tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post4818977516465801295..comments2024-03-26T14:44:37.985-04:00Comments on D-Ed Reckoning: Still Overselling PlayKDeRosahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-20724354959627100782010-09-29T11:44:20.549-04:002010-09-29T11:44:20.549-04:00We get fooled by the application of labels.
"...We get fooled by the application of labels.<br /><br />"Rote" is bad. "Play" is good. <br />"Child-centered" is good. "Adult-centered" is bad. And so on.<br /><br />As with you and your kids, Ken. The kids themselves don't know the difference and they could care less.<br /><br />Kids will watch dumb cartoons and play repetitive games, "shoot baskets" and such without any ADHD, Why aren't these boring? Because the child is getting continuous feedback that can be acted upon.<br /><br />Play that is structured by an adult is "adult centered" rather than child centered.<br /><br />You say "the technology is there." What is there is Information Technology. That's not Instructional Technology.<br /><br />The reason there is <b>yet no adequate "how-to-do-it" scheme for reading comprehension</b> is that "reading comprehension" has no more reality than phlogiston. <br /><br />Don Hirsch, myself, and some reading theorists have tried to make the point that reading comp involves the same kind of background information that is entailed in comprehending spoken language.Dick Schutzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09815175767173164494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-41982541089442234532010-09-27T11:31:46.737-04:002010-09-27T11:31:46.737-04:00If the child sees that teacher is bored shirtless,...<i> If the child sees that teacher is bored shirtless, how does that do for inspiring a love of learning.</i><br /><br />Children care mostly about themselves. I am quite bored attending to the daily needs of my children and they couldn't care less about my boredom as long as they are getting what they need/want.<br /><br /><i>Play-based learning is like any other - it can be done well or badly, and fails the child as effectively in the latter case as with any other system</i><br /><br />Let's turn that around.<br /><br />Practice-based learning is like any other - it can be done well or badly, and fails the child as effectively in the latter case as with any other system.<br /><br />That effectively disposes with the rest of your comment which is focused on ineffective learning, i.e., rote learning.<br /><br />Rote learning is not the same as practice-based learning.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-59920668377006463362010-09-26T16:12:16.484-04:002010-09-26T16:12:16.484-04:00I think that you fail to understand the issue when...I think that you fail to understand the issue when you say ""Teaching beginning skills to children is often a mindless and dull endeavor. Effective practice requires lots of repetition. And, repetition is boring (at least for the adults teaching the skills)." If you haven't cottoned onto the fact that, <i>as children are NOT computers</i> they do not respond that well to what you propose. If the child sees that teacher is bored shirtless, how does that do for inspiring a love of learning.<br /><br />Play-based learning is like any other - it can be done well or badly, and fails the child as effectively in the latter case as with any other system. <br /><br />I was in at rote learning. In the UK in those days, though 80% of kids went to secondary moderns at 11, we only considered it worth talking about the 20% who went to grammar schools. They usually came from more affluent and socially better-established families, and, amazingly they could all read and write, do sums etc. <br /><br />I went to the A-stream of an unusually good secondary modern - we were the minority, and we had B-D streams, kids all raised by rote learning at primary level. Forget the Black Paper Mythology - many of the C and D kids could not read or write or enumerate to any great degree of proficiency at 11. When we see modern stats and bemoan what has happened, maybe we should ensure we are comparing like with like.<br /><br />My eldest son, Matthew, learned to read at age 3.5 years - we used Doman's 'Look-Say' system and by 5 his reading level was rated as comparable to a normal 12 year old. That system was play-based, and taught by parents not paid pedagogs. (This caused dismay at school at first because 'what to do with a kid already reading and by a system not employed by the school'? We sorted it.) <br /><br />If you'd tried rote methods on that boy you would have had trouble, probably behavioural, and that is a parent talking about a well-adjusted boy who he knows better than any teacher.<br /><br />My other son Andy was 'chalk'n'cheese', no interest at 3/4 years, learned to read equally well at school by another method. <br /><br />Both had two factors in common. 'On board' parents and .... Excellent Teachers<br /><br />You don't get it, you don't.Bognor Regis Heraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06053903360049633138noreply@blogger.com