CHARLES BEAMS spoke of The Real Story 2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-28-96
CB>Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
CB>DT>I had meant to say there is a great deal of difference in my mind 
CB>DT>between drill and practice and games (and not games and worksheets
CB>DT>like  my post read).
CB>I'm beginning to understand that this is your position - and must 
CB>admit that I don't see the differentiation that you do.  "Drill and 
CB>practice" is a term that represents, to me, the repetition of a 
CB>skill and has little to do with the format in which it is presented. 
To me the format is very important.  But then being a kindergarten 
teacher I am limited in what I can use -- format wise.  I can't use 
worksheets because some can't do them without help; those that can, get 
them done in a matter of perhaps minutes; they create more bothersome 
work for me and don't pay the "learning" dividends I consider important.  
(by this I mean that kids (in kindergarten at least) don't really 
"learn" much of anything from them so I need to find another way.  The 
way I teach requires _more_ preparation on my part and better classroom 
organization (which I struggle with) but the kids are engaged for longer 
periods on any given learning activity.  
I'm beginning to identify some things I do that you might consider 
"drill and practice" (under your definition) a repetition of a skill.  
Isn't that a good teaching practice anyway? (repeating a skill)  I 
always "revisit" a concept many times because I know that children 
aren't going to get it the first time.  We don't go over it 10 times in 
a single sitting but we do go over it many times over a given period.  
When the concept is first introduced we "visit is" frequently.  After a 
while it is less often.  
Keep those cards and letters coming!!
Dan   
CB> Games can be drill and practice, as can be the work on a worksheet.
CB>It is seems to me that your dislike for worksheets is based on your 
CB>belief that all learning/practice, at least at the primary level, 
CB>should be fun and non-threatening, a belief I do not share.
CB>DT>Remember you are speaking to an early childhood educator.  Many of
CB>DT>my  students cannot even hold a pencil correctly.
CB>Point well-taken.
CB>DT>A game is "natural" because it is natural for children to play.
CB>Again, your point is well-taken, but remember that our discussion 
CB>was about "meaningful" activities, not "natural" activities.
CB>DT>Research (tons of it) clearly show that children learn best 
CB>DT>through play.  It's an undisputed fact (which you may now dispute
CB>DT>. 
CB>Very nicely done.  It brought a smile to my face.  But you *do* know 
CB>that I've never heard of the research that you are referring to.
CB>DT>You mean directly?  I would have to look it up.  I don't think
CB>DT>that it  is too difficult to read Piaget (and others) and
CB>DT>understand that a 5  year old cannot possibly gain as much
CB>DT>understanding from pencil/paper  learning.  (I would hold to the
CB>DT>idea that little *significant* learning  can take place with
CB>DT>pencil/paper learning....we would have to be talking  about
CB>DT>worksheets and workbooks here and even the National Association
CB>DT>for the Education of Young Children condemns the practice.)
CB>Fair enough.  Just as you often make reference to your 
CB>Kindergartners, I often make reference to the middle school kids I
CB>teach.
CB>DT>I understand that you have seen a lot in your 27 years and I have
CB>DT>heard  others speak of things that come and go.  I do believe that
CB>DT>the many  ideas that have come and gone were responses to the call
CB>DT>for improved  results.  Has there ever been a time in our
CB>DT>country's educational  history where we had it "just right?"  
CB>No.  I think the percentages of educated youth have stayed about the 
CB>same.  In the first half of this century over half of the nation's 
CB>children quit school by the end of 8th grade, many quit even sooner. 
CB> We probably educated 50% of the kids to a "reasonable" level of 
CB>literacy.  Today we keep kids in school longer, but we've lowered 
CB>standards such that we still probably educate about 50% of our youth 
CB>to a "reasonable" level of literacy.
CB>I think that we ought to have a two-tiered educational system as 
CB>they do in many European countries.  I think there are many children 
CB>who are incapable of, or uninterested in, succeeding in our current 
CB>system and we ought to offer them alternatives.  This would allow us 
CB>to increase standards for those participating in traditional 
CB>academic work without abandoning all of those who fail (or are only 
CB>marginally passing) now.
CB>DT>As for changing the educational system, don't you think that it
CB>DT>needs  some changes now?
CB>Change for the sake of change?  Nah - I don't buy it.  We need 
CB>higher standards and I'm certainly not opposed to changes in the 
CB>educational system that are proven, through research, to be more 
CB>effective than what we are doing now.  I do not believe that we 
CB>ought to change the way we do things in school because of some 
CB>general sense of malaise.
CB>DT>As for new learning theories I think it is true when one says 
CB>DT>that we know much more today on how children learn than we did 20 
CB>DT>years ago.
CB>One of the interesting problems teachers face in the US is isolation 
CB>- we get locked into our classrooms 7 or 8 hours per day with only a 
CB>half-hour for lunch and maybe another half-hour for preparation 
CB>(make phone calls, go to the bathroom, meet with the principal, run 
CB>off some homework, etc.).  When our day is over in the classroom, we 
CB>chain ourselves to a desk for another hour or two as we plan for the 
CB>next day and correct work from that day - even my desk doesn't get 
CB>cleaned off until the kids are gone and things are quiet.  There is 
CB>simply no time built into the day to review research on teaching 
CB>methods.  It's out there, it's just that the average teacher never 
CB>sees it!  In Japan teachers are in the classroom 4 hours a day and 
CB>they spend 4 hours a day planning with colleagues, reviewing 
CB>research on the best way to teach a particular topic, helping 
CB>students who've had problems, etc.  Guess which country provides the 
CB>better education?
CB>DT>Not everything new is a fad....WL has been around for nearly 20
CB>years.
CB>In its various forms (whole word, etc.) it has been around a lot 
CB>longer than that.  I still think whole language is a fad, however, 
CB>as it has not proven itself.  I know you're going to repeat your 
CB>comments about all of the research out there, but the point is that 
CB>whole language is being abandoned all over the place because it has 
CB>not been made to work even as well as the old fashioned phonics
CB>instruction.
CB>DT>I like what you say here and agree that experienced teachers do
CB>DT>know  what works and what doesn't.  I think experience is an
CB>DT>important.  One  teacher/researcher I have mentioned here is Regie
CB>DT>Routman.  She has  taught for 20+ years and used to teach reading
CB>DT>"the old fashioned way."   She slowly changed her thinking and is
CB>DT>an advocate of WL.  Her books are  an interesting read.  She is a
CB>DT>reading specialist and she says WL  produces results.  
CB>Then let her prove it by providing evidence, utilizing proper 
CB>research procedures, that show that children taught through whole 
CB>language score higher on a respected reading test than do a 
CB>comparable group of children taught to read using more traditional 
CB>methods.  I still haven't seen such a study nor seen such a study 
CB>even reviewed.
CB>DT>Math can be hands on too...
CB>And at your level that makes sense.  At the level I teach the size 
CB>of the curriculum would have to be shrunk or I could not complete 
CB>nearly as much as I do now.  And before I make the conversion, I'd 
CB>like to see some evidence that such a curriculum would actually 
CB>produce better mathematicians.
CB>Chuck Beams
CB>Fidonet - 1:2608/70
CB>cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
CB>___
CB>* UniQWK #5290* I finally got it all together but forgot where I put
CB>it.
CB>--- Maximus 2.01wb
CB>(1:2608/70)
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
... According to my best recollection, I don't remember
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------