Basic skills, what are they?
Michael H.
considered a basic skill, even though everyone in real life uses a
calculator. Likewise spelling is considered a basic skill even though
most people who do any amount of writing use a dictionary or a spelling
checker.
I have heard some teachers say that learning to compute with common
fractions is obsolete because everything is in decimals now. That is
true if the only math one encounters is a grocery bill, but the fact is
that a person who cannot add 1/2+1/4 can never understand how to add
1/x+1/y. The inability to learn basic arithmetic is a good indicator
that a student is not destined for the physical sciences or engineering
and should concentrate on something else.
I also think that students need to learn how to spell, how to use
punctuation correctly, basic rules of grammar, and so on. Obviously,
everyone makes occasional mistakes in writing, but everyone should know
the basics. I saw a big storefront back-lit sign in which "stationery"
was spelled "stationary," and I saw a van with the business name
"Percision sign-painting" on it. I suppose it doesn't matter really, and
I know that there was no uniform spelling in Shakespeare's time, but I
still think that a person today who can't spell is not really educated,
or at least gives that impression. Also, I think that it is important to
have a reasonable vocabulary. Given that the vocabulary on most US TV
sitcoms is smaller than the vocabulary that Washoe the chimpanzee was
taught to use in sign language, and given that hardly anyone reads as a
leisure activity anymore, I think that a special effort has to be made
by educators to impart a reasonable working vocabulary to students.
How, for example, is a person to play a decent game of chess if they
don't even know the rules? This is why I think it is vital to learn
arithmetical computation with pencil and paper only, and basic spelling,
grammar and vocabulary.
I also think that in high school, credit for a course should not be
given if they do not have certain skills. For example, in math, if a
person gets 0% on every geometry test, they can still pass the course if
they do well on the algebra component. I am advocating something fairly
innovative in evaluating. In, say, grade 11, there should be a component
of their exam that is a review of grade 10 skills, and the student must
get over 70% on that review material in order to proceed into gd 12.
Another thing. In public school they have art specialists, French
specialists and music specialists. Why don't they also have science
specialists and math specialists? Let's face it, few people are educated
in both the sciences and the humanities, so why are public school
teachers supposed to be strong in both?
Michael H.
Dave Till
>Everyone has different views on basic skills. Numerical computation is
>considered a basic skill, even though everyone in real life uses a
>calculator. Likewise spelling is considered a basic skill even though
>most people who do any amount of writing use a dictionary or a spelling
>checker.
I believe that the ability to think independently and critically
is a basic skill - particularly in a democracy, where everyone has
the right to vote. Today's citizen is bombarded by all sorts of sales
pitches, half-truths, and outright lies (especially at election time :-)).
Teaching students to think independently can't be done by rote,
and requires teachers to spend more time in preparation and one-on-one
interaction.
> I also think that students need to learn how to spell, how to use
>punctuation correctly, basic rules of grammar, and so on. Obviously,
>everyone makes occasional mistakes in writing, but everyone should know
>the basics. I saw a big storefront back-lit sign in which "stationery"
>was spelled "stationary," and I saw a van with the business name
>"Percision sign-painting" on it.
The two that drive me crazy are:
* using "it's" in place of "its", and vice versa;
* using quotes to emphasize a word, as in
CLEARANCE "SALE" TODAY
James Goneaux
>The two that drive me crazy are:
>
>* using "it's" in place of "its", and vice versa;
>
>* using quotes to emphasize a word, as in
>
> CLEARANCE "SALE" TODAY
How about using "less" for fewer: 10 less people, instead of 10 fewer
people.
Apparently, there are grammatical rules that allow the use of "less",
as above, but to me it seems you are casting aspersions on the quality
of the people, not the quantity.
Dave Till
James Goneaux <jam...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>On 17 Sep 1998 10:54:50 -0400, da...@angel.uunet.ca (Dave Till) wrote:
>
>>The two that drive me crazy are:
>>
>>* using "it's" in place of "its", and vice versa;
>>
>>* using quotes to emphasize a word, as in
>>
>> CLEARANCE "SALE" TODAY
>
>How about using "less" for fewer: 10 less people, instead of 10 fewer
>people.
I'd also put in a vote for the use of "alot" and "alright", neither of
which are, er, all right.
I think we're wandering off topic here. :-)
Michael H.
> On 17 Sep 1998 10:54:50 -0400, da...@angel.uunet.ca (Dave Till) wrote:
> >The two that drive me crazy are:
> >* using "it's" in place of "its", and vice versa;
> >* using quotes to emphasize a word, as in
> > CLEARANCE "SALE" TODAY
> How about using "less" for fewer: 10 less people, instead of 10 fewer
> people.
> Apparently, there are grammatical rules that allow the use of "less",
> as above, but to me it seems you are casting aspersions on the quality
> of the people, not the quantity.
Something similar occurs when people mix up "amount" and "number". eg
there was a large amount of people at the concert. I hear that every
day. And also dropping the "ly" from adverbs, as in "Don't take it
personal."
Michael H.
James Goneaux
a moment"?
I think Mr. Till is correct though: topic is changing!
-----------------------
email: jam...@pathcom.com
It is necessary to be gracious as to intentions; one should believe them good, and apparently they are;
but we do not have to be gracious at all to inconsistent logic or to absurd reasoning. Bad logicians
have committed more involuntary crimes than bad men have done intentionally. P.S. du Pont
JMD
at a severe disadvanatage in our society. Chronic misspellers, for example,
label themselves as deficient in the eyes of people, such as hiring managers,
whose first impression is based on what the misspellers have put on paper.
Poor language skills also limit your abiilty to express your thought clearly,
no matter how sharp your mental processes are. Therefore, I would rate reading
and the ability to write with some precision and clarity as basic skills.
Computational skills are also important since we confront math everywhere we
go.
If you have language skills and computational skills, it seems to me you can
master the rest. Declaring that these are the basic skills in no way implies
that these subjects are the only ones schools should teach. Without these
skills, though, life and learning is an uphill struggle.
John Dowell
Michael H. <zol...@netcom.ca> wrote in article <36008C...@netcom.ca>...
> Everyone has different views on basic skills. Numerical computation is
> considered a basic skill, even though everyone in real life uses a
> calculator. Likewise spelling is considered a basic skill even though
> most people who do any amount of writing use a dictionary or a spelling
> checker.
{good post snipped}
Michael H.
> How about using "momentarily" to mean "in a moment", instead of "for
> a moment"?
That is a whole can worms. One of the correct words for "in a moment"
is "presently," but people (especially in the US) tend to use
"presently" to mean "at the moment." They use "presently" to mean
"currently".
Michael H.
Walter Petelka
>In article <36008C...@netcom.ca>, Michael H. <zol...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>>Everyone has different views on basic skills. Numerical computation is
>>considered a basic skill, even though everyone in real life uses a
>>calculator. Likewise spelling is considered a basic skill even though
>>most people who do any amount of writing use a dictionary or a spelling
>>checker.
>
>I believe that the ability to think independently and critically
>is a basic skill - particularly in a democracy, where everyone has
>the right to vote. Today's citizen is bombarded by all sorts of sales
>pitches, half-truths, and outright lies (especially at election time :-)).
Reading would be a big help. Maybe a little math tossed in would help
to determine if facts about economics is accurate. Maybe knowing where
bosnia is and how this might be impacting on genocide would help. Etc.
Etc.
>
>Teaching students to think independently can't be done by rote,
>and requires teachers to spend more time in preparation and one-on-one
>interaction.
Outline the curriculum for a course on thinking.
>
>> I also think that students need to learn how to spell, how to use
>>punctuation correctly, basic rules of grammar, and so on. Obviously,
>>everyone makes occasional mistakes in writing, but everyone should know
>>the basics. I saw a big storefront back-lit sign in which "stationery"
>>was spelled "stationary," and I saw a van with the business name
>>"Percision sign-painting" on it.
>
>The two that drive me crazy are:
>
>* using "it's" in place of "its", and vice versa;
>
>* using quotes to emphasize a word, as in
>
> CLEARANCE "SALE" TODAY
wpet...@NOSPAMidirect.com
VISIT http://webhome.idirect.com/~wpetelka
ICQ #7645954
With Freedom Comes Risk-Ban Anon Sigs.
Dave Till
Walter Petelka <wpet...@idirect.com> wrote:
>>I believe that the ability to think independently and critically
>>is a basic skill - particularly in a democracy, where everyone has
>>the right to vote. Today's citizen is bombarded by all sorts of sales
>>pitches, half-truths, and outright lies (especially at election time :-)).
>
>Reading would be a big help. Maybe a little math tossed in would help
>to determine if facts about economics is accurate. Maybe knowing where
>bosnia is and how this might be impacting on genocide would help. Etc.
>Etc.
Reading and math are also basic skills - no disagreement there.
And some of the essential reading and math may need to be taught by
rote, in the old-fashioned way. I have no problem with that either.
As regards geography: since Bosnia didn't officially exist as
a separate nation until recently, wouldn't teachers need to be
updating their geography lesson plans to reflect the current world
situation? And wouldn't this require preparation time? (As I recall,
your original point was that teachers don't need much prep time,
because all they need to do is teach from existing notes.)
>>Teaching students to think independently can't be done by rote,
>>and requires teachers to spend more time in preparation and one-on-one
>>interaction.
>
>Outline the curriculum for a course on thinking.
There isn't a separate course on thinking (except possibly for courses
on logic and rhetoric, which are university-level). But a good
teacher would encourage his or her students to come up with
conclusions and/or generate ideas themselves, rather than just
recite facts to be memorized and later regurgitated on standardized
tests.
Bosnia is a good example: perhaps students should be exposed
to age-appropriate material describing the situation in the Balkans,
and be given opportunities to think for themselves about what
is happening there.
Michael H.
> In article <360a3911...@n3.idirect.com>,
> Walter Petelka <wpet...@idirect.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >Outline the curriculum for a course on thinking.
> There isn't a separate course on thinking (except possibly for courses
> on logic and rhetoric, which are university-level).
I took a logic course, but it wasn't what most people would imagine.
All this stuff about syllogisms, truth tables, propositional notation,
De Morgan's laws, etc., were fun enough, but had very little application
to actual thinking about issues.
> But a teacher would encourage his or her students to come up with
> conclusions and/or generate ideas themselves, rather than just
> recite facts to be memorized and later regurgitated on standardized
> tests.
Good point. My opinion is that analytical thinking can be introduced to
younger people by explaining different advertising techniques, for
example. Say, constant repetition of a trade name. Or they could be
shown that to claim, "You cannot buy a stronger pain reliever without a
prescription," does not mean that it is necessarily any stronger than
the competitor's pain-reliever. In other words, show them fallacies,
tricks and gimmicks. Lorne Greene had a game out called "Propaganda"
years ago that you used to be able to get from the same people that put
out the symbolic logic game Wff'n Proof. There were flash cards, each
one with a different gimmick. I still have it, but I only ever played it
as solitaire, which wasn't all that exciting. I always thought that it
would be a good teaching tool.
> Bosnia is a good example: perhaps students should be exposed
> to age-appropriate material describing the situation in the Balkans,
> and be given opportunities to think for themselves about what
> is happening there.
I think history should be taught starting with the present and working
backwards. As Beatle John Lennon pointed out, at his school the history
was taught in the standard way from past to future, and when he dropped
out of school they were at about the 15th century. So he had no idea
what had happened since. There are problems with starting with the
present and working back, though, namely there is no agreement on what
is going on now. Everybody has political agendas, biases, etc., that
would skew their presentation. Maybe history should start with the
previous generation and work back. For example, start with the sixties,
then ask what all the young people were rebelling against. Well, there
was the war in Vietnam. What was that about? There was the McCarthy era.
The Cold War. Back to WWII. How did that come about, etc., etc. In
Canada, the unity question. What about separatism. What about Trudeau
invoking the War Measures act in October of 1970 (? am I right?) the FLQ
and the bombs, the murders. What about before that? The Union Nationale,
Duplessis, the Roman Catholic Church against public libraries. All that.
Again, back to WWII. Conscription. I think that approach could work.
Michael H.
JMD
reverse Seinfeld episode. You pinpont a big problem, though. Your start point
is the present and it is difficult to figure out what is significant in today's
news and what is dross. Will the Clinton-Lewinsky affair have any historical
importance even though it dominates the news?
It is possible, though, to take a situation or condition -- the Balkans, for
instance -- and trace it back to its roots. That process might be too
sophisticated for lower grades but could be handled by advanced high school
students. I think, though, that you would need some appreciation for the broad
themes of history in order to do this. Otherwise you end up down some blind
alleys in your backwards search for root causes. I think there is still a
place for teaching historical basics in the old "back to front" fashion simply
because the past begets the present.
The real problem in our schools today is that there doesn't seem to be any
history taught. What they call history is really political correctness. How
can you teach a history of Canada in this century, for example, and ignore the
two World Wars that demanded so much of this country and shaped who we are
today? Yet this is done in our schools because war has been deemed politically
incorrect by some of our so-called elites. Their agenda requires that
Canadians see themselves as pacifists for whom peacekeeping is the highest
calling. Our kids don't get to learn that the international respect, that
allowed us to become effective peacekeepers, was won on the battlefields of
World War Two. If kids are unaware of this past, how can they understand the
present? Kids crippled by this lack of information would have a tough time
tracing the roots of peackeeping.
John Dowell
Michael H. <zol...@netcom.ca> wrote in article <3608D7...@netcom.ca>...
Michael H.
> John D: That's an interesting concept to teaching history. Reminds me of the
> reverse Seinfeld episode. You pinpont a big problem, though. Your start point
> is the present and it is difficult to figure out what is significant in today's
> news and what is dross. Will the Clinton-Lewinsky affair have any historical
> importance even though it dominates the news?
When you look at the Kennedy assassinations, the attempts on Reagan and
Ford, Watergate, and then this, there seems to be a rough pattern
suggesting that being the leader of the most powerful military force on
the planet is not an easy job, and that they have been increasingly
attacked. I think if the Presidency as an office disappears then this
Clinton business will be seen as more of what preceded it, but if the
Presidency remains, then it will be forgotten. Your point, in the
general sense you intended it is well-taken. Who today could say which
stories are important?
> It is possible, though, to take a situation or condition -- the Balkans, for
> instance -- and trace it back to its roots. That process might be too
> sophisticated for lower grades but could be handled by advanced high school
> students. I think, though, that you would need some appreciation for the broad
> themes of history in order to do this. Otherwise you end up down some blind
> alleys in your backwards search for root causes. I think there is still a
> place for teaching historical basics in the old "back to front" fashion simply
> because the past begets the present.
It seems to me, as I get older, that history is incredibly politicized.
The noble academic tradition, as I see it, is to present the facts of
history fairly, and explain the opposing positions as an unbiased
observer would. It is so easy for history, as a subject, to be hijacked
and subverted by propagandists. I doubt that it has yet. It isn't my
line at all, but I do see it as a danger.
Michael H.
<snip>
JMD
"Who Killed Canadian History". He has conducted a personal inquiry into the
deplorable lack of real history courses in our schools. He is alarmed at this
situation. In the book's preface, he writes:
"History is important, I believe, because it is the way a nation, a people,
and an individual learn who they are, where they came from, and how and why
their world has turned out as it has. ... History is memory, inspiration and
commonality -- and a nation without memory is every bit as adrift as an
amnesiac wandering the streets."
BTW, he also champions the chronological teaching of history. He says it is
necessary to provide perpsective and show causality.
John Dowell
Michael H.
I love that quote. I recently read Herman Hesse's novel "The Glass Bead
Game," in which there was a province of pure academia called "Castalia,"
and one of the themes of that book was the increasing disconnection of
the academic world from the political realities in which people actually
live. While it is intellectually satisfying to think of a history of the
world as starting from the end of the last Ice Age and progressing
forward into the future, inch by inch, detail by detail, that doesn't
address how to teach history to people who will never get into it in
that much detail. Some time ago I thought that a good essay contest
would be to describe the history of the world (the last 5000 years, say)
in 25 words or less. "Guys with good biceps learn to build better fires
and plan ahead." That kind of thing. I think that history has to be
completely encapsulated at each stage of education, then fleshed out as
it progresses. I think that it is wrong to have a system in which people
who drop out of school are left dangling in the 15th century.
Michael H.