Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
DT>I had meant to say there is a great deal of difference in my mind 
DT>between drill and practice and games (and not games and worksheets like 
DT>my post read).
I'm beginning to understand that this is your position - and must 
admit that I don't see the differentiation that you do.  "Drill and 
practice" is a term that represents, to me, the repetition of a 
skill and has little to do with the format in which it is presented. 
 Games can be drill and practice, as can be the work on a worksheet.
It is seems to me that your dislike for worksheets is based on your 
belief that all learning/practice, at least at the primary level, 
should be fun and non-threatening, a belief I do not share.
DT>Remember you are speaking to an early childhood educator.  Many of my 
DT>students cannot even hold a pencil correctly.
Point well-taken.
DT>A game is "natural" because it is natural for children to play.
Again, your point is well-taken, but remember that our discussion 
was about "meaningful" activities, not "natural" activities.
DT>Research (tons of it) clearly show that children learn best 
DT>through play.  It's an undisputed fact (which you may now dispute  . 
Very nicely done.  It brought a smile to my face.  But you *do* know 
that I've never heard of the research that you are referring to.
DT>You mean directly?  I would have to look it up.  I don't think that it 
DT>is too difficult to read Piaget (and others) and understand that a 5 
DT>year old cannot possibly gain as much understanding from pencil/paper 
DT>learning.  (I would hold to the idea that little *significant* learning 
DT>can take place with pencil/paper learning....we would have to be talking 
DT>about worksheets and workbooks here and even the National Association 
DT>for the Education of Young Children condemns the practice.)
Fair enough.  Just as you often make reference to your 
Kindergartners, I often make reference to the middle school kids I teach.
DT>I understand that you have seen a lot in your 27 years and I have heard 
DT>others speak of things that come and go.  I do believe that the many 
DT>ideas that have come and gone were responses to the call for improved 
DT>results.  Has there ever been a time in our country's educational 
DT>history where we had it "just right?"  
No.  I think the percentages of educated youth have stayed about the 
same.  In the first half of this century over half of the nation's 
children quit school by the end of 8th grade, many quit even sooner. 
 We probably educated 50% of the kids to a "reasonable" level of 
literacy.  Today we keep kids in school longer, but we've lowered 
standards such that we still probably educate about 50% of our youth 
to a "reasonable" level of literacy.
I think that we ought to have a two-tiered educational system as 
they do in many European countries.  I think there are many children 
who are incapable of, or uninterested in, succeeding in our current 
system and we ought to offer them alternatives.  This would allow us 
to increase standards for those participating in traditional 
academic work without abandoning all of those who fail (or are only 
marginally passing) now.
DT>As for changing the educational system, don't you think that it needs 
DT>some changes now?
Change for the sake of change?  Nah - I don't buy it.  We need 
higher standards and I'm certainly not opposed to changes in the 
educational system that are proven, through research, to be more 
effective than what we are doing now.  I do not believe that we 
ought to change the way we do things in school because of some 
general sense of malaise.
DT>As for new learning theories I think it is true when one says 
DT>that we know much more today on how children learn than we did 20 
DT>years ago.
One of the interesting problems teachers face in the US is isolation 
- we get locked into our classrooms 7 or 8 hours per day with only a 
half-hour for lunch and maybe another half-hour for preparation 
(make phone calls, go to the bathroom, meet with the principal, run 
off some homework, etc.).  When our day is over in the classroom, we 
chain ourselves to a desk for another hour or two as we plan for the 
next day and correct work from that day - even my desk doesn't get 
cleaned off until the kids are gone and things are quiet.  There is 
simply no time built into the day to review research on teaching 
methods.  It's out there, it's just that the average teacher never 
sees it!  In Japan teachers are in the classroom 4 hours a day and 
they spend 4 hours a day planning with colleagues, reviewing 
research on the best way to teach a particular topic, helping 
students who've had problems, etc.  Guess which country provides the 
better education?
DT>Not everything new is a fad....WL has been around for nearly 20 years.
In its various forms (whole word, etc.) it has been around a lot 
longer than that.  I still think whole language is a fad, however, 
as it has not proven itself.  I know you're going to repeat your 
comments about all of the research out there, but the point is that 
whole language is being abandoned all over the place because it has 
not been made to work even as well as the old fashioned phonics instruction.
DT>I like what you say here and agree that experienced teachers do know 
DT>what works and what doesn't.  I think experience is an important.  One 
DT>teacher/researcher I have mentioned here is Regie Routman.  She has 
DT>taught for 20+ years and used to teach reading "the old fashioned way."  
DT>She slowly changed her thinking and is an advocate of WL.  Her books are 
DT>an interesting read.  She is a reading specialist and she says WL 
DT>produces results.  
Then let her prove it by providing evidence, utilizing proper 
research procedures, that show that children taught through whole 
language score higher on a respected reading test than do a 
comparable group of children taught to read using more traditional 
methods.  I still haven't seen such a study nor seen such a study 
even reviewed.
DT>Math can be hands on too...
And at your level that makes sense.  At the level I teach the size 
of the curriculum would have to be shrunk or I could not complete 
nearly as much as I do now.  And before I make the conversion, I'd 
like to see some evidence that such a curriculum would actually 
produce better mathematicians.
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* I finally got it all together but forgot where I put it.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------