CHARLES BEAMS spoke of The Real Story 2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-07-96
CB>Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
CB>I guess we're actually arguing about the word "meaningful" here.  You
CB>probably are actually referring to providing "meaning" for the math 
CB>concept, and you are *NOT* actually implying that cutting a pie in
CB>half  is "meaningful" for the child, right?
The illustration of is what I think could be meaningful.  But it may be 
as you said, nothing more than something of interest.  I would think 
that an overhead attribute block could illustrate part to whole as well.  
But when I say meaningful I am referring to providing meaning for the 
math concept.  I think one way of doing that is to provide concrete 
examples for abstract concepts.
CB>When we use a pie to illustrate the fraction 1/2, is that meaningful
CB>to  a child?  I see it as something less important than that -
CB>perhaps  something of interest, but not meaningful.  In order to make
CB>something  meaningful to a child, we would have to be teaching them
CB>things that  were significant in their lives - for example, how to
CB>eat.  How to  remove and replace a brake lining would be meaningful
CB>to an  auto-mechanic, but it would NOT be meaningful to me.
CB> 
CB>Is there actually a way to engage every learner by using the same 
CB>examples?  That pie might bore a few of the kids quite quickly - and
CB>how  many pies are you going to cut up as you show halves, thirds,
CB>quarters,  fifths, sixths, etc.?  A ruler is a practical example of
CB>using  fractions, but is it meaningful to kids?  I've seen very few
CB>that like  measurement.
I don't think using the same example over and over again is a good idea.  
I agree with you that that could be boring.  Maybe it could be said that 
the use of work sheets over and over again could be boring for the same 
reason?
CB>DT>.DT>If I want to teach spelling I can provide a list of spelling
CB>DT>.DT>words,  test, study, and then retest.  I was taught in college
CB>DT>.DT>that this is the  best way to teach spelling.  But children
CB>DT>.DT>who score well on spelling  tests don't always spell correctly
CB>DT>.DT>on written work. 
CB>DT>CB>Are you sure that they don't at least spell *better* than those
CB>DT>CB>who do poorly? 
CB>DT>They may, but the point is that this approach, which seems to
CB>DT>teach  spelling, falls short.  What is the goal of these spelling
CB>DT>tests if not  to teach children how to spell correctly for their
CB>DT>written work. 
CB>Yes, the point is to teach children to spell correctly for their
CB>written  work, but that doesn't mean you're going to get perfection.
CB>I don't  know if the research exists, but I would still like to know
CB>if those  children who study spelling in a formal manner don't spell
CB>more words  correctly in their written work than do children who
CB>*don't* get formal  spelling lessons.  And another question - is
CB>there a difference in the  reading skills between the two groups?
Those are good questions.  I'll see what I can dig up.  I think there is 
probably some research out there that has something to say on the 
matter.  Are you familiar with the Riggs corporation?  I have seen their 
name on the internet in connection with spelling and phonics.  
CB>DT>Here is where we part company.  If a child can do the work sheet,
CB>DT>then  they know the skill.  Doing the work sheet is a waste of
CB>DT>time.  This  child needs enrichment and not from a work sheet.
CB> 
CB>You're right - we do part company here.  There is nothing wrong with 
CB>practice and reinforcement.  A skill learned today might well be 
CB>forgotten three days hence without additional practice (short and
CB>long  term memories function differently).  In your class, when a
CB>child  recognizes the letter A, are you suggesting that you never ask
CB>him to do  it again because he knows it?
I would reinforce concepts (and I do) without the use of a work sheet.  
Same result (maybe better) better method (IMNSHO).
CB>DT>The child who cannot do the task shouldn't do the work sheet
CB>DT>either  because it is beyond their level of comprehension.
CB> 
CB>Let me get this straight.  Just above you say that a child doing some
CB>work they already know how to do is a waste of time.  Now you're
CB>saying  that asking a child to do some work they don't know how to do
CB>is a waste  of time. 
Yes.....that is what I am saying...except I am not saying that the child 
shouldn't learn the concept.  Only that a child will not learn the 
concept from a work sheet.  Why bother then?
 The only thing I can figure here is that you
CB>have a  single-minded idea of what a work-sheet is and you are
CB>holding on to  that notion with a bulldog's determination.
CB>In my mind, work-sheets (sheets of paper with work on them) are not 
CB>inherently bad. 
Agreed...
 Some are badly written, but others provide drill and
CB>practice that reinforces skills for long-term memory development,
CB>others  provide the path to learning development (guiding a child
CB>through a  library project, for example), and still others may
CB>challenge a child to  seek out information (getting help from a
CB>parent or adult). 
I think I have said I favor many of these...
 At the  middle school level, I give homework most
CB>every night (quite often in  the form of a worksheet) and it serves
CB>child lots of purposes - it tests the  on his recall of the work done
CB>child that day in class, it may push the  into looking in his notes
CB>or his textbook to review a process he  learned and has forgotten, or
CB>it might just help the child remember the  information/process for a
CB>little bit longer as we build on that same  skill the next day.
CB> 
CB>The process I use was tried and tested long before I became a teacher
CB>and my best guess is that it will last long after I'm retired.
CB> 
CB>DT>But I am speaking of this specific kind of work sheet and am not 
CB>DT>saying ALL work sheets.  Just ALL work worksheets of this type. 
 
CB> 
CB>All work sheets of *which* type?  You do not distinguish, but I'm not
CB>sure I'm going to agree with you anyway. 
I thought I had distinguished in an earlier post.  I don't think we 
could fully agree on this topic because I teach the little ones and you 
teach older students.  My perspective is somewhat limited by my 
experience.
 I know many teachers today
CB>try  to avoid the overkill, once popular, of giving the kids a steady
CB>diet of  "seat work" work-sheets, but I see no difference between
CB>that and  assigning a dozen pages out of a book to attack or three
CB>"pages" of  computer work.
And I suppose that in many ways you are probably right.  Perhaps a 
balance is appropriate.  I can avoid work sheets altogether in my grade 
level.  There is nothing that I need to teach a kindergarten child that 
I cannot teach them without using work sheets.  The upper grades may be 
a different matter.
Dan  
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
Silly wabbit.....QWKs are for QWKidds.
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------