:
Jane is 29 and so am I. If you had been properly taught mathematics
like we were you'd be able to do this simple arithmetic.
cheers,
Mary
JaneHadd
>level
>of education, what good is he or she? I've seen the same thing happen at the
>graduate level, so it's not just a matter of trying to teach a bunch of
>undergraduates how to do math
I think that kind of an extreme is very unusual--my argument was against
seeing university education as a training course for work, where students who
know little or nothing go to acquire "skills" and "expertise."
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>the mind". How many elite scholars do not even want to look at
>undergraduates, let alone teach them?
I think that's at least partially a result of the fact that undergraduate
education in this country is no longer what it was intended to be, but has
become the very kind of training arena I'm objecting to.
>> NONE of what goes on there is suppoed to "teach" you something you then
>take
>> out into the workforce and get a better salary for.
>
>Engineering school is exactly that.
>
I agree with you--which is why, a hundred years ago, engineering schools
were separated off from the rest of the college/university as a separate
enterprise, different from what went on on the "real" college. Yale has a
vestige of this in retaining the name of the Sheffield Scientific School even
though I don't think it retains its old separate administration.
>> For that, you don't need a university. You need a for-profit technical
>> school.
>
>Or the engineering/computer science department of any top-notch
>university.
Again--see above. This is more of exactly what I was talking about, which
is the perversion of the meaning of a university education by an American
hybrid meant to avoid the feeling that higher education is really "elitist."
Jane Haddam
JLS411
In article <20020318091641...@mb-cl.aol.com>, jane...@aol.com
(JaneHadd) wrote:
But most universities require students to take a broad range of courses before
specializing. And some university courses *are* a training course for work -
there's a big difference between my English degree and Larisa's engineering
degree.
ShelsDreams
We run into a lot of friction with the current assignments, which are
straight out of a textbook and an extra "workbook". Needless to say, the
child HATES writing.
And I can't blame her. I tried to do a few of the exercises and was
bewildered. (And I was a straight A student in English, Literature, and
Writing).
Anyway... all my best, Melissa :)
Shel
"Melissa" <mmco...@alumni.utexas.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:c3Ok8.66913$Ag3.275...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Robert John Guttke " <gut...@junonospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3c938431...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > >There are parts of Whole Language that are excellent. I use aspects of
it
> > >with my 7th graders--it means we're not circling nouns and underlining
> verbs
> > >from the textbook all day, but we're producing meaningful writing and
> > >working on improving their skills within that context. It doesn't mean
I
> > >don't teach grammar skills, but I assess them in a different way.
> > >
> > >Having said that, some parts of whole language are nuts--that invented
> > >spelling crap is one that comes to mind. I think areas that use both
> phonics
> > >and whole language instruction have it about right.
> > >
> > >Melissa
> > >
> > >
> > Can you explain this a little more fully for me? I find language to
> > be a powerful tool. I worry that the youth of today (and every
> > professional athlete interviewed on TV) have lost the art of speaking
> > it, let alone comprehending the correct use of it. What is it like
> > indulging children in language? And I don't understand the concept of
> > "whole Language", forgive me.
> >
> > (Robert's BIGGEST language pet-peeve:
> > the over use and mis-use of the word
> > ~awesome~)
>
>
> Many of us learned to read by sounding out each word part--phonics--but
the
> recent trend has been more to a whole language approach. In short, the
> concept of Whole Language teaches students to read by looking at the whole
> picture--an entire sentence or chunk of words rather than each individual
> syllable. Some places use only whole language methods, others only
phonics,
> others a combination. WL is controversial--many people consider it too
> touchy-feely or vague or something akin to "new math." And it's led (IMO)
to
> a lot of guesswork--students who are not proficient readers tend to see
that
> a word starts with "cat-" and instead of sounding out the word, just take
a
> guess at it and move on. The word could be "catastrophe" or "catatonic" or
> "catalog." I think, especially for non-proficient readers, it often has a
> negative effect on their comprehension. Same with writing--the WL emphasis
> is on getting down the ideas and concepts and worry about spelling later.
So
> many 1st drafts are full of hideous spelling--and once a student writes
down
> a word, that's how he/she internalizes its spelling. If teachers don't
> require students to fix the spelling and polish a draft, it leaves the
> student with the impression that the concept is more important than the
> presentation.
>
> Now remember, I am secondary certified--I have almost no training in
> teaching young children to read and write. My training is working with
> language--reading, writing, and interpreting text. So my opinion is
affected
> by my background, obviously. However, I do think that beginning writers
> should be responsible for correcting their spelling--yes, concepts are
> important, but they're not the only thing. And beginning readers should
> learn to sound out words, and learn what letters make which sounds, and
all
> that phonics stuff. My godson learned to read at about age 2 or 2 1/2 by
> using primarily a phonics-based program, and his comprehension is
excellent.
> He's in 1st grade and reads at a 2nd or 3rd grade level. So at least in
his
> case, it's been successful.
>
> Having said that, I think there are some good aspects of whole language,
> especially for older kids. I teach 7th grade, so my kids come to me
knowing
> how to read. We work on improving their reading and writing skills. I use
> authentic texts--novels, newspaper articles, etc. which is a cornerstone
of
> WL methodology. They read novels of their choice and write response
journals
> for assessment. And for writing, instead of drilling kids on parts of
speech
> using a textbook, making them memorize comma rules and then testing them,
> and quizzing them on when to use the past participle tense, I use their
own
> works to assess their language skills. I haven't used a textbook in four
> years. Instead, my students create their own writing portfolios (based on
> specific criteria that I determine and teach) and as they work on their
> writing, I teach various writing skills either individually or based on
> problems a majority of the kids are having. Then their job is to show me
> that they understand that skill and apply it correctly in their writing.
The
> idea is that students are more motivated and thus internalize the lessons
> more when it comes from authentic work (preferably work that they choose)
> rather than boring stuff assigned by the teacher.
>
> Whole language has gotten itself something of a bad reputation over the
> years. Some of it, I will agree, is warranted. But I also believe that
many
> aspects of the method are really valid, especially with older students.
>
> Melissa, feeling like she's in the education NG, not RAM :)
> (and whose students are excellent writers!)
>
>
BoxHill
>> Kids whose parents can't afford outside help have to stick with what
>our
>> public schools offer, which, right now, includes an elementary mathematics
>> program that insists that nobody actually ever has to memorize the
>> multiplications tables because they'll do that "naturally" if given
>> "meaningful" "applications."
Not our public schools. Kids have to memorize the multiplication tables in
third grade, and from then on they have "mad minute" quizzes every morning in
which they have to see how many basic problems on a themed worksheet
(multiplication, division, etc) they can do in a minute. They are expected to
consistently do 25 problems correctly, and if they don't they are expected to
drill at home with their parents until they achieve that level.
Janet
//Dear Artemesia! Poetry's a snare:
//Bedlam has many Mansions: have a care:
//Your Muse diverts you, makes the Reader sad:
//You think your self inspir'd; He thinks you mad.