Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
DT>Charles, I have worked in early childhood classrooms for nearly 8 years.
Rookie!!  I'm about to start year number 28.  ;-)
To clear up some confusion...
You said:
CB>DT>There are also games that come pre-made or ones teachers can make
CB>DT>to  match letters to pictures. Alphabet boards are one such idea.
Then I said:
CB>Although this adds some variety, it seems to still represent drill
CB>and  practice, which you said in a previous message, that you are     
CB>opposed to.   Can you reconcile the conflict?
And now you add:
DT>Don't you think I have a valid opinion regarding the difference between 
DT>games vrs work sheets?
If you read back to what I said, this particular discussion is in regard 
to "drill and practice," not work sheets.  Yes, I do know that games can 
be a fun way of providing drill and practice, and there's nothing wrong 
with that from time to time, but you had stated in a message posted a 
week or more ago that you were opposed to drill and practice (remember 
my comment about athletes?) You later suggested, in a message to Sheila 
that you might have responded too quickly on the matter, but I had not 
seen that reply before I posted the reply you responded to here.
DT>Alphabet board are not drill and practice and are not even in the 
DT>same arena.  Have you ever seen alphabet games?
I have not seen alphabet boards.  Could you describe them?
DT>Children learning concepts in natural ways as opposed to an
DT>artificial and contrived approach that has little meaning
DT>attached to it seems to make more sense to me.  Why it is
DT>you can't see that?
Well, I'm cynical, as usual.  There's a big push on at the middle school 
level to get kids to do "real life" problem solving instead of contrived 
word problems as has been the practice in the past.  So, how do we go 
about making learning real and meaningful? Do we design a project for 
the kids in which they are to survey the community attitudes on smoking, 
compile the data, figure the percents and the statistics, and publish a 
report?  How real life is that for most of our kids who'll never do 
another survey/statistical analysis in their lives?  I don't think we 
can make school "real life" - school is, in and of itself, a contrived 
social institution. Because we are teaching facts and skills to a group 
of children whose future is completely unknown, we can't possibly make 
education a "real" experience for each one of them.
Having said all of that, please explain to me how an alphabet board is a 
"natural" process for learning but paper and pencil work is artificial?  
And remember you're talking to a guy who has pushed pencils around on 
paper all his life, but has never even touched an alphabet board. 
DT>Perhaps a paradigm shift is in order.
Been to that workshop, done the activities and got the t-shirt.  My 
cynicism is not without foundation.  As one of the more active, involved 
teachers in my district, I get to attend lots of workshops and the guy 
(I wish I could remember his name!) who started all that stuff about 
"paradigm shifts" came to Syracuse once and I attended.  Great 
philosophy, but no program in place as to how to make it all work in the 
public schools.  More hot air.
Bill Daggett is the newest fad around here.  Have you seen him?  Lots 
more theory about the changing world, but not one example of how he's 
made education better.
DT>But you are not a 5 year old child.  Have you ever read Piaget?
No, but have read what several others have written about him, and his 
theories.  Does he have anything to say about 5-year old children not 
being ready to use paper and pencil?
DT>I think you may have to consider your own prejudice regarding newly 
DT>formed learning theories and your own resistance to change.
Heh heh heh!  I like that!  BUT...new learning theories are not enough, 
Dan.  The time has come for us to demand of all those who would propose 
changing the education system, "Where is your proof?"  Just wait until 
you've seen these fads come and go, millions of dollars wasted, 
worsening results, widespread criticism of "over-paid, underworked" 
teachers.  You too will become a cynic, or you'll change jobs.
I like kids - and the older I get, the more I like them (though I have 
lost a little patience over the years ).  After trying a lot of 
different things, I know what works best.  I don't want to waste the 
kids' time with stuff that's all fluff and no substance.  I'm willing to 
change when I see some value in it - I was one of the first in my school 
to adopt the computers and to teach kids something about them.  I fought 
for the right to use calculators in my school when most of the math 
teachers still thought of it as "cheating."
Perhaps there *is* a way to make cooperative learning work well, but 
almost everyone I know who has tried it has abandoned it, or at least 
they use it very sparingly.  Madeline Hunter's theories were cute, but 
they died out in less than two years.  The new math of the sixties died, 
and is now reincarnated as the new math of the nineties, but there's 
still no proof that it works well.  Perhaps there *is* some good in 
whole language, but then why aren't more people finding it?  Why are 
children taught to read in whole language programs still scoring so low 
on reading tests?
There are so many others - I can't remember them all.  None of them are 
still with us.  Research shows that the kids who do best in school watch 
the least TV and do the most homework (drill and practice).  Students do 
best when schools have a staff that works together and when schools set 
high standards.  And, I suspect, that schools do best when they don't 
jump on every single teaching fad that happens to wander by.
DT>.DT>Yes!  Imagine conducting science experiments on work sheets!
DT>.DT>"Please  draw a line from the magnets to the objects that are
DT>.DT>......"  Better to  give the child a magnet, clips, nails,
DT>.DT>toothpicks, rock, paper, etc,,,,,  and let them *Discover* the
DT>.DT>answer.  
DT>
DT>Surely you must agree with this above statement???  I would surely hope 
DT>so...
Sure.  Science is a hands on subject, but I don't believe for even one 
minute that the science done is school is any more "real life" than the 
artificial math problems about the two trains.
DT>Just to be certain there is no misunderstanding I retract my statements 
DT>regarding ALL Dan being a no-no (If I ever said all) and I agree that 
DT>some Dan are justified.  Whatever I do in my teaching I always ask 
DT>myself "What is my purpose in doing this activity?" and "Is there a 
DT>better way to do this that will engage the learner in a more meaningful 
DT>way?"  
Interesting.  Do you use macros for some common phrases?  In this 
particular case you've used "Dan" several times in place of "work 
sheets" and I've noticed similar patterns in other messages.  Just curious.
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* Anger is a wind which blows out the lamp of reason.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------